The city of Chicago has finally settled a lawsuit brought by 16 Illinois citizens who alleged they were wrongfully arrested during a massive anti-war protest in 2003.

According to a report in the Chicago Tribune, the settlement brings an end to years of legal wrangling over the personal injury lawsuit, and observes speculate that this settlement signals a potential end to a much larger dispute involving 800 other people arrested during the protest.

News of the settlement was announced this week by U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall, who had been prepared to preside over the large class action lawsuit at trial.

Instead of opting for trial, however, the city admitted defeat and agreed to settlement, which could potentially limit the losses the city may have suffered at trial.

Still, the city may have to pay a tidy sum to the plaintiffs, though the financial details of the settlement were not publicly released. Nevertheless, Chicago officials wanted to avoid the costly mistake of taking these disputes to trial, as other cities have recently learned.

In addition to the financial aspect of the wrongful arrest settlement, a member of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s admitted that the case has changed the way the city’s police force handles large gatherings and protests.

The mayor’s staff cites the police department’s handling of the recent Occupy Chicago protests as evidence of its changed tactics. During the recent Occupy protests, Chicago police gave protestors a chance to leave the streets, and only arrested them if they wanted to make a political statement.

Some city officials, however, remain skeptical that the police force has sufficiently evolved to handle the inevitable large protests that will arrive in Chicago this May, when both G-8 and NATO summits hit the Windy City.

When the G-8 economic summits have taken place at other American, large protests always ensue, and there’s little reason to believe that Chicago will be an exception.

However, other city leaders are confident the police can handle the summits. According to Alderman Patrick O’Connor, “I think if you look at the way we’ve comported ourselves since then, obviously we haven’t had any large protest, but we took lessons from what happened the last time and I think they’ll be incorporated this time.”

At the very least, police will have to avoid the errors of the 2003 protests, when they allowed protestors to gather without a permit and then began indiscriminately arresting bystanders without giving them a warning that they were acting illegally.

Such strong-arm tactics proved costly for the city, and must be eliminated from the force’s repertoire before the city is inundated with an estimated 10,000 protestors this spring.

If things get frisky, Chicago police may have to add more payments to the $5.4 million they’ve had to shell out for police misconduct in the past six months.

After previously acknowledging that a spate of accidents in 2009 and 2010 were at least partially attributable to its own faulty equipment, Toyota has since changed tune, alleging that many, if not all, of the recent accidents due to sudden acceleration were a result of driver error.

The claim is in response to almost 200 car accident lawsuits filed by Toyota drivers who alleged that the company was responsible for selling shoddy equipment. Specifically, the lawsuits allege that several Toyota cars were designed in a manner that caused sudden, uncontrollable acceleration.

A filing this week by the Japanese car company in its first court battle revealed that the company plans to pin the blame for the accidents on its consumers, according to a recent report from the Huffington Post.

This first personal injury lawsuit, which was filed by the family of Paul Van Alfen, a Utah resident who died when his car veered off an interstate highway and plunged into a stone wall, alleges that Toyota is responsible for the accident.

The deceased man’s son and wife survived the accident, and reports indicate that they will testify that Van Alfen was unable to brake the car after it suddenly accelerated.

In its filing, however, Toyota contested this claim and alleged that the black box (a data recorder similar to the ones found in airplanes) of Van Alfen’s 2008 Toyota Camry revealed that the driver never attempted to push the brake.

This evidence, if deemed admissible by a judge, could prove fatal for the Van Alfen’s case, as it would prove Toyota’s claim that the accident was due to poor driving, not faulty brakes.

However, attorneys for the plaintiff contend that the black box of a car is not as reliable as its counterpart in airplanes, and should not be used to depict an accurate portrayal of the events leading up to the crash.

Specifically, the plaintiff’s attorneys claim that the black box only records a few seconds worth of data, and that this limitation prevents it from accurately depicting the events that led up to the crash.

As a result of this limitation, some experts on car accident cases warn that Toyota will have to cite other evidence to support their claim, such as skid marks, tire tracks, physical evidence on the vehicle, and eyewitness reports.

Of course, while Toyota claims it is not at fault, the plaintiffs will also be able to point to the company’s recall of roughly 8 million vehicles over fears of sudden acceleration.

While this may have simply represented extreme caution by the company, it does suggest that Toyota was afraid that some of its accelerators or brakes may have actually been faulty. Only time will tell whether Toyota’s prudence will come back to haunt it in court.

A New York fitness trainer was partially paralyzed after plummeting several floors in a broken elevator, and has filed a personal injury lawsuit against his apartment and the elevator manufacturer.

The trainer, 34-year-old Corey Hill, who lives in New York City and runs popular fitness dance classes, was injured in November when he pressed an elevator button to travel to his apartment building’s lobby and started free-falling to the lobby floor, according to a report from the New York Post.

After the accident, Hill told sources that it was “the scariest thing I’ve ever experienced in my life,” which was notable because Hill has also been sky-diving.

Apparently, the elevator eventually slammed to a halt before it reached the lobby floor, which has led to a dispute between Hill and the property manager.

According to the property manager, Hill spoke with the concierge after the accident and “did not need medical or police attention. By his own admission, Hill says that he thought he was going to be fine, and he did not request an ambulance.

The next morning, however, Hill could barely get out of bed, and he discovered that he had lost most of the feeling in his legs. Doctors diagnosed Hill with paresis, which prevents the brain from communicating with the legs.

After spending several weeks recovering at Beth Israel Hospital, Hill has become more mobile, but he still needs braces to get around town, and he may never regain his ability to walk without some sort of aid. In addition, he is so afraid of taking an elevator that he relies on burly friends to haul him up the stairs to his apartment on the 26th floor.

Due to his injuries, and the physical nature of his work, Hill has been unemployed since the accident and his landlord has started eviction proceedings because Hill is unable to pay his rent.

Because of his injuries and mental anguish, Hill is seeking a personal injury settlement from the manager of his apartment and two elevator companies, Century Vertical Systems and Transel Elevator.

Sources indicate that Transel Elevator also worked on an elevator just before a fatal accident involving an ad executive in New York last month, which suggests that the company probably has a large legal team prepared to fight the charges.

The case, however, will not be an automatic win for Hill, as the property manager appears ready to fight, as well. According to the manager, Hill’s lawsuit has no merit and the apartment building has video evidence that refutes Hill’s claim.

In addition, Transel Elevators claims that it has not done work on the elevators in the building since April 2010, although this claim does not necessarily excuse them from liability for the malfunctioning elevator.

After a strange incident in which they were kicked off a flight with little in the way of an explanation, two Muslim imams from Memphis have filed a personal injury lawsuit against Delta Airlines for the alleged deprivation of their civil rights.

In their lawsuit, which was filed at the end of the year, the two religious leaders claim that they were booted from the plane based solely on their appearance, according to a report from WREG News in Memphis.

The series of events that led to their dismissal from the plane were bizarre. First, according to the men, Masudar Rahman and Mohamed Zagloul, they passed through an initial security checkpoint with no trouble.

Then, the men, who were dressed in traditional religious garb, were subjected to a second search at the checkpoint, which they also passed with no incident.

However, shortly after the men boarded their flight, which was headed to Charlotte, the plane returned to the gate and the two religious leaders were asked to step off the flight.

After they left the plane, the men were subjected to a third search, which again did not reveal anything suspicious, and they were told they could re-enter the aircraft. The pilot, however, refused to let them on the plane, so the men missed their flight and a conference they were supposed to attend in Charlotte.

According to their lawsuit, Rahman and Zagloul claim that they were given no explanation for the pilot’s refusal to let them board the plane. The men believe that they were discriminated against based on their beards, their clothing, and their foreign appearance.

Since the incident, the two men have had no trouble flying (which they frequently do, as Rahman is a renowned professor at the University of Memphis), which adds even more mystery to their shunning by Delta Airlines.

When interviewed by local media, the men claim that they simply want to prevent similar discrimination from striking other people, and they do not suggest that they are only seeking monetary damages.

The airline, however, is staying quiet. In a brief statement, the company that owns Delta Airlines says that it cannot comment on a pending lawsuit, but it did claim that its employees always act in the best interest of passengers’ safety.

The issue of racial profiling at airports has drawn a considerable amount of attention in recent years, and many people with foreign attire or appearances have complained of discrimination at various American airports.

If you or a loved one has been the victim of such actions, consider contacting a local injury attorney to learn more about your legal rights. There is a fine line between protecting the safety of passengers and allowing reasonable freedom of movement for other citizens. Sometimes airlines have a hard time recognizing this distinction.

Former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan recently filed a personal injury lawsuit against his wife, for her alleged soiling of his reputation by spreading false rumors in a newly released biography.

Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, claims that his former wife, Linda Bollea, is guilty of defamation because she falsely accused him of abusing her and engaging in a gay affair, according to a recent report in the Tampa Bay Times.

In his lawsuit, which runs almost 20 pages in length, Hogan says that Bollea’s recently published book, “Wrestling the Hulk—My Life Against the Ropes,” contains false allegations that threaten Hogan’s career.

Hogan also claims that his former wife’s biography was published in an ill-fated attempt to revive her career, which hit a rough patch after the couple’s reality television show was canceled a few years ago.

For her part, Bollea, who divorced her famous husband in 2009, claims that the allegations in the book are true, and that Hogan is filing the lawsuit in an attempt to improve his public image and, if possible, regain money he lost in the divorce.

Sources indicate that Hogan was particularly upset by Bollea’s allegations that he repeatedly abused her by choking her and dragging her by the hair.

Bollea even supported these claims on several televised talk shows, where she claimed she was concerned about becoming a “statistic” and meeting the fate of Nicole Brown Simpson, who was famously killed in 2004, though her husband, former football star O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder charges.

When asked by reporters why she hadn’t contacted police after the incidents of domestic violence, Bollea claimed that she didn’t want the family’s “livelihood” to be harmed—this, presumably, means that she didn’t want to affect Hogan’s wrestling career.

In addition to the charges of abuse, Hogan is also seeking a personal injury settlement for his wife’s allegedly false accusation that he had an affair with another male wrestler.

Both the abuse and sex allegations, according to the lawsuit, are false, and they “harmed the reputation of Mr. Bollea, exposed him to distrust, hatred, contempt and ridicule,” and hurt his ability to make money in the future from his various business interests.

Hogan wants to pursue a jury trial and is also seeking an injunction that would prevent his former wife from making similar accusations in the future.

Critics of the lawsuit, though, are quick to note that Linda Bollea took more than 70 percent of the couple’s liquid assets in their divorce settlement, which may have infuriated Hogan more than the allegedly false accusations.

Nevertheless, the court will address the case on the merits of Hogan’s claims relating to the defamation of his character, regardless of his need for cash or revenge.

Against the backdrop of rising tuition costs and increased tensions between campus officials and students, a group of students at the University of California in Berkeley have filed a police brutality lawsuit against their school, further fanning the flame of discontent amongst California’s youth.

The latest clash between students and police was fostered by the introduction of a protest movement inspired by Occupy Wall Street, Manhattan-based protest against the current economic order that has capture the nation’s attention in recent months.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has spawned hundreds of similar protests across the country, with almost every major American university seeing at least a small group of dedicated protestors promoting their cause.

In the wake of this trend, it’s little surprise that students at UC-Berkeley, known for its students’ relatively liberal stances on social issues, created a robust Occupy movement on their own campus. It seems, however, that the protest has created serious tensions at the school.

According to a report from the San Jose Mercury News, a group of two dozen protestors recently filed a file a personal injury claim against UC-Berkeley for an alleged instance of police brutality directed against students who tried to establish an Occupy site on campus.

The lawsuit was filed this week in federal court, and the complaint alleges that, this November, 24 students and community members were subjected to jabbing, clubbing, and hair-pulling by police officers who were aggressively using their batons.

The unfortunate clash between the protestors and the police occurred after the students had attempted to set up tents on the campus next to Sproul Plaza.

Video footage that was allegedly taken of the incident was widely distributed on the Internet, which led to a public outcry and may provide key evidence during the police brutality case.

After the footage was released, the school’s chancellor issued a public apology on the University’s behalf, and the school launched several official investigations aimed at discovering exactly how the incident occurred.

Sources indicate that the school has not officially responded to the lawsuit, but a University spokeswoman reminded reporters that the school is still actively pursuing numerous investigations.

This incident and lawsuit, alas, are not the only turmoil striking a California school. A few weeks ago, students at UC-Davis made national headlines after they were pepper-sprayed by an allegedly overzealous campus police officer.

Protests over this incident culminated in a bizarre scene on the UC-Davis campus, when the school’s chancellor left a late-night meeting and walked to her car through two rows of completely silent students.

With Occupy protests continuing to gain steam on California campuses, and the state’s students facing skyrocketing tuition and fees due to the economic crisis, clashes between students and campus officials may grow in frequency. With any luck, though, both students and police will refrain from resorting to violent tactics.

Former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky is already facing a criminal trial over his alleged sexual abuse of young boys, but now he must defend himself against a sexual abuse lawsuit filed by a man who claims to have been victimized by Sandusky.

In court papers filed last week, the accuser claims that Sandusky sexually abused him more than 100 times over a four-year period. In addition, the alleged victim says that Sandusky threatened to harm the boy’s family if he told others about the abuse.

The man who brought the lawsuit remains anonymous, though he is now 30 years old, according to a report in USA Today. The man claims that Sandusky began abusing him when he was 10 years old.

This week’s lawsuit represents the first civil action taken against Sandusky, whose alleged abuse of multiple children in Pennsylvania has captured national headlines and shattered the tranquility of the otherwise quiet Penn State campus.

Sandusky is already facing 40 criminal counts of sexual abuse towards at least different victims. The criminal charges are separate from the sexual abuse lawsuit filed by 30-year-old accuser last week.

The alleged victim was a participant in the Second Mile program, a charity created by Sandusky for at-risk children. Several other accusers of Sandusky have also had connections to the Second Mile charity.

Sources indicate that the lawsuit claims Sandusky abused the boy in several different locations, including a locker room at the university, inside Sandusky’s home, and during a trip to a football bowl game for Penn State.

Through a statement released by his personal injury attorney, the alleged victim said he was seeking a sexual abuse settlement because he didn’t want other kids to be “hurt and abused by Jerry Sandusky.”

The man also said, “I never told anybody what he did to me over 100 times at all kinds of places until the newspapers reported that he had abused other kids and the people at Penn State and The Second Mile didn’t do the things they should have to protect me and the other kids.”

The man became convinced to come forward after he felt “even more tormented” when he learned “of so many other kids” who were allegedly abused after him.

In his lawsuit, which was filed against Penn State, Second Mile, and Sandusky, the man is seeking at least $400,000 in damages.

The failure of both Penn State and Second Mile officials to detect and report Sandusky’s alleged activities has raised a national furor.

Columnists across the country have derided former Penn State head coach Joe Paterno for failing to take adequate measures to protect innocent children from the alleged abuse delivered by Sandusky.

Sources indicate that Penn State, Second Mile, and Paterno himself will almost certainly have to defend themselves in more civil lawsuits arising from the incident.

Parents have thousands of safety concerns about their children, but these worries are usually limited to traditional parental worries like speeding cars, sharp objects, and the pernicious influence of older neighborhood kids.

Finding beetles in baby formula, however, is not a widely reported problem. But concerns about contaminated baby food may soon grow after a recent grisly incident in Utah.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, a couple from Sandy, Utah has filed a personal injury lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories and its subsidiaries after the company allegedly produced an infant formula that contained bits of dead beetles and beetle larvae.

The lawsuit says that the parents, Adam and Amanda Oettli, relied on the company’s assurances that its products were secure when they fed their child Similac baby formula for at least eight months beginning in March 2009.

In the lawsuit, the parents allege that they found small parts of beetles in the formula, and that these insect pieces caused their child to become very ill for a period of several months.

The couple alleges that their baby suffered from a wide range of ailments, including constipation, stomach discomfort, projectile vomiting, severe gas, extensive crying, loss of appetite, and intensive acid reflux.

Sources indicate that the lawsuit also alleges that the child continued to experience symptoms for months after it stopped using the formula. The defendants may use this information, though, to argue that the formula may not have directly caused the baby’s ailments.

Despite questions about the validity of the lawsuit, the parents’ case may be strengthened by Abbott’s prior admission that some of its products may have contained insect debris.

In September 2010, the company recalled its Similar powder products after an internal company review found that there was a “remote possibility” that a small beetle was present in “the product produced in one production area.”

Even though this statement appears to be drowning in cautious corporate jargon, it does serve as a startling admission that the company was aware of possible contamination by beetles in its signature baby formula product.

And, in further harmful evidence for the defendants, at least four different complaints were filed with the Food and Drug Administration about Similac products before the company announced the recall.

These facts, according to the couple’s lawsuit, suggest that Abbott was aware of the possible contamination while it was selling the product. The plaintiffs allege that Abbott only called for a recall after the public became aware of the beetle contamination.

This certainly wouldn’t be the first time that a corporation was reluctant to recall a popular product due to a small risk of contamination, but it should be noted that, if these allegations are true, Abbott could face a rude awakening in court.

In their lawsuit, the parents and their personal injury attorney are seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

Forget James Bond. Modern spies use diplomatic immunity as their weapon of choice. This allows them to be deported instead of imprisoned if they are captured and receive the best medical care instead of the worst if they are injured on the job. Check out the latest high-brow ways our spies are gathering information around the world.

Click Below to Launch Full-Size Image

Add this image to your blog or site - Copy and Paste the code below

<a href=”http://www.totalinjury.com/blog/the-truth-about-american-spies-abroad/” target=”_blank” title=”American Spies Abroad”><img title=”American Spies Abroad” src=”http://assets.totalinjury.com/infographics/history-and-legality-of-american-spies-abroad.png” border=”0″ alt=”The history and legality of US spies in foreign countries”></a> from <a href=”http://www.totalinjury.com” target=”_blank” title=”www.totalinjury.com”>TotalInjury.com</a>

History & Legality of American Spies Abroad

With the available info the title should probably be changed to something like:

The Truth About American Spies Abroad

You can forget the flashy antics of James Bond, real U.S. spies are nothing of the sort.

The average U.S. spy.

A government worker officially sent abroad in full knowledge of the opposing country.

• Cover: Flimsy – usually just a fake job title involving a fictitious government department.
• Operation: Reactive – the spy will put themselves in the right place to receive information accidentally given to them.
• Reason: Risk – It is too difficult to fully integrate an U.S. agent into another society, in a way that they will be trusted, for a long period of time.
• Legality: Safe – Because they are official government workers they are given diplomatic immunity under the Geneva Convention and are usually sent back to the U.S if caught.

The exceptional U.S. spy.

Descendents of foreigners sent abroad under deep cover to impersonate a specific person one time.

• Cover: Deep – they take on the full identity of a special person within the opposition that they happen to look, speak, and act like.
• Operation: Proactive – the spy meets with targets and gathers information quickly before the opposition can take full notice.
• Reason: Necessity – even this quick dash of spy mission is very difficult to pull off.
• Legality: Dangerous – Non-official spies have less protection and are usually jailed if caught.

What we use in place of traditional spies

• Technology: Spies need no longer be in the opposing country to accomplish their mission. They can simply create a persona on a social network and work from the comfort of home.
• Payoffs: With the U.S. dollar’s worldwide power agents can simply buy information from trusted members of the opposition.
• Positions of Power: Instead of sneaking into the depths of a foreign government U.S. spies can simply be dropped into a high-ranking position at a powerful company on foreign soil.

Famous foreign spies

• Russia: Paid former FBI agent Robert Hanssen $1.4 million dollars to give up names of U.S. spies abroad.
• China: Stole the design secrets to all the U.S.’s nuclear weapons through means that remain unclear.
• Israel: Paid civilian Jonathan Pollard $10,000 for information on the U.S.’s global surveillance network.

This week, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld a $10 million verdict in a slip and fall lawsuit that was filed after a truck driver slipped on ice and grease outside of a Wal-Mart in Greeley, Colorado.

According to a recent report from CBS News, the truck driver, 41-year-old Holly Averyt, had to have three different spinal surgeries after she allegedly slipped on a mixture of ice and grease in the Wal-Mart parking lot.

At her original trial, Averyt’s personal injury attorney was able to prove that the grease had escaped from a devise designed to trap oils that emerged from the store’s deli. Wal-Mart denied this claim, but jurors apparently sided with the plaintiff’s version of the facts.

As a result of her fall, the truck driver, who was from Cheyenne, Wyoming, was unable to work and eventually lost her truck, which had provided her sole source of income.

In the original trial, which ended in November 2010, jurors awarded Averyt a total of $15 million in punitive and compensatory damages. The plaintiff, quite naturally, was pleased, but Wal-Mart and its attorneys promptly challenged the ruling at an appellate court.

To the plaintiff’s chagrin, the appellate court overruled the trial court’s decision and sent the parties back to the lower court for a new trial. Wal-Mart had contended that the plaintiff withheld important city documents and that the award was unfair.

In its decision, the court said the $15 million award was “excessive, not supported by the evidence and could only be the result of prejudice and bias and the jury’s desire to punish Wal-Mart.”

Averyt and her attorneys, however, challenged this ruling, and the case eventually made it to the Colorado Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overruled the appellate court, and canceled the order for a new trial.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court first noted that, even though the plaintiff did not disclose certain documents to the defendant, those files were readily available in public records.

In addition, the Supreme Court chastised Wal-Mart for initially refusing to produce any evidence related to the alleged grease spill. The court also criticized the retailing giant for its refusal to admit that the grease spill occurred.

Finally, the court noted that the extremely large award did not necessarily reveal any bias or prejudice towards Wal-Mart from the jury. In fact, the judge observed that the jury may have been upset with Wal-Mart for its unsavory tactics at trial, rather than its business model.

Despite these observations, the court did note that the trial court’s verdict exceeded the state of Colorado’s legal cap on non-economic damages in tort cases.

As a result, the court lowered the total damages by $5 million, so Averyt will only be able to collect $10 million from the national retailing chain.

The family of a young man who died during an underground boxing match at an Oklahoma church has filed a lawsuit in an effort to seek legal relief.

According to a report from ESPN.com, 24-year-old George Clinckscale, a former football player at the University of Tulsa, recently died after participating in an unsanctioned boxing match in the basement of a Tulsa church.

Sources indicate that Clinkscale became ill during a fight, and was taken to a local hospital when he looked visibly distressed. Later that night, Clinkscale died at the hospital.

As a result of the tragic incident, the parents of Clinkscale have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against GUTS Church. In their lawsuit, Clinkscale’s parents claim that the church was negligent in promoting an illegal and dangerous underground fight.

Boxing matches are typically governed by state athletic associations, which are tasked with ensuring the safety of participants. In Oklahoma, the Oklahoma State Athletic Association must license a boxing event in order for it to be officially sanctioned.

The boxing match in which Clinkscale died was a part of “Fight Night VI,” an event sponsored by GUTS Church. Joe Miller, the leader of the Oklahoma State Athletic Association, told sources that his agency had not licensed the fight.

Since the fight was not officially sanctioned, athletic association authorities have handed the investigation of the incident over to the state attorney general’s office.

Miller reminded reporters that, if the event had been officially licensed, qualified referees and trained medical personnel would have had to be on hand.

Miller expressed his desire that the incident would serve as a warning to people who planned to hold illegal boxing events in the future. In his words, “I really hope this opens up some eyes.”

Clinkscale’s death struck the Tulsa community particularly hard, as he was a popular linebacker for the Tulsa Golden Hurricane from 2005 to 2009. His football coach described him as an “extremely passionate and bright young man” and lamented his passing.

In their lawsuit, Clinkscale’s family is seeking payment for actual damages, as well as at least $75,000 in punitive damages. Clinkscale had two young children at the time of his death.

Needless to say, the incident has offered some unwelcome publicity for GUTS Church, which is known in the Tulsa community for its sometimes extravagant fundraisers and inventive promotional efforts.

While the Clinkscales may be eager to take their wrongful death claim to court, history suggests that the dispute will be settled outside of court, perhaps leading to a personal injury settlement in the family’s favor.

Of course, as with any personal injury claim, it is impossible to predict exactly how the dispute will be settled.

One prediction, however, that may safely be made is that GUTS Church will likely avoid holding unsanctioned boxing nights for a long time.

Under a law passed in 2010, residents of South Dakota who were child victims of sex abuse face a strict statute of limitations that sets a timeframe in which they are able to file a sexual abuse lawsuit.

This controversial law set forth a rule that limits the ability of any adult over the age of 40 to seek personal injury relief for an abuse that occurred in his or her childhood.

Specifically, adults over 40 may only file a lawsuit against the perpetrator for sexual abuse crimes, and not other members of an institution that may have ignored the abuse.

In response to this law, which has proved unpopular with victim’s rights groups, South Dakota legislator Steve Hickey, a Republican from Sioux Falls, proposed a bill that would repeal the 2010 law and return the state’s sexual abuse statute of limitations to its prior conditions.

According to a report in the Rapid City Journal, the circumstances surrounding the passage of the 2010 lawsuit limits were very controversial.

Efforts to pass the law were reportedly led attorney Steven Smith, who, at the time, was representing St. Joseph’s Indian School in Chamberlain, S.D. Several former students had charged teachers at the school with sexual abuse.

In the St. Joseph’s lawsuit, several Native American plaintiffs had alleged that numerous different incidents occurred over a course of many years at the school, which was affiliated with the Catholic Church.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs were seeking compensation from the alleged abusers, as well as the school and the Catholic Church.

Hickey alleges that Smith proposed the 2010 law in order to limit the expenses that the church and its overarching institution would have to pay the plaintiffs in the event of a successful lawsuit.

In response to the new law, Hickey also claims that the new rule completely ignores the reality of sexual abuse towards children. According to Hickey, child victims are often well into adulthood before they have the necessary emotional tools to bring sexual abuse accusations.

As he told the Rapid City Journal, victims of sexual abuse are often “well into their 30s, 40s, and 50s when they hit bottom” and decide to pursue a personal injury settlement for their injuries.

In addition, Hickey believes that “it’s not the business of the Legislature to determine which cases have merit and which don’t.”

Supporters of the 2010 law, however, observe that it was openly debated in the Iowa Legislature, and that it was supported by a majority of state lawmakers.

Moreover, proponents of the current law state that it still gives sexual abuse victims ample time to file a lawsuit, and that it is far less strict than similar statutes in other states. Colorado, for example, sets a limit at age 30 for people who want to file sexual abuse lawsuits stemming from childhood incidents.

Of course, this claim also ignores that many other states have no such age limitations at all.

A routine colonoscopy turned into a health nightmare for Nevada man, but his recent $104 million verdict in a product liability lawsuit may ease some of his pain.

This week, a Nevada jury found a major drug company liable for an outbreak in hepatitis among people who took colonoscopies in 2007. The outbreak occurred at a few different outpatient colonoscopy clinics owned by a doctor who is also facing criminal charges.

According to a report in the Chicago Tribune, Michael Washington, a 71-year-old Air Force veteran, contracted hepatitis C during a simple colonoscopy procedure.

In his complaint, Washington claimed that the drug company and health care company named in the suit, Teva Parenteral Medicines Inc. and Baxter Healthcare Corp., encouraged doctors to reuse large vials containing the strong anesthetic propofol in colonoscopy procedures.

Under his theory, Washington said that the companies put profit over safety by reusing the anesthetic vials, which posed a danger of spreading blood-borne illnesses in successive patients.

Due to his disease, Washington alleged that he faced four years of high medical costs and physical uncertainty, and that the episode put “untold strain” on his marriage, which had lasted for 31 years before the incident.

A jury in Clark County, Nevada sympathized with Washington, and awarded him $14 million in compensatory damages for the expenses he incurred in treating and dealing with hepatitis C.

In addition, the jury punished Teva Parenteral Medicines Inc. for its transgression by awarding Washington and his wife $60 million in punitive damages. To add more meat to the verdict, Baxter Healthcare Corp. was also forced to pay the couple $30 million worth of punitive damages.

In their defense, the embattled companies admit that Washington was mistreated, but they claim that the decision to reuse the vials of propofol was the doctor’s decision, and that they would never promote such a potentially dangerous practice.

Moreover, the defendants expressed their displeasure with the size of the verdict, which they believe reflects a “broken” legal system in Nevada that takes advantage of wealthy defendants.

A personal injury attorney for the defendants noted that this case represents the third settlement in Nevada worth more than $100 million in a product liability case.

This decision also came on the heels of a $500 million verdict leveled against Teva last year in a case where a school administrator contracted hepatitis C in another colonoscopy procedure. Teva has appealed this decision.

Despite Teva’s claims that the verdict was unjustly large, the spate of hepatitis C cases in Nevada was easily preventable, and Nevada jurors wanted to make sure that other companies didn’t make the same mistakes again.

Thus, the theory behind the large punitive damages figures is that, the higher the punishment, the less likely it is that other companies will make similar boneheaded mistakes.

Charlie Davies, once a promising star on the U.S. men’s soccer team, has filed a $20 million personal injury lawsuit against a nightclub and a beverage company after he suffered serious injuries in a car accident that was allegedly caused by the defendants.

According to the Washington Post, Davies, who currently plays for D.C. United, alleges that the drunk driver who caused the car accident had been over-served at a party hosted by the Shadow Room, a Washington, D.C. nightclub, and Red Bull North America.

The car accident lawsuit names Das Enterprises and Red Bull as defendants, as the former corporation is the parent company of the Shadow Room nightclub, which is located on Washington D.C.’s famous K Street.

In his complaint, Davies suggests that the companies hosted a private party during which they continued serving alcohol to Maria Alejandra Espinoza, despite her visibly intoxicated state.

Later that night, Espinoza would cause an accident that involved her car and the vehicle containing Davies and a friend. The accident killed Ashley Roberta, a resident of Phoenix, Maryland.

In addition, the car accident led to life-threatening injuries for Davies, who suffered from bleeding in his brain, a ruptured spleen, and fractures to his face, ribs, legs, and elbow.

Davies had prolonged medical treatment after the accident, and alleges that he suffered permanent disfigurement in the form of multiple scars from the wreck.

While a $20 million lawsuit seems like an ambitious pursuit for a car accident lawsuit, Davies suffered extensive emotional, physical, and financial damage from the accident.

Prior to the crash in 2009, Davies was one of the country’s most promising soccer stars, and had been slated for a big role in the 2010 World Cup.

If he had performed as expected during the international tournament, Davies may have been eligible for lucrative endorsement deals and an overseas contract with a major professional team. Instead, Davies spent the 2010 World Cup at home recovering from the brutal accident.

Today, Davies has resumed his career as a striker for D.C. United, but soccer observers fear that he will never regain his prior fitness and skill levels. Davies has yet to rejoin the national soccer team, and he may never again reach the international level of play.

As a result of this lost professional opportunity, and his undoubtedly lofty medical expenses, Davies may have a very legitimate claim to recover a large amount of compensation from the companies who hosted the ill-fated party.

While Davies looks to collect from the deep-pocketed defendants, the drunk driver who caused the wreck has already been punished in a criminal court.

Espinoza, who was originally from Clarksville, Maryland, was recently sentenced to two years in prison for her role in the accident. She pleaded guilty to charges of involuntary manslaughter and maiming while driving intoxicated.

A wild incident in Colorado Springs in which a SWAT team stormed an elderly women’s home has left local residents questioning the aggressive tactics of federal law enforcement officials in their efforts to win the so-called “war on drugs.”

Recently, 71-year-old Rose Ann Santistevan filed a personal injury lawsuit against the FBI and local police authorities after she suffered a heart attack during a misguided drug raid in 2009.

According to The Gazette, a Colorado Springs newspaper, Santistevan was alone in her house receiving oxygen treatment for her emphysema when a SWAT task force stormed into her home with their guns drawn.

Immediately before storming into her home, the SWAT team also lobbed a “flash-bang” grenade into the home. The shock of the grenade and the fear induced by the guns caused Santistevan to suffer a major heart attack.

After the incident, the grandmother spent several days in critical condition at a local hospital while she was recovering from the heart attack.

In her lawsuit, Santistevan is seeking compensation for her medical bills, as well as non-physical injuries such as pain and suffering. She also claims that, even though the officers had a valid search warrant, their actions were “extreme, unreasonable and outrageous.”

Sources indicate that this embarrassing incident represents another black eye for a large-scale drug fighting operation called—and this is honestly what it is named—Operation Jeez Luis.

The indelicately named operation was a seven-month operation aimed at apprehending several different drug dealers in the Colorado Springs area. The FBI led the operation, but it was joined by city and county law enforcement officials.

Previously, Operation Jeez Luis received negative press after one of its paid informants tried to kill a man from whom he was supposed to be gathering information for the FBI. The relatives of the man who was nearly killed in this incident are also seeking a personal injury settlement in federal court.

In the case of Santistevan, law enforcement officials allege that some of her sons were implicated in the drug ring that was the focus of Operation Jeez Luis.

A local judge issued a search warrant for the elderly woman’s home after police saw one of the sons bring a birthday cake into Santistevan’s home.

The FBI theorized that the son was hiding drugs in her home, and possibly shuttling drugs in and out of the home in items such as birthday cakes.

Unfortunately for the police, a thorough search of the home after Santistevan’s heart attack revealed no signs of illegal narcotics.

In the woman’s lawsuit, she alleges that the police should have known she was alone in the home, and that she was susceptible to potential health troubles due to her disabled condition.