Friday, August 2, 2013

DISTRACTED DRIVING CAUSED BY HANDHELD DEVICES: SHOULD IT BE CONSIDERED RECKLESS BEHAVIOR UNDER THE LAW?

Distracted driving is a very real and very deadly menace to our society. It is probable that you have heard about horrific incidents, or may even have personal knowledge of an incident in which someone was texting and driving and was killed or killed someone else as a result. The true tragedy of  injury or death caused by texting and driving is that it could be avoided if drivers simply stop engaging in this dangerous behavior. Most people would agree that distracted driving is reckless behavior, in the ordinary sense of the word.  I think most people would also agree that it should be considered reckless behavior in the legal sense.

In Connecticut, punitive damages for personal injury or property damage related to traffic incidents are classified as "double or treble damages."  This means that if a claimant prevails on a punitive count that a judge or jury may choose to double or triple the award.  The relevant statute is Section 14-295 of the Connecticut General Statutes.  It reads in pertinent part as follows:

14-295 Double or treble damages for personal injury or property damage resulting from certain     traffic violations.

In any civil action to recover damages resulting from personal injury, wrongful death or damage to property, the trier of fact may award double or treble damages if the injured party has specifically pleaded that another party has deliberately or with reckless disregard operated a motor vehicle in violation of section 14-218a, 14-219, 14-222, 14-227a, 14-230, 14-234, 14-237, 14-239 or 14-240a, and that such violation was a factor in causing such injury, death or damage to property.

Some of the underlying referenced statutes that must be pleaded in order to bring a 14-295 recklessness claim are excessive speeding (14-218a and 14-219) and driving under the influence (14-227a).  What this means is that if one drives unreasonably fast or while intoxicated, they can be held liable for reckless driving, in addition to negligent driving (which can be equally devastating to the injured person). Connecticut explains recklessness in its Jury Instructions as follows:

Connecticut Civil Jury Instructions
3.4-2 Damages - Double or Treble

You should understand that the phrase deliberately or with reckless disregard involves conduct that is more than negligence.  It is conduct that indicates a reckless disregard of the just rights or safety of others or of the consequences of the action.  It is conduct that tends to take on the aspect of highly unreasonable conduct, involving an extreme departure from ordinary care, in a situation where a high degree of danger is apparent.

It should be noted that that if double or treble damages are awarded that the insurance carrier responsible for paying the award is not necessarily required to pay anything above the award for negligence. For example: if a jury finds for a plaintiff that a defendant is negligent and the cause of the plaintiff's injuries and awards the plaintiff $100,000, then $100,000 is all that the liability insurance carrier is required to pay. If that same jury found the defendant reckless and Section 14-295 applied, and doubled the $100,000 award to $200,000, the individual defendant is personally responsible for the additional $100,000. In reality, some insurance companies that choose not to settle a case and expose its client to personal financial consequences, pay the punitive award in order to avoid a bad faith claim.  However, some insurance companies refuse to pay the overage and leave its customer on the hook.

Legal wrangling over what entity may be responsible for paying damages should not effect how we decide what is right and wrong under the law.  We certainly should not ignore something that as a matter of public policy would be good for the community in that it may deter people from engaging in the very dangerous behavior of using handheld devices while operating a motor vehicle.  It should be noted that in Connecticut, it is already a violation of traffic law to use a handheld device while driving.  See Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 14-296aa.

The question for you is this:  Do you agree that texting and driving or any similar such use of a handheld device which causes distraction, should have a punitive aspect?

Read more about the dangers of texting while driving here: http://www.fcc.gov/guides/texting-while-driving


   

Monday, April 22, 2013

HEARTLAND OF CHARLESTON NURSING HOME: TRYING TO PUT A CAP ON DIGNITY

You get one life.  That's it. Just one. Answer this question: If you are lucky enough to make it to the golden years, do you want to be cared for, respected and ultimately die with your dignity still intact?  Or would you rather be left to suffer and waste away alone as if you were nothing?  Granted, the answer to that question is simple.  Imagine your mom being thrown out like trash, especially when you entrusted her to the care of others.  Unfortunately, Tom Douglas didn't have to imagine it.  His mom, Dorothy Douglas was killed by the nursing home which was entrusted with her care.  So, it shouldn't surprise anyone that a jury verdict of $91.5 million dollars was rendered in August of 2011 in the case of  Tom Douglas v. Manor Care, Inc. d/b/a Heartland of Charleston Nursing Home.  It should come as less of a surprise that the defendant-nursing home asked the trial judge to overturn the verdict, citing, among other things, that the award should be subject to the $500,000 cap that West Virginia imposes on medical malpractice cases.  Judge Paul Zakaib, Jr. of Kanawha County Circuit Court denied that request on Wednesday, April 10, 2013, finding that award was appropriate.

It also comes as no surprise that the defendant, a company that has a history of putting profits over people (according to Judge Zakaib, Jr.) would try to avoid paying for the grievous harm it caused and is appealing this case to the Supreme Court (of West Virginia).

Read the article "Judge denies new trial in $91.5 million nursing home verdict" posted in the WV Gazette on April 11, 2013 here:   http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201304110179

Monday, December 31, 2012

Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association Official Statement on Newtown

CTLA responds to the recent news of a lawsuit being filed as a result of the tragedy in Newtown:

"CTLA joins with all other citizens in CT in mourning the tragic loss of life in Newtown. We believe that the timing and circumstances of this action are ill-advised.  We will continue to extend our heartfelt sympathies to the victims of the Newtown tragedy and we remain committed to joining the efforts of countless individuals in CT and around the country to find ways to assist the victims and families affected by this tragedy." (Emphasis Added).

CTLA asks that all media calls go directly to the CTLA at: 860-522-4345.

*Edited at 1:14 PM 12/31/12
*Edited at 8:52 AM 1/1/13

Sunday, August 5, 2012

TWITTER CONTEST! HOT COFFEE MOVIE GIVEAWAY!

Hello Tweeps!  I'm running a little contest on Twitter this week.  The Rules are very simple:

1]  Tweet at me: @Nicole1515 your favorite journalistic pieces exposing ALEC, the US CHAMBER of COMMERCE & the KOCH Bros; (Also, you can just Tweet, ReTweet any of my Tweets that promote the Contest or Tweet my blog post, and you will be entered that way) and

2]  at 9 PM EST Tuesday night (August 7, 2012) I will choose three of the Twitterers who sent me the articles names from a bowl (with help from Isis the cat, I'm sure); and

3]  each of the three winners will win a Brand New Sealed copy of the DVD of HBO's Hot Coffee Movie

*Rules have changed since original post. Now they are firm! The deadline to enter is Tuesday 8/7/12 at 9 PM EST and I will choose winners at that time.  The Winners will be posted on Twitter and then we can DM address and shipping details. 

**Important Note: The content of the articles is very important and as such I will retweet what is sent to me and also send some of the articles along to the American Association of Justice (AAJ) who is your number one advocate and fighter against ALEC, The Chamber, Koch and their ilk.  You can and you should follow AAJ on Twitter at @JusticeDotOrg

Thanks and have fun searching and reading!

Thursday, June 28, 2012

SUMMER READING LIST: MUST READ BOOKS (AND MOVIES) ABOUT THE CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Good sweltering Thursday!  As we near the 4th of July, the summer reading (and movie-watching) season kicks into high gear.  I have compiled a short list of must-read books and must-see movies about civil cases and the civil justice system and the politics behind it all.  Prepare to be shocked, outraged, and riveted to your seats (or beach towels).

Damages, by Barry Werth
A Civil Action, by Jonathan Harr
The Buffalo Creek Disaster, by Gerald M. Stern
Hot Coffee, Directed by Susan Saladoff
Silkwood, Starring Meryl Streep, Kurt Russell, Cher. Screenplay written by Nora Ephron, Alice Arlen.  (Blogger's Note:  Gerry Spence was the Attorney for the Estate of Karen Silkwood.  You can read his epic Closing Argument here).
Blocking The Courthouse Door, by Stephanie Mencimer (of Mother Jones Magazine)
Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power, by Steve Coll
Erin Brokovich, starring Julia Roberts, Albert Finney
Priceless, by Lloyd Constantine
Bloodthirsty Bitches and Pious Pimps of Power, by Gerry Spence

As stated - this is a short list (but enought to get you started).  Please feel free to add to it!  Tweet your suggestions to me @Nicole1515 or leave a comment in the section below.  Stay tuned for another in-depth blog piece coming next week.  (The United States Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act, which is scheduled to come down later today will determine the subject matter of my next piece).  Have a great weekend and enjoy the list!

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Bullies Scare Easily: The Chamber of Commerce and ATRA's Attack on Hot Coffee

It's a curious thing really.  Bullies wreak havoc on the civil justice system.  Someone takes a stand against them - and they attack again.  That's the fear.  The fear of exposure.  The particular bullies I am referring to are the United States Chamber of Commerce and the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA).  These organizations spend a lot of money stripping you of your rights while tricking you into believing they are doing something good for you. They accomplished very much by way of poisoning the jury pool (that's us - the people, the voters) to believe that somehow innocent people who are intimidated, maimed, injured, or killed are spectacles to be mocked.  That a person who suffers is lying and that people do not have the right to have their grievances heard.  But the people do.  The Constitution, by way of the Seventh Amendment confers on United States citizens, the right to a trial by jury in civil matters. But that right has been chipped at and whittled down, so much so that the Courthouse doors have been closed to many regular people, like you and I.  And once upon a time they were much more protected than they are today. That was before "tort reform" became a right-wing political maneuver, or more aptly called, weapon of mass destruction.

BACKGROUND:

The case that the insurance companies and the corporations pounced on like mice to cheese, was the now infamous "McDonald's Coffee Case."  What you have heard about it is not likely the truth.  The simple, but significant truth is that McDonald's brewed its coffee at a temperature hotter than industry standards and it caused the Plaintiff, Stella Liebeck to be burned and permanently scarred over 16% of her body. She asked McDonalds to pay for only her medical bills, a mere $20,000 (and thereby settle the claim at that point). McDonald's said no and forced litigation (after offering to settle for a laughable $800).  The jury returned a reasonable verdict of $200,000 (minus 20% for Liebecks contributory negligence) and also gave $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages for McDonald's "willful, reckless, wanton or malicious conduct for selling a dangerous product." This $2.7 million dollar figure was hardly a punishment for Mcdonald's as it equalled only two days of coffee sales).  But the corporate powers that be seized upon this case and told us that this was a frivolous lawsuit and that the jury (us) award was excessive - another way of calling us stupid.

The seemingly irreparable damage that has been caused to our civil justice system as a result of the propaganda sprung forth from that case has been devastating.  It has caused virtually every Plaintiff's trial lawyer to have to ask each prospective juror about the McDonald's coffee case in effort to discover and diffuse any bias that may exist against someone who rightfully utilizes the American justice system.   The damage seemed irreparable, until now.

FIGHTING BACK:

Enter the HBO documentary movie, "Hot Coffee"  by Oregon trial lawyer, Susan Saladoff.  I had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Saladoff after hearing her speak at the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association Annual Convention on June 4, 2012.  Her passion is real, firey and contagious.  One cannot embark on such a time-consuming and all-too important undertaking like making a feature film documentary unless one is passionate and dedicated.  Ms. Saladoff took time away from her practice to make the Hot Coffee movie.  It was time someone told the truth to the people.  That's you and me, folks.  We are the voters, the jurors and the one's with the power to preserve our rights.  It may be a cliche, but knowledge is power and if we want to ensure that we continue to have a civil justice system that is fair and works for us, we need to know who is working against us.  We need to know who to vote for.  It should come as no secret that the trial lawyers fight for the people. We fight for your right to go to court.  We ensure through litigation and even legislation that products are made safely and that products that can harm and/or kill you are removed from the marketplace.  This is what trial lawyers do. 


THE ATTACK:

The United States Chamber of Commerce and the American Tort Reform Association, of which Victor Schwartz is General Counsel, have decided that they do not like the trial lawyers telling the truth to the people.  They do not like being exposed.  Although they should be very proud of themselves for turning injury victims and their lawsuits, for the most part, into a joke. And they have been winning their bogus tort reform arguments for the last several decades by spending millions of corporate dollars to do so. So what did The Chamber and ATRA do when faced with the truth in the form of the documentary, Hot Coffee?  They bought the domain name:  HotCoffeeTruth.com and created and paid for an Advertisement which has been on Facebook which links to said website and now have also taken to Twitter using the handle  @HotCoffeeTruth.  The Hot Coffee "Truth" website features a staged seminar with Victor Schwartz hosting and moderating.  The Panel includes these people:  Jon Gray, a retired judge and practicing defense attorney; Sheila Scheverman, a Torts Professor at Charleston School of Law; and Paul Figley, Professor of Washington College of Law, American University.  Schwartz and his panel proceed to attack Hot Coffee.  Their feeble and probably expensive attempt to pull the wool over your eyes is nothing more than continued engagement in tort reform propaganda. Don't they ever get tired?  Not as long as the money doesn't run out.

WHO IS THE CHAMBER & ATRA TARGETING?

While I do not have scientific data as to the answer to this question, I do have common sense and pretty good powers of observation.  First, a Facebook Ad would tend to give one the impression that they are perhaps targeting the younger generation (you know, the up and coming voters).  It also became crystal clear (to me anyway) that they were targeting younger people when lo and behold, Mr. Schwartz himself asks the following question in his Ad: "What should law students expect from the movie?" [Emphasis Added]

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE TRIAL LAWYERS TO ANSWER THIS ATTACK

We live in age of social media.  Information is disseminated at lightning speed - and not all of it is true.  In my opinion, social media is still in its infancy and those who use it best (and first) will find the most success.  I use Twitter.  In fact, I love Twitter. There are other lawyers on Twitter and, in fact, there are some great lawyers on Twitter.  But there aren't enough.  I take it very seriously that if The Chamber of Commerce and The American Tort Reform Association are going to actively engage the public through Twitter and Facebook and various other social media outlets that the trial lawyers need to be prepared to fight the battle on that front.  Not only the trial lawyers, but all people who believe in fairness in the civil justice system should make their voices heard.  Finally, I suggest to anyone who has not yet seen the movie, Hot Coffee to please do so.  It will provide you with the truth.