The Flint Water Crisis – Parents Fight for their Children’s Education with Class-Action Lawsuit

The water in Flint, Michigan, has been extremely unsafe to consume since the city switched its water supply in 2014 from their Detroit source to the Flint River. Months after the switch, local residents were complaining about the color and quality of the water, fearing it was unsafe to drink.

It was determined through testing that the water supply in Flint was contaminated with dangerous levels of lead. Professionals claimed that the reason for the lead contamination was due to the lack of corrosion controls of the city’s water supply.

In January 2016, President Barack Obama issued a federal state of emergency in Flint due to the water crisis. However, despite the efforts of the city’s government to fix the water contamination issue, the community feels that the situation is being handled extremely poorly in schools.

On October 18th, 2016, fifteen families filed a class-action lawsuit against the Flint School District and the state of Michigan to seek help for their children at school. In the Flint School District alone, over 30,000 children have been exposed to lead and over 4% of children have dangerous levels of lead in their blood.

flint-parents-stories-lead-exposureLead exposure in children can lead to irreversible brain damage, including learning disabilities and behavioral problems. The parents behind the law suit claim that the school is lacking resources to deal with children with special needs, and fear that the dangerous exposure to lead over the past few years has increased the number of children in need of special education.

Local parents share frightening stories about their children being suspended up to 50 times from school due to their behavior, which they believe is due to developmental issues. When parents requested screening for their children to determine if special education was needed, nothing was done. In fact, some parents claimed that their children were physical restrained by staff and punished rather than evaluated for help.

The lawsuit seeks that the Flint School District implement regular and frequent testing for learning disabilities in children, and increase their programs and resources for special needs education. The parents of Flint, Michigan, want their children to have a fair chance at a quality education and feel it’s the state’s responsibility to take care of this issue, that more than likely was caused by extreme negligence to the ill water supply that the city has suffered from for years.

 

Rockford Park District Pays Settlements Up to $2.4M for Water Ride Injuries

The deadly Verrückt incident isn’t the only water attraction making headlines recently. A water slide at Magic Waters – a waterpark located in Cherry Valley, Illinois – is the center of a 12 personal injury lawsuits, and the Rockford Park District is paying a hefty price.

Splash Blaster, a water coaster, carries two riders on a series of ups and downs, twists and turns. The ride begins on a conveyer belt that brings the riders up 35 feet before plummeting through a dark tunnel. The ride continues its course gaining momentum through high-pressured water jets. The water coaster debuted in 2000 and has since been a favorite of park patrons. Often, guests would rush to the Splash Blaster immediately upon the park’s opening, and the line often clocked a 1-2 hour wait.

Despite being a fan favorite, the Splash Blaster was no stranger to accidents. A dozen park patrons have filed a personal injury lawsuit against Magic Waters. Most of these cases focused on compression fractures of the spine as the sustained injury. Plaintiffs attribute under inflated rafts combined with that initial drop as the cause of the fractures.

Splash Blaster was closed in September of 2015, and six months later the first lawsuit was filed in March. Three cases are still pending (and scheduled for later this year); however, the total settlements of the first nine lawsuits amounts to a whopping $2,414,500. The individual settlements of those nine cases ranges from $38,500 to $925,000, with each case factoring in personal injury, medical expenses, and rockford-park-district-executive-statementtime unable to work.

Rockford Park District executive Tim Dimke issued a statement on the water park’s commitment to safety; therefore, instead of trying to repair or fix the water coaster, Splash Blaster will be permanently closed and taken down. It will be replaced with a newer, safer (but taller) 55-foot ride called the AquaLoop. AquaLoop will open in the 2017 summer season. Magic Waters Waterpark was issued $3.5 million to apply towards the construction of the AquaLoop, improvements to the children’s area (Little Lagoon), and for general safety and compliance upgrades.

Family of Man Hit by Truck Sues Driver

The family of a man hit by a truck driven by his fiancée is now suing the woman for wrongful death. Las Cruces resident Carlos Nevarez III was hit and killed in June 2013 when Annette Fuschini ran him over as he was walking along a sidewalk after getting out of her truck.

Nevarez, who turned 42 that day, and Fuschini, 39, were in the middle of an argument when Nevarez got out of the truck near a car wash. He started walking through landscaping gravel near a sidewalk when he was hit. Nevarez initially survived the crash but later died at a hospital in Las Cruces.

While Fuschini was initially charged with first-degree murder, she was eventually convicted of aggravated DWI and involuntary manslaughter. The nevarez-family-quotemanslaughter charge is a fourth-degree felony, and she was given three and a half years in prison.

Both Fuschini and Geico Indemnity Co., her insurance carrier, were named as defendants in the suit. Nevarez’s family filed the suit on June 10 in Las Cruces’ 3rd Judicial District Court. The lawsuit accuses Fuschini of careless and inattentive driving, failure to exercise due care, and failure to stop, claiming the crash was the direct result of her negligence. The suit also claims Nevarez’s family has endured personal suffering, anguish, and pain. The family requested that damages be determined by the court at the trial, which does not yet have a date.

The family’s attorney, John P. Cosentino, did not comment on the suit when requested, but he did file a notice in an attempt to delay the case because he was still waiting for Fuschini to respond. He has claimed he can’t find Fuschini, but Ashley Espinoza, a spokeswoman with the Department of Corrections, noted that Fuschini has been in regular contact with her probation officer after finishing her parole.

The two attorneys representing both Fuschini and Geico, John A. Frase and Steven L. Gonzales of Albuquerque, asked for the suit to be dismissed in a filing on August 25. The judge in the case, Marci E. Beyer, has not yet addressed the latest filing.

Congress Paves the Way For Americans to Sue Foreign Governments

On September 28th, 2016, the House of Representatives overrode President Obama’s veto of a bill that allows people to sue foreign governments accused of directly aiding terrorists who commit acts on American soil. The House vote followed an override by the Senate, marking the first time Congress overrode an Obama veto.

What Does This New Law Mean?

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, opens the door to Americans suing other countries for damages caused by terrorism. It does not limit which countries can be sued, but the immediate impact is thought to be felt by families of 9/11 victims suing Saudi Arabia. The legal waters get murky when it comes to how these cases get through the justice system. JASTA lets the Secretary of State put cases on indefinite hold, so in theory any number of cases might never get off the ground. The bill also contains no provision for how money will be secured if a judge rules in the plaintiff’s favor and awards damages against a foreign nation.

president-obama-jasta-quoteArguments For JASTA

Lawmakers who participated in the override of the president’s veto say they are working on behalf of victims, who they believe should have the right to find justice after acts of terrorism. These members of Congress see diplomatic problems that may arise from the bill as the responsibility of the executive branch, while their own job is to pass laws based on what the people want.

Arguments Against JASTA

President Obama and several advisors argued that the law represents a diplomatic nightmare that hurts our relationships with countries such as Saudi Arabia, which long claimed to have no part in the 9/11 attacks. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter also warned Congress that JASTA opens the door to other countries passing reciprocal bills that leave the United States open to lawsuits.

The Future of JASTA

Several members of Congress have already expressed a desire to narrow the law, for example by limiting it to just the acts committed on 9/11. Others are taking a wait and see attitude, and would consider changes should we see negative consequences from JASTA.

 

 

Lawsuit Alleges Chicken Producers Colluded to Raise Prices

According to a recent piece published in the Denver Post, a group of food distribution companies is filing an anti-trust suit against a number of chicken producers alleging collusion to drive up prices. Some of the actions that have been alleged include slaughtering chickens before they were grown enough to be sold, selling or breaking eggs before they could hatch, and even buying one another’s product. The chicken producers, which include such companies such as Pilgrim’s Pride and Tyson, have even been accused of keeping their breeding stock low to limit supplies and therefore keep prices inflated for the foreseeable future.

The alleged collusion may have exacted a 50 percent premium in chicken prices at the grocery store. As the Huffington Post reported in 2014, chicken has become more popular than beef in the United States, due to higher beef prices and health-conscious consumers, so many were affected,

maplevale-farms-quoteThe chicken producers deny any collusion. National Chicken Council President Mike Brown suggested in an October 2014 article that the underlying reason for higher chicken prices has been an increase in the price of feed caused by the diversion of corn to produce ethanol. An article in the Financial Times reports that the price of corn spiked in both 2008 and 2012, ascribed to drought effects, but corn had declined in price so that it is currently at levels last seen before the ethanol mandate was enacted in 2007.

The litigants, led by New York food distributor Maplevale Farms, believe that they have connected the dots to indicate price collusion in the chicken-producing industry. Lawyers for the plaintiffs believe that they can show communication between various chicken producers that led to cutbacks in production throughout the sector in 2007 and 2008, leading to price spikes starting in 2009.

However, prices began to fall again in 2010 and 2011. The suit alleges that the chicken producers colluded again, even going so far as selling eggs to Mexico rather than building up stock. Currently, with the avian flu export ban lifted and feed prices declining, profit margins are rising for chicken producers.

Now the task for the litigants is to prove collusion by inference, which may be easier said than done.

 

Sexting Case has Huge Implications for Iowa Teen

Everyone would agree that spreading child pornography or exploiting minors is wrong, morally and legally. It is likely that most of us would vehemently and aggressively seek to punish those who participate in such activities. But what if the victim was actually the perpetrator? That one probably has you scratching your head. Consider the case of an Iowa teenager who used the mobile app Snapchat to send semi-nude photos of herself to a friend. The high school freshman posed in front of a mirror, snapped a few photos of herself and forwarded them to a friend. Little did she realize that she was breaking an Iowa law.

teen-snapchat-lawsuit-quoteIowa law stipulates that anyone who spreads obscene materials to minors has committed a crime known as sexual exploitation. Although in this case, and others like it in Iowa, the minor shared the photos, it is still considered to be either a Class C or Class D felony offense. The teenaged girl and her family assert that this is perhaps bad judgment but certainly not criminal. They have filed a lawsuit to prevent the Marion County Attorney from charging the girl with sexual exploitation.

The Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online cites research that 4-25 percent of minors 12-17 have admitted sending or sharing nude photos. A 2013 study of 378 prosecutors found that 62 percent had worked juvenile sexting cases; 36 percent had filled charges; and 21 percent had filed felony charges. The most serious charges included production of child pornography. 20 states have passed sexting laws as of July 2015.

The implications of this case for the teen are far reaching. County Attorney Ed Bull has stated that if found guilty, the girl may have to register as a sex offender. The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa has weighed in on First Amendment protection since the images shared by the teenager are not nude photos. The girl is wearing boy shorts and a sports bra in one picture, and topless in the other. Her hair is covering her breasts in the second photo. Lawyers for the family argue that her First Amendment rights will be violated if the prosecutor moves forward with criminal charges.

Teenagers are receiving cell phones in increasing numbers. If the research holds true, 4-25 percent of the nation’s minors could become registered sex offenders before they are old enough to vote. While most states’ attorneys agrees that sexual exploitation laws were not intentionally created to apply to youth, the legal implications for the teen in this case remain to be seen.

 

 

$100 Million in Fines Sought From Exxon by Conservation Group Lawsuit

With so much recent attention on global warming, pollution in the water supply, and other environmental threats in the United States, conservationists and environmental groups are taking a bigger stand against major energy giants. One of the more recent actions taken is by the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), which is pressing for $100 million or more in civil penalties against ExxonMobil by using the guidelines set forth by the federal Clean Water Act. On September 29th, the group filed a massive lawsuit in district court, claiming Exxon is responsible for decades of contaminating pollution of Mystic River. The lawsuit filed also claims ExxonMobil blatantly disregarded the predicted threats of climate change, even though some of their own scientists researched enough to connect the dots between carbon dioxide emissions, fossil fuels, and climate change.

The lawsuit points out one of Exxon’s own terminals in an area prone to sea-level rise.

Even one of ExxonMobil’s own terminals, Everett Terminal in Massachusetts, is located in an area where storm surge and rising sea level due to climate change is a major threat, according to some of the claims in the lawsuit documentation. This specific terminal is responsible for the storage and transportation of diesel, gasoline, and even oil. If the terminal is damaged by rising sea water, and even bigger pollution issue could come into play with the Mystic River and its conjoining tributaries. CLF has claimed flood maps show this terminal could be at risk with even moderate rainfall amounts. Yet, Exxon has refused to relocate or re-engineer the facility to protect against such an impending threat.

Exxon is rebutting the claims in the lawsuit through media statements.

exxon-argument-quoteExxon is claiming they will fight these claims in the lawsuit and the company spokesperson, Todd Spitler even goes as far as saying the suit is merely an attempt to draw attention to a political agenda. Their primary argument comes along with a rebuttal based on the premise that the lawsuit suggests Exxon had knowledge about climate science at an advanced level even when this research was only in its infant stages. Exxon is also suggesting discredibility of the lawsuit because of the fact that Exxon has a prior history of working with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Department of Energy in support of research into the matter.

Lax Treadmill Safety Standards Exposed in Brain Injury Lawsuit

The Department of Health and Human Services recommends 30 minutes of physical activity every day. Doctors encourage exercise so enthusiastically because exercise improves mental, physical, and emotional health. Exercise is the key to a healthy, happier life, but what happens when exercise is the cause of pain or injury? In fact, USA Today reported that nearly 460,000 people suffered injuries from exercise equipment. In January 2011, Etelvina Jimenez experienced a traumatic brain injury while operating a treadmill. Her lawsuit against 24 Hour Fitness is igniting a national discussion about the safety of gym equipment – particularly treadmills – and the responsibility of gyms to reduce risk of injury to gym patrons.

Types of equipment-related injuries

  • Overuse
  • User error
  • Mechanical malfunction
  • Improper equipment spacing

Treadmill risks

Treadmills pose a particular risk because the machine moves whether or not the user is moving. For instance, consider an upright bike or an elliptical: as soon as the user stops moving, the machine slows and stops. Treadmill belts, however, run continuously until the user pushes the “stop” button or activates the emergency stop.

Etelvina Jimenez’s injury highlights the particular problem of treadmills. Brain scans revealed that Jimenez fainted (medically, she experienced a syncope) and fell backwards. Fainting and falling while using a treadmill is dangerous by itself, but Jimenez was thrown backwards and hit her head on the base of a leg machine, which was 3 feet and 10 inches behind her treadmill. The fall caused multiple fractures in her skull and required multiple surgeries.

Jimenez’s lawsuit highlights treadmill dangers

The most common treadmill-related injuries are pinched fingers or burned skin from a fall. However, more serious injuries occur with inadequate equipment spacing. If a treadmill is close to a back wall, a gym patron is potentially at risk for falling and becoming pinned between the wall and the rotating belt. ASTM International recommends a clearance of 6.5 feet behind each treadmill for this very reason. The spacing behind Jimenez’s treadmill was nowhere near the recommended 6.5 feet gap. However, there is no agency that conducts safety checks or enforces the recommend clearance. The closest thing to a safety check is the fire department which ensures that no fire exits are blocked.

If safety concerns can be addressed properly, perhaps injuries like Jimenez’s will become a thing of the past.

 

 

Class Action Suit Against Judge Allegedly Bankrolled by State Farm Approved

Class Action Lawsuit Can Be Brought Against State Farm

The lawsuit brought by a group of State Farm auto insurace customers was approved by a federal judge on September 16th. These plaintiffs allege that the company funded the campaign of an Illinois Supreme Court judge in return for the judge’s vote overturning a $1 billion settlement. The company also allegedly lied about the issue when previously questioned about it by consumers.

The judge in question, Lloyd Karmeier, ran for office in 2004. State Farm allegedly funded his campaign so that he could vote in their favor in their appeal of a $1 billion dollar settlement relating to State Farm’s use of generic auto parts when paying for the insured’s car repairs. These generic auto parts were successfully argued to be inferior to factory auto parts.

The Original Case

State Farm has been fighting these allegations for some time, and the approval of the class action lawsuit is the biggest blow so far to their efforts. The original case reached its $1 billion dollar verdict in 1999, it and its related cases have frequently been in the news for the last 17 years. It is one of the largest class action settlements in legal history.

The State Farm customers won a total judgment of $1.186 billion dollars for State Farm’s use of low-quality generic car parts in 1999, as previously mentioned. An appeal ruling reduced the amount of the settlement to $1.01 billion dollars.

Another appeal, in which Karmeier was involved, took place in 2005 and threw out the settlement entirely. This decisions was immediately contensious, and became even more so when State Farm was found to have backed Karmeier.

State Farm’s Response

A State Farm spokesperson said that the company plans to appeal the ruling allowing the class action suit. Their argument is that the plaintiffs have made these allegations for many years, and should not be allowed to do so any longer.

Justice Karmeier’s Response

Karmeier is not a co-defendant with State Farm. He is, unsurprisingly, the Illinois Chief Justice. While he is not in danger of paying a huge settlement, this suit could do great damage to his career if the allegations are found to be true. Karmeier did not return requests for comment.

Both Driver and Night Club Found Liable After a Night of Heavy Drinking

Driving after a night of heavy drinking can be just as dangerous as driving home from the bar itself–a fact that was tragically highlighted by a recent accident in which a drunk driver caused a head-on collision the morning after a night of drinking that left the other car’s driver with a traumatic brain injury. Moreover, the legal liability for accidents such as these does not rest only with the drunk driver himself; bars and restaurants who serve such drivers open themselves up to lawsuits from accident victims, even if the accident did not occur on the driver’s way home.

Following the above-mentioned accident, the victim sued not only the driver himself but also the night club that had served the driver alcohol the night before. After the drunk driver failed to respond to the lawsuit, the court found in the victim’s favor in a default proof hearing. The court then determined the extent of the victim’s damages in a May 3, 2016 hearing. On August 3, the court entered a judgment against the drunk driver for $975,000, which was brought to $1.022 million with pre-judgement interest included.

dram-shop-lawsHowever, what is particularly notable about this case is that the accident victim settled her claim for $725,000 against the night club that had served the drunk driver. Many states have what are known as “dram shop laws”, which enable the victims of drunk drivers to sue the bar or restaurant that served the driver alcohol. Bartenders and alcohol vendors are typically held to the “obvious intoxication” standard; under this standard, an alcohol vendor can be found responsible for any damages caused by their patrons if they continue to serve alcohol past the point that they either knew or should have known that the customer was intoxicated to a degree that posed a threat to the customer himself or others on the road.

This case is unique because the night club settled with the victim even though the accident occurred many hours after the drunk driver left the establishment, potentially indicating a trend towards interpreting an alcohol vendor’s responsibility even more broadly.