Charles Boyk Law Offices, LLC Blog

Man dies after truck hits house

Thu, 31 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

On Monday afternoon William Miller, 82, was driving westbound on State Rt. 579 around 2 p.m. when he failed to see that the car in front of him, a Chrysler Sebring driven by 29-year-old Michael Lowe, had stopped to turn onto Elliston Trowbridge Road. Mr. Williams’ pickup slammed into the back of the Sebring, sending the car into a spiral and coming to rest on the road. The pickup went off the right side of the road and continued into a field before slamming into a house on State Rt. 579.

After the crash, both the car and the house caught on fire. Mr. Miller was pronounced dead at the scene.

Both Mr. Lowe and his passenger, 29-year-old Sarah Opfer, were taken to St. Charles Hospital where they were treated for their injuries and released.

There were two people inside the home at the time of the crash, but neither one was injured.

The accident remains under investigation.

If you or someone you know has been involved in a Truck accident, call our Toledo, Ohio Truck accident lawyers at 800.637.8170 for a free case evaluation or to request your free copy of The Ohio Accident Book.

Minvan and pickup collide

Thu, 31 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

A collision between a minivan and a pickup truck on Saturday in Monclova Township left 3 people injured.

According to the Ohio State Highway Patrol, a minivan driven by Brooklyn Lipinski, 18, was southbound on Jerome Rd. when she ran a red light at the intersection of Monclova and Jerome Rd. She then collided with an eastbound pickup truck which was driven by Eric Frankforther, 32 at 11:15 a.m.

Both of the drivers as well as a passenger in the pickup truck were taken from the scene to the University of Toledo Medical Center.

If you or someone you know has been involved in a Truck accident, call our Toledo, Ohio Truck accident attorneys at 800.637.8170 for a free case evaluation or to request your free copy of The Ohio Accident Book.

Double fatal accident closes SR2

Thu, 31 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

The Ohio Department of Transportation has announced that SR 2 is closed at mile marker 4 in Ottawa County because of a double fatal accident that took place just after noon today. Officials have stated that the road will remain closed for some time as crews work to clean up the scene.

The accident happened when a semi truck and an SUV collided head-on near the Ottawa National Wildllife Refuge. Both the driver of the semi and the driver of the SUV were killed. The identities of the drivers have not yet been released pending notification of family.

Drivers who usually travel along that road can use SR 590, SR 163 and SR 358 as a detour.

If you or someone you know has been involved in a car accident, call our Toledo, Ohio car accident lawyers at 800.637.8170 for a free case evaluation or to request your free copy of The Ohio Accident Book.

ATV Hit and Run under Investigation

Thu, 31 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

Jacob Dillow was riding on his all terrain vehicle through Scioto County, Ohio over the weekend when he was involved in a hit-and-run accident on Tick Ridge Road in Harrison Township. Dillow was thrown from his ATV after being struck by the vehicle and would have died at the scene if it wasn’t for local neighbor Charles Brisker who lived across the road.

Brisker found Dillow badly injured after the crash and called authorities to fly him to Huntington Hospital, where Dillow later passed away due to the serious injuries.

Investigators were still trying to piece together forensic evidence on the case when Jeremy White turned himself in Tuesday morning. Sgt. John Howard was on the case at the time and had reported that “…the sun was set low and [White] didn’t see the four-wheeler. When he nearly got in the driveway, was when the four-wheeler collided with the side of his vehicle.”

Though Jeremy White claims the entire crash was an accident he is still in the Scioto County jail as punishment for multiple felony charges including vehicular homicide and a hit-and-run fatality charge.

The neighbor spoke to the victim’s father who had created a temporary memorial marker to place by the road where his son was found the night of the accident. Brisker noted that for the father the whole ordeal has been very tragic, and the family is looking for permission to put up a permanent marker for the lost life.

If you or someone you know has been involved in a ATV accident, call our Toledo, Ohio ATV accident attorneys at 800.637.8170 for a free case evaluation or to request your free copy of The Ohio Motorcycle Accident Book.

Ohio Construction Accident Leaves One Dead

Thu, 31 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

William Shearn, 34, of Middletown was part of a construction crew determined to install water pipes near the bridge on Interstate 71 in Deerfield Township. Shearn was using a trench digging machine at 4 a.m. when he was pierced by the equipment he was using. Shearn’s injuries were fatal and after an hour of being conscious he died shortly after.

Investigators determined the accident was caused by a failure to reattach the proper machine parts to the trench digger, which caused a separation in the equipment due to a latch not being properly fastened.

A second worker was also facing difficulties during the accident by being trapped in the trench after Shearn was impaled. The worker remained in the trench and could not be freed until rescuers at the scene removed Shearn’s body from the machine. Reports indicated the second coworker was not injured, just shaken up by the incident.

Grief counselors had been called to the construction site to talk to co-workers early the following morning. The northbound lanes of Mason-Montgomery Road remained open throughout the accident; however, the southbound lanes were closed for a great deal of the morning.

If you or someone you know has been injured or hurt at work you need information. Contact our Ohio Workers’ Compensation lawyers at 800.637.8170 to order your free copy of “The Ohio Workers’ Compensation Book”.

How will the insurance company evaluate my claim?

Fri, 25 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

One of the most common questions personal injury victims have is "how will the insurance company evaluate my claim?" Many insurance companies evaluate claims utilizing a computer software program called Colossus. The insurance adjuster will input information about your accident and injury into the computer program and the computer then spits out a numeric range where your claim should supposedly be settled. The computer program takes into consideration factors such as the type of injury (soft tissue versus broken bones), property damage to the vehicle, the amount of pain and suffering that usually accompanies your type of injuries, and a host of other factors. One of the other major factors is the skill and competence of the attorneys who are handling the case and the attorney's record of taking cases to trial. Essentially, this software allows the insurance company to "steamroll" unrepresented injured individuals and individuals who are represented by attorneys whom the insurance company knows will probably not take a case to trial and will be willing to settle for the highest amount they can get.

Whether a claim is being evaluated by a combination of human beings and computer or just computer, the biggest factor that weighs into the amount of compensation a person will receive is the type of injuries in question and the medical care that those injuries require. The amount of economic loss (usually represented by medical bills and lost wages) that can be clearly demonstrated is the biggest factor. After that, pain and suffering and other factors are considered. Somebody who has suffered a broken femur will likely be entitled to more compensation than that of somebody who sustained a soft tissue injury that can be brought back to 100% health relatively quickly.

Insurance companies may also do background investigations on an injured party/potential plaintiff in order to determine the amount of money that a jury may award at trial. For example, a jury would be likely to award more money a horrifically injured teacher and mother of three who has a spotless criminal history as opposed to an injured repeat felon who has never worked a day in his life and is currently out of jail on parole for a felony conviction.

It is also important to remember that in evaluating a claim the adjuster's number one goal is to save the insurance company money. The adjuster will do this in a number of ways. First of all, the adjuster may try to delay the claim in the hopes of wearing you down such that you might simply want to give up the claim. The adjuster may request unnecessary information or other "documentation" even if it has little or no relation to your case. Again, the adjuster’s hope is that this will be a frustrating process and that you will become worn down and accept a low-ball settlement offer. The insurance company may dispute the medical treatment and try to minimize the value of your claim by arguing that the medical care that you received was not necessary, even if the treatment was prescribed by your own doctor. The insurance company may dispute the medical charges and argue that they are excessive and the actual fair value of those charges is actually much lower. This makes it more difficult to continue with your treatment.

For injured individuals who have not yet retained an attorney, the insurance company will likely to tell you that you don't need to get an attorney. We have heard stories of individuals being told that if they hire an attorney the insurance company will simply deny the claim and that even if there is a recovery, all the money will go to the lawyer. This is obviously not true, but insurance companies say these things because they know that once an attorney comes on board, it is likely that the insurance company will have to pay a substantially higher sum. The adjuster will try to act as your friend and make it appear as though he or she is looking out for your best interests, but nothing can be further from the truth. Rather, the adjuster's main goal is to save the insurance company money. Oftentimes, adjusters receive bonuses based on how much money they are able to save a company – and they save money for the company by settling claims for as little as possible.

In sum, dealing with an insurance adjuster throughout a personal injury claim can be an extremely difficult, tedious, and time-consuming process. This is why it is important to retain an experienced and competent personal injury attorney who can navigate the difficult waters of the claims process and make sure the value of your case is maximized. If you have any questions or concerns about an accident that you or a loved one were involved in, call the Charles E. Boyk Law Offices, LLC today at 419-241-1395.

Truck fails to yield, kills fellow motorist

Fri, 25 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

On May 21 the Ohio State Highway Patrol reported a crash that killed Lawrence Turner, 53.

The accident happened just before 5 p.m. on SR 28. Lawrence Turner was traveling westbound when the 2006 GMC Sierra he was driving was hit by a 2007 Ford F-150 driven by Michael Borchert, 37. The report states that Borchert failed to yield at a stop sign while turning left onto SR 18.

Ohio State Highway Patrol has stated that charges against Borchert will most likely result after a full investigation of the crash. Alcohol is a potential factor in this crash.

Safety inspections reduce injuries without hurting profits

Fri, 25 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

A new government study recently released states that the enforcement of workplace safety and health rules can save lives without ruining a company’s bottom line.

The study comes from a decade-long look at hundreds of different work sites that were subject to random safety inspections. The research shows that companies reduced their injury claims by 9.4% compared to those not inspected. These inspections also did not have a negative effect on the company’s profits or sales.

On average, the companies that had the random safety inspections saved an average of 26% on workers’ compensation costs for the four following the inspection. The inspections actually are creating value for the company that they are visiting by means of reducing workers’ comp costs and the frequency of injuries.

Movie extra receives work injury settlement

Fri, 25 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

On September 1, 2010 Gabriella Cedillo, then 24, was one of 80 extras driving their own vehicles for the “Transformers 3” movie. The attorneys for Cedillo states that a cable pulling one of the stunt vehicles traveling in the opposite direction snapped and crashed through the young woman’s windshield and hit her in the head.

Upon investigation into the case it was found that an inadequate, superficial weld was made in an effort to secure the bracket to the stunt car. Paramount Pictures and DreamWork’s Studios also did not have a permit for fireworks or explosive devices on September 1.

After the accident Ms. Cedillo was airlifted to an area hospital. She has sustained a serious head injury and has permanent brain impairment. She has lost approximately one third of the top of her head. She does not remember the accident.

The lawsuit against Paramount and DreamWorks recently settled for $18.5 million.

If you or someone you know has been injured or hurt at work you need information. Contact our Ohio Workers’ Compensation attorneys at 800.637.8170 to order your free copy of “The Ohio Workers’ Compensation Book”.

Cincinnati Casino Collapse Results in Fines

Fri, 25 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

Six companies have been fined close to $108,000 after the Horseshoe Casino’s floor collapsed in Cincinnati, Ohio during a construction project. Investigators stated approximately 12 workers were injured in the collapse and even though most of their injuries were minor, punishment will still be distributed. Companies involved have not been named and neither have their total count of violations. But, a spokesman of Messer Construction, based in Cincinnati, has been notified of $25,200 in fines.

Concrete Worker Dies in Swimming Pool Tragedy

Fri, 25 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

While working on a residential in-ground swimming pool in Lafayette, Indiana, a local concrete worker was killed at the scene due to a work related accident. The concrete worker was at the bottom of the in-ground swimming pool, located in the Shadeland community, when the ground gave away and the concrete delivery vehicle tipped over into the pit. The man was soon trapped under the weight of the truck and was reported dead shortly after. The worker’s name was not given.

Text sender liability

Thu, 24 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

You know you shouldn't do it, and chances are that you at least try to refrain from doing it. Most of us know that texting and driving is dangerous and it is definitely something that should be avoided. But how about sending a text to somebody who is driving a car? Is there any liability for sending a text message to somebody who is driving a car if you don't know they are driving? How about sending a text to somebody whom you know is driving at the time?

While the law is clear that a driver who causes an accident because he or she was paying more attention to their phone as opposed to driving their car will be liable for the accident, up to this point the law has assigned no liability to somebody who is texting the driver from a safe location. A case that was recently filed in New Jersey seeks to change that rule. In the New Jersey case, a driver and his passenger were lawfully traveling along when they were struck by a driver who was texting at the time of the accident. Both the driver and the passenger lost their legs in the resulting car crash.

The lawsuit was initially filed only against the texting driver, but recently the complaint has been amended to also include the name of the individual who sent the text message to the at-fault driver. Not surprisingly, the texter's lawyer is strongly opposing the notion of his client being added to the lawsuit. Specifically, the lawyer is arguing that there is absolutely no legal precedent that allows somebody who is texting from a remote location to be held liable for a traffic accident that may occur hundreds or even thousands of miles away. The lawyer for the individuals who were harmed in the accident disagrees, and has stated that although the texter was not "physically present," he was "electronically present," such that he should be held liable for the injuries.

An interesting issue has arisen in the case is whether or not the texter knew that the defendant driver was driving at the time that the texter sent the message. In her deposition, the texter first stated that she did not know that the defendant driver was driving at the time that she sent the text, but she later changed her tune and indicated that she "may have known." It is obviously more likely that a texter who sends a message to somebody who is known to be driving at the time will be liable for an accident as opposed to a texter who sends a message to somebody where the texter has absolutely no idea that the person is driving at the time. However, it seems that lawyers defending individuals who send text messages have a relatively strong argument that it is incumbent on the person who receives the text message to decide if and when to read that message, and that the texter should not be held liable for the driver's decision to reach for their phone and continue a text message conversation.

At the present time, texting while driving is illegal in 38 states. It will be interesting to see in the future whether or not states decide to penalize individuals who send text messages to individuals whom are known to be driving at the time. Only time will tell.

If you or someone you know has been involved in a car accident, call our Toledo, Ohio car accident attorneys at 800.637.8170 for a free case evaluation or to request your free copy of The Ohio Accident Book.

Employer intentional tort

Thu, 24 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

One of the questions that we are often asked at our law office is “What is an employer intentional tort?" Normally in Ohio, if you are injured at work, your only recourse is to make a claim through the Ohio Workers' Compensation system. Generally speaking, you cannot file a lawsuit against your employer for compensation stemming from your work injury. However, the law provides that an injured worker can receive additional compensation on top of the standard Workers' Compensation claim by filing a lawsuit if the work injury occurred as a result of the employer’s "deliberate intent" to injure the employee. As you might imagine, proving deliberate intent to injure on the part of an employer is a rather difficult task.

While the law is murky in this area, it does provide that an employer's deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard constitutes a rebuttable presumption that the employer removed the safety guard with the intent to injure. In other words, if the employer removes an equipment safety guard which subsequently causes injury, there is a rebuttable presumption that the employer removed the equipment safety guard with the intent to injure the employee.

Oftentimes, the question becomes, "what exactly is an equipment safety guard?" The law is slowly emerging in this area. There had been some Ohio Appellate courts who have taken a rather hard lying stance as to what constitutes an equipment safety guard. For example, if a guard that was removed is anything other than a most traditional safety guard that blocked a pinch point or a nip point on a machine, the court refuses to recognize deliberate intent. However, there have also been some more liberal courts who have indicated that items such as rubber safety gloves for electrical workers and improperly programmed punch presses constitute the deliberate removal of a safety guard.

Unfortunately, the question of whether or not somebody has a viable employer intentional tort claim depends on the appellate district in which the injured worker was injured. The only way to confirm whether you have a viable employer intentional tort claim and/or to confirm the stance that your appellate district takes in reviewing such case is to speak with a knowledgeable attorney about the circumstances and details surrounding your case. An attorney can give you an informed decision as to whether you have a case that meets the stringent requirements of an employer intentional tort.

If you have been injured at work and have questions that need to be answered, call the Charles E. Boyk Law Offices, LLC at 419-241-1395. We would be happy to schedule a free consultation and answer any questions that you may have.

Child’s Hooded Jackets are Recalled off the Shelves

Fri, 18 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

Today, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission publicized a voluntary recall of the SX and QH Boys’ Zip-front Hooded Jackets from the Bonded Apparel Inc. Approximately 700 units have been reported with a drawstring through the hood which creates chances of strangulation for children
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Although no incidents or injuries have been reported as of yet, consumers should prevent risk and take the recalled jacket from their child and remove the drawstrings. Returning of the product for a full refund is also accepted by the Bonded Apparel Company. The units can be found at DD’s Discount Stores nationwide and were available from August 2011 to December 2011 for a cost of $8.

If you or someone you know has purchased a recalled product and have been injured, call our Toledo, Ohio personal injury lawyers at 800.637.8170 for a free case evaluation or to request your free copy of The Ohio Accident Book.

Tour bus and tanker truck collide

Fri, 18 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

The details of the crash are still being investigated, but traffic was stopped on Thursday along the New Jersey Turnpike after a tanker truck collided with a tour bus.
The authorities have reported that around 9:30 a.m. a crash between the tanker and the bus caused the truck to go off the side of the road while the bus ended up in the left lane. Passengers on the Coach USA were transferred to another bus and the truck driver was taken from the scene of the accident to an area hospital fo the treatment of his injuries.
If you or someone you know has been involved in a Truck accident, call our Toledo, Ohio Truck accident lawyers at 800.637.8170 for a free case evaluation or to request your free copy of The Ohio Accident Book.

2 semis collide

Fri, 18 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

About 4:30 Wednesday morning two semi trucks collided causing severe traffic delays and one of the drivers to be rushed to the hospital.
According to the report, the accident happened when one driver fell asleep at the wheel, lost control of his vehicle, and jacknifed. THe driver of the second truck had no time to react and therefore crashed into the first semi.
The accident shut down the highway for nearly 6 hours while cres worked to clean up the area.
If you or someone you know has been involved in a Truck accident, call our Toledo, Ohio Truck accident attorneys at 800.637.8170 for a free case evaluation or to request your free copy of The Ohio Accident Book.

Family dog kills infant

Fri, 18 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

It is with great sadness that our office reports that a 3-day-old baby was killed by a family dog yesterday.
Makayla Darnell was in her swing in the living room while her parents were in the kitchen around 6:30 p.m. when the family dog, estimated to be about 4 or 5 years old, attacked the infant. The parents stated that they never even heard a sound from the dog or the baby.
When Audrianna Myers and Jared Darnell found their child after the attack they drove her from their home in Monroe Township to Blanchard Valley Hospital. They baby was then flown to St. Vincent in Toledo where she was pronounced dead shortly after 11 p.m.
The dog warden has taken the family's dog into custody.
If you or someone you know has been injured or hurt by a dog bite you need information. Contact our Ohio dog bite lawyers at 800.637.8170 to order your free copy of The Ohio Dog Bite Book.

EZ

Truck crosses field and crashes

Fri, 18 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

A man had to be extricated with the Jaws of Life from his truck after he crashed it early Thursday morning in Hopewell Township.
Nathan Zickefoose, 19, was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash. According to Ohio State Highway Patrol alcohol is suspected to be a factor in the single vehicle accident. Witnesses have stated that the vehicle traveled more than 525 feet from the time it left the road until it struck a tree.
Mr. Zikefoose was driving a 1990 Dodge Ram eastbound when the vehicle went off the right side of the road. It went through a farm field, into a front yard and then struck a tree.
If you or someone you know has been involved in a Truck accident, call our Toledo, Ohio Truck accident attorneys at 800.637.8170 for a free case evaluation or to request your free copy of The Ohio Accident Book.
EZ

Bicycle Recall: Salsa Cycles

Thu, 17 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

Voluntary recalls of 1,100 Salsa Minimalist bicycle racks were announced by Salsa Cycles and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Salsa Cycles, a wholly owned brand of Quality Bicycle Products Inc., is located in Bloomington, Minnesota and sold faulty units to bicycle stores across the U.S. and internet retailers from January 2011 through March 2012 at $80.
Hazards of the bike rack include the breaking of the L-shaped mounting straps used for attachment of the front of the bicycle to the rack resulting in the rack falling off while the bike is in use creating falling risk for the rider. Two reports have been received at this time of broken racks resulting minor falling injuries. Consumers are advised to remove the recalled rack immediately and contact authorized Salsa dealers for examination, remounting, or reimbursement.

Remember: Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

If you or someone you know has purchased a recalled product and have been injured, call our Toledo, Ohio personal injury lawyers at 800.637.8170 for a free case evaluation or to request your free copy of The Ohio Accident Book.

Lawsuits on Fort Worth Companies for Age and Disability Settlements

Thu, 17 May 2012 08:00:00 GMT

Fort Worth Company ties have been issued to pay settlements to resolve lawsuit discrimination cases based on disability and age of workers. Central Freight Line in Waco will have to shell out $400,000 in settlements brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for eight sock workers who were fired based on age discrimination. The men were terminated as a part of reduction in force and an attempt to trick the removal of workers. All eight workers were 50 years of age or older and had been serving the company for at least 20 years. The lawsuit charged a supervisor for using derogatory terms relating to the men’s age such as “grandpa”, and was accused of modifying attendance policies so men with few disciplinary write-ups were eligible for termination.
Barry Moscowitz, Dallas attorney representing Central Freight, said the lawsuit was settled to avoid the expenditures resulting from legal action. In addition, Moscowitz noted not only those eight employees who were laid off, five employees under age 40 were let go as well.
Attorney Moscowitz also said the EEOC was misleading about the hiring of Central Freight's younger workers, recalling the first 18 people originally hired were considered part-time workers and of those 18, half were over 40.
In addition, Service Temps, also in close ties with the Fort Worth Company, lost the appeal of a jury to a woman suffering from disability discrimination, awarding her $103,200 with the 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In addition, "The company refused to conduct an interview" or consider her for the position, and a manager told her "she would not be hired because she could not hear," the agency said
EEOC's lawsuit blamed the company for refusing to hire a woman for a stock clerk position "upon learning that ... [she] is deaf," the agency said. However; after meeting with a sign language interpreter, the woman said she was capable of executing the clerk job and had many years of experience under her belt. Appellate court documents day the manager rebutted this statement by warning the woman that working in this type of environment would be unsafe for her.
Todd H. Tinker, company attorney, reported in an e-mail that the plea was based on Service Temps in Dallas telling the woman she was welcome to go through pre-employment screening if she wanted. However, Tinker reported that the EEOC did not provide the company's response to the woman.
If you or someone you know has been injured or mistreated at work and you need information. Contact our Ohio Workers’ Compensation lawyers at 800.637.8170 to order your free copy of “The Ohio Workers’ Compensation Book”.
AB