Missouri Injury Law Blog

Recently Illinois personal injury lawyer Ben Sansone settled a Collinsville Illinois motorcycle crash for $260,000.00, which represented the full amount of auto insurance coverage available, a combination of liability insurance and "UIM" Coverage - Under-Insured Motorist Coverage. The car-bike collision was the result of an intersection accident. The motorcyclist was making a left turn across oncoming lanes of traffic when his bike stalled, he was moving his bike out of the intersection when the driver approaching the intersection did not stop, swerve, or even slow down; clear evidence that she was not paying any attention. The KSDK News report of the Illinois motorcycle accident is here.

The investigation before the prosecution of this case by our motorcycle injury lawyers was crucial as there were at least six witnesses that had to be interviewed. Their recollection of the incident was recorded early on, and supported our negligence claim against the driver.

The investigating officer concluded that the at-fault driver activated her brake only one second before striking the motorcycle and that the driver had adequate time to respond to avoid the collision. The driver was negligent as she chose not to keep an adequate lookout and possibly chose to drive after chemotherapy when her mental alertness was affected by the therapy and medication.

Witness statements supported that the driver violated her duty to keep an adequate lookout as she had ample opportunity to observe the cyclist having stalled in the intersection and attempting to push his bike to safety.

Witness D.G. drove by the intersection in the same direction as the driver, before the motorcyclist made his left turn, no one was driving behind him, saw motorcyclist make a left turn and then have trouble with his bike. Observed him put his foot down and push himself, he then saw the red truck drive around the corner and cause the bike accident him without slowing down.

Witness B.R. saw motorcycle make a left turn, observed engine stall on the motorcycle, saw him pushing the bike with his legs while still seated on the bike and then saw the collision.

Witness M.L. was driving behind the at-fault driver, he saw the motorcycle in plenty of time, slowed down for the motorcycle, but the truck did not and the at-fault driver did not hit the brakes until after running over the motorcycle. The witness was able to see the motorcycle, appreciate the fact he needed to slow down, yet the at-fault driver did not react until after the collision.

Witness M.B. was driving behind the at-fault driver, he had time to observe the motorcycle; he slowed down to avoid a collision. He stated that he yelled "STOP" numerous times before the collision. He stated that in his opinion the at-fault driver was "oblivious" to what was in front of her.

Early investigation was critical to proving the liability in this case. Additionally, the Collinsville Police Department did an excellent job with the accident reconstruction. The liability proof on this case all came down to timing, and it is very important to get witnesses to commit to times, distances, and speeds. Based on the evidence collected we were able to make a strong case that the driver should have seen the motorcycle rider sooner and avoided the collision, despite the fact the driver has a green light and the motorcycle was stalled in the intersection for a short time.

Public safety and the prevention of needless injury and death requires all drivers to pay attention when driving and not to drive when severely fatigued or under the influence of alcohol or even some medications. In this case there was also evidence that the driver recently had chemotherapy, most people know that chemotherapy treatment is very difficult physically and can lead to serious fatigue both physically and mentally.

Related Blog Posts:

Motorcycle Safety & The High Cost of Motorcycle Accidents

Deadly motorcycle accident in Mexico Missouri sparks calls for safety

Continue reading "$260,000.00 Settlement: Collinsville, Illinois Motorcycle Accident " »

As a result of the unconscionable negligence of the employees and agents of the southern Illinois hospital (named confidential per settlement agreement), a routine knee replacement resulted in a patient's life being permanently altered. One nurse, consciously disregarded and otherwise violated numerous patient safety rules which contributed to this accident then took diligent efforts to cover it up by pre-recording or altering the medical records.

When handling medical malpractice cases, injury lawyers oftentimes see the underbelly of the medical profession, the part most people rarely, if ever, see. The lack of empathy and desensitization of human suffering by some medical providers after working in the profession for many years, some turn from caring healthcare providers to factory line workers where patients are just another product running down the conveyor belt. Fortunately, the vast majority of healthcare providers are good doctors and nurses that provide good care for their patients.

One of the reasons I am very proud to be a trial lawyer is that I strongly believe in the American Civil Jury system for enforcing the safety standards of our community. A jury is the enforcer of our societies safety standards and the enforcement of those standards through civil verdicts and settlements helps keep everyone safer. Money is the great motivator fro medical professionals and administration to remember that their number one priority is the safety of their patients and not to become complacent and allow needless and avoidable injury or death occur.

As co-counsel with Illinois injury lawyers Kurt Harris and Devin Jones of the Harris Jones Law Firm in Du Quoin Illinois, we recently settled a case involving nursing neglect for $1.4 Million dollars. The patient was a known aspiration risk, yet the nurses chose to not follow protocol to reduce or prevent aspiration related injury; therefore, due to their choice not to follow procedure, our client aspirated and suffered brain damage. Even more appalling, during patient transfer between diagnostic study and his hospital room, he was left in a storage area for over an hour and was found by his daughter while in severe respiratory distress.

The nurses were incompetent in that they: (1) did not timely diagnose and respond to risk factors known to Increase the likelihood of patient aspiration; (2) did not have procedure for keeping patients located; (3) did not transfer patient to ICU when required; (4) did not properly diagnose and respond to respiratory distress of patient (aspiration); (5) staff failed to consistently follow their aspiration prevention protocol. In addition there was evidence of medical record alteration and attempts to retroactively go back and alter the records to reflect proper procedure was followed.

Illinois medical malpractice lawyer Ben Sansone is an experienced trial lawyer who routinely handles cases from simple car crashes to complex medical negligence cases. If you would like to discuss a potential case we are available for a free consultation to discuss your case. Call us at (314) 863-0500 or contact us online to arrange a free meeting.

If some one causes a car accident that results in an injury, to what extent are they responsible for the injury? What if the injured person sustains further injury through subsequent malpractice by the emergency room doctors? what if they get an infection int he hospital which leads to a much more serious condition than the injury caused in the car accident? Also, what if the person involved in a car accident already had a medical condition which made their injury worse, such a as bad back or recent surgery that had not healed?

Subsequent Injury:

Under Missouri personal injury law, the person that caused the initial injury, also referred to as the original tortfeasor, is legally liable for subsequent injury through negligent medical care. So for example, the original tortfeasor caused a car crash in Missouri, the victim suffered a broken leg and was taken to the hospital where they catch a staph infection or other nasty bug, the original tortfeasor (the negligent driver) is responsible not only for the broken leg but the subsequent infection, regardless if it was caused by medical negligence or not. The only defense to the subsequent infection would be a "failure to mitigate damage defense" basically an accusation that the victim somehow caused the subsequent injury (the infection in this example) themselves or failed to prevent it when they easily could have. So in the infection example, if there is evidence that the victim failed to properly care for their would after being sent home, that could be a defense. But generally subsequent negligence is not a defense and the driver is responsible for injuries, such as infections, that can occur after the car accident.

See Baldwin v. Gaertner, 613 S.W.2d 638, 640 (Mo Banc 1981), stating:

An original tortfeasor may be liable for any additional damages resulting from the negligent treatment of an injury by a physician, but the physician, who has played no part in causing the original injury, will be liable only for the additional harm caused by his or her own negligence in treatment

A case dealing with this issue we currently are handling:

We represent a bike rider that was hit by an O'Reilly AutoParts truck while he was riding on the sidewalk. The bike rider was rehabilitating his knee by bike riding as he had a knee replacement just a few weeks earlier. So when he was hit by the truck his knee was injured much more than if he had a healthy knee. Additionally, while in the hospital repairing his knee injury, he caught a staph infection in his knee which resulted in several weeks spent in the hospital. The truck driver that caused the St Louis bike accident is also responsible for the additional medical treatment from the infection.

Pre-Existing Conditions:

Additionally, many people ask me about a negligent driver's responsibility for a pre-existing condition. Some people feel that if a victim of a car crash already had a pre-existing condition (example, disc herniation and previous back surgery) and the accident makes that condition worse, that the driver should not be responsible because if the victim did not have that pre-existing injury then the accident would not have hurt them as bad. Some people feel that you are responsible for the injury regardless if the victim was more susceptible to injury through a pre-existing condition or not. Under Missouri law they are responsible for the victim regardless if they have a condition that makes them more susceptible to injury than the average person.

Missouri follows the "Eggshell Skull Doctrine" , meaning you take your victim as you find them. The fact they have some condition or pre-existing injury that makes them more susceptible to injury is not a defense. So in the Missouri bike injury case above, the truck driver cannot defend the case by claiming a biker without a recent knee surgery would not have been hurt as badly, additionally, the truck driver cannot claim they are not responsible for the subsequent infection, as it is foreseeable that a hospital admission for a bike injury could result in an infection, even if it is because of medical negligence.

Ben Sansone is an experienced Missouri trial lawyer based in St Louis and handles injury law and accident cases throughout Missouri and Illinois. Call for a FREE CONSULTATION (314) 863-0500 or e-mail us.

If your car ever breaks down please be sure to get it off the side of the road as much as possible. Even with hazard lights, road flares, or strobe lights, inattentive or drunk drivers will still hit cars parked on the shoulder causing severe injuries or even death. As an accomplished injury lawyer, I have handled dozens of cases involving pedestrians hit by passing cars. In my experience, these types of accidents usually happen between 10:00 p.m. and midnight; especially on the weekends. I think for obvious reasons, since this is the time of day that more drivers are intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, thus impairing their ability to see stranded motorists on the side of he road.

Currently, our law firm is handling one such case that resulted in the tragic death of a father of four children. See Wrongful Death Lawsuit - Lewis County, MO. Despite taking safety measures, a man was killed on the side of the highway. Cortez Robinson's car broke down late at night in December 2012, he moved the car off the road as far as possible onto the shoulder, turned the hazards on, and was standing outside near the car. This stretch of Highway 6, about 2 miles West of Lewistown, Missouri, is straight and visibility is good. Despite his hazard lights being on and good visibility, a driver passing by struck the vehicle and Mr. Robinson, killing him and severely injuring another pedestrian by forcing the car into her body. See Article in Kirksville Missouri Daily Express: KV man killed in Lewis County crash. Additionally, the preliminary crash report from the Missouri Highway Patrol is available here.

As mentioned above, our law firm is representing the four surviving children ages 1 to 8. We believe the driver was negligent and at fault for by not keeping a proper lookout, even if the disabled car was partially in the westbound lane, she still should have seen it in plenty of time to avoid the collision with a parked car. It is foreseeable on the roadway that other vehicles may break down or pull over to the side for whatever reason. I am sure we have all encountered vehicles pulled over on the road while driving down the highway, most of us do the responsible thing of first paying attention enough to see the car and then move our vehicles away form the shoulder to give the vehicle and the people in or around it as much room as reasonably possible.

Since the children whose father was killed in the wrongful death accident are all minors, the case is still brought in their name, however, the court must appoint a "next friend" to make decisions on behalf of the minors. Typically, the "next friend" is a parent or guardian, usually the natural mother or father. In this case, we have asked the court to appoint the natural mother of the children as the "next friend". This is a formality to protect the minor children. Additionally, to also protect the minor children, any settlement involving a car crash death and minor children must be approved by the court. The court will assure that the judgment or settlement money goes to the benefit of the minors and put in a protective account that will benefit the children and prevent the parents or other adults from squandering the assets. This is referred to a minor settlement approval hearing.

Related Blog Posts:

Pedestrian Deaths on the Rise

St. Louis Child Dead and Another Injured After Hit-and-Run

Multiple Deaths in Illinois Bus Accident

Continue reading "Lewis County Missouri - Wrongful Death Car Accident involving Stranded Motorist on Side of Highway 6" »

Recently we settled a Missouri auto accident case that was caused by a distracted driver with allegations of drug use. We represented the passenger that was injured after the driver lost control of the pickup truck and ran off the road.

But the driver did not have his own auto insurance; Permissive Use?

The driver was the passenger's "friend" and did not have his own auto insurance to cover the injuries sustained by the passenger. However, the car he was driving was not owned by him but was owned by the passenger's grandfather. The grandson had permission to drive the car and let his friend drive. Therefore, under Missouri insurance law, the grandfather's insurance policy covers the at fault driver because the negligent driver is what is considered a permissive use driver. So the coverage purchased by the owner of the car is available for the injured passenger to collect from for his injuries that were caused by the negligence of the "permissive use" driver. Permissive use coverage is diffident than liability for negligent entrustment. For discussion about negligent entrustment see: Illinois Drunk Driving Car Crash - Negligent Entrustment.

See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Scheel, 973 S.W.2d 560 (Ct App WD 1998) stating:

The requirement of "permissive use" of a motor vehicle in an omnibus or non-owned vehicle clause of an automobile insurance policy to limit liability coverage is a question of fact which may be satisfied by a showing of either express or implied permission. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Ricks, 902 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Ct App ED 1995)

What if the Driver has his own insurance and the car owner has insurance?

In the same case above, assuming the driver had his own insurance as well, there may be additional insurance coverage for the hurt car crash passenger. Both insurance policies may apply, but it depends on the amount of coverage under each policy and if the insurance policies have valid and enforceable "set-off" or "other insurance" clauses. a few scenarios that could occur are outlined below:

1. The Owner's and the Driver's Auto Insurance have the same coverage amounts:

If the owner and driver both have, for example, $25,000 in liability coverage then the passenger may be limited to just $25,000 total if the policies have valid and enforceable set-off or other insurance clauses. These insurance contract clauses basically say they are not liable to the extent "other insurance" covers the driver's liability. If they do not have these clauses or they are poorly written, the injured passenger may have $25,000 from each policy available, thus $50,000 in total insurance coverage.

In Missouri the case of Zemelman v. Equity Mut. Ins. Co., 935 S.W.2d 673 (Mo. App. WD 1996) discussed "set off" and "other insurance" clauses. In that case the Court read the policy's UIM "set-off" provision against the policy's "other insurance" provision and found it ambiguous because the language described the UIM as "excess over any other collectible insurance." In 2004, we successfully used the above case to avoid set-off and recover an additional $50,000 for our client injured in a St Louis car crash.

2. The Owner and Driver have Different Coverage Amounts:

If one car insurance policy has more liability coverage then that larger amount is typically available. But you still need to deal with issues of set-off. Example, policy #1 has $100,000 in coverage and policy #2 has $50,000 in coverage. A good Missouri car accident lawyer will try and pursue the full amount of each policy, or $150,000. However, many insurance companies now have enforceable set-off clauses, meaning the larger policy can set-off the smaller policy's payment of $50,000; therefore, the total amount recoverable is just the amount of the larger policy, or $100,000 in this example.

What Insurance Applies to My Case?

All cases are different and dozens of critical issues must be discussed and analyzed to ensure a maximum recovery for anyone injured in a car wreck. Insurance coverage is just one of many issues to address. Contact a good car wreck lawyer sooner rather than later. Call us for a free consultation and no fee unless we win. (314) 863-0500 or contact a lawyer online.

I read a bike safety article many years ago that described the top 10 causes of bike accidents, and since then it has aided my assessment of bike injury cases and assessing cases as a bicycle accident lawyer. One common cause of bike-car accident is "The Door Prize", which has been reported as the second most common type of bike accident caused by cars. The door prize is when a driver opens their door in front of you and you run right into it, because you cannot stop in time or traffic does not allow you to swerve out of the way.

How to avoid The Door Prize:

Ride far enough to the left that you will not run into a door that is flung open by an unassuming motorist. Remember, most drivers look for other cars and trucks, not bicycles and they either don't notice or don't care about bike riders. Some cyclists do not like to follow the above advice because it requires them to ride too far into the traffic lane and cars cannot pass you as easily. I understand you are trading one danger for another, but I believe it is safer to ride into the lane where you are in the driver's line of sight rather than to ride next to parked cars that are not looking back for you when they open their door. If you can, try to pay attention to which cars are occupied and then shift out when approaching that car.

Recently, we settled a car-bike accident case for the auto insurance policy limits. Our cyclist client was just a casual cyclist out for an easy ride on the side of Manchester Rd in Maplewood, Missouri. Along his path he had to pass a few cars that were parked on the side of the road, one person who was in the driver's seat of one of the parked cars, flung her door open right when my client was passing causing him to smack into the door and fly off his bike injuring his shoulder.

Bicycle safety is a lot like motorcycle safety, you need to constantly scan the road several seconds ahead of you and anticipate what unaware driver may do, adjust to the potential problems, and be ready to take evasive maneuvers if necessary. The disproportionate potential for serious injury to a bicyclist or motorcyclist compared with a car or truck driver requires that you have this level of alertness and caution. Hopefully over the next years or decades the bike advocacy groups will continue to make changes to the bike laws and continue to raise pubic awareness of everyone's' right to use the road, motor-vehicles and bikes alike. Even once that occurs, there will always be drivers that do not pay adequate attention to bike riders, You must be responsible for your safety,and take necessary precautions.

Even when all the reasonable safety precautions are taken bike riders still get hit by cars and trucks. We offer free consultations on all personal injury cases including bike injury cases. Call us for a no obligation discussion with a lawyer at (314) 863-0500.

In June 2011, Clarence was spending time with his grandson. Around 1:50 p.m. in the afternoon, in House Springs, Missouri, they were driving in Clarence's pickup truck on Route MM a few tenths of a mile from its intersection with Miller Road. Another driver, Aureliano Correa-Garcia, was driving a VW Jetta Westbound on Route MM when he crossed the center line and drove down the wrong side of the road, causing ahead on car accident with Clarence and his grandson.

After investigation, the reporting police officer concluded the collision was Mr Garcia's fault, noting probable contributing circumstances as "Wrong Side (not passing)" and "Physical Impairment". At trial, the police officer's conclusions or opinions are not admissible as evidence. The jury can only hear the evidence of what he was told or observed, then the jury decides who was at fault.

There was no evidence of physical impairment other than the officer's statement of it being a factor, thus at this point, no evidence that can be used at trial. As part of our legal investigation of the car accident, we ran a full criminal background check of the other driver and found that he plead guilty to a DWI several years before. This does not mean he was drinking at the time of this Jefferson county car accident, however, we used it as a negotiating position to infer we had evidence he was drunk at the time of the accident. Based on the injuries sustained by the driver and passenger and our position on impairment, we were able to settle the case for all the insurance available, $150,000, which was a high value for this case. We were able to settle for this amount within a few months and without having to file a Jefferson County car accident lawsuit. Saving our clients time and money.

Sample from demand letter regarding DWI:

"On April 24, 2010, your insured plead guilty to and was convicted of DWI in St Louis County, case # 09SL-MU00989. Even though this DWI was not related to the collision at hand, under Missouri law prior convictions are admissible to attack the credibility of your insured. By implication, an argument could be made that your insured was under the influence of drugs or alcohol when the collision occurred."

In the current legal environment, auto insurance companies are generally taking hard line positions on Missouri car accident and injury cases. They are taking the position of settling for only medical bills (after adjustment down to only consider what insurance paid not total bill) plus a few thousand for pain and suffering. See Missouri Personal Injury Trial Evidence: Bills "Paid" versus "Charged". this is assuming they admit 00% liability on behalf of their insured driver.

Whenever there is any evidence of aggravating factors, such as: speeding, DWI, texting while driving, cell phone, etc ... that issue must be addressed and highlighted to make the car accident case not just about simple negligence, but a case of carelessness and recklessness causing needless personal injury. This approach adds value to every case as insurance companies know jurors will sometimes forgive mistakes (simple negligence) but will be more receptive to carelessness beyond mere mistakes and even more receptive to reckless behavior that endangers everyone.

If injured in a Missouri or Illinois car accident, contact the injury trial lawyers of Sansone / Lauber today. Contact us online or call us for a free consultation at (314) 863-0500.

Last year during a snow storm in St. Louis, my client was involved in a truck accident when she was ran off the road by a MoDOT snow plow on Highway I-270 in St Louis county. She was driving her car in the far right hand lane since she was going slow due to the weather. A snow plow came up behind her, sideswiped her car, and then kept on going and left her stranded on the side of the road.

The truck accident left several large orange paint streaks down the side of the victim's car. The pain was the same orange color as the snow plow orange. The reporting officer noted the orange paint and was unable to reach MoDOT for any response. The victim retained our St Louis accident attorneys and we were able to get MoDOt to admit that the snow plow in the area of the accident that night was reported as being damaged on the right side of the snow plow. Damage completely consistent with the auto accident our client reported.

Our client sustained injuries to her neck and back, reported to the emergency room and then followed up with her family doctor and received physical therapy for a few months. The victim fully recovered and incurred about $10,000 in total medical bills. Prior to filing a lawsuit MoDOT agreed to settle the truck injury claim for $85,000.00.

Personally, I was very pleased with the outcome of this case, we were able to get my client all the medical treatment she needed to fully and completely recover and then settle her case for over 8 times the amount of the medical bills without having to file a lawsuit. The victim int his case was a past client of ours, therefore, she knew to contact us immediately after being involved in an auto accident. Retaining an accident lawyer early on in your case is critical to successful and very favorable recoveries.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Alton Illinois cyclist Killed by Semi-Trailer Truck

Truck Accident Causation - Critical Factors

Continue reading "$85,000.00 Settlement against MoDOT for St Louis Snow Plow Collision " »

Recently, St Louis injury law firm Sansone / Lauber secured a $760,000.00 settlement for our client who was sexually assaulted in her apartment. See Defective and Poorly Maintained Security Doors.

The parties involved in the settlement are being kept confidential to protect the identity of our client, however, I can say that the defendant was a St Louis area apartment owner that we maintained had knowledge of the crime levels in the area based on crime statistics available to them and reported crimes at the apartment complex. Despite the levels of crime the property owner allowed the common area security doors to remain in disrepair despite consistent complaints by the tenants.

Unfortunately, as a result of the inoperable security doors, a criminal was able to easily and quickly obtain access to our client's apartment making her an easy target for burglary and sexual assault. Several witnesses testified to the poor conditions and upkeep of the common area security doors as well as the apartment front doors and to the crime level in the neighborhood as well. There were constant complaints to management regarding the conditions and security concerns. Some issues were dealt with for temporary resolution and many issues were simply ignored. Several assaults and robberies took place against tenants and food delivery drivers.

In order to have a claim against a property owner, there must not only be a criminal act that causes injury, you must first establish a legal duty on the property owner to protect you from that criminal act.

ESTABLISHING A LEGAL DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY:

DUTY AS A MATTER OF LAW: Under Aaron v Havens.pdf there is a duty as a matter of law on a landlord to keep the common areas safe. In the Aaron case where a rape occurred after access by the intruder up the fire escape and through an unlocked apartment window the court stated "[i]f a private apartment can be entered through a window, injury to the occupants is foreseeable."

The scope of admissible evidence under Aaron is broad. Therein the Court held: "it is not necessary to allege that past crimes involving entry into unauthorized places are of the same general nature as the one which gave rise to the claim. If a burglar may enter, so may a rapist. To find a duty only the incidence of harm, not necessarily the quantum need be foreseeable."

In our case, we argued the Arron case applied as the building security doors and the apartment front doors were controlled by the owner according to the undisputed testimony of the witnesses. Thus, it is common area and according to Aaron there is a duty as a matter of law. Additionally, in our case the owner breached the duty by providing the locked doors and barely attempting to maintain them through cheap temporary fixes.

DUTY ESTABLISHED BY SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS:

If the duty is not established as a matter of law, a duty can be imposed on a land owner based on special relationships. For a detailed discussion of the special relationships duty see Legal Elements and Issues Related to 3rd Pary Criminal Act Personal Injury cases in Missouri.

RELATED BLOG POSTS:

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

Negligent Security - is the Starbucks Tip Jar Lawsuit a Good Case?

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

Continue reading "$760,000.00 Settlement - St Louis Negligent Security resulting in Sexual Assault" »

Recently we settled a negligent hydraulic hose repair and thumb injury case pending in Perry County Missouri. The thumb injury occurred as the result of a hydraulic tractor hose that sprung a small leak and shot a very thin and strong stream of hydraulic fluid into my client's thumb. Hydraulic oil injection injuries are deceiving because the injury seems minor at first, however, the hydraulic oil is very toxic and quickly causes injury to spread.

A hydraulic fluid injection injury is probably the most dangerous injury that can result from a hydraulic hose failure. Mainly because the injury appears benign at first, so the injured person often dismisses it and no urgent medical care is sought. Injected hydraulic oil is highly toxic, so in addition to the physical, and often appearing minor, physical cut, the oil literally poisons you.

The most important things to remember: NEVER touch a pressurized hose with your hand and if you suspect an injection injury has occured, get to an emergency room right away!

In our case, the victim was the owner of a tractor. One of the tractor's hydraulic hoses became frayed near the end of the hose. The metal mesh under-layer began to show through the thick rubber outer-layer. The owner became concerned about the integrity of the hose and took it to the local hardware store for replacement. While at the hardware store they told him they could repair the hose rather than replace it, they would cut the frayed part off and reattach the hose connector at the end. The repair was made, however, a few inches of the hose still showed some metal coming through; the hardware store employee insisted it was safe and blew into it using his mouth to show no air was leaking through.

The owner reattached the hydraulic hose and within minutes a very strong and needle thin stream of hydraulic fluid came from the frayed area and shot into the owner's thumb.

The hardware store was liable as they represented themselves as a competent and professional hydraulic hose repair and/or replacement shop. The tractor owner relied on the employee's guarantee that the repair was done correctly, despite his concern.

This was a very unique case as hydraulic injuries resulting on negligent repair are very rare and there is little industry literature or material addressing how hydraulic hoses must be repaired. Therefore, the legal theory was a general negligence claim, no established standards or rules were violated, just what we claimed to be general negligence by the hardware store through its employee.

Continue reading "$250,000.00 Settlement: Hydraulic Fluid Injection Injury resulting from Negligent Hose Repair " »

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" »

The heart of most personal injury claims, especially clear liability motor vehicle accidents, is damages. Damages being economic and non-economic; Economic damage is the amount of money required to compensate the Plaintiff for the out of pocket expenses (i.e. medical bills, future medical costs, medicine, lost wages, etc.) See St Louis Personal Injury Attorney Article: Personal Injury Trials: Proving Damages and Arguments to the Jury About Medical Testimony or Lack Thereof Non-economic damages or "pain and suffering" being the amount to make up for or at least balance the past and future harms and losses that the Plaintiff is suffering. Pain and suffering damages are the most important type of damages as they represent the real personal harms and losses an individual suffers; the daily emotional and physical pain an injury can cause. Reality is their is no magic wand available to take those harms and losses away, so money is the only way we have to compensate and make an individual whole or at least balance the harms with compensation.

In a Missouri auto accident injury claim, can the defense (the auto insurance company) argue to a jury that the victim is not hurt as bad as they say they are because the other driver or passengers in the same vehicle were not hurt as bad? I believe the answer to that is no, however depending on the circumstances, some Judges may allow that evidence in for certain purposes. As an experienced St Louis injury lawyer, I address this issue before trial even starts through a Motion in Limine with the Judge, therefore, the Judge can rule on it before trial starts and not in front of the jury, as by that time the bell has already been rung.

Recently, we dealt with a motorcycle accident head injury case, wherein we represented the hurt passenger and the insurance company tried to claim that since the driver was not injured that the passenger was not injured. Not only does this argument make no sense, the law in Illinois is clear that argument cannot be made in front of a jury. "Generally. the details about the nature and severity of personal injuries to non litigants in automobile cases are not admissible." Martin v. Sally, 341 Ill. App. 3d 308, 318 (2nd Dist. 2003) (refusing to allow testimony regarding passenger injuries) (quoting Keil v. McCormick, 5 Ill. App. 3d 523, 526 (2nd Dist. 1972), concluding that reference in opening statement and subsequent testimony to lack of injuries to the defendant the two occupants of her vehicle, and the occupant of the plaintiffs vehicle was error. The issue involved was the injury to the plaintiff not the fact that the defendant and her passengers, in a different automobile were not injured."). See also, Vujovich v. Chicago Trans. Auth, 6 Ill. App. 2d 115, 126 N.E.2d 731 (1st Dist. 1955).

In J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. v. General Motors Corp, 243 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2001), the district court excluded evidence of the minor injuries of the driver of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding in the front passenger seat. ld. at 445. The plaintiff argued that the driver's injuries proved that the seat of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding failed, given the fact that both of the vehicle's occupants were subjected to the same impact. Id. The Eighth Circuit determined that evidence of the driver's injuries was correctly excluded, explaining:

"We cannot say that [the driver's] injuries could be considered either substantially similar evidence or relevant to [the plaintiff's] injuries. First, it was undisputed that [the driver], unlike [the plaintiff], was wearing her seatbelt at the time of the accident. Second, because [the driver] was driving, she was able to anchor herself by grasping the steering wheel, which may have alleviated some of the impact. Moreover, the angle of impact differed between the two occupants leading to the varying degrees of injury."

The court noted that admitting similar-incident evidence "threatens to raise extraneous controversial issues, confuse the issues, and be more prejudicial than probative."

Continue reading "Missouri Trial Evidence in Personal Injury Car Accident Claims: Is Lack of Injury to Other Passenger or Driver Admissible to Discredit Plaintiff's Injuries? " »

A St Louis medical negligence lawsuit we have been working on for several years settled for over $900,000. The injured Plaintiff was seen by a St Louis doctor who performed a cervical nerve root block. See Negligent Pain Injection Lawyer. Within fifteen minutes of the procedure she was left partially paralyzed, fortunately, she has mostly recovered from her paralysis and was able to return to her full time job.

We believe that the negligent doctor caused the partial paralysis by allowing the medicine to invade an artery through a combination of negligent techniques. One, the dosage of the pain medication steroid was double the recommended amount, two, the operative technique was negligent as he failed to use tubing between the syringe and needle to minimize needle movement, and three, the basic placement of the needle prior to the injection was in a dangerous location. See St Louis Medical Malpractice Lawyer Article: "Missouri Medical Negligence - Cervical Pain Injection Hits an Artery - Med Mal causes Depo Medrol to go into Spinal Cord and Brain - Spinal Cord Injury and Brain Injury resulting in Partial Paralysis"

Despite our injured client's neurological deficits, she missed only a few months of work and was able to return to her job full time within months of the spinal cord injury. She incurred about $200,000 in medical bills as a result of the injury and no lost wages. Generally, arterial invasion by a steroid results in devastating injuries and death, our client was lucky that her injuries were relatively minor.

One of the essential requirements to successfully pursuing a medical malpractice lawsuit is retaining a good medical expert. See St Louis Medical Negligence Attorney Article: "Use of Expert Witnesses by Missouri Injury Attorneys to successfully pursue Missouri Injury Claims and Lawsuits" Not only do you need an expert to testify regarding liability or negligence (violation of the medical standard of care), but before a Missouri medical negligence lawsuit can even be filed you must have a certificate of merit under Missouri Statute 538.225 or else the medical malpractice lawsuit will be dismissed. In fact, before retaining our St Louis medical malpractice law firm, our client initially retained another personal injury lawyer, however, they failed to file a certificate of merit and her case was dismissed. Additionally, they decided not to pursue the case after consulting with a medical expert. After we received the file, we immediately retained a well known and qualified expert in the field of diagnostic radiology. In fact, through a little research, we found out the expert the previous attorneys consulted with is a well defense expert, so obviously he talked the case down and immediately defended the negligent doctor.

Medical malpractice cases are time intensive, difficult, and very expensive. Many lawyers claim they handle medical malpractice cases, however few can successfully pursue them with excellent results. Choose your lawyer carefully.

Continue reading "St Louis Medical Malpractice Settlement: $900,000.00 for Spinal Cord Injury after Negligent Pain Injection " »

In April 2008, my client was a passenger on a motorcycle when the driver lost control of the bike and crashed while going around a turn. See St Louis Personal Injury Attorney Article: "Illinois Uninsured Motorcycle Accident Injury - Uninsured Coverage as a matter of Public Policy". We were able to overcome multiple factual and legal hurdles in this case and end up with an excellent result for our injured client.

First major obstacle was that our client was knocked unconscious by the motorcycle crash and the driver, in an obvious attempt to avoid the police, took her to a hospital several hours away where his mom worked as a nurse. Needless to say, the police were never contacted and an incident report was never done. This was a major problem because if the accident is not documented the insurance company will immediately claim it never happened. By the time my firm was contacted, the local Belleville police refused to take a report , claiming they cannot take a report since it had been two months since the accident.

After several months of investigation, we were able to track down the driver of the motorcycle and also identify the owner. The driver was incarcerated and refused to speak with our office. however, through the course of the case we were able to establish that the owner did not have insurance on the motorcycle, and therefore, the driver was an uninsured motorist. This allowed for the claim to be made through our client's uninsured motorist coverage through Shelter Insurance. For a discussion about uninsured (UM) and under-insured (UIM) motorist coverage, see St Louis Car Accident Lawyer article: "Missouri Underinsured and Uninsured Insurance Coverage & Which Policy Applies Mine or the Owner of the Car?"

The issue of uninsured motorist coverage was a little complicated in this case as our client was a Missouri resident and her uninsured motorist coverage was through a Missouri policy which dictated venue and choice of law in Missouri. However, it was more beneficial to have the case in Belleville Illinois, primarily because the likely jurors are more likely to be Plaintiff friendly as opposed to the Missouri venue we may have been forced to be in.

Knowing this, Shelter tried to get the case dismissed and force us to file in Missouri and in their home county, Shelter relied on the Illinois Insurance code that requires that all insurance policies "renewed, delivered, or issued for delivery in this state [Illinois]" contain a mandatory arbitration clause with respect to uninsured motorist claims. See 215 ILCS 5/143a. However, the policy was not renewed or delivered in Illinois, therefore, the mandatory arbitration did not apply; therefore we filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss and the Judge ruled in our favor and Ordered the case to remain in Illinois by denying Shelter's motion to dismiss.

Initially, our client thought she had a total of $50,000 in Missouri UM coverage, however we were able to identify additional UM coverage through other insured vehicles and raised the UM limit to $150,000 through stacking the polices. For information about stacking UM coverage see St Louis Motorcycle Lawyer article covering Stacking: "St Louis Missouri Motorcycle Accident and Injuries - Driver Inattention and Struck Motorcyclist when Changing Lanes - Uninsured Motorist Claim"

In the end the case settled for $130,000, our client did not expect the case to be worth anywhere near that amount and was very happy with the outcome. This settlement was the result of persistent legal work and investigation to fining all possible theories of liability and insurance coverage available.

St Louis pharmacy and nurse malpractice case settles for $100,000.00. My client suffered injury to his eye, specifically his cornea, as a direct and proximate result of the improper dosage instructions given by Walgreens. Soon after retaining Missouri pharmacy malpractice lawyer, Ben Sansone; it was discovered that the injured client called Walgreens with continued complaints, which were clearly documented by the medical records, yet he was instructed to keep taking the same improper dosage of 1 drop per day. This improperly treated the eye infection which lead to injury to the eye, an injury that would have been avoided had the dosage been properly given.

The key to most Missouri injury cases related to health care malpractice, including pharmacist malpractice, is that you need a doctor to testify regarding causation and negligence. See: Proving Medical Damages in Missouri Injury Cases. Both of the victim's local St Louis Missouri treating eye doctors agreed that the corneal scar/hole was a direct result of the improper dosage that failed to clear up an eye infection. Moreover, they agreed that the injury victim had permanent vision problems that cannot be completely corrected. The vision problems include, wearing glasses only for vision correction (no contacts).

As experienced Missouri accident lawyers, we were able to gather the evidence required to settle this case quickly and before filing a lawsuit. Our client was extremely happy with the result of the case.

Personal Injury Client review:

"Mr. Sansone is a professional lawyer that will keep you abreast of every twist and turn. I have retained other attorneys over the years and Mr. Sansone ranks at the top." - Terry Watson.

Continue reading "Negligent Prescription Filling and Instructions - Missouri Pharmacy Malpractice " »