Finding out your child has suffered a serious injury is every parent’s worst nightmare. Even after receiving medical attention, a child often has a long road ahead of them as they recover from physical and psychological trauma.

Parents or legal guardians can file a personal injury claim on behalf of children to seek compensation for the injuries they have suffered. However, any claims involving a child also come with a variety of safeguards designed to keep the child’s best interests in mind. It’s important to work with a skilled attorney who can help guide you through the process.

When can a minor be awarded damages?

Children can recover damages if they are injured due to the negligence of another party. In fact, certain children are more likely to receive compensation when they are owed a greater duty of care.

While people generally have a duty of care to minimize the risk that their actions will cause injuries to others, they are expected to take extra precautions to prevent injuries to children. This is because children may be less capable of recognizing and avoiding potential hazards.

The following are some examples of things that can cause injuries to children and make them eligible to receive damages through a personal injury claim:

• Motor vehicle accidents
• Dog bites
• Defective products
• Negligent supervision at a school, daycare, or other location
• Sports injuries
• Premises liability issues, including attractive nuisances
• Exposure to toxic materials such as asbestos or lead paint
• Physical or sexual assault

Anyone filing a personal injury claim on behalf of a child can seek compensation for economic losses (including medical expenses and the loss of future earning potential) as well as non- economic damages such as emotional trauma or pain and suffering. The court or jury may also approve punitive damages if the defendant’s actions were particularly egregious.

Who can file a personal injury claim on behalf of a minor?

Under most circumstances, children under the age of 18 are not allowed to bring claims on their own behalf in Connecticut. To file a personal injury claim on behalf of a child, a person must be the child’s legal representative or “next friend.” In most claims, this means the child’s parents or legal guardians are permitted to represent them. Other close relatives — including aunts and uncles, adult siblings, and grandparents — may also be able to act as legal representatives.

In some claims, the court may appoint a special representative to act in the child’s best interests. This may occur if the child’s parents or legal guardians are deceased or found to be unfit to act on behalf of the child or when there are significant conflicts of interest involved in the claim. In these instances, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the child.

What happens to the money awarded to a child in a personal injury claim?

No matter who pursues a personal injury claim for a minor, any personal injury claims seeking damages for injuries to a child are subject to strict legal procedures and probate court oversight. This is to make sure the damages awarded to a child are protected until the child is old enough to make his/her own decisions. That does not necessarily mean at age 18. The probate court will review the terms of any settlement to ensure that it is fair and in the best interests of the child. It will also determine how, and when, the funding can be accessed.

In some claims, the probate court will order that the damages awarded should be set aside in a trust or blocked account, which safeguards the funds and ensures that they are available for the child’s needs in the future. Alternatively, the probate court may approve a structured settlement to provide periodic payments rather than a lump sum, establishing regular income to meet a child’s needs.

Can a parent access the funds awarded to their child?

Although the child is legally the owner of any damages awarded in a personal injury claim, their parents or other legal representatives may be able to use the money on their behalf. This access is permitted when the probate court determines that the funds are necessary to pay for ongoing expenses related to a child’s injury, such as medical care. The funds may also be used to pay for approved education expenses to support the child. In some circumstances, such as severe financial hardship, the probate court may also permit the use of this money to support a child’s basic needs, including payments for housing, food, and clothing.

To guarantee that the funds are being used for the proper purpose, the court may appoint a guardian to oversee the child’s finances – especially in claims resulting in large settlements. The guardian is responsible for managing the funds and making decisions in the child’s best interests, petitioning the court for access to funds, and updating the court on how the money is being used. A parent can be appointed as a guardian as long as they take on these responsibilities.

Connecticut law holds that damages can be awarded, or a settlement approved, on behalf of a child under the age of 18, only when a settlement or verdict is less than $10,000. In this circumstance, the money can be managed by a parent or guardian without probate court supervision.

For awards of $10,000 or more, probate court supervision is mandatory, and the funds must be deposited into a court-approved account. Parents or others acting as the custodian or trustee must get probate court approval to access and spend any funds from these accounts. In addition, the terms of the settlement may specifically dictate how the funds are to be handled.

What happens when the child reaches adulthood?

A child will gain more control over the damages awarded in a personal injury claim once they reach the age of majority, which in Connecticut is 18 years old.

If the funds are held in a custodial account, the child will gain control of these funds when they become an adult. This means they will have full control over how they withdraw and spend this money.

If the money was placed in a trust, there may be certain terms that dictate how the money is to be distributed once the child releases adulthood. In some cases, the full amount may be released. In structured settlements, funds will be released on a set schedule that guarantees a certain percentage of the trust is accessible each year over a set period of time. The agreement may also stipulate that access to the funds is contingent on certain milestones, such as the child completing high school.

In some cases, especially those involving large sums, the court may issue orders on the distribution of funds that will apply even after the child reaches adulthood. These terms may include structured payouts or oversight by a financial advisor.

Let’s review your case

If your child has been injured in an accident, Anderson Trial Lawyers can help you navigate the process of filing a personal injury claim on their behalf. Set up a free consultation by contacting us online or calling 860.886.8845.

Proposals over whether to strengthen or relax motorcycle helmet laws periodically pop up across the United States, often resulting in confusion regarding an injured person’s rights. Proponents of stronger helmet laws argue that they reduce motorcyclists’ risk of injury or death, while opponents claim that they’re an unnecessary restriction on personal rights.

Whether you are wearing a helmet or not can also have a bearing on personal injury claims filed after a motorcycle accident. Motorcyclists injured while riding without a helmet may mistakenly believe they have forfeited their right to seek damages because they were not wearing a helmet. Furthermore,, defendants in such instances often argue that the decision to not wear a helmet constitutes negligence. 

Despite this ongoing debate, the issue generally has no bearing on determining who is at fault in the accident — meaning a motorcyclist can still receive compensation even if failing to wear a helmet contributed to their injuries.

Motorcycle helmets and injuries

For years, traffic safety organizations have strongly advocated for motorcyclists to wear helmets while riding. Helmets absorb the impact forces in a crash, helping to prevent or reduce the severity of injuries to the head and neck.

Studies have shown that motorcyclists who were not using a helmet when they were involved in an accident are more likely to suffer severe or fatal injuries. This, in turn, means they require more serious medical attention and incur higher medical costs.

Helmet laws and liability

The Highway Safety Act of 1966 mandated that states require universal motorcycle helmet use in order to receive a portion of federal highway funds. When this sanctioning provision was repealed in 1975, many states — including Connecticut — responded by eliminating or weakening their helmet laws.

Today, Connecticut requires that motorcyclists under the age of 18 and passengers under the age of 18, as well as those operating a motorcycle with a learner’s permit, must wear a helmet that meets federal safety standards. Although there have been several attempts to strengthen this law, including proposals for a universal helmet law, licensed adult motorcyclists in Connecticut are not required to wear a helmet.

Motorcycle helmet laws vary considerably from state to state. Only 17 states require all motorcyclists to wear helmets; some also mandate eye protection. Some states have no helmet laws at all, and some have helmet laws that are only applicable to certain age groups.

This variation in helmet laws means that liability considerations for an accident can change as soon as the motorcyclist crosses a state line. In states with stricter helmet laws, a motorcyclist must consider how a jury will interpret the fact that they aren’t wearing a helmet in pursuing a claim. In states with looser restrictions, the opposite may be true.

How helmet laws affect compensation

Any plaintiff filing a motor vehicle accident claim must establish that another motorist’s negligence is the proximate cause of their injuries. Meaning, if not for the other person’s negligence, the plaintiff would not be injured. In general, the question of whether a motorcyclist was wearing a helmet is irrelevant when determining the cause of an accident. 

If a motorcyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet at the time of an accident, the defendant may suggest that this contributed to the severity of their injuries. This could include introducing testimony from medical professionals and others to claim that the motorcyclist could have prevented or limited their injuries if they had been wearing a helmet. A skilled trial attorney will know the steps to take to best present your case.

Issues of comparative negligence may come up when a motorcyclist fails to wear a helmet. Comparative negligence holds that when a plaintiff shares the fault for their injuries, a jury can assign a percentage of the blame to them and any damages awarded in a settlement or verdict will be reduced accordingly. If jurors hold bias due to a motorcyclist failing to wear a helmet, they may  hold a motorcyclist at least partially responsible for the injuries they sustain.

Connecticut’s comparative negligence statute holds that a plaintiff can recover damages from a defendant as long as they’re less than 50 percent at fault in an accident. Since Connecticut does not have a universal helmet law, failing to wear a helmet does not factor into this calculation (unless the plaintiff was a minor or using a learner’s permit at the time of the accident and thus subject to the state’s more limited helmet requirements). However, a trial lawyer must consider bias in picking a jury and putting on evidence.

Can helmet use strengthen a claim?

Wearing a helmet can help strengthen a motorcycle accident claim in several different ways. These include: 

• Demonstrating responsibility: When helmet laws apply, wearing a helmet proves that the motorcyclist followed the law. This can help reduce the percentage of fault attributed to them.
• Mitigating damages: Wearing a helmet shows that the motorcyclist took reasonable precautions to minimize any injuries, helping counter arguments for reduced compensation.
• Minimizing bias: Given the biases against motorcyclists, including stereotypes that they are reckless or dangerous motorists, wearing a helmet can help overcome these biases by demonstrating a commitment to personal safety.

Let’s review your case

If you or a loved one have been injured in a motorcycle accident, the attorneys at Anderson Trial Lawyers can help you develop your claim and recover fair and reasonable compensation for your damages. Contact us today at 860.886.8845 or by using our online form to schedule a free consultation.

A visit to the playground offers children a chance for a fun day outside. Unfortunately, these visits sometimes end with a trip to the emergency room.

Studies have shown that more than 200,000 children in the United States go to the hospital each year with injuries sustained on the playground, such as concussions or severe lacerations. Broken bones resulting from a fall are the most common injury, and the majority of those injured are ages nine and under.

If your child was injured in a playground accident, you may be able to file a personal injury claim to receive compensation for their medical bills and other costs. These claims can be very complex, and a skilled attorney can provide helpful assistance. In this blog, we’ll explore some of the legal issues that may arise from a playground injury.

Premises liability

Playgrounds can be found at numerous different places, including schools, parks, day care centers, campgrounds, churches, and private homes. No matter who owns the playground, they have a responsibility to keep it safe. A claim against someone in control of a playground must demonstrate that the defendant failed to make sure the playground was reasonably safe to use. An injury may be caused, or worsened, by the following conditions on the premises:

Poor maintenance

The playground owner has a duty to regularly inspect it for any potential safety issues, such as broken equipment or unsafe surfaces. They also have a responsibility to repair these problems in a reasonable amount of time. If the property owner fails to take these steps, they can be held responsible.

Lack of hazard warnings

When a playground hazard is present, the playground owner must take steps to keep visitors away from it until it can be addressed. If they don’t take reasonable steps to warn others, such as putting up barriers or signs, they can be held liable for injuries resulting from the hazard.

Inadequate safety and security measures

The playground owner must take steps to ensure that the premises are safe and secure, especially if there are known issues at the site. Precautionary steps might include putting up fencing to prevent children from walking into a nearby street or installing lights if the playground can be used in the evening.

Products liability

You may also be able to file a claim against those responsible for designing, manufacturing, or constructing the playground. A products liability claim can be filed if one of the following scenarios occurred: 

The playground is poorly designed or constructed

Playgrounds must be designed to endure various weather conditions and heavy use. They must also include adequate safety features and be appropriately designed for a specific age range. If there was a design flaw that made the playground inherently unsafe, it can contribute to injuries. If a defective product causes injury, a product seller may be responsible for damages.

Even if a playground is properly designed, errors or flaws in the production process can create unsafe conditions that contribute to injuries. If a manufacturer becomes aware of such a defect, they must issue a timely recall notice and provide proper notification to make the playground owner aware of any potential hazards. Manufacturers can also be held liable if they use substandard materials or other practices that compromise the safety of the playground.

Errors in the construction or installation of a playground can also contribute to injuries. These might include structural instability, loose components, and the exposure of sharp fasteners like screws and bolts.

Regulatory non-compliance

Playgrounds must comply with safety standards and regulations governing playgrounds. These standards can include federal, state, or local codes. Any parties that don’t abide by these standards can be held liable if this non-compliance is a substantial factor in causing an injury.

Failure to warn

Playground equipment usually includes labels warning visitors about certain inherent risks in using the playground. If the manufacturer fails to provide adequate information about potential safety risks, they can be held liable for an injury.

Negligent supervision

Parents have a duty of care to supervise their children at playgrounds, look out for potential hazards, and take reasonable steps to prevent injuries. This duty also extends to adults who supervise children “in loco parentis,” or in place of the parents, such as teachers and day care staff.

The playground owner can be held liable if a staffer did not properly supervise children using the playground. Negligent supervision may include not addressing a safety hazard, failing to stop dangerous behavior, or being absent or distracted when the injury occurs. It can also include the failure of the playground owner to hire qualified staff, maintain adequate staffing levels, provide proper training, or establish proper policies and procedures.

Negligent supervision can sometimes be challenging to prove, as the plaintiff must show that the defendant failed to act reasonably and did not provide an adequate standard of care. This factor can also be less applicable in claims involving older children, who are generally expected to exercise better judgment and not require close supervision.

Other considerations

Depending on the circumstances of the accident, several other issues can come into play when a child is injured on a playground. These might include:

Governmental immunity

Publicly owned playgrounds, including those at schools or parks, have greater protection from legal claims due to government immunity. This protection aims to prevent legal actions against government entities. However, there are certain exceptions to this immunity, which must be investigated to defeat a governmental immunity defense.

Trespassing

There may be clear signs indicating that a playground is not used at certain times, such as after sunset or outside of school hours. If an injury occurred outside of these hours, the defendant may argue that the plaintiff was trespassing and therefore not owed the same duty of care owed to users during normal hours. However, property owners are still responsible for keeping the property in good repair and owe a greater duty of care to children (see below).

Attractive nuisance precautions

Property owners must take precautions to prevent foreseeable harm children may suffer due to property features that may attract children. For example, the owner of a private playground has a duty of care to put up fencing or other deterrents to prevent its unsupervised use.

Shared fault

A defendant may argue that you share some of the fault for your child’s injury. For example, if a child is injured due to unsafe equipment but you were not supervising them at the time they were hurt, the defendant can argue that you were partially to blame. This can result in a reduction in the award received in a settlement or verdict.

Let’s review your case

Personal injury claims involving playground injuries can be complex. If your child has been injured in a playground accident, the attorneys at Anderson Trial Lawyers will sit down with you to discuss the circumstances of the accident and how you might proceed with a claim, and conduct the needed investigation to pursue a claim. Contact us online or call 860.886.8845 to set up a free consultation.

Winter weather conditions can sometimes make for a scary driving experience. Snow, ice, or slush might create slippery road surfaces, which can cause a driver to lose control of their vehicle and crash.

Icy roads can also complicate motor vehicle accident claims. If a driver collides with your vehicle on a slick road, they may argue that they are not liable for your injuries because the dangerous road conditions made the crash impossible to avoid. The condition of the road can also be a factor in determining whether a driver was at fault in an accident, and hence, whether insurance will pay for all damages caused in a crash.

The attorneys at Anderson Trial Lawyers are skilled in handling motor vehicle accident claims of all kinds, including motor vehicle accidents that occur in winter weather. Here are a few factors that commonly come up in these types of claims.

Negligent driver behavior

When you get behind the wheel, you owe a duty of care to drive responsibly — not only for your own safety but for the safety of everyone else on the road. When hazardous conditions are present, this means you must reduce your speed and otherwise use extra caution to reduce the chances of an accident.

For this reason, motor vehicle accident claims primarily focus on the behavior of each driver rather than the road conditions at the time of a crash. Drivers are expected to be aware of any hazards the weather might create — many vehicles even issue a warning that ice might be present when they are started on days with freezing temperatures — and respond accordingly.

If you are involved in an accident with another driver who was not exercising due caution at the time of the crash, they can be held liable for your injuries. Some examples of negligent behavior include:

• Driving too fast for conditions: During hazardous conditions, drivers are expected to slow down to travel at a safe speed — even if their vehicle is equipped with four-wheel drive, snow tires, or other features to help them navigate winter weather. Drivers who travel too fast for conditions may not be able to safely stop on a slippery road.
• Following too closely: Drivers must always maintain a safe following distance from the vehicle in front of them so they can stop, if necessary. During slippery conditions, drivers are expected to increase this following distance to account for reduced traction. 
• Inadequate maintenance: A driver’s duty of care includes keeping their vehicle in safe working condition. Certain maintenance issues, such as tires and brakes, will make it more difficult for a driver to operate their vehicle and avoid a crash in icy conditions.
• Failing to take other precautions: A driver might be held liable if they do not take other proper precautions in poor weather conditions, such as using their headlights during low visibility conditions and clearing their windshield of snow and ice.

Factors that limit a driver’s liability

In some cases, a court may decide that a crash resulted from the inherent risks of driving in hazardous weather during the winter, not negligence on a driver’s part. Even if a driver is found to be negligent in a crash, certain factors can limit their liability. These include:

• Unpredictable hazards: If a driver encounters something unusual on a road with little or no warning, they may be able to argue that they did not have adequate time to respond to the hazard. 
• Reasonable driving behaviors: A driver may be able to show that the accident occurred even though they were taking the necessary precautions, such as reducing their speed.
• Uncontrollable sliding: Some circumstances, such as a severe ice buildup and sloped roads, can cause vehicles to slide uncontrollably. This can be considered a mitigating factor that reduces a driver’s liability in a crash.

Third-party liability

On public roadways, it is the duty of the state or municipal government to keep the road reasonably clear of snow and ice in order to permit safe travel. They are also responsible for the upkeep of features that can improve road safety and reduce accident severity, such as streetlights and barriers that separate the road from a steep slope. 

Governments typically have immunity protections against certain lawsuits, on the principle that excessive litigation could impede the government’s ability to provide services. However, municipal or state governments can still be held liable if they fail to properly maintain a road. 

For example, you might show that a town’s public works department failed to sand and salt the road despite adequate warning of potential icing, or that they did not respond to icy conditions in a timely manner. You can also argue that inadequate maintenance of safety features contributed to a more severe accident.

If the crash occurred on a private road, you may be able to file a claim against the entity responsible for maintaining the road. Certain other factors will also affect liability for motor vehicle accidents on private roads, such as contractual agreements between a homeowners association and the party responsible for the upkeep of the road.

Let’s review your case

If you or a loved one have been injured in a motor vehicle accident, the skilled attorneys at Anderson Trial Lawyers can help. We’ll review the circumstances of your accident and help you get the settlement or verdict you deserve. Contact us online or call us at 860.886.8845 to set up a free consultation.

Most of us have had the unpleasant experience of taking a tumble during the winter. Snow and ice create more slippery surfaces, making it more likely that you’ll lose your footing. 

Slipping and falling is so common in wintertime that people may consider it a normal part of the season. Yet these incidents can also lead to serious injuries, such as broken bones or traumatic brain injuries, that result in lost wages and expensive medical bills.

Even though falls occur frequently in the winter, you’ll still have grounds for a personal injury claim if another person’s negligence contributed to your accident. However, numerous factors also go into determining liability in a winter slip and fall case, including the property owner’s responsibilities, the injured person’s actions, and the inherent risks of winter weather.

When you have grounds for a personal injury claim

The property owner failed to remove ice and snow

Property owners have a duty of care to keep the premises reasonably safe for visitors. During the winter, that means inspecting areas such as walkways, driveways, and parking lots for snow and ice, and then taking steps to remove it. Although public sidewalks are considered municipal property, local ordinances and statutes typically put the responsibility for snow and ice removal on the abutting property owner. Commercial property owners also have a duty to anticipate inclement weather and prepare accordingly, in addition to maintaining the property after a weather event.

The property owner negligently maintained their property

If a property owner does not maintain their property well, it can lead to hazards such as leaking roofs, improperly draining gutters, or poor drainage. These conditions can cause water to pool and freeze in areas where visitors might walk, increasing the risk of a slip and fall accident. Property owners can also directly create hazards through negligent behavior, such as emptying water onto a nearby sidewalk and allowing it to freeze.

The property owner failed to warn you about the hazard

A property owner can — and should — put up signs or barriers warning people about slippery conditions they know to exist. If the property owner does not take this step, they can be held liable if someone is injured on the property.

When you might not have a claim

The property owner wasn’t negligent

Property owners are not expected to remove every last speck of snow and ice from their property, only to make a reasonable effort to address the hazard. A court may determine that the property owner did their due diligence but that inherently dangerous conditions still remained.

Similarly, property owners are not expected to clear snow and ice as soon as it appears; rather they must address the hazard within a reasonable amount of time. If you slipped and fell while walking during a winter storm, for example, a property owner can’t be held liable because they aren’t expected to clear their property until after this weather has subsided (this is known as the “ongoing storm doctrine”).

Property owners can also sometimes limit, or even eliminate, their liability if they demonstrate that they quickly addressed a hazard once it was reported to them.

You share the blame for your injury

Comparative negligence is an affirmative defense that typically acknowledges that the defendant bears some responsibility for the plaintiff’s injuries, but also argues that the plaintiff is partially to blame due to their own negligent actions. For example, the defendant in a winter slip and fall case might argue that the plaintiff was wearing improper footwear or failed to see the hazard because they were distracted at the time.

If the court determines that you were primarily responsible for your injury (at least 51 percent to blame), you won’t be able to recover damages. If the defendant was primarily to blame, you’ll still be able to file a claim but comparative negligence will reduce the damages you’ll be able to recover.

You slipped and fell on public property

Government entities generally have greater protection against lawsuits. This will limit your ability to file a claim if you slipped and fell at a location such as a government building, public park, or a sidewalk maintained by a municipality.

However, it is still possible to file a claim against a government entity if you follow certain procedures and abide by timelines, and if you can make the case that the government was negligent in its duty of care.

Let’s review your case

If you have been injured in a winter slip and fall accident, the experienced attorneys at Anderson Trial Lawyers can help you with your personal injury claim. Contact us online or call us at 860.886.8845.