Class Action vs, tort claim.#Tort #claim


Tort claimCSS Firm

Staff

Personal Injury

Dangerous Drugs

Video Gallery

Today (800) 641-0098

Tort claimMost people have heard of Class Action lawsuits but are less familiar with the term Mass Tort. Class Action is a type of legal action where a lawsuit is filed on behalf of an entire group of people who share a set of unfortunate circumstances, damages and injuries. These proceedings are designed to cut down on the number of court cases that arise when many are harmed by the same problem.

For instance, if a large company is accused of overbilling all of its customers, a class action lawsuit allows the courts to decide all claims through a single claim. While these actions are useful tools for initiation corporate change, they often leave claimants with a pittance in exchange for their damages.

A class action lawsuit has several characteristics and must meet certain criteria. The people in the class must be notified of the suit and given the choice to opt out or find their own private counsel. Before filing a class action lawsuit, a motion is filed in court for the Plaintiff to act on behalf of the group or class.

The individual compensation for the injury or circumstance must not be worth the time and money of hiring an attorney on an individual basis. The plaintiff must also show that his or her experience with the company or product is typical of the experiences of the others involved in the lawsuit, that this type of lawsuit is the most ideal for holding the defendants accountable, that the evidence against the defendants must be similar across the board, and that individual lawsuits against the defendant would be neither prudent nor cost-effective.

Mass Tort lawsuits are different. Although mass tort claims also attempt to reduce the number of court cases in the system, they must be handled differently, covering a much broader range of claim types. Class Action suits are a type of Mass Tort claims.

In most cases, Mass Tort claims are brought when consumers are injured on a large scale by defective drugs or defective products. Drugs and product defects can cause a wide range of problems for different individuals, so all cases rarely fit into a single class.

Mass tort litigation lets one attorney or groups of attorneys represent several injured parties in individual cases. The investigation conducted by one attorney can be shared among all cases. A nationwide network of lawyers can pool resources, information and ideas to ensure all individuals receive fair settlements for their injuries.

Mass Tort lawsuits are typically more complicated than class action lawsuits because the way they are structured does not necessarily follow standard predictable legal procedure. Because of the multitude of claims that are brought during the suit, it can be difficult to determine settlements and compensation.

If you believe you have a case that may fall under Mass Tort litigation, contact our office for a free consultation. We will help you determine the best course of action for your situation.


Making an Injury Claim Under the California Tort Claims Act, tort claim.#Tort #claim


Making an Injury Claim Under the California Tort Claims Act

If you’re injured through someone else’s negligence in California, you usually have the option of filing a personal injury lawsuit in the state’s civil courts. But what about when the negligent party is a government agency or government employee? Let’s say a county vehicle hits your car, or you a trip and fall on a broken staircase in a government building, for example. The California Tort Claims Act will govern an injury claim arising from situations like these, and in this article we’ll explain the rules and requirements laid out in this law.

The California Tort Claims Act (CTCA) appears in sections 810 through 996.6 of the California Government Code (GC). It states that, as a general rule, “a public entity is not liable for an injury” caused by the public entity or any of its employees.

This general rule is also known as the rule of “sovereign immunity,” which has appeared in U.S. and English laws for hundreds of years. Centuries ago in England, the rule prevented people from attempting to sue the king, even if they were harmed by a decision the king made. In the U.S. today, states have adopted the immunity rule to limit their liability, and then have carved out exceptions through which an injured person can sue the state, usually through a strictly-enforced procedure set forth in a statute like the CTCA.

Limitations and Exceptions in the CTCA

The California Tort Claims Act covers all civil liability claims for “money or damages.” In other words, it covers not only negligence cases such as those arising from a car accident, slip and fall, or medical negligence, but also claims like nuisance, intentional wrongs, and breach of contract.

As a rule, a government agency or entity is responsible for the negligent acts of its employees, as long as the negligent person was acting in the scope of their employment and/or carrying out a government function. Under the CTCA, the injured person must file a claim with the agency or entity that employs the negligent person. The CTCA does not permit claims against the negligent employee directly.

Public entities in California can also be held liable for injuries that are caused by the negligence of their independent contractors. The same rules apply whether the negligent person was an employee or an independent contractor.

Finally, public entities are also liable for injuries that result from the entity s failure to carry out a duty imposed on the entity by law. For instance, if a public fire department s employees negligently chose to ignore a fire, anyone injured in that fire could seek damages from the fire department under the California Tort Claims Act.

The CTCA does not allow claims for any of the following:

  • injuries caused by the California National Guard
  • injuries caused by passing or failing to pass any law, regulation, or ordinance
  • injuries caused by issuing (or failing to issue) any certificate, license, permit, order, or similar official authorization
  • injuries caused by failing to inspect any property the government does not own
  • injuries caused by failing to enforce any law
  • injuries caused by reporting the identifying information of people convicted of a controlled substance violation to local schools
  • injuries caused by misrepresentation, and
  • punitive damages.

In addition, any claim that is not “for money or damages” cannot be filed under the CTCA. For instance, the California Supreme Court has held that a petition for mandamus (a court order requiring a public official perform a particular action) cannot be filed under the CTCA, because it is not a request for “money or damages.”

Filing a Claim Under the CTCA

To file a claim against a state, county, or municipal government in California, the injured person must first give notice of the claim. A written notice must include:

  • the claimant s name and mailing address
  • the mailing address to which you want notices about the claim mailed
  • date, location, and description of what happened and how you were injured
  • general description of the injury, damage, or loss (including medical costs, lost wages, property damage, and similar losses)
  • name of the government employee(s) that caused the injury (if known)
  • if claimed losses are less than $10,000, the amount claimed and how it was calculated, and
  • if claimed losses are more than $10,000, whether any resulting lawsuit would be a “limited civil case” for jurisdiction purposes (a “limited civil case” is generally a lawsuit seeking less than $25,000 and one where the plaintiff is not seeking an injunction, a determination of title to real property, or enforcement of a Family Code order.)

While you can simply write a letter containing this information, most municipalities have forms you can use to streamline the process. For instance, the City of Los Angeles, the City of San Diego, and the City of San Jose all offer a notice of claim form on their respective websites.

Time Limits for Filing Claims Under the CTCA

Before a lawsuit can be filed in court, the injured person must give written notice of the claim to the government agency responsible for the harm. This notice must be filed within six months of the date of injury. The government then has the option to accept or reject the claim. If the government rejects all or part of the claim, the injured person may file a lawsuit in court. You are not obligated to follow through with a lawsuit if you provide notice of your claim, even if your claim is rejected. Therefore, it is often wise to provide notice in order to keep your options open.


EXCLUSIVE: Weinstein files – claim against Evergreen State, tort claim.#Tort #claim


EXCLUSIVE: Weinstein files $3.8M claim against Evergreen State

Tort claim

  • Bret Weinstein, the Evergreen State College professor who was driven from campus by a mob of students earlier this year, is preparing to file a $3.8 million claim against the public institution.
  • The claim accuses Evergreen State of “fostering a racially hostile work and retaliatory environment” by encouraging the student protests that forced Weinstein to flee campus for his own safety.
  • The students were upset with Weinstein for objecting to a “Day of Absence” event that called for white students and faculty to leave campus for a day of diversity programming.
  • Tort claim

    Bret Weinstein, the Evergreen State College professor who was driven from campus by a mob of students earlier this year, is preparing to file a $3.8 million claim against the public institution.

    According to documents obtained by Campus Reform, Weinstein and his wife, Heather Heying, have filed a standard Tort Claim form against Evergreen State for a sum of $3,850,000.

    “The College has refused to protect its employees from. verbal and written hostility based on race.”

    The legal document was signed by the couple s attorney and received by Washington s Department of Enterprise Services Office of Risk Management on July 5.

    The official claim follows a litigation hold request sent out in early June, asking the school s employees to retain and preserve all evidence that relates to the 2017 Day of Absence; the student-led protests on campus that took place during the last school year; and any records that relate to Weinstein, his wife, activist professor Naima Lowe, and administrator Rashida Love.

    Please be on notice that this demand covers not only those records covered by any public records acts but those which are or were communicated by private means of any type including but not limited to email and photography. This demand should be immediately distributed campus-wide to all faculty and staff, Weinstein and Heying wrote on June 4.

    Take note that the destruction or alteration of evidence is a felony, the document added. This demand is made in contemplation of litigation. Please promptly acknowledge receipt of this communication and confirm that you will comply.

    Tort claimTort claim

    In an email to Campus Reform, Weinstein s attorney underscored that the $3.8 million is a total claimed on behalf of both professors collectively for the hostile work environment that has been fostered at the college over the past year or so.

    He also noted that there is no current litigation at this point, since a tort claim must be filed at least 60 days prior to initiating legal action in the state of Washington.

    Campus Reform also obtained hundreds of pages of documents, including emails and social media posts, that relate to the requested litigation hold in June and the tort claim in July.

    Email exchanges reviewed by Campus Reform feature harsh criticisms of Weinstein s political views and calls for his termination, including one email sent by a faculty emerita that blasts Weinstein s appearance on Fox News and his public comments about the racial tensions in Evergreen.

    Bret, I don’t know what you were thinking. By describing yourself to Tucker [Carlson] as a deeply progressive person you provided him ammunition for the claim that the crazies are even going after progressives. part of the email reads.

    Tort claim

    I hope that you won’t deepen your relation with Fox or pass on more raw material for Tucker’s campus craziness show, the missive continues. I have no doubt that you and your family are suffering due to recent missives and events; but so are many others on campus.

    Other communications include A Letter to the campus and Bret Weinstein from some Jews bent on the destruction of White Supremacy, that calls for the termination of Weinstein s employment.

    We want to talk about the ways that Weinstein is positioning himself as a Jew to invalidate the claims of racism being raised against him, the letter begins.

    Bret Weinstein is wrong, he has put you in danger, and we will not allow him to hide behind our histories in order to dodge responsibility for his abhorrent and reprehensible words and actions, it concludes. NO COPS ON CAMPUS. FIRE BRET WEINSTEIN. BLACK LIVES MATTER.

    Tort claim

    Tort claim

    The factual narrative submitted alongside the tort claim argues that Evergreen State has permitted, cultivated, and perpetuated a racially hostile and retaliatory work environment, asserting that Through a series of decisions made at the highest levels, including to officially support a day of racial segregation, the College has refused to protect its employees from repeated provocative and corrosive verbal and written hostility based on race, as well as threats of physical violence.

    Weinstein s attorney also maintains that the college has failed to set and enforce necessary boundaries in the workplace on campus, selectively has chosen not to enforce its student Code of Conduct, and sent the unmistakable message that the school will tolerate (and even endorse) egregious violations (and even crimes) purportedly to advance racial social goals, diminishing the collegiate experience for all, and fostering a racially hostile work and retaliatory environment for faculty and staff.

    Tort claim

    Additionally, the factual narrative of the case blasts the college for its policy on the Day of Absence, an event that asked for white students faculty and staff to leave campus for a day of diversity programming.

    On its official website, the College asserted that it had never asked whites to leave campus on the Day of Absence a demonstrably false statement. It also asserts that demonstrations were nonviolent and took place. in isolated areas of the college, which is also false, the attorney states.

    In doing so, TESC [The Evergreen State College] continued to support its racially discriminatory conduct, publicly rejecting Professor Weinstein s complaints of racial segregation for which he has been repeatedly excoriated, threatened, attacked, and wrongly accused of being a racist in the workplace, for months, the narrative concludes.

    Tort claim


    Monroe Street business group files $15 million tort claim against city to stop lane reduction,


    Spokane

    UPDATED: Fri., Sept. 22, 2017, 9:53 a.m.

    Tort claim A pedestrian crosses North Monroe on Wednesday, April 5, 2017. A coalition of business owners on North Monroe on Thursday filed a $15 million tort claim against the city of Spokane, citing “significant revenue losses” during the city’s planned renovation of the street. (Kathy Plonka / The Spokesman-Review)

    A coalition of business owners on North Monroe filed a $15 million tort claim Thursday against the city of Spokane, citing “significant revenue losses” during the city’s planned renovation of the street.

    The Monroe Street Business Association, which was incorporated in June by Gary Jarvis, the owner of Skipper’s Seafood ’n Chowder House on the street, claims that the city of Spokane and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council planned the road work with “utter indifference” to how it would impact the businesses on the street.

    “We are not worried 100 percent about the businesses,” Jarvis said. “It’s about the community. We are just trying to represent the citizens in our area who are against the project. We are trying to give them a voice.”

    City utilities spokeswoman Marlene Feist confirmed the city received the $15 million tort claim Thursday afternoon.

    “We did receive a claim for damages,” Feist said. “Obviously, we have not had an opportunity to review it at this point and we have no comment at this time.”

    Feist did push back against assertions that the city has ignored the concerns of local business owners, noting that it has a $15,000 contract with Washington State University’s Washington Small Business Development Center to do outreach on Monroe, provide information about the project to businesses, and assist in cash-flow planning, marketing and budget making. The center will also help businesses plan to reduce expenses while keeping their operations going.

    “We’re trying to do everything we can to assist in the time of construction,” Feist said.

    Bob Dunn, a private practice attorney who has won many settlements after filing lawsuits against the city of Spokane, is representing the business association against the city, transportation council and the 17 people who sit on the council.

    A tort claim is a necessary first step in the legal process to file a lawsuit against the city. If the city rejects the claim, a lawsuit could follow.

    “I’m getting reports in from the members about what the losses will be over the two-year construction period,” Dunn said of the business group, which he said “consists of businesses up and down Monroe.”

    At issue is the North Monroe Corridor project, a $7.1 million plan to reduce the number of lanes from five to three, construct more visible crosswalks and make the business center’s sidewalks wider with more trees and benches. The city will have two contracts out for the job, effectively doubling the workforce to complete the project in a seven-month time frame between April and October.

    The complete revamping of the north-south arterial between Indiana and Cora avenues was first adopted by the Spokane City Council in 2014. The idea for the Monroe project came from the Emerson-Garfield Neighborhood Plan, developed that same year by neighborhood leaders as the guiding document for the neighborhood’s future .

    E.J. Iannelli, former chair of the neighborhood, said in an email that North Monroe businesses, including Jarvis at Skipper’s, were consulted multiple times during the neighborhood planning phase. He also suggested that Jarvis’ business association didn’t fully represent the neighborhood’s businesses, noting that the North Monroe Business District is the longer-established business association on Monroe. He said “most, if not all” of that association’s members are in support of the project.

    City Councilwoman Karen Stratton, who represents the neighborhood, said that the council had approved the grant award and the neighborhood plan, but there was no single vote authorizing the project, as some opponents of the work have claimed in targeting specific City Council members up for re-election.

    “I regret in all of this they feel that this is going to come to a vote for the council, and that we can stop it,” Stratton said.

    The council could adopt a resolution rejecting the grant money and nixing the project, Stratton said, but “my gut feeling tells me it wouldn’t pass.” Such a move would also ignore the work of the Emerson-Garfield Neighborhood in adopting a plan for the street, she said.

    City officials say work will last for the construction season of 2018, over a period of roughly seven months. Design of the project is underway, and the work will occur between March and October.

    The project is largely funded by a 2014 Federal Highway Safety Improvement grant for $3.8 million, and a 2014 Washington State Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety grant for $326,800.

    Dunn said his clients are against both the construction schedule and the design of the street.

    “It’s a combination of everything. This project is called the Monroe road diet project,” Dunn said. “Everyone is concerned that it’s going to choke down the traffic for two years and, when it opens, no one will ever come back to visit.”

    It is unclear what other businesses besides Skipper’s belong to the group. In August, the owner of the Vintage Rabbit Antique Mall announced the store’s closure in anticipation of the street work.

    According to city data, average daily traffic counts in 2016 ranged from 17,000 to 18,300 on that stretch of Monroe. As a principal arterial, it sees more traffic than most streets, but less than other north-south arterials north of the river. Northwest Boulevard, Maple, Ash, Division, Hamilton, Freya and Market streets all see higher traffic counts.

    The city says the three-lane road can handle up to 25,000 vehicles a day. Other three-lanes roads in Spokane handle 20,000 vehicles, and other communities say three lanes can accommodate 25,000.

    An online survey done earlier this year by the city showed nearly 69 percent of respondents approved of the project. A radio ad produced last December by the Monroe Business Association said 90 percent of businesses on Monroe disapproved.

    North Monroe has long been an important street for commuters, but plans city engineers have had for it over the decades have varied.

    North Monroe was first graded in 1889, transforming a route that “was nothing more than a trail extending from the river to Five Mile Prairie” into a road for vehicles, according to a 1955 article in The Spokesman-Review. Twelve years later, it remained unpaved and a “sea of mud.”

    Over the following decades, cars swamped American cities, and roads became a serious civic matter. In 1930, the city widened North Monroe for the first time. Traffic engineers marveled at the spiking traffic counts on the Monroe Street Bridge. Spokane United Railways, the predecessor to the Spokane Transit Authority, swapped streetcars for buses on Monroe in 1934.

    By 1970, Spokane motorists had yet to grow tired of the Monroe commute, and the street had an average daily traffic count of 23,450. Engineers didn’t know what to do. The road was packed and hundreds of auto incidents occurred on the street between the river and the base of the North Hill at Cora every year.

    Things were so bad on North Monroe that city traffic engineers began envisioning a new Monroe, though much different from the incarnation currently in the works.

    In 1976, with traffic counts at 29,000 vehicles a day, they proposed eliminating all street parking on 31 blocks of North Monroe, from the river to Cora, widening the street and adding lanes to allow for the “safe and efficient flow” of traffic. The city had done the same thing on Division peaceably, but there were protests on Monroe.

    Utlimately, City Council voted to widen the street and install “traffic bays.” The street’s sidewalks were narrowed to accommodate the new design.

    In 1985, with daily traffic counts at 32,850 and climbing, city engineers were still fixated on Monroe’s flow. They had a list of options to make the road better for traffic. At the top of their list was building another bridge and making Monroe and Lincoln a north couplet, an idea that stayed alive and gained strong momentum at the turn of the century as the city bought land and sought permits to have the span built. In 2000, the City Council voted unanimously to abandon the unpopular effort to build the bridge.

    The construction alone will become an economic burden on businesses and force them to reduce staffs, Jarvis said.

    “I ve been asked thousands of times, ‘How do we sign a petition? How do we vote?’” Jarvis said. “If you poll the citizens of Spokane, they are not for the project. It s not even a small number.”

    Due to incorrect information provided by the city of Spokane, this story previously misstated the funding sources for the planned renovation of North Monroe. It is not receiving a 2015 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant for $475,000. Also, the project is funded by a 2014 Federal Highway Safety Improvement grant. A reporter error had the wrong year for the federal grant.

    Staff writers Thomas Clouse and Kip Hill contributed to this story.


    Making an Injury Claim Under the California Tort Claims Act, tort claims.#Tort #claims


    Making an Injury Claim Under the California Tort Claims Act

    If you’re injured through someone else’s negligence in California, you usually have the option of filing a personal injury lawsuit in the state’s civil courts. But what about when the negligent party is a government agency or government employee? Let’s say a county vehicle hits your car, or you a trip and fall on a broken staircase in a government building, for example. The California Tort Claims Act will govern an injury claim arising from situations like these, and in this article we’ll explain the rules and requirements laid out in this law.

    The California Tort Claims Act (CTCA) appears in sections 810 through 996.6 of the California Government Code (GC). It states that, as a general rule, “a public entity is not liable for an injury” caused by the public entity or any of its employees.

    This general rule is also known as the rule of “sovereign immunity,” which has appeared in U.S. and English laws for hundreds of years. Centuries ago in England, the rule prevented people from attempting to sue the king, even if they were harmed by a decision the king made. In the U.S. today, states have adopted the immunity rule to limit their liability, and then have carved out exceptions through which an injured person can sue the state, usually through a strictly-enforced procedure set forth in a statute like the CTCA.

    Limitations and Exceptions in the CTCA

    The California Tort Claims Act covers all civil liability claims for “money or damages.” In other words, it covers not only negligence cases such as those arising from a car accident, slip and fall, or medical negligence, but also claims like nuisance, intentional wrongs, and breach of contract.

    As a rule, a government agency or entity is responsible for the negligent acts of its employees, as long as the negligent person was acting in the scope of their employment and/or carrying out a government function. Under the CTCA, the injured person must file a claim with the agency or entity that employs the negligent person. The CTCA does not permit claims against the negligent employee directly.

    Public entities in California can also be held liable for injuries that are caused by the negligence of their independent contractors. The same rules apply whether the negligent person was an employee or an independent contractor.

    Finally, public entities are also liable for injuries that result from the entity s failure to carry out a duty imposed on the entity by law. For instance, if a public fire department s employees negligently chose to ignore a fire, anyone injured in that fire could seek damages from the fire department under the California Tort Claims Act.

    The CTCA does not allow claims for any of the following:

    • injuries caused by the California National Guard
    • injuries caused by passing or failing to pass any law, regulation, or ordinance
    • injuries caused by issuing (or failing to issue) any certificate, license, permit, order, or similar official authorization
    • injuries caused by failing to inspect any property the government does not own
    • injuries caused by failing to enforce any law
    • injuries caused by reporting the identifying information of people convicted of a controlled substance violation to local schools
    • injuries caused by misrepresentation, and
    • punitive damages.

    In addition, any claim that is not “for money or damages” cannot be filed under the CTCA. For instance, the California Supreme Court has held that a petition for mandamus (a court order requiring a public official perform a particular action) cannot be filed under the CTCA, because it is not a request for “money or damages.”

    Filing a Claim Under the CTCA

    To file a claim against a state, county, or municipal government in California, the injured person must first give notice of the claim. A written notice must include:

    • the claimant s name and mailing address
    • the mailing address to which you want notices about the claim mailed
    • date, location, and description of what happened and how you were injured
    • general description of the injury, damage, or loss (including medical costs, lost wages, property damage, and similar losses)
    • name of the government employee(s) that caused the injury (if known)
    • if claimed losses are less than $10,000, the amount claimed and how it was calculated, and
    • if claimed losses are more than $10,000, whether any resulting lawsuit would be a “limited civil case” for jurisdiction purposes (a “limited civil case” is generally a lawsuit seeking less than $25,000 and one where the plaintiff is not seeking an injunction, a determination of title to real property, or enforcement of a Family Code order.)

    While you can simply write a letter containing this information, most municipalities have forms you can use to streamline the process. For instance, the City of Los Angeles, the City of San Diego, and the City of San Jose all offer a notice of claim form on their respective websites.

    Time Limits for Filing Claims Under the CTCA

    Before a lawsuit can be filed in court, the injured person must give written notice of the claim to the government agency responsible for the harm. This notice must be filed within six months of the date of injury. The government then has the option to accept or reject the claim. If the government rejects all or part of the claim, the injured person may file a lawsuit in court. You are not obligated to follow through with a lawsuit if you provide notice of your claim, even if your claim is rejected. Therefore, it is often wise to provide notice in order to keep your options open.


    Addresses for Claims, Claims – Tort Litigation (Code 15), U, tort claims.#Tort #claims


    tort claims

    PCA claims should be filed with the Personnel Claims Unit Norfolk using the forms available in the Packets Forms section of this website.

    Mailing Address: Personnel Claims Unit Norfolk 9053 First St. Suite 102 Norfolk, VA 23511-3605 Phone Numbers: Toll Free: (888) 897-8217 Comm: (757) 440-6315 DSN: 564-3310 Fax: (866) 782-7297 Fax DSN: 564-3337 Email: [email protected]

    Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), Military Claims Act (MCA) and Affirmative Claims

    Mailing Address: Office of the Judge Advocate General Tort Claims Unit Norfolk 9620 Maryland Ave. Suite 205 Norfolk, VA 23511-2949 Phone Numbers: Telephone: (757) 341-4583 DSN: 341-4583 Fax: (757) 341-4562 DSN Fax: 341-4562 Email: [email protected]

    Medical Care Recovery Act (MCRA)

    Medical Care Recovery Unit (MCRU) Areas of Responsibility (AOR) and contact information are listed below.

    MCRU Norfolk:

    AOR for Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Washington D.C., West Virginia, Azores, Bermuda, Greenland, Iceland, Atlantic and Arctic Ocean areas and islands, and areas not otherwise assigned.

    Mailing Address: Medical Care Recovery Unit Norfolk 9053 First St., Suite 100 Norfolk, VA 23511-3605 Phone Numbers: Telephone: (757) 440-6300 DSN: 564-3517 Fax: (757) 444-3527 DSN Fax: 564-3527

    MCRU Pensacola:

    AOR for Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Mexico (east of the states of Chihuahua, Durango, Nayarit, Jalisco, and Colima), Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.

    Mailing Address: Medical Care Recovery Unit Pensacola 161 Turner St., Suite B Pensacola, FL 32508-5526 Phone Numbers: Telephone: (850) 452-5351 / 5359 DSN: 459-5351 / 5359 Fax: (850) 452-9179 DSN Fax: 459-9179

    MCRU San Diego:

    AOR for Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Mexico (including and west of the states of Chihuahua, Durango, Nayarit, Jalisco, and Colima), Pacific Ocean areas and islands, Ecuador, Peru, and Chile.

    Mailing Address: Medical Care Recovery Unit San Diego 3395 Sturtevant St., Suite 2 San Diego, CA 92136-5138 Phone Numbers: Telephone: (619) 556-8601 DSN: 526-8601 Fax: (619) 556-9042 DSN Fax: 526-9042

    OJAG Code 15 HQ:

    Do You Need to Initiate

    These links have all the information and documents you will need:

    • Home |
    • About Us |
    • News |
    • Careers |
    • Legal Services |
    • Library |
    • Naval Justice School |
    • Contact Us
    • 1322 Patterson Ave. |
    • Suite 3000 |
    • Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066 |
    • Contact Webmaster |
    • GILS Registration Number 45473
    • FOIA |
    • Privacy Policy |
    • Site Map

    An Official Web Site of the United States Navy


    Class Action vs, tort claims.#Tort #claims


    Tort claimsCSS Firm

    Staff

    Personal Injury

    Dangerous Drugs

    Video Gallery

    Today (800) 641-0098

    Tort claimsMost people have heard of Class Action lawsuits but are less familiar with the term Mass Tort. Class Action is a type of legal action where a lawsuit is filed on behalf of an entire group of people who share a set of unfortunate circumstances, damages and injuries. These proceedings are designed to cut down on the number of court cases that arise when many are harmed by the same problem.

    For instance, if a large company is accused of overbilling all of its customers, a class action lawsuit allows the courts to decide all claims through a single claim. While these actions are useful tools for initiation corporate change, they often leave claimants with a pittance in exchange for their damages.

    A class action lawsuit has several characteristics and must meet certain criteria. The people in the class must be notified of the suit and given the choice to opt out or find their own private counsel. Before filing a class action lawsuit, a motion is filed in court for the Plaintiff to act on behalf of the group or class.

    The individual compensation for the injury or circumstance must not be worth the time and money of hiring an attorney on an individual basis. The plaintiff must also show that his or her experience with the company or product is typical of the experiences of the others involved in the lawsuit, that this type of lawsuit is the most ideal for holding the defendants accountable, that the evidence against the defendants must be similar across the board, and that individual lawsuits against the defendant would be neither prudent nor cost-effective.

    Mass Tort lawsuits are different. Although mass tort claims also attempt to reduce the number of court cases in the system, they must be handled differently, covering a much broader range of claim types. Class Action suits are a type of Mass Tort claims.

    In most cases, Mass Tort claims are brought when consumers are injured on a large scale by defective drugs or defective products. Drugs and product defects can cause a wide range of problems for different individuals, so all cases rarely fit into a single class.

    Mass tort litigation lets one attorney or groups of attorneys represent several injured parties in individual cases. The investigation conducted by one attorney can be shared among all cases. A nationwide network of lawyers can pool resources, information and ideas to ensure all individuals receive fair settlements for their injuries.

    Mass Tort lawsuits are typically more complicated than class action lawsuits because the way they are structured does not necessarily follow standard predictable legal procedure. Because of the multitude of claims that are brought during the suit, it can be difficult to determine settlements and compensation.

    If you believe you have a case that may fall under Mass Tort litigation, contact our office for a free consultation. We will help you determine the best course of action for your situation.


    Toxic Torts Overview, tort claims.#Tort #claims


    Toxic Torts Overview

    A toxic tort is a legal claim for harm caused by exposure to a dangerous substance — such as a pharmaceutical drug, pesticide, or chemical. While advances in technology, manufacturing, and medicine have introduced thousands of new products into our daily lives, some of those products — and the substances they contain — can cause serious illnesses in humans. Sometimes chemicals which are thought to be safe turn out to be otherwise. Other times, substances known to be dangerous accidentally leak into the air or groundwater. Along with these new chemicals and drugs have come lawsuits — called toxic tort litigation — brought on behalf of individuals or groups of people who have been exposed to and harmed by dangerous substances.

    This article discusses the basic law underlying toxic torts — what plaintiffs must prove in order to prevail, situations in which most toxic tort cases arise, who to sue, special proof issues in toxic tort claims, and what types of damages are available to plaintiffs.

    Toxic Tort Claims and Defenses

    In a toxic tort claim, the plaintiff (the person who sues) alleges that exposure to some dangerous substance caused an injury or illness. These claims are often brought on behalf of a group of people, in what is called a class action lawsuit. One example of a class action lawsuit is when a group of workers alleges exposure to asbestos while on the job. Another class action may arise when residents of a neighborhood allege that local groundwater has become contaminated by a pesticide. While class actions are common, a single individual may also bring a toxic tort lawsuit.

    Toxic tort claims usually arise in the following contexts:

    • Occupational exposure – when industrial workers are exposed to toxins, at high levels for a short period of time or at lower levels over an extended period. Examples of this type of toxic tort litigation include lawsuits based on workers’ exposure to asbestos and benzene on the job. (To learn more about asbestos and benzene litigation, see Nolo’s articles Mesothelioma and Asbestos: An Overview and Benzene Exposure, Health Risks Litigation.)
    • Pharmaceutical drugs – when pharmaceutical drugs cause unintended side-effects. Drugs that have been the subject of toxic tort litigation include the antidepressants Zoloft and Prozac. (To learn more about claims against pharmaceutical drug companies, see Nolo’s article Product Liability Claims Involving Pharmaceutical Drugs.)
    • Exposure in the home – when people breathe or ingest substances in their home, such as toxic mold. (To learn more about mold exposure, see Nolo’s article Toxic Mold Basics.)
    • Consumer products – when people use products, such as pesticides, that cause unintended illness.

    The specific elements that a plaintiff must prove in a toxic tort case vary depending on the legal theories involved, but generally the plaintiff must show that 1) the substance was dangerous, 2) the plaintiff was exposed to the substance, and 3) the substance caused harm to the plaintiff. (To learn about the different theories of liability in toxic tort cases, see Nolo’s article Toxic Torts: Legal Theories of Liability.)

    Defendants in toxic tort cases often mount a vigorous defense. They can poke holes in a plaintiff’s case or present evidence that the plaintiff has not proved all of the necessary elements of their claims. Defendants can also present more procedure-based defenses. For example, a defendant might try to prove that a plaintiff did not bring their toxic tort lawsuit in a timely manner under the applicable statute of limitations laws. (To learn about the defenses available to defendants in toxic tort cases, see Nolo’s article Toxic Tort Litigation: Common Defenses.)

    Special Issues in Toxic Tort Cases

    Although each toxic tort case is unique — depending on the toxin involved, the way plaintiffs were exposed, and the alleged resulting illness — there are some common issues that crop up in many toxic tort cases.

    Proving Causation

    The battleground in most toxic tort cases is causation. There are several reasons for this. In many cases it is difficult to trace the source of the chemical or substance that caused the injury. Also, many illnesses caused by exposure to toxins don’t manifest until years after the exposure. Plaintiffs must weed out intervening factors( such as exposure to other chemicals) in proving the key element of their case: that it was the specific chemical manufactured or distributed by the defendant that caused the plaintiff’s illness.

    Stale Evidence

    When a lawsuit is brought years after the initial exposure to the chemical at issue, evidence may be hard to come by. Documents related to the original exposure may no longer be around, witnesses can be hard to track down, and memories may become fuzzy over time.

    Reliance on Scientific Evidence

    Toxic tort lawsuits are hugely dependant on science. Studies linking substances to certain diseases or health conditions can make or break a case. Changing scientific developments can instantly change the legal landscape. For example, lawsuits alleging that a certain workplace chemical caused cancer could fail for years, but if a single study linking the chemical to cancer emerges, plaintiffs in the same type of lawsuit may begin winning large damage awards.

    Who to Sue in Toxic Tort Cases

    Figuring out who to sue in toxic tort cases is another tricky problem. Plaintiffs often don’t know who manufactured a dangerous product. For example, suppose a patient is taking a drug that is manufactured by several different pharmaceutical companies. If the patient develops cancer years later, it may be difficult to determine which company manufactured the particular drug the patient took. Similarly, residents who live in an industrial area might allege a link between their health problems and airborne contaminants in the area, but the residents may not know which local factory is actually responsible for the release of those contaminants.

    As a rule, plaintiffs usually sue anyone and everyone that could have any possible link to the dangerous substance. This may include:

    • manufacturers and distributors of chemicals
    • manufacturers and distributors of machines or devices that expose workers to chemicals
    • owners and lessors of premises where the plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
    • manufacturers of equipment that failed to keep the plaintiff safe from chemicals, or
    • companies that stored the chemicals.

    Tort claims, tort claims.#Tort #claims


    Fighting lawsuit abuse since 1986

    Since 1986, ATRA is the only national organization exclusively dedicated to reforming the civil justice system. It is a nationwide network of state-based liability reform coalitions backed by 135,000 grassroots supporters. ATRA also has had an unparalleled track record of legislative success.

    How States Perform

    Click on each state to find out what civil justice reform laws have passed, when they were passed, and whether they have been upheld as constitutional.

    News Events

    View all news and events

    Tort claims

    ATRA Cheers 5th Circuit Reversal of Record-Setting FCA Verdict

    WASHINGTON, D.C., October 3, 2017 – The American Tort Reform Association is cheering a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision last Friday that reversed a record-setting $663 [ ]

    Tort claims

    ATRA Backs Congressman Faso’s Pro-Growth Reform Bill Aimed at New York’s Antiquated and Costly ‘Scaffold Law’

    WASHINGTON, D.C., September 19, 2017 – The American Tort Reform Association today announced its support for reform legislation introduced by Congressman John Faso (R-NY) that “will allow the federal government [ ]

    September 19, 2017

    Tort claims

    ATRA Brief Urges Mass. Supreme Judicial Court to Reject Theory of Innovator Liability

    WASHINGTON, D.C., August 28, 2017 —The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), along with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) on Friday [ ]

    Tort claims

    ATRA Applauds John Adams for Signing 2017 Transparency Code Pledge

    WASHINGTON, D.C., August 23, 2017 – The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) today praised Virginia attorney general candidate John Adams for embracing good-government principles by signing ATRA’s 2017 Transparency Code [ ]

    Tort claims

    ATRA Critical of Giant ‘Junk Science’ Verdict in ‘Golden State for Trial Lawyers’

    WASHINGTON, D.C., August 22, 2017 – Citing California’s stubborn and long criticized reluctance to adopt unambiguously the more exacting Daubert standard for expert evidence used in all federal courts and [ ]

    Tort claims

    ATRA: ‘Follow the Trial Lawyers’’ Influence in Opioid Litigation

    WASHINGTON, D.C., June 19, 2017 – Acknowledging the “growing scope, seriousness and complexity of our nation’s problems with the abuse of federally approved pain medication,” the American Tort Reform Association [ ]

    Tort claims

    ATRA Cheers SCOTUS Term’s Jurisdiction-Case ‘Trifecta’

    WASHINGTON, D.C., June 19, 2017 – With today’s announced decision of a third significant jurisdictional case by the U.S. Supreme Court this term, the American Tort Reform Association applauded the [ ]

    Tort claims

    ATRA Cheers Enactment of ‘Expert Witness’ Reform, Says Old Standard Helped Make Missouri the ‘Show Me Your Lawsuits State’

    WASHINGTON, D.C., March 28, 2017 – With Gov. Eric Greitens expected to sign a key tort reform bill into law today, the American Tort Reform Association pointed again “to the [ ]

    Tort claims

    News Report Unearths Trial Lawyer Underground

    Lawsuit Industry’s ‘Largely Unreported’ Lobbying Success with Obama Administration Detailed

    October 25, 2016

    Tort claims

    Costly New Anti-Arbitration Rule Aimed at Nursing Homes Is Administration’s Latest Gift to Trial Lawyers

    ATRA Urges Media to Focus on Other ‘Midnight’ Regulations Expected to Favor Big Donors to President’s Party as Time Runs out on His Second Term

    October 27, 2016

    Tort claims

    ATRA Calls Silver’s 12-Year Sentence ‘Worthy of His Crimes’

    Urges NY Lawmakers to Pass Asbestos Transparency Legislation, Says AG Schneiderman Should Investigate Fraud by Asbestos Plaintiffs’ Lawyers

    November 8, 2016

    Reform Pulse

    RT @MissouriChamber: This case could have a monumental impact on business liability ⬎ https://t.co/Gn1Th2TlMC

    Former @txbiz CEO @texashammond shines light on growing opioid lawsuit concerns nationally https://t.co/1ORbVSnyCy

    The holiday season is approaching. Don’t get hit with a fa-la-la-lawsuit. http://ow.ly/2hQH30gkWea

    Have you read Tiger Joyce s op-ed in The Hill?

    At the risk of sounding like sore winners, the American Tort Reform Association in today s The Wall Street Journal points out the false premise with which supporters of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s anti-arbitration and pro-class actions rule had long tried to sell it – right up till Tuesday night’s Senate vote that killed it once and for all.

    Panel includes Joshua Wright, FTC Commissioner, Professor Joanna Shepherd-Bailey, Emory University School of Law, Professor Peter Hollend, University of Maryland Law School, and Cary Silverman, Shook Hardy Bacon

    Tom Stebbins of LRANY discusses the influx of tort cases against high fructose corn syrup.

    Tort claims

    The American Tort Reform Association is a Washington-based nonprofit working to improve the civil justice system.

    Connect

    To receive updates and join ATRA’s grassroots team, enter your address:

    Copyright 2017 ATRA All Rights Reserved


    Monroe Street business group files $15 million tort claim against city to stop lane reduction,


    Spokane

    UPDATED: Fri., Sept. 22, 2017, 9:53 a.m.

    Tort claim A pedestrian crosses North Monroe on Wednesday, April 5, 2017. A coalition of business owners on North Monroe on Thursday filed a $15 million tort claim against the city of Spokane, citing “significant revenue losses” during the city’s planned renovation of the street. (Kathy Plonka / The Spokesman-Review)

    A coalition of business owners on North Monroe filed a $15 million tort claim Thursday against the city of Spokane, citing “significant revenue losses” during the city’s planned renovation of the street.

    The Monroe Street Business Association, which was incorporated in June by Gary Jarvis, the owner of Skipper’s Seafood ’n Chowder House on the street, claims that the city of Spokane and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council planned the road work with “utter indifference” to how it would impact the businesses on the street.

    “We are not worried 100 percent about the businesses,” Jarvis said. “It’s about the community. We are just trying to represent the citizens in our area who are against the project. We are trying to give them a voice.”

    City utilities spokeswoman Marlene Feist confirmed the city received the $15 million tort claim Thursday afternoon.

    “We did receive a claim for damages,” Feist said. “Obviously, we have not had an opportunity to review it at this point and we have no comment at this time.”

    Feist did push back against assertions that the city has ignored the concerns of local business owners, noting that it has a $15,000 contract with Washington State University’s Washington Small Business Development Center to do outreach on Monroe, provide information about the project to businesses, and assist in cash-flow planning, marketing and budget making. The center will also help businesses plan to reduce expenses while keeping their operations going.

    “We’re trying to do everything we can to assist in the time of construction,” Feist said.

    Bob Dunn, a private practice attorney who has won many settlements after filing lawsuits against the city of Spokane, is representing the business association against the city, transportation council and the 17 people who sit on the council.

    A tort claim is a necessary first step in the legal process to file a lawsuit against the city. If the city rejects the claim, a lawsuit could follow.

    “I’m getting reports in from the members about what the losses will be over the two-year construction period,” Dunn said of the business group, which he said “consists of businesses up and down Monroe.”

    At issue is the North Monroe Corridor project, a $7.1 million plan to reduce the number of lanes from five to three, construct more visible crosswalks and make the business center’s sidewalks wider with more trees and benches. The city will have two contracts out for the job, effectively doubling the workforce to complete the project in a seven-month time frame between April and October.

    The complete revamping of the north-south arterial between Indiana and Cora avenues was first adopted by the Spokane City Council in 2014. The idea for the Monroe project came from the Emerson-Garfield Neighborhood Plan, developed that same year by neighborhood leaders as the guiding document for the neighborhood’s future .

    E.J. Iannelli, former chair of the neighborhood, said in an email that North Monroe businesses, including Jarvis at Skipper’s, were consulted multiple times during the neighborhood planning phase. He also suggested that Jarvis’ business association didn’t fully represent the neighborhood’s businesses, noting that the North Monroe Business District is the longer-established business association on Monroe. He said “most, if not all” of that association’s members are in support of the project.

    City Councilwoman Karen Stratton, who represents the neighborhood, said that the council had approved the grant award and the neighborhood plan, but there was no single vote authorizing the project, as some opponents of the work have claimed in targeting specific City Council members up for re-election.

    “I regret in all of this they feel that this is going to come to a vote for the council, and that we can stop it,” Stratton said.

    The council could adopt a resolution rejecting the grant money and nixing the project, Stratton said, but “my gut feeling tells me it wouldn’t pass.” Such a move would also ignore the work of the Emerson-Garfield Neighborhood in adopting a plan for the street, she said.

    City officials say work will last for the construction season of 2018, over a period of roughly seven months. Design of the project is underway, and the work will occur between March and October.

    The project is largely funded by a 2014 Federal Highway Safety Improvement grant for $3.8 million, and a 2014 Washington State Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety grant for $326,800.

    Dunn said his clients are against both the construction schedule and the design of the street.

    “It’s a combination of everything. This project is called the Monroe road diet project,” Dunn said. “Everyone is concerned that it’s going to choke down the traffic for two years and, when it opens, no one will ever come back to visit.”

    It is unclear what other businesses besides Skipper’s belong to the group. In August, the owner of the Vintage Rabbit Antique Mall announced the store’s closure in anticipation of the street work.

    According to city data, average daily traffic counts in 2016 ranged from 17,000 to 18,300 on that stretch of Monroe. As a principal arterial, it sees more traffic than most streets, but less than other north-south arterials north of the river. Northwest Boulevard, Maple, Ash, Division, Hamilton, Freya and Market streets all see higher traffic counts.

    The city says the three-lane road can handle up to 25,000 vehicles a day. Other three-lanes roads in Spokane handle 20,000 vehicles, and other communities say three lanes can accommodate 25,000.

    An online survey done earlier this year by the city showed nearly 69 percent of respondents approved of the project. A radio ad produced last December by the Monroe Business Association said 90 percent of businesses on Monroe disapproved.

    North Monroe has long been an important street for commuters, but plans city engineers have had for it over the decades have varied.

    North Monroe was first graded in 1889, transforming a route that “was nothing more than a trail extending from the river to Five Mile Prairie” into a road for vehicles, according to a 1955 article in The Spokesman-Review. Twelve years later, it remained unpaved and a “sea of mud.”

    Over the following decades, cars swamped American cities, and roads became a serious civic matter. In 1930, the city widened North Monroe for the first time. Traffic engineers marveled at the spiking traffic counts on the Monroe Street Bridge. Spokane United Railways, the predecessor to the Spokane Transit Authority, swapped streetcars for buses on Monroe in 1934.

    By 1970, Spokane motorists had yet to grow tired of the Monroe commute, and the street had an average daily traffic count of 23,450. Engineers didn’t know what to do. The road was packed and hundreds of auto incidents occurred on the street between the river and the base of the North Hill at Cora every year.

    Things were so bad on North Monroe that city traffic engineers began envisioning a new Monroe, though much different from the incarnation currently in the works.

    In 1976, with traffic counts at 29,000 vehicles a day, they proposed eliminating all street parking on 31 blocks of North Monroe, from the river to Cora, widening the street and adding lanes to allow for the “safe and efficient flow” of traffic. The city had done the same thing on Division peaceably, but there were protests on Monroe.

    Utlimately, City Council voted to widen the street and install “traffic bays.” The street’s sidewalks were narrowed to accommodate the new design.

    In 1985, with daily traffic counts at 32,850 and climbing, city engineers were still fixated on Monroe’s flow. They had a list of options to make the road better for traffic. At the top of their list was building another bridge and making Monroe and Lincoln a north couplet, an idea that stayed alive and gained strong momentum at the turn of the century as the city bought land and sought permits to have the span built. In 2000, the City Council voted unanimously to abandon the unpopular effort to build the bridge.

    The construction alone will become an economic burden on businesses and force them to reduce staffs, Jarvis said.

    “I ve been asked thousands of times, ‘How do we sign a petition? How do we vote?’” Jarvis said. “If you poll the citizens of Spokane, they are not for the project. It s not even a small number.”

    Due to incorrect information provided by the city of Spokane, this story previously misstated the funding sources for the planned renovation of North Monroe. It is not receiving a 2015 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant for $475,000. Also, the project is funded by a 2014 Federal Highway Safety Improvement grant. A reporter error had the wrong year for the federal grant.

    Staff writers Thomas Clouse and Kip Hill contributed to this story.