Category: Personal Injury

4 Reasons Why Truck Accidents Are More Complex Than Other Car Accidents

A truck accident is one of the most complex and devastating types of traffic accidents. If your truck collides with a passenger vehicle, the aftermath is often catastrophic, with severe injuries or fatalities. A truck accident also presents unique legal challenges, making the case more complicated than other traffic accidents. Let’s explore four reasons truck […]

When to Contact a Denver Wrongful Death Attorney After a Fatal Motorcycle Crash

The sudden loss of a loved one in a motorcycle crash is one of the most devastating events a family can endure. These accidents often involve high speeds, minimal protection for the rider, and catastrophic consequences. When the crash results from someone else’s negligence, the surviving family has legal grounds to pursue a wrongful death […]

Debunking the Top 5 Myths About Personal Injury Claims in Albany

Personal injury claims can feel like a maze when you’re already dealing with pain, stress, and uncertainty. In Albany, with icy sidewalks in the winter, high-traffic areas like Central Avenue or I-787, and busy workplaces add to the risk of getting hurt, people often don’t know what to expect after an accident. And with it, […]

Understanding Liability Waivers for Equine Activities in North Carolina

A person’s participation in equine activities, such as horseback riding, training, and competitions, involves certain inherent risk due to the foreseeability of harm that could occur when interacting with a horse.
In North Carolina, as in many states, liability waivers are often used to protect equine activity sponsors, such as individuals, groups, clubs, partnerships, or corporations from legal claims arising from injuries sustained during these activities. However, the enforceability and effectiveness of the waivers depends on compliance with state laws, including the North Carolina Equine Activity Liability Act.
The North Carolina Equine Activity Liability Act
North Carolina has enacted the Equine Activity Liability Act (the “Act”), codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99E-1 to § 99E-5, to limit the liability of equine activity sponsors and equine professionals. The Act recognizes that equine activities come with inherent risks, such as unpredictable animal behavior and the possibility of an equine behaving in ways that may result in injury, harm, or death to the persons around or on them. Under the Act, people who engage in equine activities assume these risks and generally cannot hold equine sponsors or equine professionals liable for injuries resulting from inherent dangers.
However, the statute does not provide blanket immunity. Liability may still arise if:

the equine activity sponsor or equine professional supplies faulty equipment or tack that leads to the injury, damage, or death.
the sponsor or professional provides the equine and fails to make reasonable efforts to determine the participant’s ability to (a) engage safely in the activity or (b) manage the specific equine.
the sponsor or professional has willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant that leads to the injury, damage, or death.
The sponsor or professional fails to post the required warning sign in required locations (the sign must include the warning language discussed below).

The Role of Liability Waivers
Liability waivers serve as an additional layer of protection for equine businesses by requiring participants to acknowledge the risks involved and waive their right to sue. While the Act provides statutory protection, a properly drafted waiver reinforces this protection and may be crucial in defending against a lawsuit.
To be enforceable in North Carolina, a liability waiver should:

Be clearly written and unambiguous – Avoid complex legal jargon and ensure the participant understands the rights they are waiving.
Specifically reference equine activities – The waiver should explicitly state that the participant assumes the risks associated with horseback riding and related equine activities.
Be voluntarily signed by an informed participant – An agreement with a minor is voidable so, the minor’s parent or legal guardian should sign the waiver on behalf of the minor. (Nonetheless, a liability waiver may only be enforceable against the minor’s parent or legal guardian and not the minor because a parent cannot bind their minor child to pre-injury liability waivers. There are exceptions for non-commercial activities that are sponsored by non-profits, schools, or other volunteer programs and organizations.)

Include the statutory warning language – North Carolina law requires equine activity sponsors to post and include in contracts the following warning:
“WARNING: Under North Carolina law, an equine activity sponsor or equine professional is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant in equine activities resulting exclusively from the inherent risks of equine activities. Chapter 99E of the North Carolina General Statutes.”

Common Scenarios Requiring Equine Liability Waivers
Equine liability waivers are essential in a variety of settings where individuals engage with horses. Examples include:

Horseback Riding Lessons – Riding instructors require students (or their guardians) to sign waivers acknowledging the risks of horseback riding.
Trail Riding Businesses – Companies offering guided trail rides need waivers to protect against claims from rider participants.
Boarding and Training Facilities – Horse owners boarding their horse(s) or receiving training at a facility sign waivers to release the facility from liability for injuries that occur on the property.
Horse Leasing or Rentals – Individuals leasing or renting horses for personal use, sign waivers acknowledging the risks involved.
Equine Therapy Sessions – Organizations offering equine-assisted therapy often require waivers of participants.
Competitions and Events – Riders entering equestrian events, rodeos, or shows must typically sign waivers as a condition of participation.
Volunteer Work at Stables – Volunteers helping with horse care or barn duties sign waivers recognizing potential injury risks.

Limitations of Liability Waivers
While liability waivers are useful, they do not provide absolute immunity. North Carolina courts will not enforce waivers that are contradictory with state law, gained through unequal bargaining power, or contrary to public policy. Additionally, a waiver cannot protect against gross negligence, willful or wanton disregard, reckless conduct, or intentional harm.
Conclusion
For equine professionals and facility owners in North Carolina, a combination of the Equine Activity Liability Act and a well-drafted liability waiver provides substantial legal protection. However, because waivers must meet specific legal standards to be enforceable, consulting with an attorney experienced in equine law is encouraged. By taking these precautions, equine businesses can mitigate risks while continuing to offer safe and enjoyable experiences for riders and participants.

Retaining a Car Accident Lawyer in Charleston, WV: Six Things to Consider

Thousands of car accidents occur in Charleston alone every year, with many resulting in a personal injury lawsuit. If you were involved in a car accident in Charleston, you might be able to pursue a claim for compensation. You might also want to consult a car accident attorney, depending on your case’s complexity and the […]

Why You Need A Personal Injury Attorney for Your Truck Accident Claim

A truck accident can leave you reeling in devastating physical and emotional consequences. When the crash is as a result of another person’s fault, you are legally entitled to compensation for your damages.  Granted, most victims contact truck accident attorneys right away. However, only some understand the sheer impact of experienced legal counsel. Therefore, one […]

The Impact of the Pre-Trial Process in a Personal Injury Case

Personal injury cases can move from the more straightforward ones that are completed in a short time to the more complex ones that take a while. There are no two similar personal injury cases, as every case is handled on its own merit. However, regardless of the nature of your case, one key aspect to […]

The Legal Ramifications of Dog Bites: Understanding Dog Owner Liability

Dog bites can lead to severe physical and emotional consequences for victims. Understanding the legal implications surrounding dog bites is essential for pet owners and the community. This blog will discuss the basics of dog owner liability and break down the factors that influence legal responsibility.
Understanding Dog Owner Liability
When a dog bites someone, the owner may be held legally responsible for the injuries caused. This liability generally falls under two primary legal frameworks: negligence and strict liability. Each has criteria and implications for both dog owners and victims.
1. Negligence
A dog owner can be held liable if it can be proven that they failed to exercise reasonable care in controlling or supervising their dog. Key factors to consider are:

Knowledge of Aggression: If the owner was aware (or should have been aware) of their dog’s aggressive tendencies but failed to take proper safety precautions, they may be held negligent. For instance, if a dog has previously bitten someone or shown aggressive behavior, the owner should take extra measures to prevent future incidents.
 
Proper Containment: Owners are expected to secure their dogs within appropriate boundaries, such as fenced yards or leashed walks. Failure to do so can result in liability if the dog escapes and bites someone.
 
Training and Socialization: Owners have a responsibility to train their dogs and make sure they are well-socialized. An untrained dog that attacks a person tends to reflect negligent ownership.

2. Strict Liability
In some jurisdictions, dog owners can be held liable for bites under the principle of strict liability, regardless of whether the owner was negligent. This means that if a dog bites someone, the owner is automatically responsible for the resulting injuries. Strict liability typically applies if:

The Bite Occurred in a Public Place: If a dog attacks a person who is legally in a public space, the owner may be held liable.
 
The Victim Was Not Trespassing: If the victim was on private property with permission or in a public area, the owner may face strict liability, even if they took reasonable precautions.

3. Breed-Specific Laws
Certain states have breed-specific laws that impose stricter liability on owners of certain dog breeds known for aggression. These laws can influence how liability is assessed and may result in increased legal consequences for owners of those breeds.
Defenses Against Liability
Dog owners may have several defenses against liability claims, including:

Provocation: If the dog was provoked or threatened by the victim, the owner can argue that the bite was a response.
 
Trespassing: If the victim was unlawfully on the owner’s property, this could also be a valid defense in some jurisdictions.
 
Assumption of Risk: If the victim knew of the dog’s aggressive nature and chose to approach or interact with the dog anyway, the owner may use this defense.

Conclusion
Understanding dog owner liability is essential for anyone who owns or interacts with dogs. The consequences of a dog bite can be significant, not only for the victim but also for the owner. By being informed and taking responsible measures, like proper training and following local laws, dog owners can help prevent incidents.
If you or someone you know has been involved in a dog bite incident, it’s important to reach out to a legal professional as soon as possible. 

Effective Risk Management for Nursing Facilities: Insurance Insights on Retaliation Claims

This is the first in a series of articles addressing critical issues in risk management and insurance for skilled nursing facilities.
Owners and operators of skilled nursing facilities know that a claim or lawsuit against their facility is not a matter of if, but when. Procuring the proper insurance is critical to effectively managing and mitigating these risks. A professional liability insurance policy should provide coverage for the facility and its directors, administrators, and employees from claims of negligent care. 
Unfortunately, merely purchasing a professional liability policy without further scrutiny can leave a facility uninsured for certain claims. These policies incorporate exclusions and conditions that insurers could cite to attempt to limit coverage, particularly for claims that allege intentional injury to a patient resident. For example, an injured patient could allege that her injury was not the result of mere negligence, but instead resulted from retaliation by the facility or the facility’s employee in response to a prior complaint. These retaliation claims pose an increased risk to a facility and its insurance coverage, regardless of whether they are alleged as an intentional tort under a state’s common law or as a violation of a state’s anti-retaliation statute.
In states where retaliation is specifically barred by statute, state laws can create additional liability and damages exposure for claims brought by residents who file formal complaints or bring regulatory actions against nursing facilities alleging retaliation. Earlier this year, for example, the Illinois Legislature passed a new anti-retaliation statute for nursing facilities, House Bill 2474, that broadens the scope of anti-retaliation protections. The Illinois bill, which has passed both houses and been sent to the governor’s office for signature, does not require a formal complaint, but can be triggered by a resident taking more informal action, such as making a request to the facility related to the resident’s care. In addition to potential liability for consequential damages, Illinois HB 2474 also makes nursing facilities liable to the plaintiff for attorneys’ fees and additional damages “in an amount equal to the average monthly billing rate for Medicaid recipients in the facility.” The damage provisions of Illinois HB 2474 differentiate it from other broad anti-retaliation statutes. For example, Minnesota expanded its Patients’ Bill of Rights in 2020 to protect nursing facility residents from retaliation for a host of actions, including advocating “for necessary or improved care or services” (M.S.A. § 144.6512). However, Minnesota’s statute does not provide for a private cause of action for residents to sue the facility.
Even if a state’s anti-retaliation statute does not specify additional damages or provide a private cause of action, retaliation claims brought as common law torts can nevertheless pose the risk of enhanced damages based on the facility’s perceived culpability – a risk not found in ordinary negligence actions.
Retaliation claims are a significant and thorny example of circumstances where allegations of negligent and intentional conduct can intertwine. Unless a statute identifies certain acts that constitute retaliation per se, the patient must necessarily prove an intent to retaliate – retaliation cannot be the result of mere negligence. But ordinary negligence and intentional retaliation could manifest in factually identical ways – with intent being the only distinguishing factor. For example, a resident allegedly injured in a fall while being helped out of bed by a facility employee could assert negligence. But if that same resident had complained to management about the quality of their care prior to the fall, the resident could also allege retaliation, asserting that they were allowed to fall in retaliation for the complaint. 
Insurers could seize on retaliation allegations to deny coverage under several exclusions, including exclusions for expected and intended conduct and for willful violations of laws or regulations. Depending on the scope of the policy exclusions, insurers could assert that otherwise insured negligence claims are excluded retaliation claims.
To maximize the potential coverage for claims of retaliation or other intentional conduct bolted on to ordinary negligence claims, insureds should understand that the expected and intended exclusion does not exclude claims that an insured acted intentionally; the insurer must also prove that the insured intended to cause the alleged harm. Unfortunately, a retaliation claim arguably alleges that intent to cause harm if the actions can be attributed to the insured entity or individual.
Insureds can take four steps to mitigate anticipated insurer defenses to coverage for retaliation claims: 

First, insureds should seek language limiting the intentional conduct exclusion. The best limiting language would require a final adjudication of intentional conduct at trial (and after exhaustion of all appeals). Insurers could not invoke this exclusion in cases settled before trial.
Second, insureds should confirm that any exclusions based on alleged willful statutory violations do not inadvertently encompass statutory retaliation claims.
Third, because insurers may attempt to allocate liability among the negligence and retaliation claims to reduce their obligations for a settlement prior to trial, insureds should insist on favorable allocation provisions that do not leave the allocation to insurers’ discretion but instead require reasonable allocation based on an objective assessment of the claim.
Finally, insureds should insist on policy provisions requiring the insurer to defend (or preferably pay the defense of) all asserted claims – including arguably excluded claims – as long as at least one claim potentially falls within coverage. 

These four steps will provide insureds with additional insurance protection against statutory retaliation claims by limiting the defenses that insurers could otherwise assert in response to these claims. And as always, policyholders should scrutinize their professional liability insurance policies during renewal to maximize the coverage available to them. Many coverage enhancements do not impact premium – but they do require insureds’ diligence and awareness of coverage quagmires before binding insurance, as this discussion of retaliation claims shows. 
Listen to this post 

Pedestrian Fatalities Up Almost Half from a Decade Ago

During the first half of 2024, drivers killed 3,304 pedestrians in the United States, a 2.6% decrease from the same period in 2023, according to a new study from the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). However, this decline does not overshadow the alarming trend of rising pedestrian fatalities over the past decade, which have increased by 48% since 2014, translating to 1,072 more deaths. 
Pedestrian Fatality Trends 
Each year, the GHSA releases the first comprehensive look at pedestrian traffic death trends for the first six months of the year, using preliminary data from State Highway Safety Offices (SHSOs). The analysis indicates that while pedestrian fatalities decreased slightly from last year, they remain 12% higher than in 2019, emphasizing a concerning trajectory for road safety. 
The slight decrease in pedestrian fatalities in early 2024 aligns with a broader trend in overall traffic deaths. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), total roadway fatalities dropped 3.2% during the first half of 2023. Nevertheless, the overall numbers remain significantly higher than those recorded five and ten years ago. In the first half of 2024, there were 18,720 roadway deaths, showing a 10% increase from 17,025 in the same period of 2019 and a 25% rise from 15,035 in 2014. 
At the state level, the GHSA report reveals mixed results: pedestrian fatalities decreased in 22 states, while 23 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.) saw increases. Five states reported no change in their numbers. Notably, seven states experienced consecutive decreases in pedestrian fatalities, whereas four states faced two significant increases. 
Why Are Roads So Dangerous for Pedestrians?
There is a combination of factors contributing to this rising danger for pedestrians. A decline in traffic enforcement since 2020 has allowed dangerous driving behaviors—such as speeding, distracted driving, and driving under the influence—to grow rapidly. Additionally, many roadways are designed primarily for fast-moving vehicles, often neglecting the needs of pedestrians. Many communities lack infrastructure – such as missing sidewalks and poorly lit crosswalks – that also help protect pedestrians. Furthermore, the growing presence of larger, heavier vehicles on roads increases the risk of severe injuries or fatalities in pedestrian accidents. 
What Can Be Done? 
To tackle this pedestrian safety crisis, the GHSA advocates for an approach that establishes a strong safety net that can protect everyone on the road. A crucial part of this strategy is traffic enforcement focused on dangerous driving behaviors – like speeding, and impaired or distracted driving – that disproportionately endanger pedestrians. 
In summary, while there are signs of progress in addressing pedestrian safety, the statistics reveal a pressing need for ongoing efforts to protect those who walk on our roads. By strengthening enforcement, improving infrastructure, and promoting safe practices among both drivers and pedestrians, we can work toward reversing this tragic trend and ensuring safer streets for everyone. 

The Impact of California’s Proposition 22 on Rideshare Accident Liability

When California voters approved Proposition 22, it significantly impacted the status of rideshare drivers, redefining them as independent contractors rather than employees. This distinction has substantial implications for accident liability in the rideshare industry, particularly for companies like Uber and Lyft. Determining who is liable in the event of a rideshare accident has become an […]