by KPMLAW | Nov 19, 2018 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Helen Jhun, Esq. Edited by Bill Pfund, Esq. As more individuals look to alternatives to traditional hotels when planning vacations and short term trips, the Virginia Supreme Court recently set forth what standard of care the owner of a short term rental property owner owed to its renter. In the recent Virginia Supreme Court case of Haynes-Garrett v. Dunn, the Court addressed the issue of whether the owner of a short term vacation rental owed the duties of a landlord or the duties of an innkeeper. 2018 Va. LEXIS 131, 818 S.E.2d 798, 2018 WL 4783257 (October 4, 2018). Under Virginia common law, a landlord has “no duty to maintain in a safe condition any part of the leased premises that [is] under [a tenant’s] exclusive control.” Isbell v. Commercial Inv. Assocs., 273 Va. 605, 611, 644 S.E.2d 72 (2007). Absent fraud or concealment, the tenant takes the premises in whatever condition they may be in, and assumes all risk of personal injury from defects therein. There is an elevated duty of care imposed an innkeeper. An “innkeeper” is defined as “[a] person who, for compensation, keeps open a public house for the lodging and entertainment of travelers.” Black’s Law Dictionary at 792 (7th ed. 1999). These are generally accepted to mean owners who run hotels, motels, and resorts. Unlike a landlord, an innkeeper owes a duty “to take every reasonable precaution to protect the person and property of their guests and boarders.” Crosswhite v. Shelby Operating Corp., 182 Va. 713, 716, 30 S.E.2d 673 (1944). The duties owed by an innkeeper are significantly greater than those...
by KPMLAW | Nov 19, 2018 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Kevin Kennedy, Esq. Edited by Bill Pfund, Esq. The long term effects of brain injuries have been increasingly studied in recent years and the corresponding rise in public awareness has changed the focus of many plaintiff’s cases. While headaches and memory loss were previously viewed as difficult injuries to ask a jury to quantify when compared to broken bones, those symptoms now form the basis of a claim for a traumatic brain injury. But plaintiff’s attorneys making these claims often lack objective proof from a traditional CT scan of the plaintiff’s brain to support the subjective testimony put forth to prove a brain injury. Diffuse Tensor Imaging (DTI) has been increasingly favored by plaintiff’s attorneys and championed as cutting edge technology that is more sensitive and can provide objective evidence of a brain injury when old methods failed to show any abnormality. Are these claims accurate and have plaintiffs found the evidence needed to bridge the gap between unreliable personal testimony and indisputable scientific findings? Understanding the current state of DTI technology and the limits of the science are key in evaluating its admissibility and weight at trial in a brain injury case. DTI is an MRI based imaging technique that uses water diffusion to measure the brain’s white matter tracts. To strip the technology down to its most basic explanation, when water is dropped on a smooth, uniform surface, it diffuses in a uniform manner. When water is dropped on an uneven surface, it diffuses in an uneven manner. Our brains are not a smooth, uniform surface so when water molecules are dispersed throughout the brain,...
by KPMLAW | Nov 19, 2018 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Jessica Gorman, Esq Edited by Rachel Riordan, Esq. Virginia Code section § 65.2-503 outlines the requirements for an injured worker to obtain benefits for any permanent impairment sustained as a result of a work accident and lists those scheduled body parts for which benefits may be awarded. However, under certain circumstances, injured workers have been able to obtain permanent partial disability benefits (“ppd”) even if the direct injury from the accident is not on the schedule listed. Burden of Proof: In order to obtain benefits under Code § 65.2-503 for the loss of use of a particular body member, an injured worker must establish that (1) he has achieved maximum medical improvement and (2) that his functional loss of capacity be quantified or rated. Cafaro Constr. Co. v. Strother, 15 Va. App. 656, 661, 426 S.E.2d 489, 492 (1993) (citing Hungerford Mech. Corp. v. Hobson, 11 Va. App. 675, 678-79, 401 S.E.2d 213, 215 (1991)). The Commission, in determining permanent partial disability benefits, “must rate ‘the percentage of incapacity suffered by the employee’ based on the evidence presented” to it. Hobson, 11 Va. App. at 677, 401 S.E.2d at 214-15 (citing Cty. of Spotsylvania v. Hart, 218 Va. 565, 568, 238 S.E.2d 813, 815 (1977)). “In order to recover, [the injured worker has] the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of a disability which was the consequence of the injury by accident.” Id. at 678, 401 S.E.2d at 215. When the evidence is analyzed, actual functional loss of use must be demonstrated. Gaskins v. Arlington Cnty., JCN VA00000034125 (Nov. 15, 2011) (citing...
by KPMLAW | Nov 19, 2018 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
by Rachel L. Stewart, Esq. Edited by Brian A. Cafritz, Esq. There is possibly no clearer evidence of how an accident happened than that of video. While many retail and restaurants utilize video to deter theft or other possible criminal activity in their establishments, the retention of store video footage is often the source of many fights in litigation. Plaintiff’s counsel often attempt to use an establishment’s surveillance video in support of their case, and if it is not preserved, argue that the failure to preserve such evidence justifies spoliation instructions to the jury. Below we discuss how to protect yourselves from such claims and how our knowledge and experience with such issues and applicable law can help you. If your establishment utilizes video surveillance cameras, it is important to establish a procedure for securing such video if an incident occurs in your store or restaurant. While a camera may not have actually been located in the vicinity of the area where an incident occurred, plaintiff’s often believe there was a camera due to observation of fake or dummy cameras and will later make a claim that the retailer or restaurant failed to preserve such evidence. Accordingly, when an incident occurs, if no camera actually captured the incident, a record should be made that video surveillance of the incident was not captured, and if a fake or dummy camera is located near the incident, it should also be noted to avoid potential claims of destruction or failure to preserve. This is especially helpful if the plaintiff does not file a lawsuit for several years given the applicable statute of...
by KPMLAW | Nov 19, 2018 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Andy Webb Edited by Gary Reinhardt, Esq. Conventional legal wisdom holds that an owner of a wild animal is strictly liable for injuries caused by that animal. Stated another way, “A possessor of a wild animal is subject to liability to another for harm done by the animal to the other, his person, his land or chattels, although the possessor has exercised the utmost care to confine the animal, or otherwise prevent it from doing harm.” Section 507 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. This rule stems from the idea that, despite taking reasonable and proper precautions, the owner of a wild animal is “exposing the community to the risk of a very dangerous thing” by owning the wild animal and by “engaging in an activity that subjects those in the vicinity, including those who come onto his property to an abnormal risk . . . [t]he possessor of a wild animal is strictly liable for physical harm done to the person of another.” W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Torts (5th ed. 1984). Despite this “[v]enerable common law principle[],” a decades-old Virginia Supreme Court case instructs Virginia courts to take a more nuanced and case-by-case analysis when examining liability stemming from the ownership of a wild animal. The Court examined the issue of keeping wild animals, and injuries caused therefrom, in Panorama Resort v. Nichols. 165 Va. 289, 182 S.E. 235 (1935). Panorama Resort was a hotel and resort on Skyline Drive in Page County, Virginia. The resort kept three bears caged on its property and “encouraged [the resort’s] guests and the general public to feed soft...
