Dallas Water Park Fiscal ahogamiento
Nuestros abogados Analice los accidentes por ahogamiento en los parques del Agua de Texas
Los parques acuáticos siguientes connotan horas de diversión sin preocupaciones para los niños y familias durante el verano caliente de Texas:
- Six Flags Hurricane Harbor en Dallas
- Hawaiian Falls en el DFW Metroplex
- Lost Lagoon en SeaWorld en San Antonio
- Splash Town USA en San Antonio
- Schiltterbahn en New Braunfels, South Padre Island, y Galveston
- Wet-n-Wild Waterworld en El Paso
- Volente Beach
- White Water Bay
- Splash Kingdom
- y los parques acuáticos que existen muchas pequeñas en Texas
Sin embargo, con los millones de personas que visitan estos parques de agua en Texas cada año, los accidentes son inevitables. Ahogamientos, las enfermedades, lesiones en el cuello, y los huesos rotos son sólo algunos de los tipos de lesiones que pueden ocurrir en un abrir y cerrar de ojos en un parque de agua en Texas. Cuando este tipo de lesiones parque acuático se ha producido una víctima herida, o el padre o tutor de un niño lesionado, puede ser capaz de obtener una indemnización por la lesión a través de una demanda por lesiones personales contra la parte responsable o fiestas. Sin embargo, determinar quién tiene la culpa de un accidente de parque acuático a menudo puede ser difícil debido a los muchos aspectos legales comúnmente involucrados en este tipo de accidentes parque de atracciones.
Responsabilidad en un accidente de Parque de Agua de Dallas
Cuando un parque de agua de Dallas accidente que se produce, tiene la culpa? Eso es a menudo la primera duda planteada por una víctima lesionada o el padre de un niño herido en un parque acuático. Dependiendo de las circunstancias concretas del accidente, a veces puede haber más de un partido responsable. Por ejemplo, un salvavidas negligente no puede estar al tanto de un niño que lucha en el agua, especialmente en los parques de agua muy pobladas en las horas pico de visitas. Sin embargo, un salvavidas que se supone que han recibido capacitación para mantener un ojo siempre vigilante abre la posibilidad de un niño que se ahoga o experimentar algún tipo de lesión. Si no se actúa con rapidez por un agente supervisor puede causar lesiones corporales graves a cualquier hombre, mujer o niño en un parque de agua en Texas. Cuando un ahogamiento parque acuático puede estar ocurriendo, el niño podría sufrir graves daños cerebrales como consecuencia de la falta de oxígeno que llega a su cerebro. Cuando un supervisor en un parque acuático, ya sea un empleado o un salvavidas, no toma una acción responsable como un accidente ocurre, el empleado y el empleador es probable que la responsabilidad de tener el accidente.
El dueño de un parque acuático puede asumir la responsabilidad de los locales de los accidentes que se producen debido a la falta de mantenimiento de las piscinas, toboganes de agua, equipos de parque de atracciones, o barreras de protección, como rejas y puertas que pueden rodear determinadas zonas del parque acuático. Si los niños menores de edad pueden acceder fácilmente a las áreas que deben limitarse a ellos, un propietario puede ser considerada responsable por daños de ese niño o la muerte. Si un tobogán de agua se rompe debido a la falta de atención adecuada, una persona lesionada por la que se deslizan podía sostener el dueño de la propiedad o la compañía de agua de gestión de parques responsables de sus lesiones.
Además, el American National Standards Institute (ANSI) mantiene las normas de seguridad para los parques de agua en lo que respecta a la calidad del agua, la dotación de personal, y el diseño. enfermedades transmitidas por el agua que puede suceder cuando el agua en un paseo del parque de la piscina o el agua no es tratada adecuadamente con los productos químicos anti-bacterianas. Las necesidades de personal sostienen que socorristas profesionales deben saber RCP y medidas de salvamento, así como los métodos de control de masas. Por último, los parques acuáticos deben ser diseñados de tal manera que para mitigar las lesiones o accidentes, tales como las causadas por lagunas de poca profundidad, superficies resbaladizas, o paseos en el parque acuático lleno de gente.
Por último, un fabricante puede tener parte de responsabilidad si una tapa de drenaje defectuoso o un dispositivo de seguridad defectuosos contribuido a un accidente de parque acuático. Sin embargo, la determinación de si un caso de responsabilidad de productos es con el fin puede ser un reto, ya que una tapa de drenaje mal puede ser el resultado de la mala conservación, en lugar de un mal diseño o construcción. En cualquier caso, si un equipo puede haber contribuido a un accidente por ahogamiento en un parque acuático en Texas, tanto el fabricante y la entidad responsable del mantenimiento de los equipos serán investigados. También hay que señalar que la Virginia Graeme Baker Piscina y Ley de Seguridad requiere drenaje anti-atrapamiento tapas y tapas de succión que se instalen en las piscinas públicas. Si las cubiertas instaladas en un parque de agua de Dallas no cumplen con los estándares establecidos por la Ley de piscina y de seguridad, el parque acuático podría estar en violación de la ley. Piscinas sin este tipo de cubiertas puede provocar accidentes agua atrapamiento parque.
Si usted ha sido herido en un Parque del Agua de Texas, contacto con el agua de Dallas Grossman Parque abogado Michael ahogamiento
Did You Know?
Our Tejas attorneys have won hundreds of drowning accident cases. Call us today to discuss your case. 1-855-426-0000
Parque acuático accidentes y ahogamientos de Texas parque acuático puede causar lesiones graves o la muerte. Cuando ese tipo de accidente ha sido causado por el comportamiento negligente de otra persona o entidad, con una víctima herida o una familia del fallecido probablemente tiene el mérito de iniciar una acción legal contra los responsables a través de un daño personal o demanda por muerte injusta. Al tratar de tener una demanda civil contra las partes negligencia, la parte perjudicada va a trabajar para buscar compensación por sus lesiones o pérdida, al mismo tiempo de trabajo que se haga justicia sirvió para que un accidente similar no tiene que causar un daño o pérdida a otra persona .
Con tantas áreas de la ley que puede ser tocado con un accidente de parque acuático, de responsabilidad de las premisas a la responsabilidad del producto a la supervisión negligente, la parte perjudicada a menudo requieren la ayuda legal de un abogado con experiencia en agua de Dallas accidente parque que posee una amplia gama de gama de conocimientos jurídicos y años de experiencia pertinente. Después de haber ayudado a miles de víctimas sufriendo en todo el país durante los últimos veinte años, Texas parque acuático accidente abogado Michael Grossman está listo para ayudar a superar este momento difícil. La compensación recibida a través de, posiblemente, el éxito de una demanda civil puede ser capaz de ayudarle con los gastos médicos, salarios perdidos, y, en la tragedia de perder a un ser querido gastos, funerales, o su ser querido de la pérdida de ganancias futuras. Además, vamos a trabajar para garantizar que los sujetos pasivos se llevan a cabo correctamente responsables de sus acciones para que los ahogamientos futuros u otros accidentes relacionados con el agua no tiene que ocurrir en el parque acuático misma debido a la conducta negligente continuó.
Póngase en contacto con nuestros abogados de accidentes de agua en el parque 1-855-426-0000 para una consulta legal gratuita para discutir sus opciones legales después de un accidente parque acuático en Texas. Estamos listos para ayudarte en este difícil momento hacia un futuro mejor.
(policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an underide 18-wheeler accident. In addition to being a decorated veteran, the decedent worked both professionally and on a voluntary basis to establish numerous learning institutions and vocational programs for at risk youths. The accident occurred as the decedent was traveling on a rural highway when an 18-wheeler failed to yield the right of way and made a rolling stop through a stop sign.
This placed the trailer of the 18-wheeler in a position whereby it blocked the entire roadway and shoulder, leaving the decedent no option but to collide with the trailer. Witnesses on the scene attempted to revive him but to no avail. Furthermore, while two female eye witnesses struggled to pry open the decedent's door to provide emergency care, the truck driver stayed in his truck and offered no assistance. Despite what appeared to be an incredibly apparent case of negligence on behalf of the defendant, defense counsel refused to accept liability resulting in rather lengthy litigation.
The defendants initially denied the claim based on the allegation that the decedent was speeding and the truck driver therefore could not adequately gauge the amount of time he had to pause at the stop sign. The physical evidence contradicted this notion entirely, notwithstanding the fact that even if the decedent had been contributorily negligent, that would not have outweighed the severe degree of negligence on the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, our attorneys were able to conclusively refute this argument based on eye-witness testimony and the testimony from police investigators who calculated the decedent's speed to be precisely at the posted speed limit. In a desperate and largely unprecedented move, the defendants then designated the state as a responsible third party.
Generally speaking, a defendant will often threaten to designate a third party in order to leverage their position but it is rare that such an arbitrary and arguably frivolous designation is actually carried out. However, that is precisely what occurred and the state was thusly incorporated into the lawsuit by the defendants. The basis of the defendant's argument was that the state erected a large street sign that obstructed the truck driver's view of approaching traffic.
Several months of intense litigation were required to before the defendant finally acquiesced in regard to this argument. The argument was finally abandoned by the defendants when in the first mediation our attorneys presented video footage shot (in a controlled setting) from the perspective of an 18-wheeler driver which showed that the sign simply did not obstruct enough of the roadway in order to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man's vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.
Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.
Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.
Additonally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assasination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant's insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant's insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle.
Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers' Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier's exposure under the Stowers' Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits.
The defendant's attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney's threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney's advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court.
Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client's would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal.
$1,000,000.00
$333,333.00
$0.00
(policy limits were $100k) Recovery for wife of a motorcyclist who was killed in a drunk driving accident.
$97,500.00
$48,750.00
$0.00
The family of a deceased woman hired our firm following a fatal 18-wheeler accident. The fatal accident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered out of his lane, resulting in a massive collision. The decedent, a passenger in a vehicle, died on the scene.
Her adult children consulted our firm to initially investigate the accident and make sense of the facts and circumstances since the family felt that the police report did not make it clear enough precisely what occurred. We launched a full investigation an immediately deposed the investigating officers.
Upon the completion of our investigation, it was apparent that the trucking company was indeed negligent and a lawsuit was soon filed. The defendant's launched an aggressive defense whereby they initially claimed that the truck driver was overcome by his passenger who allegedly grabbed the steering wheel and deliberately drove the truck off the road, despite the truck driver's best efforts.
We refuted this claim by illustrating that the tire marks that were present clearly show the truck gradually moving across the road and eventually onto the grass, which is entirely inconsistent with an abrupt lane change caused by someone taking control of the wheel. It was quite an unusual defense strategy that we were frankly surprised to even find ourselves having to refute.
The defendants then argued that a tire blowout may have contributed to the accident, which is significant because it would enable the defendant to offset some portion of their liability to a tire manufacturer or installer. Through deposition testimony of the investigating officer we established that there was absolutely no indication at the scene of the accident that a tire had blown out.
Finally, the defendants argued that the company which loaded the trailer may have improperly loaded the cargo. This argument was most plausible considering that the precise cause of the decedent's death was that she was essentially pummeled by cargo that broke through trailer and struck her person.
Our firm consulted several experts in the fields of heavy cargo transportation and physics. Our experts felt that the cargo was secured in a manner that is perfectly consistent with industry standards and that due to the forces involved, the cargo would not have behaved any differently irrespective of how it was secured. In short, the collision caused the cargo to break free and the negligence lay squarely on the trucking company and not any other entity. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
$2,000,000.00
$775,000.00
$25,000.00
Facility sued for negligent contribution to the death of an innocent bystander. A fatal shooting occurred on the property after the facility failed to appropriately respond to outbursts of violence & gang activity. Following the young man's death, his parents hired our firm to pursue the facility for their negligent actions including failure to provide adequate security. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
(policy limits) An incredibly intoxicated driver drove head-on into a vehicle, killing several of the vehicle's occupants. The defendants had limited assets, yet an alternative policy was uncovered, which the defendants argued was non applicable. Under threat of litigation, our attorneys negotiated a settlement for the policy limits.
$300,000.00
$132,000.00
$0.00
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
$550,000.00
$220,000.00
$40,000.00
Major freight train company sued as the result of an incident which claimed the life of an employee. Our attorneys settled the case outside of court for a confidential amount.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
(policy limits) Recovery for wrongful death/ nursing home negligence which resulted in bed sores which became infected.
$100,000.00
$33,133.00
$400.00
Recovery for the father of a young man who was killed in a car accident.
$95,035.00
$31,678.00
$25.00