E-coli Outbreaks a Frequent Problem in One Illinois County

E-coli are very scary little pathogens.

Dallas Personal Injury LawyerJust to put it in perspective for you, it takes MILLIONS of E-coli  to make a person sick. With E-coli it takes about five organisms. Not five million. Five.

One, two, three, four, five.

That’s enough to kill you.

What’s even better is how easy it is to kill. Food cooked to a temperature of at least 160 degrees and held at about 145 cannot harbor E-coli bacteria. Those temperatures kill it. That means that if it gets into your food, the food isn’t being handled correctly – end of story.

9 People in Dupage county got injured in E-coli poisoning  

This brings us to a case pending in DuPage County, Illinois. Elizabeth and Maurice Bernardi are each seeking $50,000 in damages after being exposed to E-coli bacteria in tacos from a restaurant called Los Burritos Mexicanos. There is no question that it happened there. The county health department finally shut the place down but not before a total of nine cases of E-coli poisoning surfaced. Six people were hospitalized. All of them, thankfully, survived.

Now, the detail that I find interesting here is not so much that avoiding an E-coli outbreak is so simple, but the fact that, at the end of the article I read about this it says, “The DuPage County Health Department receives about 10 reports of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli a year, according to department officials.”

Wait… what?

This happens ALL THE TIME here? Nearly ten times a year within just one county in Illinois?

Something just isn’t right here.

What could have been the reasons for the E-coli outbreak in Dupage County?

As a Dallas personal injury lawyer, I would have advised the plaintiffs to ask for more. A LOT more. I would also want to investigate the county health department’s practices and see how consistently they adhere to their own standards. Years ago, when E-coli were more elusive and difficult to predict in terms of how a breakout starts, there might be a little latitude afforded to the health department and their personnel.

But this isn’t years ago. We know where it shows up most frequently (hamburger meat tops the list)  and we know what we need to do to kill it. The restaurant failed to do what was necessary to guarantee food safety. The county health department apparently wasn’t forcing them follow proper food-handling practices and didn’t step in until nine people were injured.


  1. If you were one of the victims, what kind of award would you be seeking?
  2. Is $50,000 enough of a penalty for nearly taking someone’s life out of sheer carelessness?
  3. What responsibility, if any, does the county health department have in this E-coli case?


Inmate Died In Stroke In The Middle of Police Arrest

What Is the real score in police arrest? Why did the police continued to detain Hicks when he was already babbling?

Dallas personal injury attorney There are many questions after a man was suffering from a massive stroke in the middle of the police arrest.

In May of 2012, police in Tampa Bay, Florida pulled over a motorist who was driving erratically. When they brought him in and booked him, Allen Daniel Hicks was babbling incoherently and was dragging his left leg. In fact, his entire left side seemed to be non-functional. Why was he arrested? Because when police told him to get out of the car, he wouldn’t comply.

He couldn’t comply. He was having a massive stroke at that moment.

They dragged Hicks out of the car, dragged him into the police station, then threw him in a cell, denying him medical attention. He never got so much as a medical screening. Was it not obvious hours later that this guy wasn’t drunk or high and that something else was going on there? He was left in that cell for more than a day before anyone had the presence of mind to get him to a hospital. When they finally did, it was way too late. He slipped into a coma and died MONTHS later.

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s office offered a settlement of $1 million which Hicks’ family accepted.

What do you think should the police do in that situation? Should they continue the police arrest despite Hicks condition?

This leads me to wonder whether or not this was the product of insufficient training to recognize stroke symptoms or if it was just a matter of tempers flaring because Hicks was being “difficult.”

Even though they settled, the state health department has launched and investigation. It has also caught attention of the American Civil Liberties Union. The focal point of the investigation isn’t on the Sheriff’s department. It’s actually on Armor Correctional Health Systems – the PRIVATE CONTRACTOR the state hired to see to the medical needs of prisoners.

Why is the ACLU in on this now? Because, according to the United States Constitution it is the responsibility of the government to take care of prisoners, particularly in matters of health. A private contractor’s primary goal is not to uphold the Constitution. Their primary goal is to make money. When you combine a for-profit operation whose goal is to keep cost low and profit high with a population that is vastly powerless on any political scale, the care of that population will NEVER be optimal.

Armor might have avoided a huge civil lawsuit (they were in on the settlement) but the U.S. Government is most assuredly going to pick up where civil action left off. This is far from over.

So here are a few things to discuss in relation to Allen Hicks Police arrest

  1. Does what happened to Allen Hicks go beyond gross negligence?
  2. What do you think of how the police handled this situation? What was their motivation for leaving Hicks in that cell for more than a day?
  3. Were Allen Hicks’ civil liberties violated by being left in the hands of a private contractor?
  4. If you were a surviving family member of Mr. Hicks, would you have taken that settlement?

David Glenn is a Dallas personal injury attorney who can help you with any personal injury or wrongful death case. He has been fighting for fair judgments and compensation for his clients for more than 30 years.  He is not just a lawyer stands for his client’s right with conviction and he doesn’t say not to any personal or wrongful death cases including Allen Hicks questionable police arrest.

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Killed 3 People in the Hotel Room

Controversial death of a couple and a child caused by a carbon monoxide poisoning

Dallas Personal Injury attorneyCarbon monoxide poisoning is believed to be the caused of the death of an elderly couple in good health and an 11-year old child in the same hotel room in Boone, North Carolina. The mother’s child is almost killed as well.

When Daryl and Shirley Jenkins died at the same time in a room at the Best Western in Boone, NC, the official report stated that the couple had died of “simultaneous heart attacks.” Let’s forget for a moment that the probability of something like that happening is on par with winning the lottery and being struck by lightning at the same moment. The situation was put to bed quickly by the medical examiner. The official report treated the incident as a cosmic coincidence.

Two months later, a child named Jeffrey Williams died in the same room. His mom survived. The fact that she did was the only reason another act of God wasn’t declared because the medical examiner, Dr. Brent Hall, couldn’t just ignore it this time. That medical examiner has since resigned.

Is the leaky pool water heater the culprit of the carbon monoxide poisoning?

Appalachian Hospitality (the owners of the Hotel), convinced that this was more than coincidence decided to perform an investigation of their own wherein they discovered carbon monoxide in the room. In many locales, carbon monoxide detectors are required by law, but not everywhere. The room is located directly above the hotel’s mechanical room so, apparently, the venting system was allowing the noxious gas (which can easily go totally undetected) to intermittently enter the room at dangerous levels. The culprit? The pool water heater. It was apparently intermittently leaking exhaust into the vents.

At this point, there are obviously going to be questions of liability. That leads to the obvious question: who is responsible? The major players here are the hotel and the medical examiner.

Did the hotel have the responsibility to conduct a more thorough investigation after the first two deaths? Was it reasonable to simply accept the medical examiner’s report even though the probability of something like that happening was so remote?

The bottom line is that people die in hotels all the time. People die sitting on park benches. They die in restaurants. They die on subways and in taxi cabs. People die because of carbon monoxide poisoning. These two were elderly and it was their time, right? Well, if you believe the medical examiner, yes. It probably wasn’t the first time someone died in that hotel. At what point do you cordon off the room and launch a full-scale investigation? When it happens to a child and it happens in the same room, that’s when.

Resignation of the medical examiner of the carbon monoxide poisoning case leaves people several questions

I don’t think it helps his case much that he resigned after the third death. It also doesn’t help that evidence has surfaced that he withheld data that would have shown carbon monoxide playing a role in the deaths of Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins long before Jeffrey Williams ever set foot on the property. For me, as a Dallas personal injury attorney that raises just one more question:

  • Why would he do that? It will be interesting learning the answer to that question as the case unfolds.
  • If you were Jeannie Williams (Jeffrey’s mother), who would you sue and why?
  • Would yo go after the hotel, the doctor or both?

This case is no longer tolerable. This needs to be addressed accordingly especially now that it has costs other people’s lives because of carbon monoxide poisoning.




“Conjuring” House Owners Want Warner Bros. to Fund Crowd Control

Why Sutcliffe requests for a Fund Crowd Control?  

Dallas Personal Injury LawyerIt’s not a legal case yet but you can really see a storm brewing here against Warner Bros. in connection to the Conjuring crowd control fund. Apparently, the house that is the focal point for the movie “The Conjuring” has been plagued with unwelcome guests since the movie’s premier just about two weeks ago. The owner of the property, Norma Sutcliffe, has been talking to local news outlets about the goings-on there since the film’s debut.

And she’s not being tormented by ghosts, either. This time it’s the living that are wreaking havoc on the peace of the couple – both of whom are elderly, in poor health, and never heard a whisper of paranormal activity in 25 years – living there now.

Apparently the movie has sparked a rabid fandom of amateur ghost hunters who are coming onto the property late at night with their Mel Meters and their Spirit Boxes pretending to be Zak Bagans from “Ghost Adventures” causing all kinds of ruckus in the middle of the night. Sutcliffe is afraid that some of these people might eventually break into her barn and burn the place down while holding a séance and, really, it’s not an unrealistic fear.

Do You Think The Sutcliffe has the right to request for a crowd control fund?

The local police can only do so much. They can’t park a car there or have an officer stand in like a sentry on the property 24 hours a day and the Sutcliffes understand this. So, in what seems to be a rather logical move, they’ve appealed to Warner Bros. for a little aid in the form of paying for security to keep people off the property until the hype dissipates with the alleged spectral forces that once resided there.

What has this multi-billion-dollar movie and media giant had to say in response to this? Absolutely nothing. Not a phone call, not a statement, not even the common courtesy of an acknowledgement of the petition has been made to this poor elderly couple who have found themselves in the middle of a media juggernaut they never wanted or asked to be party to. This is not like the guy from Colorado trying to sue Warner Bros. for making the Batman movies too violent. This is a case where two people’s lives have been sent into chaos over their decision to use their property as the premise for a movie.

So here are a few questions:

  • Whether or not Warner Bros. ever even asked these people if it was all right to expose their property to all this unwanted attention, do you think they have the responsibility to do a little damage control now that the place is being overrun by overzealous wannabe ghost hunters?
  • If they don’t respond or outright refuse to help, do you think the Sutcliffes should sue them?
  • If you were a juror on that case, would you order the studio to pay up?

Prevention is “always” better than cure.  As a Dallas Personal Injury Lawyer, I would suggest seeking for a legal advice to have this issue resolved before any unlikely events will happen. Remember, “The Conjuring” is  one of the most anticipated super natural movie of the year and everyone is curious about the place or the secluded house where the story took place. Now, do you think there’s a need for a crowd control?

Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $8M for Faulty Hip Replacement

Hip replacement was proven faulty; J&J pleaded guilty?

Dallas Personal Injury AttorneyA Jury has awarded what is an unprecedented judgment against Johnson & Johnson for failing to enforce a recall on a faulty hip replacement before it was used to repair the hip of former Minnesota corrections officer Loren Kransky.

What would have me a little concerned right now if I was a J&J exec is the fact that this is the first lawsuit out of over TEN THOUSAND filed to recover damages resulting from the exact same defect. What a precedent that judgment sets! There is one massive class-action in the works which might save them some money but they know that this is going to cost them big – likely measured in billions of dollars.

At issue is the tendency of the all-metal cup-and-ball joints rubbing against each-other and creating metal particles that damage surrounding tissue. The degeneration of that tissue and even bone is at the heart of these cases. Even though the product was first introduced as late as 2003, most doctors refuse to use ANY kind of all-metal solution due to what I’ve just described.

I want you to think about that going forward.

The jury declined to award punitive damages because they could not find any evidence of fraud or malice. This begs the question of why there were still some of these all-metal hips circulating about in the first place after a major recall. Granted, they’re not going to send out thugs to confiscate them but still… was anyone implicitly told not to use them or were they just warned about them? Were some of these people injured more by a doctor’s opinion about the safety of the product than they were by the actual product?

Keep that in mind, too.

The J&J subsidiary DePuy Orthopedic says they plan to appeal the verdict, claiming that the hip replacement units are not defective.

Wait… what?

10,000 injuries, metal filings eating away at people from the inside, a very RAPID deterioration of the product materials and findings on TWO CONTINENTS (the UK actually issued the first warning about these things) suggest that there is a laundry list of issues with this product and that it fails at an alarming rate… but it’s not defective. Good luck with that argument, guys. There’s a worldwide recall in place that says it is.

So here are a few questions for you:

  1. Was Johnson & Johnson solely responsible for this? Sure there’s still a degree of resistance to the findings but they have to do what they can and say what they must to protect themselves, no matter how silly their claims.
  2. What about the doctor, the hospital, the orthopedic practice that opted to use the device knowing about the recall?
  3. Aren’t those doctors, particularly the ones in the Kransky case, at least partly to blame?
  4. Should Kransky sue his doctor(s) to recover punitive damages?

Remember, if you have been a victim of hip replacement surgery complications, don’t think twice about getting a Dallas Personal Injury Attorney. You need to discuss with your attorney your possible settlements and right judgment after a failed surgery on hip replacement.

Texas Giant Roller Coaster Accident

There are three sides of the roller coaster accident

If you’ve been watching the news lately, you have no doubt heard about the latest fatal roller coaster accident at a popular Six Flags amusement park in Texas.

There are at least three parts to this story.

Part One: The victim – Ms. Rozy Esparza – boarded the ride and pulled down the t-bar restraint. She was concerned that the restraint wasn’t holding her in properly and she voiced her concern to the attendant. The attendant’s response was that as long as she heard it click, she was all set. Esparza didn’t work there and SHE even knew that one click wasn’t good enough. If she felt unsafe she should have been allowed off the ride or she should have asked that the restraints be released so she could try to set it again. Neither of these things happened. That’s problem number one.

Part Two: The victim was considerably overweight and just plain didn’t fit on the ride. She was unable to secure the restraint properly so when she came down the first hill, the negative g-force of her body pressing against the restraint caused it to buckle. Once that happened, the bar disengaged and, on the first twist, she was thrown off the ride and plummeted to her death.

Part Three: The coaster was constructed to accommodate riders with a maximum weight of 180 pounds and, with all due respect, Ms. Esparza was more than a few pounds over that particular limit. Tell me this: when was the last time you saw a weight limit as one of the warnings before boarding an amusement park ride? Even better, when was the last time you saw a morbidly obese person denied access to a ride?

Is being overweight the main issue that caused the roller coaster accident?

The problem isn’t even a legal one – it’s not discrimination if it’s a personal safety concern. “Yes, we’re denying you access because you’re overweight – the ride cannot accommodate you,” said no ride attendant ever. It’s all about public relations. They don’t want to wreck anybody’s good time and they don’t want guests making a stink in front of other guests. The only alternative is to let them on the ride and if they don’t fit, they don’t fit.

Rozy Esparza didn’t fit on the ride. She shouldn’t have been on it.

I almost forgot… there’s actually a fourth piece to the puzzle…

Modern amusement park rides have safety shut-down features that SHOULD kick in when the attendant attempts to start the ride. In other words, it shouldn’t go if a restraint isn’t properly secured. Needless to say, that didn’t happen in this case, probably because the bar DID click into place. It was secure enough to hold a 180-pound person. The system isn’t sophisticated enough to weigh every rider.

All of these things are most definitely going to be brought up when this case goes to trial but for now, I’d like to know your opinion on this:

  • What degree of fault should fall on Six Flags over this and how much of the responsibility rested on Rozy Esparza for her own safety?
  • One could argue that she did everything she could to protect herself. One could also argue that she shouldn’t have been on the ride in the first place. What’s your opinion?
  • Was there really a failure on the part of Six Flags or was it Esperanza’s weight that caused her death? What do you think?

Such incident is truly devastating and is still unclear who the real culprit is. In times like this, you have to talk to a Dallas Personal injury lawyer to help you examine your case closely or whether or not you are entitled to any compensation after the roller coaster accident.

$24 Million Award in Texas Drunk Driving Case

Three separate parties involved in a drunk driving case

Dallas personal injury attorney A Texas jury ordered damages amounting to $24 million from three separate parties for a drunk driving accident that occurred back in the year 2000. They won a judgment against the driver for $14 million. They won judgments against the insurance company and the rental car company who rented him the car he was driving when the accident occurred.

The first part makes sense: the driver was at fault. He was drinking and driving which is obviously illegal. It’s a huge judgment but in terms of a wrongful death suit, it’s also reasonable. I would have fought for it myself if I was representing the family.

The other two parts are what can make a person wonder if they don’t know the facts. Most insurance companies offer policies with a per-accident liability limit of $300,000. Why would a jury find the company liable for so much beyond that? There’s no mention of them trying to get out of paying. Also, why would Enterprise be responsible for such a huge chunk of that judgment? Did they know this guy was going to drink and drive?

The jury thought they should have and they were right.

The driver’s license is also suspended due to prior drunk driving cases

Jeffrey Lamont Tate, the impaired driver, was operating under a suspended license. That should answer both questions of liability right there, but it gets even better! The insurance company ARRANGED FOR HIM TO HAVE THE RENTAL CAR. To the point, he called them, the details of the conversation were unknown but all they did was forward the call to Enterprise who, in turn arranged for Tate to have a rental while his car was being repaired. They did this knowing that he had a prior DWI which led to the license suspension. I had to read it a couple times myself before I believed what I was reading. Talk about inexcusable gross negligence! That one moment of inattention to detail led to someone’s death. That’s worth at least $4 million.

But it gets even better than that! According to Enterprise, Tate presented a “valid driver’s license.” How is that possible if the license was suspended? How did they check? Again, gross negligence.

This leads me to my question for the day: The bulk of the judgment landed on the driver’s shoulders. While, on the surface, this seems logical, he’s broke. He’s going to be in jail for the next 13 years. He will NEVER be able to pay this off. Each of the other parties involved got a slap on the wrist in comparison.

Do you think this is fair or do you think the victim’s family should have been awarded a judgment they could actually collect by shifting the weight of responsibility to these entities that had no excuse for facilitating vehicular manslaughter?

If you are a victim due to a driver’s negligence, go ahead and call a Dallas personal injury attorney who can help you explain your rights after the incident. David Glenn is a veteran injury attorney who has fought and won many car accident cases caused by negligence and drunk driving.

Should Warner Brothers Be Blamed for the Batman Shooting?

Why Torrence Brown Sues Warner Brothers after the Batman Shooting?

Dallas Personal Injury LawyerYears ago I was a huge fan of a comic called Bloom County so when I saw an article about the Batman shooting, I recognized the cartoon immediately. It came from a satirical piece called, “Who should I sue?” and posed the question of who’s responsible when a paparazzi photographer gets beaten up by a celebrity. Of course, the absurd solution posed in the comic is not to sue the celebrity, not assume responsibility because you’re annoying him to the point of inciting violence, but go for the jugular and sue the camera company! Why? Because that’s where the money is.

Read the message in the cartoon. Some people really DO think this way!

If you find that hard to believe, just look at what one of the attendees of the Aurora movie theater shooting is up to. They’re even calling it a Steve Dallas Lawsuit (based on the character in the comic) because the rationale behind it so closely follows the Nikolta Camera Company angle in Bloom County.

So on to the facts: Torrence Brown, Jr. is trying to sue Warner Brothers claiming that they’re the ones responsible for James Holmes gunning down a dozen people. Why? Because the movie (and other Warner Brothers. Movies, particularly in the Christopher Nolan trilogy) is too violent. Holmes was clearly acting out in response to the violent images in the first two films. It seems rather ridiculous, but apparently he found a lawyer who is taking the case seriously.

But it doesn’t end there! He’s also suing Holmes’ doctor for not keeping tabs on him and making sure he was adequately medicated.

Who else to blame in the Batman shooting?

Now, just to prove there are two sides to everything, there is a rational side to this drama, too. Brown is also suing the theater for not properly securing the emergency exit from which Holmes exited the theater then re-entered with enough ammo to take out a small town. This seems more plausible but presented against the backdrop of the other two, one could question the overall motive behind bringing the case.

So I have questions for you:

  • Is there any validity to any of these cases?
  • If so, is there any good reason why this one guy – who walked away unscathed, mind you – should profit from this atrocity?
  • Does having the gumption to hold at least the theater and the doctor responsible for their alleged negligence give him the right to cash in on their punishment having not even been the victim of an injury?

Cases like this should never be taken for granted. This needs full scrutiny from an expert.Hence, it is always advisable to seek legal help so that you too would understand your stand and your rights.  David Glenn, Dallas Personal Injury Lawyer of The Glenn Law Firm is always open to hear your cases for FREE.


Name Brand Manufacturers Held Liable For Generic Medication

Alabama Supreme Court Ruling on Generic Medication

Dallas Personal Injury AttorneyIn a very surprising and controversial ruling, an Alabama Supreme Court found that a name brand pharmaceutical company can be held liable for damages caused by a generic brand of their medication. This means that even though someone did not take the name brand drug, they can still sue the name brand manufacturer for injuries they incurred while taking the generic brand of that medication. If this seems a little confusing that is because it is what many call “tort hell” because of the doors that it opens for future lawsuits.

A brand name manufacturer can be held liable for damages caused by a generic medication if they fail to adequately warn physicians of the dangers of their own products. Therefore, when a doctor prescribes a name brand medication believing that it is safe and the patient’s insurance then gives them the generic version. If that patient suffers an injury or worse from taking the generic, they have the ability to sue to the name brand company for negligence.

This is partially due to FDA regulations in which generic medications cannot update their labeling, even if they become aware of a potential risk. Name brand medications can change their labeling before getting FDA approval. This means that the generic medication only has to match their label to that of the name brand, they do not have to update it independently.

Medical Complications Due To Generic Medication

This case came to light when Danny Weeks filed a lawsuit against Pfizer and two generic drug makers. Danny Weeks took Reglan which led to several medical complications. The Alabama court allowed the lawsuit to continue because the name brand drug misrepresented the dangers and the generic drug merely copied those misrepresentations onto their own label. This ruling stands alone as the majority of rulings on this issue (in other states) have gone the opposite direction.

The issue is being brought up for a re-hearing in September. This will be the first time that Pfizer will be able to present their arguments as to why they should not be held liable.

  • So what do you think? Who COULD be held liable for damages caused by a generic drug?
  • Do you think it is right for a name b   rand drug to be held liable for problems caused by a generic drug because that drug is basically forced by the FDA to copy the label of the name brand?

Generic medicines are not that reliable at all times, hence Dallas Personal Injury Attorney suggests seeking legal advice for you to know your rights being a victim of detrimental generic medication.

Lawsuit Filed Over a Police Training Accident

Five Bullets on Police Training Accident

Raymond Gray, a trainee of Baltimore police force filed a lawsuit after he had a police training accident during one of their training exercises. Gray was participating in an exercise that had him standing near a window. His supervisor William Kern then fired live bullets at the window in an attempt to scare him away from the window. However, it is not certain whether William was clowning around by using live ammo, whether it was unintentional or whether it was part of the training exercise.

Raymond Gray was shot in the head by William Kern during the exercise. The wound caused him to lose an eye and suffer severe brain trauma. He must now relearn the majority of his motor and verbal skills and slowly recover from the accident. His training class went on to graduate without him and he will never become a member of the force as he will need medical care for the rest of his life.

Supervisor Ended Up With Criminal Charges After a Police Training Accident

Dallas Personal Injury LawyerThis exercise was not the first time that live ammunition was used in a training exercise. A few weeks earlier police commanders were furious to discover live ammunition present during a training session. It was clear that supervisors did not learn their lesson and continued to violate procedure, which ended with Raymond Gray being severely injured.

A lawsuit has now been filed that names not only the police department and the city, but also the individual officers involved. The lawsuit argues that the city was negligent in not ensuring safe practices during their training session. William Kern was also brought up with criminal charges for his role in the shooting.

Who Do You Think Should Be Held Liable in The Police Training Accident?

  • Should the blame rest solely on the supervisor who obviously did not follow procedure and did not take steps to ensure the safety of everyone involved?
  • Do you think the city and the police department should also be held liable for not ensuring that proper safety procedures were followed during training exercises?

For a personal injury lawyer one of the biggest questions is whether or not Kern was acting alone in violating safety procedures or if there were lapses in the protocols set forth by the city. Raymond Gray is seeking millions in damages through this lawsuit. Do you think he should get that much money for the pain and suffering that he has experienced and the lifetime of medical bills that he will now have to pay?

If you have been involved to any personal injury cases and you live in Texas, don’t hesitate to call The Glenn Law Firm at (214) 810-3655  to speak to a Dallas Personal Injury Lawyer. David Glenn is a lawyer who is willing to go out of his way to fight for every victim of any personal injury accidents including police training accidents.


Man Sues Wal-Mart Due To Toilet Seat Injury

The Story of Wal-Mart’s Toilet Seat Injury

Clifford Greer filed a suit against Wal-Mart after a toilet seat injury on his way to the store’s bathroom. He was shopping when he attempted to use the toilet seat in the bathroom of the store. Clifford was confined to a wheelchair and when he attempted to move from the wheelchair to the toilet, the toilet seat slipped causing him to fall to the floor. Following the accident, Clifford claims to have suffered from back pains, neck and head injuries.

Wal-Mart responded to the lawsuit by saying that Clifford did not use the available hand holds and that he made the choice to use the toilet seat as a method of transferring himself. Wal-Mart stated that his responsibility for the accident was more than 50 percent which exempted the store from paying. Clifford on the other hand states that the store did not properly install the toilet, did not warn people that the seat was defective and they did not maintain their toilets.

Dallas Personal Injury Attorney

So What Happen To Clifford After The Toilet Seat Injury?

Clifford states that since the accident he has become sick, lame, sore, disordered and disabled, which caused him to have to pay medical costs and experience pain and suffering. He is now suing the store for more than $50,000 in damages. He claims that he continues to suffer due to the accident and that he should be able to receive damages from the store.

Who Do You Think Should Be Blamed For The Toilet Seat Injury?

What do you think? In this case can the store be held liable or is it the fault of the plaintiff that he did not take the proper precautions to protect himself when using the toilet. There are several questions that a personal injury attorney might ask in this situation.

  • What evidence is there that the toilet was installed incorrectly?
  • What evidence in there that improper maintenance caused the seat to slip?
  • Is it the responsibility of the plaintiff to make sure that the seat and his method of transferring to the seat is safe before attempting to sit on the toilet?
  • If there was no defect in the seat do you think the store can still be held liable for having an unsafe environment for its shoppers?
  • Would you expect a toilet seat to be able to slide back and forth or is that an unsafe toilet?
  • So who SHOULD or COULD be held liable in this case? Is it the store’s fault or was the accident simply an accident? Or is the fall the fault of Clifford himself?

If you happen to be in the same shoes with Clifford and you are residing in Texas, it is highly recommended to talk to a Dallas Personal Injury Attorney so that you can discuss your case. At the Glenn Law Firm, we handle different kinds of personal injury cases including toilet seat injury.

Family Sues Fox News for Emotional Distress

Kids report emotional distress after watching father’s suicide video

Dallas Personal Injury AttorneyThree children are involved in a lawsuit against Fox News for emotional distress. Two of the boys heard a rumor that an unnamed man could be seen committing suicide on television following live coverage of a high speed chase. The boys heard about the suicide while at school and then went home to look up the video on YouTube.

As the boys watched the video of the high speed chase and the suicide, they realized that they were watching the suicide of their own father. The children aged 9, 13 and 15 report emotional distress after watching the video clip of their father’s suicide. The older boys have been unable to attend school and suffer from flashbacks, sleep disturbance and obtrusive thoughts since seeing the video.

After the footage was shown Fox News anchor Shepard Smith and news executives from Fox News issues apologies for showing the footage. Smith reported that typically the helicopter cameras operate on a five second delay even with live feeds. However, due to human error the video was not shown on a five second delay which caused the suicide to be shown live.

The boys were evaluated by psychologists and found to be suffering from symptoms akin to post-traumatic stress disorder. They will likely need long term psychiatric care in order to move forward from witnessing the death of their father.


Who is liable for kid’s emotional distress?

Who do you think is right in this case? Do you think that Fox News should be held liable for the emotional distress of the boys since they showed the suicide on live television? Fox News had no responsibility in the death of the father nor did they force the boys to look up the suicide clips on YouTube. However, did they commit negligence by not censoring what they showed on television to the extent of a suicide?

While there is little doubt that journalists have a moral obligation to limit showing the deaths of individuals whenever possible, especially when the family of the deceased is not yet aware of the death. Is there a legal obligation to prevent those types of incidents from being shown on television and can a television program be held liable for any distress suffered by those who choose to watch their program? If so, should people who knowingly search for gruesome videos on the internet and then experience emotional distress are able to sue the people who posted those videos? Do you think that Fox News could be held liable in this case?

The Glenn Law firm does not only handles issues on personal injuries. Dallas Personal Injury Attorney, David Glenn also takes different cases to the jury trial including cases on emotional distress.

Towed Car Breaks Free Causing Texas Woman’s Wrongful Death

Grace Lee’s Wrongful Death

Dallas wrongful death attorney

An accident on Interstate 10 caused a Texas woman’s wrongful death after a towed car breaks free and hit another car. The accident occurred with a Jeep Liberty that was being towed by Chevy truck broke free of the tow. The Jeep crossed the median and collided into a 2008 Nissan. 24-year old Grace Lee of Texas was a passenger in the Nissan and died from her injuries. Lee was not wearing a seat belt, but the two other passengers of the Nissan were. Lee was thrown from the car and died immediately. The driver and two other passengers suffered moderate injuries. It not clear what cause the car to break free of the tow and so far there have been no charges brought up against the driver of the Chevy truck.

In a case like this there are several questions that personal injury attorneys must investigate while they work on the case;

Who should be held liable for Lee’s wrongful death and injuries

  • Did the towing mechanism malfunction?
  • Was the tow being done correctly?
  • Was the driver of the Chevy following the rules of the road?
  • Was the fact that Lee was not wearing a seat belt the reason for her death?

Who do you think should be held responsible for damages in this case? Is the driver of the Chevy responsible if the reason for the accident was a defect in the towing mechanism? If the driver of the Chevy followed all the instructions for towing the Jeep Liberty and is he still responsible for the damages that occurred from the tow coming undone?

Does wearing a seat belt really matter in avoiding a wrongful death?

Does it change things that the other passengers only suffered moderate injuries and they were wearing their seat belts?

When it comes to personal injury cases and wrongful death, how much of the liability should rest on the individual when they do not take the necessary precautions to keep themselves safe?

Had Lee been wearing her seatbelt, it is likely that she would not have been thrown from the car and would have survived the accident.

  • Does Lee’s own involvement in the circumstances surrounding her wrongful death prevent her family from filing a wrongful death suit against the driver of the Chevy?
  • What circumstances might change who is held liable for the damages?
  • Who do you think should be held responsible for the injuries to the passengers and for Grace Lee’s death?

These questions will be answered if you seek assistance from experienced lawyers like David Glenn, a Dallas Personal Injury Lawyer. With his experience and ability to dissect information and closely scrutinize a case, David has helped people receive full and fair compensation from different personal injury cases including wrongful death.


Kentucky Kingdom Ride Accident Severes Feet of Teenage Girl

Life-Changing Ride Accident

Kaitlyn Lassiter was enjoying a day at Kentucky Kingdom with her friends before a ride accident changed her life. The 13-year old went on a ride known as the Tower of Power when there was a horrific malfunction. Cables began whipping all over the guests on the ride and many were severely injured. Cables wrapped around necks and limbs as people struggled to get them off until the ride stopped. Kaitlyn was the most severely injured of all of those on the ride.

Dallas Personal Injury Attorney

Both of her feet were severed and several bones in her legs were broken. She was rushed to a nearby hospital but they were inexperienced with reattaching limbs. She was them airlifted to another hospital where it was discovered that only one of her feet could be reattached. The other leg had to be amputated further up the leg. A year later, Kaitlyn was still not sure if the surgery to re-attach her foot was successful as she still has no feeling. She also had to undergo several more amputations, including one when the bone of her leg began growing into her muscle and pierced the skin.

Kentucky Kingdom dismantled the Tower of Power After the Ride Accident

Kentucky Kingdomhas since dismantled the Tower of Power and the family settled out of court, the amount was kept confidential. Kaitlyn’s family alleged that the ride was poorly maintained and poorly inspected that have caused the ride accident. They also claimed that had the ride operator immediately pressed the emergency stop on the ride when the cables began to break, that Kaitlyn’s injuries would not have been as severe.

Officials also reported that the accident may have been avoided if the park workers had followed the ride manual’s instructions for detecting the deterioration of the cable.  Kaitlyn has also become a proponent of federal regulation of amusement park safety. The theme park admitted no liability in the case and instead claimed the accident was a fault of the ride manufacturer.

Kentucky Kingdom reported that the ride manufacturer sent the wrong cables and that the cables were not manufactured correctly. However, the amusement park was fined $1,000 which was the maximum at the time for failing to inspect and maintain the ride properly.

  • Who do you think SHOULD be responsible for paying Kaitlyn’s medical expenses and future expenses?
  • Should the amusement park be held liable for not inspecting the ride and ensuring that it was properly maintained and designed?
  • Do you think the ride manufacturer could be held liable for sending the wrong cables?
  • If the theme park installed the wrong cables and did not realize the oversight, should they be liable for not properly building the ride?

Dallas Personal Injury Attorney, David Glenn said that “While medical attention is the very first concern, taking pictures or video of the scene, gathering contact information from possible witnesses, and reporting and gathering possible documents that can be used as evidence is also imperative.” He also suggests checking all machines, as best as you can, first before getting on a ride to avoid a ride accident. Lastly, listen to your intuition. If you even “THINK” it might not be safe…don’t use it.