by

Liability will be a hotly disputed issue in a recently filed Indiana truck accident lawsuit.truck

According to NWI.com, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of a 35-year-old man with autism who suffered significant brain damage and multiple fractures when the medical transportation van in which he was riding was broadsided by a semitrailer. His 72-year-old father is seeking damages for help with medical bills and other expenses that will be associated with his now-constant care. Although his son was not fully independent before the accident, he had much higher function than he now does. He had been on his way to a trade workshop at the time of the crash.

The father said his son would soon be transported home from the hospital, and the elderly man is the only one available who can render his care.

Continue reading

by

Jurors in an Indiana medical malpractice lawsuit ruled against a now-deceased physician accused of performing an allegedly unnecessary surgery on a 16-year-old athlete. X rays

The South Bend Tribune reports the lawsuit was filed in June 2015. The defendant physician died about a year later, but the case continued against his estate. The plaintiffs alleged their athlete son underwent a shoulder surgery he did not need, resulting in pain that will follow him the rest of his life. A two-day trial resulted in jurors deciding an award for $744,000 to be paid to the family. The boy reportedly suffered a wrestling injury and sought treatment.

Although he did not initially seek medical attention, the pain later became unbearable. The physician reportedly recommended surgery for the low-grade injury, involving an operation to remove part of his clavicle. The plaintiffs’ attorney now says the choice the doctor gave them – have surgery or live with the pain – was a “false one” because there were numerous other conservative treatment options that could have been employed first. It was not a decision that needed to be either-or.

Continue reading

by

A default judgment in an Indiana personal injury lawsuit can occur when there is a failure to take action by one of the involved parties. In most cases, it’s a judgment in favor of the plaintiff (the injured person) when the defendant (the tortfeasor/alleged wrongdoer) has failed to respond to a summons or appear in court. shopping cart

This was exactly what occurred in a recent Gary injury lawsuit considered by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The case involved a grocery store injury at the store involving a defective shopping cart.

The appellate court records don’t spell out many details from the original complaint, except that the plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of using a malfunctioning shopping cart at the store. She filed a personal injury lawsuit against the store, alleging they were liable for her injuries on the basis of premises liability.

Continue reading

by

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a $2.13 million judgment favoring a woman who suffered a permanent injury in a trucking accident that killed her fiance. truck

The case stems from a 2008 trucking crash in which a tractor-trailer driver stopped his truck on the interstate after hitting a deer, but he failed to immediately activate the truck’s emergency flashers or deflective triangles behind the truck or near the remains of the deer. He got out to examine the damage and then got back in his truck and at this time activated the emergency flashers. It was at this same time that the plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle driven by her fiance, approached and, while attempting to avoid the dead deer, lost control of the vehicle and slammed into the parked truck.

The plaintiff suffered serious injuries, while her fiance died at the scene. She sued the trucking company and driver for her injuries. At 22 years old, she suffered severe traumatic brain injury, ruptured spleen, multiple skull fractures, permanent facial nerve palsy, scarring on her forehead, deafness in one ear, and memory loss. She continues to have trouble learning new things, suffers migraines and balance problems, and is at increased risk of early-onset dementia.

Continue reading

by

Indiana hit-and-run accidents can prove challenging from a civil litigation standpoint for a myriad of reasons, sometimes even if the driver is found. Contacting an experienced Highland injury lawyer is imperative to maximizing the chances of accountability and compensation. mirror

A recent Indiana hit-and-run crash resulted in one woman losing her life and a man facing a felony charge. Investigators in Indianapolis told the Indy Star on early Sunday morning that a car accident occurred on 34th Street, where officers responded to the scene to discover a passenger car literally split in two. There was no one in it. But nearby, occupants of a Dodge Neon, a man and woman both age 22, were critically injured. The driver was treated at a local hospital, while the woman was pronounced dead at the scene.

Officers discovered a man believed to be the driver a short time later. He is believed to have fled the scene on foot, and authorities suspect alcohol was a factor in the crash. He has been arrested on a charge of failure to stop at the scene of an accident involving death, a felony.

Continue reading

by

Jurors in Pennsylvania awarded $5.4 million to a man who suffered a severe traumatic brain injury after a bicycle accident caused by a purported road defect.bicycle accident

That damages award, according to The Legal Intelligencer, included $2.5 million for medical expenses and lost wages, as well as $2 million for pain and suffering and $1 million in damages to the plaintiff’s wife for loss of consortium. State law caps damages for civil litigation against government agencies at $250,000, but the total damages collected will be $500,000, since the plaintiff and his wife each will receive the maximum amount for their individual claims.

According to court records of the incident, the plaintiff was riding his bicycle on the road when he hit a patch of road that was reportedly uneven. This, his attorneys would later argue, constituted a dangerous defect in the road, causing him to be ejected from his bicycle and land on his head. In addition to a broken vertebra and broken ribs, the plaintiff suffered brain damage leading to post-traumatic seizure disorder. This was despite the fact he was wearing a bicycle helmet. Since his initial treatment, he’s been hospitalized again numerous times due to seizure-related injuries.

Continue reading

by

Jurors in central Indiana have awarded more than $6 million in connection with injuries suffered in a fatal crash eight years ago. street scene

The Marion-Chronicle Tribune reported jurors awarded the two men damages – approximately $3 million each – for the negligence of another driver, who perished in the collision.

While the decedent’s estate insisted the crash was caused by a faulty throttle cable designed and manufactured by Ford Motor Co., jurors ruled the decedent was 100 percent at fault. Specifically, they ruled she pressed down on the accelerator rather than the brake, causing her vehicle to crash into the victims. Her estate will be responsible for the entire award.

Continue reading

by

An Indiana bicycle accident claim will go no further after the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled the trial court was wrong to deny summary judgment favoring the defendant city.bike trail

According to court records in the case, the plaintiff, a mountain biker, suffered injuries to his kidney and spleen after falling from his bicycle on a portion of the Town Run Trail Park that runs through Indianapolis. The city contracts with a local mountain biking association to maintain the trails, which are rated based on difficulty and skill level required. In early 2011, an Eagle Scout designed and constructed a technical feature on the trail. The feature is best described as a berm. It created a banked wooden turn. Approaching riders would have three options:  avoid it by staying on the dirt path, enter and ride on the low grade, or negotiate the turn and take the more challenging higher grade.

That summer, the plaintiff and his girlfriend went to the trail to ride for the first time since this new feature was constructed. He had about five years of experience riding, and he’d been on this trail before. However, he had not encountered this new feature. He noted in his deposition that he would usually try to get an idea of a trail’s technical requirements before riding, particularly if he was concerned about a potential danger.

Continue reading

by

Many states have bicycle helmet laws, although many of those pertain solely to children under the age of 18. Indiana is not one of those states. bicycle

However, in the wake of an increasing number of bicycle accidents across the country, questions are being raised about whether bicycle helmets should be mandatory for all riders. It’s a controversial topic.

We know that people on bicycles are far more likely to suffer head injuries and traumatic brain injuries than people in cars. Cyclists are inherently more vulnerable than other road users, and the lack of a helmet leaves them without protection – and at greater risk of a serious injury – when they strike their heads on vehicles, pavement, or other objects. However, there are some who argue mandatory bicycle helmet laws only serve to drive down the number of people who choose to bicycle. Others say wearing a helmet makes cyclists more confident, more likely to take risks they wouldn’t otherwise.

Continue reading

by

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court summary judgment favoring the defendant in a claim that originated as a premises liability lawsuit stemming from a trip-and-fall that seriously injured an 85-year-old woman. cords

According to court records in the case, the question was whether the trial court erred, even though the evidence tended to show the plaintiff, as a business invitee, knew about the dangerous condition on the floor.

The appellate court justices ruled there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the owner of the property should have anticipated the plaintiff’s harm, despite her knowledge of the danger. Therefore, the trial court’s ruling was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Continue reading