Cruise-ship disasters like the deadly Costa Concordia accident in Italy raise questions for passengers: What are your rights when you're injured on a cruise ship?

The answer depends on what's in your cruise contract, and where the injury took place. Here are some general guidelines.

Your cruise contract

Your cruise tickets are probably the first place to look for contract terms that explain your rights. Many cruise lines impose requirements on passengers who seek to sue for cruise-ship injuries, for example:

• A passenger often must provide written notice of a cruise-ship injury within six months of the injury.
• A passenger often must bring a lawsuit within one year of a cruise-ship injury.
• A passenger often must sue the cruise company in a specific court system -- usually the courts closest to where the cruise company is headquartered.

Why location matters

An international agreement called the Athens Convention limits a cruise line's liability to $71,400 per passenger, maritime lawyer Rod Sullivan tells Jacksonville, Fla.'s First Coast News.

Because the Concordia accident happened in Italy, passengers can pursue claims under Italian law. Many should be able to get compensation for injuries and a canceled vacation under Italy's laws, the International Business Times reports.

But the United States is not a party to the Athens Convention. Instead, if a Concordia-type disaster happened here, a 1920 U.S. law would kick in to compensate for potential cruise-ship injuries, Sullivan said.

"It's somewhat better than the Athens Convention," Sullivan told First Coast News. "If the ship goes down, there's a pool provided of $50 million in the case of a ship this size, and that would be split up among all the injured parties."

Of course, every cruise-ship injury is different, so you may want to consult an attorney as soon as possible to protect your rights -- especially considering the short time period for passengers to pursue a claim.

Related Resources:

• Cruise ship victims can't use U.S. courts: experts (Reuters)
• Rights of Injured Cruise Ship Passengers (FindLaw)
• Browse Admiralty & Maritime Lawyers by Location (FindLaw)
• Brilliance of the Seas: Dozens Injured on Ship (FindLaw's Injured)

Rescuers continue to search for survivors in the wake of a deadly Italian cruise ship disaster. But injured passengers and crew likely won't be able to pursue cruise-related lawsuits in the United States.

The Italian cruise ship Costa Concordia -- one of the largest ever to be wrecked -- is owned by a company called Costa Crociere, Agence France Presse reports. Already, more than 70 passengers have joined a lawsuit seeking compensation from Costa Crociere in an Italian court, AFP reports.

Costa Crociere is actually owned by Miami-based Carnival Corp., Reuters reports. But experts say legal action likely cannot take place in the United States. Here's why:

The main reason lies in contract law. Contracts written into the Concordia's tickets assert all cruise ship lawsuits must be brought in the courts of Genoa, Italy, Reuters reports.

The contract language is called a "forum selection clause," and it's common in the cruise industry. U.S. courts have generally upheld such clauses as fair -- otherwise, cruise companies would be forced to defend lawsuits from all over the world.

U.S. citizens have tried to challenge international forum selection clauses, arguing it's too burdensome to sue abroad. But courts have generally ruled against those challenges, and have upheld international cruise-ticket contracts, Reuters reports.

The Concordia's crew also likely can't sue in U.S. courts, because their employment contracts probably require arbitration to settle any disputes, Reuters reports.

Carnival Corp. is also likely off the hook for any potential criminal charges, because the accident happened in Italian waters. Most criminal laws are not applied outside the United States, Reuters reports.

Even if injured passengers pursue a potential Costa Concordia cruise lawsuit in Italy, their compensation may be limited. An international agreement called the Athens Convention caps a cruise operator's liability at about $80,000 per person, Reuters reports.

Related Resources:

• Maritime Experts Says Laws Protect Cruise Companies (First Coast News)
• Rights of Injured Cruise Ship Passengers (FindLaw)
• Brilliance of the Seas: Dozens Injured on Ship (FindLaw's Injured)

Can you sue a dead person? The answer is yes, via the dead person's estate. But whether or not you'll be able to recover any money may depend on how quickly you pursue your claim.

The ability to sue a dead person's estate typically arises under two scenarios: When the deceased has debts to be repaid, and when the deceased's negligence caused injury or death to another party.

Under either scenario, time is of the essence.

For example, state statute of limitations laws differ depending on the type of action you wish to pursue against a dead person's estate, such as wrongful death or personal injury.

State laws also dictate how much time creditors have to file a claim against a dead person's estate. A claim notifies the estate's executor or personal representative that you want a debt to be repaid. If you don't file a claim, you may not be able to file a lawsuit later.

Aside from timing, here are some other factors to consider in a lawsuit against a dead person's estate:

Does the executor know about your debt claim? If so, an executor or personal representative must notify you and advise you to make a claim by a certain deadline. A creditor who doesn't receive proper notice can try to use that as an excuse to file a late claim.

Are there surviving relatives? State laws generally provide that surviving relatives are not personally responsible for a dead person's debts. Even spousal obligations to pay for community debts may be limited by state laws. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits collectors from using abusive or deceptive tactics to pressure surviving relatives into paying a dead person's debts.

Estate laws are complicated, and the specific facts of your case will determine whether suing a dead person's estate is the best course of action. You can look up an estate lawyer near you to discuss the details of your case.

Related Resources:

• Law Questions on Wills and Estate Law (FindLaw Answers)
• Time Limits for Bringing a Case: The 'Statute of Limitations' (FindLaw)
• Get Legal Help with a Probate or Estate Administration Issue (FindLaw)
• Man Killed by Train is Sued: Flying Body Parts Injured Woman (FindLaw's Legally Weird)

Did you know that there are more than 25,000 inmates housed in 13 private federal prisons?

Well, there are. And those inmates can't sue private prison employees for violating the 8th Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

No, according to a new ruling by the Supreme Court, federal inmates must sue  private prison employees in state courts. They must also base their claims on state tort law. No constitutional law allowed.

This ruling is the result of an intended -- but quirky -- gap in federal law. Congress has not enacted a statute permitting lawsuits against federal employees who violate a person's constitutional rights.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has allowed some of these claims to move forward. They're called "Bivens actions" and they are granted only when there are no other remedies available.

Richard Lee Pollard has other options. He broke both of his elbows during his stay in a private federal prison in California. He alleges employee negligence caused him significant pain and left him with permanently damaged arms.

Technically, he can sue the prison employees for negligence and malpractice under California law. The Court thus ruled that Pollard -- and inmates in similar positions -- has no right to file a federal lawsuit against those employees.

On some level, this ruling may actually be a blessing for inmates housed in private federal prisons. Tort lawsuits may not be worth as much money, but they're generally much easier to prove than those based on constitutional violations.

Related Resources:

• Court Says Inmate Can't Sue for Injury (Wall Street Journal)
• Rights of Inmates (FindLaw)
• Prisoner Health Care: Death in a Boston Jail (FindLaw's Injured)

A Burger King lawsuit accuses the fast-food chain of causing emotional distress by serving Whopper spit. But the spit-burger suit by Clark County, Wash., Sheriff's Deputy Edward Bylsma is now on hold.

Bylsma's beef with Burger King began at a drive-thru window in Vancouver, Wash., Reuters reports. Bylsma claims he ordered a Whopper -- but it was topped with an unwanted ingredient.

Bylsma pulled back the burger's bun and found a "slimy, clear and white phlegm glob." Bylsma touched the Whopper spit, but he didn't eat the burger, his lawsuit claims.

The Whopper spit belonged to a Burger King employee, DNA testing confirmed. The worker pleaded guilty to an assault charge and served 90 days in jail, Reuters reports.

But Deputy Edward Bylsma wanted justice served his way. He sued Burger King and its franchisee under Washington's product liability laws.

Bylsma's Whopper spit suit claims "ongoing emotional trauma ... including vomiting, nausea, food anxiety and sleeplessness" caused by the drive-thru incident.

A federal district court threw out Bylsma's Whopper spit suit, finding Washington's laws don't allow for mental distress awards if a contaminated product didn't cause physical harm, Reuters reports.

But Bylsma appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which said the issue was not so clear. "Given the uncertainty of law in this area, we believe it is appropriate to defer to the Washington Supreme Court on this important issue of state law," the three-judge panel wrote, according to Reuters.

Federal courts must defer to a state Supreme Court's interpretation when a state's law is at issue. Washington's Supreme Court now gets to decide if it will answer the Ninth Circuit's question in Deputy Edward Bylsma's Whopper spit case.

Related Resources:

• Case of spit in cop's Whopper headed to state Supreme Court (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
• Order Certifying Question to the Supreme Court of Washington - Bylsma v. Burger King (U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
• Quiz: Emotional Distress (FindLaw)
• Cops Arrest Man Who Ordered Pot at Burger King Drive-Thru (FindLaw's Legally Weird)

North Carolina's sterilization law forced medical procedures on thousands of U.S. citizens decades ago. An assembled task force has now declared that victims should receive $50,000 each.

This could amount to a total payout of around $100 million. The compensation will need to be approved by the state legislature.

North Carolina would be the first to offer financial compensation to individuals harmed by the state eugenics program.

Similar programs were implemented in many different states. The eugenics movement started in the early 1900s. It aimed to strengthen the gene pool. Individuals considered "defective" were targeted under the laws. They were sterilized so they would not have children.

Seven states have publicly apologized, including North Carolina, according to CNN.

Around 7,600 victims were sterilized in North Carolina alone. The state's laws negatively impacted epileptics and individuals with mental health issues. Many of the individuals were poor black women, reports the AP.

The $50,000 compensation per person seems small. But the aggregate bill is high. Paying a total of $100 million to the survivors is a "large sum" for the state, according to Republican Senator Richard Stevens to the AP.

The payout will also include a three-year statute of limitations. Victims will need to come forward soon. The task force has also recommended more aggressive forms of outreach. It's estimated that there are about 1,500 living victims today.

So far the state has only been able to verify 72 individuals, according to the AP.

Many seem are optimistic that the compensation will pass through the legislature. A few individuals impacted by North Carolina's sterilization laws have come forward. Some indicate that they feel the damages award should be expanded to estates or decedents. It's currently limited to living victims.

Related Resources:

• Payment Determined For N.C. Sterilization Victims (NPR)
• NC to Pay Thousands to Sterilization Victims? (FindLaw's Injured)
• Mother of 9 Sues Over Unwanted Permanent Sterilization (FindLaw's Injured)

A New York herpes lawsuit claims a disgraced Texas hand surgeon allegedly infected his ex-girlfriend with herpes after failing to disclose his disease.

Former surgeon Michael Glyn Brown, 54, of Houston, claimed he was disease-free before he moved in with his then-girlfriend, an unidentified businesswoman in Manhattan, the New York Post reports.

But after months of living together, the woman showed signs of a sexually transmitted disease. "She went to see a doctor," her lawyer told the Post. "And when she saw how serious it was, she went to see a lawyer."

The woman, who is in her 30s, is being treated for vaginal and anal herpes, the New York Daily News reports. Brown had previously taken medication to treat a herpes infection, but did not tell his sexual partners, the woman's herpes lawsuit against the surgeon claims.

Failing to disclose a sexually transmitted disease before having sex with someone is a misdemeanor in New York, the Daily News reports.

But even in states without STD-disclosure laws on the books, it's still possible to sue for an STD infection under general principles of negligence. Plaintiffs have to establish that their partner's failure to disclose an STD breached a duty of care and caused harm.

Brown's attorneys insist the woman's herpes suit "is really about getting money from Michael Brown." They claim they can prove the woman couldn't have been infected by Brown, but declined to elaborate.

The herpes lawsuit is not the first time the former surgeon has faced legal action. Brown was convicted of beating his third wife while she was pregnant, and was acquitted of assaulting his fourth wife. In addition, Brown lost his medical license in 2006 after testing positive for cocaine use, the Post reports.

Related Resources:

• Doctor accused of giving girlfriend herpes (UPI)
• Can You Sue for Getting an STD? (FindLaw's Injured)
• Woman Infected with Herpes Gets $6.7M, BMW (FindLaw's Injured)
• Proving Fault: What is Negligence? (FindLaw)

The family of the FAMU hazing victim will file a lawsuit against Fabulous Coach Lines. The company owns the bus where 26-year-old marching band member Robert Champion died.

Champion's family says that the bus company was negligent. They also alleged it contributed to Champion's untimely death.

Champion passed away on November 19 after a football game. He died after a particularly violent form of hazing.

The ritual, called a "crossing bus C," involves physical assaults. Hazed members walk from the back of the bus to the front. All the while, they are beaten.

An autopsy was performed after Champion died. Officials found he suffered from severe bruising and internal bleeding. His death was ruled a homicide. Several FAMU members were arrested in connection with the incident.

The family's attorney Christopher Chestnut stated his belief that the company was negligent. "They knew or should have known that hazing was occurring on the bus," he said to the AP.

In order to be found negligent, the bus company must have breached its duty to Champion. This could be established if it's shown the bus driver did know that such violent hazing was taking place. The driver might have had the duty to report the incident to police if he was on board at the time. Or, if he knew that there was hazing going on in his vehicle.

If the FAMU hazing victim's lawsuit against Fabulous Coach Lines is successful, the family may be awarded damages. There are many factors that a court may look at when determining the amount of the award. This includes the deceased individual's age, character, earning capacity, and life expectancy.

Related Resources:

• Parents to sue bus company in FAMU hazing case (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
• Wrongful Death - Overview (FindLaw)
• Is Hazing Illegal? (FindLaw Blotter)
• FAMU Hazing Ritual Tied to Student's Death (FindLaw's Injured)

Silicone injections have been getting a bad rap as of late. There was the man who died after receiving a penis injection. And then there was the group of women whose botched butt injections required hospitalization.

There's no doubt that silicone injections can lead to complications. But amongst all of this talk, there is one question that has yet to be answered:

Are silicone injections legal?

Silicone injections are not legal when administered by someone who is not a licensed medical professional. Besides being illegal, these injections often don't contain medical-grade silicone. It's best to avoid "pumping parties" and hotel room deals.

When administered by a licensed physician, silicone injections are legal. However, they are not currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The FDA rescinded approval of cosmetic silicone injections in 1992. But in 1994, it approved a series of silicone oils for use in the treatment of retinal detachments and other complications.

Silicone oil is thus defined as a "legally marketed medical device."

Medical professionals may administer any approved "legally marketed medical device" per the terms of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. They can even prescribe or administer that device for off-label uses.

They can thus legally prescribe and administer silicone for cosmetic purposes.

Though silicone injections are legal, they are still dangerous. The FDA rescinded approval after women complained of deformity and respiratory problems. The liquid has also entered the bloodstream, leading to a number of deaths. So if you decide to get them, be aware of the risks.

Related Resources:

• 9 Month Sentence In Deadly Silicone Injection(WNYW)
• New York Case Shows Dangers of Cosmetic Silicone Injections (FindLaw)
• Butt Injections Get Lauretta Cheek, Phony Surgeon, Busted -- Again (FindLaw's Legally Weird)

A fitness trainer left partially paralyzed in an NYC elevator accident is suing the same elevator-repair company linked to a separate elevator accident that crushed and killed a woman between floors.

Corey Hill, 34, of Manhattan, filed suit against Transel Elevator in connection with the Nov. 12 accident that allegedly crippled him, the New York Post reports.

Hill's NYC elevator accident lawsuit claims he stepped into an elevator on the 26th floor of his apartment building and pressed the button for the lobby. The elevator unexpectedly started to freefall, then jerked to a stop several floors down, the Post reports.

Hill thought he was just shaken, but the next day, he had problems moving his legs, Hill told the Post. The problems escalated, and Hill soon lost all sensation in his legs and couldn't move them, he said.

After nearly a month in a hospital and a rehab center, the fitness trainer came home in a wheelchair and has "to relearn how to walk," he told the Post.

Corey Hill was diagnosed with paresis, a condition in which a patient's brain doesn't communicate properly with his legs, his lawyer told the New York Daily News. Because of the accident, Hill can no longer work as a fitness trainer and has fallen behind in rent, Hill's lawyer said.

Hill's NYC elevator accident lawsuit also says he's now too afraid to use elevators, and must rely on his bodybuilder friends to carry him up and down 26 flights of stairs to his apartment.

Hill's NYC elevator accident suit likely alleges negligence. To succeed, he will have to prove Transel Elevator breached its duty of care in repairing the elevator and caused Hill to suffer injury. Hill's lawsuit also targets a second elevator company, Century Vertical Systems, and his landlord, Stonehenge Properties, the New York Daily News reports.

Transel is also being sued by a witness to a separate NYC elevator accident last month, in which a woman was killed. But Transel insists it hasn't worked on elevators in Hill's building since April 2010, the website Gothamist reports.

Stonehenge's chief operating officer also denied Hill's allegations, adding surveillance video shows Hill was still walking after his alleged elevator freefall. Hill's lawyer insists that's not uncommon with the type of spinal injury Hill suffered.

For his part, fitness trainer Corey Hill seems to be staying positive despite the events described in his NYC elevator accident lawsuit. "I WILL get through this and be back KICKN ASS in a NY minute!" Hill wrote in an email to his students.

Related Resources:

• Fitness Trainer Partially Paralyzed In Elevator Freefall Files Lawsuit (Gothamist)
• Defenses to Negligence Claims (FindLaw)
• New York City Personal Injury Lawyer (FindLaw)
• NYC Elevator Accident Witness to Sue for Trauma (FindLaw's Injured)

A lawsuit claims teachers in suburban Chicago forced a 6-year-old boy to crawl back to class with a broken leg and a concussion, and never even called an ambulance.

The suit, filed by the boy's parents, seeks more than $200,000 in damages from Skokie School District 68, just north of Chicago, the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

Kindergartener Rahul Chandani slipped on a snow- and ice-covered playground in January 2011, the lawsuit alleges. The boy broke his leg and hit his head on the pavement, but teachers didn't lift a finger to help, Chandani's mother told the Sun-Times.

"His teacher told him, 'You're a big boy -- I can't carry you,'" Priya Chandani said.

The teacher "told him to walk back, but his leg was broken so he fell again and then had to crawl at least 200 to 300 feet back to the school building," Priya continued. "If someone did that to me as an adult, I'd slap them."

The Chandanis are suing the school district for negligence. To succeed, they will have to prove teachers breached their duty of care by failing to help Rahul. They will also need to prove the teachers' actions -- or rather, failure to act and forcing him to crawl back to class -- caused Rahul to suffer harm.

The Chandanis' lawsuit states Rahul had to skip six weeks of school to recover from a fractured tibia, a blod clot, and a lump on his head "the size of a tennis ball." He also required rehabilitation and was "emotionally scarred," the suit states.

School officials declined to comment on the lawsuit. But lawyers for the district are likely considering whether to assert a defense -- for example, that young Rahul assumed the risk of playing on an icy playground. It's not clear, however, how they'll try to explain why teachers forced Rahul to crawl back to class and allegedly didn't try to help.

Related Resources:

• Kindergartner forced to crawl back to class with broken leg: suit (New York Daily News)
• Proving Fault: What is Negligence? (FindLaw)
• How Much is My Slip and Fall Case Really Worth? (FindLaw's Injured)
• Ind. Mother Sues School Over Son's Suicide (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)

Virginia first-grader Ammaria Johnson's allergy killed her. Her unfortunate death has now sparked renewed scrutiny and questions about whether or not EpiPen should be stocked by schools.

The EpiPen is a small device that injects epinephrine. It's prescription-only. It reverses severe symptoms of allergies.

And it might have saved Johnson's life. The first-grader suffered a severe allergic reaction during recess. She went to the school clinic with hives and was suffering from a shortness of breath. The school called 911 sometime after. When emergency crews arrived she was already in cardiac arrest, according to ABC News. She was pronounced dead at a local hospital.

Her elementary school did not stock EpiPens, reports ABC News. This meant school officials could not have administered the potentially life-saving medicine.

School policies dictate that parents are responsible for providing the school with all daily and emergency medications for their children. They are also required to keep medications up-to-date. Medications must be specific to the child.

Johnson's mother says that she did submit a plan to school officials. However, she said school officials refused to take her daughter's EpiPen. They also didn't administer over-the-counter Benadryl when her daughter displayed symptoms.

Soon, schools nationwide might have to stock the emergency allergy medication. The School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act was proposed just last month. The law would require schools to have EpiPens in stock. Schools would also be shielded from liability if they administer the EpiPen in good faith, reports ABC News.

Ammaria Johnson's allergy death may indicate that schools need to do more to protect children. If the new bill is passed, they will have to stock EpiPens in schools. It could end up saving lives.

Related Resources:

• Student's death spotlights food allergies in school (CBS News)
• Mich. Boy Killed Doing Pull-Ups When Wall Collapsed (FindLaw's Injured)
• Max Gilpin School Football Death Suit Settles (FindLaw's Injured)
• NYC Tackles Possible PCB Contamination in Schools (FindLaw's Injured)

In a unique lawsuit, Elena Zakharova is suing a Manhattan pet store for the pain and suffering experienced by her dog, Umka. Four months after she purchased the female Brussels Griffon, it developed a congenital joint disorder.

Umka is in pain every time she walks.

Though sad, pets are considered property under the law. Property can't seek damages for pain and suffering. What's the deal?

A lawyer for Elena Zakharova plans to present an argument based on animal abuse, according to CBS. Animals are more than mere property because it is a crime to abuse them. The law has thus recognized that animals feel pain and may suffer.

Breeders and sellers should therefore be liable for that pain in the same way they'd be liable for a child's slip and fall.

This argument assumes that the breeder negligently operates a puppy mill. And that the pet store owner encouraged that behavior when he knowingly purchased the animal.

Zakharova's is going to have a very tough time convincing the judge of this argument. Though the law recognizes that pets are living things, it has always considered them to be property. If legislators intended for animals to be placed on par with humans, they would have long since changed the law.

This is why Elena Zakharova has also brought a second claim in which she asserts that the pet store sold her a defective product. She spent $8,000 on veterinarian bills and $1,650 on Umka, according to the Huffington Post. At the very least, she'd like to be reimbursed.

Related Resources:

• Puppy lawyer says suffering pooch is like child, not dog (New York Post)
• Defective and Dangerous Products (FindLaw)
• Pet Lawsuits: Value on a Man's Best Friend? (FindLaw's Injured)

Speeding tickets and dates just don't mix -- ask Evangelina Paredes.

The single mom was driving through Stickney, Ill. in October when Officer Chris Collins issued her a ticket. She put the encounter behind her, only to be reminded of it two days later.

Collins had located her apartment complex and left a note on her car. In it he asked her out on a date.

She's now suing Collins and the Stickney police force, claiming invasion of privacy.

The note, which was reprinted in court filings, included these prime snippets:

• "It's Chris I'm that ugly bald Stickney cop who gave you a ticket..."
• "I have not stopped thinking about you..."
• "I don't expect a girl as attractive as you to ... go for a guy like me but I'm taking a shot anyway."
• "I did cost you $132 least I can do is buy you dinner."

Though a $132 refund would have been nice, the note scared Evangelina Paredes. She was concerned that Collins would stalk her, according to the New York Daily News. She thus sought legal advice.

The lawsuit is premised on the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, which limits access to and use of driving records. Personal information maintained by state Departments of Motor Vehicles can only be used for government business; in connection with recalls, research, litigation and insurance; and to verify personal information provided by employees.

Persons who use the information for other purposes -- such as asking a woman out on a date -- are subject to civil and criminal action under the law.  In the end, Chris Collins may actually end up spending a lot more on Evangelina Paredes than he intended.

Related Resources:

• Lawsuit: Cop issues ticket, asks for date (Associated Press)
• Invasion of Privacy (FindLaw)
• DMV Sued by Transgender Woman Over Privacy (FindLaw's Law & Daily Life)