States

February 26, 2019

New York Statutes of Limitations for Child Abuse Victims

In February 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed Child Victims Act into law. It extends the statute of limitations for victims of child abuse. Child sex abuse victims are now allowed to file criminal charges against their abuser before they turn 28. Victims are allowed to file civil charges against their abuser before they turn 55. Previously, victims had to file both civil and criminal charges before they turned 23. The law also allows a one-year period for individuals to file cases that happened longer than what the statute of limitations would have allowed. It also requires judges to have some training on how to handle child sex abuse cases.

What are statutes of limitations, and why do we have them?

Statutes of limitations (SOL) are a predetermined period that the state is allowed to charge someone with a crime. Different crimes have different extended periods of time when one can file charges against someone. However, the same crime may have a different SOL depending on the state. There are SOL laws because of concerns that witness testimony might be unreliable. A victim may not necessarily remember enough about their abuse that the jury may not find them credible. Physical evidence may also deteriorate over time, which further questions credibility.

Why extend the statute of limitations if someone might not remember what happened to them?

DNA, audio or video recordings, emails, and texts do not disintegrate over time, making them more credible forms of evidence over a longer period. Society has also improved their understanding of the trauma that victims of child sexual abuse experience. People now understand that it can take many years or even decades before someone finally comes forward. While laws on statutes of limitations are put in place to ensure credibility, there are exceptional cases such as child sexual abuse which necessitates lengthened the statute of limitations.

October 2, 2018

Michigan Jury Awards $130 Million in Cerebral Palsy Case

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

In Oakland County, Michigan, a jury awarded a $130 million settlement on behalf of a boy suffering from cerebral palsy. The jury found two medical technicians liable for causing the child’s severe and permanent brain damage that resulted in cerebral palsy. The $130 million incident was one of the largest jury settlements in Michigan history.

The Facts of the Case

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the boy and his mother in 2016. The child was 2 months old when the injury occurred in 2006. According to the plaintiff’s attorney, the child requires help to get in and out of the bathtub. The boy’s mother is a full-time caregiver for her son. These are tough cases. You can hear about 1,000 of them. But every time, it is like you are hearing the facts for the first time. It is heartbreaking.

October 1, 2018

$31 Million Awarded for Circumcision Malpractice in Georgia

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

This post is about a significant verdict in Georgia after an awful circumcision mishap caused a boy severe and permanent injuries. In this post, I talk about this tragic case and take a deep dive into the statute of limitations in Georgia in birth injury cases.

The Big Verdict

A jury in Clayton County, Georgia, awarded a mother and her four-year-old son $31 million for a circumcision gone wrong. This malpractice incident occurred at an OB/GYN and pediatric clinic. This is a significant verdict for the most common surgical procedure in the country and one that is rarely the subject of a malpractice lawsuit.

February 9, 2018

Average Personal Injury Case in Minnesota

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

The average verdict in a personal injury case in Minnesota is $271,577. The national average is $885,600.

Does this mean Minnesota juries are not sympathetic to personal injury victims? I think it might, actually. In fact, I think the statistics might actually underestimate how stingy Minnesota juries can be.

Why? The biggest driving force in personal injury verdicts is car accidents because is the most common type of personal injury case. So the state’s law in dealing with car accident claims will make a more meaningful impact on personal injury statistics.

May 5, 2014

Pennsylvania Statute of Repose Opinion | Bulebosh v. Flannery

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Statutes of limitations can be very unfair. But as harsh as the SOL can be, a statute of repose can far more Draconian, closing the courthouse steps on cases where the victims did everything they could to bring a timely action.

What is a statute of repose? It is amazing how many tort lawyers do not know until they learn the hard way. A statute of repose provides a date certain by which a claim must be brought. In most states, there are no excuses. Unlike a statute of limitations, it often cannot be tolled by the date the injury should have been discovered.

I can’t deny there is a purpose to the statute of repose. The legislature wants to create some outer time limit where a claim is just too old to be pursued, no matter what. But some states have these short statutes of repose, seven years in Pennsylvania, and only five in Maryland for medical malpractice cases that are just unfair.

December 12, 2013

$1 Million Nail Salon Settlement in Baltimore City

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Here’s an interesting case that I saw looking at settlements and verdicts last night.

July 24, 2013

Lawsuit Against Morgan State Will Continue

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

A Baltimore City Circuit Court judge has given the “go ahead” for a student’s lawsuit to proceed – for now, at least – against Morgan State University, denying a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit.

Awful details here. The 23-year-old Plaintiff has filed suit against Morgan State for failing to act to protect students and visitors on the university campus. The lawsuit, which seeks more than $75,000 on each of three counts consistent with Maryland’s new law not to ask for specific damages in the Complaint, was filed as a result of a horrific beating that the Plaintiff received by the hands of a man later found not criminally responsible due to mental illness.

The lawsuit alleges that there was foreseeability on the school’s part that something bad would happen. That’s where the claim gets a little tricky. The attacker, prone to violent outbursts at college events, attacked the Plaintiff with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire, blinding him in one eye. The lawsuit states that the warning signs were there, but that Morgan State failed to act. Previously found wielding a machete on campus, and known to leave satanic rants on social media sites, the attacker has since been arrested on a separate case. Charged with murder, it is alleged that he killed and dismembered a family friend, and consumed some of the deceased’s organs.

June 25, 2013

Burden of Proof Hurdle Too High in Mississippi

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

A Mississippi Appeals court recently affirmed a trial court decision to throw out a Wal-Mart premise liability case involving a damaged container and corrosive burns. Instead of letting the events (and the injuries) speak for themselves, the court places an extremely high evidentiary expectation that was out of the plaintiff’s grasp. Should courts be allowing corporations to escape liability just because the plaintiff is unable to show every single detail of the accident when he is clearly injured? It is a challenge courts have wrestled with for hundreds of years.

What happened? A patron visited a Mississippi Wal-Mart in the fall of 2010. While perusing the aisles, he selected a bottle of bleach to put in his basket. After leaving the checkout counter, the patron realized he accidentally forgot to purchase the bleach and placed the bottle on his lap to return to the cashier. Unfortunately, this bottle of bleach was leaking and spilled its contents on his legs and thighs. Because of a prior injury, the man had been paralyzed from the waist down since 1967 and he did not become aware of the spilled bleach until the cashier noticed the leaking bottle. The bleach caused chemical burns on his thigh and knee, and he brought suit against the Wal-Mart Corporation.

The patron filed a premise liability claim that alleged Wal-Mart was negligent and had knowledge of a dangerous condition. Wal-Mart made a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court dismissed the case, saying that the patron failed to prove Wal-Mart’s negligent act. The Mississippi Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

April 29, 2013

New Subsequent Remedial Measures Opinion

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Last week, the Court of Appeals of Missouri decided a subsequent remedial measures case that I think is of interest to all personal injury lawyers no matter where you practice.

The subsequent remedial measures rule is one of those law school standards that any second-year student can explain in about two minutes. Despite its seeming simplicity, as we see in Emerson v. Garvin Group, the rule is more complicated to apply.

Settlement amount and jury verdicts in Missouri (update 2023)

April 9, 2013

Slip and Fall Law: Atlanta Claim Dismissed by Georgia Court of Appeals

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

I’m amazed at how many smart, well-informed people are under the impression that if an accident occurs on a business’ property, the business is automatically liable for any and all damage. In the real world, slip and fall cases present much bigger hurdles to climb.

Georgia Slip and Fall Cases Never Sees Courtroom

Last week, the Georgia Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s summary judgment order denying a plaintiff relief in the case of Warner v. Hobby Lobby, a case illustrative of these challenges, even in a comparative negligence state like Georgia.