Types of Personal Injury Cases II

Continued From: Types of Personal Injury Cases

Toxic Torts

Toxic tort cases are among the hardest personal injury cases to prove. In a toxic tort case, it is asserted that the defendant (who is almost always a company) caused the plaintiff to be exposed to some type of hazard or chemical. For example, the defendant might have dumped dangerous toxins into the ground, which then infected the water supply and caused the people of the town to begin to develop cancer. The biggest problem with toxic tort cases is causation:

In personal injury cases, one of the essential requirements in every case is that the plaintiff prove the defendant's actions directly caused (were the "proximate cause") of the harm the plaintiff suffered.

Sometimes it is very hard to prove that the specific actions of the defendant actually caused harm. For example, if a plaintiff gets cancer after drinking dirty ground water, the defendant could argue that no one really knows what causes cancer, and assert that the plaintiff cannot prove that drinking the bad water led to the illness.

This problem is compounded by the fact that the injury often doesn't manifest or become known to the injured victim until months or years after the exposure to the chemicals or toxins.

These types of cases are almost always class action cases, because multiple people are usually exposed to the dangerous toxin. Groups of similarly affected individuals all sue the defendant together. The cases often, but not always, settle outside of court.

Product Liability

Product liability personal injury cases are very familiar to most people. If you've ever been watching television and heard an advertisement that "If you've been injured by this product, please call this number," then essentially what you heard was an invitation to potentially join a product liability class action.

Product liability cases arise when a dangerous or defective product causes harm to users. There are a host of implied warranties under the law that mandate that a product must be safe when used as intended. All manufacturers, distributors and sales people thus have a duty to the customer to make sure that their products are safe when used the way they are intended.

Because of the legal duties imposed in the field of product liability, in most cases these types of claims are governed under "strict liability" rules. This means that an injured victim who is harmed by a defective product doesn't have to prove the manufacturer or distributor was in any way negligent in the production or distribution of the product. Instead, the victim simply has to prove he used the product as he should and he was hurt anyway. A plaintiff also has a number of people that can be held responsible in defective product claims, because anyone along the chain of the product's creation and delivery can usually be held liable for harm that occurred.

Defective product cases are also almost always class action cases, just like toxic torts. This is because many people tend to use a product, as opposed to just one or two, and so if something goes wrong, many people are usually harmed. Such cases frequently occur as a result of defective drugs. Automobile cases are also a common reason for a defective product case to be brought; for example, when Firestone sold defective tires in 2000, the incident resulted in more than 30 class action lawsuits that were settled for more than $149 million dollars. Toyota also faced class action lawsuits in 2010 for cars that accelerated due to defective floor mats. Any defective product can lead to a product liability lawsuit. Defective Chinese drywall that corroded walls in houses, for example, is a recent problem that has been giving rise to litigation.

Intentional Torts

While all of the above examples refer to situations in which the harm caused by the defendant was unintentional, a person who is injured as a result of someone's purposeful bad behavior can also bring a personal injury claim. In such cases, the claim is considered an "intentional tort" claim and instead of just proving negligence or strict liability, the plaintiff has to prove intent if he wants to recover damages from the defendant.

Intent

It is important to note that a plaintiff doesn't have to prove that the defendant intended to harm him or her specifically. For example, if Billy intended to shoot Timmy and shot Joe who was standing next to Timmy, then Joe can still sue Billy for his injuries because Billy intended the bad act that caused the injury (he just didn't intend to get that particular victim).

Punitive Awards

Intentional torts can often give rise to larger settlements or damage awards because punitive damages are often allowed in these cases, while it may not always be allowed in other types of torts. Punitive damages are damages that are solely designed to punish the defendant, instead of being designed to compensate the victim for actual losses.

Criminal vs. Civil Case

Intentional torts are often brought after the defendant does something that also leads to criminal liability. For example, assault is a crime and the person who commits assault can be arrested and sent to prison for it. The civil action or personal injury claim is an entirely separate action and separate trial from the criminal action.

• The civil action (or tort action) is brought by the victim, while the criminal action is brought by a prosecutor assigned to the case.
• The standard is also lesser for civil actions, as the plaintiff doesn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the intentional bad action to collect. Instead, he only has to prove that the bad act was committed and caused harm.

One of the most infamous intentional tort case was that of O.J. Simpson. Even though he was found not guilty in the criminal murder trial, he was found liability in the civil wrongful death claim, and made to pay damages. This example illustrates the difference in the burden of proof required in civil vs. criminal cases. In a criminal case, the defendant must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil case however, the prosecution need only show that the defendant is liable by a "preponderance of the evidence", which essentially means the evidence shows the defendant "most probably" is.

Wrongful Death

Wrongful death is another special type of case. A wrongful death action can be brought as a result of any one of the above types of personal injuries, but the difference is that the injuries actually led to the death of the victim. A wrongful death action is brought by the living family members or by the estate of the person who was harmed. Such actions ensure that a defendant doesn't just get to walk away without financial liability simply because he injured someone badly enough to kill them.

Wrongful death damages can be very large, and can include things like an entire lifetime of lost income as well as damages for the loss of companionship of the person who has been killed. The person or people who bring such damages must have "standing to sue," which means they must have a significant relationship to the deceased victim. The nature of this relationship varies, though. In some states, for example, grown children cannot sue for the death of their parents, but in other states they can. In every state, however, spouses can sue for the death of a spouse and parents can sue for the death of a minor child.

The field of personal injury law is a very broad one, and the laws apply in many situations. If you have been injured in any manner by someone else who you feel should be held legally responsible, speak with an experienced personal injury lawyer to find out if you have legal grounds to make a claim.

Next Steps

3. Special Cases of Personal Injury
4. Property Owners and Injury Liability
5. Defective Products and Dangerous Drugs

Have an Injury Case?