Personal Injury Law Blogs

Maryland Appelate Court Rules on Pit Bulls

On April 24, 2012, a Maryland Appeals court declared pit bulls to be inherently dangerous, imposing strict liability on owners whose pit bulls attack a person. The ruling also holds landlords responsible for allowing dangerous dogs on their property. This decision lays the groundwork for the first statewide restriction aimed at pit bulls.

If a dog attack involves a pit bull, plaintiffs in Maryland will no longer have to prove that the dog was a known danger. The opinion, written by Judge Dale Cathell, states: “Because of its aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflict serious and sometimes fatal injuries, pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous.” Prior to this opinion, a Maryland dog owner would only be liable if they had knowledge that their pet had demonstrated vicious behavior in the past.

Serious Injuries Caused by Pit Bull Attacks

According to the court opinion, over the last 13 years, there were at least seven cases in Maryland involving a pit bull or mixed-breed pit bull that caused serious injury or death. For this reason, the court took a hard approach, imposing strict liability on pit bull owners and landlords. Under the theory of strict liability, a person is presumed negligent if a pit bull under his or her control causes injury to a person.

The case originated when a 10 year old boy’s parents sued for injuries he sustained in 2007 when he was mauled by a pit bull. Following the attack, the boy spent 17 days in the hospital, required several surgeries and had to spend a year in rehabilitation. Initially, the trial court found that there was insufficient evidence to show that the pit bull’s owner knew that the dog was vicious. The trial court’s decision was reversed on appeal.

Strict Liability for Owners and Landlords

This decision will make it easier for plaintiffs who are injured in pit bull attacks to receive damages from the dog’s owners, as well as from the owner’s landlord. Under the new Maryland law, a person attacked by a dog would first have to prove that the dog was a pit bull or a pit bull mix. Then, the person would have to prove that the defendant was aware that the dog was a pit bull or mixed with pit bull and that he or she had control over the dog’s presence.

The court’s decision imposes liability on landlords because the landlord will have the ability to prohibit the dogs from the premises. Failure to do so will subject them to strict liability. This decision puts Maryland pit bull owners in a difficult situation, especially if they are renters. Because landlords will also be strictly liable for injuries caused by pit bulls on their premises, they will be unlikely to rent their property out to pit bull owners.

Setting Groundwork for Statewide Bans

This decision comes on a wave of bad press for pit bulls. Advocates are working to distance the animal from their reputation as an inherently dangerous breed, but their efforts are often being outdone by similar court cases and breed-specific legislation that targets pit bulls. Advocates argue that the problem is the way that many pit bulls are raised, not the breed itself. They argue that individual dogs have different temperaments, and many pit bulls are loyal and affectionate. Following this court decision, an animal shelter in Frederick County, Maryland has currently suspended adoptions for pit bulls and mixes in their care while they assess the situation and the risk of adopting out the breed. While this decision marks the first statewide legal decision against pit bulls, it may set the groundwork for other states to adopt similar measures.

The team at Lederer & Nojima, LLP handles a number of canine injury cases. Each dedicated dog bite attorney in Los Angeles is abreast of the latest relevant legislative actions.

Study Finds 30% of Teen Drivers Involved in a Car Crash Suffer Head Injuries

A new report from The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and State Farm Insurance indicates that teen drivers are at significant risk for suffering a head injury as the result of a car accident.

The study looked at car accidents involving approximately 55,000 teen drivers and their passengers who were seriously injured in 2009 and 2010. According to the report, 30% of teens involved in serious car crashes will suffer a concussion, skull fracture or a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Car accidents are the leading cause of TBI-related death among teens aged 15 to 19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Due to the delicate nature of the brain and its limited ability to heal in every situation, a traumatic brain injury can cause long-term damage and potentially leave its victim permanently unable to function or care for themselves. A traumatic brain injury can have a devastating impact not only on the victim but also on their family members.

Between 2005 and 2010, teen driving deaths have declined approximately 46% from 2,399 to 1,305 fatalities per year. Fatalities among their passengers have also declined 41%, from 1,777 to 1,022 during this same period.  According to State Farm, teen driving deaths tend to be lower in states that enforce comprehensive Graduated Driving Laws (GDL). These laws require teen drivers to complete at least 50 hours of adult-supervised driving practice under varied conditions prior to seeking a full driver’s license. These laws also limit teen passengers for the first year of licensed driving, place restrictions on unsupervised nighttime driving, prohibit cell phone use and require seat belt use for the driver and their passengers.

The authors of the CHOP/State Farm report recommend that states with higher teen traffic fatality rates change their licensing policies to reflect the guidelines that exist under Graduated Driving Laws. They also suggest implementing programs which are designed to increase seat belt use, educate teens about the dangers of distracted driving and increase overall driving skill in an effort to help keep teens safe while traveling the roadways.

Parents should also educate their teens about the dangers of driving and set a good example by avoiding reckless or careless behavior while behind the wheel. When a car accident occurs, it’s important to consult an experienced car accident attorney to better understand your legal rights.

Possible trends in personal injury 2012

As many will know, big changes are coming in the lucrative personal injury market.

Personal injury has certainly been the most lucrative legal niche outside of the big corporate law firms, and many smaller firms have entered into the market seeking to exploit the relatively low risk and high reward whiplash claim market, which many say is completely out of control.

The Government, particularly in the current political climate, are clearly determined to reign in the whiplash claims market, and it appears they may do this in 2 ways :-

  • by increased regulation and accreditation for any doctor to be qualified to provide a whiplash medical expert report
  • by increasing the personal injury small claim limit to £5,000.00 thereby making legal costs for the majority of whiplash claim far less lucrative

So, how might personal injury firms react to these changes ?

Well, if there’s one thing to say about many of the personal injury specialist firms, they are pretty savvy as business people compared to many lawyers, so it seems likely that many will adapt fast and cleverly, and 2 ways perhaps they may do this are :-

  • to seek to differentiate and position themselves as niche practices which specialise in certain types of injury claims, whether asbestosis, very serious injury claims or claims for injury abroad. by doing this, they may also offer an alternative to the claims packaging type advertising seen on tv.
  • perhaps to diversify into other areas of law, possibly not as lucrative as personal injury, but still worthwhile. Many personal injury solicitors will have a huge database of clients built up over many years and based on a volume service, who they may cross sell to, potentially linking up with other firms who specialise in other areas of law or diversifying themselves. Most personal injury specialist firms have not bothered with leveraging their database as they simply haven’t needed to.

It may well be that a number of personal injury firms, particularly the smaller ones or late entrants to the market, could struggle also. It will likely become more important in future to cherry pick the cases which involve more serious injury, but these are more complex and far more risky than having a practice whose bedrock is whiplash claims. With no win no fee and the fact that the lawyers subsidise the claims as they proceed, getting it wrong on these cases could lead to a practice demise far quicker than in the current market, so there may be an element of survival of the fittest which will separate the men from the boys anyway.

What do you think ?

Texting while Driving – A U.S. Law Perspective

In Kansas City, Missouri, 16-year-old Rachel Gannon was recently charged with second-degree involuntary manslaughter after she lost control of her car, crashing into a vehicle driven by Loretta Larimer, a 72-year-old woman. Larimer later died from her injuries. The teenager was distracted by loud music and texting when she caused the crash.  Larimer’s 10-year-old granddaughter, a passenger in the vehicle, was also injured in the crash. Gannon has been charged with third-degree assault for the granddaughter’s injuries.

A Missouri law that was passed in 2009 prohibits drivers who are aged 21 or younger from text messaging. This case has encouraged Eric Zahnd, the prosecutor who filed the charges against Gannon, to pursue a bill that would ban all texting while driving, regardless of the driver’s age. Although similar bills have been introduced in Missouri, they have not yet become law.

Distracted Driving Impairs Drivers

Cases such as Gannon’s have raised concern about the dangers of distracted driving. Studies have compared the level of impairment caused by texting while driving to the level of impairment caused by driving while drunk. Since 2006, 79 people have been killed in crashes that involved drivers who were distracted by their cell phones while driving in Missouri. The impact of distracted driving has become a heated topic nationwide. Many states have recognized the high level of distraction posed by cell phones and have enacted bans against texting while driving.

A pair of preliminary studies point to strong evidence that texting while driving is extremely dangerous and that there is no safe way to do it. The results of these studies were recently discussed at a medical conference, and have not yet been released. One of the studies was conducted by high school students in Oklahoma. In this study, high school students used driving simulators while they texted with their phones in a variety of positions. Regardless of the phone’s position, these distracted drivers were between four and six times more likely to swerve out of their lane, posing a risk to nearby cars and pedestrians. Although the results have not yet been officially released, they strongly suggest that there is no safe way to text while driving.

Laws Banning Texting While Driving

Currently, 37 states ban texting while driving. Several other states have similar bills pending. Most recently, the Alabama Senate voted to ban texting while driving. Although the bill had previously passed the House without allowing for exceptions, the Senate created a version that allows texting to contact emergency services, obtain GPS data or while stopped in traffic. It is expected that the bill will become law, but it is uncertain which version will pass. Both the House and Senate must approve the same version of the bill before it can be signed into law.

Personal injury attorneys and car accident attorneys support these laws as an effort to promote safer driving. According to the National Safety Council, approximately 1.3 million car crashes per year are caused by drivers who are distracted by their cell phones. Distracted driving increases the likelihood of accidents and puts other drivers at risk. The best way to prevent distracted driving accidents is to keep your cell phone out of reach so that you are not tempted to use it while you are driving. If you need to make a phone call or get in touch with someone, stop your car first. Pull over into a parking lot or a safe distance off the road.

Choosing a personal injury solicitor

If you have been injured through no fault of your own at the hands of a medical professional, an accident in the workplace et-cetera, then you must seek compensation, especially if the injury is lasting. Making a claim for compensation however is a lengthy and complicated process and seeking the help of a legal professional is a must.

However choosing the correct solicitor to deal with your case is like picking from a box of chocolates. They all look the same and yet some are better than others.

There are a number of things to look for and standards to follow which will help you make the correct decision. Read on and take note…

Trust

Look for a solicitor or firm that deals with a large variety of cases because that demonstrates they have the expertise to manage all aspects of the law. Injury and negligence claims are very complex and so you need people who are on the ball and have a firm understanding of all the issues. Look for firms that can prove they are one of the leading teams for cases of serious, personal injury and medical negligence.

If you find a solicitors firm where a large number of their solicitors are seen as leaders in their field then you know you can trust them to do their best for you also. These types of legal representation like to push boundaries to ensure that their clients achieve justice.

Human service – not faceless

The best results are often made by law firms that show a human side. Not huge organisations of solicitors and call centre sales staff. Finding North West Solicitors who you can immediately speak to face to face therefore is always a good indicator of the right type of legal representation to go with.

A large amount of complex time consuming cases usually involve large organisations. When looking for a personal injury solicitor you must choose one that is not afraid to take on these large organisations.

The best legal teams do not just stop at the courtroom however when it comes to their clients. The notable firms make sure there is plenty of support and guidance before, during and after the case.

The best people

Choose a personal injury solicitor who not only has the best people for the case but also gets them to work for you. Senior members of staff should be readily available to deal with your case and achieve the best results. After-all the senior solicitors will have the most experience and be more able to get you the justice you seek.

No time wasting

Some solicitors will take on any case if it means that there is a possibility of payment at the end of it. The more reputable solicitors will review your case and make a decision on whether or not it is worth making a claim – hence not wasting your time.

Fee options

Solicitors who provide fee options are the best route to take. Some will provide a varied range from ‘no win no fee’ to legal expense insurance. Choosing one that does not put its primary focus on fees is the best option. Even if you do not need public funding for your case, choosing a solicitor who accepts this form of payment means they are more than likely ethically sound.

Potential Health Risks posed by “Fracking”

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, is a procedure that is used to extract natural gas. The process involves forcing chemicals, sand and water at high pressure into rock deep below the earth’s surface, causing the rock to fracture, releasing natural gas and oil trapped within.

Natural gas acquired through fracking currently accounts for one-third of the U.S. gas supply, resulting in decreased natural gas prices nationwide. Although natural gas is being touted as a key to energy independence, many communities affected by fracking are concerned about potential health risks posed to groundwater and the air by the chemicals used in the process.

Early Research Suggests Fracking Pollutes

A recent study from the Colorado School of Public Health found levels of xylene, ethylbenzene and toluene in the air surrounding natural gas wells in Garfield County, Colorado. These chemicals have been linked to respiratory and neurological problems. Benzene is also a known carcinogen. The results of this study suggest that more research is necessary to determine just how the chemicals involved in fracking affect the environment and public health. This study shows that fracking is likely not only to contaminate ground water, but it appears to create harmful air pollution as well.

On April 17, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized standards that will reduce air pollution associated with fracking and natural gas production. These regulations provide the first federal standards regulating natural gas wells that are hydraulically fractured. A full report of the dangers of fracking is expected at the end of 2012.

Recent Legal Action

Although fracking has not been clearly linked to health risks, some Pennsylvania citizens are concerned that their mysterious ailments could be related to nearby natural gas drilling. However, because natural gas companies are refusing to disclose the chemicals used in their process, doctors are unable to assess the potential health risks.

In an effort to address these health concerns, Pennsylvania has a bill pending that would compel natural gas companies to disclose the types of chemicals that are being used for fracking to doctors. However, the doctors must sign a confidentiality agreement which will make it illegal for them to share the names of the chemicals used in drilling with their patients. Doctors are concerned about the vagueness of the law, and fear that it will open them up to malpractice lawsuits by their patients angered by the lack of disclosure.

A case was filed in Scranton, Pennsylvania after a woman’s well exploded, allegedly from chemicals that built up in the water supply due to nearby fracking. State legislators blamed a the Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, suggesting that their natural gas drilling methods had increased the levels of methane in local wells. These elevated levels of methane gas are blamed for causing the well explosion. Although Cabot did not admit responsibility, under an agreement they established under the guidance of state legislators, the company has set up a fund of over $4 million available to families with polluted wells. So far, families with affected wells have claimed nearly $2 million from this fund.

One of the latest States to enter the fray is California, where rules and regulations pertaining to fracking are just coming into debate. California has one of the toughest tort environments in the United States and there is no doubt that each wrongful death attorney in Los Angeles is closely watching the legislative process to identify the parameters of future suits, as are the oil companies. California with its massive economy and robust fossil fuel industry may very well be the case study for the nation’s fracking rules going forward.

Future of Fracking-Related Lawsuits

More than 23 cases have been filed nationwide seeking recourse for the health and environmental consequences posed by fracking. So far, lawyers have been unable to link health consequences to the fracking process, but with more awareness of the potential dangers, the pending EPA study, and the findings by the Colorado School of Public Health, it is likely that natural gas companies will be subject to tighter regulations in the future. If these studies are able to link the chemicals released by fracking to substantial risks to human health, the gas companies will no longer be able to deny that fracking is harmful and they may be liable for damage caused to public health and the environment.

Parker Waichman LLP Represents Plaintiffs in Lawsuits Claiming Damage from DePuy ASR Hip Implants

The national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP is representing several patients who experienced complications from DePuy ASR hip implants; the defective metal-on-metal hip devices started an onslaught of media and medical attention since DePuy’s massive recall in 2010.

One of the cases is filed on behalf of a 62-year woman from Ferrum, Virginia, who received her ASR hip implant in October 2007. Despite the fact that hip implants are expected to last a minimum of 10 to 15 years, she experienced serious side effects as early as February 2011, the complaint states. Allegedly, she suffers from pain and elevated chromium and cobalt levels as a result of the implant. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, is seeking compensatory, punitive damages and medical monitoring.

DePuy Recall

In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics (Johnson & Johnson subsidiary) recalled the ASR resurfacing system and the ASR acetabular systems. According to a study published in the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, the implants were failing in 12 to 13 percent of patients within five years. Unfortunately, the devices had already been implanted in 93,000 patients around the world. The recall not only drew attention to DePuy’s flaws, it cast light on the metal-on-metal hip industry as a whole.

Recent Evidence

DePuy’s recall is not the only piece of evidence backing the lawsuits. In February, the British Medical Journal published a report showing that device makers were well aware of the risks associated with metal-on-metal implants and failed to properly warn the public. According to the report, patients have experienced cobalt levels 600 times higher than what is naturally formed in the body. Even more disconcerting are the “uncertain risks” associated with these increased levels. Last month, The Lancet published a study showing that metal-on-metal hip replacements failed in 6 percent of patients within five years, compared to the 1.7 to 2.3 percent seen in other types of implants such as ceramic or plastic.

FDA Warnings

In response to the growing concern over metal-on-metal hips, last May the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered 21 manufacturers to conduct post-market studies assessing the dangers of metal ions generated by the devices. The agency is also currently conducting its own review.

Big google changes – impact on personal injury

Unlike many other law firms, personal injury practices get the internet. They understand their market well and know that, as with almost all other business sectors, upwards of 20% and rising of instructions now derive from online searches.

There are 2 ways to succeed in getting on page 1 of google for the hundreds of volume UK personal injury searches each month. The first is pay per click. Of course, whoever pays the most per click will appear at the top of google’s searches, but did you know that for many high volume personal injury searches, each click can cost as much as £30.00 ?! Some of the bigger personal injury practices are spending literally tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands on pay per click and they wouldn’t be doing so if they weren’t getting a return on that investment.

The second method is search engine optimisation (seo) to appear high in the organic listings, which are not paid for. Again, personal injury firms know the value of this traffic and pay big money to seo companies. But things are changing and have massively changed in the last month. Google has clamped down on “over optimisation” and link buying in an unprecedented way. Buying inbound links from other websites to your own has been the number 1 factor for getting onto page 1 of google organically for years. But no more. Not only no more but google, out of the blue, and perhaps unfairly, has actually penalised sites for link buying in a big way,. with many losing 20-50 places in the rankings.

This is a risky ploy by google – it is hurting some of the very same personal injury practices that pay it big money in pay per click. For whatever reason, and many say the whole idea is to drive more people to pay per click and raise the costs even more, there is a window of opportunity for those with a smaller budget and a clean backlink profile, to reap the benefits of this upheaval.

One firm which tells us that their rankings have improved significantly in the last week is Waring & Co. The firm has 2 websites, a main site and also http://www.personal-injury-claims.co.uk. Whilst it’s only 1 search term among many, google “personal injury”. You’ll see both sites are in the top 20.

Interesting times in personal injury online marketing …

Can local personal injury firms compete with nationwide practices

Personal injury is a dog eat dog part of legal practice perhaps like no other except conveyancing. It is also perhaps the most lucrative area of law outside of the top corporate practices, so is it any wonder that buying power and marketing budgets have been a key driver ?

Not only do smaller personal injury practices have to compete against national tv and radio advertising campaigns, but there is  a growing trend for bigger and bigger incentives to be paid to potential clients. This is all aside from the controversy of referral fees being paid.

So, is there scope for a more localised approach in the personal injury sector ?

Lloyd’s solution is a new concept, for the people. Rather than simply trot out the 100% compensation, hard sell approach, Lloyd’s firm are using a slogan as associated with them, with different connotations. The aim is to make the slogan “for the people” synonymous with personal injury claims in Essex.

The other aspect of Lloyd Green’s message is that, perhaps aside from whiplash, it’s vital to have a personal injury lawyer on your side who is a specialist, capable and accessible to you, just as with other forms of legal advice. With a serious work injury for example, it is vital to have a lawyer you trust who specializes in that branch claim rather than a claims handler.

It will be interesting to see if the above approach works. what do you think ?

Child Safety Seats

Around 25 children between the ages of 0 and 11 years are killed in car accidents annually, about 250 are seriously injured and around 6,000 slightly injured. If a car accident occurs, a child who is unrestrained may be thrown out of the car or thrown forward with a force that is 30 to 60 times of their weight.

Children should therefore always be appropriately restrained and use a seat that is suitable for their size, age and weight. This will significantly reduce the risk of child being killed or injured, should a car accident occur.

The law requires all children up until the age of 12 or 135cm in height to use the correct restraint and the driver of a car is legally bound to make sure that any children that are traveling in the vehicle are properly restrained. It is crucial that drivers follow this law exactly as the proper use of child car restraints prevents many of child deaths and injuries occurring in the car accidents.

If you or someone in your family has been involved in a car accident, please do not hesitate to contact Thompsons No Win No Fee specialists who will advise you on your first steps to receiving the compensation that you deserve.