PR EDA : 572-335-4994
Personal injury law is one of the most prevalent areas of law, allowing individuals to seek compensation for injuries caused by someone else’s actions.
Criminal law concerns crimes committed against society at large while personal injury laws cover disputes between private parties – this makes them part of civil law rather than criminal.
Claudius II was the fourth Emperor of Rome and reigned from 41 to 54 A.D. He is widely revered as a great Roman leader who improved judicial processes, passed laws protecting enslaved people, and expanded Roman influence into Britain.
Claudius made transportation a top priority during his first years as Emperor. He constructed canals from Rhine to sea as well as roads from Italy to Germany, creating ports at Ostia near Rome as well as Ostia itself, just north of Rome.
His success in these areas was due to a combination of political maneuvering and help from advisors. Yet some in the Senate disapproved of his neo-liberal policies and his decision-making without consulting them first.
But most historians generally regard his reign as successful. He expanded the empire and increased its power while guaranteeing citizens more rights than ever before.
He began by revoking the Senate’s control over many financial matters, such as Ostia administration – this represented a profound transformation in how Roman government operated.
Resentment began to grow among both the public and freedmen who felt power had been taken from them by a new Emperor and that their taxes were being diverted towards his interests instead of supporting local projects.
So as to gain the Senate’s support, he used his political leverage to pass laws that made it more difficult for people to sue employers or governments for personal injury claims – particularly in cases of personal injury litigation.
Claudius established several laws designed to safeguard justice for his people. One was that no person could be found guilty until they could demonstrate their innocence; this prevented people from being punished simply due to perceived crimes even if they did not know they committed them.
Claudius also instituted changes that affected attorneys, such as capping wages. At that time, attorneys often made much less than their competitors in practice fees.
Donoghue vs Stevenson, popularly referred to as the ‘snail in the bottle” case, has become one of the cornerstones of tort law and common law since.
This landmark case established the modern doctrine of negligence, including what has come to be known as the ‘neighbour principle’ – an essential factor when determining whether a defendant owes a duty of care to plaintiff. When acts or omissions of another will cause harm to a neighbor, that other must exercise reasonable care to stop those actions or omissions from happening.
Mrs Donoghue drank from an opaque ginger beer bottle purchased by her companion as part of an ice cream float at a cafe in Paisley. When pouring the remainder into a tumbler to add to her ice cream float, Mrs Donoghue discovered a decomposing snail inside.
She fell ill and filed suit against Mr. Stevenson, the manufacturer of ginger beer. Donoghue claimed he owed her a duty of care and should have prevented the snail from entering her glass. The House of Lords found against Stevenson, holding that his failure to ensure product safety breached this duty of care owed to Donoghue and that this breach had led her to fall ill.
The case was an immense success and clearly established that manufacturers owe consumers a duty of care for any defective product they produce. Furthermore, it helped establish product manufacturer liability as one of the cornerstones of consumer protection law.
Donoghue was a landmark decision, helping to clarify many ambiguities within the legal system before its enactment and signalling a shift from situation-specific duties of care towards generalized ones.
Leonard Jacoby and Stephen Meyers opened their first law firm in Van Nuys, California, with the intention of changing how legal services were provided for Americans of all backgrounds. To this end, their office design included storefronts instead of high-rises; staff included paralegals – many who were new to legal work at that time – along with storefront design elements for easy accessibility.
Their objective was to make legal services more accessible, and ensure lawyers were accountable to the public. To meet this goal, they developed standard forms and pleadings as well as automated processes designed to decrease costs while increasing efficiency.
Jacoby & Meyers was known for its open office model that allowed clients to visit at any time; evening and Saturday appointments were common. Additionally, Jacoby & Meyers took an aggressive approach when advertising its services; handing out business cards and talking with media representatives were standard practice for them.
Jacoby & Meyers became well known in the realm of personal injury law, representing individuals who had experienced serious injuries due to someone else’s negligence ranging from slip and falls to complex construction accidents.
As soon as the Jacoby & Meyers model took off, competitors found it hard to match its success. The firm expanded rapidly from a storefront in Southern California to offices in both New York and New Jersey.
Legal decisions have also helped attorneys advertise their services freely and without restrictions or limitations. As citizens of the US, attorneys had every right to talk freely about their business interests without restrictions or hindrances from third-party interference.
Jacoby & Meyers were the pioneer law firm to successfully place television commercials for law firms, which prompted other firms to follow suit and create similar spots themselves. The commercial was so well received by viewers that other law firms quickly followed suit and began running similar commercials themselves.
As they expanded nationwide, the firm gradually shifted away from workaday cases that made them famous and toward more lucrative personal-injury cases; these typically require experienced attorneys with years of practice to handle.
To meet their needs, the firm engaged the services of litigation support companies like TTS; TTS would produce client biographies, videos, subpoenas and conduct focus groups – all paid for on a contingency basis until settlement or verdict was achieved.
Stella Liebeck is often held up as an example of frivolous litigation in the United States, particularly her story involving spilling hot coffee while driving and subsequent lawsuits for millions in damages from big corporations, as country singer Toby Keith noted in his song American Drive.
Realistically, however, the case was much more intricate. Stella Liebeck was visiting her grandson in Albuquerque, New Mexico at the time she spilled coffee on herself in 1992 and required hospital treatment.
Her accident occurred while she was sitting in her car parked outside a McDonald’s drive-through window and ordering coffee with cream and sugar added, when she accidentally spilled some on herself and was beginning to mix her order together when it happened.
Though many might not realize it, spilled scalding hot liquid on human skin can be extremely hazardous and cause third-degree burns within three seconds if left to come into contact with skin.
As a result of her fall, she was hospitalized for eight days and required extensive skin grafting procedures at great expense. Additionally, she was left disabled for two years and scarred and disfigured as a result of the incident.
She sought compensation for her injuries from McDonald’s, but they offered only $800 which wasn’t sufficient to cover all her medical costs. So she hired an attorney and filed suit against them alleging gross negligence.
At trial, her attorneys presented evidence proving that the coffee in her lap was scorching hot – enough to cause third-degree burns on her skin within three seconds and leave severe scars across her groin, thighs and butt.
Jurors found McDonald’s negligent, awarding her damages for pain and suffering as well as triple punitive damages. Furthermore, the judge ordered them to cover her medical costs.
This case provides both individual victims and companies with lessons. For one thing, it shows how people who purchase goods or services have an obligation to ensure their safety; at the same time, businesses can be held accountable when their actions result in errors or mistakes.