December 20, 2014

Robert Bosch LLC v. Smith - Ala. Supreme Court Weighs Product Liability Lawsuit

Amid a host of recalls for faulty airbags used by nearly a dozen auto manufacturers, the Alabama Supreme Court recently weighed another product liability case involving allegedly defective airbags.airbag1.jpg

In Robert Bosch LLC v. Smith et al., justices were asked whether a trial court erred in requiring defendant air bag manufacturer to submit a series of internal records deemed trade secrets as part of discovery.

Defendant appealed that decision, arguing it should not be forced to turn over information that could be damaging to the company. Plaintiff argued trial court did not err in its ruling and the need to prevent disclosure does not outweigh the benefit of disclosing what should be considered relevant evidence.

Continue reading "Robert Bosch LLC v. Smith - Ala. Supreme Court Weighs Product Liability Lawsuit" »

December 12, 2014

Bilesky v. Shopko - Spoliation of Evidence Met With Sanctions

Evidence is the crux of any legal case. The truth, of course, is of paramount importance, but what is also key is what can be proven. Without the right amount and type of evidence, a case will go no where.
gavel21.jpg
This is as true for personal injury cases as it is for those involving crimes.

Because certain evidence can be considered critical to a case, and those with vested interest in not having that evidence presented may be in possession of it for a time. The courts have long recognized the importance of sanctions for loss or destruction of evidence - regardless of whether it was intentional. When important evidence is lost, it's called spoliation. By imposing sanctions for spoliation of evidence, the court provides incentive to protect key evidence that may be helpful to the opposing side.

Sanctions can include anything from a special instruction to the jury to a default judgment on the issue of liability or damages. It can result in the party disadvantaged by the loss of evidence winning the case.

Continue reading "Bilesky v. Shopko - Spoliation of Evidence Met With Sanctions" »

December 2, 2014

Peterson-Tuell v. First Student Transp. - Prior Health History Relevant to Determine Damages

It seemed like a relatively straightforward case: A school bus driver, working for a private contractor, rear-ended a woman in a vehicle, pushing that driver into another vehicle, causing some damage to the vehicle and, allegedly, injury to that driver.
gaveljan.jpg
When the driver who was struck later filed a lawsuit for injuries sustained in the crash, defendant school bus company admitted to liability in Peterson-Tuell v. First Student Transp., LLC. There was really nothing to argue in that regard, as the bus driver was clearly at fault in proceeding when the light turned green without making sure traffic ahead had started to move.

That meant the only thing left to decide was the issue of damages. The injured driver asked for $3 million, saying a traumatic brain injury stemming from the crash rendered her unable to work. The company offered to pay her $95,000, arguing her injuries were psychosomatic. In the end, a jury granted the woman even less, $65,000.

Continue reading "Peterson-Tuell v. First Student Transp. - Prior Health History Relevant to Determine Damages" »

November 30, 2014

RGR, LLC v. Settle - $2.5M Railroad Crash Verdict Affirmed in Part

Railway crashes and accidents result in hundreds of deaths each year, according to the Federal Railway Administration, which reported a total of 1,734 train accidents in 2012. traintracks1.jpg

In comparison to the enormous carnage seen on America's roadways involving solely motor vehicles (causing an estimated 33,000 deaths annually), it might seem a minor problem. However, 700 deaths in a single year - 2012 - is cause for concern. That's only slightly fewer than the number of people killed in recreational boating incidents, so it warrants the attention of motorists.

Just recently in Alabama, a 27-year-old former contestant on the hit show "Survivor" was killed in Birmingham while working as a conductor when an axle on one of the cars derailed and he was thrown into another car in the yard.

Some of the more common causes of train accidents in Alabama include:


  • Failing mechanics

  • Malfunctioning lights or signals

  • Inadequate track maintenance

  • Failure to install/maintain safety gates

  • Unprotected crossings

  • Conductor negligence

  • Defective train or parts

Continue reading "RGR, LLC v. Settle - $2.5M Railroad Crash Verdict Affirmed in Part" »

November 20, 2014

Alabama Distraction Crash Lawsuit Jury Awards $525,000

A truck driver, reportedly distracted by his cell phone, has been held liable for injuries sustained by two men who were struck by the driver while traveling U.S. Highway 31 near Birmingham. iphone.jpg

According to media reports, a man and his nephew sustained severe injuries as a result of the collision, including rib fractures, broken facial bones, a brain bleed and surgery to remove a spleen.

Following a recent five-day trial, a jury in Jefferson County Circuit Court ordered the driver to pay $525,000 collectively to both men for causing the crash.

This figure might seem somewhat high, but the reality is, costs for crash injuries can add up quickly when one factors emergency care, long-term medical bills, therapies, lost wages, property damage and disabling conditions that may prevent a return to work. A recent AAA study found the average cost of an injury crash is $126,000. Meanwhile, the cost of an average traffic fatality is about $6 million.

Continue reading "Alabama Distraction Crash Lawsuit Jury Awards $525,000" »

November 11, 2014

Nuckols v. Stevens - Proper Venue for Alabama Car Accident Lawsuits

Determination of jurisdiction and venue are important considerations in any personal injury lawsuit. It's not always a straightforward issue, particularly if litigants are from different states or there is a question of federal law.
carcrash6.jpg
For the most part, injury lawsuits stemming from car accidents and truck accidents are going to fall under the purview of state courts. However, a court has to have personal and/or subject matter jurisdiction before it can hear a case. That means either the defendant resides in that district or it is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions that gave rise to the claim occurred.

If a lawsuit is filed in the wrong venue, the court will likely dismiss the case without prejudice, meaning you can file again. Sometimes, the court will transfer the case to the proper district, but only if it's "in the interest of justice." However, if the case is dismissed, the time spent in the wrong court consumes valuable time that could count against you in terms of the statute of limitations on your case.

Continue reading "Nuckols v. Stevens - Proper Venue for Alabama Car Accident Lawsuits" »

November 2, 2014

Travelers v. Harrington - Auto Insurance Exclusions

Various personal lines of insurance contain provisions that exclude either family or household members from coverage. The common law that gave rise to these exclusions had to do with the "familial immunity doctrine," which essentially prohibited legal actions between parents and children, spouses, etc. carcrash5.jpg

While the courts long held this doctrine promoted family harmony, insurance companies were primarily interested in avoiding collusive acts between family members to collect on insurance - a form of fraud.

Since the mid-20th century, family exclusion laws have been challenged on the grounds that courts should recognize the difference between fraud and legitimate claims, and there may well be instances where family members are legitimately liable for negligence resulting in injury to loved ones.

Continue reading "Travelers v. Harrington - Auto Insurance Exclusions" »

October 30, 2014

Bufkin v. Felipe's - Pedestrian Injury, Premises Liability and Open-Obvious Doctrine

A pedestrian injured by a bicyclist while crossing a bustling street as he reached a private construction zone won't be entitled to seek relief from the construction company, even though the company's large trash bin obstructed the view of those traveling the road.
dumpster.jpg
Bufkin v. Felipe's et al., was a complex injury case that involved consideration not just of relevant traffic laws, but also duties owed under premises liability law.

Specifically, the issue was whether the trash bin should be considered an inherent hazard and if the hazard was open and obvious.

Generally, the mere fact that someone was injured doesn't entitle that person to pursue or collect monetary damages.

Continue reading "Bufkin v. Felipe's - Pedestrian Injury, Premises Liability and Open-Obvious Doctrine" »

October 20, 2014

Ballesteros v. Roney - Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and Vehicle Accidents

Military service members on active duty are entitled to special consideration in matters of civil law when it comes to certain time limits and statutory requirements.
salute.jpg
When a member of the military is injured in a civilian auto accident, and later called to active duty before completion of the civil case, he or she can seek relief from the court for certain deadlines that would otherwise prohibit a case form moving forward. Here in Montgomery, we have the Maxwell-Gunter Air Force base, and a fair amount of military members living in and around our communities.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, codified in 50 U.S.C. App. 501-597b, protects servicemembers from default judgments when the servicemember is materially affected by reason of service in making a defense to the action. Additionally, a servicemember is entitled to a stay of proceeding when a commanding officer can attest the current military duty will prevent appearance and that military leave will not be authorized for the purpose of allowing an appearance.

Continue reading "Ballesteros v. Roney - Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and Vehicle Accidents" »

October 10, 2014

Bruns v. City of Centralia - Distraction in Premises Liability

Typically the topic of "distraction" in injury law is most closely associated with motor vehicle accidents. And of course, it's relevant in that context, as distraction behind the wheel is extremely dangerous. But it's worthy of discussion in other areas of personal injury law as well, including premises liability.
asphaltcrack.jpg
The "distraction doctrine" holds that if the property owner had reason to suspect an individual on site may not have appreciated a danger - even an open and obvious one - due to distraction or preoccupation - he or she would still have had a duty to correct or warn.

In the recent Illinois Supreme Court case of Bruns v. City of Centralia, plaintiff asserted the distraction doctrine as an exception to the open and obvious danger of a large, hazardous crack in a sidewalk in front of an eye clinic on which the elderly plaintiff tripped and fell. Plaintiff argued the city should have reasonably foreseen a pedestrian would become distracted while walking up to the clinic, and the appellate court agreed. However, the state supreme court reversed on the grounds that the simple act of looking up does not impose on defendant a duty to protect a plaintiff from an open and obvious defect.

Continue reading "Bruns v. City of Centralia - Distraction in Premises Liability" »

October 1, 2014

Curtis v. Lemna - Lawsuit Against Co-Worker Depends on Scope of Employment

Workers' compensation in Alabama, as in most other states, is intended an exclusive remedy for injuries incurred on the job. However, there are some options for additional compensation under certain conditions.
golfequipment.jpg
One of those might be when injuries are caused by a co-worker - but only if that co-worker was acting outside the scope of his or her employment. Some examples would be if he or she was off-the-clock or if the injury was intentional. Otherwise, the co-worker would likely be indemnified under worker compensation laws.

The individual facts of the case are going to weigh heavily on whether the court allows third-party litigation against a co-worker, but it's important to have the case carefully vetted by an experienced Alabama workers' compensation lawyer.

Continue reading "Curtis v. Lemna - Lawsuit Against Co-Worker Depends on Scope of Employment" »

September 25, 2014

Rose v. Highway Equipment Co. - Overcoming Pure Contributory Negligence Standard in Alabama

The product liability lawsuit brought in Massachusetts by a man whose hand was mangled by lawn machinery failed after a jury apportioned him 73 percent fault for his own injury. In that state, plaintiffs who hold 50 percent of the fault or more for their own injury are barred from collecting on a claim.
cogsandwheels.jpg
In Alabama, our Montgomery injury lawyers know our courts follow a much stricter standard. In fact, we are one of just five states following the pure contributory negligence model, which holds a plaintiff who holds any percentage of fault for his own injuries will be barred from bringing a claim.

Per the 2002 Alabama Supreme Court ruling in H.R.H. Metals, Inc. v. Miller, a defendant proves contributory negligence by showing the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care.

Continue reading "Rose v. Highway Equipment Co. - Overcoming Pure Contributory Negligence Standard in Alabama" »

September 18, 2014

Ainsworth v. Chandler - Plaintiff Status in Premises Liability Claim

The most common type of premises liability lawsuit in Alabama arises as a result of a "slip-and-fall" or "trip-and-fall." Circumstances vary widely, but tend to involve injuries caused by falling as a result of tripping or slipping as a consequence of liquid or debris on floors, uneven surfaces or defects in the ground, poor lighting or some other hazardous condition.
stairs1.jpg
However, simply proving injury on a person's property is not enough. State law burdens plaintiffs with many requirements. Included is establishment of duty according to plaintiff's status on site, as well as a prima facie (first impression) showing that the foreign substance or object caused the fall and the defendant knew or should have known of it at the time of the fall and failed to address it. The requirements may differ slightly if the alleged hazard was a property defect, rather than a foreign substance. However, in either case, the plaintiff's on-site status will be key.

Our Montgomery injury lawyers know the differentiation will determine the duty defendant owed the plaintiff.

Continue reading "Ainsworth v. Chandler - Plaintiff Status in Premises Liability Claim" »

September 14, 2014

Henkel v. Norman - Private Property Owner's Duty to Warn

When it comes to premises liability, it doesn't matter if you are the owner of a big-chain box store or a modest property in the suburbs. Property owners have a duty to keep premises reasonably free of hazards. Failing this, the property owner must offer adequate warning.
wetwood.jpg
Failure to do this resulting in injury could prompt a civil lawsuit.

Our Montgomery fall injury lawyers know the mere fact that someone suffers an injury on-site is not proof of negligence on the part of the property owner. Hose v. Win-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. 658 So.2d 403, 404 (Ala.1995). What must be shown is the premises owner failed to use reasonable care in maintaining its premises in a reasonably safe manner. Injured parties bear the burden of proof in these cases.

Continue reading "Henkel v. Norman - Private Property Owner's Duty to Warn" »

September 7, 2014

Travelers Property Casualty Co. v. Moore - Company Liability for Workers Off-the-Clock

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which oversees federal appellate cases in Alabama, Georgia and Florida, recently ruled an auto insurance company has no duty to indemnify a defendant under his employer's policy for an incident in which the defendant killed one and wounded another with a shotgun while driving his work van.
lighthighway.jpg
While such a ruling may seem common sense, it's worth noting injuries and wrongful death resulting from the incident had initially been characterized as an "accident" because the defendant purportedly hadn't intended to inflict those injuries. Further, the company insurer was deemed liable because, while the worker was off-the-clock, there was evidence to suggest he did have permission to drive the work van.

Our Montgomery car accident lawyers know that, while this incident involved a unique set of circumstances, the issue of employer liability when a worker or commercial vehicle is involved in a crash is one that arises with fair frequency.

Continue reading "Travelers Property Casualty Co. v. Moore - Company Liability for Workers Off-the-Clock" »


Martindale-Hubbell AV Rated
for Over Twenty Years


Certified Civil Trial Specialist
National Board of Trial Advocacy


American Board of Trial Advocates
Rank of Advocate


Super Lawyers - 2010