Advice Please: Injured at a place of business.
I very recently took a major injury, ruptured Achilles tendon. The injury occurred at an entertainment venue, jumping on trampolines. While the attendant did present a disclaimer to my daughter, I never saw nor signed it. I also learned after the fact that I am dramatically above the maximum weight limit allowed for participation.
I have never taken an injury before, and am wondering if there is any value in pursuing a personal injury claim. Reconstructive surgery is mandatory, I will be out of work for 6-12 weeks.
Any advice or insights would be greatly appreciated.
Did the owner or any employees of the business cause you to be overweight?
Did the owner or any employees of the business force you to jump on the trampoline.
Did the owner or any employees of the business cause you to land wrong?
Was there a deficiency in the equipment or service provided to you?
ZCore13
Quote: AlembertI know this may not be the most appropriate venue to look for legal advice, however I have always been very impressed with the depth of knowledge and experience in the membership of this forum.
I very recently took a major injury, ruptured Achilles tendon. The injury occurred at an entertainment venue, jumping on trampolines. While the attendant did present a disclaimer to my daughter, I never saw nor signed it. I also learned after the fact that I am dramatically above the maximum weight limit allowed for participation.
I have never taken an injury before, and am wondering if there is any value in pursuing a personal injury claim. Reconstructive surgery is mandatory, I will be out of work for 6-12 weeks.
Any advice or insights would be greatly appreciated.
This is not legal advice.
Whether or not an injured party has any recourse is highly dependent on the exclusions in the disclaimer, and whether such exclusions can be legally disclaimed. Disclaimers often stand alone acting as waivers of liability, where they sometimes are ineffectual and an easy mode of attack. But they need not be signed to act as conditions in a quasi-contract or a license. Your daughter seeing the disclaimer, and you not seeing it, raises questions like how you knew there even existed a disclaimer. It seems probable that you had constructive notice of the terms of the disclaimer, or at least, that a court would render that as a fact. You need not see it if you already know; the law does not reward hyper-technicalities like it does on TV. You also may have been guilty of contributory negligence in a jurisdiction which recognizes such a defense, because you should have known you were over the weight limit if it was so dramatic. In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, this may reduce your reward rather than completely zero it out.
It may be worth your time to attempt to strong arm the locale into giving you some pittance to offset your bills. But pursuing a full claim is almost certainly not, in my opinion. I am assuming there was nothing unusual or defective with the equipment. I really cannot say whether it is unusual that a person your size cannot jump on a trampoline. If this was an unusual or defective trampoline, then your case is much stronger.
Yeah just keep the chumps money !!!!
There should be no charge for the first thirty minutes.
See if he will take it on a contingency basis.
If not, you have a decision to make:
What will reconstructive surgery cost you.... will it be 100 percent restorative of function and feeling?
How over is 'dramatically' since this means it was obvious to the attendant and he kept his yap shut.
Even if your boss says he will pay you... if you do lose wages, sue.
Remember... if you were the owner of the venue no matter how much you wanted customers to be responsible for their own actions they would in fact sue you at the drop of a hat.
Their insurance will probably pay your bills and your lost wages if you waive any claim for anything beyond compensatory damages.
If you ask for punitive damages at trial due to the attendant's behavior, poor signage, etc.... its likely they will settle on a favorable basis.
Quote: AlembertI
Any advice or insights would be greatly appreciated.
Suck it up pal, s*** happens.
Quote: treetopbuddySuck it up pal, s*** happens.
Yes. Shit happens.
Inadequate signage is shit.
Small type is shit.
Inattentive attendants is shit.
Suck it up pal? Once an injury is involved....there are no longer any pals.
Check them out on AVVO.com: ratings and reviews.
Sounds like you might have a pretty good case, i.e. them letting you on without recognizing that your, ahem, exteme girth should have barred you.
Quote: AlembertI know this may not be the most appropriate venue to look for legal advice, however I have always been very impressed with the depth of knowledge and experience in the membership of this forum.
I very recently took a major injury.
Sorry, but you 'took a major injury'......what does that mean?
Quote: Zcore13How about taking some personal responsibility and not suing at all?
Did the owner or any employees of the business cause you to be overweight?
Did the owner or any employees of the business force you to jump on the trampoline.
Did the owner or any employees of the business cause you to land wrong?
Was there a deficiency in the equipment or service provided to you?
ZCore13
What a horrific post. Each statement has a ton wrong with it. Too much for me even to start with.
Talk to an attorney - you definitely have a case.
Quote: treetopbuddySorry, but you 'took a major injury'......what does that mean?
It's crazy that there are other countries that use English other than the US...
Quote: Zcore13How about taking some personal responsibility and not suing at all?
Did the owner or any employees of the business cause you to be overweight?
Did the owner or any employees of the business force you to jump on the trampoline.
Did the owner or any employees of the business cause you to land wrong?
Was there a deficiency in the equipment or service provided to you?
ZCore13
Right on the mark Zcore13
Quote: FleaStiffYes. Shit happens.
Inadequate signage is shit.
Small type is shit.
Inattentive attendants is shit.
Suck it up pal? Once an injury is involved....there are no longer any pals.
James Sokolove parading as FleaStiff
Quote: FleaStiff
Their insurance will probably pay your bills and your lost wages if you waive any claim for anything beyond compensatory damages.
If you ask for punitive damages at trial due to the attendant's behavior, poor signage, etc.... its likely they will settle on a favorable basis.
It is probably irrelevant to an insurer whether a claimant seeks punitive damages because they are often not insurable or not covered.
Seeking punitive damages is unlikely to be allowed.
Quote: FleaStiffYes. Shit happens.
Inadequate signage is shit.
Small type is shit.
Inattentive attendants is shit.
Suck it up pal? Once an injury is involved....there are no longer any pals.
This reminds me of the guy that sued the ladder company. He put his ladder on a frozen pile of manure,during the day the pile thawed and he fell from the ladder.
Basically since there was no sign saying don`t place ladder on a pile of frozen manure he won his lawsuit. People need to take responsibility for thier own actions and use a little common sense.
i'd see a personal injury attorney who works on contingency. no money down. not "works on contingency? no, money down!!"
Quote: HunterhillThis reminds me of the guy that sued the ladder company. He put his ladder on a frozen pile of manure,during the day the pile thawed and he fell from the ladder.
Basically since there was no sign saying don`t place ladder on a pile of frozen manure he won his lawsuit. People need to take responsibility for thier own actions and use a little common sense.
This actually doesn't remind me of that at all.
Sokolove does not practice law, he merely sells the leads to lawyers who actual file the case and perhaps even go to trial on it.Quote: treetopbuddyJames Sokolove parading as FleaStiff
Many disclaimers are indeed contrary to public policy and not valid, even if read and signed.
Get thee to a lawyer.
My only rservations about this is that the English sounds a bit British and so all bets are off on punitive damages.
I hope we are dealing with the USA.
Either way: Lawyers office. Fast!!
To everyone who provided thoughtful input, Thank You.
To those who I seem to have offended, please accept my apology.
If there is a clear weight limit for this piece of equipment, and you substantially exceeded it, and the place of business had no system in place to enforce the safety standard, I'm guessing you will get a decent settlement in the mid 5 figure range.
Of course, the only advice you should take is to find a PI lawyer. Good luck!
An anti-consumer, pro-business stance when it comes to consumer safety is on the wrong side of history. Or do you also support leaded gas, asbestos in every home, etc.?
Quote: sodawaterSo much anti-consumer sentiment in this thread. You all must be rich industrialists to support the business owners in situations like this, where their negligence caused consumer injury. That's why we have a legal system and that's why businesses carry insurance. It's not "stealing" from the business to file an injury claim against them when that injury could have been prevented.
An anti-consumer, pro-business stance when it comes to consumer safety is on the wrong side of history. Or do you also support leaded gas, asbestos in every home, etc.?
Whether or not you agree with the system is irrelevant. You've paid for it (companies being forced to carry insurance causes prices to be higher) so it makes no sense to not file a claim if it's something that you are entitled to under the system.
If you don't like the system, lobby to have it changed.
Also if it was something out of their control and you just got injured and you still sue them, just know that you are what's wrong with America :)
Sorry about your foot. That is really shitty. I sprained my ankle really bad a few years ago climbing at an indoor climbing gym once because their pads below you were spread apart and my ankle fell in a weird angle right in between them. I didn't need surgery but even if I had I wouldn't have sued because it was as much my fault as it was theirs.
If someone rears ends you and you weren't hurt at all, would you sue them for neck damage if you thought you could win?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhether or not you agree with the system is irrelevant. You've paid for it (companies being forced to carry insurance causes prices to be higher) so it makes no sense to not file a claim if it's something that you are entitled to under the system.
If you don't like the system, lobby to have it changed.
The stupidity hurts.
Quote: OzzyOsbourneThe stupidity hurts.
That's ok. Just try a little harder. Maybe read a bit?
Regarding the healing process, I have been thru a ruptured Achilles before, on my other foot, 15 years ago. Sustained the injury playing basketball, I knew the risks at that time and took the responsibility. It took 2 years, but I did return to playing in that basketball league.
There is no comparison to hurting yourself on somebody's perfectly functional trampoline and getting cancer because you did not know that asbestos is present and harmful. Business owners should not have to constantly live in fear of being subjected to unending frivolous lawsuits. Just because a jury of the unemployed and government workers (i.e. people too useless to work in private industry) is able to be convinced by a slick-talking lawyer and the sympathy card that there is a valid claim does not make it morally right to pursue it.
" NO PORKERS ALLOWED "
Quote: OzzyOsbourneI read and fully understood what you wrote, it was just stupid. You are basically saying if the system can be taken advantage of, everyone should take advantage of it, or lobby to change the system. Really? So we should all get on welfare or food stamps if we can, because that is the way the system is set up. I would guess that even though you wrote that, you hopefully don't really think this way.
I think everyone should maximize their self-interest under the current system. If the system is broken it should be fixed.
If people do not act this way, it encourages broken systems to remain in place, which rewards only those who are willing to use the system completely. It's not "taking advantage" of anything -- it is using the system in the way it was designed. I may not agree with certain tax deductions but I still take them if I am entitled to them. I may not agree with forcing people to pay for unemployment insurance but I will still use it if I am unemployed. Once you are forced to pay for something it makes no sense not to use it.
What you are talking about is the epitome of greed and the opposite of integrity, but different strokes for different folks my good man.
Quote: OzzyOsbourneIt makes me so glad that so many people have said what I was going to say. As long as the business didn't do something that was blatantly unsafe or cause you to become injured, even if you would have a case and would win suing would be wrong from a moral standpoint. If they gave you a faulty harness or something, then yeah that is their fault. How big are you anyway? If you are too big to be jumping on trampolines you should not need them to tell you that.
Also if it was something out of their control and you just got injured and you still sue them, just know that you are what's wrong with America :)
Sorry about your foot. That is really shitty. I sprained my ankle really bad a few years ago climbing at an indoor climbing gym once because their pads below you were spread apart and my ankle fell in a weird angle right in between them. I didn't need surgery but even if I had I wouldn't have sued because it was as much my fault as it was theirs.
If someone rears ends you and you weren't hurt at all, would you sue them for neck damage if you thought you could win?
You ask how big I am, 5'10, 325#. Never thought of jumping on a trampoline as a hazardous activity, provided you are not being stupid (like flips on edge for example). The thought of a weight limit never crossed my mind and had I been aware of it, I certainly would have declined to participate. But, you know, hindsight and all that.
Regarding your car collision analogy: No, I would not seek damage for imaginary injury. In fact, I have been in exactly the situation you describe. Negligible damage to the vehicle that did not impact its utility to me, other than trading info in case of true injury no further action was taken.
Quote: AlembertYou ask how big I am, 5'10, 325#. Never thought of jumping on a trampoline as a hazardous activity, provided you are not being stupid (like flips on edge for example). The thought of a weight limit never crossed my mind and had I been aware of it, I certainly would have declined to participate. But, you know, hindsight and all that.
Regarding your car collision analogy: No, I would not seek damage for imaginary injury. In fact, I have been in exactly the situation you describe. Negligible damage to the vehicle that did not impact its utility to me, other than trading info in case of true injury no further action was taken.
The fact that people are confounding this with faking injuries and committing fraud shows that they have no real argument.
The bottom line is that you sustained a real injury, in part because the business owners were negligent and did not inform you of the safety rules. Had you been informed of those safety rules, you would not have participated and not been injured. This is exactly the sort of thing that the system is meant to address -- you are not "taking advantage" of anything.
In the end, this is why there are courts and judges. As long as you are honest, you are not doing anything wrong. If you are not entitled to anything, a lawyer will probably not take your case, and, if one does, a judge will just throw it out.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThe fact that people are confounding this with faking injuries and committing fraud shows that they have no real argument.
The bottom line is that you sustained a real injury, in part because the business owners were negligent and did not inform you of the safety rules. Had you been informed of those safety rules, you would not have participated and not been injured. This is exactly the sort of thing that the system is meant to address -- you are not "taking advantage" of anything.
In the end, this is why there are courts and judges. As long as you are honest, you are not doing anything wrong. If you are not entitled to anything, a lawyer will probably not take your case, and, if one does, a judge will just throw it out.
"No real argument?" Ha. The fake injuries analogy does not demonstrate that I have no argument. This sounds like it is difficult for you to follow, but the analogy is refuting your point that people should not exercise judgment when it comes to whether something is right wrong, regardless of the legality of a situation. Sue first, ask questions later, right? You stated that it is not taking advantage of something just because it is legal and the system is set up that way, but I have clearly shown that certain things are totally taking advantage of the system in many different ways, not necessarily Alembert's case. I am just giving general examples. Although in his case, I would say a 325 pound man should be able to recognize that it isn't safe for him to be jumping on trampolines and should he sue I hope he doesn't get a dime.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThe fact that people are confounding this with faking injuries and committing fraud shows that they have no real argument.
The bottom line is that you sustained a real injury, in part because the business owners were negligent and did not inform you of the safety rules. Had you been informed of those safety rules, you would not have participated and not been injured. This is exactly the sort of thing that the system is meant to address -- you are not "taking advantage" of anything.
In the end, this is why there are courts and judges. As long as you are honest, you are not doing anything wrong. If you are not entitled to anything, a lawyer will probably not take your case, and, if one does, a judge will just throw it out.
Wow, what a reasonable response.
One large pad instead of two smaller ones would have prevented your injury and so would an inter-locking pad device.Quote: OzzyOsbourneI sprained my ankle really bad a few years ago climbing at an indoor climbing gym once because their pads below you were spread apart and my ankle fell in a weird angle right in between them.
Fleastiff- thank you Captain Hindsight!! If only every one of those evil business owners had as much foresight as you have hindsight!
Quote: Elrohir44Axiom, why do you seem to want to live in a world where 1% negligence equals 100% responsibility? Common sense and personal responsibility have to count for something in our society. Otherwise we might as well all live in padded rooms being fed through IVs, having no human interaction and taking no risks in life. I bet you're pro-gun control too.
I don't know what state the OP is in but many states allow for shared responsibility. It need not be all or nothing.
Having said that, I don't see what the OP did that would make him responsible, even partially. I don't accept the idea that he should know that he is too large to use the trampoline; that is certainly not obvious. The company could possibly argue that trampolining is an inherently dangerous activity and a reasonable person should know that (even without being warned) but that seems a little flimsy to me.
I will say that, in my opinion, if his injury was due to his size, the company was aware that people over a certain size could not safely use it, and they allowed him to use it without warning him, then IMO they were completely negligent and it is their fault.
The OP stated earlier that this was not the first time he sustained this type of injury. The same thing happened when he was playing basketball. He probably wasn't jumping nearly as high as he was on the trampoline. He should have known that he was risking the same injury by jumping, especially since his ankle was probably already weakened from the original injury. Since he made the choice to take that risk, the responsibility is all his.
Also, do you expect the business to weigh every overweight patron that comes in the door? How could they have known for sure that he was overweight?
I thought something happened where the trampoline didn't operate probably. Now I have mixed feelings.
Quote: FinsRuleWait, maybe I read it wrong.
I thought something happened where the trampoline didn't operate probably. Now I have mixed feelings.
The trampoline was not operated correctly because a patron over the weight limit was allowed on. That is the fault of the trampoline operator. This seems like a pretty slam-dunk personal injury case to me, a lay man.
Quote: Elrohir44I live in CA, which is a zero-fault state. Even if the defendant is found to be only 1% responsible, he is held 100% responsible.
That's not what Section 1431.2(a) of the California Civil Code says,if I am reading this right:
Quote:In any action for personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, based upon principles of comparative fault, the liability of each defendant for non-economic damages shall be several only and shall not be joint. Each defendant shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportion to that defendant’s percentage of fault, and a separate judgment shall be rendered against that defendant for that amount.
For the purposes of this section, the term “non-economic damages” means subjective, non-monetary losses including, but not limited to, pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation.
I think California was zero-fault at one time, but a ballot measure that passed in 1986 changed the "pain and suffering" damages to liability based on percentage. (I also remember Tyne Daly in a TV commercial opposing it, claiming that its primary purpose was for big corporations to shift as much blame as possible so they wouldn't be responsible for large awards. Presumably, the law was added to prevent plaintiffs from suing as many organizations as possible in an attempt to find one with "deep pockets" that was even 0.1% liable as it was probably the only one that could pay the entire judgment.) It may still be zero-fault in terms of economic damages (e.g. loss of earnings due to being unable to work).
