Missouri Injury Law Blog

As a personal injury attorney in St. Louis you run across a lot of interesting stories. People find all kinds of ways to get hurt and to hurt others. The following slip and fall related story, from ABC News, is definitely not something you hear everyday.

A churchgoer at the Disciple Fellowship Christian Church in East St. Louis, Ill., claims the spirit moved a fellow worshiper so much during service that she caused others to fall over backwards into her, causing personal injuries. The congregant is now suing the church for damages, apparently for being too inspirational.

Cheryl Jones, the injured woman, alleges in a complaint filed last month that she was visiting the church when member received a hefty dose of "spirit" and, with no ushers there to assist, the parishioner fell backwards knocking several other people into the plaintiff.

An attorney for the plaintiff, says, "They should have either warned Cheryl and people like her of the potential dangers - especially if they're not going to have deacons or parishioners to help these people when they fall." The attorney says the church should have been aware of the danger as falling during service is something that apparently happens frequently.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington Law School said that the case presents intriguing questions regarding what standard of law to apply, "someone engaged by the holy spirit and not fully accountable or someone that should be treated objectively as assuming the risk of this activity." When filled with what is often called the holy spirit, "participants are worked up into such a frenzy that they may no longer appreciate or respond to risk. The question is how much is the church responsible in anticipating people will be acting without concern for danger or injury," said Turley.

Turley went on to explain that, "The whole idea of being touched by the holy spirit is to surrender yourself. In doing so, these are people that surrendering themselves to collapsing involuntary. These churches tend to treat this response as the holy ghost has taken away the power of the individuals to even stand."

Jones' complaint alleges the church was negligent and should now pay her medical bills that resulted from her falling and losing consciousness after hitting her head, neck, back and buttocks during the January 5, 2010 services. The complaint claims that the church typically had "two ushers that would stand on each side of the member to prevent the person receiving the 'spirit' from falling and injuring themselves" but no one was present when she was injured.

Jones accuses the church of negligence for failure to provide parishioners a safe place to worship; failure to ensure ushers were standing behind the parishioners to catch if they fell to the floor after the Pastor laid his hands on them; failure to control the parishioners who were receiving the "spirit"; failure to warn plaintiff and parishioners of the potential dangers of receiving the "spirit"; and failure to conduct a reasonably safe service.

According to ABC News, the complaint is a part of a recent national trend of suits dubbed "swoon and fall." A woman in Michigan filed a lawsuit against her church after she struck her head on the floor when an assistant minister prayed over her, allegedly causing her to be "slain in the spirit" and fall backwards. In Oregon, a church was not found liable after a woman was injured while assisting during service while other churchgoers were blessed and fell on top of her.

Professor Turley says that the trend indicates that churchgoers are "discovering that churches are not immune from tort liability. Church has no special status when it comes to tort law. They are an institution that must take reasonable precaution."

If you've been injured, whether in church or not, you need an experienced St. Louis injury attorney to fight to ensure you receive the benefits you deserve. Contact Sansone / Lauber today for a free initial consultation at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Evangelical Churches Catch Suits From 'Spirit' Falls," by Lyneka Little, published at ABCNews.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Understanding Premises Liability Claims
Negligent Security - is the Starbucks Tip Jar Lawsuit a Good Case?

Injuries due to dangerous conditions are referred to as premise liability cases, and the distinction between a premise liability case and a medical malpractice case is generally obvious, however, if the dangerous condition on the property happens to be a healthcare providers property, they may try to argue it is technically a medical malpractice case, thus invoking a whole set of laws specific to healthcare providers that make it more difficult and expensive for an injury victim to pursue a personal injury cause of action. See What Constitutes a Healthcare Provider for Injury Claims?

Particularly, in order to pursue any medical malpractice case in Missouri you must have an expert that is in the same general field of medicine, usually an MD of some sort. That expert must sign an Affidavit of Merit under RSMo 538.225 stating that more likely than not, and within reasonable degree of medical certainty, the defendant breach the standard of care. For general negligence claims, such as auto accidents, slip and falls, etc ... this is not required.

The Missouri cases that have dealt with the issue of whether the provisions of §538.225 apply to a given case have focused on two (2) general areas of inquiry: 1) was the defendant at issue acting as the injured individual's health care provider at the time of the acts or omissions at issue - i.e., what was the true relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant at the time; and/or 2) was the defendant providing a health care service to the injured individual at the time of the acts or omissions at issue - i.e., was the act or omission at issue a health care service done as part of that provider-patient relationship.

For example, in Morrison v. St. Luke's Health Corporation, 929 S.W.2d 898 (Mo.App. 1996). a patient that was in the process of being discharged from St. Luke's Hospital fell over a briefcase that had been left in the hospital hallway and sustained injury. In finding that a 538.225 affidavit was not required, the Court of Appeals found that the patient's claim, despite the fact that the plaintiff was actually then still a patient of the hospital, did not arise out of the provider-patient relationship, but rather the owner/occupier-entrant relationship.

Another case, Meekins v. St. John's Regional Health Center, Inc., 149 S.W.3d 525, 533 (Mo.App. 2004). A hospital employee was required to undergo a drug screen test at the hospital as part of her employment, and she ultimately alleged a general negligence claim against the hospital claiming that the drug screen test had been performed incorrectly. In finding that the healthcare affidavit was not required, the Missouri Court of Appeals "determine[d] that a drug screen test performed by a hospital is not a health care service if such is not performed within the confines of a physician/patient relationship."

So even if an injury occurs on a medical providers premises and even sometimes when you were there fore medical treatment, medical malpractice laws do not apply in all situations involving healthcare providers.

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" »

By Guest Author, Judy Leeson.

Premises liability injuries can happen almost anywhere. From broken staircases that were never repaired to unmarked slippery floors, hazardous situations that result in personal injury are the responsibility of the property owner.

Property owners are required by law to maintain safe conditions for visitors to their premises. This includes warning visitors about dangerous conditions and resolving the problem in a reasonable amount of time. If property owners do not provide sufficient warnings or take care of hazards on their property, their negligence can result in a visitor's injury.

However, the property owner is not always willing to admit to their negligence, in which case a personal injury lawyer is needed to represent the rights of the victim.

Defining a Premises Liability Claim

A premises liability claim is a civil lawsuit in which the victim of a personal injury may file against the owner of the property where the accident occurred. However, as property owners cannot be held responsible for every loss suffered on the property, negligence of the property owner is usually a key factor in the claim.
In order to prove negligence, the injured victim must show that the property owner knew about the hazardous condition that caused the accident and did not take action to fix the problem. For example, the property owner may have failed to repair a broken step or label a slippery floor. A premises liability injury may also be caused by criminal activity that was left undetected due to insufficient security on the premises.

Types of Injuries

There are many different types of injuries that a victim of a premises liability accident may suffer. These include:

Broken Bones: A slip-and-fall accident may result in a broken arm, leg, shoulder, or hand. Elderly victims who slip and fall often suffer hip fractures that cause permanent damage.

Bumps and Bruises: These minor types of injuries are common in slip-and-fall accidents. While they may not require medical attention or civil litigation, victims should still consult with a medical professional to ensure that the injuries aren't serious.

Head Injuries: A head injury from an accident can possibly cause a fractured skull or a traumatic brain injury, which can result in symptoms such as headaches, blurred vision, and even a permanent loss in physical or mental ability.

Lacerations: Lacerations may result from an accident involving a sharp object lying on the ground in a frequented area. These injuries usually need medical treatment and may sometimes require surgery.

Spinal Damage: The spine and spinal cord can be damaged in an accident that causes the victim to twist or strain the spine or neck. Such injuries may cause severe back pain or even paralysis

Sprained Wrists and Ankles: A fall caused by uneven flooring or a broken step may easily result in a sprained wrist or ankle, such as when a victim tries to catch themselves from falling.

Compensation

The compensation that a victim can receive from a premises liability claim depends on the extent of their injuries. Losses to be considered in a civil lawsuit may include hospital bills, prescription drug costs, therapy fees, lost wages, and suffering related to the accident. Working with an experienced premises liability attorney can speed up the process toward receiving compensation.

Judy Leeson has been a practicing lawyer for 12 years and also owns the site Law Degrees. She writes various articles related to the legal system.

Under Missouri personal injury law, government and public entities are immune from certain causes of action, however, if a dangerous condition exists on the property then the government or public entity is liable. See St Louis Premise Liability Lawyer Article: "Missouri Premise Liability Cases Against Government Entities - i.e. park, zoo, injuries at public school, etc ..."

Even when they are liable, Missouri law affords a limit on the amount an injured person can recover from these entities, basically, $300,000 per injured person, adjusted for inflation. See Missouri Statute 537.610(2), stating:

The liability of the state and its public entities on claims within the scope of sections 537.600 to 537.650, shall not exceed two million dollars for all claims arising out of a single accident or occurrence and shall not exceed three hundred thousand dollars for any one person in a single accident or occurrence

However, what if the public entity has more than $300,000 in insurance coverage? Is that a waiver of the sovereign immunity limit of $300,000? Recently the court addressed that very issue in Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co. of Missouri v. American Alternative Ins. Corp. In the Farm Bureau case, which involved a Missouri car accident with serious personal injures, the issue was addressed of whether or not a public entity (a fire protection district in this particular case) waives the sovereign immunity limit of $300,000 by purchasing insurance coverage in excess of that amount. The analysis of the case has wrote:

"Section 537.610.1 allows political subdivisions of the state to purchase liability insurance for tort claims and waives sovereign immunity `only to the maximum amount of and only for the purposes covered by such policy of insurance' or self-insurance plan.'" Kunzie v. City of Olivette, 184 S.W.3d 570, 574 (Mo. banc 2006). If the entity "maintains insurance that covers these types of claims, then it will have waived its immunity under section 537.610 for the specific purpose of and to the extent of its insurance coverage." Id. This waiver through the purchase of insurance effects "an absolute and complete waiver of all immunities." Id. The insurance effects such waiver when, "the plaintiff's claim falls within the purposes covered by the defendant's policy." Hummel v. St. Charles City R-3 School Dist., 114 S.W.3d 282, 284 (Mo.App. E.D. 2003). Here, it was stipulated that "[a]s a result of the . . . accident . . . various claims were asserted against [Mr.] Day" and that the amounts were "reasonable and were necessary to settle the claims against [Mr.] Day." .

Consequently, the Fire District waived sovereign immunity to the limits of the AAIC policy. This case may open the door to getting around the sovereign immunity limits in Missouri personal injury cases, and each case will be very fact specific, particularly, the language of the insurance policy and how it addresses, if at all, any waiver of the limits.

The above case involved a fire fighter and an automobile accident. Currently, St Louis brain injury lawyer, Ben Sansone, is handling a case against a Missouri school district after the center pole between the double door to the gymnasium was secured negligently and fell and struck a 13 year old boy in the head as he walked through the door. The insurance policy is in excess of $300,000, so the issue of the waiver of limits will come up in our case as well. This is a pending case and I will update this article if this issue us addressed.

In premise liability ("slip and fall" cases), oftentimes the issue of "subsequent remedial remedies" comes up. Meaning, repairs or improvements made to the premises after the injury occurs. See Missouri Injury Lawyer Article: Evidentiary Issues in Slip and Fall Cases Under Missouri injury law, it is oftentimes difficult to get subsequent remedial measures into evidence in slip and fall cases. However, in Missouri product liability personal injury cases, it is much easier to get subsequent remedial measures into evidence. For example, was the product flaw corrected and do the subsequent models sold have that correction? Those corrections or modifications can be used as evidence at trial in product liability cases in Missouri.

Missouri law allows evidence of subsequent remedial measures in Missouri strict liability lawsuits, and the courts have stated:

"[T]hat in strict liability cases, post remedial measures may be relevant. In strict liability cases, fault prior to the accident is not material. Instead, the question is whether or not there was a defect in the product when the plaintiff was injured. Subsequent repairs can be probative of this fact." See Pollard v. Ashby, 793 S.W.2d 394, 403 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990).

The Federal Rules of Evidence are not as favorable as the Missouri rule on this point, however, for proper purposes this evidence can be introduced in Federal cases as well. Federal Rule of Evidence 407 states that subsequent remedial measures are admissible for "proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment."

Continue reading "Using Evidence of Subsequent Repairs or Remedial Measures in Missouri Product Liability Cases" »

Recently I came across an article about a St Louis Missouri wrongful death lawsuit arising from an incident where a Starbucks customer chased a tip jar thief out of the store and ended up being killed after suffering a head injury when the thief attempted to flee in his car. See Starbucks Tip Jar Lawsuit

I read the comments below the article and was a little disturbed by the comments. As a preface, I know nothing about this lawsuit other then the above article and I am not familiar with the lawyer who filed it. It disturbs me how fast people comment and claim frivolous lawsuits and the need for tort reform because their common sense dictates this is a ridiculous case. I have personally handled negligent security cases, in fact one I am handling resulted in a brutal rape of a tenant at an apartment building. See St Louis negligent security claim after sexual assault. In that case the apartment complex knew their security doors were faulty and in disrepair, and because of the faulty security doors and hollow core inner doors, a rapist was able to practically walk right into a young woman's apartment and brutally rape her. This occurred in a high crime area where the owners were aware of the multiple assaults over the past years, yet allowed the disrepair.

The injury attorney that filed this St Louis death case has a tough battle, and I predict that the trial Judge will dismiss the case, I believe the facts of this case, at least as I understand them, are too flimsy, Starbucks did not take on a duty to provide that extent of security and I believe the trial Judge will find no duty existed thus no breach of a duty and therefore no negligence.

So tort reformers relax, we have Judges and we have laws, just because a lawsuit is filed does not mean everyone is going to get sued for everything. The main political party behind tort reform also preaches about getting back to the fundamental roots of the constitution, well what about the 7th amendment? Right to a Trial by jury? The people behind "Tort Reform" want to take that away.

The jury system is "tort reform", juries (you and me) will be the deciders on the case, assuming it is not thrown out by the judge prior to getting there. Missouri Personal injury lawyers front massive costs and get no up front fees, if they file a "frivolous" case they will likely eventually lose and be out lots of money, do this a few times and the lawyer is out of business.

So, rather than scream tort reform and frivolous lawsuit, let the system work, if it is such a legally merit-less case the Judge will throw it out on legal grounds, if not, and it is such a factually merit-less claim the jury will rule for Starbucks.

Lastly, to the people that think the above case will lead to little old ladies getting sued for allowing their purses to get stolen, relax, it is legally impossible as an individual does not have the legal duty to provide security from criminal acts of a 3rd party.

Successful Missouri slip and fall claims require that the Plaintiff prove a dangerous condition on the property, that the property owner had a duty to protect against that danger and that the owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition that caused the fall. These elements of Missouri premise liability cases have been discussed on this blog. Additionally I have discussed the elements of a slip and fall case in context of a Missouri slip and fall injury at gas station.

One issue that often comes up under Missouri law for premise liability cases is prior accidents or injuries and subsequent remedial measures - are they admissible at trial? The short answer, is yes, as long as they are introduced into the trial for the right reasons.

Prior accidents can be introduced to show notice if the defendant claims they were not aware of the condition or to rebut the defendant's claim that the condition was not dangerous. See Bynote v. National Super Mkts, 891 SW2d 117 (Mo banc 1995).

Subsequent remedial measures, meaning repairs or corrections, generally are not admissible as Missouri public policy is to encourage the repair of defective conditions. However, if introduced at trial for the right reasons these subsequent remedial measures can get into evidence to show control of the area or if the Defendant argues that nothing was wrong; obviously repairs disprove that assertion. Gomez v Construction Design 126 SW3d 366 (Mo Banc 2004).

Continue reading "Evidentiary Issues to Consider under Missouri Law for a Slip and Fall Personal Injury Trial" »

Missouri injury attorneys are often retained by victims of personal injury resulting from the negligence of a landlord, whether it is a slip and fall, Missouri premise liability, or a failure to protect from 3rd party criminal conduct, assuming the duty has been established.

One such case my St Louis personal injury law firm is handling is a St Louis premise liability action against an apartment complex for negligent security. In this particular case, the common area security doors were defective and in serious disrepair allowing two men to enter the common area then quickly and easily kick through the flimsy inner door of an apartment and sexually assault the female resident. I personally inspected the door a few days after the assault and several other "security doors" in the complex and most of them were opened without using the key and with a slight push. For further information on this sexual assault and negligent security apartment lawsuit see the link above.

As in many St Louis Missouri apartment complex personal injury cases, the landlord has a contract clause in the lease stating they are not responsible for any negligent acts.

There are several personal injury court opinions from Missouri courts holding, as a matter of law, that such oftentimes these types of negligence release clauses are insufficient to bar an injury victim's claim for negligence. Generally, such clauses are disfavored and strictly construed against the party attempting to enforce it. Especially in the landlord tenant relationship because of the disparity of bargaining power, often referred to as a contract of adhesion.

The Missouri Supreme Court has held that "the exculpatory language must effectively notify a party that he or she is releasing the other party from claims arising from the other party's own negligence." Alack v. Vic Tanny International of Missouri, 923 S.W.2d 330, 337 (Mo 1996).

The Alack decision also makes it clear that such waivers of negligence also fail as a matter of law when applied to Missouri punitive damage claims. In negligence cases, punitive damages are an issue "if, at the time of the negligent act, the defendant 'knew or had reason to know that there was a high degree of probability that the action would result in injury" and the defendant showed "conscious disregard for the safety of others."

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

A recent article, link below, reported a fairly common personal injury lawsuit, an injury caused from a broken or defective chair (Missouri Broken Chair Lawsuit - Sample Petition). In the article below, an injured woman is suing a local store after sustaining a fall when a chair collapsed and caused her serious personal injury. She is alleging negligence against the store and is seeking compensatory damages for her injuries.

As a St Louis Missouri Personal Injury Attorney we make sure we name all responsible and negligent parties and all potential causes of action. In my opinion, the injury lawyer in the article cited below should sue for more than just negligence of the store; but also for strict product liability and negligence against the chair manufacturer as well as a res ipsa claim against the store. (See: Missouri Personal Injury and "Res Ipsa" Claims)

This is similar to a Missouri personal injury – premises liability case our St Louis injury law firm is currently handling involving a broken chair and serious injury to our client's back, hip, and pelvis.

While on a business trip to Kansas City MO, the injured client was attending a seminar at an airport hotel. While sitting down at a table to begin the meeting, the metal chair he sat on immediately collapsed, causing him to fall and sustain severe injury to his hip, pelvis, and back. Moreover, the victim was of below average weight at 160 pounds. See CDC Average Weight Statistics

Our Missouri personal injury attorneys filed a lawsuit against the hotel for negligent maintenance, storage, and inspection. See Our Recent Missouri premise Liability Cases. Additionally, we are making strict product liability claims and negligence claims against the chair manufacturer.

Article: Broken chair lawsuit

Under Missouri tort law, government entities have sovereign immunity from lawsuits except for certain exceptions and the MO personal injury damages are capped per Missouri statute.

In order to sue a government entity in Missouri for injury or death in premise cases, the personal injury attorney, on behalf of the injured victim, must prove the dangerous condition exception to sovereign immunity. The Missouri personal injury lawsuit must plead and prove:

(1) that a dangerous condition existed on public property;
(2) the injury was a direct result of the dangerous condition;
(3) the dangerous condition created a foreseeable risk of harm;
(4) a public employee negligently created the condition or the public entity knew or should have known of the condition.

See State ex rel. Missouri Highway and Transp. Com'n v. Dierker, 961 SW 2d 58 (MO Banc 1998)

On top of the above conditions, public entities also benefit from a damages cap of $300,000 per Missouri Statute 537.610 - Torts and Actions for Damages

Unlike the overreaching tort reform reform damage caps for health care providers, this cap is adjustable for inflation - Missouri Department of Insurance Sovereign Immunity Caps Inflation Table Meaning that $300,000 cap is adjusted because, as we all know, $300k today is not the same as 300K 10 years from now.

Continue reading "Missouri Premise Liability Cases Againt Government Entities - i.e. park, zoo, injuries at public school, etc ..." »

Previously, I discussed recovery by 3rd parties against Missouri wrongful death settlements or judgments regarding medicare and also health care providers.

How about cases not involving wrongful death? Lets say you are involved in a Missouri auto accident with injuries and your health insurance, that you pay for, covers your medical expenses. Can that heath insurer now demand you pay them back from the proceeds of your auto accident settlement or judgment against the at fault driver? Absolutely not - but they try all the time.

As a St Louis Missouri lawyer with my primary practice focusing on all personal injury cases, I run in to this issue from time to time. Just recently, I had Blue Cross Blue Shield try and claim a lien and subrogation right against my client's money damages recovery against an at fault driver in a St Louis car collision lawsuit.

Under Missouri injury law it is clear that a lien or subrogation claim by a health insurer is against public policy. This standard under Missouri injury law has held since 1965 in the case of Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Chumbley, 394, S.W.2d 418, 425 (Mo.App.1965).

"It is also clear that a health care insurer may not be subrogated to its insured's right to recover from a third party tort-feasor because it would constitute an impermissible partial assignment of the insured's action for damages for bodily injury"

See Schweiss v. Sisters of Mercy, St. Louis, Inc., 950 SW 2d 537 (MO CT APP ED 1997) citing the Travelers case.

Also see Missouri injury lawsuit - Scroggins v. Red Lobster, No. SD 30214 Court of Appeals, Southern Dist 2010 stating:

“The Participant paid for health care coverage. The Insurer was obligated to provide those benefits regardless of whether the Participant pursued her personal injury claim. Missouri courts have never allowed a provider to be reimbursed for medical expenses that the insured recovers in a settlement from a liable third party under a lien theory, and we decline to do so now.”

Continue reading "Personal Injury Settlement in Missouri: Can Your Health Insurer Demand Payback for Medical Expenses?" »

A Kansas City woman and Missouri premise liability personal injury victim, sustained a fractured foot and dislocated shoulder when she fell from a newly constructed smoking deck at the Green Duck Lounge. The bar had recently built the deck off the rear of the building in response to the smoking ban on indoor spaces. As she walked down the five concrete steps to re-enter the bar, she tripped and fell on what appeared to be, uneven steps. There was no handrail for her to grab onto.

Her serious Missouri personal injury required surgery for a torn rotator cuff, the use of a wheelchair, and 12 missed weeks of work. Boswell hired a Missouri Personal Injury Attorney who learned that the bar never acquired a permit to build the deck. “Our architect said had they done it, the inspector would have said, ‘You’ve got to put handrails in there,’” the Missouri personal injury lawyer said. The bar ended up paying $225,000 to settle the Missouri personal injury suit - $73,437 for medical care and $11,127 for lost wages.

Currently, St Louis personal injury law firm, Sansone Law, is representing an injured client in a very similar case. a restaurant patron and now personal injury victim in St Louis Missouri, slipped and fell while visiting a St. Louis restaurant. The restaurant created an unreasonably dangerous condition by positioning the beer taps in such a way that the overflow cannot help but run into a heavily traffic area. This area was not marked nor was any other preventative measures taken. As the client passed by this narrow traffic area, she slipped on beer, which had overflowed from the tap, and fell hitting her head quite hard on the polished concrete floor. This St Louis injury client has sustained a serious head injury and is still undergoing medical treatment as a result.

Restaurant/ bar owners owe the public the highest degree of care to keep their place of business in a safe condition – which entails not only regular inspections but also, a basic general awareness. Failure to comply with this duty is negligence and makes a business owner legally liable for any personal injuries sustained as a result of such condition.

Missouri Lawyer Weekly article about Missouri Personal Injury Settlement from Slip and Fall at Bar

St Louis Personal Injury Lawyer Ben Sansone Missouri and Illinois Personal Injury Verdicts and Settlements

A Kansas City woman and Missouri premise liability personal injury victim, sustained a fractured foot and dislocated shoulder when she fell from a newly constructed smoking deck at the Green Duck Lounge. The bar had recently built the deck off the rear of the building in response to the smoking ban on indoor spaces. As she walked down the five concrete steps to re-enter the bar, she tripped and fell on what appeared to be, uneven steps. There was no handrail for her to grab onto.

Her serious Missouri personal injury required surgery for a torn rotator cuff, the use of a wheelchair, and 12 missed weeks of work. Boswell hired a Missouri Personal Injury Attorney who learned that the bar never acquired a permit to build the deck. “Our architect said had they done it, the inspector would have said, ‘You’ve got to put handrails in there,’” the Missouri personal injury lawyer said. The bar ended up paying $225,000 to settle the Missouri personal injury suit - $73,437 for medical care and $11,127 for lost wages.

Currently, St Louis personal injury law firm, Sansone Law, is representing an injured client in a very similar case. a restaurant patron and now personal injury victim in St Louis Missouri, slipped and fell while visiting a St. Louis restaurant. The restaurant created an unreasonably dangerous condition by positioning the beer taps in such a way that the overflow cannot help but run into a heavy traffic area. This area was not marked nor was any other preventative measures taken. As the client passed by this narrow traffic area, she slipped on beer, which had overflowed from the tap, and fell hitting her head quite hard on the polished concrete floor. This St Louis injury client has sustained a serious head injury and is still undergoing medical treatment as a result.

Restaurant/ bar owners owe the public the highest degree of care to keep their place of business in a safe condition – which entails not only regular inspections but also, a basic general awareness. Failure to comply with this duty is negligence and makes a business owner legally liable for any personal injuries sustained as a result of such condition.

Missouri Lawyer Weekly article about Missouri Personal Injury Settlement from Slip and Fall at Bar

St Louis Personal Injury Lawyer Ben Sansone Missouri and Illinois Personal Injury Verdicts and Settlements

Missouri personal injury premise liability for criminal acts arises when there is (1) a "special relationship or circumstances" between the landowner and the personal injury victim, (2) personal injury resulting from a criminal act of a 3rd party, and (3) causation, i.e. the criminal act would have likely been prevented with proper security. At the end of this article are several examples of St Louis personal injury 3rd party criminal act cases. Also, see St Louis premise liability injury lawyer - Faulty security - woman raped in own apartment.

(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.