Premises Liability

Published on: April 21, 2016

County Fair Not Liable for Woman’s Injuries after She Falls Through Rotten Board

No one expects to be injured while attending a fair. However, accidents can happen anywhere. And as one woman found out, sometimes the purpose of the event can be the determining factor in whether or not a person can receive compensation for their injuries.

In a recent case, a woman sued a county fair after injuring herself on a grandstand. The woman went to the fair to watch a fireworks show. After she arrived, she began looking for a seat in a grandstand to watch the fireworks. She stepped on a rotten board, fell through the stands, and suffered injuries. The woman sued the fair, alleging that the fair was negligent in maintaining the grandstand and that she was injured as a result. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. It found that the fair was protected from liability because it had “recreational use” immunity.

While landowners generally owe guests a duty to maintain their premises, the state had a law that provided an exception for certain landowners who used their land for recreational purposes. The exception did not apply to for-profit businesses that used their land for commercial purposes.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 15, 2016

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Royal Caribbean After Stormy Cruise

By Moll Law Group

A class action is a type of lawsuit in which an individual or individuals sue on behalf of a larger group of persons. This larger group is referred to as “the class.” In order to bring a class action lawsuit, the issues in dispute must be shared by all of the individuals in the class, and the number of individuals affected has to make it impractical to litigate each case individually. Some examples of class action lawsuits are those brought by consumers for defective products, by patients prescribed a drug with side effects that were not disclosed, and by individuals whose communications were recorded without their knowledge.

Class action lawsuits are intended to allow individuals to receive compensation for acts committed by large, powerful companies, since the individuals may not have the means to bring a claim on their own. The lawsuits also allow the defendant to defend one lawsuit rather than defending a number of smaller, separate lawsuits.

Class Action Lawsuit Against Royal Caribbean

A recent class action lawsuit was filed against Royal Caribbean after passengers’ dreams of an idyllic cruise turned into a nightmare. According to a news source, passengers on the cruise expected to go on a seven-day cruise from New Jersey to the Bahamas and back. However, after three days, the ship came back after enduring severe weather with 125-mile-per-hour winds and 30-foot-high waves. For about 12 hours, passengers were required to stay in their rooms. Some said they had to hold onto their beds or other items to keep from falling. According to some passengers, furniture was knocked over, there was broken glass across the ship, and water rushed through areas of the ship. At least 4,000 passengers were on the cruise. Passengers were given a refund and a certificate for half off a future cruise. The company said the storm was much worse than expected.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 17, 2016

Man Unable to Sue Gym Because He Signed a Release Waiver

By Moll Law Group

Many individuals sign releases or waivers without reading the fine print. However, the terms of the policy matter, since signing a release waiver may give up someone’s right to sue if they are injured.

In a recent case, Ketler v. PFPA, LLC, a gym member brought suit against Planet Fitness. In April 2013, the man was injured while using exercise equipment at a Planet Fitness facility. A cable broke on a seated rowing machine that he was using, injuring him. He alleged that the injuries were the result of Planet Fitness’ negligence in maintaining its equipment. However, Planet Fitness argued that his claim was barred because he signed a waiver when he signed up for the gym.

The waiver that he signed stated, “I understand and expressly agree that my use of this Planet Fitness facility . . . involves the risk of injury to me or my guest whether caused by me or not. I understand that these risks can range from minor injuries to major injuries including death.” It also stated, “I understand and voluntarily accept this risk and agree that Planet Fitness . . . will not be liable for any injury . . . resulting from the negligence of Planet Fitness . . . whether related to exercise or not.”

Continue reading →

Published on: February 5, 2016

Recent Case Allows Plaintiff’s Case to Proceed in Dog Attack Case Without Evidence of Bite

By Moll Law Group

Earlier this month, a Nebraska court heard a case brought by a woman who was injured when she stepped back to avoid an approaching dog that she thought was going to attack her. The court ultimately determined that the plaintiff’s case should be able to proceed towards trial, despite the fact that the dog did not bite her, since she alleged that her injuries were still the result of a dangerous dog.

Grammer v. Lucking: The Facts of the Case

The facts of the case are fairly straightforward. A woman and her husband approached a neighbor’s yard with two dogs present. One of the dogs was chained, and the other was not. As the couple approached, the dog ran toward them. The woman, fearing that the approaching dog would attack her, stepped backwards and lost her balance, falling to the ground and injuring her arm. The woman filed a lawsuit against the owner of the dogs.

The trial court dismissed the case against the defendant, claiming that under the relevant state statute, the evidence was insufficient to show that the injury was caused by the dog “chasing” the plaintiff. However, on appeal, the court reversed the decision, holding that the lower court’s definition of “chase” was too narrow, and the evidence presented was sufficient to show that the injuries were caused by the dog chasing the plaintiff.

Continue reading →

Published on: January 26, 2016

Property Owners May Be Liable for Unsafe Conditions

By Moll Law Group

Owning and investing in property can be a lucrative business. Some investors buy a property, fix it up, and then sell it for a handsome profit. Others buy property and lease it to residents or other businesses, collecting rent for the ongoing use of the property. Finally, there are those property owners who live in or run a business out of the property they own, with no intention of selling or renting the property for additional profit.

In Illinois, no matter how property owners use their properties, they must take reasonable care to ensure that the property is free of dangerous conditions. How the law defines reasonable care in part depends on the circumstances, but typically it requires that a property owner conduct necessary inspections, make timely repairs to dangerous conditions that are noted or reported, and warn guests of dangerous conditions that exist on the property.

Reasonable care also requires that property owners repair and warn guests of dangerous conditions the property owner should be aware of, even if he or she purports not to have prior knowledge of a given hazard.

Continue reading →

Published on: January 19, 2016

Discovery and the Art of Preparing for Trial

By Moll Law Group

When a person is injured, and another party is to blame for his or her injury, the injured party can file a lawsuit to recover compensation for their injuries. Whether the defendant is liable or not depends on if he or she took reasonable care under the circumstances. If they did not, the defendant was negligent and may have to pay compensation to the injured party.

Unlike on television, where trials often appear to happen just days after an accident occurs or a crime is committed, real trials are preceded by a somewhat lengthy period of what is known in legal terms as “discovery.” Generally speaking, discovery is a process by which the plaintiff and defendant exchange information about a case prior to a trial.

During the discovery phase of a personal injury case, the plaintiff and defendant are entitled to ask the other party written questions about the accident. These questions are called interrogatories.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 16, 2015

Public Schools Enjoy Some Level of Immunity for Injuries to Students

By Moll Law Group

Schools are expensive to operate. There are salaries to pay, buildings to heat, and books and computers to buy. The list of expenses is endless. With so many expenses, public school districts are hemorrhaging at the seams. To stay afloat, school administrators are charged with figuring out how to cut costs in a way that does not diminish a child’s education or put a student at increased risk of harm. This is a difficult balancing act, and sometimes administrators get it wrong.

If a child is injured in a public school because of the actions of a school employee, it can be difficult to obtain compensation for the child’s injuries in a court of law. In Illinois, in order to prevail in a lawsuit against a school district for injuries to a student, it must be proven that an employee of the district acted with recklessness, which is generally equated with a willful or wanton disregard for a student’s safety. This is a higher standard than in most other personal injury cases, in which a plaintiff must only prove that another person’s negligence, or failure to take reasonable care under the circumstances, caused his or her injuries.

Even though the standard is higher in cases against school districts, it is not impossible to overcome. If a school district employee has prior knowledge of a dangerous condition that exists on school property and fails to fix or repair the condition before a child is injured, for example, this may amount to recklessness. The same is true of a teacher who disregards a doctor’s note about a student’s medical condition, if the student is harmed as a result.

Continue reading →