by brettb on January 28, 2010
As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle , several Bay Area hospitals were found to be in violation of safety rules and regulations putting patients at risk of injury or even death.
According to the San Francisco paper, three area hospitals were among the 13 in California that health officials cited. Since 2007, the State of California has cited 90 hospitals and issues over $3 million in fines.
For instance, San Francisco General was cited after it was discovered that surgical gauze was left in a patient after a cancer surgery in 2008. Kaiser was cited by the state after it was reveled that a 90-year-0ld patient was given medication intended for another patient. The elderly patient suffered a heat attack as a result of the event.
However, the fines associated with these violations are not sufficient in light of the potential for injury and do not begin to address the harm caused. In the case of San Francisco General, for the violation described above the hospital was fined $25,000. And in the case of Kaiser, they were fined $50,000.
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center was also fined and cited for violations. The San Jose hospital was fined $50,000 when a patient died in the hospitals waiting room after spending seven hours in the emergency department.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, each of the three San Francisco area hospitals cited stated that they have taken necessary actions to correct any violations and prevent future mistakes.
by brettb on December 2, 2009
In the San Francisco Bay Area we read or hear about slip and fall or premises liability lawsuits in the media.
Here is a popular scenario – someone goes enters someone else’s property, is injured and sues for millions. Or how about this – someone is walking in a grocery or retail store, isn’t looking where they are stepping, trips or slips, falls and sues for millions right. Wrong!
First, the simplicity of slip and fall cases, or premises liability, is drastically overstated by the media. Second, falls, trips, and similar accidents can lead to catastrophic injuries with devastating consequences. And finally, the standard to which individuals and companies are held when someone enters their store or property is often misstated or misunderstood.
In California, the law simply requires an “ordinary standard of care” for property owners and those that manage property (like a retail store or business). In other words, the owner of real property in California is liable for failing to use ordinary care and skill in the management of his or her person and property in order to avoid injury to others on it, near it, or using it.
The proper test in a normal slip and fall or premises liability case is whether someone (including a company or corporation) acted as a reasonable person in light of the probability of injury to others.
There are exceptions to this general rule, however. For instance, the legislature and the courts have created exceptions for:
- Those that furnish alcoholic beverages.
- Firefighters, peace officers, and emergency medical personnel.
- Recreational users of state land.
- And trespassers on railroad cars.
The standard that the law sets out is not a high one. It is simply ordinary care under the circumstances and nothing more. But the injuries that result from falls can be anything but ordinary.
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, slip and falls are among the leading cause of workplace injuries. And falls from elevations are extremely hazardous, deadly, and present at nearly all job sites.
Falls are the fourth leading cause of workplace injuries and from 1980 to 1994 falls accounted for 10% of workplace fatalities.
Most slip and falls or premises liability cases, whether they are workplace injuries are not, are not persued or reported. Many feel that these cases are difficult or that the personal injury victim must be at least partially at fault for her injuries. This is unfortunate.
What the public simply doesn’t understand, is that while enormous amounts of energy and resources are spent on attracting a consumers attention and vision in a retail or wholesale setting, very little effort is put into making these businesses safe for walking and free of dangerous conditions.
Thus, the popular scenarios I described at the beginning of this post in reality goes something more like this – Someone enters a business, is intentionally distracted by advertisements purposefully placed at eye level and designed to maintain a person’s vision and focus, a dangerous condition causes the person to fall and suffer serious injuries or death.
Watch your step!
