Panama City Florida Injury Lawyer Blog

August 1st marks the anniversary of the first coast to coast trip made in an automobile. As you can imagine, driving an automobile that distance was difficult and a daring achievement. H. Nelson Jackson, a physician and businessman from Burlington, Vermont joined by Sewall K. Crocker, a mechanic, drove from San Francisco to New York. It took them 63 days and there were many challenges. The trip is detailed in 'Crossing the Country'. It is an interesting piece of history.

Making this 2,500 mile trip today would take roughly 40 hours or about 4 days. You would certainly not encounter the road conditions they experienced back in 1903. Automobile safety and mechanics have changed significantly as well. Today's cars are equipped with anti-lock brakes, seatbelts, a windshield and wipers just to name a few improvements that didn't exist then. Government and consumer groups perform many safety tests and rate cars for their crash and rollover safety. It's important for you to do your research before buying a car your family will be driving or will be a passenger in. One good source is the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Defects and Recalls are documented and published. However, the reports often don't reach the car owners that need this information. Websites such as www.safercar.gov provide resources to identify specific recalls as well as tips of being a safe driver. You owe it to yourself and your family to be informed. They are relying on you to keep them safe.

It is ingrained in our culture that injured people and other litigants have a right to be heard in court. That promise has been breached by a recent Supreme Court decision affecting civil cases. Last week, I told you how the Supreme Court has slammed the courthouse doors on criminal litigants, too. That story was about Scott Pinholster, who today awaits execution, because of the judicial activism of Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas abused the law by ignoring the plain wording of a statute and, in fact, declaring that it didn't say what it did say.

In a very different context, the conservative majority of the court has engaged in a similar exercise to slam the courthouse doors to civil litigants in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. In that case, the Concepcion family bought cell phones, and, as usual, the form contract they had to sign required arbitration instead of suit if a dispute arose. AT&T had advertised free phones, but, instead, it charged the Concepcions $30 in taxes. They and many others sued in a class action alleging false advertising and fraud by charging taxes on phones it had advertised as free. AT&T moved to compel arbitration, but the law of the state in which suit had been filed was clear that arbitration was not a substitute for a class action. Nonetheless, when the case arrived in the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, part of the conservative majority, writing for the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the state law was superseded by the federal arbitration statute. To do that, the court held that the Federal Arbitration Statute requires that claims be arbitrated on an individual basis and that class arbitration is not allowed. Nowhere does the Act say either of those things. Nowhere.

Since rational attorneys aren't going to handle cases worth $30, Justice Breyer in a dissent correctly pointed out that the court's decision effectively gives corporations involved in massive fraud a free pass when many people, losing a little each, cannot find a lawyer to represent them. The court in recent weeks has used strained reasoning to favor prosecutors over criminal defendants and corporations over individuals. It's for you to decide if that is a troubling trend.

In a troubling trend, the U.S. Supreme Court in two recent decisions has closed the courthouse doors in civil and criminal cases by ignoring statutes in the U.S. Code expressly granting access to the courts to those whom it barred.

In Cullen v. Pinholster, Pinholster was convicted of murder. His lawyers weren't notified by prosecutors that they planned to present evidence that would, in the absence of mitigating evidence from the defense, favor the death penalty. As a result, defense counsel had not investigated mitigating factors, such as Pinholster's brain damage, seizure disorder, and knowledge by family members and school officials that he was abused as a child. After the death penalty was imposed by the court, his new lawyers filed a writ of habeas corpus in federal court and provided substantial evidence of these mitigating factors that well could have kept the jury from deciding on the death penalty. The federal district court granted the writ, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court.

Justice Clarence Thomas, part of the conservative majority now comprising the Court, reversed the lower court's decisions on the writ. With that decision, Pinholster's right to a new trial was destroyed. The Supreme Court's decision was based on its finding that the underlying federal district court shouldn't have held an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective existence of counsel who hadn't investigated the mitigating factors. Justice Thomas wrote: under the habeas corpus statute "review is limited to the record that was before the state court" where the case was tried. The trouble with his statement is that Section 2254(e)(2) clearly states that the federal courts can conduct evidentiary hearings in habeas corpus proceedings under the circumstances of Pinholster's case. The Supreme Court ignored the statutory law as a result of which Pinholster awaits execution.

Remarkably, the court ignored another statute to close the courthouse doors to civil litigants. I'll complete the story here soon.

The growing use of online technology, including social media, has made our lives easier but at a cost. The more information we put online, the greater the risk that it will be misused. A good example is a recent study by the Wall Street Journal which found that popular web sites, including Comcast.com, Microsoft's MSN, and Dictionary.com, have installed tracking tools that gather personal information about visitors to their sites. The information gathered includes details about each user's age, sex, race, income, marital status, recent purchases, and favorite movies. The question, then, is this. How can we enjoy technology's benefits while safeguarding our privacy?

Fortunately, some organizations exist that view themselves as watchdogs for privacy rights. One is the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), based in Washington, D.C. By combining technical expertise and legal know-how, EPIC has used Freedom of Information Requests, Federal Trade Commission complaints, and litigation to get the government and companies to disclose what data they are collecting about Internet users and what they are doing with it. That's important, because if they share that information, our personal information, with others, we need to know about it, and if they don't properly safeguard it, we need to know about that. For example, the body scanners in airports can store and transmit data about you, so you want that data to remain there and to be secure from hacking.

Another protection may be offered by a bill being considered by Congress. It is informally known as the Boucher Bill. It would require notice to, and the consent of, a person before collection and disclosure of personal information could take place. The questions will always remain about how technology is being used and whether it is being used to help or hurt us. As attorneys, we have to look at whether the technology violates privacy rights. In other words, we watch the watchers.

The modern 3-point restraint system was designed by my late friend, Nils Bohlin, for Volvo in Sweden. Nils was a great engineer who used a simple idea to save many thousands of lives. I enjoyed our trips together to auto safety conferences and to his farm near Stockholm where we would spend countless hours discussing seatbelt geometry and latching mechanisms. Unfortunately, car and parts manufacturers sometimes put substandard systems and parts in vehicles.

A case in point is that of a young man, who I represent now, paralyzed as a result of a seat belt latch that failed just days ago. His car went out of control at low speed, and he hit a pole. The latch came loose, and he ended up on the floor paralyzed. This is not a rare event. Just a week ago in a neighboring state, a jury awarded $40 million dollars in a similar incident. The seatbelt manufacturer's parts failed, and the seatbelt came loose.

When such a wreck happens, it is important for the people involved to find an attorney knowledgeable about seat belts and their correct design and manufacturing standards to investigate the case. Delay is dangerous, because evidence is lost if the vehicle is bought by the insurance company and sent to a salvage yard. The latch, belt, and attachment points and D-ring must be inspected and photographed before they are destroyed. Evidence of loading against the belt by the body is crucial to establish the fact that the injured or deceased person was in fact wearing the belt at the time of the accident.

I have investigated hundreds of cases involving seat belts and can say with certainty that preservation of the evidence is a critical component of a successful product liability case.

Should cameras be permitted in the courtroom? Following the Casey Anthony trial, that issue is going to be hotly debated for a long time. Years ago, you might remember another high profile case, that of O.J. Simpson. Many who have studied his trial believe that the circus atmosphere of that case was in part due to the presence of media cameras. They say the attorneys and the witnesses played to the cameras and that jurors were influenced by the celebrity atmosphere that was engendered by their presence.

As you just saw in Orlando, Florida's state courts permit cameras in the courtroom. The debate is already raging about whether they influenced Casey Anthony's jury by the creation of a celebrity atmosphere. Cameras are likewise permitted in a fair number of other states' courts, but they have never been allowed in federal district courts, the trial courts in the federal system. Until now.

A committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States has decided to experiment with camera coverage of federal district courts. The three-year experiment will begin on July 18, only days after the Anthony verdict in Orlando, and will be confined to fourteen district courts around the country. One of those is the Southern District of Florida.

The Judicial Conference ran a similar camera experiment in the early 1990s with positive results, but then the excesses of the O.J. Simpson trial were so troubling that the cause for cameras in federal courts was set back by over a decade. Only after prodding by Congress, aided by some federal judges interested in educating the public, has the current pilot program been authorized. If the Casey Anthony trial had preceded the vote of the Judicial Conference last September, would the conference committee have voted to permit the current experiment to go forward? Maybe not. At least under the federal rules, no live broadcasts will be permitted, and the judges can activate kill switches at any moment in a trial to avoid prejudice to either side.

During a recent visit to the Florida Department of Motor Vehicle, I noticed several teenagers waiting to take their driving test. The four students I saw during my hour and a half visit all passed and received their driver's license. What really stuck out was how young they appeared. They obviously were of age, but two of the females were quite tiny in size. I wondered if they were tall enough to see over the steering wheel.

The leading cause of teen deaths in the United States is car crashes. Five thousand teens between the ages of 16 -20 will die annually due to car accidents. Another 400,000 drivers in the same age bracket will suffer serious injuries. The risk of teen drivers getting into a car accident are about 4 times more likely to crash for each mile driven than other drivers. Of the $26 billion dollar cost of car accidents in the U.S., drivers under the age of 24 account for 30% of that cost. It seems obvious that the two main factors contributing to these statistics are immaturity and lack of experience. Night driving and other teen passengers also contribute to the risk of accidents. So what do you do as a parent to keep your young drivers safe?

School budgets are being cut along with every other business, which usually affects the elective classes. Driver's Education for teens has been cut from elective courses in some schools but if your young drivers school offers it, sign them up. Instruction coming from someone other than a parent if often absorbed with less resistance.

Review safety tips and set rules for using the family car or their own car, if they're lucky enough to have one.
-Driver and all passengers should always wear their seat belt - no exceptions.
-Take the time to adjust the headrest to the height behind your head, not your neck, to minimize whiplash if you're in an accident.
-Adhere to the front passenger air bag warning and do not put small children in the front.
-Do not allow more passengers in the car than you have seat belts.

For more safety tips visit the motor vehicle website that will benefit your teen driver.

It is found that friends are less likely to tell a driver if they feel uncomfortable as a result of their driving skill or habits for fear that they will be ridiculed. A PSA was developed a few years ago to encourage teens to 'Speak Up'.

Several videos have also been published to reach out to teens.

Speak to your kids about driving with others. Agree that they can call you if they feel uncomfortable in someone else's car and need you to pick them up. It could be the driver's habits, lack of experience or consuming alcohol while driving that causes them to become uncomfortable. Knowing they can make that call without backlash could save their life.