Friday, June 26, 2015

West Toledo Motorcycle Accident Attorney

Motorcyclist Killed in West Toledo Crash

A motorcyclist was killed in a crash involving a motorcycle and another vehicle in West Toledo early today. According to the Toledo Blade, a car turned right in front of the motorcycle. Unfortunately, as is far too often the case, the driver of the automobile was not injured – but the rider of the motorcycle lost his life.

What to do if this happens to you

If this happens to you, do not hesitate to call attorney Charles S. Herman. I am a West Toledo motorcycle accident attorney and I represent individuals in all types of accidents in the Toledo, Ohio and surrounding areas. If you have been injured or your loved one or family members has lost their life in a motorcycle collision, do not hesitate to pursue the matter through a lawyer because there may be some difficult legal issues including comparative negligence and uninsured motorist coverage involved in the case. There have been studies done that show that the earlier you get an attorney involved in your case, the better settlement that is obtained on your behalf. West Toledo motorcycle accident attorney Charles S. Herman represents injured motorcyclists on a contingency fee basis. This means that there is no fee unless you win your case and attorney Herman will help you seek reimbursement for all related expenses, including wrongful death, loss of quality of life, pain and suffering, and loss of future earnings. Contact me now for a free consultation or go to my website at

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Ohio County Immunity

Rosenbrook v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs., Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County

This case arose when the plaintiff slip and fell on a floor mat at the Lucas County Ohio courthouse. She and her husband brought suit against the County and the Court found that summary judgment was proper for the County because the negligence claims stemming from the slip and fall accident that occurred failed to establish an exception to the county’s immunity under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4), and further failed to identify the cause of the fall as required under the general laws of negligence. The county argued that the plaintiff did not allege any facts that would strip appellant of its statutorily imposed governmental immunity.

As stated by the Ohio Supreme Court, a “three-tiered analysis” is used to determine whether a political subdivision is immune from liability. Under the first tier, we examine whether the general grant of immunity provided by R.C. 2744.02(A) applies. If it does, the second tier requires us to determine whether immunity has been abrogated by the exceptions set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B). If an exception applies, the third tier involves a determination of whether the political subdivision is able to successfully assert one of the defenses listed in R.C. 2744.03, thereby reinstating its immunity.

R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) abrogates the general immunity afforded political subdivisions engaged in a governmental activity only if an injury is: 1) caused by employee negligence, 2) on the grounds or in buildings used in connection [with] that governmental activity, and 3) due to physical defects on or within those grounds or buildings.

In order to establish employee negligence, appellants must show the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately resulting from the breach. As a threshold matter, the Court had to determine the appropriate duty of care owed to the plaintiff. To determine the duty of care owed in premises liability actions, the Court examined the relationship between the owner or occupier of the premises and the injured party and found that the plaintiff was a licensee to whom the county owed no duty except to refrain from willfully or wantonly causing injury. The Court further found that plaintiff failed to show that there was no evidence of willful or wanton misconduct surrounding the County’s handling of the floor mats.

This case is in line with others that have been decided involving similar facts. In slip and fall cases, it is very difficult – if not impossible, to overcome the immunity defense of political subdivisions. If you think that you may have an Ohio premises liability action against a State of Ohio political subdivision, it is important to speak with an Ohio premises liability attorney who can help you decide if you have a case that is worth pursuing.

Ohio’s Saving Statute

Mays v. Toledo Hospital, 2015 Ohio 1865 – Ohio: Court of Appeals, 6th Appellate Dist. 2015

This was a case for a wrongful death action and the Court held that Ohio’s saving statute does not apply to allow a person to bring a claim for wrongful death for a third time.

The first time that the case was brought by the pro se plaintiff, the Court dismissed the complaint finding that the claims were required to be brought by an attorney and that the complaint lacked an affidavit of merit pursuant to Civ.R. 10(D)(2). The Court found that Ohio’s saving statute may be used only once to refile a case and that it cannot be used to keep actions alive indefinitely. The Court went onto state that to allow a plaintiff to use R.C. 2305.19 more than once would frustrate the purpose of the civil rules which are intended to prevent indefinite filings.

A review of the procedural posture of this case is a good reminder of why it is so important for people with potential claims to speak with an experienced attorney and to seek help with their case. There are a myriad of complicated procedural rules that must be followed when bringing a wrongful death action based on medical malpractice. In this age of Google, many people read about how something is done on the internet and think that they can go ahead and do it themselves. There is nothing wrong with a party going pro se in limited circumstances, but in actions such as medical malpractice and wrongful death it is imperative to hire experienced counsel.