Accidents happen, at any time of the year. In Wisconsin, we have added liability by way of weather. Low visibility, icy Green Bay roads, freezing drizzle, to name just a few. Add these to the mix of increasing driver inattentiveness and it can spell trouble.
What happens when you are in an auto accident? Do you know what you should do? What about after the accident? Did you know many things can factor into any settlement you might make or receive? Was anyone injured in the accident? Were the roads in horrible condition? Was the other driver paying attention, texting? Is there property damage? Are there repair or medical bills?
Insurance companies will pressure you into settling for meager amounts if you aren’t protected. If you find yourself involved in an accident in the Green Bay, Wisconsin area, seek legal assistance to ensure your rights are represented. Don’t let insurance companies deny you money you may need to make a full recovery.
The attorneys at Wanezek, Jaekels, Daul & Babcock, S.C., are experienced in personal injury litigation and will work hard to make sure you receive everything you are entitled to. Contact our firm today. Call 1-920-437-8191 to learn your rights. We will help you determine if you can receive money for your injuries.
You may have been the victim of an intentional assault, wherein another person uses force and unwanted contact against you resulting in personal injury. Often, this can happen in social situations or social settings like in bars and taverns.
- Our local, Green Bay, Wisconsin law firm represents personal injury victims from assaults, auto accidents, slip and falls, and other injury causing incidents. Contact attorney David Daul at 920-437-8191.
PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES FROM ASSAULTS
Simply because you are injured in a tavern or bar does not mean that you may not be entitled to claim damages against the assailant. Often times such claims result in substantial settlements against the assailant.
For further consultation, please speak with an attorney very experienced in this matter by contacting Attorney David Daul at the Green Bay, Wisconsin law firm of Wanezek & Jaekels, S.C., [email protected], or by telephone at 920-437-8191.
Green Bay, Wisconsin tenants are sometimes personally injured within leased premises. For instance, the tenant of an apartment complex may injure themselves when a balcony railing gives way, a staircase has a defect, or any other circumstance where the property results in injury to the tenant. The landlord is not immune to civil liability for such defects. Under certain circumstances, if the landlord was aware of the defect and did nothing to repair it, or attempted to repair the defect and the defect results in injury to the tenant, then the tenant may have civil claims for liability against the landlord.
NEGLIGENT REPAIRS & DEFECTIVE PREMISES
Very crucial in any analysis of such a circumstance is what the landlord knew, or reasonably should have known, with regard to the defect that caused injuries. Often there is ambiguity as to what the landlord actually knew; however, in some circumstances where there was a negligent repair, it is unquestionable that the landlord was aware of such defects. If you have experienced such circumstances, please call contact Attorney David Daul at (920)437-8191 for further consideration.
– Learn more about your personal injury rights here or contact our law firm:Wanezek & Jaekels, S.C.
Prison officials are obligated under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution to provide prisoners with adequate medical care. This principle applies regardless of whether the medical care is provided by governmental employees or private actors under contract with the jail or prison.
In order to prevail on such an Eighth Amendment claim, the prisoner must show that the prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. A prison official is deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s medical condition if that official recklessly disregards a substantial risk of harm to the inmate. This requires that the prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk of harm. A serious medical need exists whenever the failure to treat the prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. There are several of factors that are considered to determine if the inmate has a serious medical need.
The above information is just a general overview of Eighth Amendment claims for violation of a prisoner’s civil rights. If you believe that your civil rights have been violated, contact our office. The lawyers at Wanezek & Jaekels advise you of your legal options.
A Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently refused to extend liability to landlords when their tenant’s dog bites and injures a person. Normally, the injured person could sue the landlord for negligence if that person was injured by the dog on the landlord’s property. A case brought by the injured person requires proof of four elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation and injury. The landlord’s duty of care would be to refrain from acts that unreasonably threaten the safety of others. Second, the landlord must breach that duty of care by actions or in actions that results in the landlord having threatened the safety of others. Third, there must be a causal link between the breach and the injury sustained. In other words, the injury occurred because the landlord did or failed to do something. Finally, the injury must result in actual loss or damage. If the injured person can prove the elements of negligence, the landlord would be liable for the damages of the dog. However, a Wisconsin Court of Appeals has determined that certain public policy exceptions exist which prevent landlords for being responsible for the injuries caused by their tenant’s dogs.
The Court found a public policy exemption to terminate the liability of landlords for their tenant’s dogs. The Court decided to limit liability to those landlords who have control and dominion over the tenant’s dogs. This person is typically the owner or keeper of the dog. The Court decided to limit the liability of landlords to owners and keepers of the dogs because it is difficult to determine the landlord’s level of awareness of a dog’s aggressive nature and to create a clear line in determining liability. The Court will not find a landlord to be liable for the tenant’s dog unless he is either the owner or keeper of that dog.
n Dezoma v. Cincinatti Ins. Co. 2009AP2939 (Feb 23, 2011) Dezoma claimed that where she slipped on a public sidewalk while exiting a private building, liability attached to the owner of the private building. Dezoma indicated at her deposition that the sidewalk was the area of the injury. The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the private building owner was not liable for injuries sustained on a public sidewalk. Though, in argument, Dezoma argued that a downspout attached to the private building created an artificial hazard upon which Dezoma tripped, the courts factual record did not indicate as much. Further the court held that since the private property owner did not exercise exclusive dominion and control over the sidewalk that the safe place statute did not extend liability to the sidewalk. Dezoma’s claims were dismissed on summary judgment.
Slip and fall cases are notoriously difficult, especially in Wisconsin where snow and ice form hazard for 6 months out of the year. Consult with Warren Wanezek or David Daul for an evaluation of your claim.
In Flynn v. Audra’s Corp., 2010AP882 (Feb. 23, 2011), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals court ruled that a tavern owners duty of care extends to a parking lot maintained by the tavern, even if the tavern does not own the parking lot. The appeals court explained that ownership is not the sole basis of determining when a patron is considered “on the premises.” And further explained, “[A] tavern owner has a duty to protect patrons because the owner has superior knowledge of dangers that the place and character of the business may pose,” … “This rationale applies equally regardless of whether a patron’s injuries in a parking lot owned by the tavern or in an adjacent area that the tavern maintains and uses as a parking lot.” The appeals court clarified that “licensed premises” is synonymous with the term “business premises” in determining the reach of a tavern owner’s liability.
This week the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to foist an overly narrow interpretation of what a dog owner is within the meaning of Wisconsin Law. When a four year old child disturbed a sleeping dog, “Chase” bit the child. The dog was not the property owners dog, but the property owner was feeding, watering, and caring for the dog. The supreme court found that the property owner was the statutory owner of “Chase” because she exercised dominion over the dog, sheltered the dog, provided water, and was generally responsible for the dog’s well-being at the time the child was bitten. Dog bites are common feature in Wisconsin Personal Injury lawsuits. The law imposes strict liability upon the dog owner, or in this case the “dog sitter.”
On January 27, 2011, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed a tort reform bill into law as 2011 Wisconsin Act 2. The bill will apply to actions that are filed on or after the Act’s effective date (which would be the day after the Act’s publication date). Publication can occur any time from the day that the governor signs a bill to not more than 10 working days later. Governor Walker intends for the bill to take effect immediately.
The bill has sparked heated debate throughout the legal communities in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Defense Counsel, an association of litigation defense attorneys, have praised the bill. The Wisconsin Association for Justice, an association of litigation plaintiff’s attorneys, have oppossed the bill.
The new Act will bring major changes to Wisconsin’s current litigation system. For all plaintiffs that commence lawsuits for personal injuries after the effective date of the Act, punitive damages will be capped at two times the amount of compensatory damages awarded or $200,000.00, whichever is greater. Critics state that this new stringent standard will make it more difficult to obtain punitive damages in lawsuits against drunk drivers who kill or injure others. However, the legislature amended the Act to make the punitive damages cap inapplicable to lawsuits related to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. In addition, the Act will impose a higher standard for the admissability of expert witnesses in state courts. Under the Act, courts will be required to follow the federal rule called the Daubert standard. Also, the Act prevents reports by state regulators from being used in civil and criminal cases. There are also several other provisions including a limit to noneconomic damages for medical malpractice in nursing homes to $750,000.00.
The Act will apply to all cases filed after the effective date including those cases where the plaintiff was injured before the effective date. This could create a possible constitutional challenge to those who were injured prior to the law taking effect. In any event, plaintiff attorneys are rushing to file lawsuits on behalf of their injured clients in order to avoid the punitive damages cap.
The passage of this Act should result in a more predictable litigation climate in Wisconsin by eliminating extremely high damage awards.