Dear Dale: When I went to the restroom of a local chain restaurant the other day, I slipped and fell when my walker slid away from me. When I was on the ground, the floor around me was very wet, like it had just been mopped. There was no sign in the restroom to warn me about the wet floor. The fall caused me to break my hip and now I'm in the hospital. Is the restaurant responsible for my injuries?  

ANSWER: Falls provide fodder for a lot of lawyer jokes, but we've seen a number of these cases in our office where the person was seriously injured.  

Whether or not you can hold the restaurant liable for your injuries depends on a lot of variables. Let's go through some of the basics. Businesses generally are liable for the safety of their patrons if the employees knew of the dangerous condition. The employees' knowledge of the danger creates the liability.  

In Ohio, courts initially look at three things:  

?Whether an employee was responsible for the hazard, or:  

?If an employee knew about the hazard, did he or she fail to warn patrons of its presence or remove the hazard, or:  

?The hazard existed for so long that the lack of a warning or removal of the hazard showed that employees didn't exercise appropriate care.  

If any of those factors are present, a business could be found liable, assuming the hazard caused injuries claimed by the patron. Showing those elements isn't always easy, though. If the business denies that it was responsible for the fall, a lawsuit would have to be filed. Depositions would have to be conducted to determine whether any of those elements existed, and even then the business could dispute liability.

Another major hurdle exists in these types of cases. If the hazard is deemed by the court to be open and obvious, the case could get tossed before it ever gets to trial. For example, if an employee left a mop on the floor and a patron tripped over the mop, most people would assume the business would be liable, right? Under the open and obvious doctrine, though, a judge probably would determine that a normal person should have been able to see the mop and should have avoided it.  

The open and obvious doctrine is a very powerful defense in all slip and fall cases. In one case I reviewed, the injured person claimed she slipped on a patch of ice created by someone spilling a soda in the parking lot. The judge tossed her claim because the frozen soda was a different color than the parking lot, so the hazard was open and obvious. I'm not saying that was a good case - in fact it's the type of injury case people rightly ridicule - but if frozen soda on pavement is open and obvious, almost anything can be.

So, applying those general principles to your situation, you'd have to determine such things as whether an employee mopped the floor and failed to put up a warning sign; or, even if an employee didn't create the hazard, the employee knew about it and failed to correct it; or if the floor had been wet for such an extended period of time without the hazard being corrected it can be inferred the business didn't exercise the appropriate level of care.  

After that, you'd have to be able to get past the open and obvious doctrine. Water on the floor from mopping likely wouldn't be an open and obvious hazard, but if there was so much water on the floor that any reasonable person would have seen it and taken steps to avoid it, that's a different story.

On another note, in these types of cases, it's helpful to document everything the best you can. Get the names, phone numbers, and addresses of all witnesses, including employees if possible. Also, because most people have cameras in their cell phones, take photos if the hazard is visible. The evidence you gather may be crucial to your case. 

Hope this helped and I wish you well on your recovery.

Tips from the Human Society on how to prevent a dog bite include standing still instead of running away from an approaching dog and refraining from waving arms or yelling at the animal.

If a dog is starting to attack you, the American Kennel Club instructs the victim to curl up on the ground in the fetal position, using the hands to cover the face and major arteries in the neck, and not to make eye contact with the dog.

The AKC also recommends leaving alone dogs that are sleeping, eating, or caring for their puppies in order to prevent personal injury from dog bites. Encourage children to ask permission before petting any dog, and never leave a child unattended with animals.

One way to prevent these personal injuries is to have your child wear a helmet at all times when participating in any wheeled activity such as riding an ATV or bicycle. Safe Kids USA reports that helmets can reduce the risk of brain injury by as much as 88 percent, when worn properly. 

When fitting a helmet for your child, make sure it fits snuggly and close to the head. The chinstrap should be tight to the chin without causing pain, in order to prevent the helmet from sliding back behind the head. The helmet should stay in place regardless of body movement. Never buy a helmet that is too large, with the thought that a child can grow into it. Buy a snug-fitting helmet and replace it as your child grows. If there are gaps between the child?s head and the helmet, the helmet cannot protect properly. Also make sure that the helmet does not obstruct vision, especially peripheral vision.  

Our Toledo, Ohio, personal injury attorneys urge parents to wear their helmets and to teach their children how to protect themselves. Not only should children wear a helmet to prevent personal injury, they should always use sidewalks and never ride in the road. Stay visible to drivers backing out of driveways, and never weave in and out of traffic on an ATV or bicycle. If parents allow their children to ride on an ATV, they should be supervised at all times to avoid personal injury from an ATV accident. Children are more likely to rollover or lose control of large, heavy ATVs, due to their small size and weight.

Dear Dale: I recently rented a home I own to someone who I quickly learned had money problems. When he got behind in his rent, I tried to work with him because he promised to pay. Then I found out I could not evict him without filing the proper documents with the court, even though he was a few months behind in payments. Landlords are always portrayed as the bad guys, but was there something else I could have done?  

ANSWER: It sounds like you got burned for trying to be a decent guy. What you experienced, though, goes with the territory of being a landlord. Sometimes tenants don't pay their rent - or at least don't pay it on time. Sometimes they trash the property. Sometimes they refuse to leave the property after the lease expires. These are all hassles, but you're running a business when you're a landlord. Every business has its downside, and chasing monthly payments is one of the negative aspects of being a landlord.

As far as what you could have done differently, perhaps you could have started the eviction process right away rather than waiting months in hopes your tenant would come up with the money.  

To evict a tenant, a landlord has to give the tenant proper notice at least three days prior to filing a complaint. Under Ohio law, the landlord must notify the tenant that he is being asked to leave either by certified mail, hand delivery, or leaving the notice at the tenant's premises. The notice must contain specific language dictated by law, the gist of which is that the tenant is being asked to leave and if he doesn't, an eviction may be initiated.

If that notice fails to get the tenant out of the rental property, the landlord can then start eviction proceedings. The landlord files a complaint with the clerk's office at the proper court to start the process. The length of time for an eviction varies from court to court. In Toledo Municipal Court, for example, the Housing Court's Web site states that hearings are usually scheduled three weeks after the complaint is filed. If the court rules in favor of the landlord after the hearing, the actual eviction typically takes place within seven to 10 days, according to the Housing Court site. 

So, the advantage of launching eviction proceedings promptly is that the landlord gets the ball rolling on the legal process. Though it's not immediate, the process does eventually get the tenant out of the property. It also ensures that a tenant's rights will be protected from landlords who try to evict without a sufficient basis.  

The disadvantage is that the landlord has to pay the related filing fees to go through with an eviction and has to go through the headache of finding another tenant. My advice for a new landlord or someone who is thinking of getting into the business would be to find an attorney who specializes in landlord-tenant law. The attorney will not only be able to put you on firm footing from a legal perspective, but likely will be a great resource on a variety of subjects that would impact your business. 

One other thing to consider would be developing a better screening process for prospective tenants. The Internet has numerous sites that offer services ranging from tenant background checks to credit reports. Again, an attorney experienced in this field would be able to provide guidance on a variety of issues dealing with the business aspect of being a landlord.

Both people who testified lost family members to complications caused by the drug, which were administered in local Toledo health care facilities.  

From January 2007 until February 2008, at least 81 wrongful deaths have been linked to heparin, as well as 785 personal injuries from allergic reactions. The Toledo Blade reports that 62 of the 81 heparin deaths occurred between November 2007 and February 2008.  

According to the New York Times, controversy surrounds heparin that the drug was intentionally contaminated, as found in the written testimony Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA's drug center. That is why stricter laws requiring more inspections of overseas companies may help the problem of unsafe drugs. 

A West Toledo woman suffered personal injury from dog bites when she was attacked by two pit bulls in her own home yesterday. According to Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon, the woman suffered bites to her legs.

All-terrain vehicles are too dangerous for most children to handle, according to the Alberta Centre for Injury Control and Research in Canada.

The popular Yamaha Rhino has caused a number of ATV accidents, resulting in serious personal injury and wrongful death, according to the Jere Beasley Report. The Rhino?s tall, top-heavy design and narrow wheelbase could make the ATV tip over, even at a low speed or when making a normal turn. Severe personal injuries can occur when occupants put their arms or legs outside of the ATV in an effort to stop it from tipping. 

The heavy vehicle can crush the limbs, which may result in the need for surgeries, skin grafts, or amputations. In some cases, accidents have led to ATV fatalities. 

As summer approaches and families spend more time outside using outdoor recreational vehicles, our Toledo, Ohio, personal injury attorneys urge parents to take extra caution if you choose to let your child ride on an ATV. Always make sure that they are wearing a helmet and seatbelt, and are supervised by a responsible adult at all times. Prevent personal injury and ATV accidents by encouraging safe driving. Avoid quick turns, high speeds, or irresponsible maneuvers.

The Portage Health Department also reports that the norovirus causes severe diarrhea, nausea, cramping, and other personal injuries. The food poisoning norovirus can be contracted by eating foods or drinking liquids that are already tainted with the virus, having direct contact with other contaminated people, or by touching contaminated surfaces. 

Our Toledo, Ohio personal injury attorneys urge everyone to thoroughly wash fresh food before eating, make sure that meats and seafood are cooked all the way through, and frequently wash hands to prevent personal injury from food poisoning.  

As in any personal injury claim or incident involving food poisoning, be careful what you sign.  You may inadvertently sign a release and sign away your rights or rights to a future claim. It is important to contact an attorney in the event of any personal injury claim, to discuss your legal rights.

According to the Toledo Blade, the city of Sylvania recently declined to vote on two pieces of legislation that would put additional restrictions on ?vicious? breeds, which include pit bulls. The restrictions would call for the use of muzzles and leashes on pit bulls and similar breeds anytime the dogs are outside of the home. Other rules under the proposed legislation require that vicious breed puppies be spayed or neutered after 6 months of age, and would forbid anyone convicted of a felony from owning a vicious breed dog. 

Regardless of the vicious dog rules in your city or town, our Toledo, Ohio dog bite attorneys urge everyone to be careful around all dogs. Never attempt to pet a dog that is eating or sleeping, and make sure the dog sees before you approach. Also be sure never to tease or taunt a dog, or any animal, in order to prevent personal injury from a dog bite.

3. Don?t underestimate the insurance adjusters who contact you.

Insurance adjusters handle claims for a living. They?re judged by their bosses by how they settle claims and how much money they save for the company. This doesn?t make them bad people; they?re just doing their jobs and looking out for the best interests of their employers. It?s up to you and your lawyer to look out for your interests.

It?s no shock that insurance companies often own the tallest skyscrapers in a city. They have powerful lobbies throughout the country and, along with other business interests, have done their best to get legislation passed that makes it hard for accident victims to be fairly compensated. They?ve gotten rich by collecting as much money as possible from all of us while trying to avoid making fair settlements with people suffering from accidents they didn?t cause.

So, when an adjuster representing the person who caused the accident gives you a call, keep in mind where their loyalties lie. They?ll likely be extremely pleasant, but they have one goal: to settle your claim as cheaply as possible. They do this for a living, all day and every day. Because this is probably the first time you?ve been an accident victim, you are at an obvious disadvantage. Be smart when you?re dealing with them ? or better yet, hire a lawyer who deals with insurance companies on a daily basis. After all, the insurance companies have professionals working for them, so you should too.

Dear Dale: Over the winter, I rented a condominium for my family in Key Largo, Fla., through an agent based in Pennsylvania. The agent informed me that I'd have to put up a $300 refundable deposit, which I did. The condominium was fine and we had a good trip. However, when I contacted the agent to get my deposit back, he said he would mail it to me, but he never did. I've left messages on his phone and sent e-mails, but he's ignoring me now. What are my options?

ANSWER: You have a few options, but they depend on how much time and money you want to put into collecting $300. Maybe this guy scams people out of deposits all the time, figuring most people won't bother pursuing him for a relatively small amount of money.

If you want to pursue it, you could file an action in small-claims court. The question is: Where would you file your action? It would make the most sense to file it in Pennsylvania, where the guy lives, but it obviously would be a lot more convenient if you could file it in Toledo.

However, a problem could be that if you filed locally, the defendant might challenge venue and you'd be stuck trying to convince a judge that venue was proper because the activity giving rise to the claim happened here through the phone contact, or some similar argument. I wouldn't feel great about my chances of prevailing on that issue, but you never know.

Nonetheless, you could file the claim here to see if that shakes the money out of the man. Just filing suit sometimes does the trick. The safer approach would be to file it where he lives or does business.

But even if you win your claim, your problems may not be over. You still have to collect on your judgment. Assuming the agent actually appears to defend himself, it's unlikely that he'll pry open his wallet and hand you the money on the spot. So, if he continued with his deadbeat ways even after a successful judgment, you may be stuck trying to garnish his wages or using some other method like a lien to collect your money.

As you can see, you could be looking at exerting a fair amount of energy and time trying to collect your money by seeking a civil remedy.

That said, you might try another avenue that could be more effective. Why don't you call the local police department or prosecutor - or both - where he does business and explain your problem? Some people simply have no shame when it comes to ripping off people, and they aren't particularly concerned about some small civil action. But a criminal charge tends to get a person's attention, even if it's just a misdemeanor.

I've represented people in criminal cases who have taken money up-front to perform work that never actually got done. After the people became frustrated enough with my clients' lack of response, they finally went to the police and the police filed theft charges. My clients were all too happy to cough up the money to make the charges disappear, or at least get them reduced. It all depends on whether you get a sympathetic officer or prosecutor on the other end of the phone, but it's worth a shot.

Finally, you might want to see if you can get a lawyer to write a letter to the agent or make a phone call on your behalf. Sometimes that's what it takes for the person on the other end to realize that you're not going to let the situation drop.

All in all, it's a lot of hassle to go through for $300. Still, it's your money and you're entitled to it. If you're up for the fight and it's worth it to you, don't let the guy off the hook - he's the one being unreasonable here and I don't blame you for being upset. Wouldn't it be nice if people just did the right thing?

The scandal swirling around embattled Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and the web of lies he appears to have spun has prompted a lot of curiosity about the perjury charges he faces.

In case you missed it, Mayor Kilpatrick and Christine Beatty, his former chief of staff, have been slapped with felony charges of perjury stemming from testimony they gave in a civil trial in August. The gist of the charges is that they lied under oath in the case brought by former Detroit police officers about whether Kilpatrick and Beatty previously had a romantic relationship and whether they had fired Detroit Deputy Police Chief Gary Brown in 2003.

Anyone who has read the coverage in the Detroit Free Press knows there?s no doubt that they both lied under oath. The paper broke the story by uncovering text messages the mayor and Ms. Beatty sent each other that make it clear that not only were they sexually involved, but that they had discussed and decided to fire Mr. Brown.

In the court of public opinion, these two are cooked. Whether that translates into convictions in a courtroom remains to be seen. I?ve had friends ask how the mayor and Ms. Beatty can possibly avoid conviction, given what the Free Press has exposed. My only response is that it sure looks bad, but you never know whether material that suffices as good, solid proof for newspaper stories will be admissible and persuasive in court.

In Ohio, one commits perjury by knowingly making a false statement that is material ? meaning that it could affect the outcome of the proceeding. In Michigan, one commits perjury by willfully testifying falsely to ?any matter or thing.? So, in Michigan, the false statement doesn?t need to be material to the case.

Prosecutors will have to prove that Mayor Kilpatrick and Ms. Beatty willfully made false statements at the August trial. At this point, it looks like the best evidence is the text messages that show they were lying. The statements at trial would have to be false, not just misleading.

In order to prove that, prosecutors would have to show that the two actually sent the text messages that the Free Press uprooted. If the case ever goes to trial, I?m guessing that the prosecutors will have more to work with than just the text messages the two sent. I would think by using powers unavailable to the journalists who have worked this story they?ll come up with witnesses that will provide damning evidence.

I don?t have enough room here to recap the disparity between the testimony the mayor and Ms. Beatty gave and the text messages he sent, but here?s a small sampling pulled from the Free Press coverage. When Mayor Kilpatrick and Ms. Beatty were asked if they had a romantic relationship during 2001-2003, both said no.

According to the paper, Ms. Beatty rolled her eyes at the question while Mayor Kilpatrick went on to give a windy response about how ?demoralizing? such questions were to both of them, and how disparaging such suggestions were to Ms. Beatty as a woman.

Contrast that testimony with a text message the mayor sent Ms. Beatty on Oct. 16, 2002, which read: ?I?ve been dreaming all day about having you all to myself for 3 days. Relaxing, laughing, talking, sleeping, and making love.?

On Oct. 3, 2002, Mayor Kilpatrick wrote that he was ?madly in love? with Ms. Beatty, to which she responded that she was ?madly in love? with him, too. A number of other text messages, some of them too explicit for the Free Press to print, were exchanged by the two.

They also both testified that they hadn?t fired Mr. Brown. Ms. Beatty, though, wrote a text message on May 15, 2003, to the mayor that essentially apologized for the mess created by the ?decision that we made to fire Gary Brown.? Mayor Kilpatrick responded that ?? It had to happen though. I?m all the way with that.?

The conflicts between the testimony and the messages are numerous.

The case, though, has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Will jurors be sympathetic to the mayor and refuse to convict him or will they condemn his actions?

At the very least, the mayor deserves to lose his license to practice law and Ms. Beatty, a law student, should never be allowed to sit for a bar exam. The legal system only works if people are honest when they testify ? and there need to be consequences for those who aren?t.

Dear Dale: If a driver turns left on a yellow light, then an oncoming car strikes him at an intersection, who is at fault? Note that in this case, the turn was made before the light changed to red. This is a true experience that happened to someone I know, but the person still got cited for turning on a caution light.

ANSWER: Just who would be at fault in a situation like this is the type of issue we deal with in our personal injury law office regularly. And, if the attorneys involved in these types of cases can't agree who is at fault, it's a question they have to put before jurors to decide.

It's impossible for me to give you a definitive answer on whether the turning driver - let's call him Driver A - was at fault here, but I can tell you I'd rather be handling the case for Driver B. It might be helpful to look at the instructions that jurors would receive from a judge in this situation.

According to the standard jury instruction dealing with left-hand turns, a driver making such a turn is supposed to yield the right of way to an oncoming driver who is within the intersection or so close to the intersection as to create an immediate hazard. Failure to yield the right of way is negligence, according to the jury instruction.

Another instruction the jury likely would be given states that a driver facing a steady yellow signal is warned that the light is about to change to red.

In the situation you've described it seems to me that Driver A should have yielded to Driver B if both of them entered the intersection on a yellow light. If I were representing Driver B, I'd argue that the rule is a driver making a left-hand turn must yield to oncoming traffic. I'd tell the jury that according to the instructions given by the judge, Driver A was negligent.

But often there's a bit of a twist in cases like these. Driver A will be waiting to make a left-hand turn on a yellow light and the light will turn red before Driver B enters the intersection. Once the light turned red, Driver B should have stopped and Driver A would have the right of way to clear the intersection.

Your question seemed to indicate that both drivers entered the intersection on a yellow light. So, it looks like Driver A should have yielded to Driver B rather than assuming B was going to stop on the yellow.

Even if Driver A were found to be negligent, he would still have some cards to play at trial. His attorney likely would raise the issue of comparative negligence, which means that the jury would be asked to determine whether each driver shared some fault. Specifically, the jury would be asked to determine if the other driver's conduct also was negligent and, if so, apportion the negligence between the two drivers.

For example, the jury might find that Driver B didn't act as a reasonably prudent driver in this situation by entering the intersection on a yellow when Driver A was indicating he was about to turn. Let's say the jury thought Driver A was 75 percent responsible for the accident by making the left turn and Driver B was 25 percent responsible by not stopping at the yellow light. In that case, any award to Driver B would be reduced by 25 percent.

But, in comparative negligence situations, if the person bringing the lawsuit is found to be more at fault than the defendant, the plaintiff collects nothing. So, in our example, if the jury found that Driver B was more than 51 percent negligent for not stopping at the yellow light and letting Driver A make his left turn, Driver B would collect nothing on his claim.

If there's a practical lesson here, I guess it's that none of us should assume that it's safe to make a left turn on a yellow light until you see that the oncoming traffic has stopped.

2. Don?t rush to settle your claim quickly.

If you?re reading these tips because you were recently involved in a car accident caused by another driver, you may already have received a call from an insurance adjuster trying to settle your claim. Typically, an adjuster will wave a few thousand dollars under your nose to settle the claim quickly. It sounds good until you realize you?re hurt more seriously than you anticipated or your medical bills end up eating into that money.

If you?re tempted to settle your case below its value just because you need money for your medical bills, hold off. If you hire an attorney, the attorney usually will be able to work out an arrangement with your health-care provider for your provider to be paid out of the proceeds of your settlement. The doctor or chiropractor will continue to treat you without requiring payment after receiving what?s called a ?letter of protection? from your lawyer. This allows you to continue getting the treatment that you need, while ensuring the doctor is paid at the end of your case.

Settling your case quickly doesn?t allow you to be fully compensated for your medical bills, pain and suffering, and lost wages. It only benefits the insurance company because it won?t have to pay out the full value of your case.

Resulting from incidents involving nursery products such as cribs, high chairs, strollers, or baby baths, majority of the accidents involved some sort of fall, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Our Toledo, Ohio personal injury attorneys urge parents and caregivers to keep their children safe and free from personal injury by always knowing where they are and what they are doing, at all times. Use baby products correctly, according to manufacturers' instructions, and never sacrifice proper installment due to time restraints or a crying baby. Always use provided straps and restraints and never leave a child unattended in an elevated position such as in a high shair or on a changing table.

In addition to being viewable on our website, the clips can also be seen on the video websites YouTube, Google video, and Yahoo video.

?I think it?s important to provide information through all different types of media,? said Attorney Mike Bruno. ?My generation and my parents? generation are used to viewing everything in print.

?Our video, which is closer to a television-type broadcast, is helpful to those who better process information visually. It?s important that people actually see the attorney talking.?

Some of the topics include what to look for in an attorney, whether to speak with the other driver?s insurance company, the pitfalls of signing medical authorizations, and the benefits of purchasing uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage.

The attorneys have added this whole new dimension of video to give people information that?s easy to digest. Videos don?t require readers to wade through a lot of text to find the help they need. The information is instantly available to anyone around the world, with a click of the play button.

The videos are a great addition to the articles and library we currently have on our site. We hope sending the clips out into cyberspace will aid anyone seeking information on the personal injury or workers' compensation process.

Ohio State Representative Diane Fessler believes that the practice is so dangerous, that she has introduced a bill that would make text messaging while driving against the law. 

Similar to the consequences of not obeying Ohio?s seatbelt law, the offense would cost a driver $250 in fines, according to Toledo Legal News. 

Our Toledo, Ohio personal injury attorneys want to remind readers that while technology can improve our lives, some of our gadgets can be distracting when we?re behind the wheel. The risk for a car accident increases by 50 percent for those who text while driving, according to a study by psychologists at the University of Utah. 

The American Automobile Association found that out of 1,000 16 and 17-year-olds polled, 46 percent of them admitted to text messaging while driving. AAA also found that some teens receive and send as many as 500 text messages in one day.  

That means a lot of distracted driver could be on the roads.

Teens aren?t the only ones to blame. Many cell phones have personal computing capabilities, such as the Blackberry or the iPhone. Checking email, sending memos, and setting calendared appointments behind the wheel can be just as distracting as text messaging. 

Toledo Legal News also reported that AAA found that a driver doubles his risk for a car accident when he takes his eyes of the road for more than two seconds, and that 80 percent of collisions involve some sort of inattention. 

It takes two hands to drive a car, and only two seconds to cause a car accident resulting in personal injury. Keep yourself and your family safe by keeping your eyes on the road and your hands on the wheel.

Our Toledo, Ohio ATV accident attorneys urge riders and drivers to always be careful while on all-terrain vehicles, to avoid ATV accidents. Always wear a helmet and obey all posted traffic signs. Make sure you have proper training before driving an ATV, and never allow children to drive an adult ATV. As with any motor vehicle, never drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Dear Dale: A large branch from a tree in my neighbor's yard recently fell on my car in my driveway. My neighbor said he spoke to his insurance agent, who told him that he wasn't responsible for covering the damage to my car. This is frustrating because my neighbor has told me in the past that he needed to remove the tree because some of the branches were dead and have been falling in my yard regularly. I don't have comprehensive insurance on my car, so do I have to pay for this myself?

ANSWER: Don't give up too fast on this one. It looks like you've got some ammo you can use to fight the insurance company.

A few factors come into play when analyzing these types of cases. One is whether we're talking about an urban or rural setting; another is whether the tree or branch fell near a public road or highway, and a third is whether the owner of the tree knew or should have known about the tree's defects.

In rural settings, courts have deemed it to be too much of a burden to require a property owner to inspect trees to determine if there might be a problem that could cause injury to a person or property. In theory, we could be talking about property owners who have forests on their land. Judges reason that requiring a rural landowner to correct problems with trees would be disproportionate to the risk of the harm actually occurring.

In urban settings, and I'd include suburbs in that definition, the equation changes when you're talking about the duty to inspect, especially near a public road or highway. The rationale is that it's generally not that great a burden for urban dwellers to pay attention to parcels of land that likely are a lot smaller than those found in rural areas. If the tree is near a public road or highway in an urban area, the risk of danger from a damaged or dying tree increases significantly because there's likely to be much more traffic.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the issue of whether the landowner had actual or constructive knowledge about a defect within a tree that could cause it or a limb to fall. Even in a rural area where there's no duty to inspect, a landowner who knew of a problem with a tree near a public highway and failed to correct it could be held responsible for damage caused by a falling tree or limb.

So, let's put some of those rough rules into play for your situation. I found a case from our Toledo-based court of appeals, which covers much of northwest Ohio, that held that urban landowners must take reasonable steps to cure defects in trees even if they aren't along a public road. Therefore, the fact that the branch fell in your driveway or backyard shouldn't work against you.

More significant, though, is that your neighbor made comments that he knew the tree in his yard had dying branches that had been falling and that he failed to either remove the tree or have the dead branches trimmed. To show negligence, you must show the defendant owed a duty of care. It appears your neighbor owed a duty of care because he had actual knowledge that his dying tree was dropping branches. He failed to take the reasonable steps to cure the defect within the tree, so you have a good argument that he should be held responsible.

Your neighbor's insurance company might argue that a landowner is not responsible for harm caused by a natural condition on the land such as a tree. An example might help here. In one case I found, a tree from Neighbor A's land fell on Neighbor B's land during a storm. In that case, the court held that Neighbor A had no knowledge that there was a problem with the tree or that it was in such a condition that it could fall during a storm, so Neighbor A wasn't responsible for the damage to Neighbor B's property.

Your case is different because your neighbor knew of the problem with your tree. I'd recommend talking to your neighbor about the situation again, now that you're armed with more information. I'm guessing your neighbor wants his insurance company to cover the costs of repairing your car so he can keep a good relationship with you. If he has a deductible, maybe you can offer to split it so he has more incentive to push his insurance company to pay up. If you can't get your neighbor or his insurer to move, though, you'll have to decide whether it's worth the time and money to pursue the matter in court.

"Dear Dale: I recently read about the Marine who is accused of killing another Marine before fleeing to Mexico. The story said he spoke with an attorney before he ran away. If he confessed to killing this woman, would the attorney have to tell the police? Also, I've always wondered if someone tells an attorney that he plans on killing someone whether the attorney must tell the police to prevent it. Do the answers change if the person didn't hire the attorney?

ANSWER: Without addressing the Marine saga, which I know next to nothing about, I think I can answer your questions about attorney-client conversations.

Attorney-client privilege offers tremendous protection to the client that information conveyed to the lawyer will remain protected. Among lawyers, it's almost a sacred notion that they won't reveal anything their clients tell them. Under the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer is barred from revealing information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent. Though there are a few exceptions, a lawyer breaking this rule could lose his or her license to practice law.

The idea behind this rule is that a client must be able to trust his lawyer in order for the lawyer to properly represent him. So a client must have confidence that what he says to his lawyer will stay between them, even if the client confesses to committing a crime.

Things get tricky, though, if a client tells his lawyer about a planned crime. Rules vary between jurisdictions, but in Ohio, a lawyer may reveal privileged information in order to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm, or to prevent a crime by the client or another person. The lawyer also may reveal privileged communications to protect substantial injury to someone's financial interest stemming from a client's illegal or fraudulent act if the client has used the lawyer somehow to further the crime.

It might be helpful to use a few hypothetical situations to drive these points home. If a client came to me and confessed to killing his neighbor because the neighbor continued to let his hedges grow too tall - thus blocking the sun to the client's garden - I'd be ethically bound to keep that to myself. This would be true regardless of whether the client actually was a defendant or the police didn't know the killer's identity.

If, on the other hand, a client came to me and said he planned to kill his neighbor because he was so distraught over the hedges blocking out the sunlight, and that he had purchased the gun and practiced at the shooting range, I could reveal that information to prevent the killing. I would not be obligated to run to the police or the neighbor, and I would be within my ethical bounds as a lawyer to do nothing at all.

I think most people understand the concept that a lawyer can't reveal a client's confession to a crime already committed. It's a much more difficult notion that a lawyer has discretion whether to reveal a privileged communication that could save someone's life. It pits societal morality against legal professional ethics. As you can imagine, it would place the lawyer in a tremendously difficult position because we're trained to keep conversations with our clients secret.

You also asked if it made any difference whether the person consulting the lawyer actually hired him or her. The answer is no, conversations with prospective clients are protected in the same manner as those with actual clients."

Originally published in the Toledo Bar Association?s newsletter, the article is geared toward lawyers, but it contains a wealth of information for anyone interested in patent, trademark, and copyright issues.

MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC prepares and files patent applications, trademark  applications and copyright applications in the United States and around the world. Its attorneys are registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Some of its more recognized clients include Libbey, Inc., Sauder Woodworking Co., The Ohio State University, The University of Toledo, Lear Corporation, Owens Corning, Sunrise Medical, Inc., Dana Corporation and Battelle Memorial Institute.

For more information about the firm?s attorneys, or the issues discussed by Mr. Emch and Mr. Sutter, you can visit the MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, LLC, Web site at mstfirm.com or call them at 419-255-5900.

Dale opposes HB 366 because he's seen the types of devastating injuries pit bulls can cause when they attack. As his testimony indicates, pit bull bites have caused his clients to suffer injuries that may leave some of them scarred for life.

Ohio law labels pit bulls as vicious dogs and requires that owners confine them in ways that would minimize the risk of them injuring people. It also requires pit bull owners to maintain a certain level of insurance in case their dog does cause an injury. The law is not overly burdensome and its requirements just make good sense.

Removing the vicious dog label would restrict a valuable enforcement tool that Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon and other law enforcement officials throughout the state have to control pit bull ownership.

Dale urges you to contact members of the Infrastructure, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs committee to voice your opposition to HB 366.

For the first time in our state's history, the opinion allows the jury's fact-finding function to be invaded despite the Ohio Constitution's requirement that a right to a trial by jury shall be inviolate.

So, even if a jury determines after hearing all the facts of a case that someone may live with pain the rest of their lives - or that they'll never be able to run again, or walk without a limp - and that pain is worth more than $250,000, the award is automatically reduced. How does the right to a trial by jury remain inviolate if a jury's findings can be ignored if the award is deemed excessive by the insurance-industry controlled General Assembly?

 I was so appalled by the Court's decision that I wrote an op-ed piece for the Toledo Blade that I'd direct you toward if you have an interest in seeing how one of our basic constitutional rights has been stripped. Below, I've included a small portion of the column.

"In Ohio, the constitutional right to trial by jury has always been interpreted to mean that judges and the government won't be able to invade the jury's fact-finding function.

That's why jurors are there, right? To hear the facts of each individual case and decide what they think is fair. Now, though, jurors can spend days or weeks hearing the facts of a case, reach a difficult decision that the injured person should be awarded a sum to compensate for the pain an accident has caused, only to have that decision gutted by a judge if the sum exceeds $250,000.

How does the right to a trial by jury remain inviolate if a law requires judges to violate the decisions a jury reaches? We should probably now read the constitution to say: The right to a jury shall be inviolate, provided it doesn't cost an insurance company too much money.

The right to have a jury determine the facts of a case has been the backbone of our legal system for hundreds of years. It serves as a check against a judge who might be corrupt or for some reason influenced by one side or the other.

It's a concept as old as our country and traces its roots to the Magna Carta. As the court's majority notes, Thomas Jefferson viewed jury trials as 'the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.' "