$10 Million Verdict in Segway Accident Verdict Harbinger of Potential Dangers

Anyone visiting a local mall may have seen a security guard scooting around on a two wheeled upright transportation device called a Segway scooter.  These upright scooters which are controlled by leaning in a particular direction have become the stuff of comic fodder on television sitcoms and movies like Mall Cop.  Despite these depictions as amusing but harmless gadgets, these images mask a darker side to Segway scooter vehicles that may result in devastating injuries.  A Connecticut man who was severely injured in a Segway accident won a judgment against the company for $10 million last month.

John Ezzo, 23, was injured during a competition that was coordinated by the New Hampshire based company Segway Inc. that manufactures the odd looking two wheel upright scooters.  The competitors were asked to navigate an obstacle course while wearing blindfolds.  Segway Inc. did not provide helmets to the competitors.  While it may be legitimately asked how the company did not see disaster on the spectrum, Ezzo predictably fell off the Segway and suffered a traumatic brain injury when his head impacted the ground.  Ironically, the company recommends that consumers that purchase Segway scooters wear helmets when operating the devices so the jury may have been influenced by the company failing to follow its own safety warnings designed to reduce the risk of injury associated with the vehicles.

The size of the jury verdict represented both economic damages like lost income, medical costs and partial future disability as well as non-economic damages like pain and suffering and impaired quality of life.  Ezzo who is young was forced to quit college and now works doing odd jobs as a handyman.  The difference in earning potential after suffering his injuries over the course of his lifetime is compensable.  The pain and suffering and impaired enjoyment of life also is considered over his expected life span which means that his relative youth typically justifies more extensive damages.

Segway scooters are becoming increasingly popular and can be fun forms or recreation, but they can also be dangerous.  They lack safety equipment such as structural protection, seat belts or air bags, and they are unstable compared to other forms of transportation.  Falls from Segway scooters can result in catastrophic head injuries and even wrongful death especially when they are operated without a helmet.  If you or someone you love has been injured in a Segway accident or other accident involving a scooter, our experienced Mississippi personal injury attorneys at Barrett Law have been zealously pursuing compensation for injury victim for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

/0 Comments/by

Seeking Compensation for Victims of Child Sexual Abuse in Mississippi

When a child is victimized by sexual abuse, the consequences often include long-term emotional damage and sometimes permanent physical injury.  The widespread coverage of scandals involving sexual abuse of children at respected institutions like the Catholic Church and distinguished universities like Penn State serve as a reminder that child abuse can be present in places that parents would least expect to find it.  Even more alarming is that most child sexual abuse is not perpetrated by an anonymous stranger but by close and trusted friends and family.  It is estimated that more than seventy percent of children who are sexually abused are victimized by immediate family member or someone very close to the family.  If your child is the victims of child sexual abuse in Mississippi, the dedicated and compassionate team of Mississippi sexual abuse injury attorneys at Barrett Law is committed to tenaciously seeking justice and financial compensation for children that have been sexually exploited.

According to the American Psychological Association, there is no precise universally accepted definition for sexual abuse of children.  However, child sexual abuse is characterized by adults using their dominant position over children to permit them to engage in sexual activity toward a child.  Sexual abuse of a child may include both physical and non-physical conduct including:

  • Fondling or causing a child to fondle genitals
  • Oral contact with the genitals
  • Intercourse
  • Digital penetration
  • Exposing genitals to a child
  • Displaying pornography to a child

While this list is hardly complete, it provides an overview of the types of conduct that may form the basis for a Mississippi personal injury lawsuit based on the sexual abuse of a child.  A civil lawsuit for personal injury has some overlap with a criminal case but has somewhat different objectives.  A criminal case is designed to punish the sexual offender by imposing criminal sanctions like incarceration and to discourage similar misconduct in the future.  While the purpose of a civil lawsuit also has a punishment and deterrent component in terms of inflicting financial penalties on a child abuser, the primary function of a civil lawsuit is to obtain fair financial compensation that will permit a child who has been sexually exploited to seek counseling and other resources and maintain the best possible quality of life.

The recent scandals regarding institutions where child abuse might least be expected reflects the widespread and lasting impact of child abuse.  Studies indicate that almost one-third of all children have been sexually abused by the time they reach the age of 18.  Tragically, many of these victims are younger than the age of seven.  The lasting effects of child abuse are evident in a variety of facts and statistics including the following:

  • Abused children are 53 percent more likely to face a juvenile arrest
  • Children subject to abuse exhibit a much higher rate of depression and suicide
  • Children that are abused are 38 percent more likely to commit a violent crime
  • Sexual abuse victims test lower in IQ and academic performance

If your child is the victim of sexual abuse, you or your child may have a right to seek financial compensation in a Mississippi personal injury lawsuit.  Depending on the specific facts of your situation, our experienced Mississippi personal injury attorney may be able to seek damages from the perpetrator and anyone that permitted the conduct despite a legal duty to protect the child from such abuse.  For example, lawsuits against Catholic priests that have committed sexual abuse and Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky also name the Archdioceses and Penn State University respectively.  The experienced Mississippi personal injury attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to personal injury victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

 

/0 Comments/by

Understanding Causation in Mississippi Personal Injury Lawsuits

If you are involved in a car accident, slip and fall, construction accident or other incident where you suffer serious injury, you may have the ability to seek financial compensation for your injuries in a personal injury lawsuit.  A successful personal injury claim requires an accident victim to establish that the negligent (i.e. unreasonably unsafe) conduct of the defendant “caused” injury to the plaintiff.  While this may sound straightforward enough, the notion of cause is different as it is used in personal injury litigation than when the term is used in ordinary parlance.

There are two prongs to proving causation in a personal injury lawsuit which may vary slightly depending on the jurisdiction but generally include: (1) actual causation and (2) proximate causation.  Actual causation is essentially what people normally think of when they say that an unsafe act “caused” injury to a victim.  There is an uninterrupted chain of events in which the unsafe conduct of the defendant resulted in injury to the defendant.  For example, a car runs a red light and T-bones another vehicle causing the vehicle occupant in the other vehicle to be thrown forward violently and suffer serious head and neck injuries.

This is an easy example, but the causal connection between a negligent party’s unsafe conduct and injuries suffered by an accident victim can be infinitely more tenuous.  A little more sophisticated example might include a chain reaction collision where a vehicle slams into stopped traffic causing multiple vehicles to collide with the vehicle in front of them.  Again, it is easy to understand that while the driver that started the collision did not actually collide directly with the last vehicle to suffer impact in the chain reaction collision, the driver that initiated the chain reaction accident was a “but for” cause of the injuries suffered by the last driver involved in the collision.  If not for the unsafe driving of the first driver who failed to stop, occupants of the last vehicle would not have been injured.

Actual cause (also referred to as “but for cause”) is not the only sense in which the term “cause” is used in Mississippi personal injury lawsuits.  There are certain situations when there is clearly a chain of events where it can be said that unsafe conduct resulted in injury where the connection is so convoluted and unforeseeable that liability is not imposed based on public policy.  The key issue is foreseeability both in terms of a particular kind of unsafe conduct causing injury as well as the injury being within the scope of the risk that would be anticipated from such unsafe conduct.

A recent case involving a train that collided with a pedestrian provides a good illustration of this type of causation.  In a Chicago case, a man was running to catch a train when another train hit the man who was tragically killed in the fatal train accident.  A large body part of the man who was killed was propelled a hundred feet through the air and struck a woman who was waiting to catch yet another train to work.  The woman suffered a broken leg, fractured wrist and shoulder injury.  There was no question that if the man had not been running to catch his train that the woman would not have been injured.  However, the question was whether the injury to the woman was a foreseeable risk of running across a railroad track to catch a train.  The court ruled that the risk was foreseeable so the estate of the man who was killed had to compensate the woman for her injuries.

One other issue that must be considered when trying to understand “causation” as the term is used in personal injury litigation is the impact of intentional acts of third parties.  Sometimes the intentional conduct of a third party may be considered a “superseding cause” that may cut off liability of a defendant.  However, this is only the case if the act or hazard created by the third party is not a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct.  Again, the best way to understand this distinction is by way of example.  If a driver pushes a passenger out of a moving vehicle, the driver would likely be liable for injuries suffered in the fall.  However, the driver might not be liable for additional injuries suffered if someone passing by mugs the passenger ejected from the vehicle.  Although the driver still might be found to be liable if the passenger was ejected from the vehicle in a high crime area.

While the train accident might show the outer boundary of foreseeability in some respects, it is certainly the case that when running across a train track one might be hit and thrown into a bystander causing injury.  The bottom line is that terms like “causation” may have very different meanings from the way these terms are used in everyday language.  If you are injured by the negligent conduct of a third party, the experienced Mississippi personal injury attorneys at Barrett Law can help explain these complexities that may complicate your personal injury lawsuit.  The experienced Mississippi personal injury attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to personal injury victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

 

/0 Comments/by

Lack of Insurance Puts Nursing Home Victims at Risk of Abuse and Neglect

Nursing home abuse and neglect is a serious problem that affects many senior citizens who may suffer serious injury or even wrongful death.  Nursing home residents and their families have been fighting back in many states against abusive treatment and substandard care that often rises to appalling levels.  There have been record verdicts against nursing homes during the last several years including judgments of tens of millions of dollars in punitive damages.  The threat of litigation and massive verdicts provide strong incentive for nursing homes to correct understaffing, hiring and supervision practices that result in substandard care for seniors.  Unfortunately, this incentive is substantially diminished in Mississippi because many Mississippi nursing homes fail to carry adequate liability coverage.

Mississippi nursing homes lack the same deterrent to negligent or substandard care because when nursing homes are hit by massive judgments they can simply declare bankruptcy to avoid paying a judgment.  This also impacts settlement negotiations because attorneys that represent nursing homes in personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits in Mississippi know that if their client is hit with a substantial judgment that they can simply bankrupt the judgment.  Because many nursing homes lack insurance to cover a Mississippi personal injury judgment, it is important to work with an experienced Mississippi nursing home abuse law firm that has experience with litigating nursing home lawsuits in Mississippi.  At Barrett Law, we carefully evaluate nursing home abuse and neglect to identify all parties that may share liability so that we can maximize the available insurance and resources to recover compensation for our clients.

While a proposal last year would have made it mandatory that Mississippi nursing homes carry a minimum of $500,000 in liability insurance coverage, this proposal was successfully opposed by the nursing home industry.  While virtually all non-profit or government run nursing homes in Mississippi have liability coverage, there are dozens of for profit nursing home that have no liability insurance.  This is a very important issue because it can directly impact the quality of care in a Mississippi nursing home.  While personal injury lawsuits are intended to compensate victims for injuries and loss, they also serve a crucial role of holding wrongdoers accountable and creating incentives for businesses like nursing homes to establish procedures and policies that protect residents from accidental injury or intentional abuse or neglect.  If you are considering entrusting a Mississippi nursing home with the care of a loved one, it is important to check whether the facility carries liability insurance.

If your loved one is the victim of physical, emotional or financial abuse or serious neglect in a Mississippi nursing home, an experienced nursing home attorney at Barrett Law has been representing injury victims in Mississippi for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

 

/0 Comments/by

McDonald’s Scalding Coffee Lawsuit: The Real Story

Almost everyone has heard the popular but inaccurate version of the McDonald’s scalding coffee lawsuit that became the rallying cry for big business and others that put profits above public safety.  The facts of the case were spun by media sources and big business lobbying groups to such a degree that what most people think they know is very different from the actual facts.

The first issue that has been misrepresented is that this was a “hot coffee case” because the coffee in the case was actually scalding.  McDonalds’ indicated that they had a policy in place that their coffee must be maintained at a temperature between 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit whereas coffee at home is typically maintained at temperature of 135-140 degrees Fahrenheit.  At the temperature that McDonalds’ admitted to keeping its coffee, an expert testified that a full thickness burn (third degree burn) would occur in less than seven seconds.

Many are under the misconception that the burn victim was driving a car and juggling coffee.  In fact, the burn victim was a passenger and the vehicle was stopped so that the victim could add cream and sugar to her coffee.  The cup that was between her legs tipped spilling the entire contents of the styrofoam cup into her lap.  Because the 79-year-old woman was wearing sweat pants, the material held the scalding coffee against the victim’s flesh.  She received third-degree burns over six percent of her body, including her genital, inner groins, thighs and buttock areas.  The burn victim was forced to stay in the hospital for eight days and received multiple skin grafts and debridement treatments.

During the discovery process in the case, it was revealed that McDonalds’ was aware of 700 other victims that had suffered similar serious burns during the ten preceding years but had refused to reduce the scalding temperature of its coffee.  A McDonalds’ representative also acknowledged that the coffee was not fit for human consumption at the temperature it was provided because it would severely burn the mouth and throat.  The same witness also indicated that McDonald’s had no intention of reducing the temperature of its coffee even after the injuries suffered by the victim in this lawsuit.

The burn victim had offered to settle the case for $20,000, but McDonald’s refused to settle the lawsuit.  Many media reports of the case shaped by advocates of big business misleadingly characterized this case as awarding “millions for hot coffee burns.”  These accounts not only drastically understated the serious nature of the victim’s burns but also overstated the actual financial compensation received by the burn victim.  The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury also assigned a percentage of fault to the burn victim.  The media also widely reported that the jury awarded $2.6 million in punitive damages (2 days of profits from McDonald’s coffee sales), but it generally was not widely reported that this punitive damage award was reduced to $480,000 by the trial judge.

The McDonalds’ case is notable for its prominence, but other similar cases are promoted by big business in the media as justifying tort reform.  The McDonalds’ case is an example of the misrepresentations often used to persuade the public that personal injury lawsuits should be more difficult to bring and result in less recovery.  The reality is that many times these limits, which often include damage caps, prevent victims from receiving the full compensation necessary to rebuild their lives after devastating injuries that permanently alter an injury victim’s life.  The experienced Mississippi personal injury attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to personal injury victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

/0 Comments/by

Fatal Pit Bull Mauling Shows Dangers Associated with Dogs with History of Aggression

A dog attack case in Texas that resulted in a jury verdict of $10 million demonstrates the key evidentiary issues that are critical in a dog bite case.  In this tragic case, a ten-year-old boy was viciously attacked and killed by a pit bull.  Critical evidence in dog mauling cases in Mississippi include past incidents of aggressive behavior by a dog or prior dog bites.  The boy in the fatal Texas dog attack was visiting family friends when he was fatally attacked and mauled by the pit bull.  Evidence was presented at trial that the dog had been involved in biting incidents on three prior occasions, including one involving the victim of the fatal pit bull attack.  The trial also included evidence that the family friends that owned the dog had told the victim not to report the prior bite incident to his parents.

While any fatal dog attack is tragic, this incident is particularly upsetting because the defendants in the case had plenty of notice that their pit bull posed a potential danger.  This constitutes the rationale for the traditional “one bite rule”, which is still the law in Mississippi.  The designation of the rule as a one bite rule is somewhat misleading because it does not mean that a dog owner gets “one free bite” as it is sometimes described.  The key to the one bite rule is that an owner should be on notice that one’s dog has a tendency to be aggressive or vicious.  The one bite rule imposes liability on a dog owner that knows or should know that their dog has vicious tendencies.  This means that if a dog has exhibited prior aggressive behavior, such as lunging, biting or similar behavior a dog owner can be liable for injuries caused in a subsequent dog attack incident.

A case like this one goes further and may even justify punitive damages.  The dog owners not only had sufficient evidence of the pit bull’s violent tendencies but were aware that the dog had even attacked the same victim on a prior occasion.  The act of persuading the young boy not to notify his parents of the prior dog biting incident may have directly led to the tragedy.  The parents of the boy may well have taken action to prevent the boy from being exposed to a future attack had the prior dog attack not been covered up.  The irresponsible conduct of covering up the prior dog attack is the type of reckless and unethical conduct that may be the basis for punitive damages.  Punitive damages are intended to discourage such egregious conduct and punish wrongful conduct.

If you or a close family member is injured in a dog attack in Mississippi, it is essential that an investigation be conducted to determine if the dog that attacked you has a prior propensity for viciousness.  Even if such evidence cannot be discovered, a dog owner may still be liable for injuries caused by a dog attack if actual negligence of the dog owner can be established or a violation of a leash law can be proven.   The experienced Mississippi dog attack attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to dog attack victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

 

/0 Comments/by

The Critical Role of Jury Instructions in Mississippi Personal Injury Lawsuits

Many that have served on jury duty or that have watched a crime drama on television are aware that before a jury deliberates they are given instructions by the judge.  These instructions often are written in legalese and difficult for the jury to understand when analyzing the facts in a Mississippi personal injury lawsuit.  The jury instructions often have a critical impact on the outcome of jury deliberations.  The exact set of instructions with which the jury will be charged is typically a point of contention because of the influence of jury instructions on the verdict in a Mississippi personal injury trial.

A recent case involving a court’s instruction to the jury on the issue of comparative negligence serves as an excellent example of the important role that jury instructions pay in the outcome of a personal injury lawsuit.  In Wansley vs. Brent (Miss. App., 2011), the plaintiff challenged the instruction given in a personal injury lawsuit involving a tractor-trailer accident because the judge instructed the jury that it could find either that the plaintiff was negligent or that the defendant was negligent.  The court was persuaded by the plaintiff’s argument that the “either-or” formulation for determining the negligence of the parties confused the jury regarding its ability to find both parties shared fault.

The court also noted that this either-or formulation when combined with the trial judge’s decision not to provide a comparative fault instruction confused the jury regarding its ability to apportion fault between the plaintiff and defendant.  The statute covering apportionment of fault when there is negligence by both the plaintiff and defendant in Mississippi is Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-7-15 (Rev. 2004) which provides in pertinent part that “In all actions hereafter brought for personal injuries, . . ., the fact that the person injured, . . . may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person injured . . . .”

This principal was clarified by the Mississippi Supreme Court which held that Mississippi is a “pure comparative fault state.”  This means that if a plaintiff shares fault for causing his or her own injuries fault is apportioned between the plaintiff and defendant.  Rather than barring a Mississippi personal injury victim from all recovery for one’s injuries, this doctrine results in a reduction in recovery to the plaintiff in proportion to the fault assigned to the plaintiff.  Even if the plaintiff is found to be 95 percent at fault for causing his or her own injuries, the plaintiff can still recover five percent of the amount of damages awarded by the jury.

The failure of the trial judge to provide the jury with instructions that explained the application of comparative fault, combined with the trial judge’s “either-or” formulation for determining liability by the plaintiff and defendant, resulted in the appellate court reversing the case.  This is an example of the impact of a misleading jury instruction that confuses the jury into thinking it is limited to a determination of negligence entirely by one party as opposed to the jury’s ability to reduce the amount of the recovery but still compensate a personal injury victim based on the degree of fault by the defendant.  This confusion was manifest in a jury question directed to the judge during deliberations inquiring as to whether the jury could award a lesser dollar amount.

If you are injured in a Mississippi motor vehicle accident or by any other form of negligent conduct by a third party, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries even if you were partially at fault.  The experienced Mississippi car accident attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to car accident victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

/0 Comments/by

Dental Negligence More Serious Problem than Many Think

People throughout Mississippi make regular visits to the dentist, and many young adults are told that they need to have their wisdom teeth extracted.  When parents take their teenagers to an oral surgeon, they typically do not view this type of dental procedure as having the same types of risk that are generally associated with surgical procedures on other parts of the body.  However, the reality is that the dangers and risks are much more similar than many people realize.  The single biggest danger when many surgical procedures are conducted is the safe administration of anesthesia.  This common line between oral surgical procedures and other surgeries means that the risk of serious injury or even wrongful death is present.

The family of high school teenager Jenny Olenick learned of these dangers first hand when their daughter tragically died following oral surgery to remove her wisdom teeth.  Jenny’s parents have filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the dentist and the anesthesiologist negligence.  General anesthetic is dangerous because a patient’s breathing functions may be suppressed so a patient receiving general anesthetic typically is intubated, which means providing oxygen artificially.  When this process is not done correctly or the patient is not properly monitored, the patient can suffer hypoxia, which is an interruption of oxygen to a particular part of the body like the brain.

Jenny’s parents have filed a lawsuit based on the failure of the dentist or anesthesiologist to properly administer resuscitation when her oxygen and heart rate levels declined dramatically.  The lawsuit further alleges that had prompt efforts been made to resuscitate the teen she would not have suffered severe hypoxia to the brain, which ultimately resulted in her tragic death.

This case is receiving national attention and has drawn criticism toward the dental and oral surgery profession because some argue that most wisdom teeth extractions constitute surgeries that are not necessary.  These critics point out that the risk associated with the oral surgical procedure outweigh any therapeutic benefit.  Most wisdom teeth extractions are performed as a type of preventative measure.  The purpose of preventative dental extraction of wisdom teeth is to prevent damage to other teeth and nerves or to cause infection that may spread.  However, this occurs in less than 15 percent of all cases according to one expert and former California dentist.  This same expert estimates that as many as two-thirds of all wisdom tooth extractions are not necessary.

Dental negligence can cause serious injury including nerve damage, brain infections, damaged teeth, hypoxia and potentially fatal bleeding.  If you or someone you love has been injured because of dental negligence, our experienced Mississippi negligence lawyers at Barrett Law are committed to seeking compensation for victims of dental malpractice.  The experienced Mississippi dental malpractice attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to dental malpractice victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

/0 Comments/by

Injuries Caused by Mississippi Childcare Providers May Justify Personal Injury Lawsuit

Everyday throughout Mississippi working parents drop their children off at a childcare center and presume that their children will be properly supervised and kept safe.  Parents are increasingly more dependent on childcare because many families cannot make ends meet without two incomes.  Some studies reveal that sixty percent of young children not yet in school participate in childcare.  As parents, our Mississippi personal injury attorneys understand the fear that can accompany entrusting the safety of your children to others.

The nightly news and daily newspapers are full of accounts of the abuse and neglect of children.  While many parents meticulously investigate a Mississippi childcare center before placing their child in the care of its childcare providers, sometimes institutions that provide supervision and activities for children fly under the radar for years before evidence of misconduct and abuse becomes public.  If your child is injured, abused or neglected at a Mississippi childcare center, you may be able to seek financial compensation to obtain compensation for emotional or physical injuries.

Childcare centers in Mississippi may be liable for a variety of conduct that causes injury to children including negligence, which is effectively a lack of reasonable care to provide for children’s safety.  Much more troubling are intentional acts of misconduct like physical assault or battery and sexual battery.  Children are particularly vulnerable because they may have difficulty articulating mistreatment, neglect and abuse, or they may be afraid of reprisals for reporting the mistreatment.  Childcare centers have a legal obligation to provide reasonable care for the safety and health of children entrusted to their childcare facility.

Many childcare centers fail to abide by federal and state regulations or their own safety practices and procedures, which may serve as a basis for imposing liability for injuries to the children in their care.  Our Mississippi childcare injury attorneys handle the full spectrum of accidental and intentional injuries to children in Mississippi childcare centers based on many types of inappropriate conduct including:

  • Failure to abide by health and safety laws
  • Inadequate playground safety
  • Sexual abuse or molestation
  • Lack of proper supervision
  • Defective toys or toys that are not age appropriate (i.e. choking hazards)
  • Motor vehicle accidents involving buses and vans
  • Childcare worker negligence
  • Insufficient screening or supervision of childcare workers

Although childcare facilities are subject to licensing and safety standards, some childcare centers cut corners and fail to comply with licensing requirements or health and safety regulations.  When childcare centers fail to conduct adequate background checks before hiring childcare workers or fail to exercise diligence in monitoring facilities for potential hazards, children are put at unnecessary risk of injury.  If you child has suffered serious injury while in the care of a childcare center, the experienced Mississippi childcare injury lawyers at Barrett Law can evaluate your case and advise you of your rights and options. The experienced Mississippi daycare injury attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to childcare injury victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

 

/0 Comments/by

Seeking Compensation for Violent Crimes Committed at a Business

When you patronize a business establishment in Mississippi, such as a bank, restaurant or store, you justifiably presume that the store has taken adequate security precautions so that you will not be the victim of a violent crime.  Unfortunately, this reasonable presumption is often mistaken as many patrons of Mississippi businesses find themselves victims of crimes because the business failed to take reasonable security precautions despite knowledge that criminal activity in the area might put customers at risk of suffering a violent attack.  At Barrett Law, our experienced and committed team of Mississippi negligent security attorneys provides effective litigation strategies and persuasive advocacy to victims of negligent security by Mississippi businesses.

Mississippi premise liability law governs the issue of whether a business owner owns a duty of care and the scope of that duty toward patrons who are victims of violent crimes.  Negligent security lawsuits are complicated because businesses do not have an absolute duty to make patrons safe from the intentional misconduct of third parties.  Criminal activity committed by third parties on the business premises of a property may not be foreseeable or preventable, and business owners are not expected to function as virtual insurers of the safety of their customers.  By the same token, the fact that a customer’s injuries are inflicted by the violent criminal attack of a third party does not necessarily relieve a business owner of liability to victims of violent crimes that occur on their property.

The key issue is foreseeability based on past criminal activity in the vicinity of the business.  For example, a business located in an upscale area that has a virtually non-existent crime rate may only need to take minimal precautions or may even avoid liability for providing no security.  However, the greater the crime rate and seriousness of the crimes committed in the vicinity of the business the greater the probability that a business will have an obligation to provide reasonable security measures.  The reasonableness of these precautions must be evaluated in the context of the frequency and seriousness of criminal activity in the vicinity.  If an area is a high crime rate area with a history of violent criminal assaults, a business may be expected to provide armed security.  The extent of the precautions required is a question for the jury so it is imperative that you are represented by a Mississippi law firm that has substantial experience handling negligent security lawsuits in Mississippi.

Our Mississippi negligent security lawyers at Barrett Law understand the challenges associated with Mississippi negligent security lawsuits.  We often engage experts to conduct an investigation regarding criminal patterns in the neighborhood.  We use security experts to analyze these crime patterns and evaluate the appropriateness of security measures given the pattern of crime.  Our experienced Mississippi negligent security attorneys can handle negligent security cases based on a variety of violent crimes including:

  • Rapes and sexual assaults
  • Physical assault and battery
  • Robbery
  • Stabbings
  • Gunshot injuries

If you or your loved one is injured by a violent crime committed by a third party on business premises, our experienced Mississippi negligent security lawyers may be able to help you seek compensation for your injuries.  When you suffer injuries caused by a violent crime, the perpetrator may lack the financial ability to pay a Mississippi personal injury judgment so it is critical to establish third party liability.  The experienced Mississippi negligent security attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to victims of violent assaults for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

 

/0 Comments/by