Personal Injury Primer

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 indicated that he had been bitten by a pit bull terrier. He said the dog was loose and bit him when he walked on the sidewalk in front of the house of the people who owned the dog. He wanted to know his legal options.

The American pit bull terrier that bit the man was owned by a neighbor who did not leash the dog and was known to let it run free in the neighborhood. The dog also had a history of biting others.

Individual dogs, even those of a breed otherwise known to be aggressive, will have their own personality and behavior traits.

While the pit bull terrier is considered to be high on the aggressive range, many people assert that they make fantastic pets if well-trained and well-cared for.

While some individual members of the breed might make good pets, scientific studies have shown that this breed of dog will bite more often than other dogs and that when they do inflict a bite wound, the wounds are frequently more serious than other dog bites, and require more medical care.

It is never sufficient to argue alone at trial that the particular breed responsible for biting an individual is known to be an aggressive breed.

The trial attorney will still have to present evidence about the individual dog. Such evidence will include the size of the animal, how well it is socialized, and its previous aggressive behavior.

In other words, when a dog has bitten other people in the past, the animal’s biting history must be brought out at trial.

Arguing alone that the dog is an aggressive breed will not convince a jury.

The suing party must show that the particular dog involved in the biting attack was a known danger, or exhibited characteristics that should have revealed to the owner that it had the propensity to pose a danger.

Often it is important to have a dog expert examine the dog and note its behavior in response to people and specific situations.

Remember, many people on the jury may own a dog. Some may even own a dog of the breed involved in an attack.

If you sue for injuries suffered during a dog bite incident, the dog and dog owner will both be on trial.

When an owner knows that their dog has bitten people in the past, but fails to take any action to keep the dog leashed, or inside and away from members of the public, this fact must be brought out at trial.

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 our last three episodes, we discussed a caller concerned about an injury he suffered while using an EV charging station when the charging cable shorted out and he received an electric shock and suffered second-degree burns on his hands.

In the first episode, we discussed the possibility of suing the electric utility company and discussed the utility company’s duty concerning members of the public coming into contact with uninsulated wires.

In the second episode, we discussed that the utility company likely would raise a defense called incurred risk.

Please recall that the caller made a point of saying that the charging cable looked like it may have been damaged by a prior user, but he decided to use it anyway.

In this episode, we discuss issues involving weather, such as ice and snow, and the enhanced electrocution dangers that inclement weather may pose.

How might liability issues be impacted if you are shocked at a charging station while attempting to charge an EV during inclement weather?

Bad weather is a very real possibility. Chicago electric vehicle owners got the shock of their lives (pun intended) when frigid temperatures caused their cars to go dead in the winter of 2023-2024.

The bitterly cold weather made charging EVs impossible with temperatures as low as -5 °F with drivers trying and failing to get power into their batteries for hours. The problem developed at Tesla supercharging stations forcing many drivers to abandon their vehicles to seek shelter. The charging issue was attributed to batteries being difficult to charge at low temperatures.

But, unlike most petrol fueling stations, which protect people fueling up their vehicles with overhead covering, most EV charging stations have no overhead coverings, which leaves people plugged into chargers exposed to rain and snow.

Is it dangerous to plug wet rain-soaked or snow-covered charging cables into an EV?

In most situations, it may be safe to charge an electric car in the rain. The charging process has been designed to protect drivers and EV users and cables and charging points are waterproofed, and there usually are extra layers of safety measures in place to direct any electrical current away from the user and down through the EV to the ground.

But, what if a cable is damaged? Who would be liable?

As we discussed, the caller thought the cable looked stretched and damaged. This would implicate the liability and defense issues discussed in the early podcasts.

The lack of weather protection could well be a factor that would enhance the liability of the supplier of the electricity through the charging station. Protection from rain and snow might well have been anticipated given that cables can be damaged, and failure to protect the charging stations from rain and snow, could well have enhanced the danger.

Many years ago gasoline pumps did not have breakaway fill handles. But now they are required to have such handles because it is known that periodically drivers pull away forgetting to remove the fill hose. The breakaway handles prevent fuel spills and prevent ignition of the fuel source.

Over time, hopefully, electrical charging stations will be made safer and safer as dangers are anticipated and mitigated.

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.

In our last two episodes, we discussed a caller concerned about an injury he suffered while using an EV charging station when the charging cable shorted out and he received an electric shock and suffered second-degree burns on his hands.

In the first episode, we discussed the possibility of suing the electric utility company and discussed the utility company’s duty concerning members of the public coming into contact with uninsulated wires.

In the second episode, we discussed that the utility company likely would raise a defense called incurred risk.

Please recall that the caller made a point of saying that the charging cable looked like it may have been damaged by a prior user, but he decided to use it anyway.

If the utility company raises the incurred risk defense, it must not only show that the caller had actual knowledge of the precise danger in question and appreciated the danger. But also the utility company must prove that the caller incurred the risk voluntarily.

You might be thinking that proving voluntariness would be easy. But it is not.

Whether a choice is voluntary depends on whether it results from the free and untrammeled choice of the actor. Voluntariness also must be viewed from the subjective point of view of the actor.

What if it was very cold out, and the caller had a baby in the car, and felt that they had no choice but to try to use the cable to charge the car to get home?

In other words, the defense fails if the exposure to the danger is not in a true sense voluntary.

Historically, a plaintiff’s acceptance of a risk is not to be regarded as voluntary where the defendant’s wrongful conduct has forced upon him a choice of courses of conduct, which leaves him no reasonable alternative but to take his chance.

In other words, a defendant who, by his own wrong, has compelled the plaintiff to choose between two evils cannot be permitted to say that the plaintiff made the wrong choice.

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.”

Electrical Injuries Part Two

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 our last episode, we discussed a caller concerned about an injury he suffered while using an EV charging station when the charging cable shorted out and he received an electric shock and suffered second-degree burns on his hands.

We discussed the possibility of suing the electric utility company and discussed the utility company’s duty concerning members of the public coming into contact with uninsulated wires.

If the caller decided to sue for his injuries, the utility company likely would raise a defense called incurred risk.

Incurred risk demands a subjective inquiry into a particular person’s knowledge and voluntary acceptance of the risk. You’ll recall, that the caller said the charging cable looked like it may have been damaged by a prior user of the charging station, but he needed to charge his car so he decided to use it anyway.

In responding to a lawsuit filed by the caller, the utility company is likely going to argue that the caller was aware of the risk of touching a damaged cable, and voluntarily chose to grab the cable anyway.

You might be thinking that the utility company would prevail on the incurred risk defense. But, hold on for a moment.

To establish the incurred risk defense, it is necessary to show that the injured party had actual knowledge of the precise danger in question and appreciated all of the risks involved.

That is a big hurdle. The caller saw that the cable looked to have been stretched. But, he did not know of any specific danger, nor did he appreciate all of the risks involved in grabbing the cable.

A properly grounded cable, like those configured with a ground fault circuit interrupter, if implemented by the utility that put up the charging station, would have cut power instantly, and prevented any injury to the caller.

In our next episode, we discuss the defendant’s obligation to prove that the caller incurred the risk voluntarily.

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 he suffered while trying to use an EV charging station. He said he had to charge his car, but the charging cable looked like it had been stretched when another user drove away. When he grabbed it he received an electric shock and suffered second-degree burns on his hands. He was calling and asking about his legal rights.

Where electrical lines exist along highways, streets, alleys, and other areas where private citizens are likely to be found – certainly including parking lots, Indiana courts have imposed on electrical providers a high degree of care.

While electrical utilities have a general duty that is owed to everyone, the particular facts of a case can also trigger other duties owed to identifiable parties.

A company generating and distributing electricity has to safely insulate electric power lines in places where the general public may come in contact with those lines. The term “general public” includes persons who would in the course of daily events, be exposed to danger by the presence of an uninsulated wire carrying a dangerous voltage of electricity.

Based on the caller’s statement that another user may have damaged the wire, the duty of a power company to act may depend upon whether the electric utility had actual knowledge or notice of circumstances that created an imminent danger to an individual.

Put another way, if the charging station was safe, before another patron damaged it, and the power company knew nothing about the damage, it may be difficult to hold the power company legally responsible unless of course it failed to use reasonable means to make the charging station safe and damage proof.

In our next podcast, we will discuss a likely defense to be raised against the caller if he decides to sue the power company.

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 he was at a supermarket and a person who seemed to be on drugs started yelling at him and pushing him, and a security guard came over. The store security guard came up and struck the caller in the face and proceeded to strike him until other shoppers came to the caller’s rescue and told the guard that the caller was the victim, not the perpetrator.

The caller wanted to know his legal options because his arm was broken by the guard.

Courts have held in the past that a master may be held liable to pay compensatory damages where the master has hired a servant whose duties, in the natural and ordinary course, involve the use of force upon third persons, and where the master has expressly or impliedly authorized the servant to determine when to use force and the degree of force to be applied.

If it can be established that the conduct of the guard was within the scope of his employment and in furtherance of the interests of his employer, then the supermarket may be held liable.

Not long ago, we assisted a fellow whose leg was broken by a security guard again due to a mistake in identifying the party causing a ruckus that prompted the cashier to call for security. In that case, we sued the supermarket as well as the security agency that supplied the guard and trained the guard.

We were able to obtain favorable settlements against both defendants.

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 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.”