DRUNK DRIVING: IGNITION LOCKS

As a follow up to our Drunk Driving series of blog postings, we note that as of January 1, 2009, six states (Alaska, Illinois, Colorado, Nebraska and Washington) began requiring those convicted for the first time of drunk driving to have an ignition lock installed in their vehicles.

This follows similar laws in New Mexico and Massachusetts, which have had such laws in effect for about five and four years, respectively. Arizona and Louisiana have similar laws.

New Mexico, the first state to have such a law, has seen its death toll from drunk driving drop 20% since the law became effective in 2005 and repeat drunk driving offenses have decreased by two thirds in the same period.

The ignition lock law went into effect in New Jersey just this year (2010) and would require the installation of the device for any driver that has had a blood alcohol level of at least .15 (.08 being the legal limit). All repeat offenders would also be required to have the devices, for lengthier periods of time.

The device requires the driver to breath into the device, and the vehicle will not start if the device measures the presence of alcohol beyond a certain limit. While it would be possible to overcome the intent of the device, for example by having someone blow into the device for the driver, the laws involved attach some criminal penalty to those participating in such an effort.

If your state does not have such a law on the books, a strong letter to your state representatives by you should insist that such a law be passed. A drunk driver is not only a danger to themselves, but to each and every one of us that rides in a motor vehicle. Recently, claimsjournal.com ran an article about a woman who received three D.U.I arrests in one week. This is just unacceptable. To read the article CLICK HERE.

TEXTING WHILE DRIVING: UPDATE

In a follow up to our posting (January 12, 2010) regarding the Presidential Executive Order banning federal employees from texting while driving government vehicles, the Federal Government has just (January 26th, 2010) banned all texting by drivers of buses and large commercial trucks.

This ban is enforceable by fines of up to $2,750.

The National Safety Council estimates that 200,000 crashes in the U.S. are caused by drivers who are texting. Currently, about 24 states ban texting while driving, and more states are on the way. There is also pending legislation in Congress that would accomplish the same result.

WORKERS COMPENSATION: THIRD PARTY ACTION

As a general rule, as we have stated previously, if there is a possibility of bringing a lawsuit against some party OTHER THAN one’s employer or co-worker (“THIRD PARTY ACTION”), for a injury sustained on the job, the recovery will almost always be greater than the worker’s compensation award that may be given, if both remedies are available. Without explaining the technicalities of liens that arise, we can summarize by saying that the injured party will usually have the luxury of keeping the greater of the two amounts. Often, there is no third party available to sue. Sometimes, there may not be Workers Compensation available to a worker, though he may think there should be. It can be a close call.

Example: A worker is on his way to a job site in his automobile and crashes with another vehicle. It is the other vehicle’s fault. The worker is very seriously injured. The other auto has only the minimum insurance coverage which is not nearly enough to fairly compensate the injured worker. Workers Compensation now becomes extremely important since the worker may be disabled for his entire life.

In New Jersey recently, it was decided that a worker, on a coffee break, WAS entitled to Workers Compensation.** The yardstick?: Was the activity of the worker at the time he was injured “within the course of his employment?”

In this case, even though the worker chose to drive five miles away from the work location for the coffee break, it was found that the diversion was caused by the worker having to wait for another person he was to meet, and the coffee break was a reasonable thing to do in the meantime. The result: the worker can get Workers Compensation for his severe injuries and will be covered for a lifetime disability. If it had been decided that the coffee break was NOT “within the course of his employment,” all the worker would have to look forward to was the small amount available under a limited automobile insurance policy…

Any time a “third party” may be involved in a work injury, it is absolutely essential that an experienced Personal Injury Attorney, in addition to a Workers Compensation Attorney, be consulted…A worker does himself a terrible injustice, and may subject himself to grievous financial damage, if he fails to heed this advice.

**Http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2010/01/25/106840.htm

Jill Mattice, a six-year veteran of the New York State Troopers was fatally injured in a head on collision with a tractor-trailer on the evening of Wednesday, January 20th. Mattice was pronounced dead on Route 23 where the accident took place.

“Her community was enhanced by her service,” Governor David Paterson said in a written statement. “Her State is humbled by her sacrifice.”

There is an ongoing investigation into the crash. She was the first female to have ever been killed on the job in the state of New York.

Source: New York Daily News

POLICE MISCONDUCT | SCHOOL SAFETY OFFICERS

In 1998 the New York City Police Department assumed direct responsibility for safety in the New York City public school system. While there are some police officers assigned to schools, the overwhelming number of Police Department personnel assigned to the public schools, for the purpose of maintaining a safe environment, are civilian employees of the Police Department known as “School Safety Officers.” School safety officers have the authority to stop and frisk students as well as question, search and even arrest students. Of singular note is that school administrators have no authority at all over the school safety officers in their school !

School safety officers receive 14 weeks of training before they are sent to their school assignment. A NYC police officer goes through a six month training course. Is it any wonder that the actions of many school safety officers often defy reason. It was the persistent and blatant disregard for the appropriate guidelines, leading to unlawful arrests and other abusive activity, that prompted the American Civil Liberties Union, together with the NY Civil Liberties Union, to bring a federal civil action calling for a drastic change in procedures. The ACLU stated that “Despite mounting evidence of systemic misconduct by police personnel in the schools, the NYPD refuses to even acknowledge any problems with its school policing practices.”

School Safety Officers have routinely broken school policing rules, used unwarranted excessive force, and have violated other school safety regulations and procedures.

According to the New York Daily News (January 21, 2010, page 26) the City of New York averaged 500 complaints against school safety personnel between the years 2002 to 2007. In 2008 that number jumped, according to the News, to 1159.School based personnel are subject to virtually the same rules, regulations and laws as would any other police personnel on the street, in dealing with the public. In fact, the population with which school safety personnel are dealing is entitled to extra consideration, not less, because they are, invariably, minors. Any act or behavior on the part of school safety personnel that deviates from acceptable norms and standards is, and should be, the subject not only of disciplinary action within the police department, but the party harmed should seriously consider a civil lawsuit for actions that are truly outrageous and unacceptable.

If contemplating a lawsuit, the injured party should not only seek a competent Personal Injury Attorney, but look specifically for one well versed in the area of police misconduct and abuse, including cases involving excessive force and false arrest.

Federal class-action lawsuit charges school safety officers subjected kids to ‘excessive force’

Read an article from the New York Daily News titled ” Federal class-action lawsuit charges school safety officers subjected kids to ‘excessive force”‘ by CLICKING HERE

CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENTS IN NEW YORK CITY | 2009 UPDATE

Construction activity in New York City, as almost everywhere else in the nation, has experienced a drastic slowdown during this past year.  The reason is not difficult to fathom: the Recession, and the consequent constriction in financing by banks.

One piece of good news accompanies this fact: building sites reported THREE (3) fatalities in all of 2009.   That represents a downward spiral of 12 deaths in 2007 and 19 fatalities in 2008 !*

New York City Buildings Department – tougher enforcement caused decline in construction accident fatalities.

While the recession certainly had a major role in this situation, the officials in the New York City Buildings Department attribute tougher enforcement of rules as a contributing factor in the decline.It should be noted, however, that tougher enforcement was undoubtedly directly linked to the experience of two recent horrendous construction crane accidents.

In taking solace at the diminished number of fatalities at construction sites, the overall number of injuries at construction sites rose in 2009.  According to officials, this was mainly due to improved reporting of accidents.

It is vital to remember that construction site accidents virtually always involve THIRD PARTIES which may be responsible for recoveries, in addition  to WORKERS COMPENSATION recovery. Any construction  worker, involved in any accident at a construction site, should contact an experienced Personal Injury attorney immediately, so that his rights and interests can be fully protected.  A Worker’s Compensation attorney will also have to be contacted at some point.

*ClaimsJournal.com–Associated Press

ELEVATOR ACCIDENTS | WORKERS COMPENSATION | THIRD PARTY ACTIONS | NEW YORK LABOR LAW CASES

In an effort to repair an elevator in a five story cooperative in Manhattan, a repairman lost his life on Wednesday, January 13, 2010. While the exact method of the repairman’s death is not yet determined, speculation is divided between a fall in the elevator shaft or electrocution. The repairman was there to deal with tenant complaints of elevator misalignment with the floor, and with “squeaking” sounds.

Having died in the course of his employment, the representatives of the deceased will look to Workers Compensation for their remedy.

Without explaining the intricacies of the New York Labor Law, whether the repairman’s estate will have a viable THIRD PARTY lawsuit against the owner of the building, in addition to the Workers compensation claim, may well rest on a judicial determination as to whether a “repair”, as opposed to “maintenance,” was involved in the work being performed by the repairman at the time of his death !! The availability of a THIRD PARTY action could make a significant difference in the eventual amount recovered.

The laws surrounding injuries sustained by workers in the construction trades and allied fields are very protective but also very complicated at times.

The difference to the injured party and that party’s dear ones can be very substantial since, as an almost inviolable rule, THIRD PARTY actions result in recoveries significantly greater than awards under Workers Compensation.

An attorney with considerable experience in handling THIRD PARTY LABOR LAW cases is essential to safeguard the vital financial interests of those grievously affected by a worker’s accident. If you or your family member have been injured contact Orlow, Orlow, & Orlow today.

DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED | CELL PHONE USE WHILE DRIVING | TEXTING WHILE DRIVING

On January 11, 2010 the New York Times, in its “Technology” section, published some interesting, yet disturbing, statistics: 11% of drivers, at any one time, talk on their cell phones while driving (per a federal study); Drivers using cell phones cause 2600 deaths each year (per a Harvard study)*; 570,000 accidents causing minor and major injuries are the result of cell phone usage (Harvard study);

With the growing awareness by Americans of the hazards of cell phone usage in cars, the NYTimes also found (in a NYT/CBS NEWS poll) that 50% of Americans hold the view that texting and driving should be punished at least as harshly as drunk driving.

This attitude is fortified by published studies indicating that drivers using cell phones are four times more likely to have an accident than other drivers.   In fact, the likelihood that someone using a cell phone will crash has been shown to equal that of a driver with a .08 percent blood alcohol level, the level considered “impaired” in many, if not most, states.

While the dangers of cell phones usage, in ALL its forms, is well established (texting, hands free, hand held),

no state has banned the use of cell phones while driving entirely.  The most that has been restricted is the use of hand held devices.  Federal employees are not allowed to text while driving, pursuant to an executive order issued by President Obama.

For the Personal Injury Attorney, the issue of distracted or impaired driving while using a cell phone has become an entirely new area to be investigated in automobile accident cases.  This is also a new area for litigation and discovery.  There will, undoubtedly, be judges across the country that will be reluctant to permit opposing parties access to the cell phone records of their adversaries.  Nevertheless, as knowledge about the horrific hazards cell phone usage poses while driving becomes more widespread, our courts will hopefully expand dramatically their tolerance for the discovery of cell phone records.

Currently, any experienced Personal Injury attorney will make every effort to obtain cell phone records of an opposing party if there is the slightest indication that cell phone usage may have been a contributing cause of the accident involved.

*Transportation Secretary LaHood states the annual death toll from cell phone distraction amounts to 5,800

LEAD POISON IN BUILDINGS: 2009 UPDATE

In 1960, New York City was the first city to ban lead paint. Since then, New York City has strengthened that law on two occasions. The last time the law was upgraded was in 2004, when the NEW YORK CITY LEAD POISONING PREVENTION ACT (Local Law 1) was passed.

The results of the City’s actions have been notable.

The City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reports that in the period from 1995 until 2007 the number of children reported with elevated blood levels dropped astonishingly from 19,000 to just 1900, a decrease of 90%.

Local Law 1 placed significant burdens upon landlords :
1: informing tenants about lead hazards;
2: inspect apartments where children under 6 years old reside;
3: correct and remove any identified lead problems and do so in a recognized and safe manner.

The United States Department of Health and Human Services has set a national goal of eliminating all new cases of lead poisoning by this year, 2010.

The likelihood of New York City reaching this goal seems remote at the present time. David Powell, of the Tenants and Neighbors organization in New York State, stated that a major obstacle in achieving this goal is the lack of adequate enforcement by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Unfortunately, the Department’s budget in 2010 is $20.6 million, while last year it was $25.8 million ! The national economy negatively affects lead poisoning prevention efforts, as it does so much else.

Nevertheless, the admirable reduction so far in lead paint cases among children is due, in the main, to increased awareness on the part of parents to the hazards of lead paint. ANYONE THAT BELIEVES THEIR CHILDREN MAY FACE LEAD POISON HAZARDS SHOULD CONTACT 311 FOR ASSISTANCE. If, unfortunately, your child seems to have been effected by lead paint poisoning, which is indicated through lead testing by your doctor or at a hospital, contact a reputable personal injury attorney, experienced in lead poison cases, as soon as possible.

To read the New York City Local Law 1 go to:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/downloads/pdf/lead-local-local1-2004.pdf

“COVERAGE” Why can’t I get more for the injury I suffered?

“Coverage” is a term used by personal injury lawyers to refer to the amount of money that is available to pay a client for the injury they sustained.   In almost every instance the “coverage” available is equated with the policy limit of an insured’s liability insurance policy.  This can refer to an automobile insurance policy of the potential defendant, if the matter involves a car accident.  It can refer to a potential defendant’s homeowner’s insurance policy if it involves several other types of accidents, not every one of which must necessarily have happened in the defendant’s home.

The knowledgeable attorney will utilize every resource available to identify sources of “coverage” in a concerted attempt to assure adequate sources of compensation for a seriously injured client.  The availability of  significant “coverage” can be easily overlooked and could be very costly to a client.

Examples abound: if you are in a vehicle, not only is the vehicle owner’s policy available, but if the driver has his own policy, that too will be available.   An “Umbrella Policy” (a separate insurance policy that covers an individual once their basic, underlying policy, is exhausted) should be looked for, as well as the possibility that more than one insured defendant, each with separate insurance, may be responsible  for the client’s injury.

While it is always advantageous to have a wealthy defendant,

with many assets, rather than a poor defendant, with no assets, as the party you are suing, realistically speaking personal injury attorneys are reluctant to pursue assets because of the difficulties involved, not the least of which is the ease with which assets can be transferred by the defendant in a personal injury case even AFTER the case has begun !

Even after all the efforts of the most experienced attorney are exhausted, there are all too often instances where the “coverage” available to compensate a client fairly for their injury is simply not available.   One of the most unpleasant aspects of a personal injury attorney’s job is to inform a seriously injured client of this fact.  It is a conclusion clients do not want to hear–and it is one that your attorney does not relish delivering. Contact one of our Personal Injury Attorneys at Orlow, Orlow, & Orlow today.