West Toledo Motorcycle Accident Attorney

Motorcyclist Killed in West Toledo Crash

A motorcyclist was killed in a crash involving a motorcycle and another vehicle in West Toledo early today. According to the Toledo Blade, a car turned right in front of the motorcycle. Unfortunately, as is far too often the case, the driver of the automobile was not injured – but the rider of the motorcycle lost his life.

What to do if this happens to you

If this happens to you, do not hesitate to call attorney Charles S. Herman. I am a West Toledo motorcycle accident attorney and I represent individuals in all types of accidents in the Toledo, Ohio and surrounding areas. If you have been injured or your loved one or family members has lost their life in a motorcycle collision, do not hesitate to pursue the matter through a lawyer because there may be some difficult legal issues including comparative negligence and uninsured motorist coverage involved in the case. There have been studies done that show that the earlier you get an attorney involved in your case, the better settlement that is obtained on your behalf. West Toledo motorcycle accident attorney Charles S. Herman represents injured motorcyclists on a contingency fee basis. This means that there is no fee unless you win your case and attorney Herman will help you seek reimbursement for all related expenses, including wrongful death, loss of quality of life, pain and suffering, and loss of future earnings. Contact me now for a free consultation or go to my website at www.toledounionattorney.com. 

Ohio County Immunity

Rosenbrook v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs., Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County

This case arose when the plaintiff slip and fell on a floor mat at the Lucas County Ohio courthouse. She and her husband brought suit against the County and the Court found that summary judgment was proper for the County because the negligence claims stemming from the slip and fall accident that occurred failed to establish an exception to the county’s immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4), and further failed to identify the cause of the fall as required under the general laws of negligence. The county argued that the plaintiff did not allege any facts that would strip appellant of its statutorily imposed governmental immunity.

As stated by the Ohio Supreme Court, a “three-tiered analysis” is used to determine whether a political subdivision is immune from liability. Under the first tier, we examine whether the general grant of immunity provided by R.C. 2744.02(A) applies. If it does, the second tier requires us to determine whether immunity has been abrogated by the exceptions set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B). If an exception applies, the third tier involves a determination of whether the political subdivision is able to successfully assert one of the defenses listed in R.C. 2744.03, thereby reinstating its immunity.

R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) abrogates the general immunity afforded political subdivisions engaged in a governmental activity only if an injury is: 1) caused by employee negligence, 2) on the grounds or in buildings used in connection [with] that governmental activity, and 3) due to physical defects on or within those grounds or buildings.

In order to establish employee negligence, appellants must show the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately resulting from the breach. As a threshold matter, the Court had to determine the appropriate duty of care owed to the plaintiff. To determine the duty of care owed in premises liability actions, the Court examined the relationship between the owner or occupier of the premises and the injured party and found that the plaintiff was a licensee to whom the county owed no duty except to refrain from willfully or wantonly causing injury. The Court further found that plaintiff failed to show that there was no evidence of willful or wanton misconduct surrounding the County’s handling of the floor mats.

This case is in line with others that have been decided involving similar facts. In slip and fall cases, it is very difficult – if not impossible, to overcome the immunity defense of political subdivisions. If you think that you may have an Ohio premises liability action against a State of Ohio political subdivision, it is important to speak with an Ohio premises liability attorney who can help you decide if you have a case that is worth pursuing.

Ohio’s Saving Statute

Mays v. Toledo Hospital, 2015 Ohio 1865 – Ohio: Court of Appeals, 6th Appellate Dist. 2015

This was a case for a wrongful death action and the Court held that Ohio’s saving statute does not apply to allow a person to bring a claim for wrongful death for a third time.

The first time that the case was brought by the pro se plaintiff, the Court dismissed the complaint finding that the claims were required to be brought by an attorney and that the complaint lacked an affidavit of merit pursuant to Civ.R. 10(D)(2). The Court found that Ohio’s saving statute may be used only once to refile a case and that it cannot be used to keep actions alive indefinitely. The Court went onto state that to allow a plaintiff to use R.C. 2305.19 more than once would frustrate the purpose of the civil rules which are intended to prevent indefinite filings.

A review of the procedural posture of this case is a good reminder of why it is so important for people with potential claims to speak with an experienced attorney and to seek help with their case. There are a myriad of complicated procedural rules that must be followed when bringing a wrongful death action based on medical malpractice. In this age of Google, many people read about how something is done on the internet and think that they can go ahead and do it themselves. There is nothing wrong with a party going pro se in limited circumstances, but in actions such as medical malpractice and wrongful death it is imperative to hire experienced counsel.

Ohio Premises Liability

Combs v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 2014-Ohio-4025

On 4-8-15 the Supreme Court of Ohio took in the case of Combs v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, 2014-Ohio-4025, which dealt with immunity in regard to a recreational user.

The case dealt with Ohio Revised Code 1533.181, commonly known as the recreational user statute"

"(A) No owner, lessee, or occupant of premises:

(1) Owes any duty to a recreational user to keep the premises safe for entry or use;

(2) Extends any assurance to a recreational user, through the act of giving permission, that the premises are safe for entry or use;

(3) Assumes responsibility for or incurs liability for any injury to person or property caused by any act of a recreational user.

(B) Division (A) of this section applies to the owner, lessee, or occupant of privately owned, nonresidential premises, whether or not the premises are kept open for public use and whether or not the owner, lessee, or occupant denies entry to certain individuals."

The Trial Court had found immunity when a person who was on some State property was going to do some fishing and was hit by a stone that was thrown by a lawn-mower that was being operated by a State employee. The Supreme Court of Ohio found that the immunity statute did not apply unless there was actually a defect in the premises. The Court found that, although Combs was a recreational
user, R.C. 1533.181(A)(1) does not immunize ODNR from liability for his injuries.

Wrongful Death Results from Negligent Toledo, Ohio Driver in Motor Vehicle Accident

Wrongful Death Results from Negligent Toledo, Ohio Driver in Motor Vehicle Accident

Wrongful death from driver's attempt to beat the light resulted in a fatal crash and a verdict for the Plaintiff in Toledo, Ohio. The decedent was driving his car southbound on Talmadge Road near the intersection of the eastbound entrance ramp to I-475 when he attempted to take a left hand turn onto Springbrook Drive when he was hit by a speeding northbound vehicle whose driver attempted to beat the light and ended up running the red light at the intersection. The jury found that each of the parties were partially at fault for the car accident.

The case involved the Toledo, Ohio attorney introducing evidence from the black box data of the northbound vehicle and light sequencing data in an effort to show that the northbound vehicle was speeding. The decedent suffered blunt force head trauma and died five days post-accident after being removed from life support. Prior to the trial, the demand in the wrongful death case was $500,000 by the plaintiff and the offer from the insurance company was $200,000.

After trial, the jury attributed 60 percent liability to the defendant (driver of the northbound vehicle) and 40 percent liability to the decedent (plaintiff). The jury returned a $750,000 wrongful death verdict, which was reduced to $450,000 due to the comparative negligence finding. That is, in Ohio, under Ohio Revised Code 2315.33, the contributory fault of a person does not bar the person as plaintiff from recovering damages that have directly and proximately resulted from the tortious conduct of one or more other persons, if the contributory fault of the plaintiff was not greater than the combined tortious conduct of all other persons from whom the plaintiff seeks recovery in this action and of all other persons from whom the plaintiff does not seek recovery in this action. In this case, the court diminished the compensatory damages recoverable by the plaintiff by an amount that was proportionately equal to the percentage of tortious conduct of the plaintiff as determined pursuant to the law.

Motor Vehicle Accident in Sylvania, Ohio

Motor Vehicle Accident in Sylvania, Ohio

Nicholas Kubiak v. Farmers Insurance of Columbus, No. CI13-1887

An interesting motor vehicle accident case out of Sylvania, Ohio involving uninsured motorist coverage was decided in Lucas County, Court of Common Pleas, Ohio in Judge Denise Ann Darn's courtroom on September 23, 2014. The case involved a head on collision car accident on Whiteford Road in Sylvania Ohio. The Plaintiff claimed shoulder, leg, neck and back injuries as a result of the accident. The Plaintiff also claimed $27,000 in medical expenses and sought damages for pain and suffering. Following a two (2) day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of $17,508 over and above the policy limits of the at fault party’s insurance coverage of $12,500.

The uninsured motorist carrier's offer was $2,500. This is a prime example of why it is so important to contact an attorney immediately to represent you with your personal injury case resulting from a motor vehicle accident. The trial of the case by an experienced Toledo Ohio personal injury lawyer resulted in an additional $15,000 in damages being awarded to the Plaintiff in this case.

Law Office of Charles S. Herman

411 North Michigan Street, Suite 300 

Toledo, Ohio 43604

Phone: 419-244-7500

Fax: 419-244-7805

Email: charles@charleshermanlaw.com

Web: http://www.toledounionattorney.com

Ohio Medical Malpractice - $14,500,000 Verdict - Birth Injury to a Child

Ohio Medical Malpractice - $14,500,000 Verdict - Birth Injury to a Child

An interesting case out of Cleveland, Ohio recently was decided with a verdict of $14,500,000. The case involved an Ohio medical malpractice claim based on negligent treatment by an OB-GYN and a birth injury to the child because preterm labor was not properly managed. The child was born via C-section and was severely asphyxiated at birth and required resuscitation. The child was admitted to the hospital and remained there for 113 days. The child suffered permanent brain damage, cerebral palsy and significant neurological deficits, resulting in developmental delays.

Prior to the actual birth, the child’s mother presented to the hospital at 21 weeks gestation. She was in preterm labor. The child’s mother returned to the hospital on two additional occasions and was admitted for treatment of preterm labor. Her condition was managed with anti-labor medications, bed rest and fetal surveillance.

The child’s mother was discharged for the third time, and six days later, her membrane ruptured and she returned to the hospital in active labor. Initially, the electronic fetal monitoring showed no fetal distress. Within hours, the electronic fetal monitoring reportedly showed repetitive variable decelerations that became deeper and more frequent. Imminent distress was eventually noted. After noting fetal distress and arrest of labor, the OB-GYN performed an emergency C-section.

Plaintiff proved that defendants were negligent in failing to keep the mother hospitalized to properly manage her pregnancy with anti-labor medications and fetal monitoring during her earlier admissions, which she maintained would have prolonged the pregnancy and that the defendants were negligent and breached the accepted standards of obstetric care in failing to deliver the child in a timely manner once delivery became imminent.

Damages were awarded for past and future expenses, including the cost for lifelong living assistance, and compensatory and punitive damages.