Car Accident Fault and Getting What You’re Owed

April 21st, 2010. By Kristine B

If you’re one of those people who “don’t like to focus on fault”, you’ll quickly find yourself focusing on it should you be involved in a car accident. Not that anyone likes pointing fingers, but unfortunately, the state you live in probably uses a little finger-pointing to determine what damages should be awarded to each party in the aftermath of an accident. Some states use either Contributory or Comparative Negligence to determine damages…and you should know which, if any, your state uses.

 

Since I spoke with Missouri attorney John Page about comparative negligence, I thought it would be a great idea for this edition of Pleading Ignorance to explain what comparative negligence is, and compare it to contributory negligence. Knowing whether your state uses contributory negligence, comparative negligence—or even modified comparative negligence will help you to determine what damages you are entitled to if you are in a car accident. 

Note—here’s a refresher on negligence in general. Also, a number of you are probably familiar with the concepts of “Fault” and “No Fault” car insurance states—they’re related to this topic, but we won’t cover those here; look for them in an upcoming Pleading Ignorance. Now, back to car accident negligence… 

Contributory Negligence 

Contributory negligence is a system of fault in which the injured party can only obtain compensation for injuries and damages if he or she did not contribute to the accident in any way. This means that if you’re in a car accident and the driver of the other vehicle is 99 percent at fault but you are 1 percent at fault, you won’t receive any damages. You’re out of luck. You can’t in any way be even a little bit at fault for the accident or you’ll get nothing in monetary damages.  

So, to use an example: let’s say that Becky is attempting to make a left turn at an intersection. Chris speeds through the intersection on a red and hits Becky. The jury finds Chris 80 percent Read the rest of this entry »

Who Knew? Reason for over 50% of Accident Fatalities in Missouri

April 21st, 2010. By AbiK

Just read a press release that went out a couple of weeks ago from the Missouri State Highway Patrol—the release was about a new safety video regarding car accident safety in Missouri.

But here’s the interesting thing… Colonel Ron Replogle, superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, is quoted in the release as saying, “Run-off-roadway crashes account for more than 50% of all fatal traffic crashes in Missouri each year.”

I don’t know about you, but that sort of surprised me. Not distracted driving. Not DUI/DWI. Not reckless driving. But run-off-roadway crashes.

The 30-second public service safety video, which can be seen at the Savemolives.com website, aims to show drivers what to do if the wheels of their vehicle drop off the edge of the roadway. You can also view a two-minute instructional video at the Savemolives.com site.

According to the video, there are three steps to take if your vehicle veers off-road:

1. Don’t panic and don’t overcorrect.

2. Ease off the gas pedal and stay off the brake pedal.

3. Turn your wheel about 1/8th of a turn to the left to get back on the road. When the tires hit the pavement again, turn the wheel a 1/4 turn to the right.

Sounds simple enough—just hope I never have to do it.

10 Things to Know about Stevens-Johnson Syndrome

April 20th, 2010. By AbiK

1. Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) is a potentially life-threatening form of adverse reaction to medication. The more severe form of SJS is called Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN). Some drugs that have been connected to SJS are Children’s Motrin, Ketek, Advil, Ibuprofen, Bactrim, Daypro, Cipro, Bextra and Dilantin.

2. While target lesions are typically associated with Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS), they are not always seen. SJS symptoms include: rash, blisters or red blotches on skin; persistent fever; blisters in the mouth, eyes, ears, nose and genital area; swelling of eyelids or red eyes; conjunctivitis; flu-like symptoms;

3. The SJS disease process typically begins with a nonspecific upper respiratory tract infection. Studies show that more than half of SJS patients report a recent upper respiratory tract infection.

4. A diagnosis of either SJS or TEN is based on degree of body surface detachment (i.e., skin detachment). The classifications are as follows:

Stevens-Johnson Syndrome: Less than 10% body surface detachment

Overlapping SJS/TEN: 10% – 30% body surface detachment

Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: More than 30% body surface detachment

5. There are approximately six cases of SJS per million persons per year. For TEN, it’s approximately 1-2 cases per million persons per year.

6. There is a correlation between the amount of body surface detachment and mortality. For SJS, studies have shown the mortality rate to be approximately 1% – 5%. If body surface detachment Read the rest of this entry »

Tortelicious: God’s Handiwork, the HVAC Trap & Onion Rings

April 20th, 2010. By LucyC

Welcome to Totally Tortelicious—a review of some of the more bizarre legal stories making news. Goodness knows there’s no shortage of them. 

It’s a blooming shame, but a couple in Texas have had to scale back their wild floral tribute to their home state, under threat of legal action by their local homeowners’ association.

Apparently, Eddie and Melissa Smith’s bluebonnets are colonizing the neighborhood greenspace, unprompted, and threatening the “aesthetic harmony” of the subdivision. Umm.

Five years ago the couple planted three—yes three—bluebonnet plants purchased from the local home improvement store. Over the five years the flowers have, in their bid for subdivision domination, spread throughout the Smith’s entire lawn, jumped the sidewalk to the curb, and successfully covered through the corner lot, all without prompting, the Smith’s claim. No fertilizer, no extra water. Just some highly motivated plants. And, as Mrs. Smith notes, “It was God’s handiwork.”

Apparently, the Ridgeview Park Homeowners Association demanded the Smiths mow the bluebonnets and re-sod the front lawn, the Dallas Morning News reported. The Smith’s even received a certified letter from the association via a Dallas law office, requiring that they conform to the “aesthetic harmony” of the subdivision. ( I think they meant that their plants conform…)

Thankfully, a compromise was reached just in the nick of time, enabling the Smiths to keep their wildflowers, but only in contained flowerbeds… Isn’t that some sort of oxymoron?  

Creative or just plain stupid? A 20-year old who was attempting to rob a BP convenience store in North East, MD last week, was found dangling from the ventilation system at the back of the facility Read the rest of this entry »

Camel Orbs Inspiration for Alchomints (Why not?)

April 20th, 2010. By AbiK

Haven’t sent in the patent app yet, but thinking the tagline—or at least the initial advertising—will include the line, “Get Mintoxicated.” See, I’m putting together a marketing proposal for these little mints (Alchomints!)—each one will pack a punch that’s equivalent to slinging back a mug of beer; that is, about 4-5% alcohol (by volume, based on an average sized mug—the ramped up “Hofbrauhaus High” would launch later as a line extension).

The target audience for Alchomints is anyone who’s come up against those inconvenient “no drinking in public” laws. The brown bag conspicuously twisted and crinkled around the neck of a tall boy just ain’t cuttin’ it and, let’s face it, you look like a total lush gripping your keychain opener as you bolt out of the packaged goods store. Wouldn’t you rather pop a little mint? All the buzz…none of the belch, breath or belly. It’s a sure hit. 

Go ahead and scoff. Call me a moron. Tell me the name “Alchomints” sounds too similar to “Altoids”. Rip me a new one about what would happen if my mints got into the wrong hands.

And let me then remind you of a product launch that started to roll out recently: Camel Orbs.

And just what are Camel Orbs? Well, much like my Alchomints, they’re little pellets that you can pop in your mouth like mints. But, they’re actually made from finely ground tobacco. And they reportedly carry 1 milligram of nicotine per Orb. That’s apparently the amount of nicotine a smoker gets from one cigarette.

Why would someone want to use Camel Orbs? Well, like my Alchomints, maybe someone’s in need of a little nicotine fix when they’re someplace where smoking is a no-no. (Maybe even someone sitting in third period Biology! Ponder that one for a moment…)

And, gee, doesn’t “Orbs” sound like some other innocuous checkout aisle candy or gum—say, like Orbit gum?

Hmm. I wonder if those Camel Orbs could get into the wrong hands, too?

Now, to be fair, as Camel was launching their Orbs in test markets, there was a lot of flak being written in protest. Rightly so. After all, seems pretty clear that something that looks like candy could be mistaken for, well, candy! Particularly by the younger set.

And now, just this week, we hear about a study done by the Harvard School of Public Health Read the rest of this entry »