Raleigh Personal Injury Lawyer - Property Owner's Liability (Slip & Fall)

BANISHED SHOPPER AND CAN SUE MALL

Brent Adams — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:41:09 GMT

A North Carolina Superior Court judge has ruled that a shopper could sue a Greensboro, North Carolina mall for banishing him for one year after he was accused of concealing dolls at a tenant's department store.

The case rose out of an incident in which a 64-year-old retired school teacher was shopping on the day after Christmas with his wife with the intent to buy collector's item dolls.

The store did not provide shopping carts or bags so the shopper put 11 dolls into his own plastic bag to carry to the cash register.

The shopper was stopped and detained by store security.

Greensboro police charged the shopper with concealing merchandise.

A mall security worker asked him to sign a document captioned "Notice to Depart and Forbid Entry." This document contained a clause stating that he could appeal the banishment order by making a request to the mall's general manager.

Repeated requests by the shopper's lawyer for information about the appeal procedure was ignored. Further, the management of the mall failed to even speak with the shopper's lawyer.

The district attorney dropped the criminal charge in January of 2007 and a district judge expunged the charge from the shopper's record.

The shopper then sued the mall and claimed that the mall engaged in "unlawful, negligent, grossly negligent and willful unwarranted misconduct" when it imposed the one-year ban and failed to respond to the shopper's request to repeal the ban.

The shopper's lawyer argued that there is an unwritten contract between the shopping center and the general public by which the shopping center invites the public in to spend money. The claim was that the mall violated that contract when they banished the shopper from 180 stores, several acres and the United States Post Office, without just cause.

The mall moved to dismiss the claim. On March 11, 2008 Superior Court Judge John H. Holshouser, Jr. denied the motion thereby allowing the case to proceed to trial.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Another Tort Reform Phony Cashes In

Brent Adams — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:07:59 GMT

One of the more prominent tort reform advocates over the years has been Judge Robert H. Bork.

Judge Bork serviced as solicitor general and is acting Attorney General in the 1970s. He was later a federal appeals judge in Washington and was a strong contender for the United States Supreme Court. However, in 1987 the Senate failed to confirm his nomination to the Supreme Court.

Judge Bork has never been a friend of consumers especially those who have been victims of corporate abuse or wrongdoing.

Judge Bork recently settled his own million dollar slip and fall lawsuit.

Although the good judge was an outspoken proponent of tort reform which seeks to limit the rights of ordinary citizens to fair compensation, he did not hesitate to stick out his hand and cash in on the civil justice system he so strongly opposes.

In his complaint Judge Bork asked for punitive damages for the failure of the Yale Club to provide appropriate hand rails. In North Carolina such a complaint would barely get to the jury on the allegations of negligence. The punitive damages claim would be thrown out in a "New York minute". Surely, Judge Bork and his "silk stocking" lawyers knew that he did not have a legitimate punitive damages claim.

Could it be that Judge Bork filed a uhummm... frivolous lawsuit ?

Judge Bork’s lawsuit against the Yale Club arose after he fell stepping onto the platform to speak. The judge said that the Yale Club was negligent for not having stairs or a handrail leading up to the platform. He claimed that he suffered “excruciating pain” after he fell backwards as he tried to climb out of the dais and struck his left leg on the side of the dais and his head on a heat register. He underwent surgery and physical therapy and claims that he was left with a limp and is required to use a cane.

In defense of the lawsuit, the Yale Club said that Judge Bork was himself negligent because he failed to recognize the potential risk which the club said were “open, obvious and apparent.”

In North Carolina, because of our draconian contributory negligence rule, if Judge Bork was himself negligent, his case would be thrown out.

Some of Judge Bork’s ideological cohorts would say that Judge Bork did file a “frivolous lawsuit.”

Judge Bork has joined a long list of tort reform phonies including the current President Bush who condemn are civil justice system, but do not hesitate to use the system for their own self-interest.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Fall From Cardiologist Examination Table Leads To Lawsuit

Brent Adams — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:19:24 GMT

A personal injury suit against St. Louis Cardiology Consultants has been filed by a man who claims he fell off a doctor’s exam table , alleging their failure to provide assistance.

According to Marvin Turner, on May 12, 2006 he was receiving a medical examination when he fell while getting down from the exam table, according to his suit filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois on April 11. He claims to have received personal injuries to the left elbow, right knee, back, and legs.

Turner alleges negligence on the part of St. Louis Cardiology for their failure to assist him in getting off the exam table, failure to provide assistance devices to aid him in getting down, and failure to provide an alternate exam table which could be lowered.

According to Turner, the personal injuries he received have and will continue to cause him pain and suffering in addition to a disability and medical expenses. He seeks damages in excess of $50,000 in addition to costs of suit.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Escalator Injuries To Elderly Have Doubled

Brent Adams — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:31:07 GMT

According to a review of reports by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, between the years of 1991 and 2005, the rate of personal injuries among senior citizens related to escalators has doubled. However, the majority are not serious injuries.

During that time period, approximately 40,000 elderly people have experienced a personal injury, usually the result of a slip or a fall. In spite of the increase in the number of personal injuries, researchers say that only eight percent have been serious enough that a trip to the hospital was necessary. The most common type of personal injuries was reported to be to the legs. The journal , Accident Analysis and Prevention published the report in its March issue.

According to co-lead researcher Joseph O'Neil, M.D., MPH, of the Indiana University School of Medicine, older adults who have issues with mobility or balance should exercise caution during the use of escalators. Co-lead author Dr. Greg Steele, associate professor of epidemiology at the Indiana University School of Medicine said that unfortunately, senior citizens sometimes use "reckless behavior" on escalators, according to the data. He noted one case of a senior who received personal injuries due to falling while trying to push his way past a wheelchair that was blocking his path.

North Carolina's antiquated contributory negligence law would make it difficult for an elderly person to recover for injuries sustained on a defective escalator. If there is a finding that the victim of an injury from a defective escalator was himself negligent, even to the limited extent of 1 per cent, the victim can not recover. The defense will likely argue that an elderly person is negligent for even getting on an escalator if they have any physical limitations in their legs or feet.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams