The mother of a 9 year-old boy killed at Disney's Fort Wilderness Lodge in April of 2010 has now filed a Wrongful Death suit against Walt Disney World Parks and Resorts. This suit is the result of a fatal accident that occurred when the boy was killed by a Disney Transportation Bus while riding his bicycle. The facts of this case reveal the importance of performing an investigation into an accident early on, in order to potentially preserve evidence and generate specific legal theories.

In April of this year, a 9 year-old boy, whose family was staying at Disney's Fort Wilderness Lodge, was operating his bicycle on a service road to the Lodge when he apparently struck the side of the passing Disney bus and was pulled under its rear wheels. Investigation at the time by the Florida Highway Patrol and Disney World revealed that the bus driver was not at fault, and that the bicycle's flat tire caused the child to strike the side of the bus. Many passengers on the bus corroborated the version of events, which showed that the boy actually rode his bicycle into the side of the bus.

At first glance, neither Disney World nor the bus driver should bear any liability for this accident. According to all accounts and versions of the accident, the front of the bus passed the boy on the bicycle safely, and the bus wasn't traveling at an improper speed. However, investigation by the family's attorney revealed that in the area where the accident occurred, there were inappropriate sidewalks or pedestrian paths despite the fact that it was a highly traveled pedestrian and bicyclist area. The family's complaint filed with the Court stated that pedestrians utilizing the area are required to step off of the sidewalk and onto the roadway or even unpaved wetland areas to avoid vehicular traffic. Further, the sidewalks and roadways were improperly designed, due to the fact that railings and steep gullies stop pedestrians and bicyclists from leaving the roadway. Thus, the lawsuit focuses not on the conduct of the bus driver but on the condition of the roadway and sidewalks.

Without the experience of a qualified personal injury attorney, such investigation following this fatal accident may not have come up with an appropriate legal theory and the boy's family would not have been able to be compensated for the boy's conscious pain and suffering and ultimate death. Clearly, the family's rights and interests are being protected and pursued due to the experience and expertise of their attorney. If you think you may be in a situation where you have been in an accident and further investigation may be warranted, contact an attorney immediately.

A recent unreported New Jersey Appellate Division decision reveals that a breach of a duty of care does not always give rise to liability in a negligence claim. In Ocampo v. Famco, the Appellate Division rejected a plaintiff's case wherein a sleepwalking 16 year old fell out of a 2nd story window with a nonfunctioning lock, finding that it was not reasonable for a jury to conclude that such an accident was foreseeable under the circumstances.

A viable cause of action based in negligence requires the following elements: 1. a duty to the plaintiff; 2. the breach of a duty; 3. proximate causation; and 4. damages. In the case involving the 16 year old, there is no doubt that the defendant landlord had a duty to properly maintain the subject apartment, including the window lock. Further, there was no question that the defendant landlord failed to comply with this duty by failing to ensure that the lock was functioning. Unfortunately, the plaintiff was unable to show proximate causation. Basically, under New Jersey law, proximate causation is based, in part, on the foreseeability. In this regard, an injury or damages will not be considered "proximately caused" by another's breach of duty unless a jury can conclude that such damages are "reasonably foreseeable" under the circumstances.

In the above referenced case, the Appellate Division found that because the youngest person residing in the apartment was 16 years old, a jury could not possibly conclude that one would fall out a second story window due to a nonfunctioning lock. In other words, the Appellate Division concluded that it was not foreseeable that someone 16 years older would fall out of 2nd story window due to a nonfunctioning lock.

We disagree with the Appellate Division's holding in this regard! It is just as foreseeable that an "incapacitated" 16 year old could fall out of a 2nd story window as a two or three year old child. "Incapacitated" could include a sleepwalker, a mentally incapacitated person, or someone on prescription or over the counter medication, or under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. Is it not foreseeable that 16 year old, who is the youngest resident in the apartment, could be incapacitated under one of the above theories? We think so. Would the landlord be responsible if the neighbor's 3 year old had fallen out of the window instead? We think so. In our view, what is and is not foreseeable, as far as issues of proximate cause are concerned, should be left to the sound discretion of a jury, and as such, we believe the appellate division erred in dismissing this plaintiff's case.

In these types of cases, only an expert, experienced attorney should be retained in order to protect your rights and pursue your interests to the fullest extent the law allows, and to get the justice you deserve.

Over 500,000 Do-It-Yourself Books have been recalled by the publisher, Oxmoor House Home Improvement, due to the inclusion of improper wiring instructions in a recent edition that could lead to personal injury or significant property damage. The Consumer Products Safety Commission announced the recall for various books sold nationwide in the U.S. between 1955-2005. Apparently, if properly followed, the faulty wiring instructions could cause serious electric shock or shorting of electric circuits thereby causing fire.

Obviously, in the case of recalls, it is important to ensure that you, as a consumer, remove the faulty items, such as books, cars, toys, etc., from your home or otherwise have the faulty items repaired so as to avoid serious personal injury or serious property damage. Often times, such recalls are brought to the attention of the Consumer Product Safety Commission through litigation, wherein a plaintiff claims serious injuries or serious property damage resulting from a defective item.

Obviously, as set forth on our firm's website and in prior areas of our blog, the manufacturers of any item put forth into the stream of commerce have a duty to ensure that the items are safe and fit for its intended use and purposes. In this case, the "product defect" lay within the pages of a handyman's do-it-yourself book, and wouldn't cause damage to anyone unless and until the end user followed the specific faulty instructions. However, despite the fact that the "product" itself, the book, was not in any way defective in a way that caused injury, the instructions contained therein were, and as such, the product was defective.

If you believe you are in possession of a defective product, whether it is defective by design or manufacturing defect, it is important firstly, to seek treatment if you or someone close to you was injured as a result of that product. Property damage should be documented and photographed. Of course, you should immediately preserve the product for inspection by an attorney or an engineer to determine whether any such injury or damage was caused by the product itself or its misuse. It is crucial that an attorney skilled and experienced in this area of law be sought immediately if you may have been injured or suffered property damage as a result of a particular product.

The Kansas City Star reported on October 4, 2010 that a woman has filed a lawsuit against two former priests in Kansas City, claiming that the two priests "sexually abused" her over 30 years ago. The woman, now 49, had apparently repressed the painful memory of the abuse until last year. Filing of such a personal injury lawsuit generally raises issues involving statute of limitations, or filing deadlines. This complex area of the law can be successfully navigated such that a plaintiff's interests are served to the fullest extent of the law by an attorney who has experience.

In New Jersey, the statute of limitations for a sexual assault case like the one filed in Kansas City above, is generally 2 years from the date of the actual assault. However, New Jersey recognizes that statues of limitations may be tolled by the "discovery rule," and further, that the statute of limitations may be tolled when the plaintiff is suffering from a disability which would prevent him or her from filing suit within the time limitations.

The "discovery rule" will toll a statute of limitations for the period of time that the plaintiff is unaware that he or she sustained an injury or unaware that a specific injury was caused by someone else's wrongdoing. Generally, the usual case in which the case the discovery rule would apply would be medical malpractice where a doctor leaves an instrument in a patient. The patient may suffer symptoms as a result of the foreign object immediately after the surgery, but not be aware of the foreign object's presence until many years later; more than 2 years after the surgery. Under those circumstances, although the symptoms of the injury were known to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not aware that someone else's actions negligence caused the injury until the object is detected.

In another example, the "discovery rule" would apply where a potential wrongful act was known but where the damages from that wrongful act were not discovered until well after the applicable statute of limitations. An example of this would be where there is an exposure to a toxic chemical, but that the symptoms and injury do not expose themselves until more than 2 years after the exposure takes place. In this scenario, the statute of limitations would be tolled until such time that the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that their injuries were related to the toxic exposure.

In addition to the above, New Jersey law states that a statute of limitations will not run against a minor or incompetent, meaning that someone is under a disability that prevents them from being aware of their legal rights or preventing them from exercising their legal rights. Therefore, generally, statutes of limitations for injuries sustained by minors will not toll until that minor's 20th birthday, because that would be 2 years after the minor's "disability" is removed.

With regard to the sexual abuse by priests and others many years ago, plaintiffs are able to file these suits based on either one or both of the above referenced statute of limitations tolling mechanisms. In some cases, the plaintiff will argue that they were not aware of their damages or had otherwise repressed memory or awareness of the sexual act until such time that it was ultimately revealed through psychiatric or psychological treatment. Other plaintiffs will argue that the emotional distress that they suffered at the hands of the molester caused an emotional disability that prevented them from filing suit or being aware of their legal rights within the applicable statute of limitations. Under either scenario, the standard for proving the disability or tolling of the statute of limitations is a great one, and an attorney must take great care to do it the properly. Accordingly, it is best that expert legal counsel be retained as soon as possible in the event that you or someone close to you finds them in such a situation.