As St Louis injury attorneys, we have handled multiple cases involving Missouri and Illinois product liability, Missouri and Illinois failure to warn lawsuits, and injury lawsuits because of unsafe toys or when toys are used in a way that is foreseeable and not warned about.

Missouri injury lawsuit - Dangerous Toy - Severe Personal Injury

Illinois wrongful death lawsuit - Dangerous Machine Product - Workplace Injury / Death

St Louis Personal Injury Lawsuit - Dangerous Toy caused Eye Injury

Illinois product liability lawyer filed lawsuit - Dangerous Product

Of course, the AMA and other tort reform groups immediately criticize the decision as damaging the quality and access to health care for all. It is easy to deny victims justice through "tort reform" until you have been one, I guarantee, none of those proponents have ever had a family member or close friend who has been a victim of malpractice, because their tune would change very quickly.

The Court made a very logical and reasonable decision concluding that the caps violated the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution because the legislature cannot make case-by-case determinations, separations of powers concerns would be violated by the “legislative attempt to mandate legal conclusions.”

There are already mechanisms to prevent frivolous lawsuits and excessive awards through judiciary powers on a case by case basis, they are called, motions to dismiss, summary judgments, a jury, remittitur, etc ...

The courts are constitutionally empowered, and indeed obligated, to reduce excessive verdicts where appropriate in light of the evidence adduced in a particular case. But reducing damages by operation of law, without regard to the specific circumstances, is unconstitutional. Quite frankly, many legislators and tort reform groups will not be happy until medical malpractice cases are completely barred, which is one of the main purposes behind the caps.

Of course, the AMA and other tort reform groups immediately criticize the decision as damaging the quality and access to health care for all. It is easy to deny victims justice through "tort reform" until you have been one, I guarantee, none of those proponents have ever had a family member or close friend who has been a victim of malpractice, because their tune would change very quickly.

The Court made a very logical and reasonable decision concluding that the caps violated the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution because the legislature cannot make case-by-case determinations, separations of powers concerns would be violated by the “legislative attempt to mandate legal conclusions.”

There are already mechanisms to prevent frivolous lawsuits and excessive awards through judiciary powers on a case by case basis, they are called, motions to dismiss, summary judgments, a jury, remittitur, etc ...

The courts are constitutionally empowered, and indeed obligated, to reduce excessive verdicts where appropriate in light of the evidence adduced in a particular case. But reducing damages by operation of law, without regard to the specific circumstances, is unconstitutional. Quite frankly, many legislators and tort reform groups will not be happy until medical malpractice cases are completely barred, which is one of the main purposes behind the caps.

Illinois Medical Malpractice Caps Unconstitutional - RELATED ARTICLES:

Chicago Sun Times - State Medical Malpractice Caps Unconstitutional

Medical Malpractice Caps Are Not the Answer - Chicago Tribune

While drunk driving related Traumatic Brain Injuries are high there are measures that can be taken to prevent such incidents, the most important being don’t drive when impaired by alcohol or any other mind altering substance. Drunk driving is illegal in all 50 states and due to the recent increased enforcement of these laws TBI incidences have been on the decline. Nonetheless precautions should always be taken to reduce the likelihood of a drunk driving accident.

July 2008, a California ER doctor was driving to work and apparently caused two cyclists to wreck their bikes, seriously injuring them. One biker had to have 90 stitches to put his face back together and the other one also had to undergo surgery for his injuries. Bicycle accident attorneys and cyclists all over the globe have been chiming in on this case since it began. I have read countless articles and blogs on this case and it seems to come down to two questions....did he have road rage and did he “slam on his brakes”? Intention. The good doctor says he did not – on both accounts – though his 911 call kinda says otherwise.

As usual, a couple of points bother me about this case. One: because of either the idiot doctor or the idiot cyclists – or a combination of the two - we are all now going to have even more laws crammed down our throats. Superior Court Judge Scott T. Millington described this as “a wake-up call” and suggested that the “Government must be made aware of the dangerous conditions existing in our city streets and the threat of injury to cyclists”. Government is aware – that is why we have the laws we do such as mayhem, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. By the way, these are the same charges Dr. Thompson was convicted of. If the doctor did in fact “slam on his breaks” to “teach them a lesson” (a quote he later denies saying) then he should have been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon etc. – as California law states. If he was simply aggravated because, once again, cyclist were not following the laws - ultimately putting drivers and their passengers lives at stake - and decided to stop to obtain names/photographs, by which causing a horrible accident – with no malice - does that merit 5 years in prison? I’m not going to bring in drug dealers and OJ at this point. The prosecutor in this case dramatically ended her examination of Thompson by stating, “you could have drove on, but you didn’t”. Even I can think of a thousand counterarguments as to why that really has nothing to do with the situation – other than for a dramatic feel good effect – but she does have a point on the “be a responsible grown up” argument.

Two: “share the road” does not only apply to drivers of motor vehicles. It is supposed to include all transportation devices. The fact that “pedestrians have the right away” does not give me greater freedom to walk whenever and wherever I please. I still have to be cautious and abide by the rules, a.k.a. laws. Unfortunately, some cyclists’ sense of entitlement, which enrages most vehiclists’ sense of driving, has tainted the injured parties claim. They admittedly were not obeying the laws. They ticked off a guy who, at least in the beginning, was obeying the laws, and a horrible accident was the outcome. Are the cyclists not just a bit responsible simply because they were injured?

I drove a motorcycle for years. It was a love/hate thing. I loved the bike but hated the motorist that thought since they were bigger, they could push me around. Most drivers just do not pay attention. In fact, they believe that it is mainly the responsibility of the two-wheelers to watch out for everyone else. Most drivers think that because it is on two wheels, as opposed to four, it can move out of the way faster. Not necessarily true – nor necessarily the point. Most drivers are more likely to exhibit road rage against bikers rather than vice versa. This is ironic, considering bikers are more likely to die when they get hit by drivers rather than vice versa. Ultimately, vehicles do not “share the road” either. Every day, driving to and from work, we see evidence of this. Again, the childish entitlement and arrogance that says you have more of a right to get home faster, be in that lane first and are more important than someone on two wheels yields devastating results.

As a two-wheelin member of society, you have rights. You have access to an experienced bike accident personal injury attorney when those rights are violated. You also have to obey the laws. Vehicles – mind your P’s and Q’s. When you bump a biker, it hurts them and ultimately you a lot more than having to patiently wait an extra minute or two, to pass.

(1) Special Relationship or Circumstances:

As stated above, for a Missouri personal injury claim based on landowner liability for the criminal act of another, there must be a special relationship or circumstances between the landowner and the victim. The special circumstances or relationship are decided by the court, not the jury, and are based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Examples of how a special relationship established between apartment owner and tenant or guest for a Missouri personal injury claim for injuries arising from third party criminal act:

(A) Landlord made contractual or other representations or assurances to the tenant concerning security;
(B) Landlord had notice of potential danger because there have been previous instances of crimes of similar character on the premises;
(C) Landlord exposed the tenant to an enhanced risk of crime, and the landlord had notice of the risk due to the past instances of crime;
(D) Landlord retained the right to exclusive control of the security mechanism (i.e. outer security doors, window locks, other reasonable and ordinary security measures.)
(E) Landlord was negligent in maintaining the door and lock through which Plaintiff’s assailants gained access to her residence.

Missouri injury cases discussing special relationship or circumstances:

Stubbs v. Panek, 829 S.W.2d 544 (Mo Ct App. W.D. 1992)
Missouri personal injury case for third party criminal act involving a landlord/tenant relationship. A duty existed as the landlord retained the right to control the security door and was notified of its need for repair.

Brown v National Supermarkets Inc., 679 S.W.2d 307 (Mo. Ct App. E.D. 1984)
St Louis personal injury lawsuit for third party criminal act and injury occurring in business parking lot.

Vittengal v. Fox, 967 S.W.2d 269 (Mo App W.D. 1998)
Missouri personal injury claim from third party criminal act, in this case the court of appeals decided no special relationship was established based on the facts of the case and landowner was not liable for assault. I agree with this case finding, the landowner simply could not be expected to prevent this criminal act, under the facts of the case the Missouri personal injury lawyer simply could not plead facts proving there was faulty security or other negligence by the landlord.

Aaron v Havens, 758 S.W.2d 446 (Mo 1998)
St Louis personal injury case wherein the court found a special relationship because the fire escape allowed a criminal to climb up to a window and balcony doors, both which had faulty latches and locks. There was evidence that the landlord had knowledge of these conditions and failed to act.

Oftentimes, personal injury claims can be settled favorably prior to a personal injury lawsuit needing to be filed. However, this is an example of a case that the insurance company and I cannot agree on the amount of damages as I believe strongly that my client's several painful nasal surgeries, past and future pain and suffering, and loss of his sense of smell are much more valuable than what they want to pay.

Therefore, personal injury lawyer Ben Sansone of Sansone Law in St Louis Missouri, recently filed a MacCoupin County Illinois products liability claim against the manufacturer of the log splitter and other parties involved in the design and marketing of the defective product. A detailed list of the defective designs making this log splitter a dangerous product when put to a reasonably anticipated use are laid out in our Illinois products liability complaint, described here.

Other examples of personal injury product liability / dangerous product cases our firm has handled or is currently handling:

Illinois Wrongful Death Lawsuit - Products Liability, Illinois Wrongful Death Claim, and Illinois Workers Compensation

Illinois Wrongful Death and Products Liability Lawyer - Work Related Death leads to Illinois Worker's Compensation Case and Products Liability Personal Injury Lawsuit

St Louis Missouri Products Liability Lawsuit - Eye Injury - Caused by Unsafe Toy Manufactured in China

There are many arguments in favor of the caps, mainly a hatred for trial lawyers based on years of tort reform propaganda. However, a simple fact, trial lawyers are the only group in the United States that represent and fight to protect the rights of the future injured. People that have never experienced medical malpractice are not concerned about those rights, as people do not foresee themselves as ever having that problem and buy into the tort reform propaganda of doctors fleeing, insurance rates increasing, and trial lawyers bringing merit-less cases. If a personal injury lawyer brings a merit-less case they will soon be out of business, as those cases are thrown out of court or lose in front of a jury, costing the personal injury lawyer tens of thousands in out of pocket expenses and 1000s of hours of lost time they will not be compensated for. Any good persoanl injury lawyer only pursues legitimate cases.

I cannot tell you the countless times people, that have generally though of themselves as for tort reform, that experience death or serious injury in their family as a result of medical negligence, very quickly change their tune, realize the inequities of the current system in Missouri, and get very angry. The life of a spouse, child, or parent is now capped at $350,000, that is what Missouri legislature says your family member's life is worth. On top of that, if the Missouri medical malpractice insurance company is looking at a worst case scenario of $350,000, they will fight legitimate cases tooth and nail, as the risk of financial loss has now just flown out the window. As all Missouri medical malpractice insurance policies are at least $500,000 but the vast majority are 1 Million or more per Missouri law.

Finally, 4 years after the institution of the caps, the Missouri Supreme Court will hear a case challenging the constitutionality of those caps. See: Post dispatch Article of 12/6/2009 by Tony Messenger - "Limits to jury damage awards to be debated by Missouri Supreme Court". In his article the arguments over the caps and sample cases are laid out in detail. I refer you to this article as I could write dozens of pages discussing this Missouri personal injury topic.