Las Vegas Injury Lawyers Blog

Abuse among the elderly is becoming increasing common in nursing homes, assisted living homes, hospitals, hospices, rehab facilities and even their own households. This problem has been going widely unnoticed though due to poor public awareness. Education and awareness campaigns are helping family members to identify the problem and giving them an outlet to voice their concerns and resolve this growing issue in Nevada.

Abuse happens in many forms including physical, emotional, sexual, financial, verbal abuse, neglect and invasion of privacy. These problems can be hard to identify but the warning signs are there. Asking the right questions and talking to the right people are key factors in acknowledging if someone you know is being abused. 550,000 seniors are victims every year but only 1 in 5 cases are even reported.

Laws are in place to protect the elderly and taking the right steps is the only way to resolve this rapidly growing problem. If you feel you or someone you love is suffering from neglect or abuse websites like the National Center of Elderly Abuse (www.ncea.aoa.gov) can help. The personal injury lawyers of Parker Scheer Lagomarsino care about our clients and can help resolve elderly abuse or neglect cases. If you or someone you know are affected by any of these issues and would like to speak to someone please don't hesitate to contact our lawyers for a free confidential case review. Call us toll free at 1-866-414-0400.

A 20-year-old man was catastrophically killed and taken to University Medical Center after tumbling from a moving vehicle in North Las Vegas. His 17-year-old brother was the driver. The young man suffered significant head trauma from the event that ultimately resulted in his brother's death.

A full article is featured in the Las Vegas Sun: Man, 20, dies from injuries after 'car surfing' in North Las Vegas

Incidents like this in Nevada raise serious liability concerns. The driver, even though it is his brother, could faces charges after the police finish their investigation. The car insurance company or even the victim's health insurer could also hold some liability depending on the negligence factor.

Our law firm does not represent anybody in this incident. The commentary is for educational purposes only.

Accidents come in many forms: automobile, boating, plane, train, slip and fall, dog bites, work related and defective products just to name a few. The most important thing in any accident is to immediately call 911, and not another number like 311 or a medical response company according to county and health district officials. No mater how common or rare an accident is, reporting it should be one of the first things that happen after an accident.

An accident occurred at a Las Vegas casino a couple years ago and they were fined for their failure to do so after a man fell 40 feet to his death. A major reason this is so important is the Southern Nevada's dual response system that sends a fire department and a paramedic team simultaneously to the scene of an accident.

If you have been injured in an accident or would like to speak to someone about your rights, contact our lawyers for a free confidential case review and receive a response within hours, or call toll free 866-414-0400.

Whether it is a fact witness or an expert witness taking the stand, Las Vegas trial lawyers must take into consideration the potential impact that witness attire may have on a jury. Clothing or a hotel and casino uniform may make a witness look more or less credible and can create emotional bias. This emotional bias could be positive or negative depending on the case. The appearance of a witness, including but not limited to attire, cannot be overestimated and how it may impact a jury should always be considered.

In a recent case in California, a defense witness in a trial was allowed to wear his military uniform while he testified. He was not enrolled in the military at the time of the shooting but apparently "turned his life around" in the time leading to the trial and joined the military. In appeal of the case the lower court's decision was upheld in allowing him to testify in uniform saying they could "find no error in permitting military personnel to testify while in uniform, even if they are off-duty and testifying in an unofficial capacity."

The full article is featured on The American Bar Associations Website: California Decision Focuses on Juror Perceptions of Witness Attire

Trial lawyers must try to anticipate issues like this and address them early. A juror's decision process is an impressionable one and whether it is a doctor testifying in their scrubs or military personnel testifying in their uniform, be conscience of the potential impact it can make when preparing for trial.

Implied authority is that which the agent reasonably believes himself to possess, as a result of representations by the principal or acts of the agent permitted by the principal over a course of time in which the principal has acquiesced. Coblentz v. Riskin, 74 Nev. 53, 57, 322 P.2d 905, 907 (1958). Incidental authority is that which is reasonably necessary, proper and usual to carry into effect the main authority granted. See id. Implied authority is inherent in an agent's position and is proven by circumstantial evidence. See Amcore Bank, N.A. v. Hahnaman-Albrecht, Inc., 759 N.E.2d 174, 182-83 (Ill. App. 2001); see also, Heil-Quaker v. Swindler, 255 F.Supp. 445, 448-49 (D.C. S.C. 1966) (implied authority is actual authority circumstantially proved, or evidenced by conduct). Implied agency, in other words, is one that may be inferred from the dealings between the principal and the agent. See Gardner v. Rensmeyer, 557 P.2d 1258, 1261 (Kan. 1976). This type of authority has been further defined as follows:

Implied authority of an agent is, in fact, actual authority evidenced by conduct, that is
the conduct of the principal being such as to justify a Jury in finding that the Agent
had actual authority to do what he did. This may be proved by evidence of
acquiescence with knowledge of the Agent's acts, and such knowledge and
acquiescence may be shown by evidence of the Agent's course of dealing for so long
a period of time that acquiescence may be assumed.

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Enjay Chemical Co., 316 A.2d 219, 222 (Del.Super. 1974). Under implied authority, the general rule is that an agent employed to do an act is deemed authorized to do it in the manner in which the business entrusted to him is usually done. See Masuda v. Kawaski Dockyard Co.

Generally a handbook or guide regulating the responsibilities and conduct of a person within a position demonstrates control leading to actual authority. State of Hawaii v. Hoshijo, 76 P.3d 550, 562 (Hawaii 2003). In Hoshijo, the University of Hawaii was sued when a student manager on a basketball team yelled racial slurs during a basketball game. Id. at 554. The Court held that the handbook regulated the conduct of student managers and therefore subjected the student to the control of the University of Hawaii, and he was therefore an agent of the University. Id. at 562.

Continue reading "Nevada Employers Can Be Held Responsible For Their Employees' Actions If The Employee Acts Wrongfully On The Job" »

In slip and fall cases, many hotels and casinos claim that their compliance with building codes relieves them from liability. However, compliance with statutes is clearly not dispositive on the issue of negligence.

In Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc. v. Western Farm Service, Inc., 190 Cal.App.4th 1502 (Cal.App.2010), a defendant claimed that compliance with statutes precluded a finding of liability against it. The Court rejected the argument and succinctly stated its rationale for doing so: "Compliance with the law does not necessarily prove that the defendant met that standard of care. Typically, compliance with the law "simply constitutes evidence for jury consideration with other facts and circumstances." (Hernandez v. Badger Construction Equipment Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1791, 1830-1831, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 732.) The reason for that is that statutes and regulations "cannot take into account the particular concerns of individual cases. They aim at minimum standards but are not meant to establish the outer limits of the defendant's safety responsibilities." (1 Dobbs, The Law of Torts (2001) § 224, p. 573.) Thus, the deputy commissioner's finding that defendant had complied with the law, even if final and on the merits, did not negate any element essential the proof of plaintiff's negligence claim." Id. at 1524-25. See also, Amos v. Alpha Property Management, 73 Cal.App.4th 895, 901 (Cal.App.1999) ("Defendants contend the fact the window in question met all applicable fire, building and safety codes establishes due care as a matter of law. There is no merit to this argument."); Perrine v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 186 Cal.App.2d 442 (Cal.App.1960) ("We are mindful that even though P. G. & E. complied with all applicable governmental safety regulations, this would not serve to absolve it from a charge of negligence"). The same rationale applies here in Las Vegas.

Building codes and state statutes have been specifically found to be "minimum " efforts by many courts. See Meisner v. Patton Elec. Co., Inc., 781 F.Supp. 1432, 1443 (D.Neb.1990) ("ANSI standards are voluntary standards, and more importantly, minimum standards"); Anderson v. Hedstrom Corp., 76 F.Supp.2d 422, 450 (S.D.N.Y.1999)(concluding that the question of whether the ANSI or ASTM requirements constitute the industry standard and the question of whether the defendant's compliance or lack of compliance with the appropriate standard, when considered with other facts and circumstances of the case, should result in liability should be left to the jury).

Other state courts agree that statutes provide only minimum standards. Tufariello v. Long Island R. Co., 458 F.3d 80, 91 (2d Cir.2006) ("Compliance with OSHA standards ... has been held not to be a defense to state tort or criminal liability.") (quoting UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 214, 111 S.Ct. 1196, 113 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991) (White, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)); Sawyer v. Dreis & Krump Mfg., 67 N.Y.2d 328, 337, 502 N.Y.S.2d 696, 701, 493 N.E.2d 920, 925 (1986) (noting that industry standards are not dispositive in a negligence action and that the jury should have been instructed to consider industry standards along with all other evidence presented).

Negligence cases can be tricky. If you ever decide that suing is the only option left, feel free to give our office a call.

Regulations are designed to protect children from defective products and hazardous toys. The regulations are enforced administratively and in the justice system. Laws like The Child Safety Protection Act and The Federal Hazardous Substance Act require choking hazard labels and ban substances that contain hazardous materials, but regulators don't always have enough resources to police these enormous consumer markets. Dangerous toys make it to store shelves and, sometimes, it may be too late before the product can be recalled. That is when the justice system has to step in and hold manufacturers liable.

Design problems and unsafe toys can lead to fatal injuries including drowning, suffocation, motor vehicle incidents and strangulation. Each year approximately 217,000 toy-related injuries are treated in hospital emergency rooms. Manufacturers should be held accountable for defective products, negligence, failure to warn and even misconduct.

To read more about this subject, click here: Unforeseen Hazards Contribute to Toy-Related Injuries. Websites like the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (www.cpsc.gov) and www.Recalls.gov can also be a great resource.

A probation officer in Carson City has been accused of molesting seven victims in the course of his employment has been placed on administrative leave with pay pending the completion of an internal investigation. The officer surrendered himself to the Douglas County Sheriff's Office on March 22 and was booked and released. All together he is facing 9 felonies and 16 gross misdemeanor charges.

The controversy surrounds allegations that Lewis used threats of arrest to force women into disrobing to inspect their genitals and breasts. Lewis has been a probation officer since 2009 and before that he had worked for the Nevada Department of Corrections and was a deputy with the Lyon County Sherriff's Office.

If proven to be true, this case could become one of Nevada's largest cases of civil rights violations by one individual. The accusations gross excessive searches, under the color of State law, are likely of huge concern to the Douglas County Sheriff.

The full article is featured on NevadaAppeal.com: Another woman claims officer molested her.

Continue reading "Probation Officer Facing Criminal Charges in Carson City" »

A lawsuit was filed against a major U.S. health insurer named Cigna, early in March of this year, for $100 million dollars by a veteran manager claiming company policy blocked her from promotions and higher paying jobs based on her gender. Brenda Karp worked for Cigna for 14 years and last year was denied a promotion because she "came across to aggressive" in an interview. After she complained to the company, they responded by taking away some of her territories.

The company is charged with violating the U.S. Civil Rights Act and the Massachusetts state law banning gender discrimination. The lawsuit takes issue with a forced system that "limits managers to categorizing a certain percentage of employees" and ranks them using a bell curve. The lawsuit contends this "bars female employees from better and higher-paying positions which have traditionally been held by male employees."

The full article is featured on Reuters.com: Lawsuit Charged Cigna With Gender Discrimination.

Continue reading "Health Insurer Charged with Gender Discrimination" »

Recently the Nevada Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the Rio All Suites Hotel & Casino and an employee who was injured on the job. Kathryn Phillips, an employee at the casino for 17 years, walked up and down two flights of stairs six times every eight-hour shift. One day she fell down them and fractured her ankle. Her workers compensation claim was denied and she was forced to take her case to court.

The lawsuit made its way to the Nevada Supreme Court at the end of 2010 and the decision from a lower court was upheld. The Courts ruled that she deserved to receive her benefits. The frequency in which she was required to use the stairs put her at a greater risk of injury than faced by the general public. An "increased risk test" should be used to determine whether an employee is entitled to benefits when injured on the job.

The full article is featured in the Las Vegas Sun: Court Rules in Las Vegas Casino Industrial Injury Case.

Continue reading "Employers Putting Employees at Risk" »

Since the late 1980s government contractors have been getting sued under federal laws and the whistleblowers coming forward with the claims have been receiving billions of dollars from the lawsuits. The topic has been receiving a lot of attention in the media lately after the new Dodd-Frank financial reform law surfaced.

The new law calls for bigger payouts from the Securities and Exchange Commission if a violation is reported that results in at least $1 million dollars in sanctions. The last three years awards have been steadily increasing and last year hit a record high of $385 million. Opposition comes from employers who would rather their employees follow internal company policies for reporting problems like fraud and groups that call for caps on these payouts.

Continue reading "Whistleblower Awards Sparking Debate" »