Georgia Injury Lawyers Blog

Shoddy Construction Blamed in ‘Warrior Dash’ Accident

April 30, 2018 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

Shoddy construction is being blamed for several injuries sustained when a wooden dome used as a climbing obstacle in a race collapsed last fall in St. Francisville, Louisiana in October of 2016. Witnesses mentioned that there were between 20 and 30 people on the dome. The dome was the third of 12 obstacles of the Warrior Dash obstacle race. At one point, it started to sway to the side, and then slowly crashed to the ground. The Warrior Dash races are held in cities around the country. They feature several obstacles, which often will include ponds, mud, and large objects that participants must climb and crawl over. The races are organized by Red Frog Events.

The obstacle in question is called the Diesel Dome, which is promoted on Red Frog’s website as a 30-by-50 foot wooden dome “with views of the ground that will ignite your vertigo.” Participants in the race had noticed that the structure appeared to be structurally unsound several hours before it collapsed. One participant said that the structure started to lean, then it slowly collapsed by falling to the left. Those that were injured didn’t get treatment for 10 to 15 minutes, the participant said, “because nobody from the event staff knew anything was wrong. The operations manager for Acadian Ambulance, Justin Cox, said that three of the patients were airlifted and seven more were taken to the hospital in ambulances from the event site at the West Feliciana Sports Park.

In August of this year, nearly a year after the accident, authorities filed five arrest warrants against Red Frog, accusing the company of shoddy construction and failing to follow safety procedures, including checking on construction, monitoring each obstacle during the race, and having a staffer at each obstacle to monitor safety. “It truly is a thousand wonders that other structures did not fail,” said Brant Thompson, Louisiana’s deputy state fire marshal. He said that there were young children stationed near the obstacles. They were given radios and told to keep an eye on safety, but they were never given instructions regarding how many people should be allowed on each obstacle at a time. Asked for clarification, he said many safety monitors were about 13 or 14 years old. Thomson also stated that the obstacle included construction defects, such as using smaller boards than were specified in the original plans and nails that were inadequate for the type of lumber that was being used. When boards became detached from the mainframe, they simply patched them up but did nothing that would hold the load of the participants on the platform. In total, five Red Frog employees have been charged with 13 misdemeanor counts of negligent injury, while two employees—contractors Marcus M. Edwards and Daniel L. Lauren—also face one felony charge each of “engaging in contracting without authority.”

TripAdvisor Under Fire for Allegedly Removing Reviews about Security Incidents at Mexican Resorts

April 27, 2018 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

More than a dozen tourists are alleging that TripAdvisor, a popular travel review site that boasts over 400 million monthly users, deleted their attempts to post descriptions of rapes, assaults, and unexpected blackouts that they experienced while staying at Mexican resorts. The allegations came to light when the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel began an investigative journalism project looking into alcohol-related safety issues at Mexican resorts. The newspaper reports that TripAdvisor users who attempted to warn other potential visitors about the dangers were “muzzled” by the website’s staff.

As evidence, the newspaper described a recent forum post on TripAdvisor’s website in which a woman asked other TripAdvisor users about their concerns over safety at the Riviera Maya resort on the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. Of the 55 replies to this question, only 24 of them were positive, telling the woman not to worry and that she would be fine. However, the remaining negative posts had been deleted from the forum. TripAdvisor had stated a message in their place citing various reasons for the deletion, including that they were “determined to be inappropriate by the TripAdvisor community,” removed because they were “off-topic,” or contains language or subject matter that was not “family friendly.”

The Trouble with Filtering Reviews

First Responders Sue Chemical Plant Owners for Failing to Warn of Dangers from Fire

April 25, 2018 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

A group of first responders who were exposed to smoke from the Crosby, Texas, chemical plant that exploded in the wake of Hurricane Harvey is suing the owner of the plant for over $1 million, alleging that fumes from the smoke caused them to vomit and gasp for air after exposure. The responders argue in their suit that the plant’s owner, Arkema, minimized the true extent of the danger of exposure to the fire. They also claim that Arkema failed to warn the responders manning the perimeter of the mandatory 1.5-mile evacuation area to move farther away from the fumes. The lawsuit claims that “immediately upon being exposed to the fumes from the explosion, and one by one, the police officers and first responders began to fall ill in the middle of the road.” The suit also alleges that some police officers, unable to abandon their vehicles with weapons in them, drove themselves to the nearest hospital. Other responders were taken by ambulance.

After the loss of refrigeration led to an evacuation of the plant, Arkema executives and the Harris County fire marshal’s office warned people to stay at least 1.5 miles away, a distance the lawsuit calls “arbitrary.”However, Arkema and fire officials are not calling the smoke from the fires “toxic.”Rather, the company asserts that the smoke inhaled by police was a “nontoxic irritant,” and stated that toxicity is a relative determination. “We reject any suggestion that we failed to warn of the danger of breathing the smoke from the fires at our site, or that we ever misled anyone,” the company said. ”To the contrary, we pleaded with the public, for their own safety, to respect the 1.5-mile evacuation zone imposed by the unified command well prior to any fire.”

First Responders Claiming Negligence

The Importance of Expert Witnesses in Automobile Accident Lawsuits

April 22, 2018 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

Automobile accidents can cause broken bones, burns, and other injuries, potentially costing you hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills and lost wages. You need compensation to help you recover, and for this reason, it can be beneficial to sue the person responsible for the accident. But do you know how to prove to a judge or jury that the other side is to blame? To bring an effective case, you’ll probably need expert witness testimony.

Accident Reconstructionists

An accident reconstructionist helps bring the accident to life for the judge and jury. They listen to all testimony and review the evidence, such as the final resting places of the vehicles, before reconstructing what happened. For example, a reconstructionist can offer expert testimony on the following:

Should I Settle My Automobile Accident Lawsuit?

April 20, 2018 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

Victims of automobile accidents are usually focused on receiving fair compensation for their injuries. Unfortunately, the wheels of justice move slowly, and you might need to wait a year or longer before your automobile accident lawsuit goes to trial. On certain occasions, it might be better to settle with the party at fault so that you can receive your compensation faster. Because every situation is different, you should meet with a Georgia personal injury lawyer to assess your situation.

Why Lawsuits Take So Long

Unlike other parts of the world, the American legal system is based on making sure there are no surprises when you go to trial. To that end, each side can engage in extensive fact finding by questioning the other side and asking for documents. This fact-finding phase is called “discovery,” and its goal is to make sure everyone lays their cards on the table before trial. Discovery can be quite extensive, especially if you have serious injuries or multiple cars were involved in the crash. It’s not unusual to spend over a year in discovery.

5 Mistakes to Avoid After an Automobile Accident

April 19, 2018 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

After a car accident, you should write down your memories and identify any potential witnesses. But there are some things you absolutely should not do, because they will make it difficult to bring a lawsuit and receive just compensation for your injuries. If you or a loved one is involved in a wreck, make sure to avoid the following.

Never Handle the Accident Without Police

After a crash, you might just want to swap insurance with the other driver, especially if the accident seems minor. Unfortunately, you can’t usually tell from a visual inspection of the outside of the vehicle whether your vehicle has sustained damage. Instead, call the police so that an officer can investigate and file a police report. Your personal injury lawyer will find the report helpful if you later sue.

“Injured” Woman Sued by Insurance Company After Incriminating Facebook Post

April 12, 2018 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

We’ve written before about the effects that social media posts can have on your personal injury claim. If you have been injured in an accident and filed an insurance claim or personal injury lawsuit, you can be assured that the defendant’s insurance company or attorney will perform an online search to find out more information about you. They will most likely looking for information that they can use to deny your claim or downplay the seriousness of your injuries. In the age of social media, the best places to find this kind of information are Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media platforms. One of the biggest social media mistakes that a personal injury plaintiff can make is posting photos that make it seem like they are not as injured as they claim. This is exactly what happened to a North Carolina woman, who is being sued by her insurance company for fraud.

Cynthia McCullough claimed that she suffered from a debilitating condition known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy that made it difficult for her to get dressed and bathe herself and that she required in-home care. Since 2010, McCullough has received about $389,500 from her comprehensive long-term care policy from New York Life. However, her insurance company is now suing her for fraud after it discovered Facebook photos of her going down a slide and playing Skee-Ball at an arcade.

The lawsuit also accused McCullough of transporting heavy objects into her vehicle and moving freely during an investigation between December 2016 and January 2017. She was also spotted driving 50 miles from her home to a church. During a 15-day surveillance last year, McCullough was seen driving to several locations including a bank, two restaurants, a doctor’s office, and a gas station where she pumped the gas herself. New York Life informed McCullough in July that it was discontinuing her payments. She challenged the decision, stating that her condition was “severe and debilitating,” according to the lawsuit.

Legal Woes Continue for Airline Industry—This Time for Southwest

April 11, 2018 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

2017 was a rough year for the airline industry, and 2018 isn’t shaping up to be much better. Already this year, United Airlines shocked the nation when one of its flight attendants caused the death of a passenger’s dog by putting it in an overhead compartment, which the company says is against its regulations. Less than a week later, the same airline accidentally sent a Kansas-bound dog to Japan, leading United to temporarily suspend its pet cargo program so that it can review policies that have led to such disasters. In the meantime, confidence in the airline industry has taken a significant hit.

Although United has faced the most criticism over the past year, it’s not alone. More recently, the family of a Kansas man has sued Southwest Airlines, alleging that he was thrown against a cabin wall on a flight last year after his seat belt came undone. Eugene Dreyer, 81, a stockbroker and financial adviser, had lost the use of his legs due to polio and was in a wheelchair when he and his wife boarded a Fort Lauderdale-bound Southwest flight in Kansas City on Feb. 21, 2017, according to the lawsuit. Dreyer was wheeled onto the plane by a Southwest employee and seated in the first row. Before take-off, Dreyer asked for a seat belt extension, and a flight attendant buckled him in using the seat belt and extension.Neither Dreyer, his wife, or an assistant traveling with them touched or adjusted the belt during the flight, the lawsuit says.

When the plane began to decelerate, the belt failed to restrain him and he flew forward into the bulkhead wall. The lawsuit claims that he sustained severe injuries to his head, shoulder, foot, and leg, including a broken femur. His family claims that he suffered loss of cognitive functions and severe depression, and that the injuries he sustained on the flight led to his death on April 23, 2017. The suit was filed on behalf of Dreyer’s wife and two children and seeks an unspecified amount in damages. Southwest Airlines has declined to comment on the lawsuit, stating that it would be unwise to do so “ahead of the legal process.”

Woman Who Slipped and Fell at Holiday Party Takes Case to State Supreme Court

April 9, 2018 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

A Michigan woman who slipped and fell at a friend’s holiday party is taking her case to the state Supreme Court to clarify the responsibilities of property owners when they welcome guests into their home. Susan Blackwell, the plaintiff in the case, missed an 8-inch step when she stepped into an unlit room at a coworker’s home on December 14, 2013. She arrived at the home of Dean and Debra Franchi for a dinner party they were hosting. When she entered the home and proceeded to the mudroom to hang up her purse. An approximately 8-inch drop-off exists between the hallway and the mudroom. Unaware of the step, Blackwell fell, which resulted in injuries.

A Pending Decision Regarding Liability

The justices of the Michigan Supreme Court are deciding whether the homeowners should have informed Blackwell about any risks when she arrived at the party. Her original lawsuit was dismissed by an Oakland County judge, but the state appeals court reversed the decision, stating that a jury should determine whether the danger at the home was “open and obvious.” The “open and obvious” doctrine holds that if a dangerous condition is open and obvious to a reasonable person when the plaintiff was injured, then the defendant is not liable warning the plaintiff because the plaintiff could have discovered the condition and avoided it. The defendants’ attorney argues that Blackwell should have presumed danger when she saw an unlit room. The plaintiff’s attorney said it was the step that was dangerous, not the darkness, claiming that the plaintiff would not have been able to see the step even with the light on.

Is it Time to Abolish the Baseball Rule?

April 7, 2018 | by Slappey & Sadd, LLC

Research from Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business suggests that the risk of fans being hit by foul balls or errant bats at baseball games has increased in recent years and, as such, it may be time to reconsider the “Baseball Rule.”

What is the Baseball Rule?

The Baseball Rule is a legal doctrine that immunizes baseball teams and stadium owners from liability and has been in effect for over 100 years. Generally, the Baseball Rule limits the landowner duty of care owed to spectators to providing a reasonable protection in the form of screening behind home plate. Spectators who choose to view the game in an unscreened area assume the open and obvious risk of being struck by balls entering the stands during the ordinary course of play. This legal doctrine has been adopted by a majority of the courts in this country generally as a practical matter. It avoids creating a potential lawsuit for every ball entering the stands and striking a spectator. Without the Baseball Rule, each spectator injury would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis based on the particular circumstances of a particular game in each stadium setting. Naturally, this scheme would flood the courts with personal injury claims. The Baseball Rule avoids that outcome by imposing a bright-line rule: If you choose to sit in an unprotected seat, you assume the risk of getting struck by a baseball.