The Jounal Sentinel is reporting that a 12 year old girl was injured when safety nets for a thrill ride at Extreme World failed to break her 40-foot fall to the ground. The incident occurred at Extreme World, a one-of-a-kind thrill seeking venture in Wisconsin Dells offering bungee jumping, go-karts, and an ejection seat ride.
The accident appears to have been caused by several unfortunate events, 1) the girl's harness probably failed; and 2) the ride's safety net failed as the last line of defense. Authorities are likely to conduct their investigation to determine whether any criminal charges should be filed. Likewise, OHSA will probably conduct their own investigation because the accident occurred at a workplace. Extreme World likely also faces severe civil liability if their employees are determined to have been reckless or negligent in maintaining the ride. This determination will necessarily be made by qualified personal injury attorneys and private investigators.
Personal injury lawsuits involving entities in Wisconsin Dells often present challenges in finding the proper party to sue. Typically, companies in the Dells operate under many different umbrellas and sub-corporations - usually all very similar on paper, but yet different corporate entities. It becomes important to identify the proper entity early on so negotiations can begin immediately, and evidence can be preserved.
If you or someone you know has been injured, the Warshafsky Law Firm offers free consultations and at-home visits. Call 800-728-4970 today to speak with a Warshafsky lawyer.
Showing posts with label Warshafsky Law Firm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Warshafsky Law Firm. Show all posts
Friday, July 30, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Injured Inmate May Collect From State
A recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision correctly ruled that an inmate injured due the negligence of another inmate may collect damages. In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court and trial court in finding that "governmental immunity" did not extend to an inmate who disregarded the most basic rules dismantling horse stalls at Wisconsin State Fair Park.
The case delivers a blow to the oft-used and ever-extending scope of governmental immunity. In general, government employees are immune from negligence lawsuits if there actions were done in course and scope of their employment. However, this is not true if the act causing the negligence was "ministerial" in nature; meaning, the task was so specific and concrete that it does not require the use of discretion. Immunity also does not extend when the government employee acts in the facts of a "known danger".
Perhaps this decision will force governmental agencies and their attorneys to more readily consider settlement of smaller claims without protracted litigation. Whatever the effect, the Court seemingly made it clear that exceptions to governmental immunity are alive and well, and that cases against governmental entities may be more viable in the future.
If you or anyone you know has questions regarding an injury caused by a governmental agency, please contact the Warshafsky Law Firm to discuss your rights.
The case delivers a blow to the oft-used and ever-extending scope of governmental immunity. In general, government employees are immune from negligence lawsuits if there actions were done in course and scope of their employment. However, this is not true if the act causing the negligence was "ministerial" in nature; meaning, the task was so specific and concrete that it does not require the use of discretion. Immunity also does not extend when the government employee acts in the facts of a "known danger".
Perhaps this decision will force governmental agencies and their attorneys to more readily consider settlement of smaller claims without protracted litigation. Whatever the effect, the Court seemingly made it clear that exceptions to governmental immunity are alive and well, and that cases against governmental entities may be more viable in the future.
If you or anyone you know has questions regarding an injury caused by a governmental agency, please contact the Warshafsky Law Firm to discuss your rights.
Friday, June 11, 2010
MTD Snowblower Recall
Back in January, I posted my surprise that MTD snowthrowers were still exploding and causing serious personal injuries to consumers nearly 4 years after the product was recalled by the CPSC. I was not surprised that the product was still exploding, I was surprised that the product was still being used by consumers despite several measures taken by MTD to remove the defective product from commerce. In the past month, I have been contacted by two attorneys nearly 750 miles apart with “fresh” MTD explosions and injuries.
These MTD products liability claims are very unique in that the injuries are usually limited to broken hands and fingers. The limited damages make these claims very difficult, if not outright cost prohibitive, for a firm to handle. For example, suppose the claim is worth around $30,000. It may cost upwards of $15,000 to hire a plastics expert to provide a favorable opinion. After a fee and recouping costs, the claim is hardly worth pursuing for the client.
The Warshafsky Law Firm has handled nearly a dozen claims against MTD and is currently working on at least 5 others, most from referring attorneys. Bunching these MTD claims together to spread-out the costs has been effective in maximizing recovery for the client. As the snow melts around the country, these claims may melt away as well. But history as shown us that these products are still out in commerce and are still exploding at alarming rates. If you or anyone you know has been injured by MTD products, Warshafsky Law Firm is interested in hearing about your experience.
These MTD products liability claims are very unique in that the injuries are usually limited to broken hands and fingers. The limited damages make these claims very difficult, if not outright cost prohibitive, for a firm to handle. For example, suppose the claim is worth around $30,000. It may cost upwards of $15,000 to hire a plastics expert to provide a favorable opinion. After a fee and recouping costs, the claim is hardly worth pursuing for the client.
The Warshafsky Law Firm has handled nearly a dozen claims against MTD and is currently working on at least 5 others, most from referring attorneys. Bunching these MTD claims together to spread-out the costs has been effective in maximizing recovery for the client. As the snow melts around the country, these claims may melt away as well. But history as shown us that these products are still out in commerce and are still exploding at alarming rates. If you or anyone you know has been injured by MTD products, Warshafsky Law Firm is interested in hearing about your experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
