Accidents happen.  Sometimes an accident could have been prevented – and was caused by the carelessness of another.  When an accident is caused by someone else’s negligence, then the negligent party (the one who didn’t act carefully enough) can be held responsible when a person is injured as a result.    However, sometimes an accident is truly just an accident – it wasn’t reasonably preventable, everyone involved behaved pretty responsibly, etc.  While it might not seem like anyone could be held responsible for an accident that’s “just an accident,” you’d be surprised at how much liability could actually be involved…  Sometimes the owner of property is legally responsible for an accident that occured on his or her property simply because a dangerous condition existed.  Sometimes a product manufacturer is legally responsible for defects in a product that caused harm to someone simply because the product is considered dangerous.  There are many different ways a person may be held responsible for another’s injuries. 

Take a look at LawInfo’s Free Legal Resource Center for more information – we’ve recently updated our section devoted to the issue of “fault” when a person is injured.  Specifically, we’ve added a new video on the topic to help explain this sometimes complicated matter.  To learn more and watch the videos, click the following:

I was injured in an accident… now what?

Who is responsible when a person is injured?

What does the term “liable” mean?

What does the term “reasonable person” mean?

What is negligence?

What is strict liability?

How do you know if you have a personal injury claim?

What financial compensation can I get in a personal injury claim?

Hiring the right personal injury attorney

With a high speed chase, you might only hear those police sirens for a few seconds before the cars come whizzing by you on the street.  Sometimes, maybe not even long even to property move over to the curb – or at least get partially out of the way!  Too often, however, those high speed police chases cause accidents and injure the innocent drivers on the road.   The courts were then faced with having to decide whether, or to what extent, a police officer could be liable to an injured driver for causing an accident as a result of a high speed chase.  I mean, if regular drivers who speed through the streets and intersections cause and accident, they’re liable to those they’ve injured.  Why shouldn’t the police be liable for causing the same accident?

Well, it’s not that simple I guess.  They’re in the “line of duty,” driving “authorized emergency vehicles,” and pursuing criminals.  State laws even provide for a limitation of liability.  For example, California Vehicle Code Section 17004 states the following:

“A public employee is not liable for civil damages on account of personal injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the operation, in the line of duty, of an authorized emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency call or when in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm or other emergency call.”

By enacting these kinds of liability-limiting laws for police and other emergency vehicles, “we the people” have decided that the interests of justice are served by granting the police “immunity” from prosecution for injuries that may occur during pursuing fleeing suspects.  Many of those suspects who flee have just committed serious crimes – car jacking, murder, robbery… but sometimes police conduct high speed pursuits over less serious offenses.  If the police were prohibited from speeding to chase after them…. the suspects would simply just get away.

But the line has to be drawn somewhere.   Some might argue that all high speed chases endanger the innocent other drivers on the road – that the police act in “reckless disregard” for the safety of the public on the roadway when they conduct a high speed chase.  Even further, sometimes the way in which a high speed police car pursuit is conducted actually “shocks the conscience” of the community.  For instance, would a high speed chase in excess of 100 mph along neighborhood streets in front of an elementary school be okay in pursuit of a minor traffic offender? If a 6-year old girl was killed by the police car while she crossed the street to go home… well, we might then look at that high speed chase and determine that it not only was in “reckless disregard for public safety,” but that it does in fact “shock the conscience.”

The courts have struggled over the years with what should be the standard for determining if a high speed chase was dangerous enough to hold law enforcement liable for violating our constitutional due process rights in connection with injuries sustained from such high speed chase.   Should it be a police pursuit that is simply “reckless”… or should it be only if a high speed chase is so reckless that there is a “conscious, knowing disregard for human life and safety”… or should it be the even higher standard of only when a high speed pursuit under the circumstances actually downright “shocks our conscience.”   Conduct that “shocks the conscience” is conduct that is “deliberately intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest.”  The “shock the conscience” standard is currently in use by the courts.  

The issue is incredibly important from a policy perspective because if the standard for constitutional liability is very high, then law enforcement will rarely be found liable.  If the standard is lower, more liability will be found, which will result in fewer apprehensions of criminals.

If you’re interested, you can read some of the court cases on this topic below: 

U.S. Supreme Court – COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. TERI LEWIS AND THOMAS LEWIS, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PHILIP LEWIS, DECEASED, May 26, 1998.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals – Noni ONOSSIAN; Cyril Onossian; Herve Onossian, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Sherman BLOCK; Michael Antonovich; Deane Dana; Ed
Edelman; Kenneth Hahn; Gloria Molina; County of Los Angeles; Daniel Finn; Larry Yates; Bruce Thomas, & One Hundred Unknown Named Employees & or Officials of County of Los Angeles, Defendants-Appellees, May 26, 1999.

What’s the picture in your mind when you think of riding an ATV (All-Terrain Vehicle)?  Sunny afternoon, summer, laughing, kids riding ATVs on beach dunes by the ocean?  Or even a rockin’ racing session?  How about riding through an ATV park on trails and hillsides?  Joy, bliss, fun, excitement! 

What you probably didn’t picture, though, is the other side of it – the accidents, the injuries….. the deaths. 

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a safety alert for All-Terrain Vehicles because too many riders have died or experienced life-altering injuries from accidents involving ATVs.  In recent years, the number of ATV injuries is reportedly in the hundreds of thousands  – and about one-third of all deaths and injuries involve victims under the age of 16.  (See:  ATVSafety.gov)

While riders can certainly take care in observing safety precautions (like wearing a proper helmet, taking an ATV safety training course, avoiding riding with passengers or tandem, etc.), some ATVs may have simply been poorly manufactured.  Click here for a list of the latest ATV recalls.

To help prevent unnecessary injuries and deaths, ATVSafety.gov reports that 44 states have already passed ATV safety laws of one form or another, with each statute tailored to meet the needs of its particular region and constituency.  Click here to learn more about the laws in your state.

Finally, if you’ve been involved in an ATV accident or injury situation, contact an attorney who is experienced in this particular field.  LawInfo recently launched a new ATV Accidents center on its website – check it out: LawInfo’s ATV Accidents web center.   Also, find ATV professionals who can be interviewed as ATV accident reconstruction experts.

By all means, have fun….  just be safe.  And if you get into trouble, contact an attorney to learn more about how to protect your legal rights.

If you’ve just been in an accident, or been injured by someone, you might be wondering whether or not you should hire a lawyer.  If your injuries are very minor, such as a bruise or a little embarrassment, you might not need a lawyer, but it doesn’t hurt to contact one just in case you have a bigger legal claim than you think! 

If you’ve suffered moderate to severe injuries, you should definitely consult an attorney for assistance.  Did you know that in most cases a good attorney can help you get compensation for your injuries without even having to go to court? Most personal injury lawsuits are based on good fact-finding and steadfast negotiation more so than on black-and-white laws. Attorneys know these rules and the tricks other lawyers use to try to get around them.  For instance, do you know which questions the other side can, and can’t, ask you?  Probably not…  But lawyers are trained on these matters and can raise appropriate objections when necessary to prevent you from having to respond when you don’t need to.  While this sounds simple enough, many a case has been won or lost on simple facts.  

Also, when it comes to negotiating a settlement on your own, you will almost always fare worse than if you had a lawyer’s help.  Experienced attorneys know the average settlement range for similar injuries in the courts in your area.  Also, they know how the laws would be treated in your particular case and how such circumstances would either entitle you to more or less than the average award. 

Finally – let the pros handle the process.  Lawyers know the legal process like the backs of their hands.  Usually, you don’t.   So going it alone would be like going from your neighborhood kickboxing class to the boxing championships…    While there certainly isn’t anything wrong with being an amateur, when your legal rights are at stake your odds of prevailing are best protected if you go heavyweight-t0-heavyweight. 

At the end of the day, talk to an attorney in the beginning to figure out how best to protect your legal rights. So schedule an initial consultation – most times they’re free. 

Learn more about accidents and injuries in LawInfo’s Free Legal Resource Center.

Garment workers, manufacturers and small-business owners gathered in front of Macy’s flagship store in New York Tuesday to protest a new anti-lead law they say will cut their jobs and devastate wide-spread retail profits.

The Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires that all items sold for use by children under the age of twelve, including clothing, toys and other products, must be tested for lead. Congress passed the act after the U.S. recall of millions of lead-containing toys imported from China.

But this new act does not come without major concerns. Tuesday’s protest was organized by the Coalition for Safe and Affordable Childrenswear, which represents hundreds of manufacturers and family business workers. The coalition says the new rules would cost thousands of jobs and drive companies out of business.

Coalition members said manufacturing practices have already changed to comply with the new law, but they are asking Congress to ease a provision that will retroactively force them to pull $500 million worth of possible lead-containing products from shelves.
In passing the act, Congress had asked the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to come up with specific methods on how and by whom products should be tested and certified to be lead-free. But the coalition says up until now, there have been no definitive regulations set in place to execute this.

“Until regulations are set in place on how to do the testing and certify that something is lead-free, retailers won’t risk putting anything on their shelves that could contain lead, thereby halting the demand for thousands of products, and cutting manufacturing jobs in the process,” a spokesperson for the coalition said.

Steve Levy, of Star Ride Kids sportswear, said the coalition is not asking for special treatment or government bailouts. “All we are asking for is some common sense. At the exact moment when Congress is debating a $900 billion economic rescue bill, it should be looking for every opportunity to create jobs, not kill them.”

It is true that the economy is facing its worse financial crisis in history, and that every job this country can sustain is critically important. However, what is the lesser of two evils in this situation? Keeping jobs and businesses afloat, or keeping health regulations in check and making sure toxic products do not end up in the hands of our children? Although it is clear that the coalition, Congress, and the CPSC all want to arrive at a place where lead-containing products are not released into the marketplace and manufacturing jobs aren’t threatened in the process, until that time, whose side are you on?

For more information on the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act of 2008, visit the CPSC. To learn more about the Act’s predecessor, the Consumer Product Reform Act of 2007, click here, or visit LawInfo’s free legal resource center for more CPSC legal news.

A man who froze to death in Wisconsin while sleepwalking outdoors was found to have a bottle of Ambien in his bedroom, but it has not been determined whether he took the medication on the night of his death.

Timothy Brueggeman, 51, was found outside his rural home Tuesday morning when the temperature was minus 16 degrees. He was wearing only underwear and a fleece shirt, and died of hypothermia, authorities said.

Ambien, the most-prescribed sleeping pill in the nation, has been linked to hundreds of cases of sleepwalking, sleep-driving and even sleep-shoplifting.

Brueggeman’s mother, Geraldine Brueggeman, said she advised him to quit taking Ambien last summer after he drove his pickup truck without waking up.

Products liability refers to a manufacturer or seller being held liable for placing a defective product into the hands of a consumer. Products liability cases may include defective or poorly designed machinery, tools, motor vehicle defects, recreational products, pharmaceuticals and other defective products and equipment.

A person injured by a defective or dangerous product may be eligible to file a lawsuit for product liability. To learn more, visit LawInfo’s legal resource center for articles and answers to frequently-asked products liability questions, or contact an experienced Lead Counsel products liability attorney in your area today.

The FDA has announced that more than 125 different products have been recalled for possible salmonella contamination in what is now being called one of the largest food recalls in history.

Everything from crackers to ice cream to dog biscuits is being recalled and investigated. On Tuesday, PetSmart recalled seven varieties of its “Great Choice” dog biscuits. On Wednesday, NutriSystem issued a recall for their peanut butter granola bars. Last week, Kellogg recalled some of its Austin and Keebler brand peanut butter crackers. Salmonella was later confirmed in a package of Austin crackers.

All recalled products were made with peanut paste or peanut butter manufactured at a Peanut Corp. of America plant in Blakely, GA. The plant has suspended further production of any peanut-based products at this time.

To help consumers, the FDA has set up on its site a searchable list of recalled peanut products. “We expect (the) number to continue to increase,” said Stephen Sundlof, head of the FDA’s food safety program. More than 480 people have been sickened in the outbreak, which has contributed to at least six deaths.

Products liability refers to a manufacturer or seller being held liable for placing a defective product into the hands of a consumer. Products liability cases may include defective or poorly designed machinery, tools, motor vehicle defects, recreational products, pharmaceuticals and other defective products and equipment.

A person injured by a defective or dangerous product may be eligible to file a lawsuit for product liability. To learn more, visit LawInfo’s legal resource center for articles and answers to frequently-asked product liability questions.

So far, 2009 isn’t starting out great when it comes to safe products for children. There have been a lot of products recalled, including cribs, baby garments and common household objects. The following list comprises recalls that have been announced so far this year:

Stork Craft baby cribs

About 535,000 Stork Craft baby cribs, manufactured in Canada, China and Indonesia, have been recalled due to metal mattress-support brackets cracking and breaking, causing the mattress to collapse and creating a gap where a child could get trapped and possibly suffocate. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is aware of 10 incidents of support brackets that broke, although no injuries have been reported.

The cribs were sold at J.C. Penney, Kmart, Wal-Mart and other stores around the country. They were also sold online at amazon.com, babiesrus.com, costco.com and walmart.com from May 2000 through January 2009.

For more information, call 866-361-3321, or visit http://www.storkcraft.com or http://www.cpsc.gov.

Taggies Sleep’n Play baby garments

About 16,000 Taggies Sleep’n Play baby garments, made in China, have been recalled due to snaps on the garments possibly detaching and posing a choking hazard to children. No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The products were sold at Babies R Us, Buy Buy Baby, Dillards, Nordstrom and other specialty stores nationwide and Internet retailers from January 2007 through November 2008.

For more information, call 888-594-3730, or visit http://www.rashtiandrashti.com or http://www.cpsc.gov.

Roman shades by Cost Plus Inc.

About 692,400 Roman shades and roll-up blinds, manufactured in India and China and distributed by Cost Plus Inc., have been recalled due to the cords posing a strangulation hazard for children. No incidents have been reported with the blinds in this recall, but CPSC is aware of the deaths of three children involving similar styles of blinds and shades.

The shades and blinds were sold at Cost Plus and World Market stores around the country from February 2006 to August 2008.

For more information, call 877-967-5362, or visit http://www.worldmarket.com or http://www.cpsc.gov.

Products liability refers to a manufacturer or seller being held liable for placing a defective product into the hands of a consumer. Products liability cases may include defective or poorly designed machinery, tools, motor vehicle defects, recreational products, pharmaceuticals and other defective products and equipment. To learn more, visit LawInfo’s legal resource center for articles and answers to frequently-asked product liability questions.

Food manufacturer Kellogg Co. has asked stores to stop selling its peanut butter sandwich crackers until the company can figure out if their peanut paste is connected to a recent outbreak of salmonella that has sickened more than 430 people in 43 states and is responsible for five deaths.

Kellogg acquires some of its paste from Peanut Corp. of America, which has recalled 21 lots of peanut butter made at its plant in Blakely, Ga., because of possible salmonella contamination. While not issuing a recall, Kellogg asked stores nationwide to remove the crackers sold under its Austin and Keebler brands until an investigation into Peanut Corp. has been completed. So far, no problems linked to these products have been reported.

“We are taking these voluntary actions out of an abundance of caution,” Kellogg CEO David Mackay said in a news release.

FDA officer Sandra Williams said Kellogg’s decision to pull their products is known as a “stop-sale order” and isn’t as serious as a recall. Williams did not comment on how many units of crackers would be pulled, but said, “It’s a very large volume.”

Kellogg spokeswoman Kris Charles said that the company is only concerned with products containing paste acquired from Peanut Corp. and not about any other products that contain peanut butter, such as cookies, because they do not use products from Peanut Corp. in their production and do not make them at the same plant.

While no additional consumer action is necessary at this time, consumers with questions or who would like a product refund can call the Kellogg Consumer Response Center at 888-314-2060. For more information, visit http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/kellogg01_09.html.

Nissan Motor Co. is recalling more than 240,000 trucks to fix a problem that could prevent front air bags from deploying if the vehicle becomes involved in a crash. Nissan spokesman Colin Price said the problem was discovered through warranty but no crashes or injuries have been linked to the issue.

In states where road salt is used during the winter, a mixture of snow and the salt could enter a crash zone sensor area, interrupting the signal and potentially preventing the front air bags from deploying.

The recall will affect the Nissan Frontier, Pathfinder, and Xterra 2005 to 2009 models. A total of 242,720 vehicles are part of the recall.

For more information, owners may contact Nissan at 1-800-647-7261, or visit http://www.nissanextendedwarranty.com/recalls/nissan-recalls.html.