Missouri Injury Law Blog

According to a recent article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Missouri health officials are anxiously awaiting word regarding tests on a batch of powdered infant formula that was recently removed from Wal-Mart stores nationwide following the wrongful death of a Missouri newborn who consumed it and later died of a rare infection.

The source of the bacteria has not yet been determined, but it is known to occur naturally in plants such as wheat and rice. Manufacturers routinely test for such germs but this may be one case where such precautions were not enough to avoid disaster.

Avery Cornett of Lebanon, Missouri died of a rare infection caused by bacteria known as Cronobacter sakazakii, according to recently released hospital reports. Though the infection is treatable, it is very dangerous to premature babies and those less than 1 month old.

Wal-Mart has decided to pull the Enfamil Newborn formula from its shelves as a precaution after the death of Cornett. However, the much bigger step of recalling the formula has not yet occurred as the manufacturer claims tests showed no bacteria was present in the batch shipped to retailers. Further tests to confirm or deny this claim are underway.

The death of another newborn, Ivyionna Ayne Marie Pinnix, from Granite City is also under investigation. Pinnix, born four weeks premature, appeared congested before she eventually stopped breathing sometime Wednesday morning. It remains to be seen whether she consumed the same Enfamil formula under investigation in this case.

A third infant, from Illinois, came down with the exact same bacterial infection as Cornett after consuming several types of powdered baby formula in the last month. Thankfully the Illinois infant has recovered after receiving treatment in a Missouri hospital.

Though no final results have been released, health officials suggest parents take the following steps to help guard against possible infection:

• Sanitize bottles and the nipples before using.
• Bring water that will be used in formula to a boil for two minutes.
• Discard any unused formula after 24 hours and do not make more than you intend to consume as leftovers can develop germs.

Customers who bought the formula in 12.5 ounce cans with the lot number ZP1K7G may return them for a refund or exchange.

If your child has been injured due to negligence of others you need an experienced St. Louis personal injury attorney on your side. For a free consultation, call our Missouri injury lawyers today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Baby formula pulled from shelves after Missouri infant's death," by Blythe Bernhard, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Wrongful Death Laws in Missouri - Can a Claim be Made if a Pregnant Woman loses her Baby?
Wrongful Death Suit Filed Against Katie's Kids Learning Center Daycare

The general rule in Missouri is that a property owner is not legally responsible for injuries caused from a 3rd party criminal attacker just because the attack occurred on their property. However, in many situations such a duty can be establish through assumption of that duty by the property or business owner. Additionally, other factors and situations can create the duty, subjects for another article. This article focuses of assumption of a duty in Missouri negligent security cases. For information on special relationships and other law on negligent security cases see: Legal Elements and Issues Related to 3rd Pary Criminal Act Personal Injury cases in Missouri - Special Relationship or Circumstances Must Exist

Liability for 3rd Party Criminal Attack through Assumption of the Duty:

Under Missouri law a business or property owner can be legally liable, under a negligent security theory, for injuries resulting from a third party criminal attack if that business or property owner voluntarily assumed the duty to protect its invitees from criminal attacks and did not carry out that assumed duty with reasonable care. The assumption of the duty to provide security under Missouri law was established in 1990 by the Keenan v. Miriam Foundation case, which is still good law today.

Under the Keenan v Miriam Foundation case, a plaintiff does not have to establish prior violent crime as the Defendant assumed the duty, that assumption establishes the duty without prior violent crime, which is only required when the duty is established as a matter of law, not by assumption. Keenan adopted the Restatement 2nd of Torts approach, stating:

"One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person or his things, for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking, if

(a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm,
or
(b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person,
or
(c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking."

Therefore, even without prior violent crime the property owner knew or should have known about, they can assume the duty to provide security. If they assume that duty they must carry out that duty in a reasonable way.

A current case our injury law firm is handling arises out a of a violent sexual assault in St Louis that occurred at an apartment complex in north county. For background facts of the case see injury law article: Premise Liability - St Louis Missouri - Defective and Unmaintained Security Doors - Rape of woman inside her own apartment. In this case the St Louis apartment complex owner bought the apartment buildings about ten years prior to the assault. The evidence is that when the the property was bought all of the security doors and locks were in good working order and that the owner's intention was to keep them in working order - ASSUMPTION OF THE DUTY! The problem occurred because the owner did not maintain those security doors and locks and allowed the majority of them to go into serious disrepair.

Related Articles:

Missouri Waiver of Personal Injury From Future Negligence Clauses in Apartment Lease Contracts - Are they Enforceable?

$54 Million Verdict - Premises Liability - Security Failure - 3rd Party Criminal Action

Continue reading "Missouri Law on Suing a Property Owner for Negligent Security after a Criminal Attack - Assumption of the Duty" »

Property damage pictures depicting the damage to the vehicles involved in the Missouri car crash are often helpful for the Plaintiff, especially when the damage is significant. However, oftentimes the damage appears to be very minor or even non existent, yet the driver or passenger still suffered injuries. In this situation the insurance defense lawyer will try to use the pictures to argue to a jury that the collision could not have caused the Plaintiff's injuries. This can be very powerful evidence for the defense, and a good car accident injury lawyer must be prepared to challenge these arguments.

How to Combat the Argument of No Damage to Car = Little or No Injury?

1. Argue that the Pictures Should be Excluded from Trial:

During a Missouri personal injury trial, the decision to exclude the pictures is within the discretion of the trial judge, however there is some helpful Missouri case law to make a good argument to the judge the pictures should be excluded, especially if you anticipate the defense will specifically argue minor damages means low impact and little or no injury without the support of expert testimony.

In the absence of expert testimony addressing the relationship between vehicle damage and severe injury, there is no foundation for the admission of property damage evidence. Interpreting the force of an impact from vehicle photographs and then assessing the likelihood of injury from such impact are tasks that can only be attempted by experts. The admission of property damage evidence would lead to unsupported and prejudicial speculation by the jury.

In order to present testimony that the forces of impact were not sufficient to cause certain personal injuries, at least one and possibly two experts would be required. First, a properly qualified expert would have to testify to the nature of the forces involved. Next, an expert would have to provide testimony concerning the nature of the injury based on the forces which were exerted.

In these situations all property damage evidence should be excluded because it lacks probative value to any element of the case and, assuming arguendo, that such evidence would have probative value, any probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and that the jury would be misled to speculate on items not within the evidence.

This argument the issue has never been specifically addressed by the Missouri Supreme Court, but similar cases have been discussed, see Boland v Jando,414 S.W.2d 560 (1967).

This precise issue has been decided by the Superior Court of New Jersey in Brenman v. Demello, 892 A.2d 741 (N.J. Super. 2006), the Delaware Supreme Court in Davis v. Maute, 770 A.2d 36 (Del. 2001), and DiCosola v. Bowman, 342 Ill.App.3d 530, 794 N.E.2d 875 (2003)

These cases have held that without expert testimony it was reversible error to admit property damage evidence and allow defense counsel to argue that a serious injury could not have resulted from such a minor collision.

2. Tried and Tested Counter Arguments:

Sometimes judges allow defense lawyers to make the argument despite lack of expert testimony and the cases above. When this occurred in a case I handled a few years back before the insurance defense lawyer even had an opportunity to make his insinuations, I addressed it with the jury immediately.

This particular case involved a St Louis rear end car accident where the at fault driver drove an old Cadillac with a steel bumper which hit my client's vehicle when she failed to stop for a red light. The steel bumper hit my client's trailer hitch, thus little damage was apparent despite a bent trailer hitch.

Effective arguments: comparing the auto collision to a tuning fork, as the energy from the collision was not absorbed by the vehicle's body but the energy was transferred directly to the frame of the vehicle and to the driver's body, causing injury. No absorption of the impact as is seen with modern car crunch zones and even formula one racing cars. They are built to shatter as to absorb the energy of the impact.

If you do not have the direct frame impact argument, there are also videos out there showing slow motion very low impact collisions (less then 10 miles per hour) and the effect on the human body. Quite dramatic. Make sure in any doctor depositions you ask if the doctor will testify to low impact being able to cause significant injury.

Continue reading "Role of Property Damage Pictures in Missouri Car Accident Injury Trials" »

Previously, we have discussed the recent ban on CDL driver's (commercial drivers of trucks and buses) from using hand held cell phones while driving. See "Truck and Bus Drivers' Use of Hand Held Cell Phones while Driving Banned". Now the winds are indicating that a ban, even more strict than this one, is being pushed for on a federal level and covering all drivers, not just commercial drivers, and even proposing a ban on cell phone use via Bluetooth. See US News: "US calls for ban on in-car phone use ... even with Bluetooth".

As a practicing St Louis injury lawyer handling all types of cases including Missouri car accident cases, I often do see cell phone use as a contributing factor in accidents. In fact, a few years ago I began routinely requesting or subpoenaing cell phone records for all defendant drivers to see if they were using there cell phone at the time of the car crash. However, banning 100% of all cell phone use and mandating car manufacturers and electronics manufactures to come up with ways to disable cell phones while a car is in motion is simply taking this too far.

"NTSB also urged consumer electronics manufacturers to figure out a way to "disable the functions of portable electronic devices within reach of the driver when a vehicle is in motion"

In support of this push the NTSB stated "no text, no call, no update is worth a human life." I can think of a dozen other things we can completely ban in society because a human life may be lost. Airline travel, recreational sports, medical treatment for non life threatening illness, highway construction, space travel ..... There is a risk versus utility analysis they are completely overlooking.

What is wrong with drawing the line at texting? and requiring hands free phone use, doesn't that solve the problem? I personally think the recommendation by the NTSB will never be enacted, it is too strict, can never be enforced effectively, and the political support may never be there. Personal responsibility and encouragement to use cell phones safely is the answer, not draconian mandates.

Appropriate Steps if You are Injured on the Job

Millions of people are injured while performing work-related duties each year. If you become one of them, there are certain steps that you need to take to ensure that your rights are protected should you need to file a personal injury claim or apply for Worker's Compensation benefits. Though specific requirements will vary by state, there are four important steps to take if you are injured on the job (for work comp and personal injury claims) or performing work-related duties:

Get Medical Treatment

See St Louis Injury Lawyer blog article, Choice of Doctor Under Missouri Workers' Compensation. The first thing you should do is tend to your injury, especially if it is severe. Apply first aid on the scene, if necessary, then see a doctor. If your injuries are severe, see a doctor immediately. Even if your injuries seem minor, you should protect yourself by getting an independent evaluation by a qualified physician. Be sure to tell the doctor that your injury was sustained on the job, and remind him or her of this fact on follow-up visits if they are required. Your employer may also require that you visit an approved physician. If this is the case, be sure to make an appointment with one of these physicians and bring your medical records if necessary.

Report Your Injury

It is always best to tell your supervisor about your work-related injury as soon as possible. Communicate the details of the injury in person, preferably immediately following the injury, then follow up with a written report. If you have to file a claim later, a written document will provide proof that you notified your supervisor. No such proof is available if you have only make a verbal report, and your supervisor could deny your claim. State laws require that you report your injury within a certain time frame in order to qualify for compensation or other claims. A typical time frame is 30 days, but some allow a longer time period. The sooner you report your injury, the better.

Talk to an Attorney

A personal injury attorney can advise you about whether your injury entitles you to compensation or other claims. An attorney can also ensure that your rights are protected and can advise you on how to proceed with discussions with your employer, making decisions about continued working conditions, arranging for medical care, and more. If you have to file a Worker's Compensation claim or other legal claim, an attorney can assist you.

Keep Records

Be sure that you document all the circumstances surrounding your injury: all visits for medical treatment, discussions with your supervisor, discussions with your attorney, claims filed and so on. Maintaining proper records can provide proof for your claim and ensure that you are not denied any benefits based on technicalities.

Of course, a qualified personal injury attorney is your best resource if you are ever injured on the job. Set up a consultation immediately if you are injured for tailored advice on how to proceed with getting treatment, communicating with your supervisor, and filing any necessary claims.

Amanda Tradwick is a grant researcher and writer for CollegeGrants.org. She has a bachelor's degrees from the University of Delaware, and has recently finished research on teaching grants and student grants in maine.