Video Footage – Proving your Injury Claim

In any personal injury, slip and fall or car accident case, you have to prove liability on the part of the defendant to obtain damages. Our firm uses many means to help you prove this all important liability – statutes, prior case law and of course, actual evidence obtained through investigation.

Video footage, especially from surveillance cameras, is one type of evidence that can make proving your case much easier.

Let’s take a look at this example of a holiday season shopper who suffered painful injuries at the mall. Having footage from the mall’s security cameras was instrumental in proving her case.

Julie was shopping at a mall for gifts for her family but her trip suddenly turned into a tumultuous affair.

While coming down an escalator, Julie slipped and fell at the end. She used her right hand to brace from the impact of the fall. She felt pain in her right hand and was unable to get up for a moment. Other shoppers certainly noticed the incident and notified mall security.

Although a report was filed, Julie declined medical attention and decided to go home.

Later in the night though, Julie started experiencing excruciating pain so her husband took her to the emergency room. After a few x-rays, doctors were able to determine that Julie had sustained some pretty serious injuries, specifically a broken arm, wrist and broken pelvis. Surgery was ordered and while it was successful, Julie required 5 months of physical therapy.

What caused Julie to fall and sustain these injuries?

It was later determined that some spilled soda at the base of the escalator was to blame for the incident.

According to surveillance footage of the area, the hazard was present a whole 2 hours before the incident. The footage also showed that mall employees had taken NO action clean up the spill or warns customers of any hazards

In this respect, the owners and managers of the mall failed in their duty to inspect their premises, warn shoppers of any danger and take measures to address the hazard. In light of this failure, the owners and managers of the mall are liable for Julie’s medical bills.

Upon this discovery, the mall’s management company offered Julie $5000 in damages (…through an insurance policy for such circumstances).

However, Julie’s medical expenses – the surgery and physical therapy – totaled $35,000.

As you can see, $5000 can hardly make a dent on that.

Julie then took the next step and hired a premises liability attorney to try and obtain compensation for all of her expenses. At first, $140k was requested but a counter-offer of $35k was sent back by the management company. Next, Julie’s attorney countered with a settlement offer of $125k.

With a trial seeming inevitable, the judge presiding over the case ordered the two parties to make one final effort at negotiation.

After 6 hours of discussion, the two parties settled on compensation of $75,000 – $50k was to be paid by the management company while the remaining $25k was to be paid by the mall’s owners.

During settlement negotiations, you can request any video surveillance footage to prove your case. If the owner’s refuse to turn over the footage, you will have to file a lawsuit to obtain the footage.

As you can see from Julie’s case, having video footage made proving her case much easier. Her premises liability attorney was able to use this too in the case’s settlement negotiations. And as we also see from this case, there can be two parties liable in a case. In our example here, it was the mall owners as well as the management company they hired.

Despite overwhelming evidence, defendants like this too often delay making a sufficient offer in hopes you don’t have the resources to pursue a full claim, which is why hiring a premises liability or personal injury attorney is vitally important.

Premises liability attorneys at Nashville’s Gilreath & Associates possess decades of experience obtaining compensation for injury victims like Julie. If you’ve sustained an injury due to someone else’s negligence, it’s vitally important you obtain legal representation to make sure you’re sufficiently compensated for medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering.

Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Injured Families in Selmer Dragster Case

In a unanimous opinion released today (Sept. 27, 2011), the Western Section Court of Appeals of Tennessee ruled in Ginny Beth King et al v. Flowmaster, Inc.  that a trial court should not have dismissed Flowmaster from the case based on additional jury questions yet to be decided.  The trial court had dismissed Flowmaster on the theory that they had no legal duty to protect spectators at the 2007 Cars for Kids event held in Selmer, Tennessee.

The event was to feature exhibition burnouts by professional drag race drivers including Troy Critchley, whose 3000 horse power car veered into the crowd, killing six and injuring more than twenty others.  The Court of Appeals ruled that there were in fact questions for a jury to decide on, including three theories: negligence; ultra-hazardous liability; and the legal definition of drag racing.

Negligence

As to the negligence theory, the Court of Appeals ruled that Flowmaster did have a legal duty of care to spectators, contrary to the ruling of the trial court.  The evidence before the Court demonstrated that while Flowmaster was not the event organizer, Flowmaster was a title sponsor of the event and had taken steps to invite professional drag race drivers to Selmer.  The Court noted that under Tennessee law, the plaintiff must show that the injury was a reasonably foreseeable probability, not just a remote possibility, and that some action within the defendant’s power more probably than not would have prevented the injury (…quoting Tedder v. Raskin, 728 S.W.2d 343, 348 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).  The Court reasoned that the law does not require Flowmaster to be an equal participant in an event, so long as they meet other factors establishing a legal duty to others.

In this case, the Court of Appeals found that Flowmaster had not negated their legal duty to act on behalf of spectators, and therefore it was a mistake for the trial court to dismiss Flowmaster on those grounds.

Ultra-hazardous liability

Ultra-hazardous liability is a legal theory in Tennessee that holds that defendants engaged in ultra-hazardous activities are held strictly liable for the injuries caused (Leatherwood v. Wadley, 121 S.W.3d 682, 699 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).  The negligence or care exercised by the defendant in carrying out the activity is irrelevant.  Flowmaster argued that its lack of control over the Cars for Kids event meant it could not be responsible.  However, the Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that evidence presented demonstrated that questions of material fact existed as to whether Flowmaster requested Troy Critchley perform the burnout that killed and injured so many spectators.

As a result, the Court said it was a mistake for the trial court to dismiss Flowmaster from the case on this theory as well.

Legal Definition of Drag Racing

The Court of Appeals also made reference to Tenn. Code Ann. 55-10-501(1) which defines drag racing in Tennessee.  Under the law, drag racing is broader than two cars speeding down a course.  Instead, drag racing is participation by one (1) or more motor vehicles for the purpose of outgaining another, accepting or carrying out a challenge, and use of a vehicle to determine the maximum speed within a certain distance or time limit.  Tennessee law also defines a drag race participant in equally broad terms:

“. . . and also any person or persons who arrange for, supervise, or in any way and manner set in motion any “drag racing”, regardless of whether or not such person or persons may be the operator of, or be a passenger in, any motor vehicle participating in “drag racing.”  Tenn. Code Ann. 55-10-501(2).

The Court of Appeals found that sufficient evidence existed as to create a jury question for whether or not the burnout performed by Troy Critchley constituted drag racing, and also a question of whether Flowmaster’s contact with Critchley requesting he perform the burnout equates to “participation” as defined by Tenn. Code Ann. 55-10-501(2).

Finding three situations where the trial court made mistakes in its ruling, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision and remanded the case back to McNairy County Circuit Court for further proceedings.

This ruling is significant because rarely does a Tennessee court have the opportunity to reaffirm and extend the concept of legal duty as it relates to recreational events.  Even more rare is the chance to discuss duty in the context of motor sports, and particularly aggressive motor sport activities like drag racing and exhibition burnouts, and discuss them in the context of ultra-hazardous liability.  The Court of Appeals stopped short of calling the activity in this case ultra-hazardous, instead leaving that decision for a McNairy County jury.

R. Christopher Gilreath along with founding partner Sidney Gilreath argued the case for the injured and deceased plaintiffs before the Court of Appeals.  On behalf of the eight families we represent, we are pleased that they have been given a renewed opportunity to present their story to a McNairy County jury, and that the Court recognized that companies who directly participate to create events that cause harm can be held accountable under the law.

(Full opinion available here: http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/kingginnybethopn.pdf)