Kentucky Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Issue: Was the $3,000,000 award for pain and suffering excessive in a wrongful death case where the award for pain and suffering was 30 times the medical expenses?

In Barrett v. Mulligan, 2010 WL 1404440 (Ky.App.) the Kentucky court of Appeals held that it was not excessive to sustain such an award based on the facts of the case.

In Barrett, Mr. Barrett took his car in to the Defendant’s auto repair shop and had the car’s engine replaced. Id. Plaintiff took his car out of the shop on November 4, 2004 and on November 6, 2004, while the car was parked, the car caught fire and Mr. Barrett was severely burned and taken to the hospital. Id. Plaintiff died 3 days later of his injuries. Id. Thus, the family of the Plaintiff hired a Louisville personal injury lawyer.

Continue reading "Kentucky Personal Injury Case Update: $3,000,000 Award for Pain and Suffering Upheld." »

In May of 2009, the Kentucky Supreme Court decided a case involving the impairment rating of an injured Plaintiff. (See Karlos’ Bistro Italia v. Rohling, 2009 WL 1451898 (Ky.)). The Plaintiff in this case injured herself while at work. Id. She was a prep cook and while lifting cases of canned tomatoes she hurt her back. Id. This was on September 9, 2005. Id. On October 21, 2005, Plaintiff was rear ended during a car accident. Id. An MRI was performed on October 28, 2005. Id. It showed positive for nerve root compression. Id. In August of 2006, Plaintiff underwent lumbar surgery for her radicular pain. Id. Plaintiff was given a 13% permanent impairment rating by one doctor and 11% impairment rating by another. The 13% impairment rating was broken down to 8% for the work injury and 5% for the car accident. Id.

“Whether an impairment rating conforms to the Guides is a medical question to be decided based on expert medical testimony.” Id. This Court reviewed the testimony and held that the doctor’s evaluation and use of the Guide was not in error. Id. The Court held that the Administrative Law Judge must admit the report on remand, consider it, and rely on the doctor’s clarification that the work related injury actually produced an 8% impairment rating under the Guides. Id.

Continue reading "Louisville Personal Injury – Impairment Rating Case." »

In January of 2010, the Kentucky Court of Appeals decided a case involving a woman and determining if she qualified for disability retirement benefits due to a work related accident. (See Board of Trustees of the Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Davis, 2010 WL 199563 (Ky. App.)). The Plaintiff in this case injured herself while at work in a very serious car accident. Id. As a result of the car accident, the Plaintiff, who is 55, suffered a fractured pelvis, three fractured ribs, a punctured lung, a lacerated spleen and a bulging disc with neuropathy. Id. Plaintiff felt that after this very serious car accident that she was not able to continue working for the Kentucky River District Health Department as they were unable to provide accommodations to her to allow her to continue with her job. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff applied for duty related disability benefits under KRS 61.621. Id.

The hearing officer granted Plaintiff the benefits, then the Disability Appeals Committee rejected that finding so Plaintiff appealed to the Franklin Circuit Court and that Court reversed the Committee’s decision. Now the Kentucky Court of Appeals had to decide who was right. This Court held that the Franklin Circuit Court was correct and allowed Plaintiff to receive her disability benefits. The reasoning is as follows.

Continue reading "Personal Injury Case Which Obtains Disability Retirement Benefits." »

In March of 2010, the Kentucky Court of Appeals heard a case that involved a personal injury matter with reference to carbon monoxide. (See Salsman v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, 2010 WL 918068 (Ky.App.) In Salsman, the Salsman family in 1997 had a Kenmore Series 90 gas fired furnace installed in their basement and was installed by Crain heating & Air conditioning who had subcontracted the job from Sears. Id. The installation was inspected by Defendant Richard Howlett, an inspector with the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government Department of Inspection on or about April 8, 1997. Id.

At some point after, the entire Salsman family started to get sick. One of the family members in 2003, was placed on Social Security and considered disabled due to destructive apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and coronary artery disease. Id. None of the Plaintiffs ever suspected it was the furnace. Id.

In January of 2007, the furnace stopped working and the repair person told the Plaintiffs to get a state agency official to check it out because it did not appear to be installed correctly. At the end of January 2007, the furnace was inspected by the Commonwealth of Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, Office of Housing, Buildings and Construction. Id. The inspection revealed that the furnace had not been properly installed and that carbon monoxide gas had been leaking into the home for nearly 10 years. Id. On January 10, 2008, within 1 year of finding out about the carbon monoxide, the Plaintiffs hired a Louisville personal injury lawyer to assist them with their personal injury case. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss because they claimed that a one year statute of limitations applied from when they became sick and that pursuant to the Yanero case, that Howlett and the Metro Government were entitled to immunity. Id. The case at hand was another Louisville personal injury case that needed to be handled by a Louisville personal injury lawyer.

Continue reading "Louisville, Kentucky Carbon Monoxide Furnace Case." »

Louisville Personal Injury – Medical Malpractice Case Against Home Health Care Company and Nurse Case.

In October of 2007, Mr. Ira Eldridge was injured and required a catheter to be placed into his right atrium of his heart. (See Mary Breckinridge Healthcare, Inc. v. Eldridge, 275 S.W.3d 739 (Ky.App. 2008). In this case, a nurse Johnson made two visits to Mr. Eldridge’s home. The first at 10:20am where she changed the dressing of the catheter site but this time used scissors to assist. Id. During that visit a leak developed and medication dripped onto Plaintiff’s chest. Id. Plaintiff did call the home healthcare center back to report the leak and had Nurse Johnson come back out at about 4:35pm. Id. At this second visit, a witness Mr. Mullins testified that this time it seemed she was pulling and tugging on the catheter. Id. By the end of the visit, Nurse Johnson recommended that Plaintiff go to the hospital. Id. Plaintiff called his wife Sylvania to take him. Id. During this conversation Sylvania testified the he sounded nervous, had problems breathing and was coughing. Id. When she met him, Plaintiff looked scared, excited, and had trouble breathing. Id. During the ride, Plaintiff told Sylvania what had happened. Id.

Sylvania at trial testified as to what Plaintiff had said about Nurse Johnson trying to manipulate the catheter and so forth. Id. She also testified how she told the ER doctors what Plaintiff had told her. Id. Plaintiff died the next day. Id. The medical reports showed that the catheter was dislodged and ultimately found under the right clavicle instead of in the right atrium of the heart, with a crack in it. Id. Plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer was able to bring forward the testimony needed.

Continue reading "Kentucky Personal Injury Nursing Home Case." »

Issue: Were the owners of real property adjacent to land actually used for recreation liable to a woman who slip and fell in the parking lot after a fireworks display at the school when she slip and fell in the parking lot of the school?

In Mason v. Berea Independent School District Finance Corporation, (2007 WL 2998510 (Ky.App.), Ms. Mason had attended a fireworks display at the football stadium owned by the City of Berea in 2004. Parking was provided at the Berea Community School which is adjacent to the stadium. Id. No charge was required for either the fireworks or the parking. Id. After the fireworks on the way to her car, Plaintiff slip and fell in a storm drain marked by a brightly painted yellow curb in the parking lot of the school. Id. There were no prior notifications of a potential hazard regarding this area. Id. Plaintiff filed suit and the trial court dismissed the case pursuant to KRS 411.190. This Court of Appeals affirmed. The reasoning is as follows.

KRS 411.190 states in part that: 1(c) “Recreational purpose” includes things like boating, fishing, nature study, viewing or enjoying historical, archeological, scenic, or scientific sites… (2) The purpose of this section is to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon for such purposes…. (3) Except as specifically recognized by or provided by subsection (6) of this section, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure,… (4) … an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreation purposes does not thereby: (a) Extend any assurance that the premise are safe for any purpose; 2(b) Confer upon the person the legal status of an invitee or license to whom a duty of care is owed; or (c) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property cause by an act or omission of those persons.” Id. (This section would apply to a slip and fall case in Kentucky).

Continue reading "Kentucky Slip and Fall in Neighboring Property Case" »

Kentucky Personal Injury Case Update: Lawsuit Against School Officials

Issue: Was the bus driver liable for the sexual assault on his bus when he failed to keep an eye on the students and make sure they followed the rules of staying in their seats while he was driving the bus?

In Addison v. Green, 2009 WL 3486657 (Ky.App.), the Kentucky Court of Appeals said that he might be and did not grant the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment asking that the case against him be dismissed. The facts are as follows.

In September of 2003 a 17 year old boy sexually assaulted a five year old girl while they were riding on a school bus together. Id. In October of 2005, the parents for the girl filed a lawsuit against, the bus driver, Mr. Addison; the director of student transportation for the school system, Mr. Wilson; the principal, Mr. Adams; and the superintendent, Mr. Eakles. Id. In October of 2007, the Plaintiff added a Ms. Donna Monroe to the lawsuit. Id. She was the social worker who provided services to Mr. Oliver and based on the facts, Plaintiffs sought to hold her responsible as well. In April of 2008, the Plaintiff agreed to let out Mr. Wilson, Mr. Adams, and Mr. Eakles in they these parties had immunity. Id. But, the Plaintiffs argued that Mr. Addison and Ms. Monroe’s actions were ministerial rather than discretionary, thus exempting them from entitlement to immunity. Id.

During discovery, it was revealed that Mr. Oliver had a troubled childhood including a history of sexually inappropriate behavior. Id. He was treated at several medical facilities. Id.

The trial court held that the bus driver had a duty of prohibiting children on the bus from moving about while the bus was in motion and from talking to the driver while the bus was in motion. Id. The bus driver failed to enforce these rules, the duty to enforce these rules would likely be considered ministerial duties not involving the exercise of discretion. Id. Plaintiff alleges that but for the breach of these ministerial duties, the injury in this case would have been prevented. Id. The trial court agreed.

Continue reading "Kentucky Lawsuit Against School Officials" »

In February of 2009, the Kentucky Court of Appeals heard a case involving a stepchild whose father had passed away. Louisville personal injury attorney Andrew S. Alitowski explains that the issue in this case was whether the stepchild who had not been legally adopted was entitled to recover a share of the damages under Kentucky’s wrongful death statute? The case is Davis v. Johnson, 295 S.W.3d 841 (Crt.App. 2009), which held that the non-adopted child was not entitled to any of the monies. The facts are as follows.

In Davis, Mr. Clarence Davis died on February 20, 2003. Id. A wrongful death claim resulted in a $5 million award to his heirs. Id. Under Kentucky law, his children were entitled to share equally in one-half the net proceeds. Id. At the time of his death, Mr. Davis was married to Mrs. Kathy Davis. Ms. Nicole Johnson was the daughter of Mrs. Davis and Mr. Davis “acted as a father to her since her birth, although he never legally adopted her.” Id.

The original court ruled that Ms. Davis was not entitled to the monies. She appealed and that court ruled that she was. So then the case was appealed again and this time the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled that she was not entitled to the monies.

The Court looked at the wrongful death statute and who was entitled to monies. The statute refers to “children” as some of the people that can inherit. The defendants point out the difference in the duty of support owed by a stepparent to an adopted child as opposed to an unadopted stepchild. Absent an adoption, stepparents have no duty to support stepchildren in the event of a divorce. (cites omitted). Id.

The plaintiff argued that Mr. Davis did support her with education, financially and with emotion support. Id. Plaintiff also argued and showed the court how in other facets of the legal world, stepchildren, even if not adopted, were entitled to some benefits when a parent died. For example in a worker’s compensation case or inheritance taxes. Id.

But, the Court did not buy this argument. In each of the above matters, the legislative body specifically put in the provisions to allow a stepchild those rights. And, in the case at hand, the wrongful death statute did not. And so the Court concluded that they intentionally left them out and thus the Court could not stretch the law and allow the plaintiff to recover.

And finally, the Court took a survey of other jurisdictions around and found that non had revealed any case holding that an unadopted stepchild may recover under the state’s wrongful death statute except in a few states.

If you have been the subject of a Louisville race discrimination matter, please call and speak to a Louisville race discrimination lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew S. Alitowski at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637) or contact us online. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!

In June of 2007, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky heard a case involving a slip and fall accident. (See Mitchell v. Flying J Inc., 2007 WL 1959174 (W.D.Ky.)). In Mitchell, Mr. Mitchell slipped and fell while in a store. Mr. Mitchell was a truck driver and entered to go to the restroom and get a cup of coffee. Id. He walked down an aisle towards the back and upon rounding the corner he slipped and fell in an area where a store employee had just finished mopping. Id. The employee claims that he put up 3 “Slippery When Wet” cone and had just finished mopping up a cup of spilled coffee. Id. A still photograph from a surveillance camera showed that only one cone. Id. Mr. Mitchell sued claiming that the store was liable because it created a wet and slippery condition on the floor of its store and it failed to adequately warn of this condition. Id.

Under a relatively new case, Laneir,(cite omitted), the Kentucky Supreme Court modified the burden of proof that is needed in a slip and fall premises liability case where the foreign substance on the premises was not brought about and/or caused by the proprietor. Id. The business invitee has the initial burden of proving that: “1) He or she had an encounter with a foreign substance or other dangerous condition on the business premises, 2) the encounter was a substantial factor in causing the accident and the customer’s injuries, and 3) by reason of the presence of the substance or condition, the business premises were not in a reasonably safe condition for the use of business invitees.” Id. “Once the plaintiff/invitee establishes this initial burden, which creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence sufficient to avoid summary judgment, the burden shifts to the defendant/proprietor who must prove, by a greater weight of the evidence, the absence of negligence through the exercise of reasonable care.” Id. “As such, though the plaintiff may meet his/her initial burden, the defendant may still succeed on a motion for summary judgment if the defendant can prove “that it exercised reasonable care in the maintenance of the premises under the circumstances.”” Id. This is the new law in all Louisville slip and fall cases that involve a foreign substance to a business invitee.

The defendant in Mitchell argued to the Court that it putting up a sign showed that it used reasonable care. Id. Also, that the “wet spot” was an open and obvious condition and therefore it did not owe the plaintiff any duty of care. Id. Under Lanier, the defendant’s burden is “to discover the foreseeable dangerous condition and to correct it or to warn customers of its existence.” Id. The Court reviewed the pictures and evidence and said that though it did discover the dangerous condition, it did not adequately warn in that the one cone that was placed was in the back and not in the area where Mr. Mitchell fell. Id.

As to the ‘Open and Obvious’ argument by defendant, the Court ruled that the defendant was misapplying the law and that it only applied to “hazards caused by the owner, not those caused by a foreign substance.” Id.

If you have been the subject of a Louisville slip and fall case, please call and speak to a Louisville slip and fall lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew S. Alitowski at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637) or contact us online. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!

In January of 2009, a Louisville, Kentucky Federal Court ruled on a Louisville car accident case. The case is captioned Norton v. Canadian American Tank Lines, 2009 WL 86603 (W.D.Ky.). In Norton, Mr. Norton collided with the rear of a tractor-trailer that was parked by the defendant on the side of a road. The driver was inside the sleeper cab of the tractor asleep when the accident occurred. The accident occurred at approximately 6am. The night before the accident, the driver of the tractor trailer parked on the side of the road with the left tires of the vehicle on the pavement, and the right tires on the grass shoulder. The tractor trailer extended seven feet into the roadway. The driver placed no warning devices such as reflective triangles or flares in the roadway.

Mr. Norton in his Louisville car accident case alleged that the driver was negligent in the parking of his vehicle and that this negligence was the proximate cause of his injuries. Mr. Norton claimed the driver was negligent because he violated a statutes (negligence as a matter of law) and because he breached a general duty of care (ordinary negligence). The court reviewed the applicable statutes and case law. The court reviewed case law from the 1930’s and the 1950’s. And after careful reasoning, it determined that the defendant did in fact violate a state roadway statute and thus was liable according to the rule of negligence per se. And as the driver was negligent as a matter of law, his employer is vicariously liable for the injuries that were caused by his negligence. So, in this case, Plaintiff’s Louisville car accident lawyer won and the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Continue reading "Louisville Car Accident Lawyer Case" »

Renting a car is a very common occurrence when one travels. And in each state, the requirements for renting a car are somewhat different. As it goes to insurance, some states make you show proof of insurance, while others do not. Some states make you purchase the car rental insurances, while others do not. Thus the question one asks oneself when one does not purchase the additional insurance coverage is “Am I covered under my own insurance policy?” or “Am I covered under the insurance policy of the primary person who is renting the car?” or "Am I covered by my credit card?" All good questions that a Kentucky car accident lawyer can answer for you.

As per the below video suggests, it is always good to get car rental insurance.

Recently in Kentucky, the Stacy family had a car rental insurance case decided by a Kentucky court. Mr. Donald Stacy and his daughter Kim Szajka rented a car from ABC Rent-A-Car while on a trip to Arizona. The car rental contract was with Kim as the primary driver and Mr. Stacy as an additional driver. Both refrained from purchasing additional insurance coverage. Mr. Stacy was insured by Shelter Mutual Insurance Company (“Shelter”) and Kim was insured by Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”). Allstate was the only insurer listed on the rental agreement.

While in Arizona, Mr. Stacy was driving the rental car while Kim was not in the car. He was rear ended by an uninsured driver. He sustained bodily injuries and incurred medical expenses. The property damage to the car was $13,237.26.

After the accident, Kim filed a lawsuit against both Shelter and Allstate for the amount of the property damage. Mr. Stacy joined in the suit and sued both insurance companies as well. Eventually Kim’s suit was resolved, but Mr. Stacy’s lawsuit continued with his Kentucky car accident lawyer.

Allstate at trial moved for summary judgment claiming that Mr. Stacy did not qualify as an insured person or a resident relative of an insured person who would be protected by Allstate’s coverage. The trial court reviewed the Allstate policy regarding who an “insured person” was and what an “insured auto” was and came to the conclusion that Mr. Stacy was in fact not an insured person and that the rental car was no in fact an insured auto. Mr. Stacy appealed. The appellate court agreed with the lower court. (Stacy v. Allstate Insurance company, 2009 WL 1349228 (Ky.App)).

Continue reading "Kentucky Car Rental Accident Case – Rental Car Insurance Important Issue" »

Recently, in December of 2009, the appellate court upheld the decision of the lower trial court’s ruling. In Slone v. Ibert (2009 WL 4723135 (Ky. App.), the driver of a car was found to be not liable for the damages of the collision because he blacked out before the crash. A review of this case is to follow by car accident lawyer Andrew Alitowski.

On November 6, 2003, a Mr. Ibert was employed by Oldham’s Truck and Car Source in Lexington, Kentucky. Mr. Ibert was driving a Ford Expedition to show a potential customer. He was driving down a road when he struck Mr. Slone’s car in the rear. At the time of the accident, Mr. Slone was stopped at a red light. At the scene of the accident, Mr. Ibert reported that he lost consciousness as he approached the red light. Both drivers were taken to the hospital.

The hospital records for Mr. Ibert did show an elevated level of carbon dioxide in his blood which could be a sign of someone passing out. Also, during the trial, a Dr. Martin testified that Mr. Ibert was also falling asleep during his examination in the ER. Dr. Martin believed Mr. Ibert may have sleep apnea. This was later confirmed by another doctor a year later.

On July 11, 2004, Mr. Slone field suit alleging physical and mental injuries. He claimed he experienced a worsening of preexisting back pain, the onset of new shoulder pain which required surgery, and a worsening of a preexisting bipolar disorder. These were all claimed by his car accident lawyer.

Continue reading "Car Accident in Kentucky Case" »

In Kentucky, the Court of Appeals ruled recently in a Kentucky personal injury case that a Plaintiff did not have a case for which he was injured. The facts of the case are very interesting. Jerry and Marilyn Sadler sued J.A.M. Co. Restaurants for personal injuries that they received on May 18, 2006. On that evening, they went to an Arby’s restaurant for dinner. Approximately 100 feet away there was a Movie Gallery movie rental store. The two businesses were owned by different owners. When the Sadlers got the restaurant the weather was ok, but then it got dark outside and windy and debris started to fly around. The roof of the Movie Gallery broke loose and flew toward the Arby’s restaurant. The Sadlers were seated by the window in a booth. When the Sadlers saw the roof coming at them, they got away from the window. The roof hit the window and debris flew everywhere and the Sadlers were knocked to the floor. As a result of the personal injury accident, Marilyn suffered numerous cuts to her body. Jerry suffered a fractured right arm and cuts.

On May 15, 2007, the Sadlers filed their Kentucky personal injury lawsuit. On October 13, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the case be thrown out in that they stated there was no cause of action or theory of recovery that would allow the Sadlers to maintain their lawsuit. As discovery was still going on, the Court denied the motion on October 23, 2007 as premature. But, then on April 8, 2008, 6 months later, the defense filed a renewed motion for summary judgment after deposing the Sadlers arguing that there was no theory of negligence upon which the Sadlers could prevail at trial since the defendant did not own the Movie Gallery building and the Sadlers could not produce any evidence of negligence on its part. The Sadlers responded that the defendant could still be negligent because the construction of their store could have been faulty or not done in a safe manner. But they did not produce any evidence of this exepct for their affidavits which were of their own belief.

On May 21, 2008, the trial court entered an order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and in essence throwing out the plaintiffs’ personal injury case. Summary judgment in a Kentucky personal injury case is appropriate only when “it appears that it would be impossible for the respondent to produce evidence at the trial warranting a judgment in his favor.” Id. In this case, the court found that the defendant did produce an affidavit that clearly stated it did nothing wrong and had no ownership of the other building. The plaintiffs responded with only their affidavit and nothing more from any expert. Thus, the appeals court ruled that the lower court’s ruling of dismissing the case was proper and valid.

If you have been the subject of a personal injury case, please call and speak to a personal injury lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew S. Alitowski at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637) or contact us online. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!

As the 2009 year comes to an end, I would just like to thank all of my clients that I have helped in this past year and in years past. As a Louisville Personal Injury Car Accident Lawyer, it has been my privilege to assist the numerous friends and families that I have come across. I am very happy that I am able to assist those families that do not speak English and only speak Spanish, in that I know speaking to them in their native language makes a Louisville car accident that much easier to deal with.

Louisville Personal Injury Car Accident Lawyer Andrew S. Alitowski is available to speak and meet with any potential client 24/7. My law firm direct number goes straight to my cell phone after regular working hours so that I do not miss a call. A Louisville car accident does not just happen between the hours of 9 to 5. Thus, if you or a family member or friend are injured at anytime during the day or night, all you have to do is call 582-9100 or the 888-275-2637 number and I will be able to assist you with any Louisville car accident question that you may have.

I do wish everyone a happy and healthy holiday season. I hope that every remembers to be safe on the roads when driving home, not just from your party, but also to drive a little more defensively in that others too are coming from their parties and may not be as safety conscious as you may be while they are driving down the roads. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Also remember that the roadways may be slick from ice or snow and that there can be "black ice" on the roadways.

I look forward being able to serve you, a family member or friend in the near future if the situation arises. I enjoy being a Louisville Personal Injury Car Accident Lawyer and wish you all a wonderful 2010.

Continue reading "Louisville Personal Injury Car Accident Information" »

Yesterday in Kentucky, a young gentleman was killed in a car accident after his car struck a tree on Cedar Point Road in the Buckner area. (Please see article). His passenger was taken to University Hospital with serious injuries.

It is alleged that the car lost control and struck a tree. The reason this is important to a Kentucky Car Accident attorney is that to qualify for uninsured motorist coverage in Kentucky, there has to be a touching involved between this vehicle and another. The news report "claims" that the vehicle lost control. But, what if that is not the case? What if the vehicle was actually side-swiped? Or hit in the rear? Without talking to the passenger or a reliable witness, a Kentucky Car Accident attorney cannot rule these things out.

Continue reading "Kentucky Car Accident Attorney" »

In Kentucky, a recent Kentucky Supreme Court ruling has expanded spousal rights to sue for loss of consortium. The old law in Kentucky for a personal injury wrongful death case was that a spouse was entitled to loss of consortium up until the time that the other spouse died. But, with recent large accidents that have left a lot of spouses without their loved ones, such as the 2006 Comair Flight 5191 crash in Lexington, Kentucky, and widows of deceased miners, the Supreme Court took it upon itself to change the law. As a personal injury lawyer, Mr. Alitowski can explain to you all you need to know about personal injury wrongful death cases.

The case that helped change the law was a case where a wife, who had a husband who was disabled and completely dependent on his wife, was involved in a car accident. She died on the way to the hospital. The husband sued for loss of consortium and the jury awarded him damages, but the trial court only allowed the damages for his loss during the short time between his wife’s accident and her death. The Kentucky personal injury wrongful death law had been common law which only allowed damages for loss of consortium up to the time of death. The husband appealed and the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed holding that common sense would allow damages for the loss of marital companionship for the time after death. It used to be for only during the time between wrongful injury and death, but the Kentucky Supreme Court has now expanded the time for a spouse in which he or she can recover. And in the case of the man who was disabled and completely relied on his wife, you can see how this new ruling really makes sense.

Continue reading "Kentucky Personal Injury Wrongful Death Lawyer" »

Airbags were first invented and placed into vehicles back in the 1970’s. But, it was not until the mid 1980’s did they become more common. In 1998, the United States mandated that all vehicles be equipped with dual front airbags.

The car airbag evolution continues as scientists think of more advanced ways of saving lives. In 2008 Toyota came out with a rear curtain shield airbag to protect the rear occupants. In 2009, Toyota came out with a rear-seat center airbag to help protect occupants incase of a side collision. And in 2009, Lexus has come out with a seatbelt airbag which is basically that the actual seatbelt inflates when the car accident occurs. These are great new items, says Kentcucky car accident attorney, Andrew Alitowski.

Though airbags are made to save lives, unfortunately sometimes they do not function or function improperly and injuries from them deploying do occur. Thus whenever you are in a car you should always wear your seatbelt. You should not rely on a car airbag to save your life. Second, you should stay well back from the steering wheel. Studies show that the height of a driver or passenger does affect the outcome in a car accident from a seatbelt and so this should be considered when entering a vehicle.

Third, when driving, you should keep your hands at the 10 and 2 positions. This will help protect you incase of the airbag going off, your arms won’t hit you in the face. Fourth, do not drive leaning over the steering wheel. Fifth, make sure children in the car are in the back seat; secured in car seats if so mandated. Unfortunately, children and infants are at the highest risk of sustaining injuries from a airbag going off. And sixth, if you have a passenger in the back seat, do not have dry cleaning or anything else hanging from the sides because if the side airbags go off, these items can become objects that hit and can cause injuries to those passengers. Mr. Alitowski as a Kentucky car accident attorney can help explain these things to you.

Continue reading "Kentucky Car Accident Airbag Safety Information" »

In the State of Kentucky, car accidents are by far the most common way for a child to get hurt. Throughout the country, the statistics are that nearly 250,000 children are injured every year in a car accident. That comes out to roughly 700 children are injured due to a car accident every day.

Approximately 2,000 children die from car accident injuries every year. That is about 5% of all the car accidents involving a child. For children between the ages of 2 and 14, motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death. And 20% of the deaths of children invovle someone who is intoxicated.

So what can we do to better protect our children?

Continue reading "Kentucky Car Accident Information Regarding Children" »

The State of Kentucky is not one of the safest places to walk around. As compared to other states that have more walkways and side pathways, Kentucky is not as well equiped to handle pedestrian traffic as are some other states. In a recent study of pedestrian safety, Kentucky was the 7th most dangerous city for walking.

Continue reading "Kentucky Pedestrian Personal Injury Information" »

One of the most basic safety tips that can be given to any driver is on how to become a better and safer driver by understanding the car’s blind spots. A blind spot is an area of the road that you cannot see while driving and looking forward that you need help with by utilizing your mirrors correctly
Unfortunately, most drivers in Louisville, Kentucky do not understand how to set up their mirrors correctly. This is something so simple that is often over looked and not correctly taught to new drivers.

The most basic rule is that if you are ever driving behind a car and that driver in the car in front of you can see you directly behind him/her with his/her side view mirrors, then you know that the car in front has his/her side view mirrors positioned completely wrong and that he/she cannot see his/her blind spots.

Continue reading "Car Safety Tips by Local Louisville Attorney" »

A very common injury in a Kentucky car accident is a bulging disk or herniated disk. Though the two are similar, they are different.

Your spine is made up of vertebrae and disks. The disks in between the vertebrae act as cushions. They help absorb the shocks of every day bending and twisting. Without them, the vertebrae would grind on each other and wear out. But, these disks are spongy and good cushions. If you would like to see a picture of these in person, you can speak to me, a car accident attorney, and see a picture of these in person.

A bulging disk is when one of these disks simply extends outside the space it should normally occupy. If the disk is like a hamburger in between a bun, then a bulging disk is when the hamburger sticks out just a little bit outside the bun. As you get older, a bulging disk becomes more and more common.

Continue reading "Bulging Disk v. Herniated Disk in Kentucky Car Accident" »

Two weeks ago, on September 17, 2009, Pleasure Ridge Park High School football coach Jason Stinson was acquitted of reckless homicide and wanton endangerment in the August 20, 2008 heat-stroke death of Max Gilpin, a sophomore lineman. The jury was made up of 8 men and 4 women. This was the nation’s first criminal trial of a football coach in a player’s heat-related death. (See the article from the Louisville Courier Journal )

The State of Kentucky has a Kentucky High School Athletic Association governing body. This association covers many areas. One of them is child safety. And per their rules and regulations, Coach Stinson was being tried criminally for failing to follow the heat index rules and thus causing the death of Max Gilpin. The rules for any and all to see are at: http://www.khsaa.org/sportsmedicine/heat/

Coach Stinson will now have to face a civil trial. This is very common in death cases such as this.

Continue reading "Kentucky Personal Injury Regarding School Athletics" »