A friend of mine looked up Mr. Grossman on the internet and he drove out to Longview, TX, which is a couple hour drive, to see me while I was pretty much on my death bed. He came out there and it's been a situation where I wouldn't have been able to do what I've done without him.
-
C. Argueta
Automobile Accident Case
Fatal Elevator and Escalator Accidents
Attorney Michael Grossman Discusses Your Legal Options After a Loved One Dies in an Elevator or Escalator-Related Accident
If your loved one was killed in an elevator or escalator accident, then your family may have the right to seek restitution through a wrongful death lawsuit either under one of two facets of law: premises liability or product liability.
In much the same manner that a driver has the responsibility of operating his or her car safely in order to provide for the well-being of others, property owners have certain legal duties to provide for the safety of visitors to their property. If the property owner is negligent, resulting in a fatal elevator or escalator accident, then he or she may be liable for any injuries or fatalities that then occur.
However, while every fatal elevator or escalator accident will warrant an insurance claim provided the property owner had insurance, the circumstances of every elevator or escalator accident will not warrant a premises liability lawsuit. The loved ones may only pursue a premises liability lawsuit if the property owner failed to provide a legal duty he or she owed to a visitor to the property.
Types of Visitors
Legally speaking, there are three types of visitors to a property, each of which is owed different legal duties by the property owner. These types of visitors are:
- Invitee – a visitor who has come to the property for the benefit of both the property owner and a visitor. A shopper at the mall would be an example, for he or she aids the store owners by buying goods while at the same time benefitting personally with the addition of the new goods.
- Licensee – a visitor who has come to a property for the sole benefit of the visitor. When a friend comes over to a house for a visit, this is a licensee.
- Trespasser – a visitor who willingly and knowingly enters a property illegally without the knowledge of the property owner. A burglar would be an example of a trespasser.
Each visitor is due different duties from the property owner. For Invitees, property owners must seek out hazards and warn visitors, also warn them of any existing dangers, and then not do them intentional harm. For licensees, property owners must merely warn them of existing dangers and not intentionally harm them, while trespassers are only due the duty of not being intentionally harmed by property owners.
Perhaps you’re wondering what this means in relation to elevator and escalator accidents? It means a property owner must diligently maintain both elevators and escalators in an effort to seek out hazards. If an elevator or escalator has a fatal malfunction that should have been detected with adequate maintenance and upkeep, then the loved ones of any fatally killed invitees could seek compensation through a wrongful death premises liability lawsuit.
Moreover, if an escalator or elevator has broken down, property owners must warn both invitees and licensees that there is a potential hazard or is liable for any harm that ensues. Comedian Mitch Hedberg once joked that escalators don’t break, they just become stairs. That’s a funny joke until someone trips and falls down an escalator that wasn’t moving because no warning sign was put in position by the property owner.
Should a trespasser fall down an escalator that has been turned off after the mall has closed down, then he or she is out of luck.
In order to succeed with a premises liability lawsuit, the victim’s family must be able to prove that a dangerous situation existed, the property owner either should have known about the problem or did know about it, and the danger caused the victim’s death.
Product Liability Lawsuits
If, on the other hand, the fatal elevator collapse or escalator accident that killed your loved one was due to the negligent design or assembly of the elevator or escalator, then the company who made the device can also be held accountable through a product liability lawsuit. In fact, there may even be cases where both the manufacturer of the elevator and the property owner were jointly to blame, allowing the surviving loved ones to seek compensation from both the property owner and the maker of the elevator. In many cases, the defendants will have insurance, and the victim’s family will be filing an insurance claim instead of a lawsuit.
Pursuable Compensation in a Wrongful Death Lawsuit
Whether seeking compensation through a premises liability or product liability wrongful death lawsuit, the victim’s family can seek both wrongful death damages and survival damages in one single all-embracing lawsuit. In Arkansas, the family must also appoint an executor of the estate to handle the lawsuit for all of the family members.
At Grossman Law Offices, we’ve been handling all sorts of wrongful death litigation for over two decades, so we’ve helped hundreds of grieving people in both Texas and Arkansas. We know from our experience with others the intense emotional distress that has fallen upon your whole family. We also know that most people don’t want to think about money at a time like this. On the other hand, we also know that the unexpected death of a loved one can lead to immense expenses, so most people can’t begin to recover emotionally due to the financial problems created by their loved one’s death. Thus, we’re devoted to lending our legal expertise to others, so they can obtain the compensation they deserve.
In wrongful death damages, surviving loved ones have the chance to obtain restitution for their own personal sufferings as a result of their loved one’s death – whether emotional, mental, and financial. Spouses, children, and parents all have the right to eek wrongful death damages, which may include but are not limited to restitution for:
- Emotional and mental trauma.
- Loss of familial love and companionship.
- Loss of financial support the victim supplied.
- Funeral bills.
While all the immediate family members can seek wrongful death damages, survival damages are the sole concern of only the victim’s closest living relative. Survival damages give this person the right to seek the damages that should have been due to the victim for suffering he or she experienced during the elevator or escalator accident. Examples of survival damages are:
- Medical bills charged to the victim before he or she died.
- Pain and suffering the victim felt during the accident.
- Mental and emotional trauma experienced by the victim.
Proving some damages in court is fairly easy. For instance, the only proof needed for a medical expense is the physical bill. However, some damages like pain and suffering are highly subjective and open for interpretation. In order to pursue and obtain the amount you deserve for such subjective damages, you need the guidance of a premises liability lawyer or product liability attorney, who can prove up your damages.
For two decades, the attorneys at Grossman Law Offices have been dealing with wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits involving both premises liability and product liability. Our efforts have helped hundreds of families recover from the deaths of their loved ones with millions and millions of dollars in damages. If an elevator or escalator accident robbed you of a loved one, then call us immediately for a free consultation at 1-855-589-5645 (toll free). Without any obligation, we give you the chance to tell your story and ask your questions to a trained attorney. Call us now and learn what we can do for your family.
(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man's vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.
Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.
Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.
Additonally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assasination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant's insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant's insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle.
Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers' Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier's exposure under the Stowers' Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits.
The defendant's attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney's threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney's advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court.
Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client's would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal.
$1,000,000.00
$333,333.00
$0.00
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
(policy limits) Our firm was hired to pursue an intoxicated driver who killed an elderly school crossing guard. The fatal accident occurred as the decedent was escorting a woman and her child across the roadway through a crosswalk. The defendant then sped through the school zone, in an intoxicated a state, and struck the decedent who died on the scene.
The family hired our firm to investigate and pursue the defendant under a wrongful death cause of action. Following our investigation and preliminary vehicle inspection, our attorneys issued a Stowers' demand to the defendants. A significant factor in resolving this claim is that merely days before we submitted our demand to the defendant' insurance carrier, we won a large case against the very same insurance carrier, which was one of several such victories secured against the carrier in our firm's history. Our threats of litigation were therefore heeded and the defendants offered policy limits to settle the claim without the need to file suit.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Our attorneys were hired to represent the family of a middle aged woman who was killed in a car accident. The incident occurred as another vehicle struck the car that the decedent was a passenger in, head-on on the passenger side. The impact resulted in catastrophic injuries which claimed the life of the decedent.
Our attorneys were hired soon after the accident and we launched a full investigation. Through the course of our investigation, it was soon determined that the head-on collision was caused a failed component in the defendant's vehicle (the particulars of which cannot be elaborated upon per the resolution agreement). Suit was filed against the manufacturer of said component and litigation commenced. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
$3,200,000.00
$1,280,000.00
$50,000.00
(policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an underide 18-wheeler accident. In addition to being a decorated veteran, the decedent worked both professionally and on a voluntary basis to establish numerous learning institutions and vocational programs for at risk youths. The accident occurred as the decedent was traveling on a rural highway when an 18-wheeler failed to yield the right of way and made a rolling stop through a stop sign.
This placed the trailer of the 18-wheeler in a position whereby it blocked the entire roadway and shoulder, leaving the decedent no option but to collide with the trailer. Witnesses on the scene attempted to revive him but to no avail. Furthermore, while two female eye witnesses struggled to pry open the decedent's door to provide emergency care, the truck driver stayed in his truck and offered no assistance. Despite what appeared to be an incredibly apparent case of negligence on behalf of the defendant, defense counsel refused to accept liability resulting in rather lengthy litigation.
The defendants initially denied the claim based on the allegation that the decedent was speeding and the truck driver therefore could not adequately gauge the amount of time he had to pause at the stop sign. The physical evidence contradicted this notion entirely, notwithstanding the fact that even if the decedent had been contributorily negligent, that would not have outweighed the severe degree of negligence on the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, our attorneys were able to conclusively refute this argument based on eye-witness testimony and the testimony from police investigators who calculated the decedent's speed to be precisely at the posted speed limit. In a desperate and largely unprecedented move, the defendants then designated the state as a responsible third party.
Generally speaking, a defendant will often threaten to designate a third party in order to leverage their position but it is rare that such an arbitrary and arguably frivolous designation is actually carried out. However, that is precisely what occurred and the state was thusly incorporated into the lawsuit by the defendants. The basis of the defendant's argument was that the state erected a large street sign that obstructed the truck driver's view of approaching traffic.
Several months of intense litigation were required to before the defendant finally acquiesced in regard to this argument. The argument was finally abandoned by the defendants when in the first mediation our attorneys presented video footage shot (in a controlled setting) from the perspective of an 18-wheeler driver which showed that the sign simply did not obstruct enough of the roadway in order to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Our attorneys were hired to investigate a fatal motor vehicle accident involving an 18-wheeler that claimed the lives of several men, the family of one in particular which our firm represented, felt that the official version of events as outlined in the police report was not an accurate portrayal of the facts and circumstances of the collision.
Our firm launched an investigation, the findings of which served as the basis for a subsequent lawsuit. We were able to determine that the defendant's accusations of contributory negligence on behalf of he driver of the vehicle did appear to be valid and plaintiffs conceded as much. However, the plaintiffs were adamant that the contributory negligence did not entirely overshadow the negligence on behalf of the defendant truck driver.
Through physical evidence and an admission of liability that our attorneys were able to importune from the defendant under oath, we were able to show that the defendant had indeed pulled into the path of the decedent's vehicle, which was of consequence irrespective of the decedent's own contributory negligence, and that icontact.com
$250,000.00
$82,500.00
$10,000.00
A young woman lost her life after a bar over served her to more than three times the legal limit resulting in her burning to death in a single-vehicle accident. Witnesses stated that she was so intoxicated that she could barely make it to her vehicle without assistance. Through litigation, our attorneys ascertained the necessary evidence to prove that the establishment provided alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person, thus resulting in her ultimate demise.
$550,000.00
$220,000.00
$25,000.00
Recovery for client who suffered contusions and a soft tissue knee injury in a slip and fall.
$50,500.00
$19,102.00
$265.00
Major freight train company sued as the result of an incident which claimed the life of an employee. Our attorneys settled the case outside of court for a confidential amount.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
(policy limits were $100k) Recovery for wife of a motorcyclist who was killed in a drunk driving accident.
$97,500.00
$48,750.00
$0.00