Personal Injury Law Blogs

A Look at the Quest to Quell Child Pornography

One of the most horrific crimes in the world is child pornography. Not only is child pornography sad, inappropriate, and dangerous, but also it’s also incredibly immoral to the poor children featured. In the United States and several other countries, child pornography is also illegal.

Unfortunately, child pornography remains an issue as prevalent as it is heartbreaking. Child pornography continues to exist all around the globe, rampantly in some places. The U.S. is trying hard to quell and eliminate it, a noble endeavor, if one that will take a very long time to complete. Here are some of the things the U.S. is doing to quell this horrific practice.

Harsh Penalties

The penalties for child pornography — for those selling it, purchasing it, or producing it — have always been harsh. Thankfully, the U.S. continues to increase the severity of the punishment. It used to be that only those responsible for producing child pornography were subject to harsh punishment; now, anyone selling, buying, or caught in possession of it are liable to receive large fines and long jail sentences.

This is one of the most effective ways to eliminate the practice: if the penalties are severe enough, many people who otherwise would want to possess child pornography will stop doing so, decreasing demand for it, which in turn reduces its supply. By targeting the last line in child pornography — the consumer — the U.S. is beginning to create a trickle down effect that will eventually have a strong impact on eliminating the practice.

Internet Regulations

A few large internet service providers — such as Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and Time Warner Cable — have removed all known child pornography from their servers, and refuse channels that wish to present child pornography. This is a huge step, but some work still remains. By removing child pornography from their servers, these companies are not actively contributing to the spread of the illicit material. However, pornographic images and videos of children can still be accessed through the service provided by those Internet companies, just not on their severs. The government is increasingly calling on these sorts of large Internet companies to not only remove child pornography from their servers, but to block it from being accessed by their service.

Technological Advancements

Innovative tech company Google has had a profound impact on squashing child pornography. The company has spent $5 million on removing pornographic images and videos of children from the Internet, and has spent an additional $2 million on research to discover more effective ways to locate and eliminate child pornography. Part of that $2 million is also going towards creating more effective ways for Internet users to report child pornography if they find it, and to help those reports lead to meaningful legal action.

Eliminating child pornography in the U.S. is not an easy task, but it absolutely needs to be done. For the sake of children everywhere, we need to find ways to eliminate this horrible practice. Thankfully, we’re moving in the right direction.

Byline

Vince Christiansen is a freelance writer who focuses on law and politics. Those with legal needs should invariably consult with an established practitioner such as those at criminaldefensene.com.

Common Items Used for Bail Bond Collateral

According to a bondsman, most people imagine dollars and cents when they think about bail bonds. However, money is only a part of the broad spectrum of items that can be used as collateral. While liquid cash may be the preferred method of payment for most bail bonds agents, there are plenty of other things that can be used as collateral for the bond. Here is a list of some things, like bail bonds, that you can usually offer up to get out of jail:

Your Home or Property

Your bail bonds agent might like the idea of getting cash for collateral, but if you don’t have enough on hand, a bail bondsman will usually settle for a home that still has value to cover the cost. Of course, if you want to offer property or a home as collateral, you must own the deed to the spot, and have a large amount of equity invested as well.

Due to the recent housing market nosedive, however, bail bond agents have soured on accepting deeds as collateral, as the value of your home may actually be much lower than what is indicated on the deed.

Vehicles

A car, truck, boat, or even snowmobile can also be used as a decent form of collateral for a bail bond. In order to use it, you must forfeit ownership of said vehicle to the bail bond agency until the agreement has reached its conclusion. If you fail to show up for the trial though, expect your vehicle to be sold to the highest bidder to help reclaim the cash that you didn’t have.

Guns and Other Firearms

This is a slightly less common option, but some bail bond agents in certain locations will actually take guns and other firearms as collateral for bail bonds. In order to make this transaction work though, you must have proof that you legally own the firearms, and that the possession of any weapons are legal in the state in which you reside, as well as the state that incarcerated you Necessities in Your Domestic Violence Case.

Jewelry

Because of their high value in the United States, jewelry, gems, and precious metals can usually be used as a fairly convenient collateral for your bail bonds. In fact, your agent may be more willing to take this as collateral than the previously listed options, due to the fact that it is fairly easy to liquidate jewelry or precious metals in a real or virtual marketplace. Make sure to monitor the market value, though — the amount of money your jewelry can cover depends on how much it is worth at the time.

Investments

If you don’t have any cash, non-fiat money will work almost as well. If you have any investments in stocks, bonds, or CDs, you can often offer ownership of those up as collateral for your bond. Of course, the more liquid the investment you own, the more enticing it will be to the bail bond agent, there are many articles which cover this topics, if you are interested in one of them, view the link here.

Get Out of Jail Today

Even if you don’t have any cash on hand, you aren’t necessarily stuck sitting in a cell until your trial starts. If you have been incarcerated, try using one of these items as bail bond collateral to free yourself today.

Byline

This piece was contributed by Phillip Bernstein, a freelance writer who concentrates his writing career on law and politics. Phillip recommends that when you need cheap bail contact an established bail bond service.

Personal Injury in a Construction Zone

Road construction is a nuisance all drivers encounter at some point and time. It is a fact of life. Without it, our road system would plunge into disrepair and make vehicular travel all but impossible. But road construction can be dangerous to drive through. Work zone crash data compiled by the Federal Highway Administration reported over 87,000 crashes in 2010. Most of these crashes didn’t result in fatalities, although 30 percent of them resulted in personal injury.

Unfortunately, even with all of the road construction safety laws designed to protect drivers, some work zones are poorly maintained. Sometimes signs are missing, hidden behind equipment or materials, or incorrect. Situations like this can make an already dangerous situation even more hazardous.

Other hazards in construction zones include construction vehicles suddenly coming into traffic lanes or material falling on vehicles as they pass by. Recently in New York, construction debris from a bridge construction project fell from an overpass onto a passing vehicle below. That vehicle then caused an accident involving four other vehicles.

These sort of construction related accidents occur more often than you might expect. If injured in a traffic crash in a construction zone, an individual needs to have someone collect evidence quickly. Construction zones are constantly changing, so evidence can disappear quickly. Road work may be completed and signs could be moved or taken down.

Therefore, it is imperative to act right away. Without gathering the proper documentation quickly, evidence can be lost forever. And lost with that evidence may be your chances of ever collecting damages from the responsible party. Therefore it is in your best interest to hire an accident attorney to handle the case quickly and efficiently for you. Hiring a lawyer with personal injury experience can ensure you collect the damages you deserve.

 

Would Limits On Alcohol Advertising Curb Binge Drinking in New York?

binge drinkingDid you know that 90 percent of alcohol consumed by people younger than 21 is through binge drinking? Or that students who binge drink are 14 times more likely to drive drunk than non-bingers?

According to the website College Drinking Prevention, the consequences of binge drinking affect virtually all colleges and college students.

One of the most dangerous of those consequences: more than 3 million students get behind the wheel after drinking every year – causing thousands of injuries and deaths in auto accidents in Syracuse and nationally.

Now that school is back in session, the problem of binge drink confronts educators. Colleges are exploring new ways to tackle the problem.

One tactic is to limit or restrict alcohol advertising, especially on billboards, buses and in other public areas. The idea is that young people will be less likely to drink if they are not bombarded with messages that encourage them to do so.

Binge Drinking on New York Campuses

Binge drinking is the most widespread form of excessive alcohol use in the U.S., according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. By definition, it’s a pattern of imbibing alcohol that raises the drinker’s blood alcohol level to 0.08 percent or higher. This generally happens when men drink five or more alcoholic beverages and women have four or more drinks in a span of two hours.

Here are some other facts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on underage and binge drinking:

  • Most people who engage in binge drinking are not alcoholics.
  • Binge drinking is a more common problem in households in which people earn $75,000 or more a year.
  • Male students are twice as likely to binge drink then female students.
  • Among adults who drink to excess, nine out of 10 report binge drinking in the past 30 days.
  • Drinking excessively increases the likelihood of unsafe sex, missed classes and school drop-outs.
  • Up to 2,000 college students die from alcohol-related car crashes and other accidents each year.
  • Binge drinking is linked to a range of health issues, including accidental falls, assaults, alcohol poisoning, elevated blood pressure, disease of the liver, nerve damage and suicide.

 

New Strategies to Solve the Problem

Some health experts say the old ways of warning young people of binge drinking dangers are not working. So they are trying new methods to combat the problem.

In addition to controlling alcohol advertising, here are some of those methods:

  • Responsible beverage service programs. These teach businesses and individual who serve alcohol how to avoid sales to minors and intoxicated people.
  • Media campaigns, media advocacy and counter-advertising;
  • Enforcement of laws against buying alcohol for minors;
  • Prohibitions on alcohol use at community events and in public areas (county fairs, parks and beaches, for example) that are popular spots for young people;
  • Controls on hours of sale;
  • Community sponsorship of alcohol-free activities for youth;
  • Keg registration laws;
  • Making businesses that sell alcohol liable for the harm caused by their underage or intoxicated patrons. 

People who are injured in an accident caused by an impaired driver may have a right to sue for financial compensation.

What Do You Think?

Do you believe controlling alcohol advertisements or holding bars liable for serving underage patrons would reduce binge drinking in your community?  Do you have other ideas on curbing campus drinking? Send us your comments.

Luton Airport and subcontractor ordered to pay almost £400,000 after death of pensioner

The company which operates Luton Airport has been heavily fined and ordered to pay substantial costs after a pensioner was killed crossing the road at the airport.

Mrs Mary Whiting, 78, from Norfolk, was returning from holiday on 16 May 2012 when the accident occurred. She was crossing the road between a terminal building and a passenger drop-off zone when she was struck by a milk lorry and crushed under its wheels. It is not currently known whether the family of Mrs Whiting has made a claim for personal injury after the accident.

The Health and Safety Executive subsequently undertook an investigation into the matter after it was informed of the accident. The investigation found:

  • That the crossing (which was designed by C-T Aviation Solutions Limited) was badly positioned and did not conform with the regulations that apply to public roads

The Health and Safety Executive subsequently recommended that both London Luton Airport Operations Limited and C-T Aviation Solutions Limited be prosecuted for breaching UK health and safety regulations.

The matter came to trial over a six-week period between mid-April and late May of this year, with both London Luton Airport Operations Limited and the designer subcontractor pleading not guilty to breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

The jury in the case found London Luton Airport Operations Limited guilty of breaching s.3(1) and 21 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 3 of the Management of the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. The company was fined a total of £75,000 and ordered to pay £197,595 toward the prosecution’s costs.

Design subcontractor C-T Aviation Solutions Limited was fined £70,000 and ordered to pay £30,000 towards the prosecution’s costs after being found guilty of breaching s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 11 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

The HSE stated that London Luton Airport Operations Limited was served with an Improvement Notice after Mrs Whiting’s death, with the Improvement Notice requiring that modifications be made to improve safety for pedestrians and vehicles.

There appears to have been no comment from either company or their criminal defence solicitors.

HSE Inspector Graham Tomkins stated after the sentencing: “This tragic incident could easily have been avoided had London Luton Airport Operations Limited taken the proper steps to ensure the safety of vehicles and their passengers at the airport.”

Chris Hadrill, an employment law solicitor at Redmans, commented after the hearing: “Businesses should be careful that their workplaces comply with the necessary health and safety regulations in the United Kingdom or they could – like the two businesses here – face criminal liability and expensive court cases.

Redmans Solicitors are employment law solicitors based in Richmond, London

Transport firm owner sentenced after death at work

The owner of a Lancashire transport firm has been fined and ordered to pay costs of a combined value of £55,000 after one of his employees died in the course of employment.

Mr Mark Wintersgill, 25, was working at PPR Transport Services in Lutterworth as a mechanic when the fatal accident occurred on 25 June 2012.

The mechanic was attempting to jack up the axle of a double-decker HGV trailer on the day in question using an air-jack powered by a compressor. He was, however, attempting to jack up the trailer on a concrete ramp – which may have destabilised it. It further appeared from subsequent investigations that Mr Wintersgill may have used two wooden blocks to further increase the height of the jack – another thing which may have destabilised the trailer. He was carrying out the work under the trailer when the trailer rocked forward suddenly and the jack shot out from under the axle, striking Mr Wintersgill in the head. The mechanic was later pronounced dead at the scene from catastrophic head injuries.

It is not currently known whether Mr Wintersgill’s family have attempted to claim personal injury against the firm.

The Health and Safety Executive were subsequently notified of the accident and took steps to investigate the death. This investigation found that there had been a number of health and safety breaches which could have caused or contributed to Mr Wintersgill’s death:

  • A failure to implement a safe system of work
  • A failure to properly control and assess work at the site
  • A failure to provide adequate safety measures, training and equipment

The HSE therefore recommended that the firm be prosecuted for breaching health and safety regulations.

The matter came to the Leicester Crown Court on 15 October 2013. Mr Roberts, 51, pleaded uilty to s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and, as a result, was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay costs of £43,000.

HSE Inspector David Lefever stated after the hearing: “This was a tragic incident that could have been prevented had a few basic precautions been taken. Mr Roberts should have ensured that this regular work activity was carried out in a safe location on firm, level ground. He should also have ensured his employees were supplied with the correct equipment and that they were trained in how to use that equipment safely.”

Neither Mr Roberts nor his criminal defence solicitors appear to have commented after the hearing.

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans, commented: “Both owners and the companies that they run have obligations to their staff to ensure that the work that their staff are undertaking is – among other things – both adequately supervised and that they are trained in such. A failure to do so could result in a prosecution for failing to comply with health and safety standards.”

Redmans Solicitors are employment law solicitors based in Richmond, London

The Case Against Punitive Damages in Civil Litigation

Upon the conclusion of a civil lawsuit, a jury is often faced with the prospect of remunerating the plaintiff with one of two damages: compensatory damages and punitive damages. This is especially true in tort cases, which involve injurious harm by one party to another party. The punitive damages award seeks to further punish a defendant beyond actual damages caused as a way of sending a message to others who may engage in the same injurious behavior.

Often times during an appeals process, an appeals court will reduce or eliminate the punitive damages portion of a civil case award. This raises questions about whether punitive damages are necessary. There is a case to be made that such awards are necessary in certain cases where the extent of “bad conduct” being punished was long-standing and ignored by the defendant even in the face of overwhelming evidence. These cases, however, represent a small minority of civil litigation suits. Generally, punitive damages actually have more of a detrimental effect on altering future behavior than anything else.

The Development of Punitive Damages 

The concept of awarding punitive damages appears to have started as early as the late 1950s in the case Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co. Although in existence for nearly six decades, punitive awards associated with tort cases — although they may be seen in other forms of civil litigation — constitute between three to six percent of all cases, with an average median award of under $50,000.

Do Punitive Awards Deter Bad Behavior?

There are arguments within the legal community about the effectiveness of punitive damage awards as a behavioral deterrent. Punitive awards generally constitute such a low amount of the total award that it would be difficult to draw a correlation between the amount of awards given in civil cases and their effect on behavior.

There are exceptions with respect to large punitive damage awards. In 1994 Stella Liebeck was the plaintiff in a case against McDonalds Corporation involving burns she received on her lower body from coffee that was approximately 190 degrees. After attempts to recover $90,000 in damages associated with her medical expenses and pain and suffering — McDonald’s counter offered $800 although it had paid $500,000 in other cases — a New Mexico jury awarded $2.94 million in punitive damages. On appeal, the amount was reduced to $480,000 and Ms. Liebeck received an undisclosed amount even lower than that. McDonald’s changed its practices as a result of the case, placing a warning on their cups and lowering the temperature at which they brewed coffee.

The Case for Tort Reform

The Liebeck case was a rallying call for tort reform in the 1996 Presidential campaign, becoming a platform issue during the Republican Nomination Convention in San Diego. To this day, many believe that the small amount in damages awarded and the infrequency of these awards fails to support their need as a continued deterrent against a defendant’s misconduct.

Additionally, assigning liability through awards that properly compensate a plaintiff for their actual loss suffered may have a larger effect on deterring future behavior than adding excessive liability amounts that generally result in settlement delays.

Byline

Paul O’Connor, a freelance legal blogger based in Sacramento, CA, understands that civil litigation is a very complex area, one which needs substantial attention and potentially dramatic transformations. Those who need assistance navigating the waters of personal injury litigation should contact an established Los Angeles Personal Injury attorney.

Dog Bite Injuries: What does the Law Say?

(U.S. Personal Injury Law and generally) It is easy to say that Americans love to own dogs. They spend billions of dollars each year on purchasing dogs, buying food and accessories, and paying veterinary bills. People love to make their dogs a “part of the family.” Sadly, many of these people do not take the time, or have the patience, to teach their dogs how to behave properly around other people. Some of these people neglect the animal’s altogether, making these poor dogs aggressive and mean. A recent report was issued by the Humane Society stating that over 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year, with an estimated $1 billion in damages.

Dog Bite Laws

Dog bite laws will vary from state to state and in many cases city to city. While a state can set forth a specific law regarding dog bites, cities have the right to make even stricter laws. However, most areas just apply the state law to any dog bite case.

The most common law found in the United States is the “one-bite” law. What this means is that every dog is allowed one “free” bite before the owner can be held financially accountable for the actions of their dog. The law was enacted in this manner to account for the unpredictability of an animal’s actions. However, there are exceptions to the rule.

If the first dog bite caused excessive harm to a person or property, the free bite may be overlooked by the Court. In addition, if the dog escaped the property on which it was being kept and attacked someone, the free bite is almost always overlooked. In GA, Stokes & Kopitsky, P.A., a law firm attorney for dog bites in Atlanta area, stated “Nearly all fatal dog attacks involved intact male dogs, and more than half of all human deaths involved unrestrained dogs on their owner’s property.”

When a Bite has Occurred

Once the first dog bite injury has occurred, the owner is placed on notice with the state and will become financially liable for all the actions of that dog from that point forward.

While each state law is worded different, once the owner has been notified that there is a potential issue with their dog, the following law goes into place: “A person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal and who, by careless management or by allowing the animal to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not provoke the injury, may be liable in damages to the injured person.” This quote was taken directly from the annotated version of Georgia’s dog bite statute.

The wording for this particular law in Georgia is very similar to every other state which has the one-bite rule.

Retaining an Attorney

Anyone that has been bitten by a dog should seek the assistance of a dog bite attorney. The victim of this type of event will not know if the owner has been placed on notice before, and will need the assistance of a local experienced attorney to see if they are entitled to compensation.

Additionally, since dog bite laws can vary so much from area to area, seeking the assistance of an attorney will help you to protect your rights. Your action in this manner can also help to protect others from being mauled by that same dog in the future, or have the dog removed from an abusive home to a place where it can be properly cared for and taught to be less aggressive.

Laws can be tricky, confusing and different from state to state when it comes to dog bites and legal cases. Whether it’s an attorney for dog bites in Atlanta or San Francisco, it is important for a person to retain a local injury attorney who is knowledgeable about them to represent their case. An experienced lawyer up to date on all the local, state and federal laws regarding bites will help ensure a more successful case when filing a law suit.

What is a Required Intoxicated Driver Resource Center?

Each state has chosen an approach to dealing with the safety problem of driving under the influence. All states implement a comprehensive alcoholic driver education program of some type, but New Jersey may be the strictest in the nation, so we’ll use this state for our subject. Individuals convicted of driving under the influence are required to enroll in the locally incorporated program, but all convicted impaired drivers are also required to undergo psychological evaluation for potential alcoholism and addiction severity. Additionally, failure to complete the education process according to the prescribed timetable can affect how quickly the convicted impaired driver can have driving privileges reinstated. In some cases, privileges can be suspended indefinitely.

What are the IDP and IDRC?

The IDP is the Intoxicated Driving Program and they coordinate all responsibilities of convicted DUI drivers within the state of New Jersey. The program is intended to help indigent convicted intoxicated drivers get the treatment they may need, regardless of resources. They are the oversight agency that partners with regional IDRC NJ facilities across the state.

The Intoxicated Driver Resource Centers (IDRC) are required to interview and evaluate all convicted drunk drivers in the state, often including those from out of state if they live within a specific proximity of the state border. Convicted intoxicated drivers from other states can be allowed to satisfy the requirements in their home state, but all program fees must be paid to the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission. Additionally, driving privilege reinstatement is also determined by the state of New Jersey.

How Does the Program Work?

The program basically educates convicted DUI drivers with two programs, depending on individual evaluations. Primarily determined by the number of offenses by the convicted driver, the defendant can be recommended for either a 12-hour or 48-hour program. The 12-hour program can be completed in two consecutive days of six-hour educate and evaluation sessions. The 48-hour program is two days incarceration in the authorized facility for the local court system, or 48 consecutive hours, while a comprehensive education and evaluation analysis is performed. The IDRC then issues a treatment recommendation for the client.

The program requirements can range from formal enrollment in a full-service treatment facility to documented evidence of attending a self-help program. This is a significant latitude in treatment assignment, which is also subject to court determination.

The Need for a DWI Attorney

Any DWI defendant in New Jersey must have an attorney because even the first offense can carry an incarceration period of up 30 days in jail. Any defendant facing jail time is required to have a legal representative. Additionally, many DWI cases are filed on borderline evidence, and all other case particulars are also subject to questioning from the attorney.

Attorneys are court officers just like arresting police officers. All traffic stops may not have been conducted exactly according to arrest protocol, so an experienced and effective DWI attorney can conduct his own investigation into the incident. Eliminating evidence can be a real advantage when negotiating a case settlement, especially considering that a reckless driving plea negotiation eliminates all IDP requirements and reduces any driving privilege suspensions. The attorney is well worth the investment in adjudication.

It is important for multiple offenders who are facing solid prosecution cases to understand that the 48-hour program is standard. Multiple DWI convictions demonstrate that earlier punishments and treatment plans did not get the message across. The state of New Jersey is serious about public safety, and according to defense attorney Evan Levow, its IDRC NJ ensures that multiple offenders can count on a comprehensive punishment plan, including incarceration. It is important to have an attorney who is willing to maintain court consistency when dealing the rights of the defendant, such as sentencing guideline compliance.

 

NY Construction Third Party Injury Claims: When can These be Filed?

Construction is a dangerous industry. In 2011, 17.6 percent of all fatal workplace accidents occurred in positions in the construction industry. Falls, electrocution, and blunt force injuries are all threats on the job site. When an injury occurs on the job, workers will often be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. However, there are many situations in which victims will wish to file a third party claim.

What is a Third Party Claim?

As the name suggests, a third party claim is a claim against a third party. In a third party claim, victims make a claim against another entity, alleging that they were responsible for the injury. Third party claims are available to injured victims in a number of situations, where the third party was negligent or strictly liable for the injury.

Negligence and Third Parties

Negligence is a tort, or a wrongful act resulting in legal liability. Negligence occurs when a party breaches a duty of care owed to another party and where that breach is both the actual cause and proximate cause of the injury. Parties owe a number of duties to one another, including duties assumed expressly or otherwise; generally, parties have a duty to act as a reasonable person with their levels of skill and knowledge would if similarly situated.

This reasonable person standard is nebulous and includes a wide variety of conduct. On a construction site, it may include failing to check the area before moving heavy equipment or reconnecting a power source before ensuring that everyone is clear of any potential hazards. Failing to live up to the reasonable person standard or fulfill other duties will result in a breach of that duty.

Additionally, there must be a causative link between the breach and the injury. The type of injury must be reasonably foreseeable from the breach. Intervening events may supersede the originally negligent act and absolve the negligent actor of liability, placing it on another party. A successful claim for negligence will result in an award of damages.

Defendants may defend against a claim for negligence by claiming that the other party was also negligent. New York uses a pure comparative fault rule where plaintiffs can recover even if they are primarily at fault for the injury. A court judge or construction accident lawyer New York based will counsel that these damages awarded in such a case will be reduced by the amount of the plaintiff’s negligence.

Strict Liability and Third Parties

In the State of New York, concept related to negligence may be found in the area of products liability. Under Codling v. Paglia, 32 N.Y.2d 330 (1973), entities are strictly liable for products that they sell provided that the product was defective when it left the defendant’s hands and when that specific defect constituted a “substantial factor” in causing the injury when the product was being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

Product defects may include manufacturing defects, design defects, and marketing defects. Manufacturing defects occur when the product differs from its intended design. Design defects occur when the design made the product dangerous and where there was an economically feasible alternative design available at the time that the product was designed. Marketing defects are failure to label or otherwise warn users about reasonably foreseeable dangers posed by the product.

Strict liability differs from conventional tort claims in that proving negligence is unnecessary. Plaintiffs who can prove that a manufacturer put a defective product into the marketplace may prove negligence with relatively little effort, but proving that a retailer was negligent in not inspecting every unit will be too high a burden in most cases. Simply proving the aforementioned factors will render the supply chain jointly and severally liable for the damages, although the plaintiff’s award may be reduced if he or she failed to exercise reasonable caution in using the product or could have discovered the defect through reasonable caution and circumspection.

Strict liability may also be found in other areas related to construction. Entities engaged in abnormally dangerous activities are automatically liable for any damage that is caused by that activity. Courts typically find that blasting, demolition and pile driving are abnormally dangerous activities. A victim injured by a subcontractor or other third party engaged in such activities while at work may file a third party claim against that party even if he or she was not negligent. Other activities, like window washing, may also result in strict liability being imposed on certain parties.

Why File a Third Party Claim?

Employers are required to cover employees under New York’s workers’ compensation law. However, workers’ compensation is significantly limited in scope. In New York, claimants are limited to 2/3 of their lost income multiplied by the percentage to which they are disabled. Direct medical expenses are fully covered. Limited death benefits and supplemental benefits are also available. Total compensation for lost income and compensation for other damages is unavailable.

Filing a third party claim makes victims eligible to receive compensation, with the help of a local experienced accident lawyer, for pain and suffering, mental anguish, and other damages. Plaintiffs may recover the full amount of their lost income and possibly other forms of compensation such as the cost of modifying one’s home for disability access. Punitive damages may also be available. These damages greatly exceed the relatively meager benefits offered by workers’ compensation. For victims of workplace injuries, this may be the difference between being able to stay in one’s home and facing severe financial difficulties.

A secondary reason to file a third party claim is to deter future wrongful conduct. Negligent actors who are not punished have no incentive to change their habits. The next person injured by a careless equipment operator or manufacturer may be killed. By ensuring that negligence is not tolerated, victims can improve the safety of their workplaces and society as a whole.

Legal counsel will be invaluable in the event of any workplace injury, whether from a construction accident lawyer New York or San Francisco based. Consulting with an experienced local attorney allows victims to discuss their options for filing claims against third parties or their own employers. If no cause of action exists, legal counsel can assist claimants in applying for workers’ compensation and possibly Social Security disability benefits. Such processes are rife with their own issues, including under-reported injuries and wrongful denials. Those who suffer an injury at work should seek legal counsel as soon as possible.