Premises Liability

Medical Emergency Results in Fatal Washington D.C. Car Accident

July 10, 2022 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

While many car accidents are the result of reckless driving or disobeying traffic laws, sometimes, drivers are rendered unconscious or unresponsive because of a medical emergency. Medical emergencies can range from choking or fainting to even more severe emergencies such as strokes, heart attacks, or seizures. Car accidents involving medical emergencies can be serious and often fatal, as nearby pedestrians and other cars are not aware of the sudden loss of control by the individual experiencing the medical emergency.

In a recent news report, a Washington D.C. car accident occurred when a pickup truck ran a red light before hitting a male bicyclist and ultimately careening off the road and crashing into a firework stand. The accident occurred in Northeast D.C. around 5:30 p.m. near Nannie Helen Burroughs Ave Northeast and Minnesota Avenue. The police officers on the scene stated that they believed the driver of the pickup truck experienced a medical emergency when the crash happened. Both the male bicyclist and a man standing behind the firework stand were pronounced dead according to the police. The police stated that nobody else was killed or injured during the accident.

How Can D.C. Accident Victim Prove Another Driver Was at Fault?

When it comes to Washington D.C. car accident cases, defendants claiming to have experienced a medical emergency that led to a car accident have the option to pursue an Act of God defense. An Act of God defense in Washington D.C. offers a defense when the force of nature is uncontrolled and uninfluenced by humans and could not be prevented or avoided. Such a defense is difficult to successfully deploy and both parties need to examine the at-fault driver’s medical records to determine several issues. (1) Did the driver have pre-existing medical conditions, (2) was the driver taking medication for their condition, and (3) were any medical restrictions in effect at the time of the accident? Establishing if a medical emergency did in fact occur, and if so, to what degree it was foreseeable, and what steps the at-fault driver took to mitigate the risk of medical emergencies is vital to arriving at a proper result for a plaintiff’s claim. Successfully defeating a defense revolving around a medical emergency potentially involves proving that there were symptoms of the medical emergency that the at-fault driver negligently ignored, ultimately causing the accident.

Astroworld Tragedy Could Have Implications for Washington, D.C. Residents

November 19, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

When the news involving Astroworld, a two-day music festival in Houston, broke out earlier this month, people all over the country were shocked to hear that at least eight people had been killed in the tragic incident. In Washington, D.C., music festivals, concerts, and events of similar size take place each year and bring crowds that could involve thousands of people. In the event that crowd control or event planning safety protocols fail and you are injured, understanding how you may recover and protect yourself is crucial.

Based on a recent report of the incident, at least eight people were killed and dozens were injured during Astroworld. According to initial reports, a large crowd began pushing toward the front of the stage during artist Travis Scott’s performance, and the true cause of the surge remains under investigation. There were more than 50,000 people assembled at the festival when the injuries took place. Local authorities noted that the Astroworld tragedy was one of the deadliest crowd control disasters in the United States since potentially 1979, where a similar situation in Cincinnati left 11 people dead.

Despite various reports of chaos near the stage and videos showing the crowd pleading for help, concert organizers opted to not shut down the event too quickly. Nearly 40 minutes after city officials reported that the “mass casualty event” began did concert organizers stop the event—only thirty minutes earlier than planned.

Negligent Hiring Claims in Washington, D.C.

February 24, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

If an individual has been injured in a Washington, D.C. accident by an employee, in addition to other claims, the individual may be able to file a claim against the at-fault party’s employer for negligent hiring or retention. Under Washington, D.C. law, to establish a claim for negligent hiring or retention, a plaintiff must show that the employer negligently hired or retained an individual who committed a wrongful act by placing the individual in an employment situation that poses an unreasonable risk of harm to others. An employer may also be liable for negligently retaining an independent contractor.

What Is the Difference Between Vicarious Liability and an Employer's Primary Negligence?

These claims are based on the negligence of the employer, rather than on vicarious liability. Generally, an employer has an obligation to its customers to reasonably inquire into an employee’s past record and employment if, for example, an employee will have un-monitored access to customers’ homes in the course of the employment. An employer may also be liable for negligently entrusting an employee to use a vehicle or other property if the employer knew or should have known that the employee might use the property in a way that would involve an unreasonable risk of harm.

Premises Liability Cases after Unusual Washington, D.C. Accidents

February 17, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In Washington, D.C., when someone is injured in an accident that occurs on another’s property, they usually have the option of bringing a personal injury lawsuit against the property owner to recover under a theory of premises liability. Generally, premises liability allows people to be held liable when they are negligent in regard to the safety of their property and yet invite or allow others onto it. Usually, premises liability cases involve wet floors causing a slip and fall accident, cracks in sidewalks that cause someone to trip, or other similar issues. But it is important to remember that any accident—no matter how strange or unique—can potentially serve as the basis for a Washington, D.C. personal injury lawsuit against a property owner.

For example, take a recent odd and tragic accident that killed a 26-year-old man and made national headlines. According to a New York Times article, the accident occurred in early February at a baby shower. A small cannon-type device, designed to create a big flash, a loud noise, and create smoke, exploded in the hosts’ backyard at the event around 7:30 PM. The victim, a guest at the party, was about 10 to 15 feet away when it blew up and was hit by metal shrapnel from the explosion. He was taken to the hospital immediately, but, unfortunately, he died from his injuries.

The investigation into the accident is ongoing. Officials are focusing their attention on whether the device was used properly or malfunctioned. The homeowner bought the cannon at an auction and had fired it several times beforehand. But officials are concerned that perhaps there was a malfunction—the combination of gunpowder and no regular inspections means that owners of devices such as this one may not notice hairline fractures. Or, perhaps even more likely, it’s possible the homeowner packed too much gunpowder into the cannon, causing the explosion.

Washington, D.C. Accidents Occurring in Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic

January 13, 2021 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The COVID-19 pandemic has dominated the headlines for the past year, and has affected Washington, D.C. residents just as it has affected the rest of the nation. Many Washington, D.C. residents have fallen ill or even died from COVID-19, and many families are mourning loved ones but are unable to gather in-person to celebrate their lives. But amidst all this, personal injury accidents are still occurring in Washington, D.C. and across the nation—some totally separate from COVID-19 and some as a result. Some of these accidents, occurring in overcrowded and understaffed hospitals, raise questions about hospitals’ legal duty to protect patients.

For example, take a recent accident that made national headlines. According to the New York Times, an 82-year-old man was being treated for COVID-19 at a hospital when he was bludgeoned to death with an oxygen tank by his roommate at the hospital, another COVID-19 patient. The men were sharing a two-person room, and the victim began to pray one morning, angering his 37-year-old roommate, who then struck him with an oxygen tank. He was pronounced dead the next morning. The roommate was arrested and charged with murder and elder abuse. Bail was set at $1 million.

This is not the first time someone has been killed in a hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals all across the country are overwhelmed, overcrowded, and understaffed, potentially setting the scene for incidents such as this. For example, the New York Times reports that in April of 2020, an 86-year-old woman died at a hospital when another patient shoved her for breaking social distancing guidelines.

Holding Washington, D.C. Landlords Accountable for Defective Conditions

December 11, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Although Washington, D.C. landlords are responsible for maintaining their properties, D.C. law generally allows landlords to relieve themselves of liability for negligence through an agreement between the landlord and the tenant. If the parties clearly agreed to release liability, the court will generally uphold the agreement. However, Washington, D.C. courts have made it clear that exculpatory clauses in agreements are only construed to limit liability for negligence if the language in the lease clarifies that it was the intended effect. However, an agreement will not be enforced in cases of gross negligence, willful acts, or fraud. In addition, the agreement must apply and be intended to apply to the premises in question.

Are Landlords Liable for Injuries on Rented Properties?

Under Washington, D.C. law, a landlord who has exclusive control of a building in which there are leased premises must exercise reasonable and ordinary care in managing that portion of the premises under the landlord’s exclusive control (such as a common hallway or bathroom). In the portions under the landlord’s exclusive control, the landlord is generally still liable for injuries because of a defective condition that the landlord fails to address.

Washington, D.C. Premises Liability Accident Claims May Be Barred by Waivers of Liability

November 24, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In this blog, we often write about a specific type of Washington, D.C. personal injury lawsuit: premise’s liability claims.

What Is Premises Liability?

The premise’s liability doctrine is used to hold property or business owners responsible for accidents on their property. For example, grocery stores that fail to warn customers of slippery floors can be held liable, or homeowners who invite visitors over who are injured on faulty stairs. This is an important doctrine; however, it is not without limits. In some cases, an individual might sign a waiver of liability, releasing a property or business owner from liability if they are injured.

The Importance of the Distinction Between an Independent Contractor and an Employee in a Washington, D.C. Personal Injury Case

October 23, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The difference between an independent contractor and an employee is an important distinction in Washington, D.C. personal injury cases because an injured person’s ability to recover may be limited based on the negligent actor’s status. The following case shows how the plaintiff’s ability to recover compensation from his employer was limited by the wrongful actor’s status as an independent contractor.

In that case, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of injuries he suffered while working on his property. According to the record in the case, the defendant owned and operated a construction business, and the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant’s company. The defendant sometimes offered employees work at his home outside of normal work hours. One day, the plaintiff and his coworker went to do maintenance work, and among their tasks, they were told to burn the brush in the yard. The plaintiff attempted to do so by standing on top of a large pile of logs and throwing gasoline on the brush. The brush “blew up,” causing him to fall back and burning his skin with severe burns.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was liable because he failed to supervise the burning of the brush, he had gasoline available to use, he did not train the plaintiff on how to properly use the gasoline, and he did not train his coworker on how to properly use the gasoline or supervise others properly. He also claimed the defendant was responsible for his coworker’s negligence acts under respondeat superior. The defendant argued he was not liable for any of the coworker’s acts because he was an independent contractor rather than an employee.

Recovering from an Injury Caused by a Dangerous Product in Washington, D.C.

June 20, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Summer is officially here, and soon, families will be heading to water parks where they can escape the heat, enjoy the water, and cool down for a few hours. Others with a taste for adventure may seek the excitement of a rollercoaster or a waterslide during their visit. These trips are usually filled with fond memories and amusement parks often do take the necessary precautions to adequately protect guests’ safety. However, when a preventable injury occurs, these parks can often be held accountable through a Washington, D.C. premises liability lawsuit. In addition, a recent case illustrates that amusement parks may also be liable for guest’s injuries under a product liability theory.

According to the recent opinion, a man brought a product liability claim against a water park after he was injured while going down a waterslide. The plaintiff had slipped from a sitting position on an inner tube and landed on his stomach. When the plaintiff splashed into the pool below, he hit his feet on the bottom of the pool, leaving him with a fractured pelvis and hip. Even though the plaintiff had ample evidence of his injury and the water park’s role in causing it, the trial court ruled against him in his product liability claim.

In front of the appellate court, the defense argued that their water park provided its guests with a service, and not a product, and thus the plaintiff’s product liability claim must fail. Because product liability claims can only apply to products and not services, the defense argued that patrons visit the water park to obtain a service involving the use of waterslides, rather than paying a fee to primarily use waterslides as a product.

Sovereign Immunity in Washington, D.C. Lawsuits Against Universities

June 11, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Governmental immunity, historically referred to as sovereign immunity, is a legal theory that protects government personnel and agencies from civil lawsuits. The premise stems from the idea that governments would not be able to effectively function if they feared constant liability for all of their actions. However, to address the fundamental unfairness of this doctrine, many jurisdictions limit the amount of immunity that a governmental entity enjoys. These laws are generally referred to as “tort claims acts.” In Washington, D.C., individuals who believe they suffered damages because of the negligence of a government entity should contact an attorney to discuss their rights and remedies.

The U.S. Department of Education requires that teachers, principals, and other school administrators protect their students and provide them with appropriate educational environments. However, the law often protects these institutions from lawsuits. Additionally, lawsuits that can proceed often require plaintiffs to abide by burdensome filing and notice requirements.

Lawsuits against governments encompass many other complex issues. One issue is whether the potential defendant falls under the protected category. For instance, in some cases, a negligent university or college may enjoy governmental immunity protections, whereas another similar institution may not. This largely depends on the type of institution and the type of funding they receive from the government.