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 special effects in the “Mission Impossible” movies are remarkable, though they can push the bounds of the viewer’s credulity. Unfortunately, these daring feats are often dangerous for the specialists hired to perform them.

In a recent personal injury lawsuit, a stuntman on the film “Mission Impossible 3” alleges that he received third-degree burns over 60 percent of his body after a stunt involving pyrotechnics went horribly wrong.

According to sources, the stuntman, Steven Scott Wheatley, claims he suffered a severe injury when performing a stunt that was supposed to simulate a missile attack on a Chevy Suburban.

In the stunt that led to the negligence lawsuit, the vehicle was supposed to roll over and burst into flames after all the actors had gotten out of the way. However, during filming, equipment involved in the stunt allegedly malfunctioned, causing a “gasoline bomb” to explode.

According to Wheatley’s complaint, the explosion, which apparently happened prematurely as the stuntman was standing only a few feet away, allegedly engulfed Wheatley in a “ball of fire.”

The lawsuit was filed against several different entities, including Paramount Pictures and Tom Cruise’s production company. The accident occurred at the Agua Dulce Movie Ranch in Los Angeles County, California.

The suit brings several different claims against the defendant, including negligence, provision of unsafe equipment, breach of regulatory duty, and strict liability. In the suit, Wheatley’s wife also claims a loss of consortium, or loss of marital relations.

In his complaint, Wheatley states that the film production crew had a duty to provide, among other things, safety meetings, protective equipment, fire protection suits, and fire extinguishers to protect against pyrotechnic accidents.

Wheatley alleges that the film crew failed to provide these necessary fire safeguards, and that it should have ensured that local fire crews were on hand to prevent such a disaster.

In addition to his request for compensation for his physical injuries, Wheatley also claims that has suffered pain, anxiety, and suffering.

The ability of Wheatley to win this case may turn whether the film crew provided adequate safeguards for the stunt.

In addition, a court may find Wheatley partially liable for his own injuries if he agreed to assume a certain amount of risk involved in such a dangerous stunt.

When individuals engage in obviously dangerous activities, personal injury laws sometimes dictate that a portion of the blame for the accident be placed on the injured party himself.

However, if the gas explosion was indeed due to a lack of oversight by the film crew, Wheatley may have more success in court.

While stuntman face unusually high levels of risk, people with safer forms of employment also suffer on-the-job injuries.

For more information about pursuing a worker’s compensation claim, contact a local injury lawyer today.

A grisly train accident last month in the Nevada desert killed several passengers and injured many more. The accident was caused by a truck driver who ignored warning signals and drove into the path of the train.

The driver of the truck, who was killed in the wreck, managed to slam on his brakes and skidded for roughly 100 yards. These efforts, however, did not prevent the truck from striking the train, causing it to derail.

As might be expected, lawsuits have started to reach the embattled train company. Recently, an Amtrak employee filed a personal injury lawsuit against the company for policies that she alleges made escaping the wreckage of the train more difficult.

The Amtrak attendant who filed the train accident lawsuit, 26-year-old Lana Dickerson, claims that she was attempting to lead surviving passengers out of a burning train struck by the truck when their escape route was blocked by a locked baggage car door.

According to sources, Dickerson then had to turn around, travel past dead bodies in the smoking car, including the body of a dead co-worker, and lead the passengers out through a window.

By exiting through the window, Dickerson and the surrounding passengers had to leap roughly 15 feet into the rocky rail bed.

Sources indicate that Dickerson’s lawsuit also names the trucking company that hired the negligent driver, but it focuses primarily on Amtrak’s policy that result in the locked baggage car door.

Lawyers on both sides of the case are still investigating whether Amtrak had an official policy that required this door to be locked. Some critics, however, say that these doors should not be blocked when a train is in operation.

Investigators from Amtrak and the National Transportation Safety Board are still studying the crash.

According to a spokesperson from Amtrak, though, the crash was entirely the result of the wayward truck striking the train at a highway crossing. No mechanical failures on the train during the accident have been discovered.

In addition to the truck driver and the conductor, four other people were killed during the accident.

After her heroic efforts, Dickerson was flown to a hospital where she was treated for injuries to her head, face, knees, hands, and spine. She also is seeking treatment for emotional trauma suffered after seeing the carnage created by the crash.

In addition to Dickerson’s claim, another Amtrak attendant has filed a lawsuit against the estate of the truck driver who was killed in the wreck, as well as his employer, John Davis Trucking Co. of Battle Mountain, Nevada.

While these lawsuits may provide needed relief for the victims, the plaintiffs hope they will also lead to improved safety measures in the future.

Some sources estimate that more than 3,000 train accidents occur each year. If you have been injured in a train accident, you may be able to seek legal relief.

To learn more about your legal options after a train crash, contact a local injury lawyer today.

The Dallas Cowboys, once dubbed “America’s Team,” have faced plenty of controversies in the past few decades. The antics of players such as Michael Irvin, Nate Newton, and the iconic Terrell Owens have kept the Cowboys in the limelight, despite disappointing performances on the field.

A recent controversy, though, does not involve the actions of a player, nor does it revolve around the controversial decisions of the team’s famous owner, Jerry Jones. It may, however, soon become the most expensive gaffe in franchise history.

According to sources, a Dallas Cowboys spokeswoman recently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the team for injuries allegedly suffered when the team’s practice facility collapsed in 2009.

The woman, Jancy Briles, who remains a member of the football team’s public relations staff, filed an injury lawsuit against the companies that played a role in designing and building the ill-fated practice field.

The facility, which was encased in a shell of steel and fabric, collapsed during a team event in the spring of 2009, leading to shocking news footage of a seemingly flimsy structure falling on people trapped inside.

The building, which housed a total of 88,000 square feet, fell in a relatively mild wind storm, which brought wind gusts of roughly 60 mph. Sources indicate that the National Institute of Standards and Technology said the structure should have been able to withstand the force of such winds.

As a result of the collapse, Briles, who was among those trapped inside, claims that she suffered “serious, debilitating and permanent injuries,” though she declined to publicly elaborate on the nature of her ailments.

Those allegedly responsible for the shoddy construction of the facility include Summit Structures LLC, a Pennsylvania company, and its corporate parent, Cover-All Building Systems Inc, which filed for bankruptcy shortly after the building’s collapse.

If prior lawsuits related to the incident are any indication of Briles’ potential success in court, she may be feeling confident about her odds of obtaining a personal injury settlement.

Cowboys scout Rich Behm was paralyzed by the falling structure, and special teams coach Joe DeCamillis suffered a fractured neck, but they eventually won settlements totaling more than $35 million from the owner of the Cowboys and Summit Structures.

In addition, one player, tight end Jamar Hunt, received a settlement with an undisclosed price tag after the falling roof of the facility herniated a disk in his neck.

Injuries related to poorly constructed buildings and other public spaces are more common than people might think. If you or someone you know has suffered a similar injury, you may be eligible to file an injury lawsuit.

To learn more about your claim, contact a local injury lawyer today for further information about your legal options.

While last year’s dramatic rescue of trapped coal miners in Chile received international attention, coal mining accidents still regularly occur in the United States, often with little press coverage at all.

This year, in western Kentucky, two coal miners tragically lost their lives after the roof of a mine in which they were working collapsed.

Recently, the families of Justin Travis and Michael Carter, the two men who lost their lives in the accident, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Alliance Resource Partners, whose subsidiary, Webster County Coal, was in charge of the worker’s mine.

Travis and Carter, 27 and 28 years old, respectively, had been clearing loose rock in a mine on the border of Webster and Hopkins counties when the roof caved in, trapping both men and ultimately killing them.

According to the company, the collapse of the roof was due to a geographic anomaly that could not have reasonably been discovered by company officials prior to the accident.

Sources indicate, however, that the company was cited for safety violations more than 1,000 times between the date of the accident and July of 2009.

One violation highlighted by reporting sources was a notice of noncompliance issued by the Kentucky Office of Mine Safety and Licensing for Webster County Coal’s failure to have proper roof control plans in certain underground mines.

Three months after this violation, part of the roof of another underground mine collapsed due to slippery rock formations, although this incident did not cause any injuries.

In their injury complaint, the families of the deceased miners allege that Webster County Coal and its corporate parent favored increased production over the safety of the miners.

The families are each seeking $9 million in compensation for personal injury and wrongful death claims. Moreover, they are seeking several million dollars worth of punitive damages.

In addition to their claims against the mining company and its corporate parent, the families also alleged wrongdoing on the part of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which oversees the health of workers in American mines.

According to the plaintiffs, the agency did not adequately inspect the mining facilities, failed to properly document the company’s violations, and turned a blind eye as the company violated safety regulations.

While coal mining accidents can have tragic consequences, they are not the only type of on-the-job injury that may result in serious injury or death.

Factory jobs, agricultural work, and employment in the construction sector are all examples of industries that often cause injuries.

If you or someone you love has been injured at work, you may be able to file a personal injury lawsuit to seek legal relief.

To learn more about your legal rights and options, contact a local injury lawyer today.

While making a film creates loads of stress for movie producers, tragic accidents are rarely a cause for their concern. However, a recent incident on the set of “Transformers 3” has left a rippling effect on the filmmakers and severely impacted the life of one injured extra.

According to reports, the family of Gabriella Cedillo recently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the makers of the movie, alleging that their negligence resulted in Cedillo’s severe brain injury. The lawsuit was filed in the Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, Illinois

The details of the accident are shocking. For the stunt, Cedillo, who had just turned 24 years old, was driving her own car in a vacated part of a downtown avenue in Hammond, Indiana. Sources indicate that Cedillo was among 80 other extras driving along the same stretch of road.

While she was driving, empty stunt vehicles were being towed by flatbed trucks in the opposite direction at speeds reaching 50 miles per hour. The scene in question required one of these stunt vehicles to be lifted into the air and flipped with the aid of an intricate series of cables.

Unfortunately, on the day of the accident, the bracket attached to one of the flying cars snapped, sending the vehicle flying towards Cedillo’s car. Shortly thereafter, a metal object slammed through Cedillo’s windshield, causing irreparable brain damage.

Cedillo has been in the hospital since her on-the-job injury and is paralyzed on her left side, though she has been able to write a few words.

A particularly unsettling feature of the accident, according to sources close to the case, is that a similar incident had occurred the day before, though it did not result in injury to any of the extras.

The lawsuit alleges that the movie officials from Paramount Pictures failed to adequately ensure the safety of the brackets and cables supporting the stunt cars. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the accident was a result of shoddy welding on the cars’ brackets that held the stunt cables.

In addition, the suit claims that the film’s makers were negligent in allowing the extras to work so close to the dangerous stunt. Cedillo’s attorney claims that there was no indication that she would be subjected to such risk when she filed paperwork before filming the scene.

The woman’s small role in “Transformers 3” was her first appearance in a film. Co-workers at the bank where she worked said she had always wanted to be an actress.

While accidents on movie sets are relatively rare, car accidents occur all too frequently. If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of someone’s negligent actions, contact a local injury lawyer today to learn your legal rights.

A gruesome whale attack last year at a popular Orlando, Florida theme park left one woman dead and a crowd of onlookers horrified. Today, the legal consequences of the incident have begun to take shape.

Last February, Dawn Brancheau, a 40-year-old animal trainer at SeaWorld, was pulled into an exhibition pool by one of the park’s killer whales. According to a report in the Orlando Sentinel, she died from drowning and traumatic injuries inflicted by the six-ton killer whale.

Immediately after the attack, Brancheau’s family worked in concert with SeaWorld to prevent tapes of the incident from being released to the public. In addition, the two sides seemed to be willing to cooperate while they waited for an investigation of the incident.

However, recent findings by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) suggest that SeaWorld may have been partially responsible for the incident, and reports indicate that Brancheau’s family may soon file an animal attack lawsuit.

After an extensive six-month investigation, OSHA cited SeaWorld for three safety violations. In the most severe blow for the theme park, the agency found that SeaWorld frequently exposed its employees to potential attacks by killer whales without having proper safeguards in place.

The failure to have proper safeguards to prevent personal injury was deemed “willful” by OSHA, which is the most severe category of violation, reserved for the worst workplace safety violations.

In addition, OSHA criticized the water park for exposing Brancheau to Tilikum, the whale who attacked her, because the offending whale was more than twice the size of similar animals at the park and was known to have “aggressive tendencies.”

Even worse, sources indicate that Tilikum was involved in another drowning incident 20 years ago at a Canadian park. Perhaps proving that its aid was too little too late, the agency proposed a relatively meager $75,000 fine for the violations.

While Dawn Brancheau’s family weighs the merits of filing a personal injury lawsuit, one New Hampshire family has filed a lawsuit of their own.

In the wake of OSHA’s findings, Suzanne and Todd Connell filed a lawsuit against SeaWorld, claiming that their ten-year-old son suffered severe emotional distress from witnessing the killer whale attack last year.

According to reports, the Connells’ lawsuit paints a negative picture of SeaWorld’s response to the whale attack, claiming that there “seemed to be no plan as to what to do to save Dawn” and that the park’s “employees were acting in an unorganized and chaotic manner.”

Wrongful death lawsuits come in all shapes and sizes. If you have a loved one who suffered an untimely death as a result of someone else’s negligent behavior, contact a local attorney to learn more about your legal rights.

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.

The father of a man who was strangled to death by a CVS store employee after being suspected of shoplifting filed a wrongful death lawsuit recently against the chain of convenience stores.

Michael A. Johnson is claiming within the personal injury suit that a CVS manager strangled his son, 34-year-old Anthony Kyser, while attempting to hold him before authorities could arrest him, according to the Chicago Sun Times. The lawsuit was filed in the Cook County Circuit Court.

Police said the struggle took place just before 11 a.m. on May 8, in the 2600 block of South Pulaski Road in Chicago. Apparently an off-duty Cook County Sheriff’s deputy stood by while the conflict ensued and did not interfere. The deputy was not named in the lawsuit.

The wrongful death lawsuit claims that the manager had chased Kyser from inside the store and down into a nearby alley, according to the Sun Times. Once the manager caught up to Kyser, he held the man in a “choke hold,” and would not let Kyser go despite his pleas that he could not breathe.

Witnesses said that Kyser, who was a Chicago resident, kept crying out, “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe.” Witnesses to the struggle said further that it appeared the manager held Kyser in the choke hold for what seemed to be several minutes.

An off-duty Cook County Sheriff’s deputy reportedly held her gun in her hand as the struggle ensued.

Kyser was pronounced dead at 11:38 a.m. on May at Mount Sinai Hospital, according to the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office. Since his passing, an autopsy ruled that he did die from strangulation and the death was ruled a homicide by the medical examiner, according to the Sun Times.

The Chicago Police Department are treating the death as an accident and criminal charges will not be filed against the CVS manager, said CPD spokesman Daniel O’Brien.

The wrongful death lawsuit claims that the store manager assaulted and battered Kyser, and the store is responsible for the manager’s actions in Kyser’s death, according to the Sun Times.

Eight counts are detailed within the lawsuit, including a claim of false imprisonment along with the assault and battery charges. The damage amount requested from the Highland Park CVS and the manager is more than $400,000.

The manager is not being identified because he has not been charged with a crime.

David Givens will have to find another way to score against his former team.

A federal judge recently dismissed a personal injury lawsuit filed by the former NFL wide receiver against the Tennessee Titans football team. The judge said Givens will have to pursue further action through arbitration under the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement.

In a $25 million personal injury lawsuit filed in September 2009 against the Titans, Givens claims he was encouraged to play in games, even though it was known he had a knee condition that could not hold up against the jarring impacts of NFL play, according to the Tennessean.

U.S. District Judge Todd Campbell dismissed the suit by filing an order. Within the order, Judge Campbell wrote that Givens’ suit was not “sufficiently independent of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement” made between the football league and the players.

“The Supreme Court has held that because preempted claims must first be presented through the arbitration procedure established in the collective bargaining agreement, those claims be dismissed,” Campbell wrote.

The Titans have not released a statement about Givens’ suit since it was thrown out.

The suit claims Givens was not made aware of results of an examination on his knee made by orthopedic surgeon Dr. Tomas Byrd. According to the suit, Byrd’s exam found Givens might need surgery at some point on the knee due to a large defect within his knee joint, where the upper leg connects to the knee the Tennessean reported.

Byrd’s report continued to say the condition and treatment for it could have kept him out of the NFL for a whole season, according to the suit. Byrd examinated Givens before he signed a 5 year contract with the football team in March 2006.

Givens’ sports injury occurred in November 2006 during a home game against the Baltimore Ravens. The suit claims the lesion in his knee had crumbled, and he has not played in an NFL game since then.

The suit further states that Givens did not know about his knee condition until February 2009, when he finally reviewed the medical file.

Givens’ attorney Dan Warlick told the Tennessean that the decision by Campbell was not a surprise. Warlick said Campbell’s ruling does not question the actual validity of the suit.

“When we filed, it was one of the issues we had to overcome, whether we could get it into federal court without the arbitration,” Warlick said. “We just thought federal court would be a better place to try.”

A Texas man who filed a personal injury lawsuit after he was severely hurt in an accident at petroleum magnate BP’s Texas City oil refinery won a $1.72 million verdict in a recent court ruling.

Ernesto Tamez and his wife Maria filed the industrial accident lawsuit against Maxim Crane Works, an industrial company based in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit was filed about four years after Tamez was injured at the refinery. A jury at a Galveston County, Texas courthouse ruled Maxim was fully liable for the accident, according to release from Arnold & Itkin law office.

According to court documents, Tamez was working at the refinery on January 18, 2006 when he was struck by an oil burner. The burner was hoisted in the air by a crane operated by a Maxim worker. Tamez reportedly sustained crushing injuries to his neck, back, shoulder and ribs, which required extensive surgery to repair.

Tamez was awarded $300,000 in lost wages, $550,000 in medical expenses and $170,000 for his wife in the decision.

“It has taken four years to get to this point, but our hope is that this verdict will help our client and his family move on with their life,” Cory Itkin, who served as one of Tamez’s injury attorneys, said in the release.

Last December, a federal jury awarded $100 million in damages to 10 workers who were exposed to toxic fumes at the Texas City refinery.

The ruling was the first in about 100 similar suits against the company from workers and residents in the area who claim BP has not taken enough measures to reduce the release of harmful fumes from the refinery.

The Texas City refinery has a history of other safety violations, including an explosion at the facility in March 2005. According to CBS, 15 workers were killed and least 170 were injured in the accident at the site, which occupies a two square miles.

BP was fined a record $87.4 million in November 2009 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for falling short of needed efforts to safely rebuild the plant after the explosion, The Wall Street Journal reported.

On March 23, 2005, contractors working at the plant had restarted a unit that was shut down for repairs. The unit was filled with gasoline but it overflowed and then filled up an emergency backup unit. The end result of the two overflows was a geyser-like spurt of gasoline into the air, followed by the explosion, CBS reported in 2005.

A personal injury lawsuit was filed in early January against a Camden, PA.-based chocolate plant after a worker was killed last summer when he fell into a vat used to melt chocolate.

Vincent Smith II, 29, was working at the Lyons and Sons chocolate plant on July 8, according to CBS. Officials said at the time that Smith was standing on a nine-foot-tall platform while loading solid pieces of raw cocoa into a melting vat when he fell into the container.

While the chocolate’s temperature was believed to be about 120 degrees Fahrenheit, the chocolate was not responsible for his death. Smith was struck in the head by an agitator, a large paddle-shaped object used to move the chocolate while it melts, and suffered fatal injuries because of the blow, according to CBS.

Attorney Thomas Kline, who is representing Smith’s relatives, told the Philadelphia Inquirer that several security measures were missing near the vat. He said no guardrails were placed around the vat, the floors nearby where slick with melted chocolate, no equipment was nearby for workers to try to get him out of the vat, and no emergency shut off was installed on the platform, according to the Inquirer.

The suit was announced just after the plant and the company Smith was working for were fined about $39,000 for an array of safety violations. Smith’s employer, Cocoa Services, was also named in the family’s lawsuit, as well as other contractors who designed and constructed the plant.

“This was a sure death,” Kline told the Inquirer. “When he fell in, he stood no chance of survival.”

Inspectors from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration placed the recent fines on the plant for failure to meet the security measures described by Kline.

Right after Smith’s death, the plant was shut down and fined about $1,150 for operating without a mercantile license. Inspectors also found problems with plumbing and electrical systems in the plant. Officials representing the plant had said before the inspection that those areas were fixed, according to the Inquirer.

“This worker was unknowingly invited into a death trap,” Kline said to the Inquirer. “They ignored any rule of occupational safety or common sense.”

Officials from Lyons and Cocoa services declined to comment to the Pennsylvania newspaper.

“My brother was a very careful guy,” Smith’s brother Carl Smith told ABC shortly after the accident. “Come to find out they say it could have been carelessness on his part? That’s not his character at all.”

A Massachusetts school teacher was recently awarded worker’s compensation benefits after she was injured while chaperoning students on a school ski trip.

Karen Sikorski, a math teacher at Peabody High School in Peabody, Mass., injured her shoulder in 2004 during a trip to Mount Ascutney in Vermont with the school’s ski club.

Sikorski was reportedly skiing when she fell. The injury later required surgery as well as physical therapy for her to recover, according to the Boston Globe.

Sikorski’s claim asked to regain sick days spent on her recovery and any medical expenses not covered by the co-payment offered through her health insurance policy, through the city.

The city of Peabody government initially rejected her claim for personal injury compensation because the teachers are not required to participate with the school ski trips and other voluntary events, according to claims.

But in mid December, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of Sikorski. Alan Pierce, who served as Sikorski’s attorney for the injury case, told the Associated Press that while teachers volunteer to chaperone events such as the ski trip, she was still performing her duties as a teacher.

“The students could not ski unless there was a chaperone going down the trail with them,” Pierce said.”She engaged in the duties of a teacher, albeit on the ski slopes. She wasn’t teaching math, but she was maintaining order, re-enforcing rules and watching out for the well-being of adolescents.”

While the case itself did not involve “big money,” Pierce told the Boston Globe that the state Supreme Court’s ruling “needed to establish that when teachers are performing chaperoning duties [they] do not lose the protection.”

Pierce said Sikorski may recover about 10 of the 16 sick days she used for physical therapy and a small payment if her injuries turn out to be permanent, according to the Globe.

The city of Peabody tried to argue that a 1985 Massachusetts law excluded injuries from being covered by worker’s compensation if such an injury happened while an employee was voluntarily participating in an activity.

However, the SJC ruled that participation in the ski trip was a result of Sikorski working for the city in some form, and therefore Sikorski was awarded the compensation.

Judge Judith A. Cowin wrote in an opinion regarding the case that, “the ski club’s trips benefited the city by furthering the school’s educational mission.”

Judge Cowin also pointed out that the city encourages teachers to participate in events such as the ski trip.

On June 9th at a Slim Jim plant in North Carolina, tragedy ensued. The building collapsed - injuring nearly 40 workers who were inside, and killing three employees.

According to an InjuryBoard.com report, the autopsies on the three deceased workers came back showing that the bodies had been crushed to death.

The three deaths and the other 40 personal injuries sustained as a result of the building collapse all qualify as work-related injuries and will likely be filed as worker’s compensation lawsuits.

Federal investigations of the accident have shown that natural gas may have been responsible for the collapse of the building. The gas allegedly leaked into the building when water-heater installers were working on the building. The gas should have been vented outside, but instead caused an explosion inside the factory.

No litigation has been decided on yet, but injury lawyers may work on the case.