Arizona Accident Information Law Blog : Arizona Personal Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Solomon & Relihan Law Firm : Auto Accidents & Car Wrecks : AZ Accident Information Law Blog

The furniture store’s owner – 64-year-old William Franks, and two employees at the store; 64-year-old James Zell and 54-year-old Leslie Machniak were all trapped in the building when the blast occurred. Zell and Machniak were both killed in the explosion. The families are seeking roughly $25,000 in damages for each family.

There are many cases where a company may believe that if there is no immediate threat of danger to a community, certain actions need not be taken to prevent danger. However, in many incidents, a company does not properly gauge the severity of the situation at the time and serious consequences can occur just like in this incident. If the Consumers Energy company is found to have acted negligently and failed to evacuate the neighborhood despite knowledge of a gas leak, they should be held responsible for the explosion as the gas leak was a direct cause of the explosion.
 

In most accidents, the police officers that respond may ask the parties involved to submit to a breathalyzer test, which would immediately indicate if alcohol was involved in the accident. There is no information if that was the case in this incident. Although

this lawsuit could potentially

reach a settlement, it still does not erase the tragedy of these two people’s deaths. Unfortunately there is nothing that can be done to help the family cope with that loss, even if they do receive a significant amount of money as a result of this settlement.

The Lexus ES sedan Saylor was driving suddenly accelerated because the accelerator pedal got stuck by the floor mat. The vehicle accelerated to 120 miles per hour and collided with another vehicle and went through a fence before coming to a stop in a field where it rolled over several times. The vehicle subsequently caught fire and all three occupants were killed. The terms of the settlement beyond the amount have not been disclosed.

According to the report, this was one of the first incidents that sparked the legal troubles for Toyota. To date, Toyota has recalled several million vehicles worldwide. Product liability is a major concern not only for automakers but for any other producers of consumer products. Incidents such as this accident have occurred all over the world and many families lose their loved ones as a result of Toyota’s inability to maintain safety precautions in their vehicles.
 

The case against the tobacco company was aided when several documented letters sent from the manufacturer to minors that purchased smokeless tobacco were uncovered and used against the company. The report states the company sent those minors free samples of smokeless tobacco and, in one instance, sent one of the minors a can opener.

Due to the nature of this product, it is very easy to see the dangers in using it. Many lawsuits against companies selling tobacco products usually involve cigarettes or other tobacco products because the evidence that they can provide is much stronger. A director of Tobacco Products Liability at Northeastern University stated there could potentially be more lawsuits occurring involving smokeless tobacco. Tobacco companies had been trying to fight against putting stronger warning labels on their products prior to this lawsuit settlement. If more lawsuits do occur and settlements are handed out, it could potentially weaken the tobacco companies’ position in this matter.
 

These seven incidents including Cila’s have occurred between 2005 and 2008. The attorney representing Cila’s family argued that the company did not take the public’s safety into account when they designed and created the tunnel’s handrail system. The US Department of Transportation reportedly admonished the project’s director about the safety hazard.

Since the president of the project and the company in charge were warned numerous times about the safety hazard the handrails presented, they should be held responsible for all seven cases against them. The warnings were given to allow the company to fix the problem with the handrails but in every instance, the company disregarded the warnings and even denied an opportunity to crash test the rails. The information suggests that the company acted negligently despite knowing the issues of safety with the handrails.
 

The suits argue that each company should have known of the other company’s approaching helicopter and taken measures to prevent the helicopters from colliding. The suits are seeking an unnamed amount of damages for the accident. The  lawsuits were combined to avoid incidents where the courts would be deciding on several similar cases and can instead decide on one large case.

The idea to combine these cases into one large case seems to make sense as it will help to avoid any confusion in the matter and allow all parties involved to attempt to gain some semblance of justice at once rather than having to wait for long periods of time in order to take these cases to court. One key point that the article makes is that under Arizona law, employees covered by workers comp. cannot suit their employer. Therefore, the lawsuits can only target the companies providing the helicopters to each of the medical facilities where the seven people worked.
 

The truck then rolled over and fell 200 feet off the bridge. According to the report, the lawsuit claims there was insufficient signage posted to alert drivers of the S-curve in the road. In addition, the family is suing several other companies that were involved in the loading and transportation of the fruit in Fakhar’s truck arguing that the truck was overloaded beyond the legal limit of 80,000 pounds.

Many accidents occur as a result of unsafe road conditions or poor road design. In many cases, new developments in the roadway may be unexpected and drivers are unable to alter their speed and/or direction accordingly. In order to prove that a person or company is negligent in their actions, there are four things that need to be proven. The person or company must have some sort of duty to uphold, proof of failure to uphold that duty must exist, there must be proof of causation (meaning there must be reasonable proof that a person’s action or inaction caused the accident), and there must be proof of damages.

In this instance, the article states that signs regarding the new roadway construction were posted AFTER the fatal accident occurred. If they were not posted before, the Department of Transportation could be held liable for Fakhar’s death. The department of transportation has a duty toward the public to maintain its safety and that duty was breached when Fakhar’s vehicle fell over the bridge, causing Fakhar’s death. In any instance when the negligence of one party directly results in another party’s death, the deceased’s family deserves some form of justice.
 

The family is seeking punitive damages and compensatory damages and wants a trial by jury. There is no information on the specific monetary amount the lawsuit is seeking.

While undiagnosed symptoms or complications may be a result of negligence by medical professionals, this may not always be the case. According to the website brainaneurysm.com, some patients suffering from brain aneurysms may not show symptoms right away. As a result diagnosis may not be possible right away. However, there are many incidents when diagnosis is possible and medical professionals fail to make the diagnosis. In these unfortunate incidents, patients often suffer further damage or even a fatality and a wrongful death lawsuit is warranted.

If a medical professional fails to make a diagnosis despite any warning signs or symptoms resulting in a fatality, the person or company responsible should be held liable and the victim or their family deserves some form of justice in the matter. There is no excuse or reason for a misdiagnosis if any or all warning signs or symptoms are present. A patient in a medical facility rightfully expects a high level of care and consideration in the presence of a medical professional and they are owed as much. Nobody should ever have to suffer any serious debilitation or lose his or her life as a result of a misdiagnosis.
 

One of the most recent lawsuits filed involves Daniel Swainston, who was crushed by the vehicle and suffered a broken leg as a result. According to Swainston, the vehicle tipped over when he was driving at a low speed through the Sequoia National Forest. The initial accident occurred in 2006 and the trial will occur in November of this year. The report states Yamaha faces roughly 700 lawsuits as a result of the accidents involving this vehicle.

According to the report, Yamaha is being accused of quickly settling cases where there is significant evidence that the company was at fault for the accidents named in the cases. However, in cases where evidence explicitly shows the driver was at fault, the company is quick to allow these cases to go to court as a way of creating a façade that the company is a responsible company and the drivers of their vehicles are not. The lawsuits that this company faces are very similar to those that Toyota faces currently with their vehicles. If the accusation that Yamaha selects cases they can easily win is true, it demonstrates the company’s lack of responsibility in ensuring or even caring for their customer’s safety. It demonstrates that they would rather be quick to blame the consumer rather than take responsibility if the accidents are caused by a malfunction or defect in their vehicles.
 

Dr. Domalik’s employer, the William W. Backus Hospital, is also named in the lawsuit. The report states Gault found his wife unresponsive; apparently suffering from hypoglycemic shock after taking 6mg of Glimepiride, a drug that is supposed to lower blood sugar. A senior physician adviser stated the recommended dose of the drug should be 1mg per day.

Although this does not appear to be intentional negligence on the part of the hospital or the doctor that administered the medication, it is negligence nonetheless and the lawsuit is warranted. Even if medical professionals do not set out to intentionally harm their patients, unfortunately misuse of medication still occurs. In other cases, medical professionals intentionally give their patients more medication than they may require or do not provide medication to their patients at all. In any case, those that lose a loved one as a result of this negligence deserve to have justice and compensation for their loss.

The accident that killed Rogan occurred two years ago on September 13^th. The lawsuit alleges that Rogan had the right of way on the roadway he was driving on when Rody allegedly made an illegal U-turn. Rogan was unable to stop his vehicle and subsequently collided with the tractor-trailer’s side. The top of Rogan’s vehicle physically flew off and this led to Rogan’s death. Rogan’s parents are seeking damages that amount to well over $100,000 arguing that Rody ignored road signs prohibiting vehicles larger than 21,000 pounds from travelling on roadways. They also argue that Rody did not pay attention to the road nor did he abide by state driving laws.

There are many factors to be considered when a lawsuit of this nature is filed. In this case, the fact that the driver of the tractor-trailer made an illegal U-turn and did not abide by state laws regarding vehicle safety and driving laws, the lawsuit could be swayed in favor of Rogan’s parents. If he indeed had the right of way and the tractor-trailer drove into his direction causing the collision, Rogan’s allegations would be correct and they would win the lawsuit. However, if there is any evidence that points to Rogan being at fault, the lawsuit could go the other way. Regardless of who wins this lawsuit, it is nonetheless a tragedy that somebody that was only 20 years old lost his life as a result of a tragic accident.

This lawsuit was one of several that had been filed including a lawsuit filed by the only survivor of the helicopter crash, Jordan Wells. Wells filed a $50 million personal-injury lawsuit against the FAA but it was subsequently denied. A third lawsuit was filed following the crash on behalf of paramedic Mickey Lippy who also died in the accident. Lippy’s relatives filed a $15 million lawsuit back in March. There is no information on the status of Mallard’s lawsuit whether it was denied or not.

While filing a lawsuit could potentially resolve monetary issues between the plaintiff and the defendant in each case, it is not a way of bringing back those that have died. It is a terrible tragedy when a person loses their life because of a terrible accident as was the case in this incident. Now a man must live the rest of his life without his wife. Unfortunately, incidents such as this one happen very often. While it is always possible to get compensation for any damages that may occur, healing the emotional and mental wounds will never be resolved by getting monetary compensation from those that are at fault.

No deaths have been reported as a result of this outbreak, however. According to the report, the CDC is currently investigating this specific outbreak. The man that filed the lawsuit had to remain in a medical facility not only for the salmonella illness but also because of injuries he suffered after fainting due to the virus’s effects.

This is one of many outbreaks of salmonella that have occurred in recent weeks as a result of contaminated food products either sold in the mass market (such as these Marie Callender’s meals) or sold in restaurants like Subway and others. Salmonella poisoning is a very serious illness that can have drastic effects on a person’s health and it can even cause a fatality if the disease is not treated. In particular salmonella causes rapid dehydration which can eventually kill someone. Anybody who contracts the disease should seek immediate medical attention.

Collins’ husband was reportedly exposed to butadiene, styrene and benzene chemicals which hastened his death. The lawsuit alleges that as a result of exposure, he developed cancer which also contributed to his death. The suit accuses the defendants of being negligent in failing to provide a safe work environment and for not testing its products for negative health effects including causes of cancer.

This wrongful death lawsuit could be argued by stating that the plaintiff was aware of the dangers in working at a refinery. However, the fact that the company failed to provide any safety precautions could make the company liable because their failure to provide safety equipment or any sort of safety measures against the chemicals they use could have directly resulted in Collins’ husband’s death. There are many safety precautions that should be provided to workers when they are working with any noxious chemicals. If they were not provided, it is likely the plaintiff could win this lawsuit.

Anderson proceeded to place Harris’ daughter under arrest after she admitted she had been drinking. Anderson allegedly threw her to the ground and pushed on the scooter with his foot, knocking Harris over. Anderson tackled Harris to the ground causing an injury to his head. He then used the Taser on Harris even after Harris’ daughter warned Anderson that Harris had just undergone heart surgery. The report states that the suit claims other employees informed the sheriff’s department of Anderson’s uncontrollable bursts of anger and aggressive actions in the past.

This is the kind of incident that should never occur in any situation.  The fact that Harris was disabled implies that he was not an immediate threat to Anderson, especially after Anderson tackled Harris to the ground. The report states that Harris was physically unable to walk and unable to push a wheelchair, which adds to the fact that he was not a direct threat to Anderson.

Improper use of Tasers is a serious issue of product liability. If a person is seriously injured or killed by a police officer improperly using a Taser, the officer, the police department, and the manufacturer may be liable. For more information on product liability issues, visit Solomon & Relihan.