Skip to main content

A legal question (20)

Jul 28, 2020 2:07 PM CST A legal question
I’ve tried to find the way to “google” this, but can’t seem to find the right phrasing: if you (anyone) injure someone who already has a condition or injury (unrelated to the new injury) not only are you responsible for what you actually caused, you become responsible for his or her total health, including the already-existing, arbitrarily unrelated illness/injury/condition. Seems a little unfair, but I’m guessing it’s because now, it’s unclear whether they would have recovered from the former because of the latter...anyone know the skinny on this? Paralegals out there?thanx
Jul 28, 2020 3:19 PM CST A legal question
Orzzz
OrzzzOrzzzPortage, Wisconsin USA43 Threads 8 Polls 286 Posts
Try ...dgmslaw.com/do-pre-existing-injuries-affect-cases.
Try...injuryclaimcoach.com/prior-injuries
Jul 28, 2020 3:28 PM CST A legal question
------ This Post was removed by Moderator ------
Jul 28, 2020 4:30 PM CST A legal question
Orzzz: Try ...dgmslaw.com/do-pre-existing-injuries-affect-cases.
Try...injuryclaimcoach.com/prior-injuries
thanx—very helpfulteddybear
Jul 28, 2020 4:34 PM CST A legal question
Miss_Cellaneousonline today!
Miss_Cellaneousonline today!Miss_CellaneousOn the Costa at the moment.., Valencia Spain1 Threads 1,070 Posts
rohaan: I’ve tried to find the way to “google” this, but can’t seem to find the right phrasing: if you (anyone) injure someone who already has a condition or injury (unrelated to the new injury) not only are you responsible for what you actually caused, you become responsible for his or her total health, including the already-existing, arbitrarily unrelated illness/injury/condition. Seems a little unfair, but I’m guessing it’s because now, it’s unclear whether they would have recovered from the former because of the latter...anyone know the skinny on this? Paralegals out there?thanx
Please don't take this the wrong way but. Get on Judge Judy. She's one brilliant Judge thumbs up
Jul 28, 2020 4:40 PM CST A legal question
PeKaatje: ---
are you just being goofy, or do you not understand the thread? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, so, you run a light accidentally, and hit the car crossing you. You accidentally hurt his arm, but not seriously. However, he has severe back pain, going back years...nothing to do with the current problem. But lawyers use a mandate in the law commonly called “eggshell skull victim”. That means you injured an already fragile person, and, well, now, you have to take care of him. Sucks, huh? Lawyers have argued against this mandate, but to no avail. (Thanx, Orzzz..)
Jul 28, 2020 4:42 PM CST A legal question
Miss_Cellaneous: Please don't take this the wrong way but. Get on Judge Judy. She's one brilliant Judge
I was aware, and actually saw a case on her show about this. But I wanted to know the reasoning, or what you (cs members) saw as the reasoning. Thanx for commenting.handshake
Jul 28, 2020 7:33 PM CST A legal question
Miss_Cellaneousonline today!
Miss_Cellaneousonline today!Miss_CellaneousOn the Costa at the moment.., Valencia Spain1 Threads 1,070 Posts
rohaan: I was aware, and actually saw a case on her show about this. But I wanted to know the reasoning, or what you (cs members) saw as the reasoning. Thanx for commenting.
I watch her all the time. Much better than the answers you would get on here. Just MOI. People can try and give advice. Long story short. My daughter tried doing her divorce online. He was being a prat and no one knew where he lived as he wasn't registered in England. It's taken her 4yrs and 5 times as much money to get her divorce. Where as if she'd have had paid a Solicitor/Lawyer in the 1st place. They would have done it all. Sometimes, trying to take the cheapest and easiest way out just doesn't work.....
Jul 28, 2020 8:12 PM CST A legal question
Miss_Cellaneous: I watch her all the time. Much better than the answers you would get on here. Just MOI. People can try and give advice. Long story short. My daughter tried doing her divorce online. He was being a prat and no one knew where he lived as he wasn't registered in England. It's taken her 4yrs and 5 times as much money to get her divorce. Where as if she'd have had paid a Solicitor/Lawyer in the 1st place. They would have done it all. Sometimes, trying to take the cheapest and easiest way out just doesn't work.....
right. This was only a hypothetical question. Just wanting info. If I had to hire an attorney for every question I have, I’d have to be a zillionaire. I’m comfortable with asking questions on here, of all kinds. No ones feet are being held to the fire. Just a question.handshake
Jul 29, 2020 7:57 AM CST A legal question
fact under the law you made a bad situation worse so therefor new and old are one in the same your screwedbouquet
Jul 29, 2020 8:58 AM CST A legal question
rohaan: are you just being goofy, or do you not understand the thread? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, so, you run a light accidentally, and hit the car crossing you. You accidentally hurt his arm, but not seriously. However, he has severe back pain, going back years...nothing to do with the current problem. But lawyers use a mandate in the law commonly called “eggshell skull victim”. That means you injured an already fragile person, and, well, now, you have to take care of him. Sucks, huh? Lawyers have argued against this mandate, but to no avail. (Thanx, Orzzz..)
Might be that way in the USA but people in the USA are completely nuts and not to be taken seriously. I mean, look at what they choose for president...
Jul 29, 2020 9:25 AM CST A legal question
RobertMJ575: fact under the law you made a bad situation worse so therefor new and old are one in the same your screwed
yes, that’s how the legal system views it. You’re absolutely right.
Aug 1, 2020 5:13 AM CST A legal question
I'd like to have an uniformed guess at the logic, if I may.

If you hit a two year old child at 10 miles per hour with your truck, that child may sustain head injuries and all sorts. If you hit a 6'6" adult male at 10 miles per hour he may sustain cuts and bruises. You can't argue that had the child had the decency to be a 6'6" adult male they would have only sustained cuts and bruises therefore you're only responsible for the cuts and bruises to the child.

In that case, you have to take the situation as it is, not what it might have been.

The law about the fragility of the person you injure probably came about through people arguing a lesser responsibility. It's there to protect the two year old who can't possibly be a 6'6" male and deserves adequate compensation to attend to their needs.

The problem with this idea is that it may leave the person who caused the accident more vulnerable. You might have a situation where people argue that an unconnected condition has been aggravated - you hit me at 10 miles per hour causing cuts and bruises and it made my ingrowing toenail far worse which needs medical attention which I couldn't afford before the accident.

What you need to find out is whether the injury you caused to the arm really did affect the pre-existing back condition, or not. If it did, take responsibility for it because you have to take the situation as it is, not what it might have been had this person had the decency to be more robust. If the injury you caused was isolated to the arm and the aggrieved party is just trying to tack the back condition onto your bill then refute the responsibility.

You need to review:
*the medical assessment after the injury;
*who did the medical assessment and their reputation/history;
*medical assessments of the back condition prior to the accident;
*the financial/medical insurance position of the injured party with respect to treatment of the original back condition;
*anything that they should, or shouldn't have done to protect themselves such as not driving, wearing a brace of some sort; &
*possibly other things I can't think of off the top of my head.

I'm really just guessing at this Ro, but I hope it might open a door a little to help you understand your situation and how to tackle it.
Aug 1, 2020 5:53 AM CST A legal question
Oxycodone
OxycodoneOxycodoneHove, East Sussex, England UK278 Posts
If a persons underlying medical condition is affected by an accident or injury caused by another without intent it will be taken into consideration. However, this must be proved and can take sometime depending on the nature of the injury caused and if it has long term consequences on their quality of life.

wine
Aug 1, 2020 12:52 PM CST A legal question
jac_the_gripper: I'd like to have an uniformed guess at the logic, if I may.

If you hit a two year old child at 10 miles per hour with your truck, that child may sustain head injuries and all sorts. If you hit a 6'6" adult male at 10 miles per hour he may sustain cuts and bruises. You can't argue that had the child had the decency to be a 6'6" adult male they would have only sustained cuts and bruises therefore you're only responsible for the cuts and bruises to the child.

In that case, you have to take the situation as it is, not what it might have been.

The law about the fragility of the person you injure probably came about through people arguing a lesser responsibility. It's there to protect the two year old who can't possibly be a 6'6" male and deserves adequate compensation to attend to their needs.

The problem with this idea is that it may leave the person who caused the accident more vulnerable. You might have a situation where people argue that an unconnected condition has been aggravated - you hit me at 10 miles per hour causing cuts and bruises and it made my ingrowing toenail far worse which needs medical attention which I couldn't afford before the accident.

What you need to find out is whether the injury you caused to the arm really did affect the pre-existing back condition, or not. If it did, take responsibility for it because you have to take the situation as it is, not what it might have been had this person had the decency to be more robust. If the injury you caused was isolated to the arm and the aggrieved party is just trying to tack the back condition onto your bill then refute the responsibility.

You need to review:
*the medical assessment after the injury;
*who did the medical assessment and their reputation/history;
*medical assessments of the back condition prior to the accident;
*the financial/medical insurance position of the injured party with respect to treatment of the original back condition;
*anything that they should, or shouldn't have done to protect themselves such as not driving, wearing a brace of some sort; &
*possibly other things I can't think of off the top of my head.

I'm really just guessing at this Ro, but I hope it might open a door a little to help you understand your situation and how to tackle it.
good info, but I want to re-iterate that my question was hypothetical—I have no “situation” that needs “tackling”. (Thank God..) also, I don’t make a judgment concerning the victim(s) right to the defense of fragile, and your comparisons were spot-on. It becomes problematic when opportunistic victims demand more than what is truly fir, but I will be the first to say because that isn’t always “clear”, then the benefit of the doubt should prevail. In my lifetime of working in hospitals, it was a trend to not believe compensation claims for “bad” or injured backs—because it was so hard to prove. Same for chronic-fatigue syndrome. So, I am not unsympathetic. It used to be very difficult to get a doctor to sign off for SAIF or social-security disability. They just didn’t believe the patient—assumed they were faking it, etc...again, because so many of those cases are hard to “prove”.handshake
Aug 1, 2020 12:57 PM CST A legal question
Oxycodone: If a persons underlying medical condition is affected by an accident or injury caused by another without intent it will be taken into consideration. However, this must be proved and can take sometime depending on the nature of the injury caused and if it has long term consequences on their quality of life.
the comment I remember on Judge Judy was her saying, “If you rammed into him and he also has a heart condition then he’s going to be your landlord”. In other words...hitting someone who’s already sick will wipe you out——
Aug 1, 2020 1:09 PM CST A legal question
Oxycodone
OxycodoneOxycodoneHove, East Sussex, England UK278 Posts
rohaan: the comment I remember on Judge Judy was her saying, “If you rammed into him and he also has a heart condition then he’s going to be your landlord”. In other words...hitting someone who’s already sick will wipe you out——
I wonder if there are any precedents pertaining to this in US or any other countries law. Would make interesting reading to understand their reasoning.wine
Aug 1, 2020 1:47 PM CST A legal question
When I was still working we had a case of a young woman who was in a car accident with her father who was the driver of the car. She had a brittle bone disease known as Osteogenesis Imperfecta.

Brittle bone disease is a disorder that results in fragile bones that break easily. It’s typically present at birth, but it only develops in children who have a family history of the disease.

The disease is often referred to as osteogenesis imperfecta (OI), which means “imperfectly formed bone.”

Brittle bone disease can range from mild to severe. Most cases are mild, resulting in few bone fractures. However, the severe forms of the disease can cause:

hearing loss
heart failure
spinal cord problems
permanent deformities

Osteogenesis Imperfecta can sometimes be life-threatening if it occurs in babies either before or shortly after birth. Approximately one person in 20,000 will develop brittle bone disease. It occurs equally among males and females and among ethnic groups.

Brittle bone disease is caused by a defect, or flaw, in the gene that produces type 1 collagen, a protein used to create bone. The defective gene is usually inherited. In some cases, however, a genetic mutation, or change, can cause it.

This woman had a severe case and could not walk. If she tried to turn over in bed she suffered extreme pain. She could barely stand it when someone tried to wash her body because someone was touching her body.

Her condition was exacerbated by the accident. Even though she had a seat belt on her body was still thrown around in the car. We (the law firm where I worked) sued her father because he was driving the car. To look at her body before the accident you would think she isn't going to live long but she did still have the probability of living a long life because she was young.

Only now her condition has worsened since the accident.

To answer the hypothetical question that Ro asked, yes you can be accountable if you make someones illness/injury worse.

FYI: Judge Judy Sheindlin is a Civil Law attorney. She wouldn't have the expertise to handle the case that I presented in this post. Matter of fact, her show is no longer on tv except for old cases.
Aug 1, 2020 2:19 PM CST A legal question
rohaan: good info, but I want to re-iterate that my question was hypothetical—I have no “situation” that needs “tackling”. (Thank God..) also, I don’t make a judgment concerning the victim(s) right to the defense of fragile, and your comparisons were spot-on. It becomes problematic when opportunistic victims demand more than what is truly fir, but I will be the first to say because that isn’t always “clear”, then the benefit of the doubt should prevail. In my lifetime of working in hospitals, it was a trend to not believe compensation claims for “bad” or injured backs—because it was so hard to prove. Same for chronic-fatigue syndrome. So, I am not unsympathetic. It used to be very difficult to get a doctor to sign off for SAIF or social-security disability. They just didn’t believe the patient—assumed they were faking it, etc...again, because so many of those cases are hard to “prove”.
Sorry, I missed the bit about it being hypothetical because my cogs and wheels started whirring.

I hadn't thought about the weighting of the burden of proof, that is how much the injured party has to prove the injury and how much the person who caused the accident has to prove what aspects they were not responsible for.

I hadn't included the bartering process, either. The injured party will attempt to claim for as much as possible, the person who caused the accident will accept responsibility for as little as possible. Ideally a settlement somewhere inbetween will be negotiated which is satisfactory to both parties. It's in part a game.
Aug 2, 2020 4:47 PM CST A legal question
secretagent09: When I was still working we had a case of a young woman who was in a car accident with her father who was the driver of the car. She had a brittle bone disease known as Osteogenesis Imperfecta.

Brittle bone disease is a disorder that results in fragile bones that break easily. It’s typically present at birth, but it only develops in children who have a family history of the disease.

The disease is often referred to as osteogenesis imperfecta (OI), which means “imperfectly formed bone.”

Brittle bone disease can range from mild to severe. Most cases are mild, resulting in few bone fractures. However, the severe forms of the disease can cause:

hearing loss
heart failure
spinal cord problems
permanent deformities

Osteogenesis Imperfecta can sometimes be life-threatening if it occurs in babies either before or shortly after birth. Approximately one person in 20,000 will develop brittle bone




disease. It occurs equally among males and females and among ethnic groups.

Brittle bone disease is caused by a defect, or flaw, in the gene that produces type 1 collagen, a protein used to create bone. The defective gene is usually inherited. In some cases, however, a genetic mutation, or change, can cause it.

This woman had a severe case and could not walk. If she tried to turn over in bed she suffered extreme pain. She could barely stand it when someone tried to wash her body because someone was touching her body.

Her condition was exacerbated by the accident. Even though she had a seat belt on her body was still thrown around in the car. We (the law firm where I worked) sued her father because he was driving the car. To look at her body before the accident you would think she isn't going to live long but she did still have the probability of living a long life because she was young.

Only now her condition has worsened since the accident.

To answer the hypothetical question that Ro asked, yes you can be accountable if you make someones illness/injury worse.

FYI: Judge Judy Sheindlin is a Civil Law attorney. She wouldn't have the expertise to handle the case that I presented in this post. Matter of fact, her show is no longer on tv except for old cases.
that must have been a very emotional case for all parties, including the law office. Thank you for outlining this situation so well. I do not disagree with the outcomes...it certainly isn’t the incapacitated victims fault someone made matters worse. Guess the lesson here to everyone is: Don’t make a wreck!
Post Comment - Post a comment on this Forum Thread

Stats for this Thread

389 Views
19 Comments
Created: Jul 28
Last Viewed: 11 hrs ago
Last Commented: Aug 2

Share this Thread

Post Comment back to top
We use cookies to ensure that you have the best experience possible on our website. Read Our Privacy Policy Here