BLOG

Surely no one would doubt that children are curious creatures, and as such, they often end up in places they don’t belong if they are not well looked after. The curiosity of a child’s mind knows no bounds, and while, as parents, we have come to expect simple “boo-boos” like a scrapped knee for example, sometimes curiosity can lead children into far more precarious situations. Obviously then, there are many situations where, from the worldview of an adult, while we see dangers that should best be avoided, a child may only see adventure – a new mystery waiting to be explored. While, of course, it is important that parents foster their children’s inquisitive minds, a parent’s first priority should surely always be to protect their children from serious bodily injury, or worse. Now that Summer is just around the corner, protecting our children is particularly important as swimming pools will start to be opened up and trampolines will be going back out in the yard. Fortunately, the law recognizes the tendency of children to view all the world as a playground, and imposes a special duty on owners of such things as swimming pools and trampolines to protect children from the hazard these things can represent. Like many states, New Jersey has adopted this principle of tort law, called the attractive nuisance doctrine. Put simply, an attractive nuisance is any man-made construct present upon land, which may lure children, and which can cause them bodily injury should they play on, in, or around it. The defining characteristic of an attractive nuisance is just that – that it is attractive to children and that the potential fun the attractive nuisance poses, entices a child like a moth to the flame. Swimming pools, playground equipment, and other artificial landscaping features can make your yard a magnet for every kid in the neighborhood, but the very things that might make your yard so enticing to a child may also be the very things that make it so potentially dangerous for them. As a result of this potential for harm, the law places a heightened duty on property owners who have items that will both attract children and present a unique potential for harm. The theory is that children are too young to appreciate the risk of harm these attractive nuisances pose, and therefore, because these items essentially induce a child into a hazardous area of your property, the property owner is expected to take special precautions to mitigate the risk of harm, for example, by putting a fence around a pool. Elements of Attractive Nuisance If the property owner knows, or reasonably should know, that children are likely to trespass upon his or her property; In response to an artificial condition present upon the land; Which the property owner knows, or reasonably should know poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury; Such that a child, because of their youth, does not discover the condition or realize the risk involved; and Said property owner fails to take reasonable precautions to safeguard against the risk of injury. Common Attract Nuisances Water Features Studies suggest that an adult can drown from as little as six tablespoons of water. This number is even smaller for a child. Water features on property – including fountains, pools, and wells – can pose an enormous risk of drowning to children who may want to splash around inside, particularly if they cannot gauge how deep the water is, and especially if they have not yet learned to swim. A swimming pool is the most common example of an attractive nuisance, and as the summer weather soon comes upon us, pool owners – especially owners of inground pools – should be particularly mindful of the hazard posed by the attractive nuisance. As a pool owner, you could be liable for accidents even if children sneak into your pool without your consent. Whether the pool is in-ground, above ground, or even a kiddie pool, you can reduce your risk by surrounding your pool area with a fence, installing a locking gate (preferably one with an audible alarm), and covering the pool with a safety cover when not in use. New Jersey has passed legislation specifically outlined the heightened obligation of pool owners. Under New Jersey’s swimming pool safety act, called “William’s Law,” any pool must be fenced or walled in with a structure of at least 5 feet high and without any openings wide enough for a 4-inch object to pass through it. If a pool owner fails to properly enclose the water feature and a child is injured as a result, the child’s family may be able to sue under the attractive nuisance doctrine, as well as raise a negligence per se claim in connection with the pool owner’s violation of William’s Law. Trampolines & Playground Equipment Most home playground injuries involve swing sets, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). To reduce the chance of accidents, therefore, the National Association of Home Inspectors recommends spacing swings at least 24 inches apart and at least 30 inches from the support frame. Swing sets – especially wooden ones – should be checked regularly for wear & tear, warping, or rot. Because most injuries from swings also involve falls, installing a shock-absorbing surface for your playground like sand, wood chips, or gravel, for example, can help mitigate the likelihood of injury. Trampolines can also pose a significant safety hazard to young children who may not know how to utilize one safely. If you are planning on purchasing a trampoline, look for a model that has a zippered entrance which can be locked. Additionally, consider installing a locked and alarmed fence around your yard or around the playground to make the feature inaccessible to uninvited users. Home Construction Projects Construction projects and the tools and equipment which may be present on a construction site can be kid magnets. Young children often get toy tool sets to play with, so seeing a real hammer or saw can be enticing. Rebuilding a deck, repaving a driveway, pouring concrete, building additions, and even repairing a roof can all present potentially dangerous conditions which a child may be drawn to. To some children, a ladder must be climbed or a hole must be jumped in. The law doesn’t expect homeowners to complete their construction projects overnight, but when stepping away, it is critical to turn off and put away power tools, remove heavy equipment if possible, and consider putting up hazard signs, safety cones, or even a barrier of caution tape to make the potential danger clearly evident. Our Tip: Be Alert to Hazards At the end of the day, even with due care it is impossible to prevent all eventualities, especially when children are involved, and unfortunately accidents do happen. At the same time, it is also important to be vigilant and to stay aware of hazardous or potentially hazardous conditions on our property which children may be drawn to. This is especially true if you live in a neighborhood with families who have children or near an area where children may be present, such as near a park or a school. Call The Lento Law Group If your child was the victim of an attractive nuisance or was otherwise injured on another person’s property, call the Lento Law Group today for a free phone consultation. Our caring, compassionate, and knowable staff will be happy to go over the facts of your potential case so that our experienced personal injury attorneys can see if you have a viable cause of action. There is absolutely no cost to you unless we secure a financial recovery on your behalf. Call today!

Alabama teacher and student rights bills highlight school tensions over student discipline. Let us help enforce your rights.

The mistakes of an assistant in a medical practice can threaten the medical professional’s license. Get skilled attorney defense.

By Larry Katz, Esquire • 12 June, 2024

TIf you are a medical professional providing reproductive care and counseling, you are likely well aware of the risks you face from new laws limiting access to abortions and related information and services. Your license and employment may be at risk. Let the Lento Law Group’s premier license defense attorneys help you invoke your legal rights to practice your medical profession in good conscience. New Bill Seeks to Protect Medical Providers The Connecticut legislature is considering a bill that would protect medical providers who share information about access to reproductive care. A media report on the new bill highlights how the bill responds to new threats against reproductive care providers who share information on abortion services. State legislatures across the country have restricted access to abortion services. Employers and licensing boards may construe those restrictions to prevent medical providers from sharing information about lawful reproductive care provided in other states, placing those medical professionals’ licenses and employment at risk. The Bill’s Particulars The new Connecticut bill, if enacted into law, would guarantee those medical providers the right to exercise their conscience, when sharing information about lawful abortion services in other states. Employers, including religious hospitals not providing abortion counseling or services, would be unable to retaliate against the medical providers sharing that information. The bill would also prohibit the state’s medical licensing authorities from taking into account licensing action in other states against those providers who follow their consciences. Reciprocal Conscience Rights Courts and legislatures have long worked to protect the conscience rights of medical providers who refuse on religious and related grounds to provide abortion counseling or services. The new Connecticut bill seeks to turn those so-called negative conscience rights into positive rights to provide abortion information on reciprocal conscience grounds. Medical providers refusing abortion services and counseling, and providers offering abortion services and counseling, have reciprocal rights and conscience interests. The new bill, if enacted into law, would recognize those reciprocal rights and interests. Defending Your Conscience Rights The above bill indicates that you may have certain legal rights and interests that protect you when you face employment or licensing issues over the exercise of your conscience. Our attorneys can assist you through the license investigation process to ensure that you have the best opportunity to retain your professional license free of any discipline. We can also help you navigate your employer’s grievance procedures to ensure that your employer respects your legal rights and interests, and that you preserve your job, career, reputation, and income. Premier License Defense for Reproductive Care Professionals If you are a medical professional providing reproductive care and counseling, our offices across the country offer premier attorneys to handle your professional license defense and employment issues. It is important that you call us as soon as you encounter an employment or licensing problem. Call 833.536.8652 now for the representation you need for your employment and license defense issues relating to reproductive care.

Nurses facing abuse or other misconduct charges over inappropriate patient restraint need skilled defense representation.

The news has recently had almost daily stories about the social media app, Tik Tok, and Congress’ threat to make using it illegal unless its ownership is transferred from its present Chinese owners. The argument for requiring the removal of Chinses owners is that they require access to personal and confidential information and that poses a national security risk. I have seen tech experts who question whether transferring ownership will actually eliminate that threat. They suggest that if the computer code for the Tik Top app already contains a “backdoor” enabling the secret access to information, changing ownership will not correct the problem. This blog is not intended to discuss those issues. Instead, we will address the claims by many that preventing people from using Tik Tok is a First Amendment free speech violation. I suggest that it is not. This is a tidbit to keep for your next Trivia Night. The First Amendment was originally only intended to prohibit the federal government from interfering with free speech. It was not until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York, that the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited all levels of government (states and local governments) from interfering with free speech. A government can limit speech if doing so is content neutral. As the United States Supreme Court has explained, “A regulation of speech is facially content based under the First Amendment if it ‘target[s] speech based on its communicative content’—that is, if it ‘applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.’” City of Austin v. Reagan Nat'l Advert. of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. 61 (2022). Thus, where a transit system prohibited all advertisements on its premises, the Court held that the limit was constitutional because it applied to all subjects and opinions. In contrast, a limitation on a single message is not permitted. In Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. SEPTA, 975 F.3d 300, 303 (3d Cir. 2020), a Court of Appeals ruled against a public transit agency’s refusal to accept advertisements that were political or discussed matters of public debate. The regulation was not content neutral. The prohibition against Tik Tok would likely be found constitutional because the prohibition is not based on a specific subject or viewpoint. There is one other issue that must be raised --- it is highly unlikely that a government could prohibit all means of public forums for speech. Even if content neutral, it is unlikely that a government could prohibit all social media any more than it could prohibit all newspapers. However, in the case of Tik Tok, prohibiting it from operating in the United States does not effectively prohibit all means of public forums as several other social media platforms still exist. Thus, the often-voiced opinion that eliminating Tik Tok denies its users their First Amendment rights is inaccurate.

While dogs are often referred to as “man’s best friend,” dogs can also be dangerous, and even the friendliest of dogs may bite when provoked. This this blog post we will discuss some general legal theory about animal bites, including dog bites, and outline what you should do if you were bit by another person’s dog or other animal. Can I Sue for a Dog Bite? Before I answer this question, it is important to understand the legal theory that undergirds animal bite cases. The law classically categorized animals into two categories: domitae naturae – meaning, those animals that are classically domesticated or tamed – and ferae naturae – meaning, those animals that are classically feral, wild, or exotic. This distinction is significant legally because, generally speaking, those who possess a ferae naturae animal – for example, a tiger – do so at their own peril. This is because if ferae naturae animal bites another person, the owner of the animal is generally presumed to be at-fault. While the owner of a domitae naturae animal can also be held liable for the actions of that animal, generally, a bite by such an animal – for example, a cat or a dog – may not necessarily give rise to a presumption of fault. At least, that was the classical framework. This has been changed by individual laws in many states. Most states have adopted a strict-liability standard in connection with dog bites. This means that a biting dog’s owner will be held liable for injuries caused by the dog, even if the owner used reasonable care to restrain the dog or to protect or warn the other party. Often, this strict-liability view can be viewed as harsh, if one adheres to the “accidents happen” mentality. In recognition of the potentially harsh outcomes strict-liability may bring about, a handful of other states have adopted a “One-Bite Rule”. In essence, a One-Bite Rule is a law that provides that a dog owner may only be held liable if they knew or should have known that the dog has a vicious propensity or is prone to bite, and that owner would only have such knowledge if the dog has bitten someone in the past. In other words, the One-Bite Rule is called this because the owner of a dog with a propensity to bite essentially gets their first bite free because the owner will likely not be found liable for the first bite. This is consistent with the notion of the “foreseeability of the harm” that undergirds much of tort law – in other words, how could the owner foresee that his or her dog would bite if it has never done so before? Conversely, the owner should know, and should therefore be held liable, if the dog has bitten someone before. So, to answer the question of whether you can sue if you have been bitten by a dog, the answer, generally is yes, but the merits of you claim will depend largely on whether you live in a strict-liability state or a One-Bite Rule state. What Do I Do If I Have Been Bitten? While you may, of course, be panicked immediately following a dog bite, it is important to do the following: · Call 911 to report the incident. Make sure a police report is filed, and get a copy of it. · Get the dog owner’s name and contact information, if possible. · Try to get a picture of the dog and the owner, if possible. · Take pictures of the bite wounds while they are still fresh. · Go seek medical treatment, if necessary, and try to leave the appointment with a copy of your medical record in connection with the visit. · Contact a knowledgeable personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. If you or a loved one have been injured by a public actor or public entity, call the Lento Law Group today. Our team of knowledgeable and compassionate attorneys and support staff can help guide you while you work to pick up the pieces after a traumatic accident. Call Lento Law Group today at (856) 652-2000. We will fight to get you the recovery you deserve.

By Joseph Cannizzo Jr. July 2023