Motorcycle accidents can have severe consequences, often resulting in injuries or even fatalities. Understanding the statistics and factors involved in motorcycle accidents can provide valuable insights into the risks riders face on the road.
Motorcycle accidents can occur due to various reasons, including:
When it comes to medical malpractice cases, time is of the essence. Patients who have experienced harm due to medical negligence often wonder how long it will take to resolve their lawsuit. While there is no definitive answer, as each case is unique, it’s essential to understand the typical timeline and factors that influence the duration of a medical malpractice lawsuit. This article will delve into the different stages of a medical malpractice case and provide insights into the time it may take to resolve.
Product liability law refers to the legal framework that holds manufacturers, distributors, and sellers accountable for defective products that cause harm or injury to consumers. It is based on the principle that companies are responsible for ensuring the safety & quality of the products they bring to the market. When a product fails to meet these qualities & results in harm, the injured party may have grounds for a product liability claim.
Understanding product liability law is crucial for both consumers and businesses. Knowing their rights and obligations enables them to navigate the complexities of product liability cases more effectively.
Medical malpractice cases are governed by statutes of limitations, which define the timeframe in which a patient can file a lawsuit against a healthcare professional or institution for negligence. These statutes vary according to the jurisdiction and facts of the case. Individuals seeking legal redress for medical malpractice must first understand the limitations period. This article will delve into the complexities of the medical malpractice statute of limitations, its significance, the factors influencing it, and how to effectively navigate the legal process.
The statute of limitations for medical malpractice refers to when a patient can initiate legal action against a healthcare provider for alleged negligence. Knowing this timeframe is crucial as it holds great importance in assessing the feasibility of pursuing a medical malpractice case. Although the exact duration varies across different jurisdictions, it generally commences either from the occurrence of the malpractice or from its discovery, often referred to as the “discovery rule.”
Medical malpractice is when a healthcare expert, such as a doctor, nurse, or other medical personnel, deviates from the obtained standard of care, resulting in harm or injury to a patient. On the other side, negligence is a broader legal concept encompassing various forms of professional medical malpractice and misconduct.
Medical malpractice takes place when a healthcare provider fails to provide the quantity of care that a reasonably skilled and competent professional in the same field would provide under similar circumstances. It involves an act or omission that falls below the standard of care, causing injury, harm, or even death to a patient.
In response to the opioid crisis, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has long prioritized prosecution of doctors prescribing opioids in violation of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), 21 U.S.C. § 841.
Passed in 1971, the CSA is an expansive criminal statute originally designed to prosecute people involved with trafficking so-called street drugs—i.e., marijuana, heroine, cocaine, and the like.
Because the CSA was not created to target licensed medical doctors prescribing controlled substances with legitimate medical uses (e.g., opioids)—or to criminalize the provision of socially beneficial medical care more generally—there have long been questions about how to apply the CSA fairly in physician prosecutions.
When the government investigates or prosecutes alleged corporate crime, a key question commonly emerges: Will the accused client waive attorney-client privilege and disclose relevant communications to the government?
This issue often arises because lawyers are routinely involved in corporate actions and decisions later subject to government scrutiny. “The extensiveness and complexity of the laws governing” corporate affairs “have made legal advice a crucial element of [not only] major business decisions,” but also of “more mundane kinds of corporate activity.” Douglas W. Hawes & Thomas J. Sherrard, Reliance on Advice of Counsel as a Defense in Corporate and Securities Cases, 62 Va. L. Rev. 1, 5 (1976). As the Supreme Court emphasized in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981), relying on attorneys is especially important “[i]n light of the vast and complicated array of regulatory legislation confronting the modern corporation.”
Ordinarily, the client—and only the client—has the authority to decide whether to waive attorney-client privilege on communications with counsel. Where an accused-client is cooperating with a government investigation or asserting an advice of counsel defense in response to formal charges, the waiver analysis is generally straightforward: the accused-client waives privilege and discloses relevant communications to the government. The resulting disclosure often reveals critical information to the government because of the substantial involvement of lawyers in much corporate conduct and decision-making.
You know the Supreme Court of the United States feels strongly about an issue when, in the Court’s parlance, it adds “extra icing on a cake already frosted.”
That is, in effect, what the Court did in Van Buren v. United States (No.19-783), an opinion issued last Thursday in which the Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a prosecution arising under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). After considering “the text, context, and structure” of the CFAA, the Court resolved the issue in dispute—i.e., the cake was “frosted.” But the Court then added “extra icing” and emphasized—again—its profound concerns with federal prosecutors using broad federal criminal laws to target ordinary, seemingly innocent conduct.[1]
Van Buren concerned a “Georgia police sergeant [Van Buren] using his patrol-car computer to access a law enforcement database to retrieve information about a particular license plate number in exchange for money.” While he “used his own, valid credentials to perform the search, his conduct violated a department policy against obtaining database information for non-law-enforcement purposes.” The issue was whether Van Buren had “exceed[ed] authorized access” in violation of the CFAA by accessing the database for an improper purpose.
As mentioned in Part I, punitive damages are not available as part of the wrongful death claim. They are, however, available in connection with the estate’s claims for the decedent’s predeath injuries and pain and suffering. Donson Nursing Facilities v. Dixon, 176 Ga. App. 700, 701 (1985).
Like with the wrongful death claim itself, punitive damages were not allowed under common law.
They are statutory in nature, and consequently, they are strictly construed.
This is Part I of a discussion concerning what damages are available in Georgia wrongful death cases. Part II will be published next week.
Wrongful death claims in Georgia are typically divided into two separate claims: (1) the wrongful death per se as measured by the “full value of the life of the decedent” without deducting for any of the necessary or personal expenses of the decedent had he or she lived; and (2) the estate claims, or the claims that would have accrued to the decedent had they lived and include medical expenses incurred prior to death, funeral and burial expenses, conscious pain and suffering prior to death, and punitive damages.
The “full value of the life of the decedent” is measured from the decedent’s perspective. This is different from many other states which focus on the impact the decedent’s death has on the surviving family members/party plaintiffs. The “full value of the life” concept has two distinct components, one is economic and the other is non-economic. The economic component consists of the “items having a proven monetary value, such as lost potential lifetime earnings, income, or services, reduced to present cash value.” The non-economic portion comprises those “intangible items whose value cannot be precisely quantified, such as a parent’s “society, advice, example and counsel . . . .” Consol. Freightways Corp. of Delaware v. Futrell, 201 Ga. App. 233, 233 (1991).
