Fried Chicken powerhouse, KFC, might do chicken right, but they do cleaning wrong.
A lawsuit has been filed by a West Virginia couple, alleging personal injuries after the husband fell as he was entering the KFC. The couple states that an employee of KFC was using a hose to spray clean the sidewalk in front of the entrance.
The couple claims that the water from the hose combined with muddy substance on the ground caused the walkway to become extremely slippery. The couple also alleges that the restaurant was negligent for not posting a sign that would alert customers as to the presence of water and other substances on the sidewalk.
The injured man suffered a broken ankle after an awkward fall that caused him to fall onto his right leg, which later required surgery. The husband has permanent pain and limitation of movement in his right ankle and leg. The man claims future medical expenses will be required and significant loss of enjoyment of life. His wife is also suing KFC for loss of consortium – the inability to enjoy the same love, affection and companionship she had with her husband prior to the accident.
Generally, businesses are responsible for the injuries suffered by their customers. Businesses, like KFC, who invite the public to come to their restaurant, have a responsibility to their customers and potential customers to protect them and prevent any dangerous conditions that could potentially hurt them.
If you or anyone you know has been injured by a dangerous condition at a restaurant or other business location, contact Khorrami, LLP for a confidential consultation.
Christopher “Brock” Hill, an Alabama man who suffered multiple injuries after a tragic construction accident, has been awarded $1.7 million against international construction company ThyssenKrupp and several other companies.
The award comes after Mr. Hill fell 25 feet from a manlift on October 30, 2009. Mr. Hill was using the manlift to install an overhead crane 80 feet in the air, when wire ropes in the manlift failed. The boom – the part of the manlift that extends and lifts the operator into the air – retracted suddenly. As Mr. Hill fell, he was violently thrown around, snapping his right leg in half and sustained a concussion after his head was thrown into the machines control panel. Mr. Hill was suspended 60 feet in the air unconscious for 45 minutes before he was rescued. Mr. Hill required multiple major surgeries, including the insertion of a steel rod in his hip and knee.
An investigation revealed that the company who owned and leased the machine – All Crane Rental of Alabama – failed to maintain regular inspections of the manlift, which would have exposed the damage that caused the accident. It was required by law that maintenance inspections be conducted every three months or 150 engineer hours to prevent accidents like the one here. However, it was found that All Crane skipped several inspections to save money, so as not to pay overtime costs.
Mr. Hill was awarded $1 million in compensatory damages and All Crane was ordered pay another $700,000 in punitive damages. Punitive damages are generally awarded to a plaintiff when the jury finds that one or more of the defendant’s conduct was malicious, oppressive or fraudulent. In this case, the jury found that All Crane Rental fraudulently represented to Mr. Hill’s company that the machine they leased was without defect, even though they did not do proper inspections.
Generally, businesses are responsible for the injuries suffered by individuals working on their premises.
Rental equipment may be used over and over by many different people, often without proper maintenance, checks, and safety reviews. If a rental company does not take proper care to inspect and maintain rental equipment, wear and tear may compromise the safety of the tool or machinery. Rental centers have a responsibility to their customers and all potential users of the equipment that their machines work properly.
If you or anyone you know has been injured by failing rental equipment, contact Khorrami, LLP for a confidential consultation.
A class action lawsuit has been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union after a “gang sweep” was conducted at West High School in Salt Lake City. During the sweep, up to 40 students of color were detained, questioned, and falsely accused of being gang members.
The ACLU filed the complaint in U.S. Federal court against the Salt Lake City police department, the cities of West Jordan and West Valley, the Unified Police Department’s Metro Gang Unit, Salt Lake County, and school district officials. The lawsuit alleges violations of state and federal constitutional rights.
The complaint states that during the sweep, police officers interrogated students denied their requests to call their parents or to leave the interrogation room.
The ACLU is representing a fourteen year old, Kaleb Winston, who was among one of the students questioned. Winston says that he was approached by two plain clothes officers who took him to a nearby room and accused him of vandalism and tagging. Winston became upset about the questioning, but he was not allowed to leave the room. The officers questioned him about his “graffiti patterned” backpack and sketches that the officers said resemble gang insignia. Although Winston denied any gang affiliation, the officers ignored him and accused him of tagging sites around the school. They also faked booking Winston into jail and told him that a file would be kept on him.
The police department says that the school asked for help from the gang unit because of an increase in graffiti and gang attire at the campus. The goal, according to a spokesman, was to steer students in the right direction.
The complaint also alleges that Winston’s mother complained to the police over the treatment of her son. According to her, the police told her that the purpose of the raid was to address a problem with Mexicans, and that she “had her head up her ass” if she did not realize that her son was tagging. Winston did well in school and had no juvenile record.
If you or a loved one has been subjected to discrimination or harassment based on race, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a confidential evaluation of your rights.
Ohio resident Melody Hill and her husband Steve are suing for personal injuries after Melody sustained injuries at an Arby’s in Huntington.
The complaint was filed in Federal Court against the Cartee Restaurant Group, which owns and operates the Arby’s location at which Melody sustained her injuries. According to the complaint, the Hills went to Arby’s on August 26, 2011. Melody was walking to the restroom when she slipped on what appeared to be a pool of water and fell. The complaint states that Arby’s knew or should have known about the pooled water, but that no measures were taken to warn customers of the potential hazard.
Melody received various injuries as a result of the fall. The suit seeks compensation for her medical expenses, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, scarring, physical and mental pain and suffering, and loss of capacity to enjoy life. Steve is also claiming damages for the loss of the services, society, companionship and consortium of his wife. Together, the Hills are seeking over $75,000 in damages.
Customers of a business are owed a duty of care by the business owner. The owner has a duty to make the property safe for customers, which includes conducting a reasonable inspection of the premises to uncover hidden dangers, such as pooled water. The property owner also has a duty to warn customers of hazardous conditions, especially if those conditions cannot be fixed. A defendant who breaches that duty is negligent and is liable for any damages caused. Any business that knowingly exposes its customers to a substantial risk of damage or injury breaches its duty and standard of care. A business that fails to recognize a substantial risk of loss that any reasonable person would realize may also be breaching its duties.
If you or a loved one has been injured due to someone else’s negligence, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a confidential consultation regarding your rights.
On March 26, 2013, Plaintiff Lisa Mulhall filed a claim in the Illinois Southern District Court against the manufacturers of Pradaxa, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, for causing her mother’s death. Pradaxa is a direct thrombin inhibitor that purportedly reduces the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patient with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.
Mulhall alleges her mother, Louise Newcomer, died from using Pradaxa. According to the complaint, Ms. Newcomer began taking the medication on September 27, 2011 to treat her atrial fibrillation. On October 31, 2011, approximately one month after taking the mediation, Ms. Newcomer was hospitalized for severe gastrointestinal bleed, hemoptysis, and epistaxis. On November 14, 2011, Ms. Newcomer died from the bleeding reportedly caused by Pradaxa.
Mulhall alleges that the Pradaxa manufacturers over-promoted the drug. According to her complaint, Mulhall believes Pradaxa manufacturers spent $67,000,000.00 in 2010 to promote the drug even though Pradaxa was not approved for sale until October 19, 2010. Mulhall further alleges, in their promotion of the drug, Pradaxa manufacturers failed to adequately disclose the very harmful side effects of the drug.
Unfortunately, Ms. Newcomer’s story is not that unusual. Many consumers have complained of bleeding caused by Pradaxa. These complaints prompted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue press release on November 2, 2012 notifying consumers of the risk for serious bleeding when taking Pradaxa.
If you or someone you love has suffered an injury caused by Pradaxa, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a private consultation.
On March 15, 2013, Bayer, the producer of contraceptive drugs Yasmin and Yaz, agreed to pay $24 million to settle lawsuits involving plaintiffs who alleged that the contraceptives caused gallbladder disease. Bayer has agreed to pay a $3,000 maximum per plaintiff. The settlement amounts will be based on a tier system whereby plaintiffs who have had their gallbladders removed will be entitled to $3,000.00 in damages, while those who suffered injuries to their gallbladders will likely to receive approximately $2,000 in damages.
Despite settlement of the claims, Bayer admits no wrongdoing. A Bayer spokeswoman said the company agreed to the settlement to avoid lengthy and expensive litigation and that the settlement amount was likely to be far less than the costs of defending the company against the lawsuits. Bayer has agreed to these settlement terms, so long as the number of plaintiffs does not exceed 8,000, in which case the amount may be reduced per plaintiff. Alternatively, Bayer also reserved the right to abandon the settlement if less than 90% of plaintiffs choose to participate.
Yasmin and Yaz are birth control pills manufactured by Bayer Healthcare. They are combination oral contraceptives, meaning that like most birth control pills, they contain both estrogen and progestin. These steroidal components work together in COCs to suppress ovulation, fertilization and implantation and thus prevent pregnancy. Yasmin and Yaz were approved for marketing 2001 and 2006, respectively.
The drugs, however, have also been associated with a number of serious, potentially fatal side effects, including heart attacks, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, blood clots, gallbladder issues, and stroke. There have been more than 50 deaths of women attributed to Yaz and Yasmin between 2004-2008 that have been reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Thousands of lawsuits have been filed against Bayer regarding its oral contraceptives and the disclosure of risks. Most of the suits claim the company failed to adequately warn women about the health risks posed by their product. The women in these suits state that they would not have taken the birth control pills had they been informed about the health risks involved.
If you or someone you know has been harmed by a lack of adequate warning on pharmaceutical drugs, contact Khorrami, LLP for more information and a free consultation regarding your possible claims.
Ryan and Justyne Eaton, a Wisconsin couple have filed a lawsuit against the manufacturers of Zoloft, alleging the drug caused their daughter Aubry’s death. The claim is filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Aubry Eaton was born with very severe birth defects including significant malformations of the brain, hydrocelphalus and pulmonary hypoplasia. Aubry died on January 6, 2010, the same day she was born.
Ryan and Justyne believe Justyne’s ingestion of Zoloft, an SSRI antidepressant, caused Aubry’s death. They allege that Zoloft knew or should have known about the risks their drug could cause to a developing fetus because the drug crosses the placenta.
This is just one of the many cases alleging harm due to SSRI antidepressants during pregnancy. There are at least 270 known cases alleging that Zoloft caused birth defects, injuries, and death to fetuses in utero.
If you or someone you love has suffered an injury caused by an SSRI, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a private consultation.
Paul Decker, a retired Ohio man, has succeeded in being awarded a $5 million jury verdict by a Ohio federal court jury for becoming paralyzed after being given an MRI scan that used a dye. G.E. Healthcare are the makers of Omniscan, an allegedly harmful dye Mr. Decker claims paralyzed him.
Omniscan contains a toxic metal, gadolinium, which is bonded to a protective coating and normally filtered through the kidneys without causing harm. However, use of gadolinium containing dyes by patients suffering from kidney disease, such as Mr. Decker, has been associated with a rare skin disease known as nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, which causes the skin to toughen and thicken, and can lead to paralysis or death.
The link between nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and Omniscan was discovered by a scientist in 1994, who was allegedly told to “burn the data.” G.E. Healthcare acquired Omniscan in 2004, but it was not until 2006 that G.E. disclosed the harmful side effect.
At trial, Decker’s lawyers presented evidence that G.E. withheld evidence of the harmful effects of Omniscan when used by patients with kidney disease. Despite arguments by G.E.’s lawyers that G.E. had acted ethically and had not withheld negative research findings, the jury awarded Decker $5 million.
If you or someone you know has been injured by a harmful product, you may be entitled to compensation. Please contact Khorrami, LLP for a confidential consultation.
Seventeen years after the landmark case of Liebeck v. McDonald’s, popularly known as the McDonald’s Coffee Case, the famous fast-food chain is hit again not by one but by two new lawsuits regarding the temperature of coffees.
Surprisingly, both of the new suits were filed in a court in Cook County, Illinois on the same day. One of the cases involved a four year old girl who was given a hot cup of coffee to give to her grandmother, which caused the girl second-degree burns when the lid fell off and the hot coffee spilled on her. The plaintiff is suing because McDonald’s employees apparently violating their internal company policies by handing the extremely hot cup of coffee to the little girl.
The second case involved a 35 year old woman, who has suffered “horrific” burns, according to her attorney, when she spilled a cup of hot coffee bought from McDonald’s on her body.
While these are not the only cases arouse from the same kind of incident since Liebeck case, McDonald’s has not done enough changes to its cup design in order to prevent this from happening again.
Based on McDonald’s produced documents back in 1994 for the Liebeck case, they held their coffees at between 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain its optimum taste, a temperature that causes a full thickness burn to human skin in less than seven seconds of contact.
McDonald’s has announced the consideration of a new cup design, but it was not related to safety concerns, but rather, a more sustainable paper model instead of the Styrofoam cups.
If you or someone you know has been a victim of similar cases, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a confidential consultation.
A KISS concert attendee has sued the production company for being injured during the concert. While attending a KISS concert at the Verizon Wireless Amphitheater, William Mueller Jr. was injured by a metal ratchet tie-down strap. KISS is known for having flamboyant theatrical performances which include many special effects, including smoke machines, pyrotechnics, and canons.
During the show, one of the metal ratchet tie-down straps holding one of the canons in place snapped. Mueller was hit by the tie-down while standing at his seat. He suffered injuries to his groin and upper thigh which has caused him pain, mental distress, and temporary loss of consortium.
Mueller also asserted exacerbation of existing injuries. Apparently, Mueller had previously gone through major surgeries and radiation therapy in order to combat brain cancer. His body and immune system were in a weakened state due to his previous treatments, leading to more serious injuries due to the impact.
Mueller filed suit against the company that put on the concert: Live Nation Entertainment, Contemporary Group Acquisition, Live Nation Worldwide, and Live Nation general manager, Leslie Ramsey. He also named the company that set up the canon, All Access Staging & Productions.
Because Mueller was a “customer” while attending the concert, legally he was owed the highest degree of care for his safety. The Defendants did not deliver on their duty by failing to ensure that the effects at the show would not injure any concert goers. A person has grounds to recover for medical bills, lost wages, and emotional and physical pain and suffering, in a personal injury lawsuit for injuries caused by the negligence of another person or entity. A person or entity is negligent when they have a duty, fail to take reasonable care, and damage or injury results from their failure.
If you or a loved one has been injured due to someone else’s negligence, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a confidential consultation regarding your rights.