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 inquiring about their rights concerning being a whistleblower. They had heard about how a pharmaceutical company recently agreed to pay $6 million to settle allegations it misused free genetic tests and test result data to boost prescriptions of its drug designed to treat genetically linked disease.

The fine was imposed over claims the company paid for free genetic tests for patients and then purchased the test results for marketing purposes, potentially influencing doctors and patients towards prescribing and taking a drug sold by the company.

This allegedly violated the False Claims Act. A whistleblower who originally filed the case will receive $1.07 million from the settlement, while the rest goes to Medicare, Medicaid, and state Medicaid programs.

In the past we have blogged about how whistleblowers benefit in such circumstances.

Whistleblowers can play a role in going after companies engaged in defrauding taxpayers through waste and deceptive practices.

The Federal Civil False Claims Act basically allows ordinary private citizens to act as attorney generals and file lawsuits on behalf of the United States government. A citizen whistleblower can help recover losses to the government, including losses resulting from government contractor fraud.

Such whistleblower actions are filed by what’s called “qui tam relators,” individuals who bring suit under the FCA on behalf of the United States. The term “qui tam” derives from Latin and refers to “suing for the sovereign and for himself.”

If you have direct personal knowledge of fraud against the United States government, at your company, university or even at another business or university, you may be entitled to collect a reward of 15-30% of the total amount of the fraudulent billings recovered by the government.

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 whether they could sue if a family member gets hurt while attending an antique tractor show.

Agritourism makes up a big sector of the Indiana economy. Encompassing things like farmers markets, antique tractor shows, U-Picks, farm tours, breweries, and wineries, agritourism offers just about something for everyone.

But what if while you’re out perusing an antique tractor show, you are seriously injured when the boiler on an old steam-powered tractor explodes? Can you sue someone for your injuries?

The answer, as we often say, depends. In 2011, the Indiana legislature passed a law giving limited liability protection to agritourism operators in Indiana.

Generally speaking, Agritourism operations are not liable for injuries and deaths that result from an inherent risk of agritourism activities. However, there are important exceptions that we’ll discuss.

First, let’s examine what qualifies as an agritourism activity. Then, we’ll take a look at the definition of an ‘’inherent risk of agritourism activity.’’

The law defines an agritourism activity as any agricultural, horticultural, agribusiness operation, where the general public is allowed, or invited to participate, view, or enjoy the activities for recreation, entertainment, or educational purposes, including things like farming, ranching, historic and cultural agricultural activities, self-pick farms, and farmers markets. It also includes activities involving an animal exhibit at agricultural fair and natural resources-based activities, including hunting, fishing, hiking, trail, riding, camping, canoeing, kayaking, or tubing on a river. It also includes winter sports activities.

The law defines ‘’inherent risks of agritourism activity’’ as ‘’conditions, dangerous, or hazards that are an integral part of an agritourism activity, including the following: (1) surface & subsurface conditions and natural conditions of land, vegetation, and waters. (2) the behavior of wild or domestic animals. (3) the ordinary dangers of structures or equipment when the structures or equipment are being: (A) used or (B) stored by an agritourism provider in a manner and for a purpose for which a reasonable person should know the structures or equipment is intended. (4) the negligent acts of a participant that may contribute to injury to the participant or others, including failing to follow instructions given by an agritourism provider, failing to exercise reasonable caution while engaging in the agritourism activity, or failing to obey written warnings or postings on the premises of the agritourism operation.’’

In our example of an injury that occurs at an antique tractor show, involving an exploding boiler on an antique steam-powered tractor, the explosion could be said to be an ordinary risk of using a steam-powered engine. By design, boilers are always under extreme pressure, so there’s always a risk of explosion when very high pressure is involved. Typically, this statute would act to protect the antique tractor show operators from liability for this injury, however, there are some important exceptions and we’re going to take a look at those now.

In order for agritourism operators to enjoy the benefits of this limited liability carve out in the law, the operator has to comply with very specific rules on signs that must be posted and warning notices that must be given to participants. Under the law, operators must either post a sign, including exact verbiage, set forth in the statute that states, “WARNING. Under Indiana law, an agritourism provider is not liable for an injury to, or the death of, a participant in agritourism activities at this location, if the death or injury results from the inherent risk of agritourism activity. Inherent risks of agritourism activities include the risk of injury inherent to land, equipment, and animals as well as the potential for you to act in a negligent manner that may contribute to your injury or death, or for other participants to act in a manner that may cause you injury or cause your death. You are assuming the risk of participating in this agri-tourism activity.’’

This particular notice language must be either posted on a sign in a clearly visible location at the main entrance of the agri-tourism activity area or included in a signed contract or release with the participant.

In our example, if the operator has not complied with the legal signage requirements or hasn’t put this notice language in a signed release or contract with the participant, the injured participant could sue that operator.

Some other exceptions to the limited liability statutory carve out for the agri-tourism industry, include if the operator has actual knowledge or reasonably should have known about a dangerous condition on the land, facilities, or equipment used in the agricultural activity, or has actual knowledge or reasonably should have known about the dangerous propensity of a particular animal used in the activity and does not make the danger known to the participant and that danger causes the participant’s injury or death, then the operator can be held liable.

If the agritourism operator fails to properly train or inadequately trains its employees, and an employee’s actions or inactions cause the participant’s injury or death, then the operator can be held liable.

If the agritourism operator’s actions or inactions constitute willful, or wanton disregard for the safety of a participant and it cause the participant’s injury or death, then the operator can be held liable.

Lastly, if the agritourism operator intentionally injures a participant, then the operator can be held liable.

So back to our example, if the operator of the particular steam-powered tractor, had actual knowledge or reasonably should’ve known that the boiler was in a dangerous condition, rather than its normal operating condition, but put it in the antique tractor show anyway and didn’t warn any of the participants about the dangerous present-state condition of the tractor, then the operator could potentially be held liable for the participant’s 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.

In today’s episode, we’ll take a look at the issue of liability when an error in Google Maps or any other mapping navigation program leads to a crash.

Suppose someone is out driving in an unfamiliar neighborhood and using Google Maps to navigate as you drive home. It’s nighttime and quite dark out, with no street lights around.

Let’s say that Google Maps directs that individual to drive across a particular bridge, but unbeknownst to him, that bridge collapsed several years ago.

Suppose that person proceeds to drive over that bridge to which Google Maps directed him, but then crashes into the water and drowns. Can Google Maps be held liable for the man’s death?

Sometimes it takes a while for the law to catch up to address issues and concerns attributable to advances in technology.

But, if we apply existing legal principles, we might be able to predict how a court might decide a question based on facts like these.

This topic is somewhat related to one we discussed earlier in episodes 39 and 131 when we talked about autonomous robotic cars.

Humans program a navigation program like Google Maps to direct other humans where to go to reach a destination.

While the program doesn’t literally drive you to your destination like an autonomous car does, it gives you directions or commands or otherwise “steers” you where to go to get to your destination.

In our previous discussions about autonomous cars, we speculated that the law would hold the owners of such vehicles legally responsible for driving mistakes and that the law would hold manufacturers accountable for manufacturing defects contributing to causing a crash.

Indiana follows the legal principle of comparative fault, which means that sometimes liability can be attributed to both the plaintiff, the party that was harmed, and the defendant, so long as the plaintiff’s fault is not found to be greater than 50%.

So in the above example, it is possible that the driver, the person who was killed when he drove off this collapsed bridge that Google Maps directed him to drive on, could be found partially responsible for his death.

The defense could say that a reasonable person would look carefully where he was driving and not blindly follow the instructions of Google Maps.

On the other hand, the plaintiff could say that even a reasonable person could have not realized that the bridge wasn’t there and had previously collapsed, especially if it was dark out and that person had never been to that area before and was unfamiliar with the location.

One relies more on navigation programs particularly in unfamiliar areas because you don’t need directions in the first place it’s a familiar area or route.

Another important fact to learn in such a case would be whether there were any warning signs on the road alerting drivers to the hazard up ahead.

Looking at the potential liability of Google Maps in our example, suppose Google Maps had knowledge that the bridge had collapsed, but that it never updated its directions accordingly.

Such facts would give rise to a good argument that Google Maps was negligent because it knew that drivers depended on the directions provided to get them safely to their destinations when they were in unfamiliar places and it knew this bridge had collapsed and wasn’t safe to direct people to use, yet it never updated its program and continued to instruct people to use a defunct bridge – a known danger.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a motor vehicle collision (whether caused by a person, a robot, or a navigation program) please call to speak with one of our attorneys about your situation.

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.

Not surprisingly we often encounter persons who may be experiencing symptoms of crash-related post-traumatic stress disorder.

PTSD requires a medical diagnosis. Not all driving-related anxiety following a crash will lead to a PTSD diagnosis.

Nevertheless, driving anxiety that develops following a crash can have a significant impact on life. Everyday activities that require driving (going to work, stores, visiting family) can become extremely difficult. Driving anxiety in and of itself can constitute a significant injury.

Such anxiety may lead a person to decline social invites and cause the person to self-isolate.

A person suffering from PTSD may engage in avoidance behaviors as a result of experiencing an excessive fear reaction.

The part of the nervous system called the amygdala (a small part of the brain that processes emotions) controls emotions such as fear.

When encountering a trigger, the amygdala may overreact and cause intense fear, even when there is no actual threat.

The following symptoms are commonly associated with PTSD: panic attacks, chest pain, racing heart, nausea, sweating,          trembling, flashbacks, fear of losing control, and fear of getting injured again.

Doctors have many methods for treating PTSD. These methods include:

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 a minor crash that occurred on a roundabout.

A roundabout is a circular intersection or junction in which road traffic flows almost continuously in one direction around a central island.

A vehicle passing around a roundabout shall be driven only to the right of the roundabout’s central island.

When approaching or driving through a roundabout, a person driving a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to the driver of a vehicle that is driving through the roundabout at the same time or so closely as to present an immediate hazard and shall slow down or stop if necessary to yield.

The Indiana BMV Driver’s Manual provides:

Common causes of roundabout crashes include:

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 who was struck by an SUV going the wrong way on the Indiana Toll Road.

A wrong-way crash results when one vehicle travels in the opposite direction of the legal flow of traffic on the roadway and collides with a vehicle traveling on the same roadway in the correct direction.

This often results in a head-on collision. Head-on collisions are characterized by head trauma, spinal cord injuries, organ damage, neck, chest, and abdominal injuries, as well as pelvic and extremity injuries.

The Indiana Toll Road has a Wrong-Way Driver Detection and Alert System.

The detection system utilizes three zones.

An initial detection zone, a self-correction zone, and an alert zone.

The system uses thermal detectors and high-speed cameras to ascertain when a driver is going the wrong way on an entry or exit ramp and this automatically activates a self-correction warning.

A self-correction warning is a flashing warning light to alert the driver that they may be inadvertently approaching a ramp from the wrong direction. At the same time, Indiana State Police are immediately notified about the driver. Also, live video is sent to the traffic management center of the company that manages the toll road.

The Indiana Toll Road currently has WWD detection systems on four ramps at three locations.

In 2022, this system detected 97 wrong-way drivers on the toll road and alerted them they were about to enter lanes of travel in the wrong direction. Of those 97 drivers, 95 of them self-corrected and avoided driving the wrong way on the Toll Road.

The company that manages the toll road alerted law enforcement and other drivers (through the toll road’s dynamic message signs) on the road about the 2 drivers who didn’t self-correct.

Common characteristics of wrong-way drivers include drivers who are unfamiliar with the toll road, intoxicated and distracted drivers, fatigued drivers, as well as elderly drivers, and drivers who have poor eyesight, or who become confused.

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 an injury that happened when he was sitting at a lateral pull weight machine at a fitness center. The belt connecting the weight to the machine’s handle snapped, causing the caller to fall and seriously injure his back. The injuries resulted in back surgery.

He wanted to know his legal options.

A first liability focus would look toward an investigation of the owner of the fitness center. Did the fitness center maintain the equipment, or hire a contractor to maintain its machines?

Was the belt on the machine replaced as frequently as the manufacturer recommended? Was the belt that snapped an inferior component that was not up to manufacturer standards?

Another area of liability to investigate would be the manufacturer of the machine. Was the machine shipped with a defective belt? Did the manufacturer know that the belt was dangerous, but fail to warn of the danger?

Of course, a manufacturer if sued can be expected to argue that the machine was misused, or poorly maintained.

Lastly, it will be important to find out if the caller signed a waiver when he joined the fitness center.

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 how to prove a case she is thinking about pursuing. She wanted to know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. She wouldn’t say what conduct she was concerned about.

Ordinarily, we would not indulge such a caller as we find it difficult to discuss concepts involving legal proof divorced from concrete facts.

But, we hear these terms being used a lot in the media. Often people use the terms incorrectly to suggest that circumstantial evidence is not admissible evidence. That’s not true.

Both direct and circumstantial evidence can be admitted into evidence and can be used by a jury to reach a conclusion.

So what is the difference between direct and circumstantial?

Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact.

Circumstantial evidence is indirect proof of a fact.

For example, direct evidence that a person acted in a particular way might be the testimony of someone who actually saw the person act in such a way. – This would include testimony by Bob that he saw Sally texting while driving.

On the other hand, circumstantial evidence that Sally was texting while driving might be the testimony of Sally’s cell phone provider explaining that the data shows that at the time of the crash, Sally was sending a text.

It is not necessary that any fact be proved by direct evidence.

A jury may consider both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence as proof.

Of course, it depends on which side of an issue the media are supporting when the terms are used, but often the public is left with the impression that circumstantial evidence constitutes evidence that is inadequate.

But, that is simply not the case.

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 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.”