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.

The fight for marriage equality will rage on another day. On Tuesday, May 26th, California’s Supreme Court ruled to uphold the state’s gay-marriage ban, also known as Proposition 8. The 6-1 decision by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument from activists that Proposition 8 revised the California constitution’s equal protection clause.

Although the Court also ruled that the 18,000 same-sex weddings that took place before the prohibition passed are still valid and it would be too disruptive to apply Prop 8 retroactively, activists said they would go back to the voting public as soon as possible to repeal the ban.

The California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Since that time, same-sex couples from around the country came to California to wed before this ruling made its way to the voters during the 2008 election. Consequently, Proposition 8 did pass with a 52% approval. As the fight raged on in California, Iowa, Maine, Vermont and Connecticut legalized gay marriage.

Although the court ruled that the ban denies gay couples use of the term “marriage,” California still allows gay couples to form domestic partnerships and does not “disturb the basic right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one’s choice and to raise children within the family.”

So what are your thoughts? Was justice upheld today based upon the voice of the voters, or was the decree of our Constitution challenged today and overruled? No matter what side of the fence you stand on this issue, there is a long fight ahead that will impact our country and that of generations to come.

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.

Colorado shoppers will be able to keep using plastic grocery bags after lawmakers stopped what would have been the nation’s first statewide ban on plastic grocery bags. Lawmakers successfully lobbied that the ban would lead to increased use of paper bags, which take more energy and money to produce, and take up more room in landfills than plastic bags.

However, bill sponsor Sen. Jennifer Veiga believes there was political, and personal, motivation behind the decision as well. “No other states have passed such bans yet and I think Colorado lawmakers were wary of being the first. Also, I have been contacted by constituents who didn’t want to have to give up their plastic bags.”

Lawmakers in several other states such as Hawaii, Missouri, New Jersey and New York are considering launching similar bans on plastic bags this year. And nine other states are considering adding fees to plastic bags, ranging from 3 cents in Vermont to 25 cents in California.

Veiga claims that plastic bags pose a bigger problem than paper ones “because they’re used more widely, they’re made with petroleum products, and they aren’t recycled as much as paper.” Sen. Ted Harvey said the bill’s intentions are good but said banning plastic bags wouldn’t help the environment.

“Human nature says that people will go toward the most convenient product, and that is the paper bag,” said Harvey.

San Francisco has passed a plastic bag ban, and plastic shopping bags will be banned from stores in Los Angeles beginning July 1, 2010. Shoppers can either bring their own bags or pay 25 cents for a paper or biodegradable bag.

So what are your thoughts on this issue? Paper or plastic?

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.

On Wednesday, Toyota Motor Corp announced it would recall more than 1.35 million Vitz, Belta and Ractis international models to fix a defect in the seatbelt, a component in the exhaust system, or both.

Subject to the recall in Japan are 525,898 Vitz, Belta and Ractis cars built from January 2005 to April 2008, and a combined 830,000 units of the Vitz subcompact and Belta (called Yaris in many markets) exported to Europe, North America and other countries.

The recall started in Japan, where one case of fire was reportedly caused by a faulty seatbelt design, which could cause a noise-absorber device to melt when the seatbelt tensioner is activated in a collision, Toyota said.

The defective exhaust-gas recirculation (EGR) pipe, which is being recalled due to a possibility of the pipe cracking and leaking exhaust gases, also originated in Japan, but no accidents have been reported.

Toyota declined to disclose the estimated cost of the recalls.

For more information, or if you own one of these recalled cars, call Toyota at 800-331-4331. For more information on product recalls, visit LawInfo’s free legal resource center, or contact a Lead Counsel products liability attorney in your area today.

The FDA has notified healthcare professionals that they are working with the makers of blood-thinner Plavix in order to determine the effectiveness of the drug in some patients.

The FDA is studying reports that taking certain heartburn medications mixed with clopidogrel (Plavix) decreases the benefits of the drug. Also, differences in effectiveness may be due to genetic differences in the way the body metabolizes clopidogrel.
Marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Plavix is the second-best-selling drug in the world.

The drug manufacturers have agreed to a timeline for completing the studies. The FDA will review the new information and communicate its conclusions, as well as any recommendations, to the public at that time.

Until further information is available, the FDA recommends that patients should continue to take Plavix (clopidogrel) as directed, but healthcare providers should re-evaluate the need for prescribing starting treatment with Plavix. Also, patients taking Plavix should consult with their healthcare provider if they are currently taking or considering additional medication.

For more information, visit the FDA at http://www.fda.gov/medwAtch/safety/2009/safety09.htm.

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.