When a person is injured or killed due to the negligence or reckless behavior of another person or party, the victim or the victim's family may be entitled to compensation. Here is an overview of recent personal injury cases that have resulted in favorable settlements or verdicts for plaintiffs.

Jury Awards $3.4 Million in Auto Accident Wrongful Death Suit

Wilton, CT - A widow was awarded $3,375,000 in a wrongful death lawsuit involving an intoxicated driver who caused a head-on collision with a motorcyclist.

Thomas Fleming, 50, was killed in July of 2009 while riding his Harley-Davidson on a Connecticut road. His motorcycle was struck head-on when Gregory Dionisio, then 21, came around a turn and crossed the double yellow lines separating the lanes.

According to Dionisio's arrest affidavit, his urine test was positive for cocaine, amphetamines and marijuana. His blood alcohol level was determined to be at .09 percent, just over the legal limit.

Testimony from Dionisio's criminal court case revealed that he had a history of drug problems.

Dionisio accepted a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to charges of driving under the influence and manslaughter with a motor vehicle. He received a five-year prison sentence.

In Dionisio's civil hearing, the jury deliberated for less than two hours before awarding Fleming's widow almost $3.4 million.

City to Pay $2 Million for Pedestrian Accident Suit

Durham, NC - City officials have reached a $2 million settlement with a man who suffered serious brain damage after being hit by a Water Management Department truck.

Reyes Abreo Gonzalez, 61, was injured in December of 2012 as he was walking through a pedestrian crosswalk in accordance with traffic signals. As the driver of the truck was making a left turn, he hit Gonzalez.

The impact of the collision put Gonzalez in a coma for nine days; Gonzales suffered severe brain damage, internal injuries, and leg fractures as a result of the accident.

Half of the settlement will be covered by the city's insurance liability policy. The other half will be funded through the city's risk-management reserve, which is funded by taxpayers.

Boat Ramp Accident Results in $560,000 Settlement

Smithtown, OH - City officials approved a $560,000 settlement with the families of two men who died after accidentally driving onto a boat ramp and plunging into the Nissequogue River.

Ryan Colvin, 25, and Robert Ungerer, 24, were driving during a rain storm in March of 2008 when Ungerer drove onto the ramp and into the river. The families of the men filed wrongful death suits against the city, alleging "negligent design, placement, and maintenance of a roadway and the signs," and negligent design, placement, and maintenance of the ramp. There were no barriers or obstructions to the boat ramp's entrance.

The city claimed that Ungerer was intoxicated at the time of the accident. However, attorneys for the victim's families argued that the toxicology reports were inaccurate because Ungerer's body had been in the river for 38 days before being recovered. During this time, the decomposing body was likely to produce ethanol, which can result in a false positive for alcohol tests.

City officials unanimously decided to settle the case rather than go to trial.

If you or a loved one has been injured or killed in an accident, contact a personal injury attorney for a case evaluation.

Hide Full Article

Employers are obligated to maintain a safe workplace for their employees, but many fail to do so, and workers are injured every year as a result. Use this list to identify workplace hazards and determine whether you may be at risk. If you have already suffered an injury in the workplace, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries, medical bills, and other losses.

Defective or Hazardous Equipment

One of the most common causes of workplace injuries is defective or hazardous equipment. Equipment may be hazardous if it is poorly designed, manufactured, assembled, or repaired. Anything from complicated heavy machinery and power tools to ladders and scaffolds can cause a disabling or fatal injury given the right circumstances. These types of accidents are particularly common at construction and mining sites.

Hazardous Materials

Many workers are exposed to toxic substances. Employees whose jobs involve working with toxic substances have a right to appropriate safeguards so they are not at an unnecessary risk for illness or injury. For example, many workers in the asbestos industry were exposed to unsafe levels of asbestos during the 20th century and are now developing mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer, and other conditions as a result.

Repetitive Motion

Workers whose jobs require them to perform one or more characteristic repetitive motions are at risk of injury. Carpal tunnel syndrome from typing is a well-known example of a repetitive motion injury that may impair a person’s ability to perform their job.

Motor Vehicle Mishaps

Motor vehicles are integral to many peoples’ jobs, and where there are motor vehicles, there is always a risk. These accidents may be caused by reckless drivers or by equipment malfunctions. They are often serious and occasionally deadly.

Insufficient Safety Guidelines

All workplaces are required to establish and enforce appropriate safety guidelines in order to protect their employees. Workplaces that fail to do so are nearly always hazardous.

Insufficient Training

Many workers are injured each year because they or their co-workers do not receive the training necessary to foster a safe workplace. All employers are obligated to train their employees thoroughly in order to avoid injuries. Workers who are undertrained or asked to perform duties for which they are unqualified put themselves and others at risk.

Reckless Co-worker Conduct

Employees can injure their co-workers when they behave recklessly or under the influence in spite of thorough safety training and appropriate guidelines. In these cases, the reckless individuals can be held responsible, but so can their supervisors and those who hired them.

Locate an Attorney Who Will Fight for You

If you have been injured on the job, it is important that you seek legal assistance. Locate an attorney in your area today who can help to protect your rights.

Hide Full Article

We all want to keep the roadways safe. Surely, keeping impaired drivers from operating motor vehicles can reduce the number of auto accidents. But as local authorities get more aggressive in their DUI reduction campaigns, some have raised concerns about drivers getting charged with DUIs even when they are following state laws. In these cases, DUI defense attorneys will work to get DUI charges dismissed or dropped due to problems with breath or blood testing results, or lack of probable cause.

Problems with the Breath Testing Device

Breath testing devices are subject to defects, as well as improper maintenance and use. These errors can result in a DUI charge being dropped or reduced:

• The breath testing device malfunctions
• The breath testing device is not properly maintained or recalibrated
• The breath test is not administered properly
• Outside factors, such as physiological or environmental factors, interfere with the results of the test

Factors that Affect the Results of Breath Tests

The presence of alcohol in the mouth can falsely inflate the results of breath tests, which are designed to measure alcohol in the alveolar air (breath from the deep lung tissue). DUI breath tests may result in inaccurate results due to:

• Gastroesophageal reflux disease, acid reflux, or heartburn, conditions in which some stomach contents travel from the stomach to the mouth
• Recent burping or vomiting
• The recent use of mouthwash 
• Certain medical conditions, including diabetes and hypoglycemia, which may trigger the production of isopropyl alcohol. This happens when the body uses fat reserves for energy due to a lack of carbohydrates; in this process, ketones are produced, and are then converted to isopropyl alcohol. Most breath tests are not designed to detect the difference between ethyl alcohol, the type that we drink, and isopropyl alcohol.
• A low carb diet can result in the same effects as those caused by diabetes and hypoglycemia.

Factors that May Affect Blood Alcohol Test Results

A number of factors can lead to falsely inflated breath-alcohol results. These include:

• The blood was not stored properly; this could mean that the blood was stored at too high or low of a temperature
• Contamination of the blood
• The blood sample was not collected properly, for example, the blood was not drawn by a trained technician
• Fermentation of the blood

Lack of Probable Cause

The police officer must have probably cause to stop your car, investigate the possibility of DUI, and arrest drivers for DUI. This means that the driver's actions must have raised reasonable suspicion or belief that a traffic violation or criminal activity occurred. An officer has probable cause if the driver is:

• Weaving in and out of the traffic lane
• Speeding
• Driving recklessly
• Seen with open alcohol containers in the vehicle

Of course, there are many other reasons for probable cause. However, if the arresting officer did not have probable cause to stop you, your DUI case could be dismissed.

If you have been charged with driving under the influence, it is in your best interest to hire a DUI defense attorney. An attorney will work to minimize the charges and sentence.

Hide Full Article

In this auto accident roundup, we take a closer look at three auto accident cases that recently resulted in multi-million dollar jury verdicts.

Jury Awards $8 Million in Illinois Semi-truck Accident Case

Cook County, Illinois - An $8 million verdict was awarded to the family of a woman who was killed after pulling over to the side of the road with a flat tire and getting hit by a semi-truck.

In February of 2010, Stacey McHale, then 36, had just pulled onto the shoulder of I-294 to check to see if she had a flat tire when she was fatally struck by an 18-wheel semi tractor-trailer. McHale was a wife and the mother of two children.

McHale's estate filed a lawsuit against Transfreight, a third-party transportation provider; Kiswani Trucking Inc., a trucking and transportation company; and Russell A. Kleppe, the driver of the truck. The jury found all three parties liable for the accident that killed McHale.

During the trial, which was tried in the Cook County Circuit Court under Judge William J. Haddad, attorneys for Transfreight argued that the corporation was not responsible for the accident. However, the jury contended that Kiswani and Kleppe were acting on behalf of the company, and found all three defendants liable.

Jury Finds Philadelphia Toyota Dealer Liable for $15.7 Million

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - A jury found a Toyota car dealership liable for $15.7 million for six passengers who were injured in a car accident.

In March of 2008, Dr. Noreen Lewis rented a Toyota Sienna minivan through PhillyCarShare so she could take her family on a trip to see her daughter's school play. While driving the vehicle, the check engine light came on and Lewis felt that there were problems with the steering wheel. She called PhillyCarShare, which offered to pay for any service needed if she brought the car to an auto service shop. Lewis and several members of her family were their way to have the car checked when the steering wheel locked and the car skidded across the road, into a ditch, and flipped several times.

Lewis suffered permanent injuries, including a fractured spine and serious cardiac contusion. She is no longer able to practice medicine or work in any other position due to her disabilities.

Lewis filed suit against PhillyCarShare and Central City Toyota, alleging that the companies failed to properly maintain the minivan, per state law.

During the trial, plaintiff's attorneys showed that a worn and deteriorated ball joint caused the crash. According to expert testimony, it takes a long time for the ball joint to wear down. The jury in the case found Central City Toyota liable for the injuries because PhillyCarShare outsources vehicle maintenance; therefore the car dealership was the sole party responsible for the maintenance of the vehicle.

The jury awarded $11.4 to Lewis and $4.3 to five passengers in the vehicle at the time of the crash.

New Jersey Jury Awards $4.2 Million in Nissan Accident Case

Essex County, New Jersey - A jury found Nissan liable for $4.2 million in a case in which a man was injured after a tire flew off a truck and struck the roof of his Nissan Altima.

Larry Clanton, 52, was injured in July of 2006 when a heavy tire cracked the roof of his car while he was driving. The force of the impact pushed his head forward, resulting in serious injuries.

Clanton filed a product liability suit against Nissan and his attorney argued that the roof's header panel was not properly attached to the roof of the vehicle.

Nissan attorneys argued that the high speeds of the tire and vehicle would have resulted in roof damage no matter what.

If you have been injured in an auto accident, contact an attorney for a case review.

Hide Full Article

When a driver has been charged with driving under the influence, a DUI attorney will determine if, due to the circumstances and evidence in your case, the charge can be reduced or dropped altogether. One option that any skilled attorney will look into is getting the DUI charge reduced to a reckless driving charge. Though reckless driving is a serious offense that will result in penalties, the degree of punishment is far less severe than those imposed on a person convicted of a DUI.

The type and severity of DUI and reckless driving penalties vary greatly by state. To learn more about the minimum and maximum DUI and reckless driving punishments in a specific state, consult an attorney who is licensed to practice in that state.

• Jail Time: Both reckless driving and DUI charges can result in jail time. However, the amount of jail time that must be served is usually far less for reckless driving offenses. In most cases, a reckless driving offense may carry a sentence of no jail time to a few days of jail time, while a DUI charge could result in up to a year in jail. In addition, drivers arrested for a DUI typically must spend at least a few hours in jail after the arrest, while drivers charged with reckless driving may simply be ticketed and allowed to drive home.
• Fines: Those convicted of reckless driving will pay lower fines and court fees than drivers convicted of a DUI.
• Your Record: In many states, a reckless driving charge is a lesser offense than a DUI. For example, in Florida, a DUI is a first-degree misdemeanor, while a reckless driving charge is a second-degree misdemeanor. It is important to note that in certain cases, such as when driving under the influence or reckless driving results in bodily injury, the charges could be upgraded to a felony offense.
• Impounded Car: In most states, authorities impound the vehicle when drivers are arrested for drunk driving. The car may be impounded for several days, and the owner of the vehicle must pay the impound fee in order to get the car back. Some states may also impound the car when a driver is ticketed for reckless driving; however, this usually only happens when the driver is charged with another offense.
• Revocation of the License: DUI punishments often involve the suspension or restriction of the driver's license. The license may be restricted or revoked in reckless driving cases, but this typically only happens when the driver committed other offenses.

Additional Drunk Driving Penalties

In addition to the penalties mentioned above, those convicted of a DUI may also be sentenced to:

• Alcohol or Drug Education Classes: Drivers convicted of DUI are often required to attend a minimum number of drug or alcohol courses within a set time period.
• Ignition Interlock Device: An ignition interlock device analyzes the alcohol content of a driver's breath before he or she can start the motor. When an ignition interlock device is installed, the driver is required to blow into the device every time they want to start the car. If the breath-alcohol content is too high, the car won't start.
• Probation: When a person is convicted of a DUI, they may be placed under probation for a pre-determined amount of time.

Consult a DUI attorney in your state to find out if your case can be reduced to a reckless driving charge.

Hide Full Article

A 12-car crash that occurred in the final lap of a second-tier race at Daytona caused a racer's car to go airborne, sending large pieces of debris into the stands; 33 spectators were injured.

Two fans were listed in critical condition on Saturday, the day of the crash; their condition was upgraded to stable on Sunday. Others were treated on the scene or at the hospital.

The incident raises the possibility of personal injury litigation against NASCAR, the Daytona International Speedway, and the International Speedway Corporation. However, these parties have adopted measures to protect themselves from personal injury liability at sporting events.

Admission Ticket Disclaimers

The disclaimers on the Daytona admissions tickets warn spectators of the risk of injury:

"The holder of this ticket expressly assumes all risk incident to the event, whether occurring prior to, during or subsequent to the actual event, and agrees that all participants, sanctioning bodies, and all employees, agents, officers, and directors of Daytona International Speedway, its affiliates and subsidiaries, are hereby released from any and all claims arising from the event, including claims of negligence."

In fact, it is a widespread practice for owners of sports businesses and complexes to include this type of language on ticket stubs. This type of disclaimer is common on admissions tickets to baseball fields, hockey stadiums, and ski resorts. The use of disclaimers can waive owner's liability in some cases, but it does not absolve them of the responsibility of maintaining a safe environment for ticket buyers.

Possible Personal Injury Claims

The owners and organizers of sporting events should enact appropriate measures to keep fans as safe as possible. In the Daytona case, personal injury attorneys for the injured spectators would want to determine if fencing of an adequate strength was used, and if the seats were an appropriate distance from the racetrack. If attorneys could show that the fencing was not strong enough or that the seats were in a dangerous location and that organizers of the race were aware of these problems, the injured fans may have a viable personal injury case. It is important to note that the plaintiffs would be required to show that NASCAR, the Daytona International Speedway, and/or the International Speedway Corporation acted negligently.

Injured fans may have a viable product liability case if their attorneys could show that the company hired to build the safety fence did not construct a strong enough barrier.

Confidential Settlements

According to Securities and Exchange Commission Filings, NASCAR tracks are required to have a $50 million insurance policy to cover injuries suffered by spectators.

Yet, court documents show that public personal injury lawsuits are rarely filed against the International Speedway Corporation.

Legal experts say that large companies such as the International Speedway Corporation are more likely to offer substantial, confidential settlements upfront to avoid the negative publicity that comes with a public lawsuit.

If you have been seriously injured at a sporting event, it is in your best interest to obtain the legal guidance of a qualified personal injury attorney. Contact a personal injury lawyer today.

Hide Full Article

In this DUI news roundup, we take a closer look at three DUI cases in which the charges were dropped or reduced.

Former Rhode Island House Rep's DUI Charge Is Dropped

The DUI charges that were filed against former Rhode Island House Minority Leader Robert Watson have been dropped.

Watson was arrested in East Haven, Connecticut in April of 2011 for driving while intoxicated and possession of marijuana after being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint.

According to the arresting officer's police report, Watson appeared to be under the influence, with slurred speech and glassy eyes; the officer detected the odor of alcohol and marijuana; Watson failed three field sobriety tests; and the officer found marijuana and a pipe in the pocket of Watson's pants.

Watson then submitted to a breath test, which registered a 0.05 percent blood-alcohol level, and a urine test, which registered a 0.07 percent blood-alcohol level, both under the legal limit. In Connecticut, the legal limit is 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level. However, Watson also tested positive for marijuana and cocaine

Watson's attorney, Charles Tiernan, argued that the urine test should not be admissible in court because the test was not administered within two hours of driving; in addition, Watson was not given the results of the test within 24 hours as required by law.

The state prosecutor opted to drop the DUI charge rather than pursue the case.

According to Tiernan, the state dismissed the drug charges upon Watson's completion of a drug education program.

Actor Thomas Gibson's Plea Deal in DUI Case

TV actor Thomas Gibson's DUI case has been resolved quickly, with the actor striking a plea deal with prosecutors. Gibson pleaded no contest to one count of alcohol-related reckless driving; in turn, authorities will drop the DUI charge.

Gibson was sentenced to one year of alcohol education classes and three years of probation, and fined $300 in court fees.

Gibson was arrested in Los Angeles in early January after trying to drive through streets that had been blocked off for a marathon. According to reports, police officers smelled alcohol on Gibson, but Gibson refused to submit to a breathalyzer test.

Ohio Mayor's DUI Charge Reduced

Hanging Rock Mayor Christopher Davidson's DUI charges were reduced due to lack of evidence.

Davidson pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of physical control, which means being in the driver's seat and in possession of the ignition device while under the influence.

Davidson was initially arrested on physical control charges; these charges were then changed to DUI charges.

The arrest took place after the Ohio State Highway Patrol and an officer for the Ironton Police Department checked on a suspicious vehicle parked in a subdivision.

According to the police report in the case, the officers made contact with Davidson, who smelled of alcohol and was slurring his speech. After failing field sobriety tests, Davidson was arrested.

Prosecutors declined to charge Davidson with a DUI, saying there was no evidence showing that Davidson was operating the vehicle.

After pleading guilty to the physical control charges, Davidson received a 10 days suspended county jail sentence and one year of probation, and was fined $350 plus court costs.

Hide Full Article

The unintended acceleration problems that have plagued Toyota for the last four years have cost the company billions of dollars in legal fees. Throughout all of the cases, however, Toyota has stood behind the safety of its electronic throttle control system. Today, no evidence has been found indicating a defect with the electronic throttle control system. Instead, the acceleration problems have been blamed on driver error, sticky gas pedals, and incompatible floor mats.

September, 2010: $10 Million Settlement in the San Diego Wrongful Death Case

Toyota's acceleration issues gained widespread attention after a Toyota-made Lexus accelerated to speeds of more than 120 mph, resulting in an accident and the death of four passengers in August of 2009. California Highway Patrol officer Mark Saylor was driving the vehicle, which was on loan from a local dealership while his car was in for repairs. With him were his wife and daughter, along with his brother-in-law Christopher Lastrella.

According to a 911 call Lastrella made shortly before the accident occurred, the Lexus began accelerating on its own. Attempts to brake and slow the vehicle were unsuccessful. As the Lexus approached a busy intersection, it hit a car, careened over an embankment, and flew through the air before rolling into a field and catching fire.

The San Diego Sheriff's Department determined that the floor mats that were installed by the dealership were incompatible and installed incorrectly, trapping the accelerator.

But plaintiff attorneys and safety advocates have argued that the electronic throttle control system may be defective, resulting in acceleration problems. Government data showing that unintended acceleration occurs more frequently in Toyota vehicles, along with personal accounts of the problem from Toyota drivers, supported these claims.

Toyota has maintained that faulty floor mats, sticky gas pedals, and driver error caused the San Diego accident, as well as any other cases of unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles.

The families of the victims agreed to a $10 million settlement with Toyota in September of 2010. In the agreement, all product liability claims against Toyota were dropped.

December, 2012: $1.1 Billion Class Action Settlement in Economic Losses Case

After the Saylor accident, Toyota recalled more than 5.3 million cars for floor mat problems, and more than 2.75 million for sticky gas pedals. The company was fined more than $66 million by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for not addressing the acceleration issues sooner. Hundreds of consumers filed lawsuits against the company claiming economic losses due to the acceleration problems; these lawsuits were consolidated into a class action suit.

In December of 2012, Toyota opted to settle the class action suit for $1.1 billion. The terms of the settlement include new safety systems and reimbursement of up to 16 million cars, including:

• The installation of brake-override equipment on 3.25 million vehicles
• Extended warranties for certain components, including engine control modules
• Owners of Toyota vehicles who sold their cars or turned in their leases between Sept. 1, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2010 due to poor publicity are eligible for cash payment
• If the brake-override system can't be installed in the Toyota vehicle, the owner is eligible for cash payment
• New driver education programs
• Funding for safety technology research

Although Toyota agreed to the settlement, the company has not issued any admission of fault in the acceleration cases. Toyota has maintained that driver error, thick floor mats, and sticky accelerators were the causal factors for the problem, not an electronic defect; the government agreed with Toyota.

January, 2013: Undisclosed Settlement in Utah Wrongful Death and Injury Case

Although Toyota settled cases regarding economic losses due to the acceleration issues, there are still hundreds of injury and wrongful death cases pending against Toyota. One of the bellwether cases involves an accident that killed two and injured two others.

In November of 2010, Paul Van Alfen was driving a Toyota Camry on the highway when it began to accelerate. As he exited the freeway, Van Alfen unsuccessfully attempted to stop the vehicle. The car ran a stop sign, went through an intersection, and crashed into a wall. The accident killed Van Alfen and his son's fiancé, and injured his wife and son.

According to the Utah Highway Patrol, a sticky gas pedal caused the crash.

The settlement will not affect pending injury and wrongful death lawsuits, but legal observers say it could be an indication of how other cases will fare.

However, Toyota officials said they might settle certain injury and wrongful death cases, but also expect a chance to defend their products at trial.

"We sympathize with anyone in an accident involving one of our vehicles," a Toyota statement said, "however we continue to stand fully behind the safety and integrity of Toyota's electronic throttle control system, which multiple independent evaluations have confirmed as safe."

Hide Full Article

The U.S. Supreme Court will determine if it is a violation of a person's Fourth Amendment right when a blood test is performed on an unwilling DUI suspect without a warrant.

Today, both sides of a Missouri DUI case were presented to the court justices. The case involves defendant Tyler McNeely, who was stopped by state Highway Patrolman Mark Winder in 2012 for speeding and swerving. Court documents state that McNeely appeared unsteady, failed field sobriety testing, and had two previous DUI convictions.

Winder requested a breathalyzer test, which McNeely refused, and then took the suspect to a hospital for a blood test, which he also refused. Winder ordered the lab tech to take the blood sample despite the lack of McNeely's consent; the result showed a blood-alcohol level of .154, more than twice the legal limit.

During McNeely's state trial, his attorneys argued that their client's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated because a warrant was not obtained for the blood test. Records show that Winder did not make an attempt to secure a warrant for the blood test, though he had cause to obtain one.

The state of Missouri argued that the time it would take to obtain a warrant for the blood test would result in the loss or destruction of evidence because the amount of alcohol in the blood would continue to decrease. They based their argument on a 1966 case, Schmerber v. California, in which a judge ruled that there is a limited exception to the Fourth Amendment; in the Schmerber case, there was an accident to investigate and the need for immediate medical attention, so the judge ruled that there was no time for the involved officer to secure a warrant.

In January 2012, the state trial judge ruled in favor of McNeely, stating that the patrolman in this case, Winder, had adequate time to obtain a warrant since none of the extenuating circumstances of the Schmerber case applied to McNeely's case.

The following May, the state of Missouri asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the McNeely case. Attorneys for Missouri and the federal government have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the trial judge's decision and allow law enforcement to take blood tests without a warrant or suspect's consent.

McNeely is being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union who say that there are no special circumstances in McNeely's case that would allow his Fourth Amendment right to be violated.

While arguments were heard today, some of the justices indicated that law enforcement should try to obtain a warrant, especially when there is time and cause.

Justice Antonin Scalia asked, "Why shouldn't the determination be made case to case?"

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of unwarranted DUI blood tests by summer.

Currently, all states have laws that require DUI suspects to consent to blood tests; if they refuse, their driver's licenses can be suspended and the refusal can be used against them in court.

Hide Full Article

In the aftermath of a truck accident, victims may be confused about how to proceed. Below we offer answers to some frequently asked questions about accidents involving large trucks; however, there is no substitute for the advice of a skilled attorney who can answer any concerns you may have and help you understand your legal rights.

Why is a trucking accident case different from an auto accident case?

Many factors make a trucking accident lawsuit distinct from an auto accident suit. Because most truck drivers are engaged in a job-related activity at the time of the collisions, their employer bears responsibility for ensuring their drivers are properly trained and operating within the limits of the law. Truck drivers are also required to carry higher amounts of insurance coverage and adhere to stricter safety standards.

Why are accidents involving commercial trucks more dangerous?

The typical passenger vehicle weighs 3,000 pounds, while a commercial truck can weigh between 10,000 and 80,000 pounds. This significant size disparity can make accidents involving big rigs or semi trucks and standard passenger vehicles much more dangerous for the occupants of the smaller vehicle.

What should I do after a semi truck or big rig accident?

Motor vehicle accidents involving large trucks are common causes of personal injury. Knowing how to proceed after an accident is an important way to ensure your safety and rights are protected. You may also want to contact an attorney for an evaluation of your case.

When should I contact an attorney?

After an accident involving a large truck occurs, you should contact an attorney as soon as possible. Each state has time deadlines that limit the amount of time you have to file a claim. An attorney can start working right away to investigate your case and preserve essential evidence.

What types of compensation can be recovered?

If you have been injured or a family member has been injured or killed in a trucking accident, you may be eligible to recover damages for past and future loss of wages, physical impairment or disfigurement, decreased quality of life, emotional distress, pain and suffering, and reimbursement of past and future medical expenses or funeral expenses.

What is a semi truck "no-zone"?

The "no-zone" is the term for the areas behind and beside a commercial vehicle where the driver has extremely limited or no visibility. Driving in the no-zone can substantially increase your chances of being in an accident and should be avoided whenever possible.

What are some of the common factors in accidents involving big rigs?

Inadequate driver training, excessive speed, mechanical failure, and poor visibility are common factors in collisions involving large trucks. Read more about these and other common causes of trucking accidents.

How do I choose an attorney to handle my case?

Check the credentials of any attorneys you meet with, and be sure to discuss fees, trial experience with your type of case, and other concerns. Trust your judgment. You should select a lawyer in your area that you feel comfortable with and who is able to answer your questions openly, honestly, and respectfully.

Hide Full Article

Auto accident cases in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Utah resulted in millions of dollars worth of personal injury settlements in the past few weeks.

$4 Million Settlement in Connecticut Police Cruiser Accident

A $4 million settlement has been obtained in a Connecticut auto accident case that resulted in the death of a teenage couple after the car they were driving was hit by a police officer.

Ashlie M. Krakowski, who was 19 when she died, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by David Servin,19, who was also killed in the collision. A Milford police car going more than 90 miles per hour broadsided their car.

Jason Anderson, the police officer who was driving the police cruiser, was returning from a disturbance call when the accident occurred. The police department fired him six months after the incident occurred.

On November 7, Anderson was found guilty of misconduct with a motor vehicle and reckless driving, and not guilty of two counts of second-degree manslaughter. He will be sentenced on January 16, and could receive up to 10 years in prison.

Krakowski's estate will receive $2.8 million, while $1.2 million will go to legal fees. The city's insurance carrier will pay $3.5 million.

The insurance carrier for the parent's of David Servin will pay the remaining $500,000. During Anderson's trial, his lawyer intended to show evidence that Servin and Krakowski had been drinking, and that Servin was in possession of marijuana.

In March, the Servins obtained a $2.5 million settlement in their suit against the city and Anderson.

New Jersey Family of Quadriplegic Man Obtains $2 Million Settlement

A New Jersey family has obtained a $2 million settlement for an accident that left a young man paralyzed. The case was settled while the jury was deliberating on the case after a lengthy, weeks' long trial.

The family and attorneys of James Griffin, 26, claimed that an improperly maintained county road caused the car accident that left Griffin quadriplegic. The suit says that Griffin lost control of his car and was hit by an oncoming vehicle due to a pool of water that had formed in the road as a result of poor drainage.

County attorneys say there is a lack of evidence showing that a large puddle of water had developed in the road, and that the county regularly inspects and maintains the roadways.

The settlement does not indicate any admission of fault for the county.

Motorcycle Accident Victim Obtains Settlement from the State

The state of Utah agreed to a $648,700 settlement for a college student who was struck by a maintenance vehicle while riding his motorcycle on the Utah Valley University campus.

Parker Eads was injured when a driver of a maintenance truck made an improper turn, hitting Eads and throwing him under another vehicle. The accident resulted in serious injuries to Eads' right leg. He underwent several surgeries before the leg was amputated below the knee.

The settlement, which is the maximum under Utah's liability caps, was awarded to cover the costs of Eads' medical expenses relating to the crash. According to state law, legislators must approve settlements over $500,000; in this case, the approval vote was unanimous.

Hide Full Article

We all know that most states have established a 0.08% blood-alcohol level as the maximum legal limit for drivers over the age of 21. But with the recent legalization of recreational marijuana in Washington state and Colorado, public policy officials, marijuana advocates, defense attorneys, and the general public have raised concerns about DUI laws for drivers under the influence of marijuana.

Washington State Marijuana Driving Limits

According to Washington state's Initiative 502, which goes into effect December 6, people over the age of 21 can possess up to an ounce of marijuana; the driving limit has been set at 5 nanograms of active THC per millimeter of blood (5 ng/mL). The intention was to set the limit at an impairment level that is equivalent to the 0.08% blood-alcohol level.

The 5 ng/mL limit has been the subject of much debate. Supporters of it say the 5 ng/mL limit measures a level of impairment that is about equal to that of state imposed blood-alcohol limits, and will help keep the roads safe and prevent accidents. Critics say that the standard is too low and doesn't take into account the variability of the drug's effect on a casual versus a chronic user.

Setting a Reasonable Standard

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, users of marijuana experience the greatest degree of impairment during and within three hours of smoking the substance. To determine if a person has recently used marijuana, active THC is tested in whole blood. However, setting a reasonable limit has proven difficult for several reasons:

• Lawmakers have been unable to agree on a standard impairment level for drivers due to lack of research.
• Marijuana affects users differently; a casual user and chronic user may not have the same level of impairment even if they test at the same limit.
• Some studies have found that active THC remains in chronic users' systems for longer periods of time, even if the person as quit smoking.

The makers of Initiative 502 stated that they set the legal limit to address public fear about the legalization of marijuana increasing the number of DUI accidents. The set standard has been heavily critiqued, and lawmakers are expecting defense attorneys to challenge to the law.

Is the Legal Limit Set Too Low?

New Approach Washington, the group that proposed and filed the initiative's legal limits, initially cited a meta-analysis study by Grotenhermen, Leson, and other researchers as a basis for the 5 ng/mL. In it, researchers said:

The results of some 20 studies on cannabis and driving are somewhat inconsistent. The most meaningful recent culpability studies indicate that drivers with THC concentrations in whole blood of less than 5 ng/mL have a crash risk no higher than that of drug-free users. The crash risk apparently begins to exceed that of sober drivers as THC concentrations in whole blood reach 5-10 ng/mL (corresponding to about 10-20 ng/mL in blood serum or plasma). Because recent studies involved only a few drivers with THC concentrations in that critical range, a reliable assessment of the associated crash risk is still lacking.

Defense attorneys and pro-marijuana advocates argue that there is not adequate scientific evidence to support the 5 ng/mL limit because these studies did not include a large enough test group.

What about Chronic or Medical Users?

Further, critics of the law say that chronic or medical users of marijuana tend to have higher THC levels even when they haven't smoked for hours. According to a National Institute on Drug Abuse study in which 25 chronic users were locked up in a facility and abstained from smoking for seven days:

Substantial whole blood THC concentrations persist multiple days after drug discontinuation in heavy chronic cannabis users.

In addition, there were fluctuations in positive and negative results:

For the first time to our knowledge, negative whole blood specimens were found interspersed between positive samples.

This study was cited by New Approach Washington, but these excerpts were not referenced.

Will the Limit Stick?

There is no doubt that opponents question the science involved in the creation of the 5ng/mL limit. According to Washington State Rep. Roger Goodman, there are concerns

"as to how reliable this 5 nanogram is. There is not much science behind it so I'm expecting challenges in the future."

Colorado Marijuana Driving Limits

The makers of Colorado's pot legalization measure did not set a legal limit for driving and marijuana use. The issue has proven divisive in the past, with lawmakers attempting (and failing) to set a limit three times; they plan on trying to work on setting a standard next year.

Other State Marijuana Driving Limits

Although opponents of the 5 ng/mL limit say they will fight the set limit, Washington State will actually have one of the highest limits when it comes to marijuana and driving. These states have also enacted legal limits for active THC in the blood:

• Nevada*: 2 ng/mL
• Ohio: 2 ng/mL
• Montana*: 5 ng/mL
• Pennsylvania: 5 ng/mL (health department guideline that can be used in driving cases.)

*Medical marijuana state

If you have been charged with driving under the influence of marijuana, contact a DUI attorney.

Hide Full Article

Read about two auto accident cases that were recently settled in Washington state and California.

A $6 Million Settlement in Dump Truck Crash Case

A Washington family was awarded a $6 million settlement for injuries that resulted when a dump truck that was loaded beyond capacity crashed into their broken down car.

The accident occurred on Feb. 8, 2010, when the family's car became disabled. The mother, who was driving, pulled the vehicle to the right of the road and came to a stop alongside the highway barrier; there was no shoulder. According to reports, she turned on her hazard lights and called a tow truck company.

Soon after, a dump truck hit the back of the family's vehicle, pushing it more than 200 yards forward and causing multiple collisions with the barrier.

The crash resulted in serious injuries for the son and daughter, including skull fractures, broken bones, and other serious injuries.

A state investigation found that the driver of the dump truck acted negligently in his failure to avoid the car. In addition, it was found that the dump truck was over capacity, with more than 22,000 pounds of excess weight.

Attorneys for the family obtained the $6 million settlement from the trucking company's insurance company. After attorney fees, the majority of the settlement, $4.3 million, will go to the son. About $800,000 will go to the daughter, with the remaining amount going to the parents.

A separate lawsuit against the company that overloaded the dump truck is pending.

Wrong Way Crash Results in $4.8 Million Settlement

A $4.8 million settlement has been obtained in a California wrong way accident that resulted in two fatalities and two serious injuries.

The accident took place on November 8, 2009, when a driver heading the wrong way on the freeway crashed head-on into a vehicle driven by Marcos Arredondo, 18. Arredondo and a passenger were killed. Arredondo's two sisters, who were sitting in the back seat, suffered permanent injuries.

The wrong way driver, Richard Rodriguez, was convicted of driving under the influence and traveling the wrong way on the freeway; he received a 13-year state prison sentence and was ordered to pay restitution.

This lawsuit, however, named the county and the Sheriff's Department. The claim alleged that the sheriff's department failed to adequately train officers to handle wrong way drivers.

According to the suit, the sheriff deputy did not turn on his flashing lights or signals as he slowly merged onto the freeway. After a car driven by Arredondo's father, Jose, and Marcos Arredondo's cars passed the sheriff, the sheriff turned on his lights and sirens. Jose Arredondo thought he was being pulled over, and moved out of the lane as Rodriguez's car came through and hit the vehicle driven by Marcos Arredondo.

A representative for the sheriff's department stated that the deputy involved in the case properly followed policy and that the department and county are not admitting to any wrongdoing for the accident.

If you have been injured in an auto accident, you may be entitled to compensation. Contact a personal injury attorney for a review of your case.

Hide Full Article

In this personal injury news round-up, we examine a motorcycle case that reaped a settlement of almost $2 million, a police chase auto accident case that resulted in a $1.3 million settlement, and a bicycle accident hit-and-run case that led to a $635,000 settlement.

Motorcycle Accident Victim Wins $1.9 Million Settlement

The Catholic Diocese of Joliet was found liable for a $1.9 million settlement, which was awarded to an Illinois man who was injured in a 2006 motorcycle accident.

Father Raymond Garbin was driving a car owned by the Catholic Diocese of Joliet when he hit the back of the motorcycle driven by Bill Egbert, a former police officer. At the time, Egbert was stopped at a red light. Though Egbert was wearing a helmet, he sustained a closed head injury and other injuries when the impact caused him to slam into the car's windshield.

Garbin was cited for failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident.

The settlement between the two parties was reached when the case was pending before Judge Susan O'Leary in the Circuit Court of Will County.

Police Chase Accident Results in $1.36 Million Settlement

Taxpayers in Chicago will pay $1.36 million to a man who suffered serious injuries when a driver who was being chased by police hit his car.

William Kurtz' vehicle was hit head-on when Pablo Mendoza drifted across the center line while the police were pursuing him. Kurtz suffered major injuries to the feet and legs, which affect his ability to walk and cause chronic pain. As a result of his injuries, Kurtz was no longer able to keep his job as a towing company maintenance supervisor.

According to testimony on the case, the police officers involved in the police chase did not notify their supervisor that they believed Mendoza was intoxicated. The supervisor told the police officers to stop the pursuit, but the officers said they never heard the request because they were not tuned into dispatch radio communications.

A previous accident involving a 1999 police chase resulted in the establishment of a policy that requires police officers to obtain approval from a supervisor before engaging in a pursuit, and to stop the chase when the offender does not obey traffic signals.

Upon review of the case, a City Council committee approved the settlement in Kurtz' favor.

Family Receives $635,000 Settlement in Hit-and-Run Case

A $635,000 settlement has been awarded to a 13-year-old Pennsylvania boy who was riding his bike when he was struck by a car that fled the scene.

Richard Hollawell was injured in 2009 when Suzanne Lammers hit him, and then left the scene without checking on his welfare. She later told police that she thought she hit a deer, but her car revealed front-end damage consistent with the case.

Lammers was subsequently charged with leaving the scene of an accident causing injury and sentenced to 90 days in prison, which she served.

If you have been injured in an auto accident of any kind, it is important to consult an experienced personal injury attorney as soon as possible.

Hide Full Article

In this article, we have compiled some interesting data, including the states that rank the highest and lowest for vehicle miles traveled, alcohol consumption per capita, and DUI arrest rates.

Alcohol Consumption Per Capita

A report published by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism estimates the amount of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, and spirits) that is consumed by the average individual each year; the study uses data from 2010's beverage sales, tax receipt reports, and shipment information from beverage industry sources to rank states based on the estimated amount of alcohol consumption per capita.

States with Highest Alcohol Consumption Per Capita

The following is the average amount of ethanol (pure alcohol) that is consumed per person, based on population age 14 and older.

1. New Hampshire: 4.44 gallons
2. District of Columbia: 3.84 gallons
3. Nevada: 3.3 gallons
4. Delaware: 3.09 gallons
5. Alaska: 3.03 gallons
6. North Dakota: 2.93 gallons
7. Wisconsin: 2.76 gallons
8. Vermont: 2.74 gallons
9. Colorado: 2.71 gallons
10. Nebraska: 2.31 gallons

States with Lowest Alcohol Consumption Per Capita

The following is the average amount of ethanol (pure alcohol) that is consumed per person, based on population age 14 and older.

1. Utah: 1.35 gallons
2. Kentucky: 1.78 gallons
3. Arkansas: 1.81 gallons
4. West Virginia: 1.83 gallons
5. Tennessee: 1.88 gallons
6. Oklahoma: 1.92 gallons
7. Kansas: 1.95 gallons
8. Georgia: 1.97 gallons
9. Alabama: 1.97 gallons
10. North Carolina: 2.0 gallons

Source: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Surveillance95/tab2_10.htm

Miles Driven on the Highways

Each year, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics releases the State Transportation Statistics, which includes data on the number of highway vehicle miles driven using information that is submitted by the states and analyzed by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

States with Highest Vehicle-Miles Traveled

The following is the estimated number of miles driven per person, ranking the 10 states with the highest vehicle-miles traveled per capita in 2010.

1. Wyoming: 16,948 miles
2. Mississippi: 13,414
3. Alabama: 13,408
4. Oklahoma: 12,698
5. New Mexico: 12,259
6. North Dakota: 12,248
7. Missouri: 11,819
8. Indiana: 11,672
9. Vermont: 11,579
10. Georgia: 11,503

States with Lowest Vehicle-Miles Traveled

The following is the estimated number of miles driven per person, ranking the 10 states with the lowest vehicle-miles traveled per capita in 2010.

1. District of Columbia: 5,936
2. Alaska: 6,719
3. New York: 6,767
4. Hawaii: 7,331
5. Nevada: 7,809
6. Rhode Island: 7,867
7. Pennsylvania: 7,889
8. Illinois: 8,238
9. Massachusetts: 8,293
10. New Jersey: 8,299

Source: http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_statistics/state_transportation_statistics_2011/html/table_05_03.html

DUI Arrest Rates

The DUI arrest rates listed in this section were compiled based on 2009's driving under the influence arrest data from the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics from the University at Albany and 2010's total state population numbers (all ages) from the U.S. Census Bureau.

States with the Highest DUI Arrest Rate

The states with the highest arrest rates, based on number of arrests and population, are:

1. Wyoming: 1.17%
2. Idaho: 0.78%
3. Alaska: 0.75%
4. Nebraska: 0.71%
5. South Dakota: 0.70%
6. Wisconsin: 0.67%
7. Arizona: 0.61%
8. North Dakota: 0.58%
9. New Mexico: 0.56%
10. Nevada: 0.56%

States with the Lowest DUI Arrest Rate

The states with the lowest arrest rates, based on arrest rates and population, are:

1. District of Columbia: 0.01%
2. Delaware: 0.03%
3. Illinois : 0.03%
4. Ohio: 0.16%
5. New York: 0.19%
6. Louisiana: 0.19%
7. Massachusetts: 0.19%
8. Washington: 0.24%
9. Rhode Island: 0.25%
10. West Virginia: 0.26%

Sources: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/tost_4.html#4_c, http://www.census.gov/

It is interesting to note that the District of Columbia has the lowest vehicle miles traveled and DUI arrest rates, despite having one of the highest rates of alcohol consumption. Alaska, on the other hand, is low on the vehicles miles traveled list, but ranks high on the alcohol consumption per capita and DUI arrest lists. North Dakota ranks in the top 10 on all lists: vehicle miles traveled, alcohol consumption per capita, and DUI arrest rate.

If you have been charged with a DUI, consult a qualified lawyer as soon as possible.

Hide Full Article

Drug charges are pursued very aggressively at state and federal levels. Many people consider personal drug use to be a "victimless crime" and are surprised to learn that penalties for possessing even a small amount of illegal drugs can be extremely harsh. Read on for information about drug crimes.

DUI/DWI

Driving while intoxicated or while under the influence of liquor or drugs is a serious offense. Charges can vary depending on whether you have prior DUI convictions or if a traffic accident occurred. If you have been charged with DUI, DUI lawyers may be able to assist you in obtaining a lighter sentence or getting the case dismissed.

Drug Cultivation

Drug cultivation is the growth of certain plants used to produce unlawful or illegal controlled substances. Charges vary with the quantity involved and whether intended for personal use or for wider distribution. Drug cultivation charges need immediate attention and qualified drug offense lawyers will fight for your rights.

Drug Distribution

Distribution charges include activities related to the sale, transport, or import of illegal drugs. State and federal penalties differ with the type and quantity of drug and whether minors were involved. If you are charged with distribution, you will need the services of a qualified drug offense lawyer.

Drug Importation

Severe penalties exist for bringing unlawful or illegal drugs into the United States from another country. If you are charged with drug importation, it is imperative that you seek qualified drug offense lawyers so you can find one who is experienced in defending drug importation cases.

Manufacturing of Drugs

State or federal government can prosecute for manufacturing drugs or possessing certain "precursor chemicals" associated with the manufacture of drugs. Recent crackdowns on drug crimes and harsh sentencing guidelines make drug manufacturing charges extremely serious. Anyone charged with drug manufacturing should retain a drug offense lawyer right away.

Drug Possession with Intent to Sell

Intent to sell charges can be brought even if no sale has taken place. Authorities will consider the quantity and packaging of the drugs and the location of the arrest when bringing charges. If charged with possession with intent to sell, you will need a qualified drug offense lawyer to represent you.

Drug Trafficking

Trafficking is a broad term encompassing manufacture, sale, delivery, or possession of certain drugs in large quantities. If prosecuted federally, trafficking charges can carry a maximum sentence of life in prison. If you are facing drug trafficking charges, you should involve drug offense lawyers as soon as possible.

Transportation of Drugs

If you have been charged with transportation of drugs, a strong and fast defense by a successfully experienced drug offense lawyer is your best chance to have charges dismissed or reduced, or to get the minimal punishment if you are convicted.

Find DUI and Drug Offense Lawyers

If you are charged with any DUI or drug offense, you should not represent yourself in court. You are free to select a defense lawyer who offers you the maximum chance to have a successful outcome. When you really care about your future, you want the best

Hide Full Article

If you or a loved one have been injured in a truck accident, it is important to know how to proceed afterwards. Because a commercial truck may soon travel to another state after an accident occurs, it is crucial to immediately document the collision fully, in as great detail as possible. Evidence that may be pivotal to accurately documenting the accident can disappear rapidly, lessening your chances of successfully obtaining proper compensation.

At the Scene of A Trucking Accident

At the scene of an auto or semi truck accident, you should first be sure that any and all injured parties receive medical attention. Disabled vehicles should be moved from traffic if it is possible to do so without risking further injury. By law, all involved parties must provide their names, addresses, driver’s license numbers, and insurance information.

In addition, it may be helpful to do the following:

• Obtain names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of any witnesses
• Obtain the names of all police officers who responded to the accident
• Photograph the locations of the vehicles involved and any visible damage
• Photograph skid marks, debris, or other evidence, if available
• Record the exact location and time of day the accident occurred
• Note the weather and road conditions, traffic signs, and other relevant information
• Contact your insurance company as soon as you are able, from the scene of the accident if possible

For your protection, do not admit fault at any time. When speaking with police, other parties involved in the accident, or bystanders, do not volunteer any information other than what is requested of you and required by law. Do not discuss your state of mind, personal condition, or any matters unrelated to the accident itself. These precautions will help minimize the chances of legal difficulties. If you have been injured, it is important to speak with a knowledgeable truck accident personal injury attorney as soon as possible to investigate the accident and preserve valuable evidence.

Locate a Qualified Attorney near You

Informed trucking accident attorneys are dedicated to assisting victims and their families move forward and helping them understand the immediate and long-term steps to take to help ensure safety and provide protection from a legal standpoint.

Hide Full Article

Schools, churches, and other community organizations often use 15 passenger vans to transport large numbers of passengers and cargo. The prevalence of these vehicles on our roads and their frequent use for transporting youths and children has led many people assume that the proper measures have been taken to ensure safe travel. Unfortunately, there are a number of design flaws that can contribute to the serious injury or death of passengers in 15 passenger vans. Furthermore, many drivers of these vans have had no additional training regarding the safe operation of larger vehicles. These factors combine to make 15 passenger vans among the most unsafe vehicles on our roads.

Common 15 Passenger Risks

Over- or Under-inflated Tires

The majority of auto accidents associated with 15 passenger vans occur when tires are either over- or under-inflated, causing the driver to lose control and possibly roll the vehicle. While driver awareness of this issue would certainly help reduce the number of accidents caused by improper tire inflation, an electronic stability control system would also greatly reduce the potential of serious rollover accidents. Unfortunately, this feature is not currently required to be added to new vehicles.

Heavy or Unbalanced Load

Another common cause of 15 passenger van rollovers is a heavy or unbalanced load in the vehicle or strapped to the roof. Though these vehicles are designed and marketed to accommodate larger numbers of passengers and cargo than most private vehicles, safety experts attest that it is not, in fact, safe to operate these vans with a full passenger load. Furthermore, the addition of cargo to the back or to the top of the van leads to increased instability and can heighten the risk of a rollover.

Common 15 Passenger Accident Injuries

Injuries suffered during a 15 passenger van rollover accident can be especially severe due to the large, open cabin configuration and the tendency of van passengers not to use seatbelts. Many victims of 15 passenger vans suffer burn injuries, head trauma, broken bones, and spinal cord injuries that could lead to a lifetime of disability. Transportation safety experts suggest that drivers of 15 passenger vans attend special training so that they are made aware of the safety risks associated with these vehicles. It is crucial that drivers and owners of 15 passenger vans take the safety of their passengers into their own hands, research the flaws that compromise vehicle safety, and strive to provide the safest transport possible.

Contact a Lawyer

Although 15 passenger vans are a common site on American roads, the dangers associated with these vehicles are so severe that the NHTSA recently banned the use of 15 passenger vans for the transportation of students. While the government and auto manufacturers are well aware of the design flaws that contribute to deadly 15 passenger van accidents, most drivers and passengers in these vehicles are not. If you or someone you care about has been injured as a result of a 15 passenger van accident, you may be entitled to compensation for damages.

Hide Full Article

A jury awarded a Maryland family $760,000 for an auto accident that resulted in the death of their daughter and sister; Progressive insurance, the victim's insurance company, is liable for the award.

Kaitlynn Fisher, 24, was killed in Baltimore in June of 2010 when another driver allegedly ran a red light. The other driver's insurance company, Nationwide, settled with the Fisher estate soon after the accident occurred. However, the other driver was underinsured, and the Nationwide payment did not meet the terms listed in Fisher's policy.

Fisher's insurance policy with Progressive included coverage against the possibility of an accident with an underinsured driver; this meant that Progressive was responsible for the difference between the amount paid out by Nationwide and the value of Fisher's policy.

However, Progressive did not pay the difference because of the possibility that Fisher was at-fault for the accident. In Maryland, state law requires the use of contributory negligence to resolve civil lawsuits; if a person is found to be negligent in any way, they are not entitled to a recovery.

The Court Case

The Fisher family decided to take the case to court so a jury could determine if their daughter was at fault. A suit was filed against the driver of the other vehicle to establish 100 percent negligence, and Progressive was listed as a co-defendant in the case.

The jury found in Fisher's favor and awarded the family $760,000. However, the Fishers and their attorney point out that Progressive worked to defend the other driver to avoid paying on Fisher's policy.

"Progressive did everything in their power to show that their own insured did something wrong. They were fighting against the person who paid them premiums," Allen W. Cohen, the Fisher's attorney said.

According to Fisher's brother, Progressive's attorney gave an opening statement to the jury stating that the defendant should not be found negligent, cross-examined the plaintiff's witnesses, called a witness to the stand who claimed that Fisher ran a red light, and made objections on behalf of the defendant.

According to Chris Wolf, a Progressive claims general manager, stated that Progressive was not serving as the defendant's lawyer.

"To be very clear, Progressive did not serve as the attorney for the defendant in this case. He was defended by his insurance company, Nationwide. There was a question as to who was at fault, and a jury decided in the Fisher family's favor just last week. We respect the verdict and now can continue to work with the Fisher family to reach a resolution," Wolf said.

The Burden of Proof

According to insurance law and legal experts, Progressive may have been following state laws regarding underinsured drivers. Unfortunately, all too often, the burden of proving that the other driver was at fault falls on the insured and their attorneys.

This case highlights how complicated auto accident cases can be. If you have been injured, or some you love has been killed, in an auto accident, it is in your best interest to hire a skilled attorney who can help you obtain entitled damages from your insurance company, the other driver's insurance company, or any other party that may be liable for the accident.

Hide Full Article

In this article, we take a closer look at the DUI cases involving a Tampa Bay Buccaneer, an Oakland Raider, and a Washington Redskin.

No DUI Charge for Tampa Bay Cornerback

The Los Angeles district attorney has decided not to file DUI or other charges against Tampa Bay Buccaneers cornerback Eric Wright.

Wright, who turned 27 last week, was booked on suspicion of felony DUI on July 2 after he was involved in an accident near the Staples Center at 12:20 a.m. Wright was driving his Mercedes SLS when he rear-ended a pickup truck.

Because the driver of the truck complained of pain, the crash was classified as an injury accident, which would have made any resulting drunken driving charges a felony.

According to police, Wright said that he had been in Hollywood drinking with a friend; he also refused to submit to breathalyzer or field sobriety testing.

However, Wright's lawyer says that his client did agree to undergo alcohol testing.

"Contrary to some of the reports out there, Eric did comply with getting a chemical test and the chemical test showed no alcohol in his system," Wright's attorney, Jeremy I. Lessem, said.

In most cases, refusal of breath or blood alcohol testing results in serious penalties, including driver's license suspension. Wright did not lose his license, indicating that he underwent chemical testing after the incident.

Oakland Raiders Wide Receiver Avoids Jail Time in DUI Case

Oakland Raiders wide receiver Darrius Heyward-Bey pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor DUI charge; as a result, the charge of driving with a blood alcohol level higher than 0.08 percent was dropped.

Heyward-Bey, 25, was given three years probation, must undergo drug and alcohol counseling, and pay more than $1,800 in court fees.

Heyward-Bey's DUI charges stem from an April 7 incident in which he was pulled over for speeding and weaving on the Bay Bridge's lower deck at 2:00 a.m. According to prosecutors, Heyward-Bey failed a field sobriety test and his blood alcohol content was measured at 0.12, above the California legal limit of 0.08.

Ivan Golde, Heyward-Bey's attorney, says that his client entered the plea to put the case behind him so he can focus on football.

Washington Redskins' Safety: DUI Charge Amended to Reckless Driving

Washington Redskins safety Brandon Meriweather resolved his DUI case; his first offense DUI charge was reduced to a reckless driving charge, to which Meriweather entered a no contest plea.

Meriweather received a 180-day suspended jail sentence, was fined $300, and must pay $81 in court fees.

Meriweather was pulled over at 2:54 a.m. on May 26 for speeding. According to police, Meriweather smelled of alcohol, failed five field sobriety tests, and refused to take a breathalyzer.

Under Virginia law, refusal to take a breath or alcohol test is a crime. Prosecutors in the case have reserved the right to, at some point in the future, re-file additional charges relating to Meriweather's refusal to submit to a breath test.

The NFL has not yet commented on whether or not any of these players will be suspended from games as a result their DUI cases.

Hide Full Article