Should we sue?

Question

My husband was on his way to work one morning and stopped at a shell station in a rich neighborhood. He went in to get something to eat and use the restroom. He went into the restroom, used it and came out of the stall to wash his hands. As he was walking toward the sink he slipped on a puddle of water (didn't see it) fell forward and slammed his head into the porcelain sink. He stood up, walked out of the bathroom and fell on the floor. He didn't pass out, but came awfully close. When he stood up he had blood all over his face and a pool of blood on the floor. They called the ambulance and he ended up having 16 stitches in his eyebrow and a mild concussion. He missed 3 days of work. The accident was reported (one month ago) and the people at the shell station want to give him 75% of his lost wages and pay his medical bills. THAT'S IT!!
Now my husband threatened to get a lawyer and they said "Oh no, there's no need to do that." Should he get a lawyer? How long will it take?

I believe he should get something for pain and suffering! But they don't even want to pay 100% of his wages. They have a mediator who is in contact with us, and we sent him all the medical bills. He's the one we've been dealing with. The puddle wasn't from him, he didn't even make it to the sink to wash his hands.

We DON'T have insurance and my husband was not paid for the days he missed at work.

Answer 1

You have to decided if you want to share any monies with an attorney... say 30+ % since that is what they will take.
See what Shell is willing to offer you, don't take first, second or even third offer.
Make them sweat a little, see what they will give you

Answer 2

The legal question that comes into play here is, "Did the gas station use due diligence in maintaining the restroom?" This meaning 1) were they notified of the water on the floor?
2) How long was the puddle there?
3) Did he cause the water accumulation?
4) Its hard to answer these things until you sue.
5) Usually the court sides with the defendant in cases involving what the call "Slip-in-Fall Accidents."

I hope this helps, but you will never know the ultimate outcome unless you file suit or retain an attorney.

Answer 3

Well, this is a consultation-worthy case, so I'd say get in touch with a PI attorney and talk to him/her about it.

However, slip-on-water cases -- particularly where the accident occurs in a place where there is a lot of water and frequent spills, such as a bathroom -- are extremely tough for the plaintiff. As part of his burden of proof, the plaintiff must show that the defendant (in this case, the gas station) had what's called "sufficient notice" of the puddle. Proving sufficient notice has two components:

1. The gas station (either the manager or the person in charge of cleaning) knew about the dangerous condition, or affirmatively created it; and

2. The gas station knew about it long enough to give them an opportunity to eliminate it (unless they created the condition).

What constitutes this "dangerous condition" is also not an easy concept. In some jurisdictions, a prolonged leak, for example, that tends to produce puddles of water, is the condition sufficient to trigger notice. In other jurisdictions (like New York, for example), the defendant must be aware of THAT EXACT PUDDLE of water for a long enough time; a mere history of spills, leaks, etc. is insufficient.

How long the defendant must know of the condition is yet another thorny issue. Where I practice law, on the facts that you gave me, I'd say you don't get anywhere near a case unless you can prove that they knew about it for at least a few hours. In any event, you will have to establish exactly when the puddle formed and when the gas station was informed of it prior to the accident.

There are also some contributory/comparative negligence issues here. The gas station is likely to raise a defense that a person using a public restroom is aware of the possibility of puddles and should exercise extra caution. Again, jurisdictions differ on this. In some states, a plaintiff's recovery is decreased proportionally to his negligence; in others, if a plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault for the accident, he collects nothing; in still others, if a plaintiff is found to be even 1% at fault for the accident, he collects nothing.

These are all issues you should discuss with an attorney in your area. And please -- everything I am saying is just general information, don't take it as legal advice.

Answer 4

It comes down to what do you want and what are you willing to do to get that. You could contact a lawyer and he/she would file a lawsuit. There would be lots of legal work, your husband would be deposed, his medical bills would be reviewed, he may be sent to another doctor to determine if there is long term damage. In court the other side would accuse your husband of being negligent. If you won, your lawyer would take approx 1/3 of your winnings plus his/her expenses.

If your husband has permanent damage or will be bothered with some result of this injury for the rest of his life or needs additional surgery, then by all means get an attorney to represent you. Then it would be worth the years you will spend on this case.

If however this was a one time physical issue that does not effect him now, consider taking the money.

The unknowns here are Did your husband's employer dock him for the 3 days or did he just take sick days? and Did your husband pay for the medical bills or was some/all of it covered by insurance? If you are out zero dollars or only a small amount consider taking the money.

Answer 5

Do not sue. Te only benefit you would receive from suing is the other twenty five percent of his wages. You are not entitled to anything beyond that. Also in order to pay your lawyer it would likely cost at least the 25% if not more. Also it is important to keep in mind the amount of time it would take to go through the courts system. Many people go on with their lives when they have concussions and it is likely that the judge would find that your husband took more time than needed to recover, as such it is unlikely that you would receive even the 75% offered by Shell. Cut your losses and be thankful of their offer.

Answer 6

If the opposing party's attorney said that there was no need for a lawyer, they just violated legal ethics rules.
It's all a matter of equal bargaining power -- if you have an attorney, then you're on equal bargaing power with the opposing party. If you don't then, well, they have an advantage.
They don't want you to get an attorney because the attorney will jack up the settlement value (because you have to pay the attorney) and it will cost them more to settle.
Plus, the attorney will do most of the work for you--gathering bills, medical statements, talking to the opposing party, etc.

But there are disadvantages, too. You will have to pay an attorney, probably on contingency. The case MAY be more litigious because the settlement demand is higher. Plus, you're trusting the attorney to act in your best interest.

All I can say is that you should at least consult a few personal injury attorneys in your area; see what their fees are (if the case settles vs. if the case goes to trial), see if there are any you can trust, and what they think the valuation of the case is.

Don't forget the unequal bargaining power!

(And mike is wrong... there are other unasserted claims--pain and suffering, "loss of consortium" (if he was disabled enough that it interferred with your marrital relations, if you know what I mean, and other claims.) That's why it's at least worth a visit.

Answer 7

Dear Friend,

Oh...that was truly an unfortunate thing to have happened. Anyways it has passed and for further help checking the site/s given below may be of some help.

Hiring a lawyer for minor legal problems can be expensive, but there are websites like LawGuru, FindLaw and other places where you can get free legal advice. I found this website useful - http://www.uelp.org/freelegal.html

Answer 8

I would get a lawyer, but the settlement seems fair. I would want my bills paid plus 100% of lost wages, though. You shouldn't need to sue, just have your lawyer negotiate.

Oh, and get the legal fees paid for. No one should be expected to deal with something like this without a lawyer. However, don't be a typical sue-happy American.

Answer 9

They didn't deliberately injure your husband. He had a duty of care, and should have been watching out for hazards in a location where he might expect a wet floor.

If the company had not been told of the spill, then they likely have no liability at all, and their lawyers will be able to tie yours up in expensive litigation anyway. I'd take what they are offering.

Answer 10

yes get a lawyer he should get all his lost wages and then some for pain and suffering, you will come out in the long run no matter how long it takes. Being in a rich neighborhood doesn't mean a thing, that's another issue within yourself.