feed2js_ck = true;

document.write('<div class="rss-box">');
document.write('<p class="rss-title"><a class="rss-title" href="https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/" target="_self">Injured</a><br /><span class="rss-item"></span></p>');
document.write('<ul class="rss-items">');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/personal-injury/can-i-sue-plan-b-for-not-working/" target="_self">Can I Sue Plan B for Not Working?</a><br />');
document.write('Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, women across the country have been stocking up on emergency contraception, commonly known as \"Plan B\" or the \"morning-after pill.\" Demand has been so high that many retailers, including Amazon, have limited purchases. Which raises a question: What if it doesn\'t work? Suppose you take Plan B and you still get pregnant — can you sue to hold the manufacturer responsible? Actually, depending on where you live, you can. What Is Plan B? Plan B is actually a particular brand of emergency contraception. It comes in a single-dose tablet that you take within 72 hours after having sex (if you take it within 24 hours, it is even more effective). According to the manufacturer, about seven out of every eight women will not become pregnant if they take Plan B as directed. You don\'t need a prescription or to show proof of age to get it. Plan B is not: As effective as regular contraception and should not be used as your regular form of birth control (hence the name, \"Plan B\")An abortion pill and will not cause a miscarriage (if you are already pregnant, Plan B will not work)Protection against HIV/AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases What Would Your Lawsuit Be? Many (but not all) states let you sue for what\'s called \"wrongful conception\" or \"wrongful pregnancy.\" This typically comes up in the case of someone getting pregnant following a sterilization procedure such as a vasectomy or a tubal ligation, but the same reasoning applies in the case of birth control (like the pill or a condom) or emergency contraception. Many courts have determined that people have a right to decide whether they are ready to have a family and that if a method of birth control fails, they should be able to go after whoever\'s responsible. If you had a failed sterilization procedure, that may be the doctor. If the condom breaks or oral contraception (including emergency contraception) doesn\'t work, it may be the manufacturer. Most wrongful conception cases against product manufacturers involve three legal claims: Strict liabilityNegligenceBreach of Warranty Let\'s go through these. Strict Liability The advantage of a strict liability claim is that you don\'t have to prove that anyone is at fault for your pregnancy. Instead, you need to prove that the Plan B you used was defective and, because of the defect, you got pregnant. A product can be defective in three ways: Design: The product is designed in a way that presents an unreasonable risk of harm (or, in the Plan B case, pregnancy)Manufacturing: The design\'s okay, but something went wrong during the manufacturing process that presents an unreasonable risk of harmWarning: The warnings included with the product are inadequate If you can show that the emergency contraception you used was defective in one of these ways, you would have a claim against the manufacturer if you got pregnant. Negligence A negligence claim is often harder to prove than a strict liability claim. To win a negligence claim, you generally have to show that the manufacturer failed to act as a \"reasonably prudent person,\" meaning that they were careless in the manufacture and sale of your emergency contraception. It\'s not enough to show that you took the pill and still got pregnant; One out of eight women get pregnant despite using Plan B as directed. You would have to prove that someone did something wrong. This typically takes lawyers a lot of digging through the company\'s business records. It\'s time-consuming and expensive, but there are all sorts of ways a company can be negligent (and some of those ways may support your strict liability claim). For example, one way a company may be negligent is by failing to adequately warn of the risks associated with the product. Breach of Warranty A breach of warranty claim has its roots in contract law. In most cases, the sale of a product carries certain warranties. A warranty is a promise that the product will meet certain identified quality standards and will perform in a certain way. If the product doesn\'t meet those standards, the manufacturer is said to have \"breached\" its warranties. There are two types of warranties: express and implied. An express warranty is a written or spoken guarantee of quality and reliability. Implied warranties are not written or spoken but go along with the product by law. A manufacturer of emergency contraception impliedly guarantees that the product will work as claimed and, if the parties agree, is fit for a particular purpose. There is a lot of overlap among strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty claims. Sometimes the same evidence can be used to prove each claim. What Could You Get? If you win your wrongful conception case, you may be able to recover actual damages. This phrase refers to money that the law will award to compensate you for any losses you sustained. In general, that would include the losses directly associated with the pregnancy and the birth, such as medical expenses and, in some states, emotional distress. However, most courts refuse to allow parents to recover the cost of raising the child. In rare cases, you may be able to recover punitive damages. Punitive damages are not intended to compensate you for losses. Instead, they are intended to punish a wrongdoer for extreme and outrageous behavior and to deter them and others from doing it again. Get a Good Lawyer Wrongful conception cases are challenging to win. You have to persuade a judge and, ultimately, a jury that you are not the one woman in eight who will still get pregnant, even if Plan B works the way it\'s supposed to. And if you can get over this hurdle, you still have to come up with proof that the product is defective or the manufacturer did something wrong. If you find yourself in the position of an unwanted pregnancy after taking Plan B, consider speaking with a products liability attorney in an area near you (after you see your physician, of course). They can give you legal advice about your situation and help you better understand whether a lawsuit in your case is worth it. Related Resources: What Is Wrongful Pregnancy? (FindLaw\'s Law and Daily Life)FDA\'s \"Plan B\" Isn\'t What the Judge Ordered (FindLaw\'s Law and Daily Life)Plan B Age Limits Will Be Lifted: Justice Dept. (FindLaw\'s Law and Daily Life) The post Can I Sue Plan B for Not Working? appeared first on .');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/personal-injury/are-driver-assistance-cars-safe/" target="_self">Are Driver-Assistance Cars Safe?</a><br />');
document.write('On June 15, a federal agency released the first-ever reports measuring car accidents involving driver-assistance technology. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provided firm numbers —392 accidents involving vehicles with drivers and another 130 with driverless vehicles — over a 10-month period. But instead of providing answers about the safety of the technology, the reports have mostly sown seeds of confusion. Are cars equipped with Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) technology safer than those that are not? Or do they make our roads more dangerous? The report provides no answers, despite vehicles using this technology in various forms being on our roads. The reports make no claims that these numbers are anything more than a tool in helping the agency detect defects as it considers regulations. Still, NHTSA appears to be responding to criticism in some quarters that it is not being assertive enough in regulating driver-assistance technology. Tesla has been dominant in this area for years with its Autopilot system. Crashes and fatalities of Tesla vehicles have made headlines since the first fatality in 2016. To date, there have been 35 crashes, including nine that resulted in the deaths of 14 people. Only three of those investigations concluded that Autopilot was not to blame. NHTSA took a broader step in June 2021 with an order requiring manufacturers and operators to report crashes involving ADAS technology. This year\'s report details the responses to that order. The 5 Levels of Driver-Assistance Technology NHTSA is primarily interested in a driver-assistance category called SAE 2, which is one of five levels created by the Society of Automotive Engineers. This category includes Tesla\'s Autopilot. Level 1 systems include a single feature like adaptive cruise control that assists drivers in maintaining safe distances behind cars.Level 2 systems can take full control of acceleration, braking, and steering, but the driver must be behind the wheel and ready to intervene if the system is not responding properly.Level 3 systems possess technology that can control the vehicle by itself, although a driver must be present to intervene if necessary. In May, Mercedes-Benz became the first automaker in the world to sell Level 3 cars, when Germany gave it the green light in that country. Mercedes-Benz says it is working with regulators in California and Nevada and hopes to be selling Level 3 cars there by the end of this year.Level 4 and 5 cars require no humans for operation. Driverless taxis are considered Level 4 vehicles, and California regulators gave a go-ahead on June 2 for Cruise (a company owned by General Motors) to operate driverless cabs in one area of San Francisco during late-night hours. Competitor Waymo has already been providing limited driverless taxi service in San Francisco and a few other locations, but with a backup driver present. Why Are Auto Makers Pushing Them? Although the reasons are not exactly clear, the auto industry has been pursuing driver-assisted technology for years. Doubters say there\'s no good reason for it, but the auto industry and many American politicians point to improved safety as the goal. Again, though, it is important to keep in mind that simple market demand is a big part of the reason; consumers want the systems and make buying decisions based on their availability. In the end, many predict, we will have a system where all vehicles are driverless. The assumption is that the vast majority of the 6 million car accidents in this country every year are the result of human error. Leaving the job to machines will make it safer for us all. Or so the argument goes. But first, we don\'t know for certain that an entirely driverless fleet of vehicles will necessarily be that safe. Will they see like we drivers see? Will they make snap decisions like we drivers learn from experience — like slowing down when you see a deer emerging from a nearby woods or concluding that a bouncing ball in a roadway could mean that a child will follow? And what about technical bugs? At the Intersection of Humans and Machines Until that day comes, we must determine how the interaction between human drivers and these automated systems is working out. That is why there is all this attention now on the vehicles containing the Level 2 systems. Many of the headlines following NHTSA\'s reports suggested that they cast doubt on automakers\' promises of improved safety in vehicles using the new technology. Others, however, contend that 392 recorded crashes are an admirable number when you consider there are nearly 6 million total crashes annually. The problem with the report is that it provides no basis for comparison. NHTSA identified Tesla as the worst offender, accounting for two-thirds of the SAE2 accidents. But Tesla also apparently has more of these types of vehicles on the roads than other automakers — around 830,000 of them. But the report doesn\'t say how many comparable cars from other companies are on the road. Also, the reporting requirements are not firm. Tesla has automatic reporting through vehicle telematics. Others rely on unverified customer claims. All Eyes on Tesla Tesla has taken a hit, which might not be fair since their cars may be more numerous and their reporting responses more dutiful. But NHTSA has already had reason to investigate Tesla for a series of accidents involving Autopilot-enabled Teslas plowing into police cars, fire trucks, and other emergency vehicles. Those collisions resulted in 17 injuries and one death. Meanwhile, other studies have found troubling flaws in Teslas. Consumer Reports engineers found that Autopilot\'s optionally activated lane-change feature was dangerous and that the system could be \"tricked\" into operating without anybody in the driver\'s seat. One of the biggest arguments about driver-assistance technology and safety is that these systems may create greater highway danger by lulling drivers into inattentiveness. Last year, an MIT study concluded that drivers really do pay less attention to the road and roadway situations when Tesla\'s Autopilot is on. Safety experts argue that those drivers are then unprepared to take action if the system malfunctions or a situation emerges that requires their attention. Tesla\'s Response Despite naming the system Autopilot, Tesla is clear in telling drivers that the system isn\'t totally autopilot. \"Autopilot is a hands-on driver assistance system that is intended to be used only with a fully attentive driver,\" the company tells prospective purchasers. \"It does not turn Tesla into a self-driving car nor does it make a car autonomous.\" Still, Tesla\'s advertising, which has included the phrase, \"Full Self Driving,\" has drawn the attention of lawmakers who think it dangerously promises prospective buyers something a bit more. Last August, Democratic Sens. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Edward Markey of Massachusetts asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Tesla for deceptive marketing and unfair trade practices. On June 9, FTC Chair Lina Khan told Reuters that the issues raised in that letter are \"on our radar.\" It might be worth keeping in mind at this point that the FTC made Volkswagen pay $9.8 billion to misled buyers in 2016 for unjustified claims it made about the environmental performances of its diesel cars. The Road Ahead When it comes to driver-assistance technology, there is a long way to go before we know how safe these systems are. No doubt there will be more cases like a current one in Los Angeles involving a Tesla driver who ran through a red light while his car was on Autopilot, killing two people in a Honda. The driver, who faces manslaughter charges, blames Tesla and Autopilot. A trial is upcoming, and Tesla is sure to point to the disclaimer it gives to all purchasers: Autopilot requires fully attentive drivers. So, what can we glean from all this confusion? Maybe this: Driver-assistance technologies may provide enhanced safety, but you\'re still the driver. And drivers have serious responsibilities. Related Resources: Find a Personal Injury Lawyer Near You (FindLaw\'s Lawyer Directory)More Traffic Deaths Despite Pandemic and Fewer Drivers (FindLaw\'s Law and Daily Life)Road Rage Shootings Skyrocket (FindLaw\'s Law and Daily Life)Should Sidewalk Robots Have Legal Rights as Pedestrians? (FindLaw\'s Law and Daily Life) Facebook Post A federal report measuring accidents involving \"driver assistance\" technology, like Tesla\'s Autopilot, raises more questions about safety than it answers. As automakers roll out more and more of these systems, how safe — or unsafe — should motorists feel? The post Are Driver-Assistance Cars Safe? appeared first on .');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/" target="_self">Do the Police Have an Obligation to Protect You?</a><br />');
document.write('The Uvalde, Texas, School District Police Department has received withering criticism for its failure to stop a school gunman who shot and killed 19 children and two teachers. While the shooter was inside two adjoining classrooms, 19 law enforcement officers stood outside for nearly an hour as they waited for tactical equipment to arrive. Texas Department of Public Safety Col. Steven McCraw called it \"the wrong decision. Period. There\'s no excuse for that.\" Calling the response \"100% flawed,\" Thor Eells, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association, said, \"If you\'re in a classroom with innocent victims and I know that shots have been fired, I need to engage you.\" Unfortunately, families of the victims have little legal recourse against the police because police officers are typically protected from lawsuits by qualified immunity. Police occasionally face consequences for their actions, like when Minneapolis officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of murdering George Floyd. But criminal charges against police officers who fail to protect the public are extremely rare. Questions of Police Duty The motto, \"To Protect and Serve,\" first coined by the Los Angeles Police Department in the 1950s, has been widely copied by police departments everywhere. But what, exactly, is a police officer\'s legal obligation to protect people? Must they risk their lives in dangerous situations like the one in Uvalde? The answer is no. In the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general \"public duty,\" but that \"no specific legal duty exists\" unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody. The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father. In 2005\'sCastle Rock v. Gonzales, a woman sued the police for failing to protect her from her husband after he violated a restraining order and abducted and killed their three children. Justices said the police had no such duty. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that police could not be held liable for failing to protect students in the 2018 shooting that claimed 17 lives at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Police Guidelines Police do have protocols for dealing with dangerous situations like the ones in Uvalde and Parkland, and these protocols emphasize the need for police to take rapid action. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, for instance, says, \"Taking action during active shooter incidents, rather than waiting for specially equipped and trained officers, can save lives and prevent serious injuries. Time lost by delayed action is likely to result in additional casualties.\" IACP provides guidance on how officers in those situations should assess how to proceed with that rapid response. No matter how they do it, it will probably be extremely dangerous. They might be risking their own lives. But as courts have determined, they have no obligation to do that. So, the next time you see a police car roll by with \"To Protect and Serve\" emblazoned on the door, keep in mind they have no constitutional obligation to do that. If you need police to protect you, all you can do is hope they will. Related Resources How Do \'Red Flag\' Gun Laws Work? (FindLaw\'s Law and Daily Life)Is Charging Parents in High School Shooting a New Legal Strategy? (FindLaw\'s Courtside)What Should You Do if You Witness Police Brutality? (FindLaw\'s Law and Daily Life) The post Do the Police Have an Obligation to Protect You? appeared first on .');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/are-parents-liable-for-their-childs-gun-violence/" target="_self">Are Parents Liable for Their Child&#039;s Gun Violence?</a><br />');
document.write('When 18-year-old Payton Gendron allegedly opened fire in Tops Friendly Market in Buffalo, he struck Zaire Goodman in the neck. Fortunately, Goodman survived. Gendron now faces 25 criminal charges, including hate-motivated domestic terrorism, first-degree murder, attempted murder, and murder as a hate crime. He pleaded not guilty. However, Goodman also wants to hold Gendron\'s parents accountable. Goodman\'s lawyer recently petitioned the court to provide depositions and preserve testimony for a civil lawsuit. He alleges that parents Paul and Pamela Gendron ignored warning signs and were \"willfully blind to their son\'s propensity for vicious conduct.\" And parents of 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley, the student responsible for a mass shooting at Oxford, Michigan, high school, are facing criminal charges of involuntary manslaughter. Prosecutors point out that Ethan\'s parents not only gave him a 9mm Sig Sauer pistol as a present, but they also ignored many warning signs of Ethan\'s intent for violence. What Can a Parent Be Liable For? Parental liability covers the civil and criminal acts of their children. In civil lawsuits, they compensate the plaintiff with monetary damages. For criminal acts, parents may pay fines to the state or face stiffer criminal penalties. For example, if your child drives your car into your neighbor\'s house, you may be liable for the damage to the home. However, some states limit the amount of property damage a parent must pay. Now, suppose your child drives your car into your neighbor. You might be criminally liable for your neighbor\'s injury or death under involuntary manslaughter laws if you left the keys in the vehicle with the engine running. Civil Liability: Negligence In civil actions, such as willful and malicious property damage, a parent may have to pay for the damage caused by their child. In the case of the Buffalo shooting, Goodman\'s attorney must prove that Gendron\'s parents were negligent. There are four factors for a negligence lawsuit to succeed: duty, breach, causation, and damages. He may argue: Duty: The parents owed Goodman a legal duty of careBreach: The parents acted or failed to act in a certain way to breach that dutyCausation: Their action (or lack of action) caused Goodman\'s injuryDamages: Goodman was injured by their action or inaction Criminal Liability: Involuntary Manslaughter Involuntary manslaughter is a charge of unintentionally killing someone by recklessness or criminal negligence. An example of involuntary manslaughter is if you killed someone when driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. There are three factors to prove criminal negligence: Your actions caused the death of someoneThe conduct was \"inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life\"You knew or should have known your actions threatened the lives of others In the Crumbley case, prosecutors may argue that buying a firearm for a 15-year-old (which is against Michigan law) and otherwise ignoring or endorsing disturbing events amounted to reckless disregard for human life. Criminal Liability: Child Access Prevention Laws According to the Giffords Law Center, \"Studies show that between 70 and 90% of guns used in youth suicides, unintentional shootings among children, and school shootings perpetrated by shooters under the age of 18 are acquired from the home or the homes of relatives or friends.\" Child Access Prevention Laws (CAPS) or \"safety storage laws\" hold gun owners liable for a child\'s unsupervised access to guns. Currently, gun owners face criminal charges for the negligent storage of firearms where a child can gain access in 29 states and the District of Columbia. However, there are no federal laws requiring the safe storage of guns. Burden of Proof The burden of proof for civil actions is the preponderance of the evidence, meaning Goodman\'s attorney will need to prove that it was more likely than not that Gendron\'s parents\' actions caused the shooting. For a criminal case, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Because civil actions have a lower standard of proof, they are more likely to succeed than criminal actions. So even if you can\'t make a criminal case, you can still prevail in a civil case. Age of Majority Generally, states hold parents responsible for their child\'s actions until they reach the age of majority. In most states, that is 18 years of age. In New York, the age is 18, so Goodman\'s attorney may have difficulty in holding Gendron\'s parents liable for his actions. Within three weeks of the Buffalo shooting, New York passed broad gun control measures, including raising the age of semiautomatic gun ownership from 18 to 21. Congress is working on gun control and may pass new legislation. We will see if state or federal laws extend culpability to parents of minor children. Related Resources: Find a Criminal Defense Lawyer Near You (FindLaw\'s Lawyer Directory)Parental Criminal Liability (FindLaw\'s Learn About the Law)State Gun Control Laws (Learn About the Law) The post Are Parents Liable for Their Child&#039;s Gun Violence? appeared first on .');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/new-york-shooting-victim-sues-glock-under-the-states-new-public-nuisance-law/" target="_self">New York Shooting Victim Sues Glock Under the State&#039;s New &#039;Public Nuisance&#039; Law</a><br />');
document.write('In 2005, the gun industry celebrated a major victory when Congress passed a law giving it broad legal immunity in federal and state courts. That law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), was a response to a flurry of legal challenges contending that gun makers and sellers should be held accountable when their products are used in crimes. Dozens of cities argued that the gun industry created a \"public nuisance\" through sales practices that allowed guns to be sold easily in illegal secondary markets, where they passed into the hands of people who used them to commit violent crimes. The legal argument met with mixed success in courts, but the threat prompted the gun lobby to seek federal protection. While the PLCAA did carve out a few exceptions for plaintiffs — when deaths or injuries result from defective design or when a gun dealer knowingly sells a firearm to someone who intends to use it in a crime — the law has provided strong legal protection for the gun industry. Seeking an End Run Recent developments, however, show that the public nuisance argument isn\'t going away anytime soon. On May 31, a badly injured victim of April\'s New York subway mass shooting is suing Glock, alleging that the maker of the gun used in that incident played a role through the negligent marketing of that gun. The lawsuit is the first under a new state law that seeks to bypass the immunity provided by PLCAA. New York\'s first-in-the-nation law gives prosecutors, cities, and individuals the power to sue gun manufacturers and distributors if they believe they are not using \"reasonable controls and procedures\" to prevent their products from being used unlawfully in the state. A group of gun manufacturers, distributors, and retailers challenged the constitutionality of that law on the grounds that it attempts to override the federal law. But on May 25, U.S. District Court Judge Mae D\'Agostino threw out that lawsuit, writing, \"Congress clearly intended to allow state statutes which regulate the firearms industry. A state statute establishing liability for improper sale or marketing of firearms is not an obstacle to any congressional objective of the PLCAA.\" Appealing to \'Criminal Intent\' The subway-shooting plaintiff, Ilene Steur, argues that Glock marketed its firearms by featuring their high capacity, easy concealment, and other features that \"appeal to purchasers with criminal intent.\" She also contends that the company failed to \"adopt the most basic policies and practices\" to keep their guns from falling into the wrong hands. The lawsuit — and New York\'s law — focuses on one of the exceptions within PLCAA. The federal law specifies that states may pass \"predicate statutes\" to reinstate some liability. The big challenge facing Steur or any other plaintiff, however, will be proving negligence. If a gun has features that appeal to criminals, does general marketing of those features constitute negligence? Do sellers have a duty to gauge buyers\' intents? What are \"basic policies and practices\" to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands? Still, litigation — or the threat of litigation — could provide answers and establish limits on how the gun industry markets its wares. Other Actions Aimed at the Gun Industry Of course, there\'s already been one major development involving gun industry marketing. Families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims sued Remington Arms over how it marketed its Bushmaster AR-15 firearm, the gun used in that incident. In February, the gun company settled the case for $73 million. But that settlement means the company admitted no wrongdoing. Action is also brewing at the Federal Trade Commission, where gun control advocates have petitioned the agency to regulate the gun industry in the same way as tobacco. All this is taking place at a time of heightened public awareness of gun violence in the U.S. A shooter killed 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas, on May 24, and other mass shootings have taken place almost daily. There are many reasons why the U.S. is unique among developed nations for its tolerance of gun violence. There are also many responsible parties. Lawsuits like this one may add gunmakers to that list. Related Resources Can We Now Agree on More Restrictions on Gun Ownership? (FindLaw\'s Law and Daily Life)Road Rage Shootings Skyrocket (FindLaw\'s Law and Daily Life)Should Stores Ban Guns? (FindLaw\'s Small Business) The post New York Shooting Victim Sues Glock Under the State&#039;s New &#039;Public Nuisance&#039; Law appeared first on .');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/can-you-get-workers-compensation-for-a-work-from-home-injury/" target="_self">Can You Get Workers&#039; Compensation for a Work-From-Home Injury?</a><br />');
document.write('If the coronavirus pandemic has taught us anything, working from home has a lot of perks. For example: no commuting, better work-life balance, and fewer distractions (goodbye, compulsory work birthday parties). But are you protected under workers\' compensation laws while telecommuting? Workers\' Compensation Applies to Remote Workers Workers\' compensation covers accidents and injuries at the workplace. However, the laws expand to injured workers doing remote work if it happens within the scope of employment. Therefore, if you are telecommuting from your home office, you may be entitled to workers\' comp benefits for a workplace injury even if the “workplace\" is your home office. For example, a work-from-home Verizon employee received workers\' comp when she fell down a set of stairs. As she got a drink of juice, she received a work-related call. Sensing urgency, she headed downstairs, fell, and sustained head and neck injuries. A Pennsylvania court found that because she was talking on the phone with her supervisor at the time of the accident, it was during the course of employment. In Oregon, an interior designer claimed workers\' comp for tripping over her dog while moving fabric samples from her garage. Because she only went into the design studio once a week, she kept fabric and carpet samples in her garage to bring to clients\' homes. In the course of employment, she had to move samples in and out of her garage into the van. The court found that because she was a remote worker, her home environment became her work environment and thus had a legitimate claim for workers\' compensation benefits. What Is Workers\' Compensation Insurance? Workers\' Compensation insurance is insurance that most employers must have for their employees. State law dictates when business owners need workers\' comp insurance. If you work in a covered occupation and you have a work-related accident or injury, you can receive workers\' compensation coverage for income replacement and reimbursement for medical and rehabilitation expenses. The key element is that the injury must arise out of the course of employment. So, if, in the above case, the interior designer rushed into the garage to change her laundry, she would not have a claim. Common Workers\' Comp Claims for Remote Employees It may seem that working from home is relatively safe. However, remote workers do suffer workplace-related injuries. For example, Slips and fallsBack and neck injuries (from poor posture)Repetitive stress injuries like carpal tunnel syndromeAutomobile accidents while going to a client, a work meeting, or making a deliveryMental stress You can reduce the risk of personal injury by inspecting your work area for hazards and using ergonomic chairs and office equipment. Your employer may help in making your home office a safe work environment. When Employers Are Not Liable for Workers\' Compensation There are some cases when employers aren\'t liable for workers\' compensation claims. One example would be if you inflicted the injury on yourself or were drunk or high on the job. Therefore, if the Verizon employee added vodka to her juice, her workers\' compensation claim may not stand. Additionally, workers\' compensation does not cover certain occupations: Domestic workers (housekeepers, nannies, babysitters)Agricultural workersSeasonal workersUndocumented workersIndependent contractors or gig workers Currently, OSHA does not require business owners to inspect employees\' homes for work hazards. Nor do they hold employers liable for conditions of employees\' home offices. What To Do If You Get Hurt Working From Home If you have a work-related injury while working from home, Seek medical treatment immediatelyDocument your injuries and what led up to the injuryNotify your supervisor, human resources department, or employerReach out to a workers\' compensation attorney if you need help in filing a workers\' comp claim Because more people work from home than ever before, workers\' compensation should be available for more remote employees if they are on the job. If that\'s you, make sure you follow the above steps to put yourself in the best position to receive the benefits you might be eligible for. Related Resources: Find Workers\' Comp Lawyers Near You (FindLaw\'s Lawyer Directory)Learn More About COVID-19 and Your Legal Rights (FindLaw\'s Learn About the Law)Workers\' Compensation FAQs (FindLaw\'s Learn About the Law)Workers\' Compensation: Questions and Answers (FindLaw\'s Learn About the Law) The post Can You Get Workers&#039; Compensation for a Work-From-Home Injury? appeared first on .');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/personal-injury/top-5-swimming-pool-injury-questions-and-answers/" target="_self">Top 5 Swimming Pool Injury Questions, and Answers</a><br />');
document.write('For many of us, summertime is pool time. Whether that means rolling the tarp off the pool in the backyard and hosting a party or taking the kids to a public pool for the day, we\'re going to be spending a lot of time in and around the water. And where we spend a lot of time, injuries are bound to happen. So whose fault is it if you\'re injured at a pool, and are you liable for injuries at yours? Swimming pools actually occupy a unique place in injury law and can provide unique challenges for pool owners and those injured at pools. So here are the five biggest questions when it comes to swimming pool injuries, and where you can find the answers: 1. What Laws Apply in a Swimming Pool Accident? Because so many people have swimming pools and there are so many pool-related accidents every year, there are specific injury laws that only apply to swimming pools. And there are also different laws that apply to private pools as opposed to public pools. Find out which may apply to your case. 2. Can You Sue if You Slip and Fall at a Pool? You were hurt at a pool, and the owner should compensate you for your injuries. Unfortunately, it\'s not always that easy. Proving the owner was negligent can be more complicated than we expect. This may unfold similarly to other premises liability-type cases. 3. Is Your Swimming Pool an Attractive Nuisance? It\'s a phrase most of us don\'t come across in our daily lives, but when it comes to owning a swimming pool, having an \"attractive nuisance\" on your property can mean thousands or millions of dollars in legal liability. Essentially, it means that you have something on your property, a pool, that is so enticing to children that they can\'t help but come onto your property to use it. Even if you don\'t invite them. And that means you need to take special care to make sure they don\'t get hurt. Find out how to protect yourself. 4. Should Your Neighbors Have a Fence Around Their Pool? Part of owning an attractive nuisance is taking the steps necessary to prevent attracting injuries. Many state statutes and court precedents require pool owners to fence off their pools or otherwise prevent children from wandering in. 5. Are Hotel Pool Liability Waivers Enforceable? It may have been language in the hotel\'s check-in paperwork or maybe a sign by the pool, but does merely saying that the hotel isn\'t responsible for swimming pool injuries make it so? It all comes down to whether your injuries were caused by your own negligence or the hotel\'s reckless or intentional acts. If you have more questions about swimming pool injuries, in general or specifically, you should contact an experienced personal injury attorney in your area. The laws surrounding swimming pool injuries and premises liability are complicated, and an attorney can advise you on local laws. Most are also willing to talk to you about your case for free. Related Resources: Find Personal Injury Lawyers in Your Area (FindLaw\'s Lawyer Directory) Premises Liability: Who Is Responsible? (FindLaw\'s Learn About the Law) Learn More About Swimming Pool Injuries (FindLaw\'s Learn About the Law) 6 Tips to Lawsuit-Proof Your Pool Party (FindLaw\'s Law and Daily Life) The post Top 5 Swimming Pool Injury Questions, and Answers appeared first on .');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/personal-injury/elder-abuse-awareness-day-is-june-15th-are-you-aware/" target="_self">Do You Know How To Stop Elder Abuse?</a><br />');
document.write('On June 15, organizations across the world will participate in World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. The participating organizations will not only be teaching people what constitutes elder abuse, but they will also be teaching the public how to identify and stop it. If you can\'t make it to one of these events, you can still participate in Elder Abuse Awareness Day on your own. Take some time to educate yourself on the different types of elder abuse, learn how to stop it, and maybe chat with a few colleagues or peers about the issue or post on social media to help raise awareness. What You Need To Know While elder abuse is commonly thought of as something that only occurs in bad nursing homes, it can happen anywhere, even in the family home. To identify and stop elder abuse, a person should know about the different types of elder abuse. The main types of abuse to be aware of include: Physical abuse: This involves actual hitting or other physical attacks, but it also includes being too forceful or negligent in providing care, causing injuries to an elderly person. This can also include sexual abuse. Financial abuse: This involves an individual, sometimes even a family member, treating an elderly person\'s finances, benefits, or assets, as their own. It can also involve tricking a person into giving away their money, and also just straight theft or embezzlement. Neglect/abandonment: Similarly to physical abuse, when an elderly person who relies on another, such as professional staff or a family member, for their care is neglected or abandoned, this can also be considered elder abuse. How To Stop Elder Abuse Depending on how the abuse is occurring, and what type of abuse is involved, stopping it can often be more difficult than anticipated. Involving legal authorities, such as police or social services, is sometimes the only way to actually stop it. It can be helpful to have some evidence of the abuse, if possible, to better help authorities build a case. Families will often want to handle these matters on their own, which can sometimes be appropriate in limited circumstances.  However, when elder abuse involves physical abuse, neglect, or theft, police and state agencies can investigate, make arrests, and issue violations, as elder abuse is both a violation of civil and criminal laws. Regardless of whether police investigate, you can still help a family member if you suspect elder abuse. The first thing you may want to consider is talking to an attorney experienced in elder abuse cases on behalf of your abused loved one. If you are just a bystander, you can best help by either contacting police or the state or local social services agency. Related Resources: Find an Elder Abuse Lawyers Near You (FindLaw\'s Lawyer Directory) What Are the Criminal Penalties for Elder Abuse? (FindLaw Blotter) Disrespecting Our Elders: Who to Call for Elder Abuse (FindLaw\'s Injured) 10 Signs of Potential Nursing Home Abuse (FindLaw\'s Injured) The post Do You Know How To Stop Elder Abuse? appeared first on .');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/personal-injury/can-you-sue-a-business-you-never-went-into-for-catching-covid-19/" target="_self">Can You Sue a Business You Never Went Into for Catching COVID-19?</a><br />');
document.write('The omicron variant of COVID-19 is rampaging across the country. At the same time, it is apparent that Americans have no appetite for more harsh restrictions and mitigations. In short, that means you have a pretty high chance of catching this if you are frequently out around crowds of people. And a recent ruling by a California court in a wrongful death case has businesses in the state and across the country nervous about a potential \"never-ending\" spiral of liability lawsuits. But some states are taking action to cut back on these lawsuits. Recent \'Take-Home\' Ruling in California a First The case involves a man who was killed by COVID-19 after allegedly contracting the disease from his wife, who contracted the disease at work. The widow\'s lawsuit against her employer alleges that she had to work inches away from sick coworkers. The most recent ruling involved the Second District of the California Court of Appeal allowing the case against See\'s Candies Inc., to proceed. It is the first ruling allowing a lawsuit seeking compensation against a business for a \"take-home\" case of COVID-19 to proceed. The candy company can still appeal to the Supreme Court of California. Note that this appellate process only deals with the case being allowed to proceed. If the family prevails in this step, the case would still need to go to trial or settlement negotiations. Will There Be Other Cases? Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are worried the case could inspire other courts to allow similar cases to move forward. So far there have been a handful of \"take-home\" cases filed against large employers like Amazon, Walmart, Royal Caribbean Cruises, and Southwest Airlines for allegedly ignoring COVID-19 protocols, leading to infections. Judges have already dismissed some for failing to prove these businesses owed a duty of care not just to their employees, but to employees\' family members and acquaintances. None of these cases have come close to a jury. Liability Shield Laws Enacted While a flood of business liability lawsuits has yet to arrive, a majority of states have already taken measures to avoid one. So far, at least 30 states have passed laws broadly shielding most businesses from liability for COVID-19 cases affecting the general public, customers, and employees. In many of these state laws, plaintiffs would have to prove that businesses violated protocols and engaged in serious misconduct by violating public health orders. As many of these states relax their protocols, it will be harder to prove that businesses failed to make a good-faith effort to follow guidance. In essence, it raises the bar for a successful lawsuit. These laws are similar in nature to what Republicans in Congress have been seeking since the start of the pandemic. Talk to a Lawyer First It is important to note that while the California case is moving forward, proving that you caught a virus due to a business\'s negligence will be difficult. You may even live in one of the states mentioned above, which means suing a business for catching COVID-19 is a nonstarter. If you or someone in your family contracted COVID-19 while someplace that you feel was being negligent with virus safety or violating local ordinances, your first move should be to talk to an experienced personal injury attorney. An attorney can help you understand the law, your rights and options, and what it would take to mount a successful lawsuit. Related Resources: Answers to Your Questions About COVID-19 (FindLaw\'s Learn About the Law)Should Businesses Be Protected From COVID-19 Lawsuits When They Reopen? (FindLaw\'s Law and Daily Life Blog)Can a Customer Sue for Being Infected With COVID-19 at a Business? (FindLaw\'s Law and Daily Life Blog) The post Can You Sue a Business You Never Went Into for Catching COVID-19? appeared first on .');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/personal-injury/is-landlord-liable-for-criminal-activity/" target="_self">When Is a Landlord Liable for Criminal Activity at Their Property?</a><br />');
document.write('When criminal activity happens at your apartment building or rental home, it\'s natural to wonder whether anything could have been done to prevent it from happening. While your landlord probably doesn\'t live in the building and wasn\'t involved in the crime, it\'s still their responsibility. A recent lawsuit in the news tragically illustrates the need for landlords to take security at their properties seriously. Family Killed After No Locks Changed Ruth Esther Reyes de Severino and her 5- and 2-year-old children were murdered by her husband, who subsequently committed suicide, in February 2020 in Penns Grove, New Jersey. Severino\'s family is now suing the apartment complex, its operator, and others involved with the management of the property for wrongful death, negligence, breach of contract, and negligent hiring. The lawsuit accuses the property owners and managers of ignoring Severino\'s multiple requests to change the locks to her apartment. A month earlier, a court granted her request for a restraining order against her husband, who she accused of threatening to kill her. The lawsuit said, in fact, that Severino \"begged\" management to change the locks at least five times. Her husband used his keys to enter the apartment and commit the murders. Landlords Have a Duty To Provide a Safe Environment When you sue for negligence, you are telling the court that the defendant had a duty to protect you and failed to live up to it, and that failure led to injuries. But the law doesn\'t create a lot of duties between unrelated individuals. You don\'t have a duty to the random stranger on the street, although it would be nice if you warned them about the ice on the sidewalk. But you do have a duty to some people you have a clearly defined relationship to. There\'s a duty between parents and children, between doctors and patients, and between landlords and tenants. It\'s that last duty that could leave your landlord liable if your apartment building becomes a crime scene. Landlords have some degree of duty when it comes to protecting tenants. That includes making sure all buildings meet or exceed local laws regarding safety. In fact, the Severino family\'s lawsuit alleges the management company also ignored a local law passed in response to a 2019 fatal shooting at the same complex. What Should Landlords Do? If your landlord notices that the property is unsafe, either because a crime occurs or a tenant notifies them of a problem, they need to make proper changes. This can include: Putting bars on a street-level windowInstalling a motion-sensor light near the stairs or front doorMaking sure locks and other security features are workingMaintaining windows and other openings What Should You Do? If you or a visitor are hurt as a result of a crime, and the landlord failed to meet this limited duty to protect tenants, then a lawsuit might be appropriate. That doesn\'t mean you can sue your landlord because your apartment lacked a state-of-the-art alarm system. Security at the building should be reasonable, but not necessarily perfect. When a crime does occur or you feel unsafe, though, it\'s important to call your landlord so they are aware of the problem. It\'s possible that will be enough to encourage necessary changes to promote safety. If your landlord isn\'t willing to improve building safety, you can consider talking to a lawyer about your options. Save any communications with your landlord to document your efforts to address the problem. A lawyer may help you discover that you may have cause to break your lease and move into a safer environment without a financial penalty. Related Resources: Learn More About Tenant Rights (FindLaw\'s Learn About the Law)Premises Liability: Who Is Responsible? (FindLaw\'s Learn About the Law)How to Prove Landlord Negligence (FindLaw\'s Personal Injury Blog) The post When Is a Landlord Liable for Criminal Activity at Their Property? appeared first on .');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('</ul></div>');