A truck accident wrongful death claim in Georgia was dismissed on summary judgment by the trial court. This week, the truck accident lawsuit was reinstated by a Georgia appeals court.
The case presents interesting issues as to the application of comparative negligence where there is a factual dispute among witnesses.
RELATED CONTENT:
This page will explain Pennsylvania wrongful death lawsuits. We will explain how the Pennsylvania wrongful death statute works and who is eligible to bring a wrongful death lawsuit and get settlement compensation. We also explain the second cause of action in death cases, a survival action which provides a second path of compensation for the victim’s family
RELATED CONTENT:
This page is about Georgia wrongful death law. The purpose is to explain how the wrongful death statute works and who is eligible for either settlement compensation or a jury payout. We also explain the second cause of action in death cases, a survival action which provides a second path of compensation for the victim’s family
The state of Georgia, like all U.S. states, has laws that govern wrongful death claims. These are civil actions that are filed when one party’s negligence, misconduct, or criminal action results in the death of another. While the law cannot bring back the lost loved one, it aims to help compensate those who are left behind and to hold the responsible parties accountable. Understanding Georgia’s wrongful death laws can help survivors make informed decisions when seeking justice.
A Georgia appeals court on Wednesday affirmed a trial court’s disqualification of an expert witness in a suit accusing a hospital’s nurses of failing to prevent a patient’s internal bleeding, which proved fatal, saying the plaintiffs’ expert, a physician, was not qualified to opine on the standard of care for nurses.
A woman underwent surgery at the Medical Center of Central Georgia in Macon to remove her left kidney. Several days post-surgery, while recovering in the hospital, she suffered from internal bleeding and died.
Dog bites can lead to severe physical and emotional injuries, and understanding the laws surrounding these incidents is crucial. Washington D.C.’s laws regarding dog bites are somewhat unique, as the District operates under a mix of “strict liability” and the “one bite rule.”
RELATED CONTENT:
Below are settlement amounts and jury payouts in Kentucky medical malpractice lawsuits. This page also summarizes key areas of Kentucky malpractice law.
According to Jury Verdict Research, the average personal injury jury verdict in Kentucky is $518,387. The median jury verdict in Kentucky is $40,000. We drill down on Kentucky malpractice.
This page looks at settlement amounts and jury awards in personal injury cases in Washington DC. Our attorneys also offer an analysis of Washington DC personal injury law.
As a personal injury victim pursuing a compensation claim in DC, it’s natural to want to understand the potential range of settlement payouts for your claim. After all, monetary compensation is ultimately the goal of a personal injury or wrongful death claim.
This page aims to explore how personal injury cases have been resolved in Illinois, allowing you to compare your claim with Washington DC personal injury settlement statistics and examples of settlements and jury awards.
This page will look at medical malpractice cases involving birth injuries in Washington state. We will review the key points of Washington tort law and examine the settlement value of Washington birth injury lawsuits based on reported settlements and trial verdicts.
A birth injury is defined as a physical injury, damage or harm inflicted on a baby because of something that occurs during the process of childbirth (or pregnancy). Birth injuries differ from birth defects in that they are not genetically inherited. Instead, birth injuries are a product of events going wrong during delivery, usually as the result of medical negligence.
This page will explore medical malpractice cases involving birth injuries in Washington D.C. Our lawyers examine key aspects of Washington D.C. malpractice law and evaluate the settlement amounts and jury payouts of District of Columbia birth injury lawsuits based on reported settlements and trial verdicts.
A birth injury refers to physical harm, damage, or injury inflicted on a baby due to events during pregnancy or childbirth. Birth injuries differ from birth defects as they are not genetically inherited. They can happen without medical malpractice. But, too often, they result from complications during delivery, often due to medical negligence.
Last week, the intermediate-level appeals court of Massachusetts reestablished a lawsuit accusing a hospital’s staff of causing a post-surgery patient to fall and break her hip. In Owens v. Erazo (22-P-1204), the appeals court disagreed with a medical malpractice tribunal that had categorized the incident as simply an “unfortunate medical result.”
A panel of three Appeals Court judges reversed a Suffolk County judge’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit. The suit alleges that a nurse and physical therapist, employed by Brigham & Women’s Faulkner Hospital, failed in their duty to accurately assess the fall risks for a patient. This alleged failure led to the patient falling and fracturing her hip after undergoing hip surgery.
Ms. Owens, the plaintiff, had been hospitalized after undergoing hip surgery, during which she experienced an injury. As a result, she instigated a medical malpractice lawsuit against Erazo (R.N.), Agustin (P.C.A.), O’Hara (P.T.), and Brigham & Women’s Faulkner Hospital. The defendants, Erazo and O’Hara, subsequently put forth requests for a medical malpractice tribunal, as described in G. L. c. 231, § 60B.
Lawsuit Information Center