Among the injuries some allege they sustained: Broken bones, loss of consciousness, torn ligaments, torn tendons and emotional trauma. One even suffered a fractured spine, according to court records.

The Associated Press reports the plaintiffs include 14 concertgoers as well as three employees. The employees would be unable, per workers’ compensation laws, to sue their own employer, but they could potentially hold third parties accountable if those individuals or entities contributed to their injuries. Attorneys for the plaintiffs insist the defendants – including the performers – didn’t take appropriate precautions to protect the crowd. 

As one plaintiff attorney explained, this was a concert set up on a lawn. There were no chairs and there were no aisles. Further, there was a reported lack of security. The performers were then motioning for the crowd to get closer, and as one lawyer explained, that combination of facts created a serious problem.

The entity that operates the venue announced after the incident that it had “secured” the railing section that had fallen. A representative stated the company was working with authorities as well as its own structural engineers to piece together the cause of the railing collapse, and in the meantime, a safety zone has been established to block a section of space between the crowd (at future concerts) and the railing. Plaintiff’s lawyers said the reconfiguration is a “post accident admission” that the new set-up was the way it should have been structured all along.

Following the accident, the artists were called off stage and the concert had been canceled.

Incidents like this aren’t necessarily common, but there have certainly been enough of them over the years for our Miami personal injury lawyers to know the basic precedent for prevailing. Basically, it comes down to foreseeability. At the core, these types of cases are premises liability, and what the court will want to review evidence that indicates the defendants, as individuals of ordinary intelligence, should have anticipated the dangers that these acts created for others.

Some elements injured parties may want to consider:

• How serious were the injuries incurred? Plaintiffs usually need to be able to show they suffered some degree of damage that affected their daily lives, at least temporarily. Broken bones, a fractured spine and emotional injuries – these are all things that could have short- and long-term consequences.
• What caused the injury? Plaintiffs have to be able to show the defendant was liable. Here, individuals were crushed by the crowd. But what caused the crowd to press forward the way it did? Should the defendants have anticipated this? Where there reasonable actions they might have taken to mitigate that danger?

Miami is a major hot spot for concerts and other live entertainment events. If you are injured at these venues, contact an experienced injury attorney to help you determine whether you have a case.

If you have been injured at a Miami concert, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Lawsuit filed over railing collapse at Snoop Dogg concert, Aug. 24, 2016, By Megan Trimble, Associated Press

More Blog Entries:

Safeco Ins. Co. v. Fridman – Proving Wage Loss Damages After Car Accident, Aug. 22, 2016, Miami Personal Injury Attorney Blog

That’s the allegation lobbed by plaintiffs in tens of thousands of vaginal mesh lawsuits, and it’s now being echoed by attorneys general in California and Washington, both of whom recently filed lawsuits against one manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, and its subsidiary Ethicon, Inc.

“For many victims, their health and quality of life were forever changed as a result of this deception,” said Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

Side effects of these mesh devices, used to treat pelvic prolapse and incontinence in women, include loss of sexual function, urinary dysfunction, severe pain and constipation. For some women, there is no position that is comfortable anymore. It’s not just the loss of intimacy with their partners, but being unable to sit upright, lie on their side or walk a few steps without incredible pain. 

Speaking at a press conference announcing the lawsuits, one woman from Seattle revealed that she had vaginal mesh surgically inserted at the same time as her hysterectomy, per her doctor’s recommendation, as a way to help deal with her ongoing issues with incontinence. But three years later, not only did her incontinence not get better, it got worse. Plus, she’s had to deal with severe pain, numerous urinary tract infections and constant, agitating itch. What was previously a minor incontinence issue is now so serious, she has to either leave work or keep several changes of clothes with her so that she can cope with the constant accidents that occur as a result of the damage done by the mesh.

She is one of tends of thousands of woman who have already filed personal injury lawsuits against manufacturers of these devices. Johnson & Johnson is a major player, as is Endo International, based in Ireland, and Boston Scientific in Massachusetts.

Two years ago, Endo settled 20,000 personal injury lawsuits with $830 million. Johnson & Johnson, however, still faces 35,000 lawsuits – and more by the day.

These allegations from state attorneys general allege Johnson & Johnson violated state consumer laws with false advertising, and deceptive marketing. In Washington state, where some 12,000 Johnson & Johnson meshes were implanted, the attorney general alleges the company never told patients they risked chronic inflammation, long-term risk of infections and erosion, a condition that occurs when mesh protrudes into an organ or through the vaginal wall. And again, the states allege, these were problems about which the company was well aware.

In one case from 2009, a physician sent the company an email just before he was to begin surgery on a mesh patient. He informed the company she was likely to lose all sexual function, as her vaginal length was just 3 cm. Plus, there was mesh “extruding literally everywhere.” As the doctor put it, the patient would suffer, “a permanently destroyed vagina.”

And yet, despite emails like this, the company continued selling these devices – up until 2014, when they finally pulled them from the market. Still, they have never conceded the products aren’t safe.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

State files lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson over pelvic mesh implants, May 25, 2016, Associated Press

More Blog Entries:

Navo v. Bingham Memorial Hospital – Apparent Agency, May 7, 2016, Miami Pelvic Mesh Injury Lawyer Blog

“I take full responsibility for this,” he allegedly stated. “Everything will be okay.”

Later that year, Johnson filed a medical malpractice lawsuit in which she admitted Smith’s statement as evidence of his negligence. When she dropped the lawsuit in 2006 and refiled it in 2007, she lost that right.

Why?

September 13, 2004, Ohio enacted the “medical apology statute,” which states that a doctor’s apology cannot be used against him in court.

“Physicians are and should be sympathetic and empathetic. Fear of future legal action shouldn’t impede that,” Dr. William Wulf, medical director of Central Ohio Primary Care, told the Columbus Dispatch.

Johnson filed an appeal, and the 11th District Court of Appeals ruled that Smith’s apology should have been admitted because he apologized before the law went into effect. In April, however, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling in a unanimous decision.

“Justices said lawmakers were ‘clear and unambiguous’ that the prohibition applied to all suits filed after the effective date of September 13, 2004, regardless of the date of the medical conduct in question,” the Associated Press reported.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Ohio State Medical Association issued a press release stating that it intends to pursue a bill that will clarify the statute.

Now that you know you may not submit a doctor’s apology as evidence, you may wonder what evidence you need in order to prove that your doctor was negligent. Below, Cleveland medical malpractice attorney Chris Mellino explains.