Panama City Florida Injury Lawyer Blog

As I said last week, people are motivated to take vitamins and minerals in the form of nutritional supplements by promises from the retailers of health and longevity. We spend billions on these products, but they are largely unregulated by the FDA. In one case, I represented more than half the people in the country who had taken a nutritional supplement that had a flawed formulation. One ingredient, necessary in minute quantities to sustain life, was added to the supplement in terribly toxic proportions. It killed several people and maimed hundreds more.

Little did I know that several days ago, the U.S. Army would announce it had pulled some nutritional or dietary supplements from stores on its military bases in the U.S. as it investigates whether they played a role in the deaths of two soldiers. Both soldiers died after having heart attacks during fitness exercises.

The supplements have names like Jack3d and Oxyelite Pro. They contain dimethylamylamine (DMAA). It is bought, because it is advertised to increase energy, metabolism, and concentration. More for your purposes, products that include DMAA are sold here, there, and everywhere in nutritional stores, pharmacies, and online. The company that sells Jack3d, which is pronounced "jacked," and OxyElite Pro say there is no medical evidence to support a claim that the products aren't safe. But you may remember that last week I suggested a different standard should be applied. It is that the company marketing a chemical supplement, which is what these things are, should bear the burden of demonstrating that they are safe before they are marketed.

According to the Army, DMAA may be implicated in other reports of liver and kidney failure, seizures, and loss of consciousness. Like I said last week, if you want vitamins and minerals and want to keep the doctor and the lawyer away, eat an apple a day.

A week ago I was in Cuba. It was a fascinating trip to a place frozen in the 1950s. I was fortunate to have been included in a small legal research group to investigate Cuban law. Cuba has been a Communist police state since Fidel Castro and his band of revolutionaries overthrew the government of President Batista in the late '50s, but I felt no danger even in the outer provinces far from Havana. The greatest danger seemed to be from a potential wreck in one of the ancient taxis, which in combination with ox carts and wagons, are still main conveyances in Cuba. The old cars, many from the late 1940s and early to mid-'50s, had no seat belts or padded dashboards.

Although Cuba has a constitution that provides for a national assembly, something like our Congress but consisting of only one house instead of our two, all power is really vested in one person, the president. Due to declining health, Fidel gave up the presidency a couple years ago, and now his brother, Raul, is president.

Private ownership of property under Cuba's strict communist doctrine has been impossible, but Raul has made some gradual reforms in the law. A limited number of houses can be bought from the Cuban government and owned by individuals. Selling them is another matter. They can't be sold unless the sale is back to the state itself. Upon death, a house passes to the owner's heirs.

Wage and hour laws to protect workers are nearly non-existent today, but some small positive changes are occurring. At the present, an average monthly wage is $30. Yes, $30 a month. Overtime is not paid. Taxi drivers are forced to limit their hours of work to accommodate other drivers who want to earn money. Employment discrimination is not supposed to be possible, but the law is not enforced.

In Cuba, the rule of law has not yet developed. In this beautiful country, change is occurring in that direction under Raul but very slowly. The law is constrained by the iron boundaries of Communism, but I will share some of its nuances and more interesting aspects with you soon.

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

When it comes to a personal injury case, social media will only work against the plaintiff. It would be very difficult to find a post online from the defendant admitting fault, which leaves social networking as a resource that can only be used by the defense attorneys and insurance companies. Most personal injury lawyers know of the risks posed by these websites and will warn their clients, but sometimes that is not enough.

During discovery, the defense attorney will most certainly request the login information for all of the plaintiffs online social networking accounts. Of course the attorney will object to this and fight it rigorously, but more times than not this information will have to be disclosed. The information on these sites could be misconstrued and used to dispute a client's claim.

If a case does make it to trial, chances are that the jury will be more understanding than the defense attorneys about what the plaintiff posted. They will know that a life-altering injury does not mean you should not be able to attend your nephew's third birthday party, but they will be able to understand that someone with a serious back injury should not be in a limbo contest. The problem with this is that many times the case does not make it to trial so this tolerance will not be found.

It is important for personal injury lawyers to find out what their client has been posting online because even if they insist the client shut down all of their sites, the defense may win a motion to obtain the login information. For example, in one recent Pennsylvania case a defense attorney won their motion to obtain the plaintiff's Facebook login because her page was public and had information contradicting her claim. This ruling will no doubt be used as evidence that Facebook is a definite well of information, but the court did explain that this will not be a hard-and-fast rule.

The court stated, "The Court does not hold that discovery of a party's social networking information is available as a matter of course. Rather, there must be a good faith basis that discovery will lead to relevant information." The court went on to explain that since her information was already public it was appropriate and just for the defense to have that information.

New Jersey personal injury lawyer, Richard Console explained that he always urges his clients to shut down their social networking sites when they file a claim, but sometimes it's not enough. "Despite disabling their accounts the defense can still request information from these social networking profiles. It is a hard situation because the information found can be so subjective that it is misconstrued as proof that the claim is not valid."

The role of social networking in personal injury claims becomes larger each year as more and more people join and share information on these sites. As it stands now, most jurisdictions will evaluate these requests on a case by case basis, but a firm rule on whether or not social networking sites are public domain could be made in the near future.

Holiday travel is usually stressful because of inclement weather, delays, and crowded airports. It's far worse if you are bumped from a flight or if your baggage is lost. The law doesn't solve all the problems, but if you know the law, you can use it to minimize them. On the other hand, knowing the law's limitations can also help you to avoid grief from airline and TSA personnel.

Let's first consider flight cancellations and delays. It's sad that there are no federal regulations requiring compensation for cancelled or even severely delayed flights. Since that's the case, you might as well avoid confrontations with airline personnel about those types of travel difficulties. There is a ray of hope, though. Some airlines have created their own Passenger Bill of Rights under which they will compensate passengers for delays. However, if you are bumped from a flight, it's another story, because the law offers protection. Bumping is a possibility even if you have a reservation. Airlines over book to protect themselves from passengers not showing after making reservations. However, if you are bumped due to over booking, DOT's Passenger Bill of Rights requires that you be compensated.

Lost and damaged baggage are huge problems with some airlines and airports. An airline will almost always be responsible for lost or damaged baggage, but there are monetary limitations to their liability expressed in the small print of the contract of carriage. If you had to pay a baggage fee, federal law also requires that the baggage fee be refunded if your baggage is permanently lost.

Let's go back to delayed flights for a moment. If a plane has boarded and taxis away from a gate but, then, has a delay of more than 3 hours on the tarmac, you must be allowed to deplane, and you must while on the plane be provided with food, water, and medical and lavatory access. I wish you safe and happy travels.

I have been helping injured people in Florida for more than 30 years and all too often the cause of wrecks are due to the other driver consuming alcohol. Statistics provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that 10,839 people were killed in 2009 in alcohol-related crashes. This number accounts for 32% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. 181 children up to the age of 14 were killed as a result of a drunk driver. More than 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of either drugs or alcohol in 2009. These numbers are staggering.

New Year's Eve is only days away. Drinking and having a good time is on many agendas for the night. If you're among those out having a good time, designate a driver who will not be drinking. Keep your friends safe and don't let them drive if they've had too much to drink. You've heard the commercials. Buzz driving IS drunk driving. Getting stopped and ticketed is very costly. But it's even more costly if your impairment should hurt or far worse, kill someone when you lose control of your vehicle.

There are several taxi services providing FREE rides for New Years should someone consume too much alcohol and realize they cannot safely operate a vehicle. MillerCoors is the exclusive sponsor of 1-800-TAXICAB that dispatches a taxi wherever and whenever needed. Even if you have to pay for it, it's worth avoiding the risk of being involved in an alcohol-related car accident. Take advantage of this valuable service and don't drink and drive.

Best wishes from The Pittman Firm, P.A. to all for a safe and happy New Year and a prosperous 2012.

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

A recent study reported that in 2010, there were 34 deadly dog attacks in the United States; many of the victims were young boys between 5 and 9-years-old. Dog bites can be avoided if the proper precautions are taken when around an unfamiliar or violent dog.

Basic Rules
• Never approach a dog you do not know.
• If the dog is restrained, fenced in, or if there is a "Beware of Dog" sign that should serve as an added warning to keep your distance.
• Do not attempt to touch a dog before it sees and sniffs you. You do not want to do anything that could be perceived as a threat by the dog. This also means that you should not wake a dog, interrupt it's meal, or approach a nursing dog.
These are all good rules to follow to avoid a violent situation; however, they are not one hundred percent effective. If you still find yourself in danger of being attacked by a dog then there are several steps you need to take.

When Faced with a Violent Dog
• Stay calm! The situation will not improve if you panic because you are more apt to make rash decisions without thinking.
• Stay still. If a dog approaches you in a threatening or violent manner try to remain still. The dog may lose interest and walk away. It is also very important that you don't run away because the dog's natural instinct will be to chase you.
• If the dog goes to bite you, try to feed it something else. Take any loose article you have be it a purse, jacket, umbrella, etc. and try to get the dog to latch on that instead. You may lose your purse, but it's better than losing a limb.
• If the dog knocks you to the ground or if you fall, curl up into the fetal position with your hands over your ears and remain still. This is the best position to make injuries less severe.
After the attack it is important to first seek medical attention. If you can you should also call the police so that a report can be filed. Once your injuries are tended to you should take photos of all the wounds sustained during the attack. You should give as much information as possible to the police after the attack. Be sure to describe the dog as much as you can (how big, what breed, was it wearing tags, etc). If you know the owner of the dog, ask to see the animal's rabies certificate, and find out if the dog has been violent before. You may also want to contact your local animal control to report the attack.

New Jersey Law
In New Jersey, owners are liable for any injuries sustained from their dog. This is the case even if the dog has not been violent in the past. To learn more about the dog bite law speak with a personal injury lawyer in NJ. Most homeowner's insurance provides coverage for dog bites, but you should consult with a injury lawyer to be sure you receive full, deserved compensation.

Continue reading "What To Do When Faced With a Violent Dog" »

A month ago, the Florida legislature initiated a debate that may herald massive changes to Florida's auto insurance requirements during the 2012 legislative session. If those changes occur, they are likely to change your insurance requirements effective next July 1.

The issues involve the current PIP auto insurance, which I will explain in a moment, and whether Florida should adopt a mandatory bodily injury liability insurance model. PIP is an acronym for personal injury protection. It is commonly referred to in this state as no-fault insurance. It works like this. If you are in an auto accident, regardless of whom is at fault, your insurance will pay the first ten thousand dollars of your medical bills and your lost wages. If a death occurs, an allowance is also made for funeral expenses.

Consumer groups say that the insurance industry and their advocates in the legislature are trying to use potential changes in the PIP laws to limit the rights of injured motorists and to increase their profits. The Florida Justice Association and allied consumer groups are pushing back against that effort by arguing that the legislature adopt a mandatory bodily injury liability insurance system currently used in forty-eight states. At the moment, Florida does not require a vehicle owner to have bodily injury liability insurance in effect to pay for injuries the driver causes to others. It requires only PIP and property damage coverage. Arguably, the Florida legislature has been more concerned about damage to cars than injuries and death.

If the mandatory bodily injury liability model is adopted in exchange for reducing or eliminating the PIP coverage, the new law will stem the tide of increasing numbers of motorists who are going bare of coverage that is designed to compensate people they injure. The legislature will go into session on January 10.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Let's talk about traffic law, specifically, traffic citations. The common thinking is that accidents go down if our city gives more traffic citations to control speed, reckless driving, and so on. Right? Well, one town in northern California sharply reduced the number of traffic tickets, and guess what. Accidents went down. Way down.

Roseville, California, reduced the number of tickets its police gave by 84%. The number of tickets was 1,317 in the first six months of 2011 compared to over 8,000 during the same time the year before. The city manager said he wanted his police staff to focus on long term solutions to traffic problems and not feel pressured to write tickets. Also, he made it clear that he doesn't like speed traps. A few nearby cities may want to take note of that. Instead of spending their time using radars on approaching cars, officers in Roseville are assigned to dangerous areas and are asked to be creative about solving traffic and safety problems. What was the result? Traffic tickets were down, as I said, by 84%. Accidents dropped, too, by 7% despite the fact that tickets were almost not being written.

Modern research does support the idea that drivers are more likely to follow the laws and be safe if they fear getting a traffic citation, but the interesting experience in Roseville suggests that traffic tickets aren't the only way to achieve road safety. Anything that is helpful to reduce the number of traffic deaths in this country, over 33,000 a year, and associated costs of at least $150 billion, is welcomed. But to an officer with a hammer, meaning a ticket book, everything may look like a nail.

Based on the Roseville statistics, officers and their bosses in the city halls can't say that tickets are the solution to everything. Most don't want to. Innovation in traffic safety, such as by better timing of traffic lights, is now becoming the focus. Giving police officers the leeway to devise practical solutions to problems may be the best way to achieve safety.

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.

All drivers will experience these scenarios: (1) a kid chasing a ball darts from between parked cars directly into the car's path, (2) a bike rider wobbles in front of a passing car; or (3) at night, a drunk pedestrian tries to cross the road in a vehicle's path. A collision occurs between the driver and the darting kid, the bike rider, or the drunk pedestrian. Various prices will be paid for the collision. The injured person pays with life or limb. And a legal price may be paid by the driver's insurance company in some circumstances. Let's examine them.

The specific facts of a case determine which laws apply. In the darting child case, the child chasing the ball into a street is obligated to stop and watch for traffic if he's old enough to exercise such judgment. Under the law, that's at about age 6. While an older child can be partially at fault for his injury, so can the driver if he or she was inattentive, speeding, or should have known that the event could be in the making.

Foreseeability is an important concept in negligence law. If the driver saw kids playing ball near the street, the argument is that he should have thought that a kid, concealed by the parked cars, might come out to get an errant ball. Since this scenario is reasonably foreseeable, the driver must slow down to whatever speed is necessary to avoid injury. If he doesn't, and the child is hurt, the driver's insurance company will pay the price. But if children weren't playing near the street and the injury occurred in a non-residential area, the driver has a good defense to a negligence claim. The injury was not foreseeable, so the driver has an excuse under the law. You see the arguments that can be made by both sides. They are equally applicable in the examples I gave about the bike rider and the drunk pedestrian. Foreseeability of injury is the key to success or failure of these cases.

If you've been injured in any kind of accident, call me for a free DVD that will answer frequently asked questions about your rights.