During confrontations with physically threatening combatants, police often enlist the aid of non-lethal weapons, including the popular Taser stun-gun.

As the use of Tasers becomes more widespread and accepted, police have begun using them in more situations. However common they may be, their use may still be considered excessive use of force, particularly when a grandmother is at the other end of the electrical jolt.

Recently, officers in two separate incidents used Tasers to subdue elderly grandmothers.

In the first and most shocking incident, policemen recently Tasered an 86-year-old disabled grandmother in Oklahoma. According to NewsOK.com, Lona Varner filed a personal injury lawsuit against the city of El Reno and the officers who were involved in the Taser incident.

While the officers’ actions seem like a clear example of police brutality, reports suggest that the policemen had a viable reason to subdue to the woman. Sources indicate that officers responded to a 911 call by Varner’s grandson saying the woman was suicidal.

When the police arrived in her bedroom, Varner allegedly raised a knife over her head and threatened to kill the officers if they came any closer. Fearing that she posed an imminent threat, one officer fired his Taser and missed, requiring the use of a second officer’s Taser.

This second Taser attempt had its intended effect, and Varner suffered burns to her chest from the shock, as well as torn flesh on her arms where the officers handcuffed her. According to her attorney, Varner accrued $30,000 in medical bills as a result of the policemen’s conduct.

Unfortunately, this is not the first controversial incident for police in El Reno, Oklahoma. Two years ago, officers used a Taser an uncooperative driver who subsequently went into diabetic shock.

In another recent incident, Texas police used a Taser on a 72-year-old grandmother after pulling her over for speeding.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, a deputy in Travis County fired his Taser at Kathryn Winkfein after she began arguing with him on the side of a busy highway. A video of the incident is now circulating online, making the woman an unlikely celebrity.

Reports indicate that the officer Tasered Winkfein after she refused to sign the traffic ticket and began using profane language. The officer also said she became combative, though the victim disputes this claim.

Regardless of her behavior, the video shows Winkfein is almost half the size of the officer. Due to the extreme disparity in physical strength, the Travis County District Attorney is investigating whether the officer’s use of a Taser was appropriate.

The manufacturer of the controversial weapon, Taser International, claims that the weapon is safe for use on anyone weighing more than 60 pounds. However, the company has not issued age restrictions for the use of its product.

If you or anyone you know has been the victim of an unnecessary Taser attack, or other forms of police brutality, it could be fruitful to learn more about personal injury lawsuits.

As the oil continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, BP is worried about a potentially costlier spill. The inevitable tide of personal injury lawsuits from those harmed by the accident poses a grave financial threat to the oil giant.

Anticipating future lawsuits, BP recently agreed to pay $20 billion into an escrow account to be managed by an independent administrator. While this account provides hope for swift relief for those injured by the oil spill, it may also prove beneficial to BP.

What This Means for BP

At first glance, the $20 billion price tag seems like a loss for the oil company, especially since it was likely coerced by the government. Even worse for BP, this amount far surpasses the previous liability limit of $75 million established under the 1990 Oil Pollution Act.

However, The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the move is not all bad for BP, as it will help the company avoid lengthy legal battles. More than 200 plaintiffs, ranging from Gulf fisherman to people whose health has been threatened by exposure to the oil, have already filed suit against BP. Aggressively defending itself against every claim would prove very costly to the company.

In addition, establishing a sizeable escrow account serves as a sign of good faith to federal prosecutors. The multi-billion dollar account also shows that BP has little intention of digging in their heels and aggressively defending itself against every claim. The company likely prefers to avoid decades of costly personal injury lawsuits.

What This Means for Injured Parties

The good news is that there is a guaranteed pot of $20 billion to be distributed to those hurt by the massive spill. Moreover, the established account means that litigants will probably gain relief in a much quicker fashion.

This could prevent nightmare scenarios similar to those experienced by litigants after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, when claimants had to wait as long as two decades before reaching personal injury settlements.

The news, however, is not all positive for future claimants. The Louisiana State Treasurer, John Kennedy, believes the account may be woefully inadequate.

According to Reuters, Kennedy estimates that the total environmental and economic damages resulting from the spill could total $100 billion. Thus, by limiting their damages to $20 billion, BP may have saved itself several billion dollars, potentially harming thousands of Gulf residents who have legitimate injury claims.

However, reports indicate that the escrow account will not prevent claimants from filing environmental suits against BP for damage to the Gulf’s coastlines. As a result, the possibility for litigants to win large punitive sums from BP remains in play. Thus, like the spilled oil, BP is not out of the water yet.

In the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, thousands of firefighters, police officers, and construction workers heroically converged on the scene. Injuries suffered by these workers in the ensuing rescue effort led to a lengthy legal fight that may finally be over.

Under a revised settlement this week, injured workers could receive a total of up to $712.5 million in compensation, up from $657 million in a prior personal injury settlement, according to the Wall Street Journal.

As a result of the enormous amount of dust and debris on the site, many of the rescue workers suffered personal injuries, including debilitating respiratory illnesses. About 10,000 plaintiffs have made claims seeking relief for on-the-job injuries stemming from the World Trade Center rescue efforts.

While other victims of the attacks received some relief from a federal compensation fund, many of the rescue workers failed to benefit from this fund. One reason for this funding gap is that many of their health problems weren’t diagnosed until after 2003, when the federal fund was closed.

Under the new agreement, injured workers will receive payments based on the severity of their injuries.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a nonsmoker who contracted a debilitating respiratory illness within seven months of exposure at Ground Zero could receive up to $1.05 million. In addition, workers who did not suffer an injury but have a valid legal claim due to their fear of becoming sick, could receive $3,250.

Reports indicate that Kenneth Feinberg, who led the original September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, will hear appeals from rescue workers who disagree with their allotted compensation.

Part of Feinberg’s task will be to rally rescue workers to agree to join the settlement. At least 95 percent of the workers must agree to the new deal for payments to be made.

As part of the new deal, the WTC Captive Insurance Co. will add at least $50 million to the rescue workers’ fund. This unique nonprofit insurer was created with a $1 billion grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the wake of the September 11th attacks. The fund insures personal injury lawsuits by city workers.

Interested parties seemed pleased with the new settlement. The president of WTC Captive, Christine LaSala, claimed that the deal “gives the plaintiffs immediate, fair, and reasonable compensation.” Further, Paul Napoli, whose firm represents a vast majority of the plaintiffs, said the new agreement is “bigger and better.”

With regard to the new compensation package, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein set a fairness hearing for June 23 to allow interested parties to comment on the settlement. Plaintiffs will have until late September to decide whether they wish to agree to the settlement.

Injured plaintiffs have many concerns when seeking legal relief for personal injuries. But rarely do they worry about the defense’s continued existence.

However, more than 260 people face this exact problem in New York, where the shuttering of St. Vincent’s Hospital could jeopardize hundreds of ongoing medical malpractice lawsuits against the hospital, according to the New York Daily News.

St. Vincent’s, the last remaining Catholic hospital in New York, was recently forced to close its doors under the weight of debts reportedly topping $1 billion.

In response to its crippling debt, the hospital recently filed for bankruptcy. During the bankruptcy process, the hospital will likely pay its creditors first, possibly leaving injured patients in the lurch.

Perhaps most frustrated are the former patients who have won personal injury judgments in court against St. Vincent’s, but may never see a dime from the hospital.

One such case is that of of Shenika Baab, who won a $5.3 million jury verdict after a defective defibrillator failed to stop her mother’s heart attack. Baab’s mother had been treated at a sister hospital of St. Vincent’s, Mary Immaculate Hospital in Brooklyn, which closed last year.

Due to the hospital system’s financial troubles, the Baab family has yet to receive any money, causing financial hardship for Shenika Baab, who was left to care for her seven siblings after her mother’s untimely death. Sources indicate that Baab may never see a dime.

Reports say that St. Vincent’s Hospital was mostly self-insured against medical malpractice lawsuits. The hospital had created a special trust fund to protect against future lawsuits.

Many of the claims currently in progress are in the pre-trial or trial stages. The fate of these malpractice claims depends in part on the amount of money this trust fund holds, which is a point of contention among interested parties.

Some reports allege that the fund contains between $150 and $250 million, though many believe that this money spent paying off creditors first, before going to settle any lawsuits.

However, Richard Kanowitz, an attorney for a firm representing six pending medical malpractice cases against the hospital, claimed these trust fund estimates were “woefully low.” Further, Kanowitz alleged that “there are a lot of serious injuries and deaths that will go unremedied.”

A hospital spokesman did say that St. Vincent’s has some third-party insurance separate from its trust fund, but did not give a firm number on the amount of insurance available.

Some litigants expressed hope that the sale of the hospital’s land will garner enough cash to provide some money for injured patients.

While uncertainty reigns among the pending medical malpractice lawsuits against St. Vincent’s Hospital, one thing is certain: these patients never anticipated that the hospital would become immune to lawsuits. Even the savviest attorneys cannot win cases against a foe that no longer exist.

A New Jersey woman was recently awarded $1.2 million in a wrongful death lawsuit after her son was killed in a Navy training accident. However, despite winning the lawsuit, Cassita Massiah does not yet know who is responsible for making the payment.

Massiah filed the personal injury lawsuit after the tragic death of her son, Freddie Porter Jr., who was only 19 when the accident occurred.

According to the Rapid City Journal, Porter’s small inflatable raft was participating in a nighttime training exercise on Virginia’s James River when a flotilla of barges pushed by a tugboat appeared out of nowhere and struck the raft.

Two other seamen aboard the raft survived the impact, but Porter died when he was thrown overboard and became trapped underneath a barge. Sources indicate that no watchmen were surveying the river from atop the barge.

According to reports, the tugboat company claimed that the Navy was negligent in sending poorly trained sailors onto the river in an inadequate vessel. In response, the Navy contended that the barges should have had lookouts to spot smaller watercraft in the flotilla’s path.

At trial, U.S. District Judge Henry Coke Morgan found the Navy 80 percent negligent in Porter’s death. However, Judge Morgan ordered the owner of the tugboat to pay the total amount of damages, despite the court’s finding that the tugboat company was only 20 percent liable for the accident.

This bizarre outcome is a result of a legal precedent known as sovereign immunity, which protects the government from lawsuits by military personnel injured or killed in the line of duty.

The tugboat company’s attorney has appealed the decision, claiming that two parties sharing negligence in an accident typically share payment for damages. The company will likely argue that sovereign immunity should not free the government from financial responsibility for the negligent death of service members, especially when the government’s agents are primarily at fault.

If the decision is reversed, it could have a lasting effect on future lawsuits filed by military personnel.

After the trial, Massiah criticized the Navy’s initial conclusion that her son’s death was “just a plain accident.” She expressed gratitude for receiving her day in court, saying “if I hadn’t pursued this procedure, I wouldn’t have known exactly what took place.”

After Porter’s accident, the Navy conducted a review of all its training exercise and has now stopped similar exercises on the James River.

While Cassita Massiah can gain some comfort knowing that future members of the Navy will not face the same risks as her son, it may be years before she knows which party will ultimately be held responsible for the tragic accident.