Premises Liability

Parents Liability for Children’s Actions – Torts

Suppose a ten-year-old boy sees another boy riding his bicycle and thinks it would be “funny” to push him over. So the ten-year-old pushes the bicyclist over and he suffers serious injuries. Are the parents liable for the actions of their ten-year-old son?

In most states, parents are liable only for the intentional wrongful acts of their children, and there is usually a dollar amount on this, such as $10,000 or $15,000. Now suppose that instead of deliberately hurting the bicyclist, the boy runs into the path in front of him, causing the bicyclist to lose his or her balance, fall off the bike, and sustain injuries.

Are the parents liable for the carelessness (negligence) of their child? In most states the answer to this question is no. While the parents are liable up to a certain amount
of money for the deliberate acts of their minor children, they are not usually liable for the negligent acts of their children that cause injury. One main exception to this rule is that, if the child is a teenager driving the family car on a family errand or with the express or implied consent of the parents (“permissive user”), the parents are liable for all injuries and property damage caused by their child’s negligence should he or she be a fault and get into an accident.

To protect themselves and their property from being the subject of a civil lawsuit, the parents should have the child who drives added to their automobile insurance policy. And we recommend at a minimum that you have 100/300 policy limits, which means that if a person is injured he or she can collect up to $100,000, with a total pay out per accident of $300,000 regardless of how many people are injured. We also strongly recommend that you buy an “umbrella policy” that covers your automobile and personal liability for up to $1 million. The cost of an umbrella policy is usually only a couple of hundred dollars, but if tragedy strikes you will be glad you have it, as it could save you from financial ruin. It is best to talk to your insurance broker or agent about your concerns as they are the experts in providing you the type of coverage that would protect you.

Share

Landlord Liability and Personal Injury Cases

Many people who rent a home, condo or apartment may not be aware of their rights in regards to incurring serious injury on their landlord’s property.  They may even be led astray by the property owner or insurance adjuster, who makes them feel as if there is little or nothing they can do after they grievously hurt themselves.

Those who do not understand the deeper implication of landlord liability could even  shy away from pursuing litigation, especially if they are renting the home and fear they will be evicted.

Yet and still, no matter the repercussions, it is in their best interest to learn what they can about landlord liability.  Why?  because the cost associated with crippling injury can drain your life savings and put your family’s future in peril.

What is Landlord Liability

Landlord liability is a form of premises liability that holds a landlord accountable for injuries that are sustained by residents or even pedestrians who hurt themselves on the owner’s property.  An example of this would be someone who trips and falls on a dangerously uneven sidewalk.  Other types of dangers, such as faulty wiring or harmful molds that can cause illness or death are categorized  under landlord liability as well.

Landlords have a legal responsibility to ensure that their tenants are safe and secure. This means performing routine check ups and maintaining the property so it is suitable for human habitation. If this doesn’t occur, and residents are hurt,  they can be held accountable.

Determining Accountability

Not every injury can be a product of landlord liability.  For example, if it rains and the sidewalk becomes slick, someone injured in a fall cannot sue the landlord.  However, if the slippery conditions were caused by severely sloped sidewalk that was in need of repair, injured individuals may still be able to pursue litigation.

Seek Legal Advice

Don’t be cowed by the landlord or the insurance adjusters.  If you know you have a claim, find a legal representative that is willing to go to bat for you.

At the law offices of Slaughter rand Slaughter we will fight diligently for your rights and make sure the guilty party pays for their negligence.  We will also try hard to help you receive the money you need to pay for lost income  as well as savings account draining medical bills.

Call us today at  310.882.6810 or  toll free at  888.222.8286  to make an appointment for a free consultation.  One of our expert personal injury lawyers will go over your case with you and provide you with the knowledge you need to protect your rights as well as you and your family’s financial future.

Call now and get on the road to greater financial security after your horrible accident.

Share

Escalator Accident Injury Lawyer Los Angeles – Know your legal rights

Many multi-story department stores and some high-rise buildings on the lower floors have escalators for its patrons to get from one level to another. One of the major risks involves the width of the space between the moving stairs and the stationary rail. Children are especially at risk of being injured by reaching their hands into this space and are unable to get it out, resulting in severe mangling, even severance, of their hand before the escalator can be shut off.

The store or building is required to check the escalator periodically to ensure that there is no slippery substance that a patron getting on or off an escalator could step into and lose his or her balance, causing the patron to fall and sustain injuries. All employees should be taught how to turn off the escalator in an emergency.  If you or a loved one have been injured on an escalator, call now and talk to a lawyer for free 888.222.8286.


Share

Apartment Owners & Landlord’s Liability

An apartment owner (landlord or “lessor”) who leases an apartment can be held legally responsible (“liable”) to the tenant (“lessee”) and the tenant’s guests for dangerous conditions existing in the apartment unit that the landlord does not inform the tenant about and the dangerous condition is not obvious. A landlord generally is not liable to third persons if the dangerous condition in the tenant’s apartment unit that injures the person comes into existence after the tenant takes possession of the premises (that is, the dangerous condition is created by the tenant) and the tenant has not reported it to the landlord or repaired it him- or herself.

However, before leasing the apartment unit to a prospective tenant, the landlord has a duty to inspect the unit to make sure it is reasonably safe from dangerous conditions. The landlord’s duty to inspect the unit before renting it out extends only to those matters and conditions that would have been disclosed by a reasonable inspection. The landlord is not required to take extraordinary measures or make unreasonable expenditures of time and money in trying to discover every potential hazard unless the circumstances justify it. And if a dangerous condition arises in the apartment unit that the tenant promptly reports to the landlord, the landlord must repair it within a reasonable period of time after learning of the dangerous condition.

A landlord has a legal obligation (“duty”) to use due care for the safety of its tenants and their guests to keep those areas of the property under the landlord’s control (the common area) in a reasonably safe condition. For instance, if the landlord leaves a dark water hose across a sidewalk at night and a tenant or guest trips on it, causing him or her to fall and sustain severe injuries, the landlord can be held liable for the resulting injuries and other expenses. A landlord is also required to keep the common area—pool, spa, tennis courts, elevators, stairways, walkways, landscaping, etc.—in a reasonably safe condition and good repair, and can be held liable for injuries caused on the common area by a dangerous condition that the landlord should have repaired or at least warned about.

The owner of an apartment complex can be held liable for the damages resulting from injuries due to:

  • The owner’s promise to make a repair to a faulty condition in the unit but fails to do so in a timely manner

  • The owner (or his or her employee) makes the repair, but does so in a careless (“negligent”) manner

  • The owner knows of a dangerous condition not known or apparent to the tenant at the time the lease is made and neither fixes it or informs the tenant of it

  • The owner retains control of parts of land and areas of the apartment complex that the tenant or his or her guest will use or has the right to use (e.g., common areas, including stairs, hallways, walkways, and laundry room)

  • The owner has violated a safety law

Suppose that the apartment complex has a pool or Jacuzzi that doesn’t have a fence around it or the fence has a broken gate, allowing infants to gain access to the pool or Jacuzzi. If a child drowns in the swimming pool or Jacuzzi because it gained access because of, for instance, a broken gate, the landlord can be held liable for the child’s wrongful death. The landlord or his or her agents must make periodic inspections of the fencing around the pool and Jacuzzi to ensure there are not holes large enough for small children to crawl through and gain access to the pool or Jacuzzi. The landlord must also make periodic inspections to make sure the self-closing and self-latching gate is in proper working order.

Suppose the landlord agrees to let the tenant keep a dog in the apartment, but one day the dog gets out and mauls a small child. Can the landlord be legally responsible (“liable) for the child’s injuries? Generally, the landlord can be held liable for the attacks of his or her tenant’s dog only if the landlord had actual knowledge of the dog’s presence and its vicious nature. This knowledge can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Actual knowledge can be inferred from the circumstances only if, in light of the evidence, such inference is not based on speculation or conjecture. Only where the circumstances are such that the landlord “must have known” and not merely “should have known” will an inference of actual knowledge be permitted. The landlord’s actual knowledge of the dog’s presence and its vicious nature can be proved by circumstantial evidence.

Where the lease or rental agreement expressly prohibits dogs, the landlord can be held liable only if he or she had actual knowledge of the dog’s presence in violation of the lease. The landlord has a right to post a notice giving the tenant three-days notice to get rid of the dog or face eviction for breaching the lease or rental agreement. But the landlord’s mere knowledge that the tenant has a dog, whether it is permitted in the lease or rental agreement or the tenant brings in a dog in violation of the lease and the landlord discovers the dog’s presence at a later time, is not sufficient in and of itself to make the landlord responsible for injuries and deaths inflicted by the dog. The landlord must also have actual notice that the dog is vicious (has “dangerous propensities”).

Where a landlord knows about the presence of a dog from the initial rental agreement, but never visits the property, never sees the dog acting in a vicious manner, and never receives any complaints about the dog, the landlord is usually not liable for any injuries caused by the dog. But where the landlord regularly visits the property, sees the dog’s vicious conduct, and receives complaints about the dog’s threatening behavior, the landlord has a duty to take affirmative steps to remove the danger; if the landlord fails to do anything, he or she can be held liable for injuries or deaths caused by the dog.

In a month-to-month tenancy, the landlord has the right to require the tenant to get rid of the vicious dog or face termination of his or her rental agreement. By virtue of the landlord’s right to terminate the lease, the landlord has sufficient control over the premises such as to bring the case within an exception to the general rule of nonliability. As noted above, in some cases, the landlord may be required to give the dog’s owner or post on the owner-tenant’s door a three-day notice to get rid of the dog or the landlord will begin eviction proceedings.

When a landlord discovers or consents to a tenant having a vicious dog in the apartment, he or she may be liable under certain circumstances. First, if the lease or rental agreement forbids dogs, the landlord has the duty to inform the tenant that he or she is in breach of the lease or rental agreement, and to get rid of the dog, If, on the other hand, the lease or rental agreement specifically permits the presence of the dog, the landlord may be required to tell the tenant to get rid of the vicious dog and if he or she does not, the landlord will take steps to evict the tenant or refuse to renew the month-to-month tenancy. However, even where the landlord has the right to terminate the lease, the landlord can be held liable for injuries caused by the dog only if, prior to the injuries, the landlord knew of the animal’s presence and its dangerous nature.

In certain circumstances the landlord can be held liable for injuries to tenants or their guests resulting from altercations with other tenants. A landlord has a duty to keep its tenants reasonably safe from assaults by other tenants. Suppose one tenant is verbally abusive towards and physically assaultive to another tenant every time he or she sees the other tenant. The victimized tenant reports the verbal threats and physical assaults to the managers on at least six occasions, and although the apartment managers assure the victimized tenant that they will “take care of the problem,” nothing is ever done. Finally one day the other tenant grabs the victimized tenant by the hair and throws her down the stairs, causing severe injuries. Can the landlord be held liable for the injuries?

Yes. In one case, the landlord knew of the physical and verbal assaults and danger posed by the fellow tenant to the victimized tenant but did nothing to stop them, despite assurances that the managers would “do something about it.” The landlord was aware of verbal taunting and the criminal assaults and therefore had a duty to take action to prevent them from recurring in the future. One thing the landlord could have done was to install a security camera focused on the staircase where most of the tenant’s aggression took place. This might have inhibited the tenant’s belligerent conduct towards the other tenant. Or the landlord should have taken steps to evict the belligerent tenant from the apartment. The managers of the apartment complex argued that the belligerent tenant might have become even more hostile of they attempted to reason with victimized tenant. The court said that this provided all the more reason to evict the belligerent tenant from the premises.

Out of the generic obligations owed by landowners to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition, the law of negligence in the landlord-tenant context has evolved to impose a duty of reasonable care on the owner of an apartment building to protect its tenants from foreseeable third party criminal assaults. Suppose a tenant is assaulted or raped on the apartment’s grounds by an unidentified criminal. Can the landlord be held liable to the tenant for his or her injuries? The test is one of “foreseeability,” that is, whether the landlord could have reasonably anticipated that a tenant would have been raped, robbed, or assault on the apartment’s grounds. One major consideration is whether this was the first time such a thing had occurred or whether there had been prior similar incidents on the apartment grounds. Where the risk of criminal assaults or other illegal conduct is great, and the cost to the landlord to prevent such attacks is relatively minor, the landlord has a duty to take preventive measures. Thus, in one case, where there had been three vicious criminal assaults in the common areas within two years of the plaintiff’s being shot during a carjacking, the court held that there was a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent criminal assaults on the property to as to impose on the landlords a duty to provide comparatively minimal security measures. On the other hand, where the risk of illegal activity is minor, and the cost to the landlord is great, the landlord may not be required to implement measures to protect the tenants.

A lawsuit for personal injuries can also be based on the fraud or misrepresentation of the landlord or his or her employees, such as the apartment’s manager or the leasing agent. For example, where the landlord or his or her rental agent represents to a prospective tenant that the property is safe and there is no crime in the area, which representations were false and made with the intent of deceiving the prospective tenant into renting an apartment, and inducing the prospective tenant’s reliance thereon. The maker of a fraudulent misrepresentation is subject to liability for the medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering and any other damages the tenants sustains because he or she justifiably relied upon the truth of the matter represented, if his or her reliance is a substantial factor in determining the course of conduct that results in his or her injuries and accompanying losses.

One issue that landlords use to protect themselves from liability in cases involving criminal conduct by third persons is that the landlord’s negligent conduct was not a cause of the tenant’s injuries. An injured tenant must prove that the carelessness (or “negligence”) of the landlord was a “substantial factor” in causing their injuries. Landlords will argue that nothing it could have done would have prevented the assault or rape. Many cases involving assaults in apartment complexes have held that the assailant could have had access to the apartment in a number of ways and hidden in any number of places, waiting for his or her victim. For example, in one case the court held that the tenant could not show that the landlord’s failure to provide increased daytime security at each entrance gate or functioning locked gates was a substantial factor in causing her injures. In legal terms, the tenant was unable to prove that it was “more probable than not” that additional security precautions would have prevented the attack.

In one case, the plaintiff-tenant contended that her injuries could have been avoided if the landlord had hired roving security guards to patrol the entire premises during the day as well as at night. The court however, found that aside from the inordinate expense of providing such security for a 28-building apartment complex, the argument was entirely speculative, as assaults and other crimes can occur despite the maintenance of the highest level of security. Despite her expert witness’s speculation, the court held that the tenant could not show that roving guards would have encountered her assailants or prevented the attack. The court noted that “a 300-unit, 28-building apartment complex contains many rooms, entries, garages, and other spaces where a rape could take place despite extensive security patrols.”

If you have been injured or a loved one killed in an apartment-related accident, you should contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible. The law firm may want to send its own investigator to the scene of the accident to inspect it and take pictures of the accident site and any dangerous condition that caused or contributed to the accident before the conditions are changed. The attorney or his or her investigator will want to talk to any witnesses to the accident while the facts are still fresh in their minds.

An experienced personal injury law firm can also help with seeing to it that you obtain appropriate and thorough medical care for your physical, emotional, and psychological injuries suffered as a result of the accident. They can also do everything possible to ensure that you obtain full compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, property damage, lost wages, psychological injuries, loss of society and comfort (“loss of consortium”), and all of your other injuries and damages.

Call today and speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation:  310.882.6810.  

We understand the physical, financial, emotional, and psychological toll a serious injury or death that an apartment-related injury or death can take on the injured victim and his or her family. Put the experience, the track record of success and the reputation of success on your side.  Let us fight for your rights.

Share

Elevator and Escalator Accidents and Injury Attorney

Every working day, millions of Americans who work in buildings having multiple floors get to and from their offices by taking elevators. Many apartment, condominium, and co-op residents use the elevator to get to and from their units. And every day, countless Americans ride escalators to transport them from floor to floor inside retail department stores.

There are approximately 600,000 elevators in the United States and 120 billion rides on elevators and escalators each year. There are twenty times more elevators than escalators in the United States, but the numbers of persons injured and killed by the two modes of transportation are about equal. This means that you are twenty times more likely to have an accident on an escalator as compared to an elevator.

In California, it is well established that commercial operators of elevators and escalators are “carriers of persons for reward.” This means that elevators and escalators are “common carriers.” As a common carrier, the owner and/or operator of an elevator or escalator has a higher standard of safety and care, and can be held financially responsible (“liable”) to passengers who have been injured by even the slightest amount of carelessness (“negligence”). The California Supreme Court stated that a higher standard applies to all persons who submit their bodies to another’s control by which their lives or limbs are put at hazard.

Civil Code section 2100 requires a carrier of persons for reward (a “common carrier,” including commercial elevators and escalators) to use the utmost care and diligence for their safe carriage, must provide everything necessary for that purpose, and must exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill. Civil Code section 2101 requires a common carrier of persons to provide vehicles safe and fit for the purpose to which they are put, and is not excused for default in this respect by any degree of care. Accordingly, an elevator car or escalator must be in “safe and fit” order; the fact that the building or store owner regularly maintains and repairs the elevator or escalator is no defense to its liability.

California law requires a common carrier to use the “utmost care and diligence” for the safe carriage of its passengers. The owner/operator of an elevator or escalator is bound to use the utmost care and diligence that a very cautious person would as far as human care and foresight can go, and are responsible for injuries resulting from the slightest neglect against which human care and foresight might have guarded. Common carriers are not, however, insurers of their passengers’ safety. An “insurer” of a person’s safety is liable for all injuries and deaths arising from its acts or neglect, even though it was not negligent in any way; it is a guarantee that the person will not be hurt, regardless of the cause of those injuries. In cases against common carriers such as elevators and escalators, although the owner/operator of the device owes them the utmost care and diligence, it is still necessary to prove that the owner/operator was negligent in some manner, even though the slightest carelessness is enough to impose liability.

If a person is in the process of getting on or off an elevator car or escalator, he or she is considered a passenger even though the person may not be physically in the car. A person is considered a passenger until he or she has safely gotten off the elevator or escalator in a relatively safe place. The elevator’s or escalator’s responsibility to its passengers continues until the passengers have had sufficient time to get away from the elevator or escalator without injury.

A passenger’s motive for using the elevator or escalator is irrelevant in determining the common carrier’s liability, and the common carrier owes the same high duty of care whether the passenger rode for pleasure or business. So if a passenger is injured by an elevator that he or she was taking for the sole purpose of getting to the top of a skyscraper to enjoy the view, and did not intend to transact any business in the building, he or she is no less entitled to a safe elevator than one who uses the elevator to get to an office to conduct business. Or a department store visitor who is injured by a defective and dangerous escalator while “just looking” is owed the same high duty of care as a person who goes to the store with the intent of purchasing an item.

Many elevator-related injuries occur when people are getting off the elevator, but the bottom of the elevator is not flush with the outside floor. Sometimes the difference between the bottom of the elevator and the outside floor is a foot or more. More frequently, however, “trip and fall” injuries often result when the floor of the elevator stops short of or overshoots the floor by as little as one or two inches. This can result in the person’s foot being tripped by the uneven lip between the elevator floor and the outside surface, causing the person to fall and suffer serious injuries, such as a broken leg, arm, or hip, or hitting his or her face on the ground causing broken bones and disfiguring injuries, or striking his or her head on the ground, resulting in a traumatic brain injury (TBI).

Hand and forearm and foot and lower limb injuries can occur when a person attempts to stop the elevator’s doors from closing so he or she can board the elevator car. The doors may be closing too quickly or too forcefully, causing injury. Occasionally an elevator cable will break, causing the elevator to drop to ground level in a free-fall, seriously injuring or killing the passengers. Modern elevators are usually equipped with a safety brake system to prevent this from happening, but the safety brake system has been known to fail, resulting in catastrophic, even fatal, injuries.

Many elevator accidents occur on construction sites when workers are traveling from floor to floor. If the worker’s employer installed the elevator and is the one in charge of servicing and maintaining it in a safe condition, but the worker is injured in an elevator accident, the worker’s sole remedy is usually worker’s compensation benefits. But if another company (i.e, a subcontractor) installed the elevator and has the duty of maintaining it in a safe condition, the worker injured by a defective and dangerous elevator may be able to sue the elevator company.

It has been estimated that as few as 15 percent of escalator accidents are the result of “unsafe acts.” The majority of accidents are caused by worn, damaged, or faulty equipment, many of which could be avoided with proper inspection, servicing, and maintenance. Unlike, say, a car, the mechanical workings of an elevator and escalator rolls are not easily accessible. This means that less effective techniques are often used instead of physical inspection. As a result, reliability is reduced and the potential for accidents is greatly increased.

Not surprisingly, a large number of the persons who are injured while riding an escalator are young children. Young children do not have the same stability as adults and are especially vulnerable to falling and being injured at the slightest bump or shake of the escalator. Young children are frequently fascinated by the movement of the stairs and will attempt to put their fingers or hands between the moving stairs and the stationary rail. Young children also have a harder time getting on and off and escalator, often falling in the process and being injured. Children under the age of five are exempt from the rule of “comparative negligence,” as a child of such early years is legally incapable of realizing and understanding that his or her conduct may result in his or her being injured by the elevator or escalator on which he or she is riding or playing. In short, the young child does not appreciate the nature and extent of the danger and voluntarily encounters it without regard for his or her own safety.

An elevator or escalator owner/operator is a common carrier only in regards to individuals who are using the elevator or escalator for the purpose of transportation at the time of the injury. For instance, children who are playing at the top or bottom of an escalator, and not intending to ride the escalator, do not get the benefit of the common carrier higher standard of care. This does not mean, however, that the owner/operator of the elevator or escalator do not owe any degree of due care toward the child. In such case, the owner/operator still owes the child the duty to exercise reasonable care, that is, the standard of care owed under general negligence principles, to keep the premises reasonably safe. The owner/operator of the elevator or escalator may have a duty to protect children playing on the elevator or escalator, particularly where the owner/operator knows that other children have played on the elevator or escalator in much the same way, while those who should have been watching them were busy shopping. Because the owner/operator knows or could anticipate that young children would play on or around the elevator or escalator, the owner/operator has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent those children from being injured or killed by the elevator or escalator.

The company that services, maintains, and inspects the elevator or escalator to ensure that it is operating properly and is free of conditions that might pose a hazard to persons using the elevator or escalator can be held liable for injuries resulting from its negligence in inspecting, maintaining, and servicing the elevator or escalator. If the owner or operator fails to have the elevator or escalator regularly for dangerous condition, it can be held liable for injuries to or death of persons using the elevator or escalator.

Ordinarily, a passenger on an escalator stands and does not sit on the steps. When one considers, however, the enormous numbers of patrons of stores that supply escalators as a means of transportation, one must conclude that occasionally someone will fall and his or her hand must rest upon the tread of the step either for a very brief time or for almost the whole descent, depending upon the force of the fall, the ability of the person to recover his balance, his ability in regaining his position, and similar factors. Children use escalators in great numbers, and their hands may be on the treads even though they have not fallen. A department store invites not only persons who are alert and nimble and adult to use its escalators, but all of its patrons, with the possible exception of those patrons whose age and infirmity would make any use or moving stairs hazardous. Under the duty to use utmost care required of a common carrier, the escalator must be constructed, maintained, and operated with the purpose and design to prevent injury to those whose hands do get into the treats.

Unlike an elevator, which has doors separating the moving car and its passengers from the stationary shaft, an escalator must move alongside a stationary balustrade. It is important that openings (“apertures”) between treads and risers, and between steps and balustrades, be kept to a minimum in order to prevent a rider’s hand from being caught between them.

As noted above, it is well settled in California law that commercial elevators and escalators are “common carriers” and owe a higher duty of care towards its passengers than ordinarily required. However, as to persons not on an elevator or escalator, nor in the process of getting on or off, the owner and/or operator owes them only the ordinary standard of safety (“due care”). Thus, if a part of an escalator broke off and was thrown twenty feet, hitting a shopper, the legal and financial responsibility (“liability”) to that person would be determined using ordinary rules of negligence law, and not the higher duty owed by common carriers, as the person was not a passenger on the escalator at the time of the incident.

If the elevator or escalator was defective because it was not properly made or designed, and a person is injured or killed due to that defect, the injured person (or the next of kin, if the person was killed) have the right to bring a strict products liability lawsuit against the manufacturer, supplier, owner, and operator of the elevator or escalator. Strict products liability law does not require that the injured person prove that the manufacturer or other person had failed to use due care (was “negligent”) in designing or making the elevator or escalator. All that needs to be proved is that the elevator or escalator was made or designed defectively and that defect was a cause of the person’s injury. There is no requirement that a specific act of carelessness (negligence) be shown.

If you have been injured or a loved one killed in an accident involving an elevator or escalator, you should contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible. If the elevator or escalator was owned or operated by a pubic entity, such as the state, a county, or a city (for instance, City Hall or the County Recorder’s Office), it is generally necessary to file a claim for damages with the proper governmental agency within six months of the date of the incident. In addition, there are other short and potentially dangerous statutes of limitations which if you miss, may bar you completely from bringing a claim for injuries.  An experienced personal injury attorney will know how and where to file this claim on your behalf.

It is also important to contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible after the accident, as the law firm may want to send its own investigator to the scene of the accident to inspect and take pictures of the accident site and any dangerous condition that caused or contributed to the accident, especially before the owner or operator of the elevator or escalator makes repairs or changes the condition. The attorney or his or her investigator will also want to talk to any witnesses to the accident while the facts are still fresh in their minds.

An experienced personal injury law firm can also help with seeing to it that you obtain appropriate and thorough medical care for your physical, emotional, and psychological injuries suffered as a result of the accident. They can also do everything possible to ensure that you obtain full compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, property damage, lost wages, and all of your other injuries and damages.  Call today for a free legal consultation of your case.  Toll Free 888.222.8286, or fill out our online form for a free review.

Share