Connecticut Child Injury Lawyer Blog

A Seymour, Connecticut child was injured when a pellet gun was accidentally discharged in his friend's bedroom, according to a Connecticut Post article this morning (see December 21, 2010 P.1 headline). The 13 year old suffered a serious and "life threatening" head wound. The article goes on to state that the gun went off accidentally while the kids were rough-housing, and not while the gun was being used by anyone at the time, and all while the children's parents were at home.

Questions abound: What was a pellet gun, capable of killing someone, doing in a 13 year olds bedroom? Why is such a weapon not locked while not in use? Did the parents of the injured child know that this deadly weapon was in the house at all, let alone unlocked and able to discharge inside the house? Who is legally responsible for the damages caused by this unsuperviseed situation? I can at least answer that final question:
..

Continue reading "Seymour Connecticut Child Seriously Injured by Pellet Gun" »

Connecticut's young athletes are active year-round. And, while their window of opportunity for outdoor sports is short, the aspirations of athletes, coaches and parents are long when it comes to how much they try to squeeze out of those precious few fair-weather months. Many kids seeking an edge in their respective sport play for multiple teams, playing far more games, and attending more pracatices than we used to as kids. The problems of over-use injuries arise when parents and kids don't share with their coaches the fact that they are on the court, field or other competitive arena with more than one team, on the same day, whether just before or just after the one in which they are now playing. Baseball coaches and the orgainziations that operate compettive leagues, such as Little League and Cal Ripken, are probably the most sensitized to the perils of over-use now that there are well-defined protections in place: pitch-count rules by age group being the most critical in protecting young pitchers' arms. Pitchers are not the only young atheltes that need protection, though. As a coach, I have noted too often kids on my team with historically rare problems-chronic tendonitis, plantar fascitis (inflammation of the fascia in the foot) Sever's disease (a seriously painful/disabling problem in the heel), bone spurs, stress fractures etc. What is most alarming is how parents often ignore the doctor's advice to take a break to allow healing. Even I ask the question, "When can he start playing again?" when it's my kid's injury keeping him out. What is the coach's responsibility here? I believe that the coach must be the voice of reason by only allowing a child to return to the filed/court of play with a doctor's note permitting it, and explaining what limitations there should be, and for who long. The doctor's feedback is not, as far as I can see, a requirement in any of the leagues that I have coached in. Strangely, even the most advanced of the organized sports leagues, Little League, has managed to downplay or outright disregard the warnings of the very doctor who invented the pitch count rules. Why? Because it's what the parents/members of that league want. For instance, the pitch count rules are relaxed for Little League World Series play so that the marquee pitchers are not kept off the mound. Is this the message we want our kids to hear? As long as there is an audience that wants it this way, children's protection is not a primary goal? Let's all make an effort to remember these are kids, not young profesional athletes. Encourage your local teams, clubs and athletic associations to adopt standards for addressing over-use and return to play protocols for our young athletes, such as Westport, Connecticut's PAL concussion protocol, or its strict adherernce to Little League pitch count rules for rest and pitches per game.

Connecticut's outdoor swimming pool season is short, so pool owners take great care to prepare their pools for maximum use during our warm weather season from May through September. However, with that preparation comes a word of caution about the dangers of owning a swimming pool, and the risks of serious injuries, especially to children, when proper safety guidelines are not followed.

Unfortunately, when a child is injured in a Connecticut pool, it is often a very serious injury, or even, as was the case with a six year old from Greenwich, Connecticut, a fatality. It is especially sad, and frustrating, when such injuries can, or should have been prevented. In the Greenwich, Connecticut pool tragedy, the owner of the pool company responsible for the installation was arrested for failing to comply with swimming pool design and construction regulations, in omitting a protective valve cover. Because that valve cover was not in place, the six year old boy became trapped, under water, due to the valve's strong suction. Had the cover been in place, as required by code, he could not have become trapped by that valve, it is claimed by his family's attorneys. Just this year, Congress passed the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act. This act requires valves and drains to be properly covered, which will prevent many entrapments, and eviscerations.

Connecticut's swimming pool laws are designed to protect swimmers from serious injury and even death, which can be caused by drowning, entrapment in a drain or valve, or due to misplaced diving boards in an area that is too shallow. There are a number of Connecticut swimming pool rules relating to safety, but a few are exceptionally noteworthy, and well worth mentioning, since many pool owners may not even be aware of them.

Whenever my kids visit a friend whose house has a pool, we ask safety questions in the same manner as if they child were going to a house where guns might be present: what safety measures are in place to protect my kids from harm? Will you be present at all times if the kids are in the pool? If not, then who will be watching them? Do you have fencing around the pool, and an alarm in place, as required? Most times, unless the house is one whose owners are close friends, and we are comfortable with how they handle their pool safety, we will simply ask that our child not be allowed in or even near the pool at all absent our presence. We have had no complaints from those parents, thankfully, as they have been both accommodating of our concerns, and genuinely pleased that we take such an interest in safety.

Continue reading "Connecticut Pool Safety Requirements Meant to Reduce Drownings and Injuries" »

Spring is here and from Greenwich, to Bridgeport to New Haven, Connecticut, we are outside and loving it. However, with outdoor activity comes risks of serious personal injuries to children that are both obvious and not so obvious. "Go outside and play," we tell them over and over. No more computer, texting, instant messaging, "wii"ing. The kids are bouncing off the walls, but they should not be bouncing on a trampoline, ever, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

My own kids have been begging for two things for several years. First is a dog. We are 4-1 on this one, with the one "no" vote being my wife, who insists she will be the one soley in charge of all dog care (she is quite right, and therefore, she wins this one). Second is a trampoline. We are 3-2 on this one, where both my wife and I agree that we will not have one (we even rejected a neighbor's offer of a free one last year-his kids no longer used it). We have both seen firsthand the serious injuries that children can suffer while on a trampoline.

Injuries to children from jumping on a trampoline are not only common, they are quite often serious enough to change a child's life forever, without warning, and without the child doing something wrong, without there being a defect in the manufacture of the trampoline and can even happen when there is proper parental supervision.

This situation begs the question: Are trampolines so dangerous that they should be banned altogether

Continue reading "Connecticut Children at risk of Trampoline Injury" »

Each year, tens of thousands of bicycle riders tour the scenic and relatively flat coastal roads of Fairfield, Westport, Darien, Stamford and Greenwich, Connecticut. In addition, while school is out, many of the cyclists on these roads are children, who are less experienced, and not nearly as visible as adults while they ride. As a result, children are at greater risk of serious personal injuries while riding their bicycles on the roads, sidewalks and other areas where there are cars moving about.

In a prior article, Injury Prevention Bulletin, I wrote about the World Health Organization report on the number of accidental deaths of children. One of their top suggestions for reducing that shocking number of serious injuries to and death of children was to regularly use bicycle helmets.

In an effort to reduce the severity of accidents when they do occur, Connecticut, has a strict (Bicycle Helmet law: CGS section 14-286b) which requires all riders under age 15 to wear an approved helmet. This Connecticut helmet law (one of only 22 states that have one at all), appropriately holds parents accountable for ensuring compliance. To determine if a helmet is "approved," look for a label referencing either American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or the Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling/ and click on "certified helmets" under "Find Out."

Having three young children, all of whom ride, I, too wear a helmet at all times, even when just cruising in our driveway. This consistent use of a helmet is not only an example for my kids, but has, on at least one occasion, saved me, a former triathlete and bicycle racer, form a potentially serious injury. While exiting my own driveway, I had a mechanical malfunction, which caused my bike to come to an unexpected stop, pitching me over the handlebars so suddenly I had no chance to make any mid-flight adjustment to protect myself. I landed squarely on my head, which was fortunately covered by a good helmet. While I was certainly surprised, and embarrassed, I was also relieved not to have been hurt, at all, despite cracking the top of the helmet.

Continue reading "Connecticut Bicycle Helmet Safety Regulation" »

The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued an international bulletin concerning child injuries and fatalities. Left unprotected, or under-protected, our children are at real risk for suffering serious personal injuries, debilitating diseases, and even death. A new World Health Organization and Unicef report has concluded that more than 700,000 children lose their lives in accidents worldwide yearly. While many of the findings are not as relevant in the United States, due to our more advanced medical and health systems, children are still at great risk from accidents ranging from automobile accidents, especially those where the child is not in a properly installed booster or infant car seat. More than all childhood diseases combined, accidents account for the greatest number of childrens’ deaths in the U.S. each year. The top contributors cited in the report as responsible for the approximately 12,175 childrens’ deaths in the U.S. each year are: Car crashes and drowning,

The single most challenging aspect of this report’s conclusion is what to do about it. Ilean Arias of the U.S. CDC has the following suggestions to best reduce the U.S. contribution to that enormous number: 1) use a graduated drivers’ license; 2) limit the times during which young drivers can operate a car; 3) limit the number of occupants in a car driven by a new driver, and 3) require all children under the age of 8 to use a booster seat. Connecticut already has laws that specifically address each of these methods of reducing the risk to our children. Connecticut has a six/sixty rule requiring boosters until the age of six AND reaching sixty pounds; Connecticut also already restricts the times during which new drivers can drive: daylight hours at first, then later times progressively. The laws severely restrict the times during which any passenger can be in the car, especially during the first few months having a license . For new drivers, they can have no passengers other than someone over eighteen, and only during the day. That restriction eases as the driver gains experience and where there is a legitimate reason for a young driver to be on the road, such as for work.

Bicycle helmet requirements, no-checking by young hockey players, and careful design, construction and maintenance of playgrounds round out the list for the U.S. and Canada. For the full details, see the report at World Health Organization’s website

Connecticut's Bicycle Helmet Law:
Connecticut General Statute Section 14-286d (b) No child FIFTEEN years of age OR UNDER shall operate a bicycle on the traveled portion of any highway unless such child is wearing protective headgear which conforms to the minimum specifications established by the American National Standards Institute or the Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling. Failure to comply with this section shall not be a violation or an offense. Failure to wear protective headgear as required by this subsection shall not be considered to be contributory negligence on the part of the parent or the child nor shall such failure be admissible in any civil action.