The Verdict - The Lombardi Law Firm Blog
Here at the Lombardi Law Firm we add blog content that is personal to those involved in accidents. We write this way so you have an understanding of how we think and handle cases - your case. We invite you to call us if you think we can help you resolve your legal problems. We settle most of our cases, because we do the basic legal work necessary to understand the facts of your case. We offer on our website, relevant and concise information that you will be helpful to you as you get ready to settle or to try your case.
We can and will do the same for you. That's my promise. So call us today!
Steve Lombardi, 515-222-1110 or sdlombardi@aol.com
Landlords need to be careful renting to tenants with vicious dog breeds.
You may have a claim against your landlord, but I can’t be certain because liability depends on knowledge and culpability, not just ownership.Pit Bull Attacks 62-year-old Woman from Newton
When a pit bull attacks serious injury or death is certainly possible. In this dog attack the female pedestrian was jogging in the neighborhood. The dog owner owned three dogs and all three were put to sleep. Luckily a witness happened by and helped the female runner before it more damage. According to reports she was injured. Afterwards the animal control officer took possession of all three dogs and put them down. The witness is lucky he didn't have a heart attack.
Age of Victim: 62-years-old
Dog owner reported to be Tony and Beth Audas
Dog's Name: Rufus
Breed: Pit Bull
Newton Police Department, Officer Lt. Pat Richardson
Witness to Attack: John Jennings
Location: S4th Ave. West and West 4th Street South, Newton, Iowa.
Outcome: That dog and three others (all pit bulls) were euthanized.
Questions to be answered:
Did the dog's owners carry liability insurance?
Why wasn't the dog chained or in some other way restrained?
http://www.kcci.com/video/24679214/index.html
Las Vegas Jury Delivers Andy Griffith Style Verdict for Hospital
A jury in Las Vegas gave the nod to a hospital whose standard of emergent care is to wait 41 minutes to examine a patient complaining of chest pains, and who then dies in the emergency room floor. The jury actually deliberated for 79 minutes longer than it took the emergency room staff to put their hands on this man suffering a heart attack in the emergency room.
Jurors deliberated about two hours Friday afternoon before returning a verdict in favor of the hospital.
The jury found the hospital wasn’t at fault and that certainly would make the blue-suits in the hospital’s front office laugh with delight. Of course this verdict sends the message that a hospital system designed to deliver “emergency room care” at a standard as low as that of a second-world country will be acceptable to an American jury. And you wonder why America’s power is waning?
Las Vegas Andy Griffith Style Verdict Standard
Hopefully that standard will apply when one of these jurors or their relatives shows up in the E.R. complaining of chest pain. Remember, the standard you set as a juror will be applied to you. What goes around comes around. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Waite represents survivors of Morton Scheinbaum, a 59-year-old Las Vegas man who suffered a fatal heart attack in the hospital's emergency department on Nov. 4, 2005. The attorney claimed 41 minutes passed from the time Scheinbaum arrived with complaints of chest pain until he received any hands-on treatment.
Now let’s get serious about what the jury did wrong. The jury failed to follow the law. What the jury should have found was that the hospital violated the standard of care in their community; a finding of negligence for the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. If the jury truly believed the man’s heart was damaged beyond what current medical care could repair to save his life, then that is a proximate cause issue; not a liability issue. By finding no joy for the blue coats on the issue of liability the wrong message is sent and a standard set so low that we weaken the delivery health care system.
This jury decision shows bias and a lack of understanding of the law. They should be ashamed.
