Archives for March 2016

Slip and Fall Liability

March 23, 2016 By stuartplotnick

Filing a legal claim on the basis of premises liability, for example, when you slip and fall in a store, is worthwhile only when the value of the case is high enough. In other words, if after the winning the case and paying your attorney, will you be compensated enough to justify the time consuming and oftentimes difficult litigation process? We consider the following principles.

First, any business that opens its doors to the public is legally obligated to keep its patrons and visitors reasonably safe. Whether you visit a giant powerhouse like Walmart, Target or Costco, a supermarket chain such as Safeway, or even a smaller business that invites the public in, there is a legal duty to keep customers safe. If you are hurt in a slip and fall on a store’s premise, you may have a valid legal claim against that business.

Sometimes, these accidents are simply accidents, and no one is to blame. Often, however, it’s poor maintenance, failure to clean up, faulty railings, or some other dereliction in care that results in slip and fall injuries. Several factors can be considered in most slip and fall cases. For example, snow or ice in the entry way, failure to place a floor mat in the entry on a rainy day, display items that are poorly placed, inadequate lighting, or a spilled substance or broken item which has been there for a significant length of time can all cause slip and fall accidents. Below are some noteworthy examples of slip and fall settlements:

Home Depot Fall Injury Case Verdict: $950,000

A woman’s knee was injured after her cart hit a manhole cover which was hidden by water, tipping over the cart. Although Home Depot claimed the dangers were obvious, the jury found Home Depot to be 95% at fault, and ordered them to pay $950,000 for the woman’s knee injuries.

Walmart Injury Case Verdict: $600,000

At a New York Walmart, a 34-year-old medical secretary slipped on ice and fell while walking around the store’s premise. After she fell, she was also hit by a falling sheet of ice which had slid off the metal roof above her. She sustained a severe injury to her left arm that required surgery and prevented her from using her hand. Walmart claimed that an employee told the woman to stay inside, but she failed to heed the warning. Walmart also claimed that, that contrary to her claim, the roof was properly designed. The jury awarded the 34-year-old medical secretary $600,000 for her slip and fall injury.

Sam’s Club Injury Case Verdict: $3,960,000

In a Michigan case, a 54-year old heart surgeon tripped over the tongue of a trailer hitch in a Sam’s Club parking lot while carrying a large bulk package of paper towels. The surgeon suffered a spinal injury, which caused his hands to shake continually. The fall injury ended his career. The surgeon alleged the trailer hitch should have been cordoned off or marked with a cone. He received $3.96 million for loss of future income.

Other examples of slip and fall settlements found from various new outlets include:

$2 Million Awarded to family for hospital fall of elderly patient
$70,000 to girl for foot injuries received during gym class
$18 Million to medical student for open manhole injury
$300k for fall at PetSmart store

Liability for a Slip and Fall in a Store

Slip and fall cases are extremely common, but not all result in such huge settlements as those noted above. Moreover, not all cases are won by the plaintiff. Broadly, the business owner may be liable if the condition was known, but no steps were taken to remedy the situation.

For example, if a customer breaks a bottle of apple juice in a grocery store, and another customer immediately slips and falls, there will likely be no premises liability, as the store did not have adequate notice or time to remedy the situation. On the other hand, if some time went by and the store was advised of the spill or should have discovered it and did nothing, and another customer slipped and fell, then there is a good possibility of liability. At the same time, the plaintiff must also prove that the condition at issue was not so obvious that he or she could have avoided or mitigated the incident.

If you were injured in a slip and fall accident in or near a store, contact the Law Offices of Stuart L. Plotnick to discuss your claim.

Sources: http://www.injuryhelpline.com/blog/slip-fall-store-injury-cases-settlements/#more-1044

http://www.slipnomore.com/Slip_and_Fall_Verdicts

Filed Under: Personal Injury, Premises Liability

The Trouble With Ridesharing…

March 18, 2016 By stuartplotnick

Ridesharing is a way by which coworkers can reduce the expense of commuting by travelling to work together. Traditional carpooling is one example of ridesharing, as are walking, using public transportation, vanpooling, and even riding your bike. The big advantage of ridesharing is the environmental and financial savings due to reduced gasoline usage. Some companies encourage their employees to rideshare, by offering incentives or discounts. Additionally, there are ridesharing websites, such as www.rideshare.com, that help those interested in ridesharing find others in their situation or location. It all sounds great, until we consider how insurance plays a role.

If you’ve filled out an insurance application lately, you might recall that you need to answer in terms of the exact type of driving that you are doing. The insurance companies seek information not just in terms of your mileage, and whether you drive in the city or in a town, but also how you use your vehicle. In fact, some insurance companies even include a question addressing whether you intend to use your car for ridesharing. That’s all fine if you know how you’re going to use your car right off the bat; but what happens when you rather suddenly decide that ridesharing makes sense for you? For example, you decide to work as a contractor for a ridesharing company, or a company such as Uber?

If you are driving and get into an accident, you might find, unfortunately, that any passengers looing to your insurance on the vehicle are not covered. For instance, if the insurance company discovers that you and your passengers were involved in a ridesharing carpool, it might deny your claim, and the claims of your passengers. Avoid this situation, by reviewing your insurance policy. Has your insurance company defined ridesharing and notified you that if you choose to engage in ridesharing, you must provide them with notice? Additionally, your premium might be adjusted to cover the additional risk.

If you chose to rideshare, there are many obvious benefits, but you should take care to notify your insurance agency in writing and see if there are any additional steps you need to take, to ensure you are adequately covered. Moreover, if you the passenger in a ridesharing group, you probably want to make sure that your driver has adequate coverage and has notified his or her insurance company. Also, as a passenger, you can check to see that you yourself have adequate uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage on your own vehicle. Such coverage can protect you in an accident even when you are not the driver.

At the Law Offices of Stuart L. Plotnick, we want Maryland and Virginia drivers to take care and understand the automobile insurance they purchase to protect themselves, family members, friends, and coworkers. Don’t make the mistake of ridesharing and assuming that all will be well. Do your homework, ask the right questions, and properly notify your insurance company of any changes in your driving status. If you have been injured in an automobile collision and you have questions about your next steps, please call and speak with Attorney Plotnick today.

Sources: http://www.andersonhemmat.com/denvers-personal-car-accident-injury-blog/ridesharing-is-it-an-alternative-to-driving-alone-or-an-insurance-nightmare; and http://www.rideshare.com

Filed Under: Car Accident

EEOC Files First Sexual Orientation Lawsuits

March 15, 2016 By stuartplotnick

The Associated press reported that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has sued on behalf of employees challenging sexual orientation discrimination for the first time. The agency alleges that two companies’ employees were harassed because of their sexual orientation.

The Lawsuits

The EEOC Philadelphia office filed a lawsuit against Scott Medical Health Center after a gay employee quit when his supervisor used anti-homosexual slurs in the workplace. The EEOC also filed a second separate lawsuit in Baltimore following the termination of a lesbian employee of Pallet Companies (a subsidiary of IFCO Systems NA). The employee complained her manager made comments about both her sexual orientation and her appearance. The employee, Yolanda Boone, whose sexual orientation was known to her co-workers, said her supervisor made numerous comments regarding her orientation and appearance, including “I want to turn you back into a woman” and “You would look good in a dress,” according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit also states that Ms. Boone’s supervisor blew a kiss at her and stuck out his tongue in a suggestive manner, the EEOC alleges in the lawsuit.

The Baltimore lawsuit indicates Ms. Boone was hired in September 2013 as a forklift operator. She was apparently harassed for weeks while working the night shift, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit further contends that Ms. Boone’s supervisor harassed her because he “objected generally to females having romantic and sexual associations with other females, and objected specifically to Boone’s close, loving association with her female partner,” the lawsuit said.

The company, through its regional general counsel, Jay Frye, responded, “We strongly disagree with the allegations made in the lawsuit…While we cannot comment publicly on this matter, we will vigorously defend against this litigation.” He further stated “Pallet Companies is committed to providing a work environment in which everyone is treated fairly and with respect, regardless of sexual orientation, sexual identity, gender, race, nationality, age, disability, religion, marital status or political opinion.”

David Lopez, the EEOC General Counsel, stated the Agency is “committed to ensuring people aren’t discriminated against in workplaces because of their sexual orientations.” According to the EEOC, the agency filed both lawsuits after failing to reach settlements with the employers.

The Law

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin and religion, but does not speak to sexual orientation. In these two novel lawsuits, the EEOC contends that discrimination based on sexual orientation is covered by the prohibition against discrimination based on sex.

Nancy Modesitt, an associate law professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, reported that courts have recognized discrimination in cases based on gender stereotyping, but the EEOC is attempting to take that farther.

Over 30 states, including Maryland, prohibit employers from discriminating against at least some members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in the workplace, but the legislation is uneven. Additionally, hundreds of companies have voluntarily adopted internal policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Again, no federal statute currently speaks to such protections.

The EEOC’s national strategic plan makes it a priority to address problems that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees face in the workplace.

The Law Offices of Stuart L. Plotnick specialize in employment law. For a free consultation, please contact 301.251.1286 today.

Filed Under: Employment Law