29-Year-Old Woman Gives Birth After Being Raped in Nursing Home

When I read the recent news about a 29-year-old woman who gave birth after being raped in a nursing home I was filled with rage. Chills shot up my spine and hot anger filled my body. Then, I remembered, THIS…. THIS is why we do what we do.

KABC Los Angeles just released this video detailing the incident.

Woman Gives Birth After Being Raped in Nursing Home

Woman Gives Birth After Being Raped in Nursing Home

The young victim had been at the nursing facility for more than 14 years after she suffered a near-drowning incident that left her in a vegetative state. According to news reports  the staff did not know that the victim was pregnant until she went into labor and began moaning.

The Arizona Department of Health says they are actively working with local law enforcement in their criminal investigation. Additionally, Adult Protective Services are conducting health and safety checks on all current residents of the nursing home.

It will be interesting to see what surfaces as the investigation of this nursing home moves forward. We will learn if past complaints have been filed and we will see if there are other victims. Perhaps what will be the most shocking, is if we learn that staffers knew about patients who were being abused but did nothing about it. Sadly, this is a very likely possibility and one that we see in both nursing home abuse cases and sexual assault cases in schools and churches.

Mandated Reporting Laws for Nurses, Doctors and Teachers

Many groups of professionals are mandated reporters. Teachers, doctors, and nurses fall into these groups. According to CPH & Associates, “Nurses are listed in most, if not all, mandatory reporting statutes.  Statutes include child abuse and neglect reporting statutes, medical neglect of children and the elderly, elder abuse in the community or in nursing homes reporting laws, and domestic violence.” This means that both the nursing home and its individual employees may be on the hook in this case. Both for a criminal lawsuit and a civil lawsuit.

Part of being a mandated reporter means that there are steps you MUST take if you suspect one of your patients is being abused or neglected. CPH & Associates lists the criteria found below:

  • Watch, look and listen to your patient.  Gather as much information as you can about the patient’s concerns;
  • Assess the patient constantly for any signs of physical abuse, mental anguish, fear, financial abuse or unusual behavior;
  • Document your observations and conversations pursuant to your facility or agency’s policy and if forms are required, use them;
  • Share your concerns with the individual identified in your facility or agency policy to do so (e.g., CNO, Administrator, Risk Manager);
  • Visit websites in your state that deal with reporting abuse and neglect to obtain guidance, especially in the event your concerns are not supported by your agency or facility; most have direct hot-lines for you to report your concerns without any agency support;
  • Consult with a nurse attorney or attorney to help guide you with the reporting, especially if you are not supported by your employer;
  • If you are in home health nursing, in the ED, or in a long-term facility, and you or your patient is threatened, either of your lives are at risk, or injury is a possibility, call security (if available) and 9-11; and

If this is the industry standard and nursing homes are built to take care of our loved ones how, then, did this pregnancy go unnoticed? The story is one we, as attorneys who sue nursing homes, hear all too often and it goes like this…

Abuse and Neglect in Nursing Homes and Skilled Nursing Facilities

Nursing homes and other facilities that care for the elderly or vulnerable commonly save money by hiring cheap, inexperienced nursing assistants (and usually not enough of them). These are the ones that the facility only puts out during the night shifts to hide them from the families of the patients. The facilities do little to investigate their backgrounds and provide even less monitoring.

Nursing assistants are an easy way for facilities to save money because there are no state regulations for the minimum number of nursing assistants to provide safe patient care. Nursing assistants do not have nearly the same amount of training or patient care skills as RN’s or LVN’s. In California, one need only complete a training program that consists of 50 hours of classroom instruction and 100 hours of supervised clinical training.

Nursing assistants typically are tasked with repositioning patients in order to prevent bedsores. The state sets mandatory minimums for nurses per patient per shift. Not so with CNA’s. Facilities will use an insufficient number of CNA’s to save money. When there are not enough CNA’s, patients miss out on basic needs like being repositioned. Not being repositioned leads to bedsores. CNA’s are commonly also responsible for changing a patients diaper and for toileting of patients. Again, not enough CNA’s means that patients are left in their own filth for prolonged periods of time. All in the name of corporate profit.

Leaving CNA’s unsupervised with our most vulnerable populations is dangerous. Many facilities for the elderly and vulnerable just don’t care enough to hire the right people to provide safe care. They only care about how much money they can cram into their coffers.

How Do We Protect Our Loved Ones in Nursing Homes?

Often, people think of Nursing Homes as places for the elderly only. As you can see from this incident, nursing homes are for anyone who needs nursing care. These are the places we are supposed to trust. We are supposed to be safe here. We put our loved ones in Nursing Homes when they need a level of care we can’t provide for them at home.

These facilities have a DUTY to care of their patients. Instead, their main focus in on making as much money as possible. Even if it means death, abuse, neglect and sickness in their facility.

The young woman in this story is the victim of a flawed system that, all too often, abuses the most vulnerable members of our society.  She was completely unable to defend herself  and after the rape she had no way to communicate that she was pregnant.

The victim in this situation required around the clock care and many people had access to her. How, then, is it possible that NOT A SINGLE PERSON noticed that she was pregnant? How was there no one who suspected abuse within the walls of this hell?

It is important to research any facility that you plan on placing your loved one in. We have written a comprehensive legal guide, The California Survival Guide to Finding a Nursing Home for Your Loved One: 7 Ways to Ensure That You Choose the Right Facility. A free download is available on our website.
Finding a Nursing Home for Your Loved One: 7 Ways to Ensure That You Choose the Right Facility

Finding a Nursing Home for Your Loved One: 7 Ways to Ensure That You Choose the Right Facility

If you or a loved one have been injured, neglected or abused in a California nursing home or skilled nursing facility, Case Barnett Law can help. Call us today at (949) 861-2990 or contact us here. 

 

Who is Liable in a Personal Injury Case?

You have probably seen co-workers and party guests show up at work and parties, respectively, sporting bandages, and then proceed to tell stories about the freak accident that resulted in the injury. Freak accident stories are quite entertaining, as long as the injury is minor, and the weirder the circumstances of the accident, the better. Sprained your finger lifting a baby out of a bouncy seat? Priceless! Bit your tongue in a tragic singing accident and had to get four stitches?  Dinner party anecdote gold! Caught 20 crabs in a single fishing trip, and the smallest one pinched your thumb as you threw them into the pot to cook them? You will be a local legend!

Orange County Personal Injury Attorney | Case Barnett Law Premises Liability Lawyer On the other hand, accidents that are serious enough to get you admitted to the hospital or keep you out of work for an extended period are not simply harmless fodder for shooting the breeze.  It is important to find out if any of the circumstances that led to the accident could have been prevented because any party that ought to have prevented the accident could be a defendant in a personal injury lawsuit.

A Personal Injury Lawyer can Help You Determine Who is Liable

Imagine that you are finishing a canoeing trip with friends. You are getting out of the canoe, when it capsizes. As it overturns, you get injured when you crash into a post sticking slightly out of the water, part of a broken dock, which you could not see when you went to get out of the canoe.  It is a freak accident, to be sure, but was it anyone’s fault? Do you have grounds for a personal injury lawsuit, such that the liable party could be required to compensate you for your medical expenses? Is the owner of the dock liable for letting the dock fall into disrepair, such that the post caused your injury? If so, it is a premises liability lawsuit. Did the canoe manufacturer fail to make the canoe stable enough? If so, it is a product liability lawsuit. Did the friend who was in the canoe with you when it capsized fail to stabilize the canoe? A personal injury lawyer can help you parse which parties had which responsibility to prevent the accident and determine whether you have grounds for a lawsuit.

Why File a Personal Injury Lawsuit?

If you were injured in a preventable accident, a personal injury lawsuit can help you get compensation for medical expenses and lost income related to injuries suffered in the accident.  If it is a product liability lawsuit, a successful lawsuit could also lead to stricter safety regulations about the product.

Contact Case Barnett Law About Personal Injury Cases

Discussing your accident with a personal injury lawyer could be your first step to recovering financially from a serious injury. Contact Case Barnett in Costa Mesa, California if you have been seriously injured in an accident and think that you might have grounds for a personal injury lawsuit.

Mandatory Rest Periods for California Truck Drivers

Screen Shot 2017-12-15 at 3.11.02 PM.pngMany teen drivers get into minor car accidents in the first few months of having a driver’s license. Whether it is hitting a neighbor’s mailbox or a fender-bender in a parking lot, it usually does not take much to convince new drivers to be more careful. In fact, the early mishaps usually result in no lasting damage except, perhaps, higher car insurance premiums for a while. When it comes to accidents involving trucks, however, there is almost no such thing as a “no big deal” truck accident.  They often result in serious personal injuries and expensive damage to property.

Thus, driving a truck is serious business from the beginning. No one lets a 16-year-old get behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler and take a ride around town just to get a taste of adult freedom. Commercial trucks weigh multiple tons even when they are empty. Their extraordinary length, width, height, and weight mean that driving one requires vigilance at all times. Thus, the training required before you can even get a license to drive a truck is quite rigorous. There are rules guiding every aspect of the profession of truck driving. If you are injured in an accident involving a truck, ask yourself if the driver was in compliance with these important safety rules.

California’s Rest Period Rules May Become Less Strict

It is dangerous enough to drive a car when you are too tired to concentrate; imagine how dangerous it is to drive a truck in such a state. Federal law dictates that truck drivers cannot drive more than 14 hours in a workday, and they cannot drive more than 11 straight hours without taking a break. They must take a 30-minute break for a meal before they have completed eight hours of work that day. They must rest for at least 10 hours after finishing one workday and before starting the next one. Furthermore, California law requires drivers to take a 30-minute break sometime during the first five hours of their shift, and beyond that, a break of at least 10 minutes at least once every four hours.

In the summer of 2017, the California legislature began considering a bill which would nullify the stricter California rules about rest periods and just require truck drivers to abide by the federal regulations. Supporters of the bill say that it will help drivers reach their destinations more quickly, thus being more productive. The bill’s opponents say that it will make California’s roads less safe.  The strict regulations about truckers stopping to rest have been a source of debate for years, with many bills regarding just how often truck drivers should be required to rest having been introduced in the legislature in the past decade. The fact remains that rest is essential for safe driving.

Contact Case Barnett if You Were Injured in an Accident

If you suffered injuries because of an accident involving a truck, it is worthwhile to investigate whether the truck driver was in compliance with all the regulations. Rest periods are just one of the many rules truck drivers must follow. Contact Case Barnett in Costa Mesa, California for a consultation about a personal injury case.

Defenses in California Personal Injury Cases

When one begins talking about legal defenses, it is common to assume that a criminal case is being discussed. However, defenses are relevant in both criminal and civil cases alike, in defending against criminal charges and allegations of civil wrongs. Some of the defenses a defendant in a civil case might raise are merely designed to challenge the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence of liability against him or her; other defenses are such that the defendant admits that he or she engaged in wrongful conduct but that this was somehow excusable under the facts and circumstances of the situation.

Why Plaintiffs Should be Aware of Potential Defenses

Crafting a winning strategy with your personal injury attorney requires considering potential defenses that the defendant might raise. Doing so helps ensure that you locate the appropriate witnesses and/or evidence to prove your case.

In any California personal injury case, defenses that might be raised include:

  • Did not engage in careless behavior: One of the most basic defenses to civil liability involves the defendant claiming that his or her actions or behaviors were not “careless” or “negligent” in that a reasonable person might have engaged in the same actions or behaviors that he or she did. This can be raised by argument and/or through challenging the conclusions of the plaintiff’s witnesses.
  • Plaintiff’s own carelessness: This defense strategy does not seek to absolve the defendant of all responsibility for his or her actions, but instead seeks to assert that the primary or predominant cause of your injuries was your own carelessness. A successful defense of this sort lessens the defendant’s civil liability. Just as you (the plaintiff) must come forward with evidence of the defendant’s carelessness, so too the defendant must prove your carelessness with evidence and/or testimony of witnesses of his or her own.
  • Necessity: One is legally permitted to otherwise enter another person’s land if it reasonably appears to the person that trespassing on the other person’s land is necessary to prevent someone from suffering serious harm or death. This is another affirmative defense which requires the defendant to bring forth witnesses and/or evidence to establish that such a necessity existed by a preponderance of the evidence.

Work with an Experienced Orange County Personal Injury Attorney

At Case Barnett Law, we understand that when you file a personal injury lawsuit, you have one chance of success. That is why we invest the time and resources in locating evidence that will help prove your case and defeat any potential defenses the defendant. This helps you have the best possible opportunity for recovering full and fair compensation following a car wreck, slip and fall, or other California personal injury accident. By contacting Case Barnett Law early, we can better utilize our resources and skill to strengthen your case. Call us to discuss your personal injury case with us today: call (949) 861-2990, or reach out to us online.

A Personal History of Negligence – Is It Relevant?

Screen Shot 2017-06-13 at 10.43.52 AM

We all know individuals who are chronically clumsy or careless. These generally are not bad people; rather, they simply seem to routinely forget to take the precautions and protections necessary to keep themselves and those around them safe. While this can cause these individuals to develop a negative social reputation – individuals know to be on their guard whenever they are around such people – can this reputation be used in a personal injury lawsuit to help an injury victim prevail?

How Prior History Could Be Helpful to a Personal Injury Plaintiff

Plaintiffs who are injured by individuals known to be clumsy or negligent may wish to have this information presented to a judge or jury to help bolster their claim. The plaintiff could argue, for example, that because the defendant has a history of engaging in careless conduct that injures others, it is more likely than not true that the person engaged in careless behavior in the present case. In other words, the plaintiff could argue that while any defendant is capable of engaging in negligent conduct, a defendant with a reputation for clumsiness is more likely than others to have been careless in a personal injury incident.

The California Rules of Evidence and Evidence of Carelessness

Knowing the persuasive power of such evidence, the California Rules of Evidence prohibit a plaintiff from introducing evidence of a defendant’s character or reputation or of specific incidents of negligent behavior for the express purpose of creating an inference that the defendant is more likely to have committed a negligent act in the present case. To illustrate, the Rules of Evidence in California would not permit a plaintiff to introduce the fact that the defendant has been found at-fault in five previous car accidents to suggest to the judge or jury that the defendant is at fault in the present case.

There are exceptions to this general prohibition, however. First, evidence of prior acts or reputation can be admitted as evidence of the defendant’s motive or the lack of mistake. Also (and more significant), evidence of prior acts or reputation is admissible when used to rebut the defendant’s characterization of his or her habits or reputation. If the defendant in a car accident case testifies that he has a spotless driving record and is a careful driver, the plaintiff could then introduce evidence of prior car accidents in which the defendant has been involved to rebut the defendant’s testimony.  

Contact Case Barnett Law for Help with Your California Car Wreck Lawsuit

The experienced Orange County car accident lawyers at Case Barnett Law are thoroughly familiar with the rules of evidence applicable in California personal injury lawsuits. We know how to help you build a convincing case for compensation, and we will devote our firm’s resources to collecting the evidence you will need to prevail in your case. Call Case Barnett Law at (949) 861-2990, or reach out to the firm online for help today.

Beware of Common Hazards at Sports Stadiums

Baseball season is in full “swing” (pun intended), and over the course of the next several months, hundreds of thousands of individuals in the California area will flock to one or more sports arenas to cheer on the home team (whether that would be the Athletics, the Padres, the Giants, the Dodgers, or the Angels). While a baseball game can be a great way to spend a weekend or weeknight, the venues in which these events are held are full of dangers and hazards that can cause you, your spouse, and/or your children significant harm.

Screen Shot 2017-05-01 at 3.43.16 PM.png

Top Five Common Dangers at Sporting Arenas

Tragedy can befall you and/or your family at the ballpark if those in charge of maintaining the park in a reasonably safe condition fail to perform their duties. Common hazards that lead to significant injuries include:

  •      Wet floors / dirty floors: Hot dogs, condiments, and/or water are just a few of the substances that can make walkways and restrooms at the ballpark slippery for pedestrians. Falls due to slippery floors can be especially dangerous for older ballpark patrons as their injuries may be more severe and/or require significantly more time from which to heal.
  •      Flying objects: Foul balls and splintered bats can strike fans who are not paying attention. The force with which these and other items from the playing field enter the stands and strike spectators is significant: as a result, deep internal injuries, concussions, and/or other catastrophic injuries are possible under these circumstances.
  •      Other fans and spectators: In the not-too-distant past (In 2011, to be precise), a Giants fan was severely beaten in the parking lot of Dodger Stadium after a matchup between the two teams. It was alleged that the owners of Dodger Stadium did not have enough security present to prevent or disrupt a fight.
  •      Elevators and escalators: Elevators and escalators are useful and helpful in moving large numbers of people up and down the many floors of a sports arena. However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 30 individuals are killed and another 17,000 injured every year in elevator and escalator accidents. An elevator or escalator accident is more likely to occur if the device has not been serviced or maintained properly.
  •      Food poisoning: A 2009 ABC News report cited findings from ESPN that at 30 stadiums across the nation over half of food vendors were in violation of food safety standards. In California, the report showed that 16 percent of vendors were found to be in violation at Dodger Stadium, 13 percent of vendors were in violation at Angel Stadium, 10 percent of vendors were in violation at Petco Park, and 4 percent of vendors were in violation at AT&T Park.

When to Call Your Orange Count Personal Injury Law Firm

If you or a loved one are injured while at the ballpark this season, speak with your California personal injury attorneys at Case Barnett Law before agreeing to a settlement with the park owners. You may be waiving important legal rights by signing a settlement. We can quickly and thoroughly review your case and inform you of all your legal options so you can make the best decision for yourself and your family moving forward. Call Case Barnett Law at (949) 861-2990, or contact us online today.

Am I Responsible for Another Driver’s Crash if He or She Used My Car?

One of the central tenets of American society is individualism – the belief that one is responsible for one’s own decisions and actions. Thus, when someone gets into a car wreck, it is only natural to assume that the driver who is responsible for causing the wreck should bear the burden of paying for any harm or damages he or she caused. In most cases, this is what happens: the driver whose careless or reckless behavior is primarily responsible for causing the wreck will be obligated to pay compensation to the other injured motorists (either through is or her insurance or out of his or her own pocket and resources).

Despite this, there may be several situations in which the owner of a car may be held partly to account for the damage done by another driver who uses the owner’s car.

Screen Shot 2017-04-25 at 10.42.19 AM

Situations Where the Owner – and the Driver – Can Both be Held Responsible

Where a car owner acts in a careless or reckless manner, he or she may be able to be held responsible for a driver or passenger’s injuries and losses. This can include situations like:

  •      Failing to hide the keys from unauthorized drivers: If the car owner knows or ought to know that an unauthorized person – an elderly parent or young child – is taking the car out for joyrides, the car owner may need to take certain measures to help prevent the person or child from obtaining the car’s keys and control of the car.
  •      Failing to stop an intoxicated driver: Similarly, a car owner who knows or should know that an individual is intoxicated may be held partly responsible for the injuries the intoxicated driver causes if the owner knowingly allows the driver to take the car. This liability may also exist if the car owner is the one who serves alcoholic beverages to the intoxicated driver.
  •      Failing to keep the car in good operating condition: Finally, a car owner may be held partly responsible for the injuries resulting from a crash if the crash is due to the car’s condition (such as underinflated or worn tires or defective brakes) and the dangerous condition of the car was known – or should have been known – to the car owner.

What Does This Mean for Car Crash Victims in California?

California car crash victims ought to take steps to learn the identity of the owner of the car that is primarily responsible in the car crash, especially if the facts and circumstances of the crash suggest that the car’s owner (if different from the driver) somehow contributed to the crash. This is the best method for an injury victim to pursue full and fair compensation and hold all responsible parties accountable for their negligence and recklessness when such behavior leads to injuries and losses.

Case Barnett Law is an experienced and dedicated California personal injury law firm. Contact them at (949) 861-2990 or online through their website if you or a loved one have been injured in a car wreck.

No Cell Phones While Driving in California

Screen Shot 2017-01-31 at 2.00.40 PM.png

In response to the dangers of distracted driving, several states have banned drivers from using cellphones or smartphones to read or send text messages or e-mails while driving. This year, California goes one step further than the rest of the nation: a statewide ban on using a cellphone or smartphone for any purpose while driving – whether to watch online videos, talk to a friend or loved one, or look at a map. This new law (California Vehicle Code 23123.5) requires drivers to put down the cellphone while driving and not use it for any reason unless they are able to do so without touching the phone.

Eliminating Distracted Driving Through Legislation

When one describes “distracted driving,” references are made to activities that take the driver’s eyes and/or attention off of the road. However, distracted driving can also include actions that prevent the driver from using his or her body to safely control the car – such as holding a cellphone with one hand while attempting to drive the cellphone with the other hand. For this reason, the new ban in California prevents any use of a cellphone that requires the driver to physically hold the cellphone. The driver may use a cellphone that is securely mounted to the dash of the car and are able to be used hands-free. Fines begin at $20 for a first offense and then increase for subsequent violations.

Distracted Driving Requires Aggressive Action

Despite educational efforts and public awareness campaigns designed to shed light on the dangers of distracting driving, many Californians and other Americans continue to use cellphones without regard for the danger they present themselves and to others on the roadway. According to DistractedDrivingAccidents.com:

  •      About 25 percent of all traffic crashes in the United States involve a driver using a cellphone at the time of the crash;
  •      Seventy-eight percent of all distracted-driving crashes result in at least one person involved suffering severe injuries;
  •      Seventy-seven percent of adults and 55 percent of teenagers claim that they can safely text while driving (but it was also determined that teens veer out of their lane of travel for approximately ten percent of their total drive time when they text and drive);
  •      Ten percent of adults and 20 percent of teenage drivers have had actual text conversations (involving multiple text messages sent and received) while driving. One quarter of all teenage drivers will respond to at least one text every single time they drive.

Legal Dangers of Texting While Driving

Aside from the physical danger a distracted driver presents to him- or herself and others, violating California’s new law can also lead to you being held civilly liable for the injuries, losses, and related expenses suffered by an individual with whom you collide.

For those who have been injured by a distracted driver, your Orange County car crash lawyers at Case Barnett Law stand ready to assist you in seeking compensation for your injuries. Call our office at (949) 861-2990, or reach out to us through our website, and we will get to work helping you obtain the monetary damages you need for your distracted driving accident-related injuries.

California Court of Appeals Affirms “Going and Coming Rule”

Screen Shot 2017-01-04 at 6.57.05 PM.pngThe California Court of Appeals recently affirmed the longstanding “going and coming rule” in announcing that an employer was not responsible for the injuries suffered by employees who were injured in a wreck while carpooling to a jobsite. In Pierson v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., the plaintiff Pierson was struck by a vehicle being driven by an employee of Helmerich & Payne (H&P). The employee was also transporting two coworkers from their worksite to a nearby hotel. The hotel was being paid for by H&P, and though a supervisor had requested the employees carpool, H&P made it clear that each individual employee was responsible for securing his or her own transportation to and from the jobsite.

Plaintiff Seeks to Join the At-Fault Driver’s Employer

After filing suit against the at-fault driver personally, the plaintiff Pierson moved to join H&P as a defendant, alleging that the at-fault driver was an employee of the H&P at the time the crash occurred and that H&P received an incidental benefit from having the employees carpool together back to the hotel. (Naming the at-fault party’s employer as a defendant in a personal injury case is a common strategy, as the employer is likely to have the resources a personal injury plaintiff needs in order to fully recover his or her losses.)

Generally speaking, an employer is responsible for the tortious conduct of its employees when the employees are engaged in their work duties or engaged in some activity that provides an incidental benefit to the employer (such as an employer who allows an employee to take a company vehicle home where the employee has a sales call to go to while on the way home). Noting, however, the well-established “going and coming rule” – which holds that an employer is not responsible for an employee’s action when that employee is going to work or coming from work – the court sustained a motion to dismiss Pierson’s claim against H&P.

What This Means for California Personal Injury Victims

This decision means that California courts are likely to remain true to established legal principles concerning employers’ liability for the acts of their employees: that is, unless the employee is engaged in his or her job duties when the personal injury accident occurs, the employer will not be held responsible for the employee’s actions.

It is important to have the facts of your personal injury case carefully evaluated by the California personal injury law firm of Case Barnett Law. Determining whether a person’s employer can also be held responsible for your injuries and losses is a fact-intensive inquiry, and Case Barnett Law has the knowledge and resources to carry this important investigative task efficiently so you have the greatest chance of recovering full and fair compensation. Contact Case Barnett Law at (949) 861-2990, or contact us online, if you or a loved one have been injured by the careless acts of another.

Who is Responsible for Drone Injuries at Your Wedding?

screen-shot-2016-12-21-at-1-18-16-pmA Massachusetts newlywed has found himself the named defendant in a personal injury suit brought by two guests at his wedding reception. According to the lawsuit, the two injury victims were guests at the groom’s wedding reception, which was held at a local venue, when a drone that was being used to record the event spun out of control and struck the two victims. The victims allege the groom was at the controls when the drone hit them, an allegation that the man denies. The victims further claim that they suffered concussions and lacerations as a result of the drone strike.

Is the Groom Responsible for this Wedding-Day Mishap?

If the evidence did establish that the groom was controlling the drone at the time it struck the two victims, then the victims would likely be able to recover compensation for their injuries from the groom (if the evidence also established he acted carelessly or recklessly in controlling the drone). Depending on the evidence in this case, however, there may be others who are responsible for the victims’ alleged injuries:

  •      The wedding planner / venue owner: The individual in charge of managing the reception and overseeing the events and happenings that took place may be responsible in part for this injury accident. Others may expect the planner and/or owner to create and communicate the venue’s rules to guests (such as a rule against operating drones) and to take reasonable measures to enforce these rules.
  •      A third party controlling the drone: Of course, if another adult picked up the drone’s remote control, operated the drone, and in so doing lost control of the drone, this person may also be held responsible for the victim’s injuries. What is more, if the operator of the drone was a young child, the parents of the child may be held responsible for the child’s actions.
  •      The groom: Assuming that the drone belonged to the groom, the groom may yet be responsible for the victims’ injuries even if the groom was not at the controls when the injuries occurred. If the groom left the drone and its controller unattended and in an area where other guests and/or children would be likely to discover and use them, a judge or jury might conclude that the groom’s carelessness led to the victims’ injuries and he, therefore, should be responsible in part for the costs of those injuries.

Thorough Examination of Personal Injury Cases

This rather bizarre personal injury case reinforces the need to have your own personal injury accident thoroughly examined by a qualified California personal injury lawyer. At Case Barnett Law, our experienced personal injury recovery team knows that your ability to recover full and fair compensation for your injuries depends on identifying the wrongdoer or wrongdoers, and we are committed to performing an efficient but complete investigation into the facts and circumstances of your case so that this individual or these persons can be identified. Contact us at (949) 861-2990, or complete our online contact form, and learn more about how Case Barnett can help you recover following a personal injury accident.