Philadelphia Injury Attorney Blog

Giant wheels are Ferris wheel type rides in which passengers sit in open gondolas. Passengers are carried upward to heights of 60 or more feet, and in some cases,150 to 165 feet, and then back to the ground in a gentle circular motion. Typically, individual gondolas accommodate up to six adults on a bench that usually does not have seat belts or passenger restraints.

On June 18, 2006, a 6-year-old boy fell to his death from a giant wheel at a county fair in Stockton, California. Because the child had met the amusement operator’s minimal 42 inch height requirement, he was permitted to go on the ride alone while his mother and boyfriend watched from the ground. The child remained seated for the duration of the ride cycle. However, when the ride stopped to begin unloading passengers at the bottom, the child was scared and stood up in the gondola, which was near the top, to look down at his mother and despite frantic instructions from his mother to sit down, he fell to his death out of the gondola.

At many local Pennsylvania amusement parks, including amusement parks at the New Jersey shore, similar giant Ferris wheels are currently in operation without restraints. An investigation was commenced after the fatal California Ferris wheel accident and amusement park operators agreed to no longer allow persons of any age to ride on the giant wheel alone. As a matter of fact, Chance Ride Manufacturing, which manufactured all or most of the giant wheels, including the Ferris wheel involved in the California tragedy, also issued a service bulletin that specified among other things that “all children must be accompanied by an adult guardian, chaperone, or other supervising person” and emphasized that there be “no single riders”.

The Ferris wheel which seems like an innocent looking and safe amusement ride can actually be one of the more dangerous amusements when proper safety precautions are not taken and when the wheel is improperly maintained. Voluntary human behavior can lead to accidents due to improper signage, training, ride supervision, and the allowance of single riders. Amusement park owners and operators always argue that the Ferris wheels themselves are mechanically safe and are so determined during routine inspections and further note that the installation of seat belts or gondola closures would be incompatible with existing design specs and that making such suggested alterations would be very expensive and constitute an unnecessary hardship for operators.

As an experienced amusement park attorney in Philadelphia who has spent a considerable amount of time investigating amusement park accidents including Ferris wheel disasters, I do not believe that the cost of placing a restraint system in a Ferris wheel would be overly expensive and once again emphasize that safety must always take priority over profitability. A respected amusement park safety expert and designer of Ferris wheels and amusement restraint systems working on a pending amusement accident fatality with our office stated that a big wheel restraint system could be added for approximately $100 per seat, a small price to pay for safety.

It is foreseeable that when young passengers travel on a Ferris wheel alone or in a small group, they may not be educated as to the risks or dangers inherent with the ride. If gondolas have no restraining devices, it is possible for passengers to stand up while the ride is in operation, throwing the gondola out of balance and creating an unsafe situation.

A few weeks ago, a young girl was injured by a bolt that came loose from a Ferris wheel ride at a church festival in Michigan. Although the injuries were not serious, the fact that a loose bolt fell from a Ferris wheel and struck a patron on the Ferris wheel at a transit carnival indicates the potential for danger and reinforces the need for independent safety inspectors for transit carnivals that travel through the United States and regularly take down and reinstall amusements. There are approximately 600 transit carnivals traveling throughout the United States and accidents and mishaps are more common than we would like to think.

As an experienced Ferris wheel accident attorney who is also currently handling a Ferris wheel death case involving a young girl, I understand that the safety of a ride is only as strong as its weakest bolt, pin, weld, or other connection. The General Manager for the Northern American Midway Entertainment Company, which owned the amusement park used at the festival, stated it was not clear how the bolt came loose and fell particularly since a cap covers the ride compartment in which patrons sit during the wheel’s operation.

Not so surprisingly, like many other owners or operators of amusement rides where accidents occur, the General Manager of the operating amusement company stated that this was a very rare incident which is why it is called an “accident”.

Luckily, the victim in this case was not severely injured but in other cases, catastrophic injuries and deaths can occur. Safety must always be priority number one at amusement parks with memories of laughter, joy, and excitement left unspoiled but for an accident which may have been easily preventable.

I hope and trust that this “accident” will lead to increased caution and safety checks by carnival and amusement park operators in the hopes of avoiding a more serious accident.

The Philadelphia amusement accident lawyers of Reiff & Bily will always call for an independent investigation of the facts surrounding the accident and always offer a free, no obligation consultation to victims and their families injured as a result of an amusement park, carnival, or water park accident. We are committed to amusement park safety in Pennsylvania and throughout the nation and believe it should be priority number one.

Recently, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), WalMart, and Toys R Us recalled 21,000 inflatable pool slides.

Although the experienced Pennsylvania product liability lawyers of Reiff & Bily have long been aware of the dangers of inflatable pool slides and amusements, we would have preferred to have seen this recall come earlier as at least three have lost lives and serious injuries may have been prevented. The recall involves 21,000 Banzai inflatable pool water slides. WalMart Stores and Toys R Us have agreed to offer full refunds for all slides returned to them. The CPSC determined that the slides were defective as they could deflate suddenly, allowing the user to crash to the ground. The Commission also found that the slide was unstable and could topple over in both still and windy conditions.

In an October trial in Massachusetts, a $20.6 million dollar verdict was rendered against Toys R Us on behalf of a 29-year-old mother who was killed while using the inflatable pool slide when she bottomed out and struck her neck on the lip of the pool even though the slide was properly inflated and she was well below the stated weight limit. It was alleged that Toys R Us purchased 21,000 of the slides from a Chinese manufacturer and evidence was presented at trial that Toys R Us was aware that standards existed and never took any steps to determine whether or not the slide met applicable federal safety standards.

Hats off to all of the lawyers and experts involved in obtaining the large verdict against Toys R Us, which sheds light on the fact that product liability lawyers and their clients can bring about real change in consumer safety saving lives when other agencies, manufacturers, or distributors fail to step to the plate.

As water park injuries and deaths continue to mount for adults as well as children, I feel most comfortable calling for the mandatory use of life jackets at water parks for children under 42” in height and smaller. Unfortunately, as an experienced water park accident attorney, I regularly receive calls from families whose children have sustained serious injuries and sometimes drowning deaths as the result of water park and swimming accidents.

I have found that the safety and regulation of many water parks is haphazard at best, and although we assume that water slides, tube shoots, rapid runs, and other water attractions may be safe and uneventful, I all too often have the opportunity to venture to the other side of the equation.

As water parks continue to push the envelope of safety in order to offer consumers the latest thrill experience, including but not limited to tube rides, water slides, shoots, and rapid style rides, physics dictates that with most extreme experiences comes the risk of harm and drowning.

Many water parks have non-existent safety related resource manuals and the control of water flow of such rides is many times not carefully monitored. Each water park attraction has identifiable hazards and hazards that are unidentifiable until an accident occurs. Due to the different weight and size of each rider, everyone has a different physical experience. One rider’s experience may be vastly different than another due to body surface contact with slide path, pressure of the device in which a rider is situated, ride position, weight, displaced water, water flow rates, contact with other riders, splash and entry position, speed at run out, and slickness of the operating surface.

In recent months, I investigated water accident claims involving broken backs, unconsciousness, and broken bones and one can only imagine the dangers presented to a young child if they are not fully protected by the use of a life or water safety vest should the unexpected occur.
No matter how great a swimmer one may be, I believe that proper safety concerns mandate water park safety life jackets or life vests.

If you or a loved one has sustained a Philadelphia water park injury or drowning, the experienced amusement park, water park, and swimming accident attorneys of Reiff & Bily always offer a free no obligation consultation toll free at (800) 421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

As an experienced Pennsylvania negligent security attorney who has handled many cases involving sexual assault and criminal assault, almost always, the ultimately responsible defendant attempts to pass the “responsibility” buck to someone else.

In many premises liability and negligent security cases, the wrongdoer will argue that they hired the best security forces possible and did everything by the book and should not be found liable. Unfortunately, what these owners and operators fail to understand is that the mall owner or operator is not absolved from responsibility and liability simply because they hire a “competent and reputable security company”.

The field of inadequate security litigation has exploded with the downturn in the economy and our premises security and inadequate security lawyers are reviewing more cases than ever. Crime continues to ravage shopping malls, apartment complexes, and hotels and violent attacks have become foreseeable and more predictable. Given the frequency and awareness of such assaults or attacks, there are more stringent duties imposed upon owners and operators of properties to conduct a comprehensive security assessment. Many times, security experts for the defendant property owners will argue that the property owner acted reasonably because they took every step necessary and hired the best security company in the arena. However, many of the security companies selected may have breached their own rules or procedures.

Negligent security and premises liability cases require experience and expertise, and hotels, shopping centers, and apartment complexes generally have a non-delegable duty to provide their guests with reasonably safe premises.

Inflatable sliding boards and inflatable attractions might just be some of the most deadly amusement attractions available to thrill seeking consumers.

As an experienced amusement accident lawyer who has handled some of the most catastrophic and horrific amusement accidents, perhaps the most innocuous and seemingly innocent of the amusements, namely inflatable bouncy or sliding boards, may be the most dangerous.

We have all been to kiddie parties or amusement parks where children and sometimes adults jump and leap on inflatable attractions that have many different names. Often the experiences inside of or on the inflatables are uncontrolled, resulting in collisions with the attraction itself or the people inside, which can cause traumatic head injuries, brain damage, quadriplegia, paraplegia, and broken bones. Additionally, just imagine the danger that can occur if there is a sudden leak with rapid deflation. Often the results are fatal.

More and more news reports are surfacing about people climbing on large inflatable slides that deflate as they are nearing the bottom, resulting in neck injuries, quadriplegia, paraplegia, and closed head trauma.

Recently, the CPSC recalled the Banzai in-ground water slide after reports of numerous broken necks and death. Many of the inflatable attractions are manufactured in China or manufactured under unregulated safeguards. In the last 7 years, there has been an incredible 300 to 400% increase in inflatable injuries according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Many people do not even consider the fact that on windy days, the inflatable itself can be lifted off the ground and in one recent incident, a bouncy ride placed on the beach loaded with children was blown into the ocean.

As a skilled amusement attraction attorney who has handled cases involving inflatables, my advice is simply to avoid them.

As a consumer safety advocate and water slide accident attorney, I have become extraordinarily concerned over the last few years with manufacturing and design defects involving inflatable amusements.

Recently, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recalled an inflatable pool slide. Approximately 21,000 Banzai in-ground pool water slides were recalled. The devices were sold by Walmart Stores and Toys R Us Inc., which have offered full refunds for slides that are returned.

Just like many other inflatables, the CPSC determined that the slides were defective and could deflate suddenly, allowing the user to violently crash to the ground. Additionally, the CPSC found that the slide was unstable and could topple over both in still and windy conditions.

The incident leading to the recall of the inflatable sliding board involved the death of Robin Aleo, the mother of an 18-month old girl who climbed to the top of a 6 foot high Banzai water slide and started sliding down head first and when she neared the bottom, the slide deflated. The young mother then struck her head on the edge of the pool resulting in a broken neck. She was paralyzed and unable to breathe and died the following day at a Boston hospital.

A lawsuit was commenced against Toys R Us and the jury returned a $20.6 million dollar verdict after deliberating less than an hour according to published reports.

Additionally, the CPSC claims to know of two other cases involving a 24-year old man from Springfield, Missouri who became a quadriplegic and a woman from Allentown, PA who fractured her neck after inflatable slide deflations.

The recalled inflatable slides were manufactured in China by Manley Toys and were sold at Walmart and Toys R Us in January 2005 through 2009 and were priced at approximately $250.00.

Reiff & Bily, a Pennsylvania injury law firm committed to consumer and amusement safety, is experienced in the field of swimming pool accidents and drowning, as well as amusement and inflatable accidents. Our lawyers always offer a free, no obligation consultation toll free at (800) 421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

Swimming pools present a year-round danger if they are not monitored or protected properly. If a gate does not close properly or is out of alignment, it becomes analogous to the weak link in a chain and may lead to a catastrophic accident or drowning.

Unfortunately, many gates surrounding swimming pools are cheaply manufactured or lack integrity of construction and installation. Many times, the lock or closing devices to such gates are improperly maintained which indicates that the owner of the pool is not as concerned with safety as he or she should be.

As the owner of two swimming pools, as well as a swimming pool accident attorney, I understand that safety must always be priority number one. Although many pool gates are designed to be self-closing and self-latching, years of experience inspecting fence gateways after they have failed has led me to conclude that despite advertisements of self-closing and locking gates claiming that you will never have to worry, unfortunately the situation is quite different in reality. Common sense dictates that the swimming pool area is unsafe for pets, toddlers, and children, who can fall into a pool if a safe and operating barrier such as a fence is not closed to prevent their injury.

Each jurisdiction has a local code that should be followed regarding the height and construction of a pool fence. If your fence self-closes by virtue of springs or has a spring loaded lock, make sure that it is properly and annually maintained so that complete closure occurs and does not enable access to the pool. Maintenance of a safe swimming environment involves not only the swimming pool itself, but the surrounding areas including the gate or fence.

Unfortunately, over 1,000 children will die every year, approximately 300 under the age of 5, in swimming related accidents, while another 5,000 will be hospitalized. An additional 200 children will die in a spa or whirlpool.

As an experienced pool accident attorney, I am all too familiar with the catastrophic drowning accidents in Pennsylvania that occur as a result of the negligence of swimming pool operators and owners. Close supervision and maintenance of a pool environment is vital to ensure safety whether it is a home pool, resort pool, public pool, or apartment complex pool.

If you or a loved one has sustained a swimming pool injury or drowning, the experienced Philadelphia pool drowning lawyers at Reiff & Bily always offer a free, no obligation consultation toll free at (800) 421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

Spring and summer is upon us and carnivals and fairs seem to be springing up in many local neighborhoods and state fairgrounds. Most of us have happy childhood memories of carnival and fair sounds; we remember blinking lights which built a sense of excitement that we felt as we walked the fairgrounds. When we go to carnivals, we mostly think of fun times with our kids, spouse, or girlfriend and never think that unimaginable trouble and danger may be lurking beneath the surface.

Unfortunately in many states, the inspection and maintenance process of carnival and fair rides is minimal at best. Every year in Pennsylvania, millions and millions will visit over 700 registered amusement operations. Although the Department of Agriculture regulations note that the Commonwealth employs quality assurance inspectors to ensure credibility of primary inspections by unannounced inspections, amusement park accidents in Pennsylvania continue to happen with increasing frequency. State oversight of amusement rides varies widely throughout the United States. Believe it or not, some states even allow ride owners to choose their own inspectors.

Recently, a story made the news claiming that rides in some states do not have to be inspected at all and amusement rides at traveling carnivals in South Carolina only need to be inspected once a year despite the fact that the rides continue to be taken apart, moved, and set up over and over again. State certified inspectors are only required to sign off on the rides once a year no matter how many times these rides get moved around.

As an experienced carnival accident attorney who has litigated amusement accidents at fixed parks, carnivals, and fair grounds, including many of the major United States amusement parks, I am afraid to state that there are all too many loopholes in amusement park legislation and enforcement concerning safety. I have yet to meet an amusement park or carnival owner who did not claim that the amusement was safe because it is well maintained and regularly inspected and operated by professionals. Almost every time we contact the owner or operator of an amusement facility after an accident, we are told this is an isolated incident, a “once in a lifetime experience”. Unfortunately that assertion is not as true as we would like it to be. In a water park accident case that we are currently litigating, we were told that a back breaking injury that occurred on the waterslide had never happened before. A careful investigation revealed that at least three to four similar incidents occurred on the same attraction in a matter of months.

Interestingly enough, the same large amusement corporation operated the same ride in three different parks and was aware of similar injury patterns.

Amusement parks, carnivals, and state fairs are big profits and contribute significant dollars to local economies, but safety should never ever, ever, trump profitability. It must always remain priority number one.

The experienced amusement park, carnival, and fair accident lawyers of Reiff and Bily have extensive knowledge investigating and litigating amusement park and carnival accidents. We always offer a free, no obligation consultation toll free at (800) 421-9595 or online at www.reiffandbily.com.

With all potential litigation, there are rules that govern the time period in which a cause of action must be filed against the alleged wrongdoer. Research has indicated that the diabetes drug Actos may increase the risk of bladder cancer. While no cause or relationship has been determined between Actos and bladder cancer, a high number of scientific studies have noted a disproportionately high rate of bladder cancer among Actos users.

Many law firms and experts around the country are investigating potential Actos claims, and if you have been diagnosed with bladder cancer and believe it may be related to the use of the drug Actos, time limits to commence an investigation of potential legal action are time sensitive. If your claim is not properly investigated and filed within the statute of limitations guidelines, you may be forever barred and may waive your right to a day in court.

In most drug injury cases, the court rules that the statute of limitations begins after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issues a press release noting the dangers of the drug to the public. Regarding the potential hazards presented by Actos, the FDA went public in June of 2011 and therefore, we are continuing to promptly evaluate and investigate cases involving Actos usage and bladder cancer.

The Actos lawyers of Reiff & Bily believe that there is a possibility that defense counsel for the pharmaceutical company may argue that June 15, 2012 was a statute trigger date for those “who knew or should have known” of a potential issue with Actos. In most drug industry cases, the victim may have taken the dangerous drug for many years before the risk became known to the public. The defendants, defense counsel, and many manufacturers have been arguing that the statute of limitations should not be lengthened in many pharmaceutical cases. Therefore, if you wish to maximize your chances of recovery, it is urged that you contact a skilled and experienced defective drug injury lawyer who can provide the best legal advice necessary to properly protect your interests.

Spatial disorientation is a state of confusion that exists when a human is unable to correctly interpret their true body position, motion, or altitude relative to his or her surroundings. Spatial disorientation is a major cause of aircraft accidents, amusement accidents, and extreme sports accidents.

The body in normal mode combines factors from all of our senses to maintain balance and know which end is up. However when the human body is in motion, without usual reference to the world around it, it can lose control as one becomes spatially disorientated. This mistaken perception of one’s position and motion relative to the fixed earth can cause panic attacks and anxiety with potential lethal consequences.

In the investigation of one of my current amusement park accident cases, I traveled with an investigating expert to the top of a 150 foot Ferris wheel when winds were strong. The partially unprotected Ferris wheel bucket that I was sitting in was shaking and seemed unsteady, and when gusting winds were added to the equation, a sense of anxiety and panic took over as I became spatially disoriented. I have flown small airplanes as a pilot and passenger, climbed rope courses in the Swiss Alps, and skied from great heights, yet to explain the panic and anxiety that I experienced is almost indescribable. The same feeling and experience was noted by three other individuals who participated in this experience.

While it is well known that pilots deprived of visual references while flying can quickly lose control of an aircraft and succumb to one of general aviation’s killers, I could not imagine that I would be so spatially disoriented or confused while riding an amusement as simple and as seemingly safe as a Ferris wheel. When I explained the situation to a psychologist friend of mine and further explained that there were no restraints or belts in this Ferris wheel “bucket”, it became easy to understand how an innocent victim (particularly a young child) could become disoriented, lose proper bearings, and become mentally confused, placing them in a dangerous situation with potentially hazardous or lethal consequences.

When one suffers from spatial disorientation, there is a steady decrease of cognitive function and a decline in performance of attention and concentration and decreased motor skills.

Many amusement rides are designed to explore the effects of spatial and temporal disorientation under extreme conditions with the appropriate safeguards and warnings in place. However, amusement rides lacking proper safety controls, safeguards, and sufficient warning can create an extraordinarily dangerous and potentially lethal situation.

One only needs to imagine the fear of being alone at an unimaginable height in an unrestrained or improperly restrained amusement ride when spatial disorientation and/or a panic or anxiety attack occurs.

The experienced tree fall injury attorneys in Philadelphia at Reiff & Bily have seen firsthand the devastating injuries that may be caused by fallen trees and tree branches, and, in most of these cases, there is someone responsible.

In a Virginia case, a truck reversing struck branches on a nearby tree dislodging a large limb which fell and struck the plaintiff on the head causing a spinal cord contusion. Initial injuries resulted in paresthesia from the neck down. Three years after the accident, the victim underwent fusion surgery to his cervical spine, C3-C6, to address those symptoms. The victim, according to reports of the case, now suffers from a lost range of motion in his head and continues suffering from numbness in his limbs as well as has difficulty walking and grasping things in his non-dominant hand.

The victim sued the driver of the concrete truck alleging that he failed to keep a proper lookout and was negligent in striking the branches, as well as the owner of the truck under Respondent Superior liability theory for the driver’s negligence. The defendants denied liability and filed a counterclaim against the victim’s brother and property owner claiming that the victim’s brother was acting as a spotter for the truck and he had done so negligently and the property owner was negligent because he failed to prune the tree limb properly causing it to fall. Defendants further argued that the victim was contributorily negligent for standing behind the truck. After the verdict, defendants filed a Motion to Set Aside the Verdict and the parties subsequently settled for $2.5 million dollars.

The popular AMC television show “Mad Men” captures with authenticity the lifestyles and working habits at a fictional advertising agency during the 1960’s. The themes of the plot center around adultery, sexism, alcoholism, racism, and other behaviors that some might consider to be unlawful today in the workplace.

Sexual harassment in Pennsylvania and across the country is an ongoing problem in the workplace. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 defines sexual harassment as occurring when “one employee makes continued, unwelcomed sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal and physical contact of a sexual nature to another employee against his or her wishes”. Generally, there are two types of sexual harassment: Quid Pro Quo and a Hostile work environment.

Quid Pro Quo is defined as “you do something for me and I’ll do something for you” and is typically found in a situation where a superior of an employee demands sexual favors in exchange for getting or keeping a job or job benefit. The company may be held liable for damages caused as a result of the supervisor’s action.

In the “hostile work environment” scenario, conduct is unwelcomed based on sex that is severe or persuasive and this generally involves sexual advances, touching, degrading comments, pornography, vulgar language, drugs of a sexual nature, or questions of a sexual nature. An employer can be held responsible for damages if such behavior rises to a level that causes the workplace to be intimidating, hostile, or offensive.

When I started my career as a legal intern in government offices in the late 1970’s and progressed through several law firms, I watched office interpersonal behavior that was once considered acceptable, as manifested on “Mad Men”, become actions which could potentially give rise to a legal claim entitling the claimant to recovery of damages for loss of income, emotional pain, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other damages.

If you are being sexually harassed on the job, review your employer’s policy prohibiting sexual harassment and follow the steps necessary to file a claim. Clearly notify the offender or your employer in no uncertain terms to stop. Always make a written record if possible and present it to your employer. If your employer takes retaliatory steps against you, this may give rise to a legal claim. If the harassing behavior continues, it is wise to consult with an experienced sexual abuse or sexual harassment attorney who may determine whether or not to file a Complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or in some cases state agency.

Our law firm recently resolved a sexual abuse and invasion of privacy claim on behalf of an employee who was non-consensually repeatedly photographed in restroom facilities at her job, as well as another claim where the victim was sexually and physically abused.

While it may be fun to watch “Mad Men”, the sexual escapades and drinking on the job that occur on TV may not be so much fun if they happen to you or a loved one today at your office.

If you are the victim of sexual abuse or assault claim while on the job, it’s not so funny and sometimes the actual facts can be more strange and harsh in consequences.