I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller who says she was renovating her house and a plumbing subcontractor installed an oil-fired boiler to heat and supply hot water to her home, but that the water caused 2nd degree burns to a family member after reaching temperatures above 170 degrees Fahrenheit.

The injured party required hospitalization, debridement procedures, and tissue grafts, and has resulted in permanent scarring.

Since the burn injuries were very serious she wanted to know the family’s legal options.

The first option we mentioned to the caller is the option to sue the plumbing contractor who installed the boiler for negligently installing it without a tempering valve. A tempering valve mixes hot and cold water to create water at the perfect temperature to distribute to sinks and showers.

Another option might be to sue the manufacturer of the boiler for failing to warn of the need to install a tempering valve. This of course presumes that no warnings were given. If a warning was provided, but the plumber disregarded the warning, it may be difficult to hold the manufacturer at fault.

Depending on the contractual arrangements between the general contractor and the plumbing subcontractor, another option might be to sue the general contractor under vicarious liability theory for the subcontractor’s negligence.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller concerned about an injury her son suffered while skateboarding at a park.

The injury occurred on a portion of a state park created to give skateboards a place to train and compete.

Nearby was an area created for BMX use, and another nearby area set aside for inline skating.

For skateboarders and BMX bikers, park creators typically use wood or poured concrete to create ramps with dips and hills. Sometimes the ramps will have stairs with railings. Some areas are limited to the practice of moves and maneuvers. Other areas are set aside for beginners.

Her son was a beginner, but somehow he was working out in an area geared to highly advanced skateboarders.

The park was privately owned. Many such parks are publicly owned, and to sue a public park notice of intent to sue typically must be given within 180 days of an injury incident in Indiana. Here a notice likely will not be required since the boy was in a private park and paid an entrance fee.

The boy’s mother said there were no signs warning of any dangers.

The boys’ father took photos of the park and the photos readily show that the park was not properly maintained. It is in a broken and deteriorated condition. The injury happened at dusk and the park is not illuminated by street lamps or other lighting. Moreover, the boy was leaning on a railing at the top of a run, when the railing gave way causing the boy to fall and break his arm.

Of course, the lack of warning signs, a deteriorated railing, and poor illumination suggest that the park operator may have been negligent.

However, the park will likely defend the case claiming that the boy assumed the inherent risks of skateboarding.

Assumption of risk applies when an injured party knows of a specific danger, understands the risk, and voluntarily exposes themselves to the danger.

To make an assumption of risk defense, the park will need to establish that the boy knew and appreciated the specific risk that led to the injury and that he voluntarily accepted the risk.

The defense might succeed with the assumption of risk defense if the boy was hurt on a ramp doing a skateboard maneuver. However, the boy fell when a railing gave way. So to prevail the park will need to show the boy knew the railing had deteriorated and used it anyway.

The problem for the park will be who was in a better position to know that the railing was weak, the boy or the park?

If the park operators knew the railing was weak, why was it not repaired? And, why did the park issue no warning that the railing was weak?

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller concerned about his knee which he fractured trying to connect the second trailer in a tandem rig to the first trailer he was already towing.

Turns out that as he stepped up onto the hitch, the lift crank handle on the dolly broke loose causing him to fall and land with his kneecap against hard concrete.

For a commercial motor vehicle operator, the workplace is the tractor and trailer and all of the equipment that goes with it.

Some drivers have to manipulate tarps to cover a load.

Tandem trailers, like the caller was using, are rather complex.

A single trailer usually connects to a tractor with a device called a fifth wheel. This hookup often does not require the driver to do much other than line up correctly and back up correctly.

Connecting a tandem trailer requires the driver to back up the tractor and first trailer to the second trailer. There is a device called a dolly that can be raised and lowered by hand crank. The dolly can be moved left or right too. It is a complex system requiring much work by the driver. The dolly is required to move left to right and up and down to match up with the back of the first trailer.

Upon discussing the issue a bit more with the caller we learned that the trailer he was connecting to was owned by a company different from the commercial trucking company he was employed with.

This would mean that in addition to a worker’s compensation claim against his employer, he might have a basis to sue the hitch manufacturer the trailer owner, or both.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m Katelyn Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller concerned about the doctor they were sent to for medical care following a work injury. The caller wanted to know if he could choose his own doctor in a worker’s compensation case.

The answer is generally, no. The employer normally directs the employee where to go for medical treatment of a work-related injury under the worker’s compensation laws and the employer’s insurance carrier pays for the treatment.

However, the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act provides that:

If the employer fails to provide “reasonable and necessary” medical treatment, the employee may go to any physician. Ind. Code §22-3-3-4(d).

If the employer/carrier refuses to pay for the treatment, the employee or the medical provider may have to file with the Board to seek reimbursement.

Indiana courts have held that generally, a person is required to seek Board approval or approval from the WC carrier before undergoing medical treatment outside the authorized WC medical providers.

However, there are three circumstances provided by statute in which an employee can get medical treatment without prior approval: (1) in an emergency; (2) if the employer fails to provide needed medical care; or (3) for other good reasons.

Indiana courts have adopted the following test for evaluating the existence of “good reason”:

If it is shown to the Board that the treatment provided by the employer was inadequate treatment for the employee’s condition and the unauthorized treatment received by the claimant was medically reasonable and necessary treatment, then the employer should be responsible, despite the lack of prior approval by the employer.

One way to show inadequate treatment is by showing continual suffering and pain despite following treatment orders by the worker’s compensation-supplied med provider.

Importantly, the employee always has the right to seek medical treatment and medical opinions at the employee’s own expense.

Any time that an employee seeks medical treatment outside of the direction of the employer/carrier, the employee risks incurring liability for the medical bills. However, if the employee files an application for benefits with the Board, medical providers are to refrain from attempting to collect payment from the employee until it is determined who is liable for payment.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m Katelyn Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller concerned about whether a non-citizen can file a personal injury lawsuit.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution extends the right to seek due process while in the U.S. to U.S. citizens, legally admitted residents, and undocumented immigrants.

Thus, citizenship is not a requirement for filing a personal injury claim.

A person who is in an accident in Indiana, can bring a personal injury lawsuit in Indiana, regardless of their country of origin or citizenship status.

That said, will a person’s immigration status be admissible in court?

Indiana Evidence Rule 401 deems evidence relevant when it “has any tendency to make a [consequential] fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

Generally, relevant evidence is admissible.

However, relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Rule 403.

In 2017, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that an unauthorized immigrant was permitted to file a lawsuit against a general contractor seeking damages based on a work-related injury under the Indiana Constitution’s Open Courts Clause in Ind. Const. art. I, Sect. 12 which provides:

All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase, completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay.

In that case, the plaintiff’s immigration status was deemed to be relevant, but due to a danger of confusion and unfair prejudice, the immigration status was excluded from evidence.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – While there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller concerned about the financial responsibility of parents for a child driver under age 18. She says she is concerned about letting her 16-year-old daughter ride with a 17-year-old friend.

Teen drivers are frequently categorized as high-risk drivers because of their limited driving experience, and as a group, teen drivers are the most likely to cause car accidents, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. When crashes happen, parents can be held financially responsible for their minor child’s negligence while behind the wheel.

In Indiana, parents may be held financially liable for a child under the age of 18. Where a parent signs an application for a permit or driver’s license for someone under age 18, they agree to be responsible jointly and severally with the minor applicant for any injury or damage that the minor applicant causes by reason of the operation of a motor vehicle if the minor applicant is liable in damages.

When a minor applicant becomes 18 years of age, the individual who signed the minor’s application is relieved from the liability for the child.

Under Indiana law, a parent’s financial liability for damages caused by his or her minor child hinges on whether the actions of the minor were done “knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly,” – in which case Indiana statute provides that a parent may only be held liable up to $5,000—or whether the minor’s actions were negligent, in which case a parent may be financially liable without a maximum, statutorily-set ceiling.

A typical car crash case is usually the result of someone’s negligence, rather than intentional harm. In negligence-based car crash situations, liability for damages and injury caused by the minor child is statutorily imputed to the parent. It’s automatically imputed to the parent without consideration of the specific facts of what a parent did or didn’t do.

Additional things to consider include a legal concept called “negligent entrustment,” where the owner of a vehicle (such as a parent) is aware (or should be aware) that the minor driver poses a danger to others. In such a case, a parent can share some of the liability for the minor driver’s actions. For example, say a teen is known to be reckless, yet the parent still allows the teen to operate the parent’s car. That could open the parent up to liability for the minor’s actions under the legal doctrine of “negligent entrustment.”  Liability under this theory is different from the kind of automatic statutory liability discussed earlier because “negligent entrustment” looks to the specific facts about whether what the parent did or failed to do was reasonable in connection with the minor driver’s car crash.

Practically speaking, a parent’s financial responsibility for their minor child’s accident depends a lot on car insurance. Car insurance usually covers a vehicle, including anyone who has permission to drive that vehicle. If the minor child was using the parent’s vehicle with permission and wasn’t specifically listed as a driver excluded from coverage, then the parent’s car insurance on that vehicle typically extends to cover the teen driver. It’s also important to mention that some car insurance policies are set up to cover individual policyholders and named drivers. In such situations, the insurance policy on the vehicle should be set up to provide coverage for the child as a listed driver under the policy up to maximum policy limits.

Here, the caller should inquire from the parents of the 17-year-old friend who will be driving her daughter about the coverage for the vehicle being operated, and confirm that the child driver is listed as insured on the policy.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s topic is about proving “non-economic” damages, such as an injury’s impact on a person’s quality of life.

Often people who suffer an injury as a result of another person’s negligence will find that they cannot engage in certain activities (essential tasks, hobbies, social activities, etc.) as did before the injury incident.

These losses are recoverable, but there must be proof to causally relate the loss to the injury incident.

In other words, just saying that you can no longer go grocery shopping, walk the dog, play golf, ski, or ride a bike, will not be enough to prevail in court.

In addition to the plaintiff’s testimony, a doctor will be needed to explain how the injury impacts the ability to do the things the plaintiff says they can no longer do.

Such testimony may come from a medical doctor. It also may come from a psychiatrist or psychologist who may testify about PTSD, anxiety, panic attacks, etc., and the limiting and debilitating impact of these conditions.

Friends and family may also testify to how the injured party was before the incident, and how the person is after the injury incident.

Pre and post-injury photos and videos may also be helpful in establishing the lasting impact of an injury.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – While there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller who said she lost control of her car on ice and went into a ditch. During the wreck, her driver-side airbag deployed and shot off pieces of metal into the occupant compartment. It was like shrapnel from an improvised explosive device she said. She suffered fairly serious injuries.

She wanted to know her legal options.

There have been quite a few cases over the past several years involving defective Takata airbags.

The car she was driving had a Takata programmable smokeless driver’s inflator.

It is a dual-stage inflator that utilizes a propellant that as it ages is susceptible to moisture and thermal cycling, resulting in a rapid and defective inflation of the airbag.

It is the type of airbag that has been shown to produce excessive internal pressure. Excessive pressure can cause metal fragments to pass through the airbag and strike an occupant.

In the caller’s case she may qualify for compensation through the Takata Individual Restitution Fund established under a Restitution Order entered against the Takata Corporation in connection with Takata’s Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization.

The caller may also have a potential claim against the vehicle manufacturer based upon strict product liability, failure to warn, and negligent recall.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller concerned about being able to sue for injuries sustained in a car crash. She said she was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash, and the police cited her for not wearing her seatbelt.

The answer is generally yes, the caller could sue but may be found to be partially at fault for the injuries suffered, which could reduce how much money she is able to recover.

In the caller’s situation, the defense will likely argue that the failure to wear a seat belt made her injuries far worse than they would have been if she had buckled up.

The defense will argue the caller had the duty to wear a seat belt and acted unreasonably in failing to wear her seat belt.

Of course, the defense team will have the burden to prove that the caller’s failure to wear a seat belt caused or aggravated her injuries.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – While there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller concerned about the fact that her elderly father was given a chemotherapy drug without his consent, or the consent of the family.

Under the law, a patient must consent to the treatment they receive. A patient’s decision to undergo a particular treatment must be an informed choice.

Healthcare providers must tell a patient the important facts about possible treatments. Before making a choice, a patient has a right to know the nature of a proposed treatment, other available treatments, and the risks involved in the treatment.

To recover damages against a medical provider when the issue is a failure to obtain informed consent, a plaintiff must use expert testimony to prove that a medical provider, using reasonable care and skill under the circumstances, would have informed the patient of the nature of a proposed treatment, other available treatments, and the risks to the patient involved in the treatment.

Keep in mind, that a patient’s consent may be expressed or implied.

“Express consent” means actual, direct, or explicit permission, whether oral or written.

“Implied consent” means permission that is not expressly given, but which the medical provider would reasonably understand from the patient’s conduct and surrounding circumstances.

The caller mentioned that her father was elderly. When the patient is unable to consent to treatment because the patient is a child, is unconscious or is not mentally competent, a medical provider must obtain consent from someone authorized to give consent for the patient.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – While there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”