As the summer begins, many people host parties at their homes where they serve alcohol to their guests. One question that is frequently asked of attorneys is whether or not the person hosting the party can be responsible for injuries resulting from the service of alcohol at the parties. The short answer is yes.

New Jersey law is split with regard to social host liability as it relates to the service of alcohol to people under the age of 21 and over the age of 21. Liability for the service of alcohol in a social setting (not a bar or restaurant) to individuals over 21 is governed by statute (N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.6, et seq.). Basically, the statute provides that if you provide alcohol to a social guest over 21 years of age while that person is "visibly intoxicated" you can potentially be responsible for injuries or damage that are caused by the "visibly intoxicated" person. Thus, when serving alcohol at your home or at a party you must be aware of the signs of intoxication in your guests and, if such signs exist, immediately stop serving them alcohol.

The Statute mentioned above limits liability to situations where only third parties are injured as a result of motor vehicle accidents. For instance, if you negligently serve alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person at your home, you will not be responsible for injuries sustained because that intoxicated person injured someone in a fight. The Statute only applies to motor vehicle accidents. Further, you will not be responsible for injuries to the intoxicated person themselves. The Statute is for the benefit of "innocent" third parties.

The law drastically differs with regard to the negligent service of alcohol in a social setting to individuals under the age of 21. There is no statute that governs this situation. Instead, liability is based on common law principles of negligence. In this regard, the same rules concerning service to "visibly intoxicated" individuals presently applies. However, if alcohol is provided to a "visibly intoxicated" individual under the age of 21, liability extends to all situations where an innocent third party is injured (not just motor vehicle accidents), and includes liability for injuries sustained by the intoxicated minor.

After reviewing recent case law in this jurisdiction and other jurisdictions, it is our impression that the courts of this state will ultimately extend social host liability to individuals who serve alcohol to minors even before that minor is "visibly intoxicated". This means, in our opinion, that liability will attach to any and all individuals serving alcohol to minors whether or not the minor is showing signs of intoxication at the time of service.

It should be noted that the "service" of alcohol as described in this blog does not necessarily mean that you actually have to give the drink to the "visibly intoxicated" person. All that is necessary is that alcohol be "provided" at your house, home or party in order to for liability to attach. Accordingly, in situations where there is a keg party or self-service bar set up in your home, you will have been deemed to "provide" the alcohol.

Finally, one last note of caution concerning the service of alcohol to individuals under 21. It is presently a disorderly person offense in the State of New Jersey to serve or provide alcohol to any individual under the age of 21. Further, depending on the circumstances, it may also be deemed a criminal offense of endangering the welfare of a minor.

The bottom line is that service of provision of alcohol to minors should be avoided at all costs, and service of alcohol to adults must be monitored very carefully to avoid liability. If you find yourself involved in any way to an accident stemming from alcohol being served at a residence, on either side of this controversial and sensitive topic, it is important that you contact an attorney immediately, to sort through the circumstances surrounding that accident in detail in order to protect your legal rights.

A recent flurry of commuter or tour bus accidents raises various issues with regard to passenger rights and obligations after the accident occurs. Specifically, there are issues concerning notice requirements and medical bills that a layperson may not be aware of after being involved in such an accident, but that an attorney would.

As you may know from our website or prior blogs, any time an individual is injured in a motor vehicle accident, that persons' automobile insurance coverage will be responsible to pay for that person's medical bills as long as they are reasonable and related to the motor vehicle accident. However, most, if not, all motor vehicle insurance policies will have a specific exclusion of medical bills incurred as a result of injury while you are being transported in a bus or other livery conveyance. Accordingly, if you are injured in a bus accident, it may be most prudent to attempt to have your medical bills paid by your automobile insurance carrier and, when declined, utilize your primary health insurance coverage. If you do not have health insurance, it is important to seek legal advice so that an attorney may determine whether or not the insurance coverage on the bus has policy provisions, which would pay for medical bills in the event of personal injury sustained in an accident.

In any event, should you have any questions concerning the payment of medical bills after being injured as a passenger on a bus, you should contact an attorney that has experience in personal injury and insurance coverage.

In addition to issues concerning medical bills, there may also be issues concerning notice requirements. For instance, if you are traveling on a New Jersey Transit Bus, New Jersey Transit is considered a subdivision of the State of New Jersey, and, as such, you would be entitled to place New Jersey Transit on notice within 90 days of your accident if you have sustained injuries and intend to sue.

Again, it is imperative that you contact an attorney immediately should you be involved in any accident of this sort and you suffer any sort of injury. Legal recourse presents various issues that require analysis in order to determine whether or not you are able to recover compensatory damages or coverage for medical care. Call an attorney who has the experience and the knowledge to help you get through the process.

The recent filing of a lawsuit against Mr. August Busch, the Anheuser-Busch heir, by his recently deceased model-girlfriend's family, her eight year old son and his father, raises questions as to what duty one may have under the law. According to news reports, Busch allegedly found her sleeping in bed the following morning and could not wake her up, and she was later found to have oxycodone and cocaine in her system. The girlfriend's family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Busch for carelessness and negligence, seeking damages for his failure to properly render care and/or aid to her, and further, for negligently causing her death.

"Duty" is a legal obligation under the law, which is imputed to certain people depending upon the circumstances. For instance, all drivers or users of the road way have a duty to use reasonable care and caution when operating a motor vehicle. Similarly, all of us have a duty under the law to be "reasonably prudent people" as we perform our daily tasks. However, case law in New Jersey, and a majority of the states, indicate that people in general do not have a "duty to rescue" if we see someone in danger or in trouble. Putting aside moral obligations, the law does not require you to put yourself in danger in order to render aid to another despite the fact that you may easily do so but fail to. Certain exceptions to this principle exist, especially where you cause the danger in which that the other individual finds himself.

The Busch case raises the question as to whether or not he had a duty to check on his girlfriend and render aid to her, or help her, if he knew she either had taken an excessive amount of drugs or even had the propensity to do so. Although he may not independently have had a duty to render aid to her under the law, this analysis may change in his circumstance due to the fact that he had a relationship with her, she was in his house at the time of the alleged overdose and there may be facts which show that he either provided the drugs or was specifically aware that she was taking them. There is New Jersey case law to suggest that when an individual is in danger within your home, that you may have a legal obligation to render care to that person even if such rendering of that care only involves calling 911, emergency services.

In any event, any such cases are extremely fact sensitive and must be analyzed by an experienced attorney who has vast experience in the area of personal injury law.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently decided in the case of Marcinczyk v. State of New Jersey Police Training Commission that an agreement to waive any liability against a public entity is unenforceable as a matter of public policy. In Marcinczyk, the plaintiff was a police trainee and was mandated to attend a police academy for training. In applying for the police academy, Mr. Marcinczyk was required to sign a waiver which purportedly prevented him from suing the Police Academy for pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of wages, injuries, permanent disabilities or pecuniary losses as a result of injuries or losses he may sustain during the course of his training or participation in the police academy. Of course, Mr. Marcinczyk was injured during the course of his training and commenced suit.

Although the Supreme Court of New Jersey recently upheld similar type clauses for private institutions such as health clubs and gyms, the Court refused to uphold such a waiver of liability when the beneficiary of such clause is a public entity. Specifically, the Supreme Court of New Jersey referenced New Jersey's Tort Claims Act, which is a statute enacted to permit injured citizens to seek compensation from public entities for negligence in "narrowly defined circumstances." The Supreme Court further reasoned that because a statute specifically allows for recovery of monetary damages under certain circumstances when there is negligence by a public entity or public entity's employees, it would be contrary to public policy to allow a contractual provision to bargain away the right to sue. The court further noted that the Tort Claims Act provides specific immunities to the public entity and as such, in throwing out the contractual provision, the court did not impose liability upon the public entity. The court merely remanded the case back to the trial court for purposes of determining if any of the specific statutory immunities applied.

As set forth on our website and in prior blogs, the Tort Claims Act provides specific immunities to public entities where injuries occur as a result of that public entity's negligence. In our view, the court's decision here was a correct one, in that New Jersey's legislature has already dealt with liability of public entities through the enactment of the Tort Claims Act. If you have any question as to whether or not you are legally entitled to sue a public or private entity for negligence, consult a skilled attorney immediately in order to protect your rights.

A man who was left in the Pacific Ocean while scuba diving recently was awarded $1.68 million by a Los Angeles County jury. The California man filed a lawsuit against the scuba diving charter company that negligently left him in the ocean approximately 12 miles offshore. The claim revealed that the charter boat left him at the first dive site and then proceeded to a second dive site approximately 7 miles from his location in the water. Fortunately, a passing boat later picked him. This situation, unlike the situation in Open Water, turned out to be a happy ending in that he was ultimately rescued. The man's ordeal lost at sea lasted approximately 3 hours.

In that New Jersey is a shore state bordering the Atlantic Ocean, it would not be far fetched that such an incident could occur in the waters off New Jersey. Clearly, any charter boat or dive company has a duty and obligation to ensure all of the divers it brings out are fully accounted for before returning to shore or moving onward. In this regard, it is incumbent upon such companies to have an accounting system in place as a way to account for those that have gone overboard and under the surface. In our opinion, the failure of a charter company to have such an accounting system would not only constitute negligence but gross negligence which would most likely warrant punitive damages.

If you or members of your family are injured or mistreated by a charter company, diving, boating or otherwise, or left at sea or in the wilderness, it is important to contact an attorney to determine the extent of your rights.

Parents of a Tennessee minor recently filed a lawsuit against a local Steak and Shake, which claims that the hot sauce on their son's chili was "too hot." According to the lawsuit filed, the minor apparently ordered a bowl of chili which included "Blair's Mega Death Sauce" and that the restaurant failed to warn of the sauce's intensity. The minor was taken to a local hospital with an inflamed digestive tract and a severe allergic reaction. Parents are seeking unspecified damages.

Although the filing of this litigation appears to be outrageous, it raises issues relating to implied warranties under the law. In New Jersey, there is an implied warranty of merchantability with regard to food products sold by a retail establishment either to be consumed within a restaurant or for later consumption. Basically, this implied warranty of merchantability means that the food product that is being sold must be fit for its intended use; i.e. to be consumed. If, for example, a restaurant serves food which ultimately makes the consumer of that food ill, the restaurant may be responsible for personal injury damages to that consumer on the theory related to the breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Additionally, the restaurant may also be responsible to that consumer on theories of negligence and breach of contract.

Turning to the minor boy in Tennessee, it would appear that the bowl of chili with "Blair's Mega Death Sauce" was merchantable in that it was "fit" for its intended purpose; that it to be consumed by the average consumer as an ultra-spicy chili. Unfortunately, it would appear that this minor boy had some type of allergic reaction to the extra hot sauce, which caused his hospitalization. The ultimate issue in that case will most likely be whether or not the restaurant properly warned the boy and his parents of the full extent of the chili's spicy nature. In our view, the words "Mega Death Sauce" would reasonable put the end user on notice that the sauce was extremely hot. Really, the issue here is whether the minor boy's parents should have liability for allowing their child to consume this "Mega Death Sauce" without testing same or limiting its consumption. We leave the liability of one's parents under such circumstances in the state of New Jersey for a different day.

However, in the event you or one of your family is ever injured by a food or food product, it is extremely important to preserve any of the remaining food for ultimate testing if possible and seek legal advice in order to determine your rights.

Two recent cases in the news bring to light issues of invasion of privacy due to improper uses of webcams. In one case, a Rutgers University student committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge after his roommate broadcasted his romantic interlude with a member of the same sex. In another case, a Philadelphia school district agreed to pay over $600,000.00 to two students, because of photographs secretly taken on school issued laptops. In this instance, the district admitted that it had obtained thousands of webcam photographs from student laptops in an apparent attempt to "locate missing computers."

In New Jersey, a civil cause of action exists where one's privacy is invaded and results in harm to the other's interest in privacy, mental anguish or special damages. In this regard, however, the "invasion" must result from (a) the intentional intrusion of another's privacy to a degree which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person or (b) a public exposure of another's private affairs to which the general public has not legitimate interest in learning of and which would also be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

The two above-referenced fact scenarios would fit neatly into potential invasion of privacy causes of action in the state of New Jersey. In this Rutgers case, the two students that broadcasted the romantic interlude over the Internet engaged in a public exposure of the other student's private affairs, which resulted in clear mental anguish in the form of suicide. In the Pennsylvania case, there can be no doubt that a school board's ability to obtain photographs from laptops issued to students would be "highly offensive" to a reasonable person, and would ultimately result in harm to the student's interest in privacy. Of course, in either case, evidence of such wrongdoing must be carefully preserved as soon as possible, and attorney consulted to dtermine all potential liability. Further, such privacy invasion may also be the subject of criminal statute violations and criminal investigations.

Two recent settlements between school districts and students highlight society's general intolerance for bullying within schools. As reported in our earlier blog, New Jersey recognizes a cause of action against a school board when that school board fails to prevent, or attempt to prevent, the bullying of one student by others. We indicated in our earlier blog that the basis for such lawsuits in New Jersey is New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The linking of a "bullying" cause of action to New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination allows for a successful claimant to obtain punitive damages and counsel fees, in addition to compensatory damages.

Lenape Valley Regional High School District in Stanhope, New Jersey recently agreed to a settlement of $275,000.00 to a former high school student who is black, alleged that administrators did not properly handle repeated racial harassment by white students against him. In another case involving bullying and harassment, the United States Department of Education reached a voluntary agreement with the Hawaii Public School System over a bullying complaint filed by the parents of a high school student who was repeatedly bullied by other students. The alleged bullying adversely affected her school attendance and grades. While it is not certain to us at this point in time whether the State of Hawaii actually recognizes a cause of action as does New jersey, the high school student's parents filed a complaint with the United States Department of Education alleging that their daughter was being discriminated against. The settlement between the United States Department of Education and Hawaii Public Schools requires various administrators and teachers to undergo sensitivity and harassment training in order to more easily recognize the existence of same.

Given current social trends in technology, including Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites, it would appear that such bullying and harassment cases will increase in number, and may even reach beyond the doors of the school. In this regard, we await the filing of unique causes of action not based upon school harassment but harassment through the other social media. An attorney well versed in ongoing developments in negligence law can determine how to best pursue any similar situated case, so do not hesitate to consult a lawyer as soon as possible if you find yourself or a loved one dealing with bullying.

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.

One of the most frequent questions we are asked by our clients in motor vehicle cases, is "Why does my insurance company have to pay my medical bills?" In this regard, clients are generally upset by the fact that the car accident may have been the other person's fault, but that their own insurance company has to "foot the bill" for their treatment. Our clients are concerned that their insurance premiums will go up because a claim is being made against their policy, even though the accident was not their fault.

In New Jersey, medical bill payment related to injuries sustained in a car accident is governed by statute, specifically NJSA 39:6A-4 et.seq. New Jersey is considered a "no-fault" state when it comes to automobile insurance. Basically, the term "no-fault" means that your own insurance pays your medical bills, regardless of fault. The purpose and reason behind "no-fault" insurance is to ensure that the injured party receives immediate and appropriate medical care, as soon as practical and possible after the car accident. Prior to New Jersey becoming a "no-fault" state, and in other states where "no-fault" doesn't exist, issues of liability often prevent an injured party from obtaining necessary and appropriate medical treatment soon after the accident. For instance, if a person is injured in a car accident in an intersection governed by a traffic light, both parties may claim that they had the green light and are blameless. Accordingly, although one party needs medical attention for their injuries soon after the accident, neither of the insurance companies would bear responsibility for that treatment until a judge or jury could determine that their client was at fault for the accident. Thus, without appropriate medical insurance in place, doctors would not be in a position to render such treatment.

Under New Jersey's "no-fault" scheme, medical treatment is available immediately after the accident because the doctors know that coverage will exist regardless of whomever is determined to be at fault. Obviously, in the event you are injured in a car accident and seek medical treatment, it is important to provide your doctor with copies of your own insurance policy information, including the name of the company, policy number and a claims telephone number, wherever possible. Of course, if your claim for medical treatment is ever declined by your insurance company, or if you are involved in a car accident at all, it is important to seek an experienced attorney who can provide you with the proper guidance, and pursue your interests to the fullest extent of the law.

The recent unreported Appellate Division case of Dumont v. New Jersey Devils allows us to discuss the appropriate standard to be applied when one is injured as a spectator at a sporting event when being struck by a ball or puck used in the event. In Dumont, the judge threw out the plaintiff's case because, although the plaintiff was truck by the puck which left the ice during the hockey game, she was not within the area of the stadium where pucks would constitute a known or foreseeable hazard. In Dumont, the plaintiff argued that her cause of action was not based upon general negligence theories but on the fact that the New Jersey Devils failed to offer her the option of changing seats because of the risk of flying hockey pucks. On that record, the court dismissed her claim.

In general, the prevailing rule in New Jersey is that a sports facility operator has a limited duty of care, which has two components. Firstly, the operator must provide protected seating, which is "sufficient for those spectators who may be reasonably anticipated to desire protected seats on an ordinary occasion." Secondly, the operator must provide protection for spectators in "the most dangerous sections" of the arena. Schneider v. American Hockey and Ice Skating Center, Inc., 342 N.J. Super. 527 (App Div 2001) The second component of the limited liability is ordinarily satisfied by the owner of the arena or stadium by placing screens behind home plate in a baseball arena and behind the hockey goals at a hockey game.

However, there are obviously multiple ways a spectator may get injured at an athletic event, other than being struck by a ball or puck. Each case must be evaluated on its independent facts. For instance, may arenas attempt to limit their liability through the use of language on the back of tickets permitting entry into the sporting event. In the advent "paperless" tickets, these issues have not been readily resolved by the courts. Accordingly, in the event of an injury sustained at a sporting event as a spectator, it is important for the injured person to get in touch with an expert personal injury attorney, who can properly identify the issues and pursue the best course of legal recovery for you.

Two cases recently decided by New Jersey's Appellate Division addressed a statute which was previously thought to provide immunity to 911 operators engaged in the course of their employment. The Appellate Division in Massachi v. City of Newark Police Department and Wilson v. City of Jersey City held that 911 operators and dispatchers could be held liable for injuries sustained or proximately cause by their failure to adhere to established protocols and guidelines. In Massachi, a female student was abducted directly outside the Seton Hall University Campus in South Orange, New Jersey. Two of her friends immediately called 911 to report the abduction. The 911 operator failed to follow the appropriate departmental procedures and guidelines in that although she put the information into the 911 computer system, she failed to note the last known location of the abductor's car, failed to note that the car was in motion, failed to record the vehicle's path of travel and mis-identified the car as a Chevy Blazer as opposed to a Plymouth Blazer. Further, she failed to keep the person reporting the crime on the phone to enable to provide an update to the responding unit.

In addition to the above, two off-duty Essex County Sheriff's Officers also witnessed the abduction and also called 911. The 911 operator that they spoke with ran the license plate of the abductor's vehicle and printed out the name and address of the vehicle's owner. Unfortunately, he failed to issue a general alert to all police units in neighboring municipalities and also failed to contact the police in the municipality where the abductor resided. It was the plaintiff's decedent's claim that the girl who was abducted was ultimately murdered due to the fact that the police units could not properly respond as a result of the 911 dispatcher's failure to comply with guidelines.

Importantly, a New Jersey statute (N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10) provides various immunities to phone carriers and dispatchers concerning the failure of the 911 system. The Appellate Division under the two cases before it, specifically held that the above-referenced statute does not afford immunity to the 911 emergency communication center or its employees where they negligently render 911 services including dispatching police to an incorrect location, failing to keep the caller on the line to update the police of the location of the perpetrator and for failing to broadcast an alert to surround municipalities. Accordingly, although there is immunity for the failure of the system to work, there will be no immunity for 911 operators or dispatchers where they fail to follow protocol.

In the event you or a family member believes you have suffered injuries as a result of improper actions of a 911 operator, it is imperative that you seek the advice of a qualified personal injury attorney.