Gary C. Johnson, P.S.C.
Call us to Speak with an Attorney.
Toll Free 1.866.606.4316
Local 1.606.262.4551
This is an Advertisement
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Lexington Personal Injury Law Blog

Work with experienced attorney to recover damages for catastrophic injuries

Last time, we began looking at the brain injury litigation currently faced by the football helmet manufacturer Riddell. As we noted, the company has mostly been able to avoid product liability claims in connection with its helmets, but it may not fare so well on misrepresentation claims. It remains to be seen how that litigation plays out, and the extent to which consumers will be able to hold the company liable.

Brain injuries in the context of motor vehicle accident litigation are, of course, extremely important to fully address. The primary purpose of litigation in any motor vehicle accident case is to ensure the accident victim is fairly compensated for his or her injuries and losses. When catastrophic injuries like head and spinal injuries occur, the costs and long-term impact on the victim’s life can be enormous. 

Residential construction workers are at risk of injury

As a residential construction worker, such as somebody who builds new homes, you love the fast paced action associated with your job.

What you may not love, however, is the potential for injury. Even if you do your best to avoid an accident, you never know what could happen in the future.

Football helmet manufacturers face litigation over misrepresentation in advertising

In recent years, the issue of head injuries has gained increased public attention, due in part to litigation against the National Football League for failing to properly care for head-injured players while sitting on research highlighting the long-term dangers of repeated concussions. As the conversation has become more widespread, attention has been drawn to college and high school football injuries, and the responsibilities of individuals and organizations at those levels.

One of the targets in the ongoing litigation is football helmet manufacturers, who have been blamed for failing to design adequately protective equipment. Although manufacturers have largely been able to fend off design and manufacturing defect claims, misrepresentation claims may be something of an Achilles heel. 

Snapchat dodges bullet, secures immunity, in distracted driving case, P.2

Last time, we began discussing a recent court decision in Georgia involving the social media application Snapchat. In that case, a couple had sued the company and a driver who had been using the app’s speed filter feature to get up to 100 mph. The crash took place back in 2015 and the couple sued last April.

The case is not the first reported incident of distracted driving associated with the speed filter feature. The couple argued in this case that Snapchat had the legal duty to remove or restrict access to the speed filter feature once it became aware of the risk of distracted driving. 

Snapchat dodges bullet, secures immunity, in distracted driving case, P.1

All of our readers know that distracted driving is a serious problem across the United States. Various studies have highlighted the dangers of cell phone use and the great number of accidents involving distracted driving due to talking or texting while driving.

States have tried to address the problem by increasing public awareness of distracted driving and by passing limitations on cell phone use while driving. It is doubtful that these approaches have had much success. One area that holds more promise for addressing the problem is manufacturers including features that limit drivers’ ability to access their cell phone. 

Looking at some points of Kentucky product liability law, P.3

In recent posts, we’ve been looking at Kentucky law regarding manufacturer liability for defective products, including both the limitations on manufacturer liability and legal presumptions plaintiffs must overcome in proving liability.

The second presumption we began speaking about last time, the one related to industry standards, is a particularly important one, because it is so common. Plaintiffs may argue that the manufacturer’s design was defective because it did not constitute a safe design. Manufacturers will often argue that they did not have a legal duty to use an alternative design for a product because the actual design met generally accepted industry standards. 

Recognizing the signs of growth plate fractures in children

In only one year, approximately 169,000 children under age 14 were injured in car accidents across the country, reports the U.S. Department of Transportation. Some of these injuries were quite serious. Others were very minor. And sometimes, injuries that seemed minor actually turned out to be something far more dangerous.

The good news is that most children heal quickly from broken bones and sprains. The bad news is that some fractures - those involving the sensitive growth plates at the end of a child's bones - can lead to lifelong deformities if not properly diagnosed and treated.

What to do if a third party is responsible for your work injuries

It is often said that construction workers work in some of the most dangerous workplace environments. Whether it's because of their close proximity to heavy machinery or the increased risk of being struck by falling debris, construction workers in Kentucky can look forward to workers' compensation benefits if they do suffer injuries while on the job.

But what happens if a construction worker's injuries weren't the direct result of employer negligence? What if a catastrophic injury was due to a faulty piece of machinery? In such a circumstance, how would an injured worker recover damages from this other at-fault party?

Looking at some points of Kentucky product liability law, P.2

In our previous post, we began looking at some important points of Kentucky product liability law. As we noted last time, there are certain limitations in liability for manufacturers under Kentucky law and consumers need to be aware that they may be limited in their ability to sue a manufacturer in Kentucky if they are injured by a product as a result of an unauthorized modification or alteration, or by their own negligent or careless use of the product.

In addition to these limitations in liability for defendants, there are two important presumptions in product liability cases under Kentucky law. First of all, it is presumed that a product is not defective if the consumer was injured or died over five years after the date the product was sold to the first consumer or more than eight years after the date the product was manufactured. The age of the product can, therefore, make a difference in how a plaintiff goes about proving its defectiveness. 

Looking at some points of Kentucky product liability law, P.1

Previously, we began looking at a product liability case filed against Apple which seeks to hold the company liable for failing to install a lock-out feature on a line of mobile devices. The couple that filed the lawsuit argues that installing the feature could have prevented the accident that killed their daughter and left them injured.

It isn’t clear how far the case against Apple will get in the courts. There are several different legal theories upon which product liability claims can be based, including strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty. Different states have different requirements regarding elements, standards of proof, and presumptions.