Panama City Florida Injury Lawyer Blog

Local community members are asking many questions about the safety of our area roadways following a series of Florida car accidents last Sunday on Interstate 75 that took the lives of at least ten Floridians. Those driving in the area probably noticed that heavy smoke and fog blanketed large stretches of the highway, making visibility for drivers close to impossible. The fog was caused by a fire that had started in the Paynes Prairie area south of Gainesville. According to a report in the USA Today, it wasn't long before the weather led to a three-vehicle accident. One motorist was severely injured in that collision and a stretch of the highway was temporarily closed.

Shortly after the road re-opened following that initial crash, an incredible eighteen vehicles were caught in a chain-reaction collision instigated by the poor visibility. More than a dozen cars and at least six tractor-trailers were involved. When all was said and done, at least ten travelers were killed and many others were injured--some severely. Our Florida auto accident lawyer has worked on these motor vehicle cases for years and understand that this tragedy is one of the worst pile-ups in decades.

The Panama City car accident attorney at our firm knows that in the aftermath of these accidents the legal issues related to the event are far from the minds of the victims. Medical recovery and dealing with the grieving process are of paramount concern. However, there will eventually come a time for very serious questions to be asked about what caused this accident, how it could have been prevented, and what steps need to be taken to avoid a repeat occurrence. When it comes to potential legal liability there are two big issues to sort through:

1) What individual acts of negligence led to the pile-up? Subsequent legal actions filed on behalf of victims would try to parse out the series of events that actually caused the chain-reaction to occur. For one thing, the source of the fire must be determined, as the fire is likely one of the main causes spurring the accident. The overall analysis will rely heavily on the results of investigations into the collision by law enforcement officials. Similar legal principles will apply whether the suits are filed by injured victims or whether they are Florida wrongful death lawsuits filed by family members of those killed in the tragedy.

2) Do public bodies which allowed driving in the dangerous stretch of road in the middle of such challenging weather conditions bear some responsibility? Interstate 75 has had its share of road tragedies in the past, and one local paper has referred to the stretch of highway between Ocala and Gainesville as a "Bermuda Triangle." Should public officials have better warned drivers of the danger of the area? Officials had the power to close the highway, particularly because there had already been a serious three-car accident before the larger eighteen-vehicle collision. Officials may have been able to do more to prevent the pile-up. Over the years many have actually called for a truck bypass to be built in the area to avoid tragedies just like this one.

Whatever the case, there is undoubtedly much more to this Florida road tragedy. Everything must be done to ensure the victims (and their families) are provided as much support as possible. Other motorists should also take note and use the incident as another reminder of the risks that exist whenever one travels and the need to take every possible precaution to remain safe on the road.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Four-Vehicle Panama City Car Accident Takes Life of Resident

Don't Let Your Friends Drive Drunk

Only days before Christmas, I have to tell you that Santa Claus has been to court. Many times. In 1947, in Miracle on 34th Street, a great film starring Natalie Wood, Maureen O'Hara and Edmund Gwynn, Gwynn played Kris Kringle, a man totally convinced he was the real Santa Claus. When he told his friends, he was promptly committed to the infamous Bellevue Hospital just before Christmas. In a warmhearted series of courtroom ploys, his fearless lawyer got him recognized as the only Santa Claus. Since then, all has not been milk and cookies for Santa.

A New Jersey man went to court to get his name changed to Santa Claus, and Santa wasn't even called to testify about whether he liked the man. He might have given the guy a bundle of switches when he was little. Santa's also been involved in cases involving impersonation by a lawyer (I assure you it wasn't I), disorderly conduct (maybe involving some brandy), and even a tax matter in 1994. Santa might consider retaining a good defense attorney to help him with cases that could arise such as trespass, employing non-unionized elves, violating wage and hour laws, and Peeping Tom allegations. Peeping Tom, you ask? Well, how else could he see you while you're sleeping?

Georgia has just granted Santa's flying reindeer special clearance to navigate the skies of the state, but he probably violates the federal aviation regulations all the time. Flying too low. No navigational lights on the sleigh. Reindeer dropping whatever as they fly. So many laws to avoid breaking, and so much for Santa to think about in the short hours before Christmas. He might wish he could be committed to Bellevue Hospital just to rest. But Santa, I have a wish, too. Please give everyone reading this today a safe and happy holiday and a wonderful new year.

When I was growing up, everyone thought that dogs and cats were dumb. We were the dumb ones. Today, we know that the smarter dogs have intelligence levels like those of 3 to 4 year old children. They know when they are being abused. They feel the emotional pain, and, certainly, they feel physical pain that is cruelly or carelessly inflicted, the effects of starvation, and the depression that comes from being chained to a stake in a yard for their lifetimes.

Sometimes their only salvation lies in our laws which do offer a fair amount of protection, but that protection is not available unless decent people take a moment to call the local authorities. Those include the police department, the sheriff's office, humane societies, and animal shelters. If these animals are as intelligent and as aware as are 3-4 year old kids, even disregarding the injury and pain that can result from carrying a dog in the bed of a pickup truck, why would anyone who exercises any thought whatsoever risk a dog's well being by hauling it that way like it's only a piece of cargo?

One man, who is accused of dragging his dog to his death, may have done that. Authorities accuse him of tying the dog in the bed of the truck on a long line and then driving erratically so that the dog was thrown out and dragged a very long way. The dog later died from the injuries. Criminal penalties may be his reward.

Our laws do make animal cruelty a criminal matter. The value of those little lives has been recognized by the legislatures of most states. Mean, cruel, and unthinking people will be punished. Aside from that, a little kindness, a soft touch, and bowls of food and water can return rewards for their owners when pets are treated well. I know that from my dog, Cowboy. Protect our four-legged companions from abuse. Call the authorities when you see it happening.

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.

Dramatic things are occurring around our constitution's First Amendment free speech rights. They aren't worth anything if one is on the Supreme Court grounds, but with narrow limits, they are golden elsewhere, possibly even in indecency cases and stolen valor matters.

Interesting times are ahead as the Supreme Court will decide what limits should be applied to free speech rights. Are they really guaranteed by the constitution? Are there limits despite the clear words of the Amendment? Consider challenges to the exercise of free speech and cases being considered by the court.

Occupy Wall Street protesters are pushing the limits of free speech, not in what they say, but where they say it. As has long been known, constitutional rights are not unconditional. The protesters have a right to harangue about unethical banking practices, but they don't have the right to obstruct traffic. The constitution guarantees only a right to peaceful assembly. To be peaceful, its protest must respect public safety and not disturb the peace. Therein lies the justification for the arrest of some of the occupy Wall Street protestors. They clearly can't push first amendment rights past established safety and disturbance boundaries.

Other cases, presently under consideration by the Supreme Court, bear a close watch in the coming months. The Stolen Valor Act case of U.S. v. Alvarez will examine whether it is a federal crime to lie about receiving military decorations. Review of the Court of Appeals decision that the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional limit on free speech is underway by the high court. And in another case, the FCC's indecency rule is being challenged. That case stems from the fleeting expletive uttered by Bono at the Golden Globe Awards in 2003. In the context of these cases, consider the irony that the U.S. Code prohibits a person from demonstrating, standing, displaying signs, or making a harangue on the Supreme Court's grounds or in the building. I told you it is an interesting time.

As we begin the World Series of Baseball, some baseball history might be interesting. Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, now 91, played a pivotal role at a key moment in the development of players' rights forty-four years ago.

If you have watched much baseball, you might remember Charlie Finley. He was the owner of the Kansas City Athletics. He was abrasive and disliked almost everything including other owners and the idea of baseball players unionizing. When Finley got in a fight with the players' association, lawyers for Major League Baseball urged Finley to hire Stevens, a Chicago antitrust lawyer, for advice. The league's lawyers thought that Stevens' level head and mild demeanor would give temperamental balance to the hotheaded Finley.

In 1967, that balance paid off when the Kansas City team became rowdy on a commercial flight home after playing the Boston Red Sox. Finley's reaction was typical. He fired his team's manager, fined pitcher Lew Krausse, and suspended the players' union representative, Jack Aker. Matters spiraled out of control as the players' association threatened to file unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board. Fearing that they were about to lose baseball's longstanding exemption from antitrust laws, other team owners urged Finley to settle the dispute fast.

Marvin Miller, the executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association, showed up at the New York meeting as did the Kansas City Athletics' alternate team representative, Jim "Catfish" Hunter, and Finley. Finley came with Stevens who he introduced as "my lawyer from Chicago." Finley was as argumentative as expected, but Stevens with an occasional hand on his arm or a trip outside with Finley, brought him back to an even keel. By the end of the evening, Stevens' calm had prevailed, and the dispute was over, leading to the first collective bargaining agreement for players with a minimum salary of $10,000. Now, their average salary is over $3 million.

Did you know that on our roads at every moment there are many vehicles that have been cut apart and put back together without any blueprints, testing, or safety analysis? We don't know when one of these is approaching us on the highway, because they have been beaten to fit and painted to match. In other words, they look just fine. Even the owners of these cars, trucks, and recreational vehicles don't know how their vehicles were created.

Most vehicles on the roads are OEM, original equipment manufacturer, that is, made by recognized, quality manufacturers like Ford, General Motors, and Toyota. But the ones I'm talking about have been modified from their original status. They are stripped down, cut apart and reassembled as something else like handicapped accessible vehicles, RV's, limousines, off-road vehicles, and conversion vans. Usually, they aren't required to comply with federal motor vehicle safety standards. In many cases, the companies that create these vehicles fail to observe basic safety standards. For example, they may not have an engineer on staff; no engineer was consulted in the design; no testing was performed, and there were no quality controls.

Who pays the price for this shoddy work? Maybe the owner who is injured in a crash, because the vehicle was not structurally sound. I have seen a number of cases like this where the people in modified vehicles were horribly injured in wrecks that people in similar, unmodified vehicles would have easily survived without serious injury or death. Sometimes, though, it's the innocent people in the oncoming vehicles who are the victims. Maybe a steering problem or a suspension problem in the modified vehicle caused the problem. Those are the common culprits.

Continue reading "No Engineering, No Testing, Yet They Are On Our Roads" »

Credit damage from various forms of injury or litigation can result in costs to consumers in the thousands of dollars. Credit damage can occur in many situations such as serious personal injury causing default on payments, because the person can't work. It can also occur during real estate litigation, from identity theft, breach of contract, contested divorce, partnership disputes, and health insurance rescission.

Each of us has a credit reputation. When credit reputation is damaged, one can expect the loss of ability to get credit for new purchases or higher interest rates for the credit that can be gotten. In divorce cases, abuse of joint credit cards often occurs. The lower earning or unemployed spouse typically suffers, because his or her credit score can drop dramatically.

If you are in that situation, call this type of loss to the attention of your attorney or paralegal before a divorce settlement is prepared. Whether in a divorce or a personal injury case, loss of credit reputation due to a third party's conduct is a form of legal damage that may have significant value. These damages can be quantified, but too often this kind of damage is overlooked by attorneys. Why? The answer is pretty simple. Traditionally, this type of economic damage resulting from an injury was not taught in law schools. Today, these damages are considered as valid as loss of earnings, medical expenses, and pain and suffering, so be sure your attorney knows about this kind of claim and has considered it in your case. The red flags that can tip you off that you are experiencing damage to your credit reputation are the cancellation of your credit cards, foreclosure, repossession of a vehicle, and increases in credit card fees. As your legal team prepares this aspect of your case, they will ask for personal and sensitive financial information that is essential for case preparation. Don't worry. Everything you tell a legal team is held in confidence.

Today's world of communication has changed significantly since the explosion of social media sites likes FaceBook, Twitter and MySpace. It is not uncommon for someone to have 1,000 or more 'Friends' listed on their account. In fact, many strive to get in the hundreds of friend and consider it 'the norm'.

Then there are the posts. They vary in topics, from family photos to what one may have had for dinner. They may even express an opinion on a variety of topics. All seem harmless until this information is used against you.

More agencies are using social media sites to investigate individuals. A few months ago, I referenced a case in the New York Supreme Court where a woman claimed she fell off a chair that had a defective design and she suffered serious and permanent injuries. Her MySpace posts, including family travel photos, were used against her in the case as they contradicted the woman's claim that she was homebound.

More recent are seminars and webinars being offered on the ethics of using social media sites as a research tool. Research has even been done on potential jurors. Posts are used to get a more in depth view of how that person may react to a certain case type.

Would you pass a social Media background check? Employers are using these social media sites to research potential job applicants. The posted photos of one's heavy alcohol consumption or compromising photos may lead a potential employer to question your decision making or reliability to show up to work.

These sites can be great for business and expanding your network of friends but use common sense. If you have 1,000 friends, do you really know who these people are? Are you using your account for business or pleasure? This may be one area to reiterate that business and pleasure generally don't mix. Be critical of the photos or status' you post and how they may be perceived by others. Privacy settings should be utilized to ensure just that - your privacy.

The morning hussle and bussle will increase come Monday morning as students resume classes for the 2011/2012 school year in Bay and Washington counties. Teachers have been preparing their classrooms this week for a year full of excitement and learning. Many students may still be in the summer-time mode and may not be paying attention as they wait on the corners for their bus to arrive, ride their bycycles, drive their cars or walk to their school. Make sure you allow a little extra time for your commute. Stay alert of the added traffic on our roadways.

Texting while driving is never a good thing as your attention is taken away from the road reducing your reaction time by 18%. This is enough time to pass a red light or stop sign. It could also affect your response in the event a student steps into your path on the road.

Pay attention to the reduced speed limits in the school zones. These tickets come with a hefty fine as well as moving violation points on your drivers license usually followed by increased insurance premiums.

Keeping our students safe only takes a few extra minutes of your time. Avoid tailgating, speeding and distractions that take your eyes off the road. Be prepared to stop at all times. Practice being a courteous driver and signal when you are changing lanes. Avoid road-rage and allow those not-so-courteous drivers to merge into the lane even though they should've merged a half-mile back.

Be safe and have a good school year.

Luck was certainly on the side of a Navarre family who escaped serious injury in a boating accident earlier this week. Returning in the late hours of the night from a day of fishing, they struck a sand bar resulting in their 23-foot boat to run aground and overturn. Miraculously, none of the 4 passengers were injured. A minor child was taken to Sacred Heart hospital with minor injuries.

We are in the height of the boating season here in Florida. The hot weather has made it even more enticing for boaters to get out and cool off but let's not forget basic boating safety rules. Be sure you are well aware of the waters you will be boating in. There are several online resources to help plan your day of boating. It will provide alerts for various points of the waterways to changes that may have been published in prior maps.

NOAA also publishes a Nautical chart on-line viewer for various waterways that you can download the review if you and your family are planning a day out on the water. Taking time to review the charts to become familiar with the waterway can help keep your trip accident free. Boating during the day is much different than boating at night. Approaching object can easily seen and evasive action can be taken whereas night trips make this much more difficult. Front spot lights and slower speeds should be practiced, particularly in waterways in which you may not be familiar.

I have been representing accident victims for over thirty years. People like to handle their own affairs when they know how to, but most are wise enough to call an attorney for help in automobile accident and hospital and nursing home malpractice cases.

The going gets tough very fast in these complicated matters. Most people correctly decide to get professional help before they mess up their cases beyond repair. Why? An attorney with experience representing personal injury victims and negotiating and trying these cases knows what information to get, how to analyze it, and how to successfully present it to an insurance company or a jury. Anything less than that is unacceptable unless the victim wants to be a victim twice, the first time being the victim of a careless driver, doctor, or nursing home staff and the second time being the insurance company's victim.

Adjusters work for the insurance company. Period. Their job is to settle an injury claim for the lowest possible expense to the company. Critical analysis of evidence proving fault, present and future medical expenses, decreased earning potential, and lost wages, often for the remainder of life, is essential. People untrained in these things invariably miss key elements that greatly weaken or destroy their cases. And they usually miss finding insurance policies and coverages that apply to their cases. Often they don't know that if they accept one type of coverage without getting appropriate authorization from their insurance company, they can waive huge benefits that would be provided by their own policies.

Even if they settle their cases by themselves, everything can be taken by lawful lien holders such as their health insurance companies or Medicare or Medicaid authorities unless they have taken proper protective steps. Get help if you are hurt. Call a professional. It will pay dividends. And call me to get a card that lists the things you should and shouldn't do if you're in an accident. I'll send it today, and you can put it in your glove box or your wallet.

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.

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.