Gross Negligence

March 20, 2020

Cruise Ship COVID-19 Corona Virus Infections May Entitle Passengers to Financial Compensation

Cruise-Carnival-300x169 For decades, cruise lines have been the subject of lawsuits arising out of bacteriological and viral diseases that caused by the negligent implementation of anti-infectious disease measures. Noroviruses, Legionella organisms, salmonella, shigella, and Escherichia coli have all turned a boat packed with festive vacationers into floating public health disasters. Now, some of the world’s largest cruise lines have been infected with COVID-19, which has not only created devastating epidemiological consequences for the ship’s guests, but due to a failure in planning, have turned vessels with over 5,000 passengers into international refugee camps.

By failing to disclose the dangers of boarding a cruise ship during a burgeoning pandemic and failing to make suitable contingency plans in the event of a ship wide contamination, cruise ships have been forced to dock outside of nations that are unwilling to admit hundreds of infected passengers within their borders. The passengers are left afloat without proper medical care, adequate medication, or the support of their families.

Most charts tallying COVID-19 infections by country also include a line for “International Conveyance.” This is legal parlance for the cruise ships that served as incubators for the novel coronavirus. The Diamond Princess alone had 700 infections—at one point exceeding every other country outside of China. Sadly, seven of those infections have resulted in death.

December 3, 2019

Who is responsible when a shooting victim seeks compensation for their injury?

by Neumann Law Group

rifle-with-smoke-200x300 Regardless of one’s personal beliefs about firearms, no one disputes the power and energy in a fired bullet. When a human is struck by a fired round, the consequences can be catastrophic. When someone injures another person by shooting them unlawfully, the criminal justice system can mete out appropriate punishment, but punishment alone does not make the victim whole. Moreover, where an individual is shot by accident, the criminal justice system many not engage judicial process at all.

Whether intentional or accidental, those suffering gunshot wounds may need to turn to a civil lawsuit in order to obtain compensation. However, questions remain about what legal theories are available and who can be held responsible?

If someone intentionally shoots another person, or if the shooter acts with reckless disregard for the safety of others when discharging a firearm, it can be a crime—except under certain circumstances, such as justified self-defense. A judge will typically order an individual convicted of unlawfully shooting pay restitution, together with the prescribed incarceration and fines. However, restitution may be limited to medical bills and other economic loss without taking pain and suffering into account. Under these circumstances, a civil lawsuit for the same shooting may be necessary to be fully compensated.

November 8, 2018

California Court Holds Ski Resort Was Not Liable for Plaintiff’s Injuries Following Snowboarding Accident

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: Fesus Robert / Shutterstock.com

Earlier this year, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a California personal injury case involving a plaintiff’s claim against a ski resort. While the opinion discussed several issues that are pertinent to California injury claims, most interesting was the court’s discussion of liability release waivers and the doctrine of assumption of the risk.

The Factual Scenario

Per the court’s holding, the plaintiff sustained a serious injury when she ran into a snowcat at the end of a day of snowboarding at a ski resort (the defendant). Evidently, the plaintiff ran into the back of the snowcat after it made an abrupt turn, cutting her off. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff was seriously injured. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the ski resort claiming that it was grossly negligent.

Apparently, the plaintiff was a season pass holder at the defendant ski resort. And before the plaintiff was issued her season pass, she signed a liability release waiver. The waiver indicated that the plaintiff understood that skiing and snowboarding were dangerous sports and that she released the resort from any liability “for any damage, injury or death . . . arising from participation in the sport or use of the facilities” regardless of the cause of the accident, including the “alleged negligence” of the resort. The agreement also provided a list of hazards that should be expected, including the possibility of “collisions with natural and man-made objects, including trees, rocks, fences, posts, lift towers, snowmaking equipment, snowmobiles and other over-snow vehicles.”

August 30, 2018

California Appeals Court Allows Wrongful Death Suit to Move Forward

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: Syda Productions / Shutterstock.com

This wrongful death action was brought on behalf of a man who died from cardiac arrest after completing a half marathon. He was given CPR by another racer and a bystander, but by the time the automatic external defibrillator was brought to him his heart had no shockable rhythm. The man’s family brought suit against the organizations and individuals who oversaw and put on the race. They alleged that those responsible for the race were negligent, especially regarding the availability of emergency medical services. When loved ones die due to the negligence of others, families – generally with the assistance of knowledgeable California personal injury attorneys – may be able to hold the wrongdoers accountable.

Assumption of the Risk

November 14, 2016

California Appeals Court Upholds Ruling for Defendant Gym Following Locker Room Injury

by Neumann Law Group

Plaintiff Kirk Anderson appealed from a trial court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant Fitness International, LLC, (L.A. Fitness) following his being injured in a locker room shower. Anderson contended the trial court erred because a triable issue of fact existed as to whether L.A. Fitness was grossly negligent. The California appeals court disagreed and upheld the lower court’s decision.In December 2011, Anderson, who was in his early 60s, joined L.A. Fitness in Glendale. He signed a membership agreement, which included a release and waiver of liability (the Release). In September 2012, Anderson finished his exercises and went to take a shower. The shower room has a tile floor that Anderson alleges has significant and sharply downward slanting slopes and is layered and covered with body oil and soapy residue. There are no handrails, shower mats, or friction strips in the room.