A man had to be rescued by firefighters Saturday after he fell 30 feet down a hole in a New York City sidewalk. Vincent Riggio stepped outside to smoke a cigar and apparently stepped on a corroded metal plate that was in place to provide reinforcement to the doors of a sidewalk cellar. He fell approximately 30 feet, and had to be hoisted out of the hole by the fire department. Riggio was treated at a hospital for minor cuts and bruises sustained in the fall.
Does Mr. Riggio have a claim? Simply being injured while on another person's property does not make that person or property owner automatically liable for your injuries (as most people think). You must prove negligence, meaning that the owner or management failed to provide or maintain a safe premises, created hazardous conditions on the property and/or failed to eliminate known or discoverable hazards.
I have handled many “premises liability” cases. Each and every one is different in character and circumstance. It certainly is interesting however to learn that premises liability claims (trips, slips, etc..) are the most common personal injury claim filed against the city of New York.
In Arizona, perhaps the most common call that we receive, outside of motor vehicle collision cases, are premises liability claims, namely, people who call because they were injured in a trip or slip in a store. We take information and evaluate the cases, but much more often than not decline representation for what we perceive as being in a position of being unable to prove the case. In Arizona, the person bringing the claim has the burden of proving that he/she has a valid claim under Arizona law. In premises liability cases, you have to prove the store was negligent. You have to prove that the store actually knew or should have known of the hazard BEFORE you tripped or slipped. Simply proving there was water on the floor does not make the store liable for your injuries.
Regardless of the circumstances, if you or a friend has sustained an injury as a result of a trip, slip or other circumstance on another’s property, please consult an experienced personal injury attorney regarding your case and your rights. Some businesses will carry insurance coverage that will pay up to a stated sum for your medical bills, regardless of fault. Either way, your case should be evaluated by an attorney experienced in these matters, so that you better understand your rights both now and in the future.
Showing posts with label Premises Liability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Premises Liability. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
State Liability in School Safety
Can the state afford to not maintain school buildings? According to Tom Horne, the State Superintendent of Education, the bad economy has resulted in postponed maintenance at educational facilities.
In an article in the Arizona Republic last week, Horne was quoted saying “This year it’s understandable because the economy is doing so badly, but when there’s a recovery, I’m hoping they will fund maintenance of buildings, because the longer you wait the more expensive it is to make repairs.” OK. No argument there. But aren’t there other considerations too? How about, the longer you wait, the more likely building disrepair could lead to potentially dangerous environments for our children? Isn’t that more important than expense?
Earlier this year, two schools have had roofs collapse. Do we really have to wait until a roof collapses on the children before we make sure the buildings are safe? Will the state be better able to afford a liability lawsuit and paying damages to families more than building maintenance costs? We might find out. Let’s hope it does not come to that.
In 1996, a Kyrene school added skylights and a large air conditioning unit, without first investigating whether or not the roof could actually carry the weight. Thirteen years later the roof collapsed when the trusses around the air conditioner gave way. No children were injured at that time. However, if a child or educator had been injured or had lost their life, would the roof repair cost more than the wrongful death lawsuit? Is there someone out there actually considering this question?
How much would it cost to hire the skilled engineers to do the inspections on the over 1400 schools in Arizona? Further, is it possible that some of these engineers would agree to perform necessary inspections gratuitously, for the good of Arizona, its children and our schools? Don’t we all have a responsibility to help just a little bit in this failing economy? Has anyone thought about this? Certainly we can do more than ignore the problems and hope that nothing bad happens. We are better than this aren’t we? Is anyone listening?
In an article in the Arizona Republic last week, Horne was quoted saying “This year it’s understandable because the economy is doing so badly, but when there’s a recovery, I’m hoping they will fund maintenance of buildings, because the longer you wait the more expensive it is to make repairs.” OK. No argument there. But aren’t there other considerations too? How about, the longer you wait, the more likely building disrepair could lead to potentially dangerous environments for our children? Isn’t that more important than expense?
Earlier this year, two schools have had roofs collapse. Do we really have to wait until a roof collapses on the children before we make sure the buildings are safe? Will the state be better able to afford a liability lawsuit and paying damages to families more than building maintenance costs? We might find out. Let’s hope it does not come to that.
In 1996, a Kyrene school added skylights and a large air conditioning unit, without first investigating whether or not the roof could actually carry the weight. Thirteen years later the roof collapsed when the trusses around the air conditioner gave way. No children were injured at that time. However, if a child or educator had been injured or had lost their life, would the roof repair cost more than the wrongful death lawsuit? Is there someone out there actually considering this question?
How much would it cost to hire the skilled engineers to do the inspections on the over 1400 schools in Arizona? Further, is it possible that some of these engineers would agree to perform necessary inspections gratuitously, for the good of Arizona, its children and our schools? Don’t we all have a responsibility to help just a little bit in this failing economy? Has anyone thought about this? Certainly we can do more than ignore the problems and hope that nothing bad happens. We are better than this aren’t we? Is anyone listening?
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Skaters Exposed to Carbon Monoxide at Phoenix Ice Arena
Phoenix firefighters were called to the Arcadia Ice Arena at 38th Street and Thomas on Sunday night when someone complained of feeling sick. By the time the firefighters arrived, dozens of people were complaining they felt sick, and eight were actually vomiting.
The arena was evacuated due to high carbon monoxide levels. Officials are still investigating, but according to a police spokesperson, the machine used to resurface the ice was left running.
Arena management has indicated that the facility will remain closed until the environment is proven safe. OSHA is now investigating.
Although this may seem like a rare incident, apparently it happens often enough to have been reported by ESPN’s “E:60” as recently as April this year. According to E:60, nearly 200 people have been sickened in the last six (6) months by gases emitted from poorly maintained ice resurfacers. Well, Phoenix can add another 33 to that total. At present, only Minnesota, Massachusetts and Rhode Island have laws regulating air quality at indoor ice rinks.
It is unknown whether injury claims will be presented, or any legal action will result from any of those sickened by the incident. The value of any such claims would depend upon the nature and extent of the injuries.
Under Arizona law, this type of claim would be known as a “premises liability” claim. When injuries occur as a result of some dangerous or defective condition of someone else’s property or premises, the case is classified as “premises liability”. In this type of claim, an injured guest would have to prove that the Arena was negligent in the maintenance of its facilities. Leaving on the resurfacing machine with guests present in the Arena could certainly fit this bill.
At the Zachar Law Firm, we regularly meet with clients, evaluate and handle premises liability claims. These can be difficult claims. The old adage that says “if you get hurt on another’s property, they are automatically liable”----not true. Not even close to true. You must prove negligence. In this case, whether anyone was injured seriously enough to warrant a claim, and whether the Arena was negligent, remain to be seen.
The arena was evacuated due to high carbon monoxide levels. Officials are still investigating, but according to a police spokesperson, the machine used to resurface the ice was left running.
Arena management has indicated that the facility will remain closed until the environment is proven safe. OSHA is now investigating.
Although this may seem like a rare incident, apparently it happens often enough to have been reported by ESPN’s “E:60” as recently as April this year. According to E:60, nearly 200 people have been sickened in the last six (6) months by gases emitted from poorly maintained ice resurfacers. Well, Phoenix can add another 33 to that total. At present, only Minnesota, Massachusetts and Rhode Island have laws regulating air quality at indoor ice rinks.
It is unknown whether injury claims will be presented, or any legal action will result from any of those sickened by the incident. The value of any such claims would depend upon the nature and extent of the injuries.
Under Arizona law, this type of claim would be known as a “premises liability” claim. When injuries occur as a result of some dangerous or defective condition of someone else’s property or premises, the case is classified as “premises liability”. In this type of claim, an injured guest would have to prove that the Arena was negligent in the maintenance of its facilities. Leaving on the resurfacing machine with guests present in the Arena could certainly fit this bill.
At the Zachar Law Firm, we regularly meet with clients, evaluate and handle premises liability claims. These can be difficult claims. The old adage that says “if you get hurt on another’s property, they are automatically liable”----not true. Not even close to true. You must prove negligence. In this case, whether anyone was injured seriously enough to warrant a claim, and whether the Arena was negligent, remain to be seen.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Construction Site Danger Kills One
A 58-year-old man died Sunday after helping two boys who had fallen into a construction pit. According to the reports, a 7 –year-old and 3-year-old were playing at a Detroit construction site when the 7-year-old fell into the pit that was intended for a new home basement. The pit which was about 10 feet deep, was filled with water. Garrett Townsend Jr. and a police officer jumped in to rescue the boy. Townsend and the officer were able to help the boy to safety, but unlike the officer, Townsend was unable to scale the muddy walls of the pit. He was later pulled out by rescue workers, and pronounced dead at the hospital.
We hail these men for their courageous endeavors, and regretfully say goodbye to a hero.
In this case, I see “the problem” as a poorly secured construction site. Under Arizona law, this might well classify as an “attractive nuisance”. Under this legal doctrine, a landowner (or contractor) may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land, if the injury is caused by “a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition”. The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools.
Further, under Arizona law, it would be quite difficult for the landowner to allege that the boys should have been more careful. Under Arizona law, children under the age of 7 are presumed to be incapable of negligence. They do not have the education or capacity to necessarily determine right from wrong. Children age 7-14 may be held negligent, but it is to be determined on a case by case basis.
In Arizona, we have a TON of construction. Securing construction sites can become a costly expense, but isn’t that a part of the cost of doing business? Surely it is not possible to address every danger that could arise at a construction site, and indeed, the law does not require such. Reasonable measures are all that are required, unless the landowner or contractor has some specific knowledge of a particular danger posed to children or others in the area.
I think the landowners and/or contractor was very negligent in this case. Our sympathies go out to this fallen hero’s family.
We hail these men for their courageous endeavors, and regretfully say goodbye to a hero.
In this case, I see “the problem” as a poorly secured construction site. Under Arizona law, this might well classify as an “attractive nuisance”. Under this legal doctrine, a landowner (or contractor) may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land, if the injury is caused by “a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition”. The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools.
Further, under Arizona law, it would be quite difficult for the landowner to allege that the boys should have been more careful. Under Arizona law, children under the age of 7 are presumed to be incapable of negligence. They do not have the education or capacity to necessarily determine right from wrong. Children age 7-14 may be held negligent, but it is to be determined on a case by case basis.
In Arizona, we have a TON of construction. Securing construction sites can become a costly expense, but isn’t that a part of the cost of doing business? Surely it is not possible to address every danger that could arise at a construction site, and indeed, the law does not require such. Reasonable measures are all that are required, unless the landowner or contractor has some specific knowledge of a particular danger posed to children or others in the area.
I think the landowners and/or contractor was very negligent in this case. Our sympathies go out to this fallen hero’s family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
