Auto tires are highly engineered and carefully constructed to provide safe performance under a wide range of conditions. Like any sophisticated product, tires can be subject to manufacturer recalls. Such recalls can come about as a manufacturer learns about problems revealed by the real-world use of their products. When drivers learn about a recall of a tire that is mounted in their cars, it’s important to take immediate steps to respond to the recall. The underlying cause of tire recalls can vary widely. Some recent recalls have included potential problems with sidewall or tread adhesives coming apart. Others have reported cases where the steel cords lying underneath the outer rubber of a tire could become exposed. In each case the threat to drivers is a sudden loss of tire pressure, loss of traction, and loss of control. Even at low speeds a catastrophic tire problem can lead to a serious crash. Nevada’s products liability law gives people who are injured by defective products the option of suing the manufacturer and marketer of the product for compensation. A manufacturer recall doesn’t free the manufacturer from liability for injuries caused by the defect to which the recall relates. If anything, a recall is intended to reduce the risk that someone will get hurt and sue. A recall can even be useful to a plaintiff in a personal injury trial, provided that the plaintiff can prove that the specific defect addressed in the recall also caused the plaintiff’s injury. Proving that a specific defect caused an accident can require the help of an expert as the specific source of a tire failure may be impossible for an untrained person to identify. Expert witnesses can charge substantial fees for their work, but the expert’s analysis and testimony can be critical to show that a defendant’s product was defective. An expert’s testimony is likely to be especially useful for plaintiffs who want to use the fact of a recall as part of their case for the defendant’s liability. If a driver knows about a tire recall but ignores it or puts off getting the problem resolved, the tire manufacturer may have an argument that the driver has assumed the risk of injury by continuing to use the defective tires. Such a defense may grow more convincing as time passes. A driver who is injured by a tire failure while on the way to the shop to have the tire promptly replaced under the manufacturer’s recall program probably won’t face this defense. But a driver who goes for six months after receiving (and reading) the notice may have a harder time recovering full compensation if something goes wrong. For more than 45 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has represented Las Vegas clients in personal injury and products liability cases. If you or a loved one has been injured by an accident caused by a defective tire, please contact us today for a free attorney consultation. Call us at 702-388-4476 or reach us through our contact page.
- What to Do if Your Neighbor Keeps an Unsafe Dog
- Nevada Supreme Court Awards Workers’ Compensation Death Benefits to Widow of Former Reno Police Officer
- What Obligations Does an Employer Have to Help an Injured Employee?
- Hit by Debris from a Truck in Nevada
- Four Reasons Why a Workers’ Comp Claim Might be Denied
- Is Lead Poisoning Still with Us?
- Seeking Workers’ Compensation Coverage for Depression
- Roadway Debris Poses a Serious Risk to Motorized Scooters
- Lawsuits After Deaths During Childbirth
- Common Sources of Infant Head Injuries
- September 2019 (4)
- August 2019 (5)
- July 2019 (21)
- June 2019 (19)
- May 2019 (22)
- April 2019 (23)
- March 2019 (21)
- February 2019 (19)
- January 2019 (20)
- December 2018 (19)
- November 2018 (20)
- October 2018 (22)
- September 2018 (21)
- August 2018 (23)
- July 2018 (21)
- June 2018 (22)
- May 2018 (22)
- April 2018 (20)
- March 2018 (21)
- February 2018 (19)
- January 2018 (25)
- December 2017 (25)
- November 2017 (17)
- October 2017 (3)
- September 2017 (12)
- August 2017 (6)
- July 2017 (7)
- June 2017 (11)
- May 2017 (11)
- April 2017 (7)
- March 2017 (9)
- February 2017 (11)
- January 2017 (12)
- December 2016 (13)
- November 2016 (14)
- October 2016 (12)
- September 2016 (13)
- August 2016 (11)
- July 2016 (13)
- June 2016 (11)
- May 2016 (9)
- April 2016 (5)
- March 2016 (7)
- February 2016 (5)
- January 2016 (6)
- December 2015 (10)
- November 2015 (10)
- October 2015 (6)
- September 2015 (12)
- August 2015 (8)
- July 2015 (11)
- June 2015 (6)
- May 2015 (6)
- November 2014 (4)
- October 2014 (9)
- September 2014 (4)
- July 2014 (4)
- June 2014 (5)
- May 2014 (13)
- April 2014 (5)
- March 2014 (5)
- February 2014 (6)
- January 2014 (4)
- December 2013 (1)
- November 2013 (1)
- October 2013 (1)
- June 2013 (3)
- May 2013 (2)
- March 2013 (2)
- February 2013 (4)
- September 2012 (3)
- August 2012 (3)
- April 2012 (10)
- March 2012 (8)
- December 2011 (6)
- September 2011 (5)
- July 2011 (1)
- June 2011 (3)
- May 2011 (2)
- April 2011 (4)
- March 2011 (4)
- February 2011 (1)
- Accident Lawyer
- Personal Injury
- Personal Injury Lawyer Las Vegas
- Product Liability
- Social Security Disability
- Workers Compensation Attorney Las Vegas
- Wrongful Death
Pregnant women have unique concerns when they are injured. Protecting the health of a developing fetus can limit treatment options, like antibiotics, that might otherwise be available. And some injuries can pose serious risks to the fetus itself. For a pregnant woman who is injured at work and is receiving benefits under a workers’ compensation program, such challenges can raise questions about coverage and employment rights.
Nevada law protects pregnant women in the workplaceThe Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act (NPWFA), NRS 613.335, limits the ways that employers can restrict a pregnant employee’s job responsibilities. Among other things, the law requires covered Nevada employers to provide pregnant employees with reasonable accommodations to allow them to continue to work during pregnancy and after childbirth. For employees who do manual work, the employer may lawfully offer light duty or a less risky role to protect the health of the employee and her fetus, and to manage the employer’s risk with respect to potential workplace injuries. Although the NPWFA isn’t expressly a workers’ compensation law, it provides an important context for women who are injured at work while they are pregnant. A pregnant woman does not need to accept an employer’s unreasonable job restrictions that are only intended to limit the employer’s potential liability and create an unnecessary burden upon the employee.
Workers’ comp applies to all job-related injuriesNevada’s workers’ compensation law requires all employers to insure their employees against all injuries and illnesses that arise out of or in the course of employment. The fact that an employee was pregnant at the time of an injury has no bearing on coverage. So long as the injury happened during working hours, or while the employee was performing work-related duties, coverage will apply. This is true regardless of the specific cause of the injury. A pregnant employee whose injuries also cause pregnancy-related complications should expect those complications to be included as a component of coverage. It’s important to bear in mind that coverage may not be approved for conditions that cannot be traced to the job-related injury. Records of the employee’s obstetric treatment will be important to show that a condition did not exist prior to the work injury.
GGRM represents clients in complex workers’ compensation casesFor over 45 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has represented Las Vegas clients in workers’ compensation claims disputes. We are happy to help women who are facing challenges involving pregnancy and workers’ comp claims to seek better outcomes for themselves and their children. For a free attorney consultation call us at 702-388-4476 or send us a request through our site.
Las Vegas is home to some of the most iconic urban water features in the country. Especially at night, when the water is lit up, big fountains can be an impressive show. Of course, the big fountains aren’t the only water features one can find in and around Las Vegas. More modest fountains and other water features, like a koi pond, are everywhere. Small children, who are attracted to water, can suffer serious injuries, including death, if they fall into a water feature and aren’t rescued in time.
Premises liability for water featuresHomeowners and businesses alike owe certain obligations to guests to maintain their properties in reasonably safe condition. For a business that maintains a water feature that is accessible to the public, reasonable steps to keep the water feature safe might include:
- Active, 24-hour video monitoring.
- Maintaining fences and other barriers to prevent access.
- Having personnel on site with training to respond to a drowning emergency.
What role does a parent’s supervision play?Parents of small children should always keep a close eye on their kids when they are around water. This is true for all children, but especially those who don’t know how to swim or keep themselves safe in the water. Always bear in mind that water features that aren’t intended for human use probably have slippery bottoms, making rescues more difficult. Parents who allow their children to wander off to a water feature without adequate oversight may face a defense of contributory negligence in any ensuing personal injury case. The defense may argue that the parents disregarded the potential danger to their child and therefore should be at least partially responsible for the child’s resulting injuries. Additional facts, like warning signs or evidence that the parent was aware of the risk but ignored it, could work in the defense’s favor.
GGRM is a Las Vegas personal injury law firmThe law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez represents clients in the Las Vegas area in personal injury a litigation. Our practice focuses on providing caring service to each and every client. For a free attorney consultation about your case, call us today at 702-388-4476 or contact us through our website.
Lies and deception are a reckless approach to getting out of liability for an accident, but that doesn’t stop some defendants from telling falsehoods. This can be especially problematic when the plaintiff and defendant are the only witnesses to the accident: there are no passengers, other drivers, or other bystanders who can shed light on the events leading up to the crash. When a defendant lies, the injured plaintiff can explore several options to establish the truth. The first is to obtain third party data. Auto accidents tend to generate a ton of information. Most contemporary cars have “brains” that can be accessed to gather data about virtually every system in the car. In an accident involving serious injury, police investigators may generate reports. In some cases it can make sense to investigate the defendant’s activities in the time leading up to the crash. Such information could come from deposing the defendant, or might be obtained from things like the defendant’s cell phone data. Another important approach is to examine the defendant’s own words. Lying consistently is very difficult to do. Many people who lie leave a trail of contradictory statements that can be used to refute their falsehoods. This is especially true of a defendant who has discussed the accident on social media or in other electronic forms, like email, which can be entered into evidence. The defendant may have made contradictory statements to others that could be brought in as evidence as well. A defendant who is “caught” in a lie in the course of litigation can face a number of consequences. If the defendant was testifying under oath, whether in a courtroom setting or in a deposition, the lie may be grounds for a criminal charge of perjury, a felony under Nevada law with penalties including up to four years in prison and a fine. In some cases the defendant’s attorneys may also be taken to task by the court for not taking steps to address their client’s deception. A good civil defense attorney wouldn’t allow his or her client to lie in court not just because of the serious criminal penalties that could result, but because it risks undermining the defendant’s case. For the personal injury plaintiff, proving that the defendant lied also calls into question the defendant’s other statements to the court. It puts the plaintiff in a significantly stronger position, because the credibility of the defendant as a witness has been seriously damaged. The attorneys at Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez have represented clients in the Las Vegas area in personal injury cases for over four decades. We work closely with each client to find the best path to a successful outcome. For a free attorney consultation about your case call us today at 702-388-4476 or send us a request on our contact page.
Being in a serious car accident can have long-term consequences, especially for someone who has been injured and faces a long road to recovery. Amidst the fear and pain that comes in the immediate aftermath of a major crash, it’s important for people who have been injured to avoid making certain mistakes that could hurt their chances of recovering full compensation for their injuries from the at-fault driver or that driver’s insurance carrier. Naturally it’s essential to prioritize getting medical attention for those who need it after an accident. Once that step is resolved, there are some important things to avoid doing:
- Not gathering a complete record of information about the accident. It’s always important to exchange information with other people who were involved in the crash. Nevada law requires drivers who are involved in a crash to exchange basic contact information, as well as license and insurance details. Beyond that, it’s a good idea to note down the time and location of the accident and as many details about what happened as possible. If possible, taking pictures is always helpful. So is getting contact details from witnesses, such as passengers, pedestrians, and other drivers who stopped to help.
- Making statements that could imply fault. Although for many it’s instinctive to apologize after being an accident, an apology can become a tool of the other side in litigation as they seek to prove that their client wasn’t entirely at fault. One needn’t fear expressing concern for another person, of course, but it’s wise to avoid discussing the circumstances of the crash with the other driver. The inverse is also true: if the other driver begins to apologize profusely and offers a narrative about the accident that clearly shows fault, be sure to write down what was said.
- Posting on social media about the accident. For many, posting photos and stories about an accident can feel like a perfectly natural thing to do. But it can have repercussions in any ensuing legal case, where the specific words and photos posted to a social media platform can be used to contradict testimony or establish adverse facts. Social media posts can be used by a defendant to call into question the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, establish that the plaintiff bears at least some fault for the accident, or other important details.
Many dog attacks feel like they happened out of the blue, when a seemingly docile animal suddenly turns aggressive. Sometimes the facts of a dog bite lend themselves to the argument that the bite victim caused the dog’s aggression or failed to act appropriately when a dog began showing signs of agitation. Such arguments in the legal context are called contributory negligence.
Contributory negligence under Nevada lawWhen a defendant in a personal injury case raises the contributory negligence defense, his or her goal is to transfer at least some of the blame for the plaintiff’s injury back onto the plaintiff. Contributory negligence can apply even if the defendant was negligent in causing the plaintiff’s injury. It asserts that the plaintiff was also negligent in some way, and as a consequence of the plaintiff’s negligence the plaintiff’s injury occurred, or was made worse than otherwise would have been the case had the plaintiff not acted negligently. Negligence is a legal standard that applies when someone owes another person a legal duty of care and fails to meet that duty in some way. For example, a legal standard might state that individuals have an obligation to behave reasonably around dogs so as to prevent injuries to themselves and others. Nevada applies a modified contributory negligence rule. Under it, a plaintiff’s recovery against the defendant will be reduced by a percentage of fault that is assigned by a court to the plaintiff’s negligence. If the plaintiff is judged to have been 50% or more responsible for the injury, then the defendant will not be held liable for any damages.
What constitutes contributory negligence in a dog bite case?Every dog bite case is different. A host of important facts can determine the course of the case. Those facts might include the sex and breed of the dog, the location of the event, whether or not the defendant (typically but not always the dog’s owner) was in breach of dog safety laws at the time, and so forth. Given all the variables it is difficult to describe for certain when contributory negligence might apply. In general contributory negligence may arise in a dog bite case where the plaintiff did something to provoke the dog. Typically a provocative act is something more than just acting in self defense. In other words, a person who responds to a dog barking aggressively at them by waving a stick at the dog might simply be protecting themselves, but someone who teases the dog or actively begins to attack it might be inviting aggressive behavior. Likewise, if the plaintiff disregards a “Beware of Dog” sign, or is committing an unrelated wrongful act, like trespassing, a contributory negligence defense might be more likely to apply.
GGRM is a Las Vegas dog bite injury law firmFor more than 45 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has served clients in the Las Vegas area in personal injury and dog bite cases. If you have suffered an injury from a dog bite and you aren’t sure how contributory negligence might factor into your case, please contact us today for a free attorney consultation about your case. Call 702-388-4476 or contact us through our website.
In rare circumstances a personal injury case may go all the way to trial, with a judge or jury making critical decisions about the liability of the defendant and determining how much the defendant should pay in compensation to the plaintiff. Cases fail to settle before trial for a variety of reasons, a common one being unreconcilable differences about key facts or interpretations of law that lead the two sides to very different ideas about how much the plaintiff’s claims are worth. After a trial is over and a jury reaches a decision, there are times when a plaintiff may want to file an appeal.
What an appeal can and can’t doThe party that files the appeal—the appellant—may be the defendant or the plaintiff. Nevada’s Rules of Appellate Procedure govern when and how appeals may be pursued. In an appeal the appellant asks the higher court to change part or all of the lower court’s decision, potentially throwing out the decision of the trial court and in some cases even ordering that the case be retried. Trial courts generally examine the decisions of lower courts for legal errors that could have influenced the outcome of the case. A key feature of appeals is that they are not retrials of the entire case. The appeals court will examine the evidence presented at the trial court, but will not allow either party to introduce new evidence. In other words, the case will be decided based on the facts that were established at trial. If a problem was allowed to remain on the record at the trial level, the appeals court may not have leeway to consider alternative evidence.
When is an appeal the right step?The decision to appeal can be a complex and difficult one, in part because appeals must be made within a fairly short time following the final decision of the trial court. Appeals may require the expertise of a new attorney, one who is familiar with appellate practice. And of course, appeals can cost more money. There are cases where a plaintiff may wish to file an appeal anyway, because the stakes are high enough that pursuing a case to its fullest is worth the risks. Here are some scenarios where the plaintiff may want to appeal:
- Improper instructions were given to a jury, which reached a key decision in reliance upon them.
- The trial judge made errors in allowing or disallowing critical evidence.
- There is evidence that the jury or judge was unlawfully biased against the plaintiff.
Work with an experienced Nevada personal injury attorneyIdeally a personal injury case won’t need to go as far as an appeal. If it happens it’s important that every part of the case leading up to the appeal has been handled competently. That’s another good reason for working with a law firm with deep experience handling personal injury cases. The attorneys at Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez have represented Nevada clients in personal injury cases for over 45 years. For a free attorney consultation about your case, call us at 702-388-4476 or through our website.
Getting rear-ended by another driver can cause major, life-altering injuries. Sometimes the nature of these injuries isn’t obvious until days or even weeks after the accident, when symptoms suddenly arise. Common injuries from rear-ending accidents include head trauma (concussions, skull fractures), neck and spine injuries (whiplash, herniated discs), and soft-tissue damage (injuries to nerves, muscular problems). Ideally the insurance of the at-fault driver will automatically cover the costs associated with such injuries, but in reality the injured person often needs to file a lawsuit to recover full compensation.
Insurance versus lawsuitsThe reason a lawsuit may be necessary in a rear-ending case has to do how insurance works. In Nevada the minimum liability insurance that all nonprofessional drivers are required to carry is $25,000 per injured person per accident. Needless to say, $25,000 is unlikely to cover all the costs associated with a serious injury. For a person dealing with major medical bills, an inability to work, or other significant financial consequences, suing the at-fault driver may be necessary to get more. Drivers who are involved in rear-ending accidents should take care to not fall into the trap of a quick settlement offer by the at-fault driver’s insurance company. Settlement offers are usually made to limit an insurer’s exposure to risk. They rarely take into account the full scope of the consequences being suffered by the injured person. The injured person may feel that accepting the quick cash is necessary to cover immediate financial needs, but by taking it they may be leaving significant value on the table.
Documenting damages from rear-ending accidentsAs with any car accident, someone who has been rear-ended should try to keep good records about details of the accident and its aftermath. Take pictures of the accident scene, write down notes about what happened, and look for potential witnesses who may be of help developing a legal case should it be necessary. Even if no injuries are apparent immediately after the accident, it is important to be examined by a doctor to verify that there are no hidden injuries, such as neck and spine displacement, that could become a problem later. Seeking medical attention quickly also can be important for establishing the causal relationship between soft-tissue injuries and the accident. A defendant in rear-end cases may try to raise doubts about the link between the accident and an injury that was not immediately apparent at the time of the accident. A medical exam results in concrete records that can be important in any personal injury lawsuit.
GGRM is a Las Vegas auto accident law firmFor more than 45 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has served clients in the Las Vegas area in personal injury and auto accident cases. If you have been injured in a rear-ending accident in Nevada, contact us today for a free attorney consultation. Call 702-388-4476 or contact us through our website.
Parents are right to expect safe and responsible practices by the daycare facilities where they leave their children. A properly licensed and legally compliant facility must follow numerous laws and regulations governing safety and staffing, all designed to reduce the chance that a child will suffer a serious injury. Ordinary bumps and scrapes might be expected, but when a child needs to be hospitalized after an injury, questions will arise about the extent to which the daycare is legally responsible. The short answer to such questions is usually, yes, the facility does bear responsibility. Responsible providers carry insurance to protect themselves, the children in their care, and their parents from suffering serious financial consequences in the event of a tragic accident. They also ensure that their staff are well qualified to take on the responsibility of ensuring the safety of the children in their care. There are numerous potential sources of injury to children at daycare facilities. Ideally, every facility takes steps to reduce or eliminate sources of risk, but financial constraints, inattention, or inadequate skill can leave hazards unresolved. Examples of sources of injury include:
- Improperly maintained equipment
- Inadequate supervision
- Inattention to food allergies
- Improper response to an injury
- Negligent hiring practices
Nevada law imposes significant penalties on those who drive drunk, and for good reason. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, nearly 30 people die every day in the United States in crashes related to drunk driving. Many more than that are injured by drunk drivers every day. The consequences can be devastating for those who are injured and for their families. Drunk driving is a crime, punishable in Nevada by a jail term of up to 6 months and a fine for first time offenders. Someone who kills another person as a consequence of drunk driving faces significantly harsher penalties. For the victim of a drunk driving crash, a criminal prosecution may offer solace in some regard, but it won’t necessarily pay for medical expenses, rehabilitation, and other damages associated with injuries. Even if state prosecutors are pressing charges against a drunk driver, an injured victim (or the victim’s family, if the victim has died or is incapacitated) can sue in civil court for financial compensation. Such a lawsuit probably will seek recovery from the drunk driver’s insurance company, but more than likely will also seek to recover additional damages from the driver personally. A drunk driver can be sued in civil court regardless of whether prosecutors will press charges, and regardless of whether the drunk driver is found guilty. Criminal courts have higher standards for conviction than the standards applied in civil courts for purposes of determining liability. A criminal conviction of a defendant is conclusive evidence of civil liability in Nevada. NRS 41.133. If a defendant has been convicted of a drunk driving offense, the questions in the civil case may turn to the extent of the damages for which the defendant should be held responsible. For over 45 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has represented Las Vegas clients in auto accident cases. If you have been injured in a drunk driving accident, please reach out to us today for a free attorney consultation about your options. Call us at 702-388-4476 or send us a request through our site.