News & Resources
Personal Injury News
Personal Injury-Wrongful Death Articles
Class Action Lawsuits
Class action lawsuits are composed of groups of people with the same or similar injuries and/or damages, stemming from the same source. The cause of the injury may be a specific event or incident: contamination from a toxic substance, material or structure; faulty medical treatment or use of the same defective product, drug or device. Usually, the injured parties have sustained fairly minor injuries. Therefore, by combining the individual claims into one action, the claim becomes more practical for the plaintiffs and for the court system. It is more cost effective to litigate all the claims at one time, since the costs of litigation will be paid by the group, not by an individual plaintiff. Additionally, by combining the smaller claims together, they add up and may gain strength in proving the plaintiff’s case to the court.
What is a Toxic Tort?
A toxic tort is a growing area of law that covers a wide variety of injuries due to contamination, toxins and/or faulty medications or drugs. Some examples of injuries that would fall under toxic tort law would be lead poisoning, asbestos related injuries (mesothelioma), contaminated water, contaminated buildings, pesticides, catastrophic events, tobacco, radiation or injuries due to medications or medical devices. There are certain similarities that toxic tort claims share. First, the injury was caused by a dangerous/unsafe substance. Next, persons who came into contact with the substance became at risk for injuries (similar in nature). Usually, the extent of the injuries may not be known for a number of years. Additionally, the persons or entity responsible for the dangerous exposure are often numerous and difficult to establish based on the circumstances of the situation and the type of injury.
Injury & Tort Law Case Summaries
[02/03] Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Roberts
In a suit brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment that it was required to indemnify its insured for no more than 40 percent of a state court judgment because it had covered its insured for no more than 40 percent of the time in which the state court plaintiff was exposed to lead poisoning, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part, where it was correct in allocating the insurer's liability using the pro-rata time on-the-risk, and its decision to use the plaintiff's date of birth as the starting point for the period in which she was exposed to lead poisoning was sound; and 2) reversed in part, where the district court erred in holding the insurer liable for 24 months of coverage rather than 22, since under the insurance contract, coverage ended when the property was sold.
[02/02] Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.
[02/01] Maxton v. Western States Metals
In a suit alleging negligence and strict liability causes of action based on personal injuries as a result of working with metal products manufactured by the defendants and supplied to the plaintiff's employer, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants on demurrers is affirmed, where: 1) the metal products involved were not inherently dangerous, and no other circumstances justified imposing liability on the defendants for the plaintiff's injuries under the component parts doctrine; 2) the plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing there was a reasonable possibility that the deficiencies in the complaint could be cured by amendment.
Personal Injury-Wrongful Death Frequently Asked Questions
What remedies does a railroad worker, who is injured while working, have?
What is a slip and fall action?
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
