A Beaver County, Penn., man injured in a car accident in October 2003 has received a jury award of more than $2 million. The plaintiff sought compensation for pain and suffering and for loss of past and future wages, claiming he could never return to his job as a sander operator.

The plaintiff's wife was awarded $100,000 for loss of consortium, a legal term meaning that the plaintiff's injuries deprived her of the accustomed benefits of their relationship.

Brian and Tina Murphy, residents of Franklin Township, about 40 miles north of Pittsburgh, sued Harvey's Auto Body, located in Baden, and owner Harvey Marenic. According to plaintiffs' attorney Doug Olcott, the Murphys were stopped at an intersection on a rural highway near their home when Marenic, driving a company-owned vehicle, struck their car from behind, propelling it into the path of an approaching tractor-trailer.

Plaintiff Claims Neck, Shoulder, Arm Injuries

Brian Murphy, who was 41 at the time, suffered neck injuries that required surgery for a herniated disk, according to court records. He also claimed the collision left him with shoulder and knee injuries, carpel tunnel syndrome, back pain, and headaches.

Marenic, who was not charged in the accident, was accused in the lawsuit of driving "in a careless and inattentive manner" and "failing to maintain the vehicle" in proper condition. His business was accused of was accused of "failing to properly train, instruct, educate, and supervise" Marenic.

Doctor Testifies Plaintiff Will Never Sand Again, Says Attorney

Olcott said his client's doctor testified that Murphy could never return to his previous work, operating a sander at Armstrong World Industries, a leading flooring, ceiling, and cabinet manufacturer headquartered in Lancaster, Penn.

The jury awarded Murphy $800,000 for loss of past and future wages, in addition to $1.4 million for his pain and suffering.

If you or someone you know is injured in a traffic accident, contact an experienced personal injury attorney. You deserve compensation for your pain and suffering. You and your family deserve compensation for loss of income and for loss of consortium. Your attorney will fight to see that you get fair compensation.

Hide Full Article

Which are the most dangerous highways in America? That depends on who's answering the question and the criteria applied. A Fox News 10-worst list was based on fatalities in car and motorcycle accidents; the Web site Ask the Trucker, on the experiences of commercial truck drivers. USA Today said rural highways, in general, are dangerous, because people don't expect them to be.

According to the Fox News statistical analysis, eight of the 10 worst stretches of highway are in the West, with four in Southern California, two in Arizona, and one each in Nevada and Texas. Two dangerous stretches in Florida complete the list.

Three Interstates Share Danger Zones

Topping the Fox News list is I-15 through San Bernardino County, Calif. Farther north on the same freeway is another danger spot: Clark County, Nev., which includes Las Vegas. Three dangerous stretches are located on I-10: Riverside County, Calif., and Maricopa and Pinal Counties, Ariz. Two danger zones are located on I-5 in California, Los Angeles and San Diego Counties.

Moving east, Fox News listed I-45 in Harris County, Texas, which includes the Houston metropolitan area. The two dangerous stretches in Florida were I-95 in Palm Beach County and U.S.-1 in Miami-Dade County.

According to Ask the Trucker, Colorado Highway 550 is the most dangerous highway for commercial drivers, not because of car and motorcycle accidents, but because of its five S-curves, an abundance of recreational vehicle traffic, and migrating wildlife crossing the road in the fall. It also passes through an avalanche zone.

Trucker Site Lists Major Congestion Spots

Heavy traffic and congestion is the problem for most of the Ask the Trucker danger zones, including the Los Angeles Highway 101 to I-405 interchange, Atlanta's I-285 at I-85 interchange, the I-95 Cross-Bronx Expressway in New York, I-15 in Nevada, the Providence, R.I. I-95/I-195 interchange, and the Circle Interchange in Chicago.

Louisiana's stretch of I-10 is faulted by Ask the Trucker for unrepaired damage from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

A USA Today article does not mention specific routes, but says rural highways can be more dangerous than their urban counterparts because people are less cautious in wide open spaces. The article blames more impaired and distracted driving and cites higher numbers of single-vehicle accidents, blaming driver overconfidence.

Hide Full Article

Drunken driving charges against the mayor of a small South Carolina coastal town were dropped recently in exchange for a guilty plea to a speeding charge. The prosecutor accepted the deal because the officer who administered the field sobriety test (FST) at the time of the mayor's arrest was unavailable to testify in court.

Surfside Beach Mayor Allen Deaton agreed to plead guilty to driving at 60 mph in a 45 mph zone, the reason he was stopped. Horry County Solicitor Greg Hembree said that video from the apprehending officer's dashboard camera did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mayor was too impaired to drive safely.

Mayor Initially Pulled Over for Speeding

According to the arrest report, Deaton was pulled over at about 11:30 p.m. on Jan. 7 when a Surfside Beach officer observed him speeding. The officer reported that his initial suspicion that the mayor was driving under the influence (DUI) was based on a strong smell of alcohol when the mayor opened his car door, and the fact that Deaton's eyes were glassy and his speech slurred.

The officer said that, when asked for his driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance, Deaton at first presented the registration, an expired proof of insurance, and a credit card. The officer said that, when he returned the credit card, the mayor presented his license.

Field sobriety tests were administered about 30 minutes after Deaton was stopped, by a different officer. That officer reported that the results indicated that the mayor was sufficiently intoxicated to impair his ability to drive.

No Breath or Blood Tests Administered

Deaton declined a breath analysis test, and no subsequent blood tests were performed, leaving only the testimony of the unavailable officer as credible evidence to support the DUI charge in court.

Mayor Deaton's case illustrates what can happen when police and prosecution fail to meet their burden of proof. Even with the testimony of the officer who administered the FST, there would have been no definitive proof that the mayor's blood alcohol concentration was high enough for a conviction.

If you've been arrested for driving under the influence, contact an experienced DUI attorney. Your attorney will ensure that your right to due process is observed, as well as the state's burden of proof. If you're convicted, your attorney will fight to see that your punishment is just.

Hide Full Article

New York is a pure no-fault state when it comes to motor vehicle accidents. The state's No-Fault law was established more than 30 years ago. The No-Fault law was designed to make sure that insurance companies would cover the costs of medical bills, a percentage of lost wages, mileage expenses for transportation to and from medical providers, as well as some other incidental expenses, no matter who was to blame for the accident.

The second part of the New York State No-Fault law, as it relates to motor vehicles and accidents, defines the types of injuries for which victims can pursue additional damages from the person or party at fault for the crash. These injuries are called "serious injuries". According to New York No-Fault law as it exists today, serious injuries are defined as:

• Death
• Dismemberment
• Significant disfigurement
• Fracture
• Loss of a fetus
• Permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system
• Permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member
• Significant limitation of use of a body function or system
• A medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment

The New York No-Fault law does not cover all types of injuries. Injuries that are not covered include: herniated and/or bulging discs in the neck or back; muscle tears; ligament tears; surgical procedures; psychological injuries; as well as many other injuries that people suffer as a result of car crashes and other motor vehicle accidents.

Not only do consumers have trouble understanding what injuries they are able to recover for from the person at fault in a crash, but even lawyers, judges and legislators have difficulty deciphering the law. Several New York State legislators were attempting to pass a law that would have made the definitions of serious injury much easier to understand and allow for people who presently are unable to recover monetary damages as a result of injuries sustained in a crash to recover from the faulting party.

The change in the No-Fault law would have been extremely significant. Why? Presently, many people are precluded from their "day in court" because of the definitions of "serious injury". Over the past 30 years, technology has not only changed the world but also the medical profession. When no-fault was originally enacted the MRI, as well as other medical tests that exist today, were not yet developed.

We all know that broken bones heal either on their own or with the assistance of surgery. We all know what a bad scar or disfiguring injury looks like. We all know what it means to lose a body part (dismemberment). We all know what death means and we all know what it means for a woman to lose a fetus. Remember the old adage that "a sprain is worse than a break"? In the real world "a sprain is worse than a break" has meaning, but in the no-fault world the adage means nothing.

It is time to discuss the meaning of the remaining definitions of "serious injury". What parts of the body are referred to by this: "...a body organ, member, function or system"? I think I understand the meaning of organ, but what is a body "member"? What constitutes a "function"? What is the meaning of "system" in the context of no-fault?

Now, let's move on to "permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member". Again, what is a "consequential limitation"? Is a "consequential limitation" black and white in nature or is it different for different people? My opinion is "consequential" cannot be defined as an absolute. Rather, it must be looked at on a person by person basis. The No-Fault law does not allow for this.

The last category of "serious injury" to look at is "a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment."

Medically determined, is simple to define. In my mind "medically determined" means a doctor's or other medical provider's diagnosis of an "injury". Next we examine the word "impairment". "Impairment" is another word that should be looked at on a person by person basis and not be defined as a constant for all people. What is an "impairment"? People are visually impaired, hearing impaired, and/or mentally impaired. People can also suffer from many other types of impairments. Visual impairment, hearing impairment and/or mental impairment is relatively easy to diagnose and define. Yet, why do I find it so hard to define "impairment" as it relates to personal injuries? The simple answer is that it is too subjective of a word to have same meaning to me as it does to someone else.

If the above was not bad enough, we now come to this clause: "performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activities". "Substantially" is a word with no definite meaning. How do we define substantial? What is substantial for me may not be substantial for you.

Now we must tackle the expression "material acts". I do the following "material acts" on a daily basis: shower, exercise, play with my kids, have breakfast, have lunch, have dinner, wake up at 6 AM, drive to my office, meet with clients, go to court, do paper work as well as many other things that I am unable to remember right now. If I sprain my ankle and wake up at 7AM because of the medication I have been prescribed, am I not performing what I consider to be a "material act"? If I do not go to court one day because my ankle hurts am I not performing what I consider to be a "material act"? If I cannot drive to work because of my ankle pain, am I not performing what I consider to be a "material act" that day? I think that you get the point.

From my experience, the No-Fault law in its present form would not consider my inability to drive to work to be a "material act". Why should I be precluded from my day in court because I cannot drive to work for 90 out of the first 180 days following an accident? Would it not be fair for a jury of my peers to make that decision rather than a judge? Judges are in charge of the law and juries are in charge of the facts. In order for a judge to make a decision as to whether an injury is "serious" for the purposes of the No-Fault law there can be no question as to the facts of the matter. For example, in my life a "material act" is driving to work while in a judge's mind driving to work might be an immaterial act. Since the judge feels that it is an immaterial act, he or she can and would dismiss my case which would preclude my right to recover monetary damages.

Is it not simple common sense that if driving to work is a "material act" to me and not to a judge a question of fact exists? Based on the difference as to what is "material" to me and that which is "material" to a judge, a question of fact would exist dictating that a jury should decide if something I am unable to do is a "material act". In fact it would go against the very reasons that we have a legal system by allowing a judge to determine my injury is not worthy of recovery and take my day in court away since driving to work is immaterial in one judge's opinion.

Many lawyers, judges, legislators and people have been trying to figure out the definition of "serious injury" for over 30 years. Despite decisions rendered by the Courts in New York State, an injury suffered by one person who is permitted to recover money may not allow another person with the same injury to recover money.

An example that has always perplexed me is that if an individual sustains a herniated disc as a result of a car accident, a judge could determine that it is not a "serious injury" and dismiss the case. If another person who works at a construction site sustains the same exact injury as the individual who was involved in the car accident, the construction worker could potentially recover hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars depending on how the herniated disc affected his or her life. The unfortunate individual hurt in the car accident with the same affects to his or her life will be left with absolutely no recovery. Fair? It is certainly not fair for victims of car accidents. On the other hand, every insurance company licensed in New York State would disagree and say it is more then fair. Why? The bottom line is by limiting the ability for recovery in motor vehicle accidents, the insurance companies bottom line is being padded with the very premiums we pay in order to protect ourselves and others.

The new No-Fault law would have changed the definition of "serious injury". The amendments would have allowed juries, not judges, to determine what is meant by "serious injury," restoring the right for every person to have their day in court.

If you are in favor of these changes to the No-Fault law, please contact your senate and assembly representatives and inform them that this change is what you want. If you think that this change is going to raise your premiums and cost you more money please look at those who have been injured. Ask yourself if it is fair to allow someone with a chip fracture of their pinky to meet the definition of "serious injury" while another person with a herniated disc or sprained ankle is precluded from monetary recovery? If you're of the opinion that the No-Fault law should remain unchanged, again, remember the old adage "a sprain is worse than a break".

As of June, this article became irrelevant. The above changes to the No-Fault law have officially been shelved. Several other legislatures have now proposed changes that clearly favor the insurance companies and take away "Joe Injured's" day in Court.

These changes, in my opinion, are simply words that do not create much of a difference in the interpretation of the No-Fault law in its present form. The new bill uses the following words:

"A complete tear or rupture of a nerve, tendon, ligament, cartilage or muscle; A tear, rupture or impingement of a nerve, tendon, ligament, cartilage or muscle which results in a significant impairment of a body organ, member, function or system"

Where does this new bill leave us? Exactly as we have been for over the past 30 years. New words have been added to the No-Fault law, yet we are still left with the words "significant", "material acts", "member", "function", "system", "consequential limitation" and "impairment". I am always of the belief that change is good when it actually makes a difference. Does this new law make a difference? I know what my opinion is. What is your opinion?

The Queens injury attorneys of Neimark & Neimark, LLP, handle cases involving and auto accidents.

Hide Full Article

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. and a Southeastern tire retailer have agreed to settle a $2 million lawsuit blaming a faulty tire for a Mississippi car crash that killed one man and injured two others. The amount of the settlement was not disclosed.

Travis Kirby, then 20, was legally drunk and speeding when he drove his Chevrolet Camaro off a rural highway and into a tree about 25 miles southwest of Jackson, killing himself and injuring passengers Riley Strickland, then 18, and Sidney Odom, then 19. Odom's attorney, Mike Allred, said the crash put his client in a coma for two weeks, and that his injuries will cause him lifelong difficulties.

Authorities said Kirby was driving about 90 mph at the time of the crash, and that his blood alcohol concentration was 0.25 percent, more than three times that required to be legally drunk.

Families Say Tire Was Inappropriate for Car

The families of the three men alleged that a faulty right rear tire caused the crash, and sued the Jackson car dealer from which Kirby bought the car, independent tire retailer Big 10, from which the car's tires were purchased by a previous owner, and Goodyear, maker of the tires. The lawsuit alleged that the tire carried a 50,000 warranty, but failed at 10,000 miles, and that it was designed for a passenger car but misrepresented as being appropriate for a sporty car.

The car dealer settled out of court.

Goodyear and Big 10 blamed the crash on drunkenness, excessive speed, and the possibility that the tire was punctured by something in the road.

State Supreme Court Dismisses Case Upon Settlement

When a Copiah County jury agreed with the families and awarded them $2.1 million, the defendants took the case to the state Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court in April. The case was then appealed to the state Supreme Court. After the recent settlement, the Supreme Court dismissed the case.

If you've been injured or lost a loved one due to a defective product, contact an experienced personal injury attorney. Consumers have a right to expect the products they purchase are safe and a right to compensation if that proves not to be the case. Your attorney will fight to get you the money you deserve.

Hide Full Article

An Illinois woman injured when the motorcycle on which she was a passenger collided with a car is suing the car's driver for $50,000, claiming the defendant's negligence was the cause of the crash.

Plaintiff Kathy D. Manno was thrown from the motorcycle and injured March 8, 2009, in Fairview Heights, Ill., about 12 miles east of East St. Louis. According to her lawsuit, filed last month in St. Clair County Circuit Court in Belleville, defendant Deanna L. Haas caused the crash by failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, thereby crashing into the motorcycle.

Lawsuit Lists Many Contributing Factors in Crash

Manno's motorcycle accident lawsuit accuses Haas of driving too fast, driving without adequate brakes, failing to apply her brakes, failing to have a properly working horn, failing to yield the right-of-way, failing to keep her vehicle under proper control, failing to take actions necessary to avoid a collision, and failing to bring her vehicle to a complete stop at a stop sign.

The suit asks for financial compensation for injuries, medical costs, lost income, damage to Manno's earning capacity, pain and suffering, and reimbursement of legal costs.

A hearing in the matter has been scheduled for Sept. 23 in front of Judge Patrick M. Young.

Case Demonstrates Danger to Motorcyclists

The case of Kathy Manno demonstrates the vulnerability of motorcyclists and their passengers, especially at intersections. When it comes to trial, it may also demonstrate a fact borne out in studies of police accident reports: car drivers are frequently unaware of the presence of a motorcycle until it is too late to avoid a crash.

If you've been injured in a motorcycle crash, contact an experienced motorcycle accident attorney. The specialized knowledge that such an attorney will bring to your case could make the difference in getting you the financial compensation you deserve to take care of past, present, and future expenses.

Hide Full Article

Vince Neil, lead singer for the rock group Mötley Crüe, was arrested last month in Las Vegas for driving under the influence (DUI), shortly after declaring his sobriety. It was his second DUI arrest in Las Vegas in three years. He was also arrested for DUI in Redondo Beach, Calif., in 1984, the result of a head-on collision that killed a passenger in his car.

Neil, 49, was arrested about 11:15 p.m., Sunday, June 27, while driving his Lamborghini near the Last Vegas Strip, after leaving a Daytime Emmy Awards party at the Las Vegas Hilton, according to police. He was released the following morning, after posting $2,000 bail.

Rocker Recently Said He Stopped Abusing Alcohol

In an interview the week before his latest arrest, Neil said he no longer abused alcohol, as well as claiming that he hadn't taken illicit drugs in 20 years.

Neil's previous DUI arrest in Las Vegas was on Aug. 7, 2007. He pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of reckless driving and was ordered to take part in an in-patient drug program.

In 1984, Neil was charged with DUI and vehicular manslaughter after crashing his sports car head-on into another car near his Redondo Beach home, killing his passenger, drummer Nicholas Dingley of the Finnish rock band Hanoi Rocks. Neil, then 25, was not injured. He pleaded guilty to both charges, served 20 days in jail, and was ordered to pay $2.5 million restitution to crash victims.

Arrest History Includes Misdemeanor Battery Charges

In other scrapes with the law, Neil has been arrested in California and Nevada for misdemeanor battery, once because of an accusation that he hit a prostitute at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch brothel in northern Nevada. Charges were dismissed after Neil performed community service.

You probably don't live like Vince Neil, but if you've been arrested for DUI, you need to do what Vince would do: contact an experienced DUI attorney. Famous, infamous, or unknown, everyone has rights as a defendant, and your attorney will help you take full advantage of those rights. If you are convicted, your attorney will fight to see that your punishment is just.

Hide Full Article

Lancaster County, Neb., is partially to blame for a 2009 motorcycle accident, according to a $1 million tort claim filed by a woman injured in the accident. According to the suit, the county was negligent in not providing lighting for a roundabout in a proposed development in the city of Lincoln.

Lycbeth Loy, a resident of Hallam, about 25 miles south of Lincoln, was injured May 6, 2009, when a motorcycle driven by her husband, Robert, struck a median as it approached a roundabout on a road created to serve a proposed commercial development near the south end of Lincoln that was to have been home to a Wal-Mart store and other businesses. The development was never built.

Tort Claim for Damages Required by State Law

Nebraska law requires a tort claim as the first step in recovering damages from a political subdivision of the state. If the claim is refused, the claimants may then file a lawsuit against the subdivision. The claim asks for not less than $1 million, the maximum amount allowed by state law.

Loy's attorney, Douglas Peterson, said his client has already incurred a cost of more than $300,000 for required emergency medical treatment and long-term medical care and therapy. He said Loy also wants to be compensated for future medical care and loss of past and future wages.

Attorney Calls Undeveloped Area "Dark Cornfield"

Peterson said the roundabout was never properly illuminated, since the proposed development did not proceed. He wrote in the tort claim that the "road became a dark cornfield with an unlit roundabout in the middle of darkness."

The attorney said authorities should have foreseen an accident at the unlit roundabout, since it was an area unfamiliar to drivers, having never been opened to the public.

If you have been injured because of negligence on the part of a government agency, contact an experienced person injury attorney. When local, state, or federal authorities fail in their duty to the public safety, it is reasonable to expect just compensation for medical bills, lost income, pain and suffering, and other related expenses.

Hide Full Article

A jury in California has ordered Enterprise Rent-A-Car to pay $15 million to the parents of two sisters killed in the 2004 fiery crash of a rental car that was subject to a safety recall. The wrongful-death lawsuit blamed the crash on a fluid leak in the power steering hose.

Raechel Houck, 24, was at the wheel of a rented 2004 Chrysler PT Cruiser when it crossed the grass median on Highway 101 near Bradley, hit an oncoming truck, and burst into flames, killing her and her sister Jacqueline, 20. The two were about halfway home to Santa Cruz, returning from a visit with their grandmother in Ventura.

The PT Cruiser was among 435,000 for which a recall order had been issued, because of a possible leak in the power steering hose, which could lead to loss of control and cause a fire. Enterprise records show the car had not been serviced, and had been rented out four other times since the recall.

Enterprise blamed the fatal wreck on Rachel's driving and fought for five years to contest the wrongful-death lawsuit brought by Carol and Chuck Houck, Raechel and Jacqueline's parents. The company offered to pay the couple $3 million if the matter was kept confidential.

After an auto accident reconstruction expert hired by the plaintiffs concluded that a loss of steering control caused the crash, Enterprise ended its fight in May. Company officials signed papers admitting that its negligence was the "sole ... cause of the fatal injuries."

An Enterprise area manager testified that the company's computer system flagged vehicles subject to recall, but that there was no policy in place to prevent them from being rented out before being serviced.

If you've been injured or lost a loved one because of negligence on the part of a business, contact an experienced personal injury attorney. Businesses, especially large corporations, often hire high-priced attorneys to shield themselves from their responsibility for their actions. You need an attorney who understands how big business works if you want to get the financial compensation you deserve to deal with medical bills, loss of income, pain and suffering, and loss of companionship.

Hide Full Article

Actress Lindsay Lohan was sentenced this week to spend 90 days in jail, followed by 90 days in a residential rehabilitation center, for violating terms of her probation for a 2007 drunken driving conviction by failing to attend several alcohol-abuse counseling sessions.

The ruling by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Marsha Revel did not take into account the fact that Lohan violated a recent court order not to consume alcohol during the remainder of her three-year probation. Revel called that incident a bond violation, not a probation violation.

Electronic Device Detected Alcohol in Perspiration

Lohan has been wearing an electronic anklet that detects alcohol in perspiration since ordered to do so by Revel at a May hearing. The judge said there was probable cause to believe Lohan had missed several counseling sessions and needed to be monitored. The device reported a blood alcohol concentration of 0.03 percent early last month.

Revel said Lohan had not missed a session since the May hearing. Her punishment was based on missing seven sessions during a prior 27-week period.

Before Revel's ruling, Lohan pleaded for forgiveness, saying that she took the counseling sessions seriously.

Lohan Blames Work Schedule for Missing Sessions

"I wasn't expecting any special treatment," Lohan told the court, "aside from the understanding that I have to provide for myself, I have to work. My schedule is, unfortunately, very different. Having said that, I did do everything I was told to do and did the best I could to balance jobs and showing up" to the counseling sessions.

Lohan was late arriving for the May hearing because she missed her flight home from the Cannes Film Festival. At that time, Revel issued, and later withdrew, a bench warrant for the actress.

Revel ordered Lohan to begin serving her jail sentence July 20.

Lindsay Lohan's case, though far from ordinary, shows that the punishment for being convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) is serious. If you've been arrested for DUI, contact an experienced attorney who will fight for your rights as a defendant. If you're convicted, your attorney will ensure that you take advantage of every opportunity to negotiate a fair sentence.

Hide Full Article

The city of Louisville, Ky., will pay $835,000 as its share of a $1,335,500 settlement of a lawsuit over death and injuries caused by a Louisville Metro Police Officer speeding to work. The rest of the money will come from an insurance settlement.

Louisville Metro Government tried unsuccessfully to be excused from the case, saying Officer Kenten Measle was not on duty when his police car swerved into an emergency lane and struck and killed Donnie Puente, then 37, on Oct. 7, 2006. The cruiser also struck the stranded car Puente was refueling for a friend, injuring two occupants.

Judge Rules Officer Was on Duty

A judge ruled that Measle was on duty, since he was using a police vehicle he was allowed to drive to and from work, and was expected to perform police duties as required, even though his shift had not begun.

According to an auto accident reconstruction expert, Measle was traveling about 68 mph in a 55-mph zone at the time of the collision and disregarded proper traffic control by entering the emergency lane. The officer said he was attempting to pass to the right of a car that braked suddenly.

A district attorney for Jefferson County admitted that Measle was "speeding slightly," but ruled that the officer's conduct was not criminal. Measle was suspended from duty for 30 days without pay and not allowed the use of a police vehicle.

Records Show Officer in Other Incidents

Police records show Measle damaged two police cars in separate incidents prior to killing Puente and struck and injured a bicyclist in June 2008. The officer was suspended without pay for eight days for the injury accident.

The combined settlements from Louisville Metro Government and the insurance company will pay Puente's estate $800,000 to benefit his teenage daughter. One of the injured will receive $535,000; the other, $10,500.

If you or someone you know has been injured or has lost a loved one because of the improper actions of a government employee, contact an experienced personal injury attorney. This and other cases have clearly demonstrated that government agencies can be held accountable for the actions of their employees. You may be eligible for financial compensation to help you deal with medical bills, loss of income, pain and suffering, and loss of companionship.

Hide Full Article

Each year, as winter turns to spring and spring turns to summer, the number of motorcycles on the road increases. While there are those who ride motorcycles all year, especially where the weather is mild, it's inevitable that warmer weather will coax more people to ride.

Sadly, as the number of motorcycle riders increases, so does the number of motorcycle accidents. Since motorcyclists are much more vulnerable than car drivers, defensive riding is essential to preventing injury or death.

Police Report Drivers Often Unaware of Motorcycles

Analysis of police reports has shown that many drivers are not aware of motorcycles until it's too late to avoid a collision. Most drivers have never ridden a motorcycle and are not as conscious of them as they are of cars.

Many safety experts advise motorcyclists to overcompensate for lack of driver awareness by assuming that a driver does not see them at all until eye contact is made. Other good defensive tactics include wearing bright colors, looking for a driver's eyes in the rear-view mirror of the car ahead, and changing position within the traffic lane to attract attention with motion.

Intersections Especially Dangerous for Motorcyclists

The most dangerous place for a motorcyclist is an intersection. One of the most common crash scenarios is a driver making a left turn into the path of an oncoming motorcyclist traveling in a straight line. To survive intersections, motorcyclists are well advised to slow down as they approach, try to make eye contact with drivers turning left, and be prepared to stop quickly.

Danger for a motorcyclist can come from behind, as well. Being rear-ended is much more serious on a motorcycle than in a car. When preparing to slow down or come to a stop, a motorcyclist should check in the rear-view mirror to be sure a following driver is aware of the action.

Even if you use all the best defensive driving techniques, you may still be involved in a collision. That's when you need to contact an experienced motorcycle accident attorney. Whether you're dealing with an insurance company or having your day in court, an experienced attorney will present the facts unique to motorcycle accidents. As a motorcyclist, you may ride alone, but don't make the mistake of going to court alone.

Hide Full Article

A Florida jury this month awarded $5.2 million to a man confined to a wheelchair because of a motorcycle accident. The former Air Force staff sergeant was injured when an 85-year-old woman drover her car into the path of his motorcycle.

Richard Pollock, then 31, was riding on a major thoroughfare through Fort Walton Beach on his way to work at Eglin Air Force Base Aug. 7, 2008, when Mary McCary turned from a side street into the path of his oncoming motorcycle. The force of the impact threw Pollock from his motorcycle onto the center median.

Victim Required 25 Surgeries, Still in Therapy

David Swanick, Pollock's attorney, said his client's injuries were catastrophic. He said Pollock, now retired from the Air Force on medical grounds, required 25 surgeries in the first month after the crash and continues to receive rehabilitation therapy in Texas.

Pollock said a person of McCary's age should not be licensed to drive. He said he hopes his case will help bring a change to Florida law, including mandatory annual driving tests for those over 65.

While age may have been a factor in this case, police accident reports show that drivers of all ages are often unaware of motorcycles until it is too late to avoid a crash. Safety experts advise motorcyclists to assume that car drivers may not see them and always be prepared to take sudden evasive action.

Intersections Frequent Site of Motorcycle Accidents

Studies have shown that intersections are especially dangerous for motorcyclists. In addition to the risk of a motorist turning onto the road from a side street, there is an even greater risk of hitting a car coming from the opposite direction because a motorist makes a left turn into a motorcyclist's path.

If you've been injured in a motorcycle accident caused by a negligent motorist, contact an experienced attorney. The circumstances of a collision between a motorcycle and a car are often quite different from those of a collision between two cars. An experienced motorcycle accident attorney is best qualified to present those unique circumstances in a manner most favorable to your case and help you get the financial compensation you deserve.

Hide Full Article

Former major league pitcher Jeriome Robertson was killed recently when he lost control of his motorcycle and crashed in his Central California hometown of Exeter, about 55 miles southeast of Fresno. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) reported the death of an unnamed rider; former Exeter High School baseball coach Steve Garver confirmed Robertson's identity.

According to the CHP, Robertson, 33, was attempting to take a turn at 70 mph on his 2007 Yamaha Warrior when he lost control. The Warrior is a large cruiser-style motorcycle, its weight and engine size are about that of a Harley Davidson of the same class.

Rookie Star Had Short Major League Career

Robertson's short major league pitching career began late in the 2002 season with the Houston Astros. In 2003, his first full season, his record was 15 wins and nine losses, still the most wins ever by an Astros rookie and the most among all major league rookies that year.

In 2004, Robertson was traded to the Cleveland Indians, who released him before the season ended. He subsequently played in the minor league organizations of the New York Mets and Cincinnati Reds, then in the Chinese Professional Baseball League of Taiwan, for the Newark (N.J.) Bears of the independent Atlantic League, and in the Mexican League.

Garver said Robertson frequently showed up at Exeter High School baseball practice to encourage the players. In 1995, with Garver as his coach, Robertson helped the team win the California Interscholastic Federation Central Section championship.

Former Coach Praises Robertson's Efforts with Kids

"He was great with the kids," said Garver. "He always wanted to help out and do whatever he could for the high school kids."

The tragic death of Jeriome Robertson is a stark reminder of the vulnerability of motorcyclists. While his actions may have been a contributing factor, many motorcyclists exercising abundant caution are injured or killed in collisions because car drivers just aren't paying enough attention. A collision that might leave the occupants of a car merely shaken can be devastating for a motorcyclist.

If you are involved in a motorcycle accident, you need professional legal representation. An experienced motorcycle attorney will make sure that insurance companies and the courts take into account the unique factors involved in motorcycle accidents and will fight to get you the compensation you deserve to help with medical bills, repair bills, loss of income, and other expenses.

Hide Full Article

Summertime is party time. With picnics, backyard barbeques, block parties, and three major holidays, it's a natural. It's also a time of year when law enforcement agencies try to discourage drunk driving by setting up DUI checkpoints.

Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, and Labor Day invariably cause an upswing in driving under the influence (DUI). Police, sheriffs, highway patrols, and state troopers across the country accordingly increase their efforts to identify drunk drivers and get them off the streets and highways.

DUI Checkpoint Arrests May Be Mishandled

While the tragedy that often results from DUI requires positive steps to eliminate the danger, the demands of monitoring a steady flow of vehicles at a DUI checkpoint can lead to errors on the part of law enforcement. In this situation, you may be the subject of an incorrectly handled DUI arrest.

One of the most common reasons for improper DUI checkpoint arrests is the use of inexperienced officers. Agencies often use officers who don't normally deal with DUI situations, and who may not properly follow the correct procedures. For example, an inexperienced officer may not properly administer field sobriety tests, which can be mishandled even by an experienced officer.

In some jurisdictions, there may be the expectation that a DUI checkpoint result in a particular number of arrests, in order to prove its effectiveness. This can lead to overanxious officers applying standards they wouldn't normally consider.

Breath Testing May Be Less Accurate than Blood Tests

Equipment used to test blood alcohol concentration (BAC) by taking a breath sample may not be properly calibrated or may give incorrect readings because of a suspect's medical condition or other considerations. Mistakes are more likely in a situation that requires rapid processing of multiple suspects.

If you've consumed alcohol very recently, the air in your lungs may indicate a higher BAC than is actually in your blood. If you're stopped for DUI, ask for a blood test. The extra time needed to get a more accurate reading may be to your advantage.

If you're arrested for DUI, contact an experienced attorney. There are several reasons why your case may be dismissed due to improper procedures. Your attorney will take full advantage of your rights as a defendant. If you are convicted, your attorney will fight to see that your punishment is just.

Hide Full Article

While recalls of cars over safety concerns have grabbed headlines in the last year, motorcycles have also been the subject of safety recalls. Some of the most recent involve a BMW touring model, a Kawasaki sport model, and two sport models by Buell, a Harley Davidson subsidiary that ended production in October.

Because motorcycle sales volume is a mere fraction of that for cars, the recalls are proportionally smaller. However, they are no less important, since motorcycles have a higher potential for injury or death in the event of a motorcycle accident.

BMW Touring Model May Suffer Front Brake Failure

The BMW R 1200 RT touring model leads the group of recent recalls in numbers, with 1,535 units, spanning model years 2007 through 2009. According to the recall notice, improper routing and installation of the front brake lines could cause a brake fluid leak that could render the front brakes inoperative. With only an operating rear brake, the motorcycle could slide and swerve out of control under hard braking, causing a crash.

Kawasaki has issued a recall of 950 units of one of its smaller Ninja sport motorcycles, the EX 250. The company says a flaw in the engine case may leak oil that could be deposited on the rear tire, which would cause it to slip, leading to a crash. An earlier recall of the larger Ninja ZX-10R was due to the possibility of a similar oil leak onto the rear tire because an inspection cap on the starter assembly wasn't properly tightened.

Buell Sport Model At Risk of Foot Peg Collapse

Buell is recalling 23 large sport bikes due to concerns about an improperly made right foot peg. The models are the 2010 XB12X and XB12XT, both in the 2010 model year lineup. The warning says the foot peg could "move significantly out of position," a nice way of saying it could all but fall off, throwing the rider to the right and causing a loss of control that could lead to a crash.

If you've been injured or lost a loved one in the crash of a motorcycle that was the subject of a safety recall, contact an experienced attorney. When manufacturers fall short of their responsibility to design, build, and sell reliable products, they may be held accountable for damages. You may be eligible to recover medical costs, repair costs, and lost wages, and to be compensated for pain and suffering and loss of companionship.

Hide Full Article