Washington DC Personal Injury Lawyer Blog | Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata, & Siegel P.C.

Friday, February 15, 2008

What is the difference between an “accident” and a “tort” – Civil

We all know that a criminal case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is one difference between a criminal case and “tort”, which is a civil wrongdoing. The reason why the burden of proof is higher in a criminal case is because liberty is at stake.

The burden of proof in a civil case requires a claimant to prove, by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the individual that caused the harm violated a duty owed to that individual. A preponderance of the evidence means that you have to prove your case by showing that the violation and the damages, more probably than not, occurred as alleged. Examples of standards of care that result in duties are:

-Stopping at a red light and not proceeding until the light turns green
-Stopping at a stop sign and not proceeding until it is safe to do so.
-Not changing lanes unless it is safe to do so.
-Not turning in front of another vehicle unless and until it is safe to do so.
-Not driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs.

However, occasionally a potential client calls because they were injured but not because anyone violated a duty towards them. For example, if it is raining and you slip and fall because the sidewalk is slippery, no one owed a duty to protect you from having a sidewalk that would not be slippery in raining conditions. Another example would be in a supermarket, assuming that the floor became wet by the customer immediately preceding you and there was not ample opportunity for the store owner to observe and protect the customer from walking on the wet floor, there would be no duty violated in the event that somebody slipped and fell. There has to be a reasonable opportunity to observe a danger and protect the public from being hurt by the danger that materialized. However, accidents do happen, always have happened and still happen. An accident, which is an incident that the law does not recognize as one which would permit you to obtain compensation for results when you are injured without anybody having caused the injury because they acted unreasonably. Accordingly, in trying to evaluate whether you have a claim, the first question you should ask is: “Was my injury caused because somebody failed to adhere to a duty I expected that they owed to me?” If the answer to that question is yes, then you have a claim and, assuming you are injured, you should call the law firm of Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. to assist you in pursuing your claim and obtaining the maximum compensation available under the law.

posted by Biera Campbell at 2:08 PM

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Law Firm Achieves a $350,000 Settlement on Behalf of a Client Whose Car was Rear-ended by a Tractor Trailer

Our client, Darnell, age 34, sustained significant multiple injuries as a result of his car being rear-ended by a 18 wheel tractor trailer. Darnell was stopped at a red light. As a result of the rear-end impact, Darnell’s car was pushed into the car in front of his. Darnell sustained a closed head injury and had ongoing cognitive impairments such as a deficit in working memory. Additionally, Darnell suffered myofascial pain syndrome. Darnell’s past medical expenses were approximately $30,000 and his lost wages were approximately $5,000.

posted by Biera Campbell at 1:49 PM

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Firm pursues camp for negligently supervising child during swimming.

Summertime, swimming and children can be a recipe for tragedy. Those three components demand never-ending vigilance when children are swimming in water whether it is a pool, a lake, or the ocean. One can never be too careful to assure that children are always in view and can be immediately retrieved from the water at the first sign of danger. In a tragic recent case, a five year old was in a camp that failed to adhere to the requirement that they assure that any child placed in the water be consistently monitored to assure that they are safe and secure and not in any danger of drowning. Unfortunately, this five year old was placed in water that was too deep for his level of swimming competence for reasons that are yet to be determined. Despite the fact that this child was placed in water levels that were unsafe given his capabilities, lifeguards and other supervisory personnel failed to vigilantly monitor and observe the child. The child was discovered under the water after being there for at least 5 minutes. The child has suffered a severe, profound, and what appears to be a permanent, disabling brain injury. This tragedy points out the need for parents and supervisors of all children to be vigilant in their care of children. Accordingly, each of us need to be reminded of the requirement that it is required that there cannot be any point in time at which we lose sight of a child in water. The risk and danger to the child of permanent, profound injury is simply too great.

by Ira Sherman

posted by Biera Campbell at 1:49 PM

Monday, February 4, 2008

Ceiling Fall Down and Wrongful Eviction Case

Our client repeatedly complained about the safety of the ceiling in her apartment. She notified the landlord that the ceiling leaked when it rained but the landlord failed to properly repair the ceiling. Our client was putting a pot to catch the water under the ceiling when a portion of the ceiling collapsed and hit her on the head and neck. Our client suffered, among other things, a closed head injury from the portion of the drywall that hit her on the head. Thereafter, the landlord evicted the family wrongfully despite the fact that the family had paid its rent. The landlord accomplished this objective by filing papers in the Court identifying the tenant by a fictitious name, and, since that person did not exist they did not appear for the Court appearances and the Court issued an eviction order. The U.S. Marshalls mistook our clients for the fictitious tenant and our clients were wrongfully evicted along with their two children, one of whom was pregnant. The law firm filed a complaint alleging that the defendant violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act. Shortly thereafter the defendants requested mediation. The case settled for $550,000. It is noteworthy that because there was no insurance, all the money came out of the pocket of the landlord.

posted by Biera Campbell at 8:21 AM

Friday, February 1, 2008

Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel Established the Ethiopian Heritage College Scholarship

The law firm of Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. have committed to awarding the Ethiopian College Scholarship of $1,000 per year ($4,000 total) to a qualified applicant. The law firm of Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. has had long and close ties to the immigrant communities within the Washington, D.C. area including individuals of Ethiopian heritage. We recognize that this group of individuals has made significant contributions to the economy and culture of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. We at Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C. want to encourage all newcomers to this country to avail themselves of the educational opportunities to the greatest extent possible. Only by obtaining an education will new immigrants to the United States fully integrate into the society and economy and become self-sufficient. In order to assist in this endeavor, the law firm has established the Ethiopian Heritage College Scholarship for college-bound high school seniors. The application has not yet been finalized but watch our website for more news on this topic. We welcome all community associations, high schools, churches and others that have contacts with this community to begin advising their constituents of the opportunity that will be made available in the spring of 2008 to students entering college in the fall 2008.

posted by Biera Campbell at 8:25 AM

PRACTICE AREAS

Previous Posts

Archives