Personal Injury Legal Information

A 12,300 pound orca named Tilikum has killed it’s trainer by dragging her into the pool and thrashing her underwater. The incident happened at SeaWorld Orlando while the trainer, Dawn Brancheau was talking to visitors after a show. Members of the audience who witnessed the attack said the whale “thrashed her all around” and pulled her under the water.

Orlando authorities have reported that the veteran whale trainer “slipped and fell” into the tank but more than 50 eyewitnesses confirm that the incident was accident, the trainer was supposedly stroking the whale until it swam away and rushed back grabbing her its mouth and thrashing her violently underwater.

40 year old Brancheau who was married with no children, had many years experience as a whale trainer and had once spoken of the dangers surrounding her job, “You can’t put yourself in the water unless you trust them and they trust you.” Brancheau had been inspired to works has a whale trainer after a visit to SeaWorld at the age of 9.

Killer whale Tilikum, whose name means ‘fierce’ in the native Indian Chinook language, had allegedly behaved unusually and ignored directions in an earlier show. Keepers had earlier been banned from swimming with the animal because of its unpredictable irritability. Brancheau is the third person to die after an encounter with the orca.

In 1991 Tilly was blamed as one of three whales behind the death of a trainer at Sealand of the Pacific in Victoria, British Columbia and in 1999 the body of Daniel Dukes was found in Tilly’s tank after policed had determined the man sneaked into the compound at night.

General Manager of SeaWorld, Dan Brown, had to hold back tears while he stated that the company’s safety procedures will be an enquiry into the safety procedures while the park remains closed and shows at their other shows are cancelled.

Have you been injured at work? Then visit EAD Solicitor’s for advice on your right to claim compensation

Great article by Michael Hiltzik on LA Times today about tort reforms role as health cares circus sideshow. As Hiltzik puts it:

“Insurance companies love it because the less money they pay out to plaintiffs, the more they get to keep. Republicans love it because trial lawyers give three-quarters of their political donations to Democrats. And Democrats pay it lip service because theyre afraid to look like lawyer lovers.

Couldnt have said it better myself. In almost every political discussion, the giant elephant is self-interest. No one wants to accept that we all argue from our own self-interests. The unfortunate problem is that too many of us are losing sight of whats actually good for us. Misdirection and slight-of-hand are big business in politics today.

That facts according to Hiltzik are:

“Medical liability isnt a big driver of health costs overall. Studdert estimates the cost of malpractice litigation, in court and through defensive medicine, at roughly 2% to 3% of all U.S. healthcare spending ” in other words, no more than $50 billion out of a total annual bill of $1.7 trillion. (Youll hear estimates as high as $200 billion from outfits like the American Medical Assn., which is the antithesis of an objective source.)”

The insurance lobby spends big money to convince Americans that frivolous medical malpractice cases are the reason they can’t afford health care. While there is no doubt that frivolous cases are filed every day, these cases account for very little of the health care problem in America today. Tort reform is one of those hot button topics that gets everybody fired up, but doesn’t really offer any solution to the greater problem. In fact, we are quick to forget that lawsuits are one of the main checks that drive quality health care in our country.

Tort reform has simply not solved the problems as promised. In almost every area that tort reform measures like damage caps have been implemented, there has been little to no change in health care costs. The real tragedy of tort reform is that plaintiff’s with legitimate claims go without help and without care for their serious medical needs.

A California jury has awarded forty-nine million dollars to a student injured in a truck collision. The student suffered life-changing injuries including traumatic injury to his brain.

This could be the largest single-plaintiff verdict in a personal injury lawsuit in the last decade in Santa Clara county.

What makes this story especially newsworthy is that Santa Clara juries have a reputation for being very conservative and typically not willing to enter such large awards.

While some believe the award will be overturned on appeal, many believe that it will not. This is due largely to the fact that a large portion of the verdict was for damages arising from the plaintiff’s out of pocket expenses.

The incident took place on the Pacheco Pass in May 2007. According the attorney for the plaintiff, two trucks collided at or near the center line. One of the trucks then collided with the plaintiff’s car. As a result of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, he will now require medical attention at all times of the day for the rest of his life.

The majority of the award went toward future medical expenses that the plaintiff will have to endure for life. That amount came to $27.6 million. Additionally, according to plaintiff’s counsel, the defendants will be severally liable for the general damages amount of $13.5 million.

According to the lawyer for the plaintiff, the significance of the size of the award is really a reflection on the high cost of providing medical care to individuals who have suffered traumatic brain injuries. While modern medicine has prosthetic devices for the loss of an arm or a leg, there simply isn’t any replacement for loss of brain function.

Since California is a comparative negligence jurisdiction, the jury apportioned fault among the defendants. The driver striking the plaintiff’s vehicle was found to be 60% at fault. The other driver, and his trucking company, were found to be 35% at fault. Finally, 5% of liability was apportioned to California.

Despite the juries apportionment of 35% of fault to the second truck driver and company, the defendant company maintained that its driver was not at fault at all for this incident.

A lawyer representing California’s department of transportation indicated that a settlement was reached with the state in the amount of ten million dollars.