Panama City Florida Injury Lawyer Blog

In 1980, Candy Lightner gave a speech about a 13-year-old girl who was killed by a drunk driver with several previous arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol. The audience gasped when she said, "That little girl was my daughter." Her speech launched the organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD. It became a high profile advocacy organization against drunk driving, weak prosecutors, and lenient judges. Her daughter, Cari, was the catalyst for the reshaping of American thinking about drunk drivers who until then had been thought of as rebels or comic figures. Her death at the hands of the driver who had 4 prior DUI arrests, one just 2 days earlier, catapulted American thinking into the modern era of classifying drunken drivers as criminals.

Around the same time, Journalist Doris Aiken investigated the deaths of two teenagers caused by a drunk driver in New York. She found that the drunks routinely received slaps on the wrist even when they had prior convictions and had killed someone. The drunk driving incidents were routinely characterized as "accidents" instead of negligence or homicide, and the victims were seen as having been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Fed up with the "one for the road" mentality, Aiken formed the organization called RID, Remove Intoxicated Drivers. It and MADD replaced the old mindset with the belief that "Friends don't let friends drive drunk."

By 1985, the annual number of deaths from drunk driving had decreased precipitously. Yet, there is more to do. For my part, I sue drunk drivers and, similarly, drivers who are impaired by other drugs, who hurt my clients. I want them to pay for my clients' injuries and to forever remember that drunk driving will have financial consequences. You, too, can help. Call 911 when you spot a driver weaving in traffic. Together, we can and will save lives.

The following is a guest post from Rick Console, a New Jersey personal injury attorney from Console and Hollawell, PC.

Who is going to the Superbowl this year? It's still way too early to tell, but that doesn't stop most of us from picking our favorites. If you're a Green Bay Packers, New Orleans Saints, Baltimore Ravens, or New England Patriots fan, you're in good shape. If you're a Miami Dolphins fan you're probably slightly more subdued around the water cooler. Still, February is a long way away, and anything can happen. And that's one of the reasons why football fans are so loyal, why they don't just watch the game--they live it. There are not that many other sports we would willingly give up three hours every Sunday afternoon for, or every Monday night.

What is it we love about football so much? For most of us, watching football feeds our competitive natures. Most of us will never get to prove our mettle on the gridiron, yet for those few hours on Sunday, we can pretend that we're in on the action.

Football is an aggressive, action-oriented sport. And maybe a part of us, even if it's just a small part, enjoys that aspect of the game as well. We can afford to, sitting on the sidelines. Professional football players, on the other hand, experience a high rate of injury. Despite wearing helmets head injuries are prevalent among the pros, many of whom sustain multiple concussions throughout their careers. Several studies have proven that multiple concussions lead to long-term damage. This long-term damage has even been given a name--concussion syndrome.

Who is responsible for these injuries? The players themselves, who willingly participate? The NFL? Or could it be Riddell, the manufacturer of the helmets worn by pro football players? A lawsuit, brought by more than 125 players against both the league and Riddell, may eventually help us answer that question. In addition to this class action suit, there are three personal injury cases against the NFL being brought in California, and one in Pennsylvania.

The players are suing the league and helmet manufacturer due to five complaints brought in state and federal court over the past few months. They say the NFL was aware of the dangers of head injuries, fraudulently concealed the long-term effects of concussions, and should have done more to protect and help retired players. Plaintiffs are seeking league changes so others don't suffer from the same damage, a medical process that ensures those who have head injuries related to professional football receive medical attention for the injury for as long as they need it, and compensation.

The NFL is countering that they are not responsible for the medical issues that some of the players are facing, because the players knew there were risks of injury when they decided to play football.

After a hearing on Wednesday, October 19, in which a Senate committee discussed whether manufacturers of sports equipment make fraudulent claims, the NFL did make several changes, including changing its return-to-play policies and the co-chairmen of its committee on concussions.

While exact figures are unknown, the plaintiffs are collectively seeking millions of dollars in damages. The suit could take years to be resolved.

Continue reading "Who's Really Responsible for Superbowl Injuries?" »

Social media sites like Facebook and Twitter might be fun, but if you have a legal case, beware of discussing it or anything that might be an issue in it there. Your potentially damaging statements might find their way to your adversary or his legal representatives through others. But the greater and more realistic fear is that your statements, which can be used against you in court, will be the focus of formal discovery proceedings.

For example, in personal injury cases, it is common for my injured clients to be asked during deposition if they have a Facebook or Twitter account. If they do, the defense lawyer then is able to ask for information which opens up that account for a search for discussions about things the client might have said to others about his or the other party's fault in a case or what he or she can and cannot do. Trouble arises when during deposition or in the answers to written questions sent by the defense, he says he cannot fish, because the rocking of a boat causes pain to his injured back. Obviously, on a given day, he might feel pretty good, go out fishing for the first time in 8 months, and brag on Facebook about the fish he caught. The insurance defense lawyer can use that one posting dealing with only one episode of fishing on a day when he felt better than usual to portray the injured client as a liar.

In an Illinois town, a couple on a motorcycle was struck by a car. The car's driver had posted on his Facebook page a photo of his prized car with a caption. The caption read, "Ready to drive at 90 mph." The injured couple's attorney is using that statement, probably made in an unthinking moment, as evidence against the car's driver. Every case of whatever kind has the risk of being damaged by social media messages, so if you are about to be or are involved in a legal case, silence is golden.

The manslaughter trial of Conrad Murray for the death of Singer Michael Jackson illustrated the huge difference between the law governing opening statements and closing arguments in both criminal and civil trials. Every lawyer wants to gain an early advantage by persuading the jury in opening statements by argument about what the anticipated testimony must mean (in that attorney's client's favor, of course), but for fairness, the law requires that the lawyers making opening statements give to the jurors only an outline of the evidence they expect to present during the trial. That means a factual roadmap of how the trial will unfold. The goal of the rules is to help the jury focus on the relevant testimony.

If you've attended a trial, you know that efforts are made by both sides to argue the case in opening by using the phrase "the evidence will show" followed by a diatribe that is expected to persuade jurors to their view. "The evidence will show" phrase is designed to obscure the argumentative nature of the next statement or two that the lawyer will make. Such is life in the courtroom. To the contrary, in closing argument (note that I said "argument") every possible inference from the evidence in the case can be argued. Commentary is permitted, even required, to do justice to the client's case.

In Conrad Murray's trial, you saw drama generated by the emotion of the closing arguments. In their closings, the lawyers were passionate, persuasive actors advocating their positions. That was the only time the rules of trial permitted them to argue to the jury their clients' version of the events. Conrad Murray's fate, similar to the fate of many a criminal defendant, rode on the effectiveness of those arguments.