Thanks to a ruling by a federal court on Wednesday, an extensive database related to vehicle safety is now online. The government has unveiled a new public database that will allow consumers to look up the number of alleged deaths, injuries and cases of property damage involving passenger vehicles, which consumer groups have sought for years. This database is part of legislation passed by Congress following the massive recall of defective Firestone tires in 2000. This legislation required manufacturers to provide data on complaints of deaths, injuries, property damage and warranty claims.
Located at http://www.safercar.gov, the website contains a wealth of information related to vehicle safety. We urge you to check it out before you purchase a new car and even to check for problems with your current vehicle. The site contains four informative sections related to keeping a driver and a driver's vehicle safe, with particular information relating to tires, air bags, rollover prevention, and the relative safety of 15 passenger vans, a topic previously discussed on our blog. Safercar.gov also contains the latest crash safety test ratings on vehicles dating back to 1990, so those individuals looking to purchase a new or used vehicle can examine the safety components of each make and model of interest. The website further allows users to scan through all current and recent safety defects and recalls. In all, the website, while in its formative stages, provides a wealth of knowledge with respect to vehicle and driver safety. We also suggest that you have any new or soon-to-be first time drivers in your household review these safety sections.
Of course, the automotive industry is still withholding additional information about which consumers should know. Volumes of additional data from tire companies and other suppliers remain confidential pending completion of a regulatory review of whether to honor close to 100 requests by individual companies to keep their information confidential. In addition, other information from all sources, including warranty claims, consumer complaints, and field reports, will remain confidential indefinitely, officials said. So while some hurdles still remain to be cleared before this resource can reach its full potential for providing safety information to American drivers, at present the site still provides a wealth of knowledge for its users.
Examining the website also serves as a reminder that thousands of Americans are involved in traffic incidents each and every day, often suffering severe injuries. In many cases, those injuries occur through no fault of their own. While the resources afforded by safercar.gov may help consumers takes steps to further protect themselves, consumers can do little to prevent suffering an injury at the hands of a negligent driver, or a defective vehicle or tire. If you or a loved one has been injured in a traffic incident, call the attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester today at 301-589-2999 today for your free consultation.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
COMPANIES WORK TO AVOID LIABILITY WHEN MERGING
A recent recall of children’s furniture has highlighted the efforts that companies go through during mergers to protect themselves from being held accountable when they injure someone. When Blackstreet Capital Management (specifically its affiliate SFCA) purchased the assets of Simplicity for Children, a manufacturer of children’s furniture, the deal was structured so SFCA would not assume responsibility for products already on the market should they injure someone or be deemed defective. In April, SFCA bought Simplicity’s assets at an auction, fully aware of a recall of over 1 million cribs, but believing they would not have any accountability for injuries. Late last week, however, the Consumer Product Safety Commission directed stores to pull Simplicity bassinets from their shelves after the deaths of two infants. SFCA refused, arguing that while it had the right to sell products under the Simplicity brand, it did not assume the liability of products already on the market.
This scenario, commonly referred to as “successor liability,” is an issue that attorneys and injured consumers often face due to the complexities of a changing economy. The SFCA issue mirrors a case decided by the Maryland Court of Appeals (Maryland’s highest appellate court) in 1990. In that case, Nissen Corporation v. Miller, the Maryland Court of Appeals faced the issue of whether a person injured by a treadmill could recover against the company which purchased the original manufacturer of the treadmill. In January of 1981, Frederick B. Brandt purchased from Atlantic Fitness Products a treadmill which was designed, manufactured and marketed by American Tredex Corporation. Later in 1981, Nissen Corporation entered into an asset purchase agreement with American Tredex, under which Nissen purchased the trade name, patents, inventory and other assets of American Tredex. Nissen also assumed some of American Tredex’s obligations and liabilities, but the contract expressly excluded assumption of liability for injuries arising from any product previously sold by American Tredex.
Five years later in 1986, Mr. Brandt was injured while trying to adjust the running treadmill. More than a year later, American Tredex was administratively dissolved. Mr. Brandt and his wife filed suit on September 1, 1988, against American Tredex and Nissen, as well as AT Corporation and Atlantic Fitness Products. (AT Corporation was a second name for American Tredex).
The Maryland Court of Appeals faced the issue of whether the Court should adopt in Maryland a general rule of “nonliability of successor corporations.” In its ruling, the Court held that a corporation which acquires all or part of the assets of another corporation does not acquire liabilities and debts of the predecessor unless there is one of four exceptions: Express or implied agreement to assume such liabilities; the transaction amounts to consolidation or merger; successor company is a continuation or reincarnation of the previous company, or the transaction was fraudulent. The Court in Nissen held that since Nissen purchased assets of American Tredex under a contract that expressly excluded the assumption of liability for injuries arising from any product previously sold by manufacturer, therefore Nissen was not liable for any injury caused by the treadmill.
According to an article in the Washington Post discussing the SFCA recall:
Traditionally, only mergers result in one company taking on the liability of another, said Alan O. Sykes, a professor at Stanford Law School. A major benefit of buying assets is that no liabilities are incurred. “When a company is bankrupt and sells off its old factory and stuff, the people who buy those assets in those sorts of asset sales are not liable,” Sykes said.
According to SFCA, since the assets of Simplicity were purchased in a foreclosure sale, SFCA “did not assume directly or indirectly liabilities associated with Simplicity.”
In the end, it is you, the consumer, who is injured. These are just a few more examples of how companies work to protect their bottom lines, often at the expense of consumer safety. In the SFCA example, a company is resisting a call from the Consumer Product Safety Commission to recall baby bassinets, knowing full well that the product has caused the deaths of two infants. Its’ reasoning? A legal technicality that states SFCA may not be liable for any injuries that result. Every day, companies work to increase their bottom line, and this is yet another example. Defective products shown to cause the death of infants will remain on the market, and continue to be sold, due to this technicality. Yet every day, the attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC work on behalf of consumers injured by faulty and/or defective products. If you or a loved one has been injured as the result of a defective product, call the attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC at 301-589-2999 extension 102 for a free consultation.
This scenario, commonly referred to as “successor liability,” is an issue that attorneys and injured consumers often face due to the complexities of a changing economy. The SFCA issue mirrors a case decided by the Maryland Court of Appeals (Maryland’s highest appellate court) in 1990. In that case, Nissen Corporation v. Miller, the Maryland Court of Appeals faced the issue of whether a person injured by a treadmill could recover against the company which purchased the original manufacturer of the treadmill. In January of 1981, Frederick B. Brandt purchased from Atlantic Fitness Products a treadmill which was designed, manufactured and marketed by American Tredex Corporation. Later in 1981, Nissen Corporation entered into an asset purchase agreement with American Tredex, under which Nissen purchased the trade name, patents, inventory and other assets of American Tredex. Nissen also assumed some of American Tredex’s obligations and liabilities, but the contract expressly excluded assumption of liability for injuries arising from any product previously sold by American Tredex.
Five years later in 1986, Mr. Brandt was injured while trying to adjust the running treadmill. More than a year later, American Tredex was administratively dissolved. Mr. Brandt and his wife filed suit on September 1, 1988, against American Tredex and Nissen, as well as AT Corporation and Atlantic Fitness Products. (AT Corporation was a second name for American Tredex).
The Maryland Court of Appeals faced the issue of whether the Court should adopt in Maryland a general rule of “nonliability of successor corporations.” In its ruling, the Court held that a corporation which acquires all or part of the assets of another corporation does not acquire liabilities and debts of the predecessor unless there is one of four exceptions: Express or implied agreement to assume such liabilities; the transaction amounts to consolidation or merger; successor company is a continuation or reincarnation of the previous company, or the transaction was fraudulent. The Court in Nissen held that since Nissen purchased assets of American Tredex under a contract that expressly excluded the assumption of liability for injuries arising from any product previously sold by manufacturer, therefore Nissen was not liable for any injury caused by the treadmill.
According to an article in the Washington Post discussing the SFCA recall:
Traditionally, only mergers result in one company taking on the liability of another, said Alan O. Sykes, a professor at Stanford Law School. A major benefit of buying assets is that no liabilities are incurred. “When a company is bankrupt and sells off its old factory and stuff, the people who buy those assets in those sorts of asset sales are not liable,” Sykes said.
According to SFCA, since the assets of Simplicity were purchased in a foreclosure sale, SFCA “did not assume directly or indirectly liabilities associated with Simplicity.”
In the end, it is you, the consumer, who is injured. These are just a few more examples of how companies work to protect their bottom lines, often at the expense of consumer safety. In the SFCA example, a company is resisting a call from the Consumer Product Safety Commission to recall baby bassinets, knowing full well that the product has caused the deaths of two infants. Its’ reasoning? A legal technicality that states SFCA may not be liable for any injuries that result. Every day, companies work to increase their bottom line, and this is yet another example. Defective products shown to cause the death of infants will remain on the market, and continue to be sold, due to this technicality. Yet every day, the attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC work on behalf of consumers injured by faulty and/or defective products. If you or a loved one has been injured as the result of a defective product, call the attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC at 301-589-2999 extension 102 for a free consultation.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE ARGUES THAT LAWSUITS CAN HELP GUARANTEE DOCTOR SAFETY
In a case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) filed an amicus, or “friend-of-the-court,” brief to assist the members of the Court in reaching their decision. In their brief, the editors argue that the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in “no position” to guarantee drug safety, and that lawsuits can serve as “a vital deterrent” and to “protect consumers” if drug companies fail to disclose risks associated with their products.
The case currently pending before the Supreme Court is Wyeth v. Diana Levine. In this case, Diana Levine, a guitarist, lost her right arm below the elbow after she was injected with Phenergan, a medicine for nausea. The injection caused gangrene in her arm. Ms. Levine sued the manufacturer of Phenergan, Wythe, arguing that Wythe owed a duty to warn consumers that such injections could have horrible effects. After a trial court in Vermont rendered a verdict of $7 million dollars in her favor, Wythe appealed. The basis of Wythe’s appeal is that the company is protected from lawsuits because of the role of the FDA. According to Wythe, the FDA was aware of the risks associated with Phenergan, yet chose not to require a warning on the drug’s prescribing label as a guide for doctors.
The NEJM editors filed their amicus brief on August 14, 2008, with the assistance of Public Justice, an organization of trial attorneys serving to protect the rights of individuals. The brief focuses on two basic reasons why Wythe’s position is flawed. First, they argue that the FDA lacks sufficient information and resources to serve as the sole monitor of pharmaceutical risks. The authors stress that for the FDA to properly strike the balance between safety and efficacy, they must be privy to all pertinent information regarding the benefits and risks of all prescription drugs. Given that 11,000 FDA-regulated drugs are currently on the market, and roughly 100 are approved each year, it is physically impossible for the FDA to complete this task. Further, the FDA conducts no independent testing, and the information it relies upon is provided by the party most interested in bringing a prospective drug to market – the manufacturer. Second, the authors outline that the FDA’s limitations are illustrated by the numerous drugs that were withdrawn from the market for safety concerns, after their initial warnings proved inadequate. Such drugs include Vioxx, Trasylol and Redux.
Next, the editors argue that Wythe’s position that federal law “pre-empts” state law, is flawed in two respects. First, Wythe argues that there is a risk of “over-warning” if the FDA is not considered the sole body responsible for determining risks associated with pharmaceuticals, and that drug manufacturers will be “punished” by the DFA adding unnecessary warnings in response to failure-to-warn lawsuits. Wythe takes this position despite a single example of such an occurrence in the seventy years of drug regulation by the FDA. Further, the warnings are designed and directed to a sophisticated physician, who is then required to wade through the labels and comprehend the risks. Therefore, any “over-warning” simply provides the medical professional with additional necessary information prior to prescribing the medication. Second, the NEJM editors argue that Wythe’s position is simply a general indictment of the general product liability system.
The NEJM editors conclude that under the current regulatory structure, a “robust tort system” is required to effectively monitor the risks associated with pharmaceuticals. According to the brief, “[p]roduct liability lawsuits and the FDA have peacefully coexisted for seventy years for one simple reason: they have complementary, rather than conflicting, goals. The tort system complements the federal regulatory structure by providing a mechanism for compensating victims of hazardous drugs. Product liability litigation provides the FDA with key information unearth in litigation that the agency can use to better protect the public from unsafe and inadequately labeled drugs.” The editors argue that the various tools provided through the court system and litigation, such as subpoena power, the discovery process and tort liability, work to provide the FDA with additional information while protecting the American public.
What is clear is that if the pharmaceutical industry had its way, the American public would be its guinea pigs for dangerous drugs and products and they would never be held accountable – all the while raking in billions of dollars of profits. This current Supreme Court cases is just one of many examples of how trial attorneys fight every day for individuals – and how the NEJM, a medical publication, is working with the trial lawyers on this issue. The work of trial attorneys on a daily basis is designed to protect all individuals, both in the present and in the future, from harm caused by dangerous products, drugs, and other dangerous situations. Trial lawyers fight not only so their current clients are reasonably compensated for their injuries, but also to ensure that other individuals are not harmed by the same situation in the future. If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a harmful product or drug, call the attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC at 301-589-2999 extension 102 today for your free consultation.
Mark A. Schofield, Esquire
The case currently pending before the Supreme Court is Wyeth v. Diana Levine. In this case, Diana Levine, a guitarist, lost her right arm below the elbow after she was injected with Phenergan, a medicine for nausea. The injection caused gangrene in her arm. Ms. Levine sued the manufacturer of Phenergan, Wythe, arguing that Wythe owed a duty to warn consumers that such injections could have horrible effects. After a trial court in Vermont rendered a verdict of $7 million dollars in her favor, Wythe appealed. The basis of Wythe’s appeal is that the company is protected from lawsuits because of the role of the FDA. According to Wythe, the FDA was aware of the risks associated with Phenergan, yet chose not to require a warning on the drug’s prescribing label as a guide for doctors.
The NEJM editors filed their amicus brief on August 14, 2008, with the assistance of Public Justice, an organization of trial attorneys serving to protect the rights of individuals. The brief focuses on two basic reasons why Wythe’s position is flawed. First, they argue that the FDA lacks sufficient information and resources to serve as the sole monitor of pharmaceutical risks. The authors stress that for the FDA to properly strike the balance between safety and efficacy, they must be privy to all pertinent information regarding the benefits and risks of all prescription drugs. Given that 11,000 FDA-regulated drugs are currently on the market, and roughly 100 are approved each year, it is physically impossible for the FDA to complete this task. Further, the FDA conducts no independent testing, and the information it relies upon is provided by the party most interested in bringing a prospective drug to market – the manufacturer. Second, the authors outline that the FDA’s limitations are illustrated by the numerous drugs that were withdrawn from the market for safety concerns, after their initial warnings proved inadequate. Such drugs include Vioxx, Trasylol and Redux.
Next, the editors argue that Wythe’s position that federal law “pre-empts” state law, is flawed in two respects. First, Wythe argues that there is a risk of “over-warning” if the FDA is not considered the sole body responsible for determining risks associated with pharmaceuticals, and that drug manufacturers will be “punished” by the DFA adding unnecessary warnings in response to failure-to-warn lawsuits. Wythe takes this position despite a single example of such an occurrence in the seventy years of drug regulation by the FDA. Further, the warnings are designed and directed to a sophisticated physician, who is then required to wade through the labels and comprehend the risks. Therefore, any “over-warning” simply provides the medical professional with additional necessary information prior to prescribing the medication. Second, the NEJM editors argue that Wythe’s position is simply a general indictment of the general product liability system.
The NEJM editors conclude that under the current regulatory structure, a “robust tort system” is required to effectively monitor the risks associated with pharmaceuticals. According to the brief, “[p]roduct liability lawsuits and the FDA have peacefully coexisted for seventy years for one simple reason: they have complementary, rather than conflicting, goals. The tort system complements the federal regulatory structure by providing a mechanism for compensating victims of hazardous drugs. Product liability litigation provides the FDA with key information unearth in litigation that the agency can use to better protect the public from unsafe and inadequately labeled drugs.” The editors argue that the various tools provided through the court system and litigation, such as subpoena power, the discovery process and tort liability, work to provide the FDA with additional information while protecting the American public.
What is clear is that if the pharmaceutical industry had its way, the American public would be its guinea pigs for dangerous drugs and products and they would never be held accountable – all the while raking in billions of dollars of profits. This current Supreme Court cases is just one of many examples of how trial attorneys fight every day for individuals – and how the NEJM, a medical publication, is working with the trial lawyers on this issue. The work of trial attorneys on a daily basis is designed to protect all individuals, both in the present and in the future, from harm caused by dangerous products, drugs, and other dangerous situations. Trial lawyers fight not only so their current clients are reasonably compensated for their injuries, but also to ensure that other individuals are not harmed by the same situation in the future. If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a harmful product or drug, call the attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC at 301-589-2999 extension 102 today for your free consultation.
Mark A. Schofield, Esquire
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Tort-Liability for Patient Caused Accidents
A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine highlights the growing controversy over a doctor’s liability in tort for a motor vehicle accident caused by one of the doctor’s patients. The article, written by George J. Annas, J.D., M.P.H., tries to address the question of whether a doctor owes a duty of care to individuals who may be harmed when a patient under the doctor’s care ingests a prescribed medication and attempts to operate a motor vehicle.
The article opens with disturbing numbers from a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. According to a study conducted by this organization in West Virginia, there is a higher prevalence of prescription medication than illegal drugs in the blood of fatally injured drivers. Further, in over seven percent of all fatalities, and in nine percent of fatalities in drivers involved in motor vehicle accidents, blood samples contained two or more of five commonly prescribed drugs.
With this study as a backdrop, Annas analyzes a case decided in Massachusetts, in the matter of Coombes v. Florio. In this case, a doctor was treating a 72 year old man for a variety of conditions, including asbestosis, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, high blookd pressure, and metastatic lung cancer. During the first year of the treatment, the doctor advised his patient that it would not be safe to drive during cancer treatment, advice the patient heeded.
Once the treatment was concluded, the patient returned to the road. Months later, the patient was driving his car when he lost consciousness and struck a ten year old boy, killing the child. At the time of the incident, the patient was in possession of prescriptions for oxycodone, metolazone, prednisone, tamsulosin, potassium, Paxil, oxazepam and furosemide from his treating doctor. Possible side effects for these medications include drowsiness, dizziness, lightheadedness, fainting, altered consciousness, and sedation. These side effects, including any impairment they may cause behind the wheel, were not discussed between doctor and patient.
The mother of the young child brought suit against both the driver and his doctor. A trial court dismissed the suit, and it came up to the Massachusetts Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts, through a plurality decision, reversed the trial court. The judge issuing the plurality opinion noted that this was not a medical malpractice decision, but rather an ordinary negligence issue. Therefore, the issues to be decided were: Did the doctor owe a duty to the injured boy? Was that duty breached, and if so, did the breach cause the boy harm?
The plurality opinion cited numerous examples of similar situation to demonstrate that negligence could be found on the part of the doctor. Consider the liquor store held liable for a bicyclist’s injuries, when a bicyclist is injured by an intoxicated minor operating a vehicle after purchasing liquor from the store. Consider also the homeowner held liable for failing to store a gun properly, later used by the homeowner’s son in the killing of a police officer. As the Court stated: “Relying on these same principles, I conclude that a physician owes a duty of reasonable care to everyone foreseeably put at risk by his failure to warn of the side effects of his treatment of a patient.”
As to the issue of whether the accident was “foreseeable,” the court held that since the medications had known potential side effects which “were likely to impair a motorist,” that fact coupled with the prior advice that the patient could resume driving made it all the more foreseeable that such an accident could occur.
This case does not settle the issue, and courts in this area have not addressed this issue. The Massachusetts case should inform attorneys and individuals that the potential for such liability, and the dangers that arise when consuming prescription medication, do exist. If you are currently under the care of a doctor and taking prescription medication, make sure you speak with your doctor about all potential side effects and risks. Further, if you or a loved one has been injured in a motor vehicle accident, contact one of the attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC at 301-589-2999 extension 102 for your free consultation today.
Mark A. Schofield, Esquire
Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC
The article opens with disturbing numbers from a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. According to a study conducted by this organization in West Virginia, there is a higher prevalence of prescription medication than illegal drugs in the blood of fatally injured drivers. Further, in over seven percent of all fatalities, and in nine percent of fatalities in drivers involved in motor vehicle accidents, blood samples contained two or more of five commonly prescribed drugs.
With this study as a backdrop, Annas analyzes a case decided in Massachusetts, in the matter of Coombes v. Florio. In this case, a doctor was treating a 72 year old man for a variety of conditions, including asbestosis, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, high blookd pressure, and metastatic lung cancer. During the first year of the treatment, the doctor advised his patient that it would not be safe to drive during cancer treatment, advice the patient heeded.
Once the treatment was concluded, the patient returned to the road. Months later, the patient was driving his car when he lost consciousness and struck a ten year old boy, killing the child. At the time of the incident, the patient was in possession of prescriptions for oxycodone, metolazone, prednisone, tamsulosin, potassium, Paxil, oxazepam and furosemide from his treating doctor. Possible side effects for these medications include drowsiness, dizziness, lightheadedness, fainting, altered consciousness, and sedation. These side effects, including any impairment they may cause behind the wheel, were not discussed between doctor and patient.
The mother of the young child brought suit against both the driver and his doctor. A trial court dismissed the suit, and it came up to the Massachusetts Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts, through a plurality decision, reversed the trial court. The judge issuing the plurality opinion noted that this was not a medical malpractice decision, but rather an ordinary negligence issue. Therefore, the issues to be decided were: Did the doctor owe a duty to the injured boy? Was that duty breached, and if so, did the breach cause the boy harm?
The plurality opinion cited numerous examples of similar situation to demonstrate that negligence could be found on the part of the doctor. Consider the liquor store held liable for a bicyclist’s injuries, when a bicyclist is injured by an intoxicated minor operating a vehicle after purchasing liquor from the store. Consider also the homeowner held liable for failing to store a gun properly, later used by the homeowner’s son in the killing of a police officer. As the Court stated: “Relying on these same principles, I conclude that a physician owes a duty of reasonable care to everyone foreseeably put at risk by his failure to warn of the side effects of his treatment of a patient.”
As to the issue of whether the accident was “foreseeable,” the court held that since the medications had known potential side effects which “were likely to impair a motorist,” that fact coupled with the prior advice that the patient could resume driving made it all the more foreseeable that such an accident could occur.
This case does not settle the issue, and courts in this area have not addressed this issue. The Massachusetts case should inform attorneys and individuals that the potential for such liability, and the dangers that arise when consuming prescription medication, do exist. If you are currently under the care of a doctor and taking prescription medication, make sure you speak with your doctor about all potential side effects and risks. Further, if you or a loved one has been injured in a motor vehicle accident, contact one of the attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC at 301-589-2999 extension 102 for your free consultation today.
Mark A. Schofield, Esquire
Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Taking a Road Trip? Recent Studies Suggest Safety First
August in the Washington Capital Region is often the hottest time of the year weather-wise. There’s a little known fact that decades ago, foreign countries paid their diplomats who were stationed here in Washington hazard pay because of the oppressive heat. Perhaps that is the reason that the area seems to empty during the month, as families head to area beaches or tourist destinations for a few weeks of rest and relaxation before school begins in the fall. However, three recent studies from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suggest that road travelers take caution as they head out of town.
One study focuses on 15-passenger vans. Statistics show that June through August are the deadliest time of the year for those vehicles and their occupants. More than 30 percent of fatal rollovers involving these vehicles occur during the busy summer travel months. Further, the risks increase when the van is fully loaded with drivers and passengers. In 2006, 50 percent of occupant fatalities that occurred in these vans took place when the van was fully loaded.
Other factors that contribute to rollover incidents include improperly inflated tires, poor tire conditions, and inexperienced drivers.
Another study from the NHTSA indicates that unfortunately, traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for every age 3 through 6 and 8 through 34. According to the study, motor vehicle traffic crashes ranked third overall in terms of the years of life lost (i.e., the number of remaining years that the person is expected to live had they not died) behind only cancer and diseases of the heart.
The final study, released by the NHTSA on August 5, 2008, analyzed the ratio of motor vehicle crash fatalities by sex and age from 1996 to 2006. The study indicated that motor vehicle crash fatalities where higher for males than females in all age groups, even though the male population is equal to or less than the female population in all age groups. The study also found that while fatality rates for most age and sex groups decreased, the fatality rates increased only among males in the age groups 41-45, 46-50 and 51-55.
These studies indicate the continued hazards and risks associated with traveling our nation’s highways. Please take due care and caution when taking your summer road trips and we wish you a happy and safe time. However, if you or a loved one has been injured in an automobile accident, please contact one of the attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC today at (301)589-2999 x102 for a free consultation.
Mark A. Schofield, Esquire
Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC
One study focuses on 15-passenger vans. Statistics show that June through August are the deadliest time of the year for those vehicles and their occupants. More than 30 percent of fatal rollovers involving these vehicles occur during the busy summer travel months. Further, the risks increase when the van is fully loaded with drivers and passengers. In 2006, 50 percent of occupant fatalities that occurred in these vans took place when the van was fully loaded.
Other factors that contribute to rollover incidents include improperly inflated tires, poor tire conditions, and inexperienced drivers.
Another study from the NHTSA indicates that unfortunately, traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for every age 3 through 6 and 8 through 34. According to the study, motor vehicle traffic crashes ranked third overall in terms of the years of life lost (i.e., the number of remaining years that the person is expected to live had they not died) behind only cancer and diseases of the heart.
The final study, released by the NHTSA on August 5, 2008, analyzed the ratio of motor vehicle crash fatalities by sex and age from 1996 to 2006. The study indicated that motor vehicle crash fatalities where higher for males than females in all age groups, even though the male population is equal to or less than the female population in all age groups. The study also found that while fatality rates for most age and sex groups decreased, the fatality rates increased only among males in the age groups 41-45, 46-50 and 51-55.
These studies indicate the continued hazards and risks associated with traveling our nation’s highways. Please take due care and caution when taking your summer road trips and we wish you a happy and safe time. However, if you or a loved one has been injured in an automobile accident, please contact one of the attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC today at (301)589-2999 x102 for a free consultation.
Mark A. Schofield, Esquire
Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Is That Truck Safe?
According to a recent safety study, hundreds of thousands of tractor-trailer and bus drivers in the United States carry commercial driver’s licenses, despite having qualified for full federal disability payments. In addition, some of these drivers have suffered seizures, heart attacks or unconscious spells. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the agency responsible for oversight of commercial vehicle operation in the United States, acknowledges that it has failed to implement any of the eight recommendations that safety regulators have proposed since 2001. These proposals include minimum standards for officials who determine whether truckers are medically safe to drive, and would stop truckers form “doctor shopping” to find a physician who would overlook a risky health condition and certify that a trucker was safe and fit to drive.
Our firm has represented severely injured victims of truck driver negligence in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. In one particular case, the truck driver made an unsafe lane change and forced our client’s vehicle off of Interstate 95 and into a barrier wall. Our client suffered severe brain damage and eventually died as a result of this crash. Our investigation revealed that the truck driver was, for all intents and purposes, deaf and could barely hear. The driver also had been involved in several prior accidents. Despite his physical impairments, he obtained a medical certification to operate a commercial vehicle. Unfortunately, our firm has seen a pattern of truck companies putting corporate profits over the safety of other drivers.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 5,300 people were killed in crashes involving large commercial trucks or buses in 2006, the latest year for which data is available. Further, about 126,000 people were injured in 2006 in such accidents.
A 30 page study from the Government Accountability Office, released this week, investigated unfit truck drivers. According to the results, 563,000 commercial drivers were determined by the Veterans Affairs Department, Labor Department or Social Security Administration to be eligible for full disability benefits over serious health issues. While eligibility for disability benefits does not always mean a driver is unfit to operate a commercial vehicle, the GAO study found serious and alarming examples. More than 1,000 drivers were identified with vision, hearing or seizure disorders which would generally prohibit a trucker from obtaining a commercial driver’s license.
Tractor Trailers (18 wheelers) are extremely dangerous motor vehicles, especially in the hands of an unfit driver. While governmental organizations and agencies try to ensure that only those medically fit are behind the wheel of such vehicles, often a driver is not caught before a serious accident takes place. The attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC, work with victims of such incidents on a daily basis, fighting for their full rights and benefits under the law. If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident involving a tractor-trailer or bus, call us today at (301)589-2999 x102 for a free consultation.
Mark A. Schofield, Esquire
Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC
Our firm has represented severely injured victims of truck driver negligence in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. In one particular case, the truck driver made an unsafe lane change and forced our client’s vehicle off of Interstate 95 and into a barrier wall. Our client suffered severe brain damage and eventually died as a result of this crash. Our investigation revealed that the truck driver was, for all intents and purposes, deaf and could barely hear. The driver also had been involved in several prior accidents. Despite his physical impairments, he obtained a medical certification to operate a commercial vehicle. Unfortunately, our firm has seen a pattern of truck companies putting corporate profits over the safety of other drivers.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 5,300 people were killed in crashes involving large commercial trucks or buses in 2006, the latest year for which data is available. Further, about 126,000 people were injured in 2006 in such accidents.
A 30 page study from the Government Accountability Office, released this week, investigated unfit truck drivers. According to the results, 563,000 commercial drivers were determined by the Veterans Affairs Department, Labor Department or Social Security Administration to be eligible for full disability benefits over serious health issues. While eligibility for disability benefits does not always mean a driver is unfit to operate a commercial vehicle, the GAO study found serious and alarming examples. More than 1,000 drivers were identified with vision, hearing or seizure disorders which would generally prohibit a trucker from obtaining a commercial driver’s license.
Tractor Trailers (18 wheelers) are extremely dangerous motor vehicles, especially in the hands of an unfit driver. While governmental organizations and agencies try to ensure that only those medically fit are behind the wheel of such vehicles, often a driver is not caught before a serious accident takes place. The attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC, work with victims of such incidents on a daily basis, fighting for their full rights and benefits under the law. If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident involving a tractor-trailer or bus, call us today at (301)589-2999 x102 for a free consultation.
Mark A. Schofield, Esquire
Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC
Monday, July 21, 2008
Double-Decker Buses in DC Fraught with Peril
A recent horrific accident has shed new light on the perils of open-air, double-decker buses. Two weeks ago in Washington D.C., two young men were headed to the new Nationals Stadium to watch the Washington Nationals host the Houston Astros. Unfortunately, the bus they were traveling to the game on never made it. Two men were killed when their heads struck a freeway overpass while on the upper deck of a bus headed to the game, according to District of Columbia police.
Because of parking concerns near the stadium, the Washington Nationals provide free shuttle service from RFK Stadium to the new stadium, located along the Anacostia River and near the Navy Yard Metrorail stop. At this time, it is unclear if this bus was part of this service, called the "Nats Express," or was another private organization providing transportation services. Buses that are part of the "Nats Express" are typically standard coach buses, not double-decker, open-air buses like the vehicle involved in last night's fatal incident. According to ABC 7/NewsChannel 8 Horace Holmes, the bus was headed to Nationals Stadium from RFK. The bus was carrying around 6 people who were on a company outing, Holmes reported.
The incident occurred about 8:45 p.m., as the open-topped double-decker bus, which was westbound on the Southeast Freeway, passed beneath the 11th Street overpass. "They were standing in the upper part of the bus, and their heads struck the under part of the overpass," said Commander Andy Solberg, field supervisor for the police.
After the men were injured, other passengers apparently alerted the driver of the bus, who stopped at Ninth and I streets SE, near the Marine Barracks. Gunnery Sergeant Will Price, a public affairs representative at the barracks, said witnesses described a horrific scene. He said one of the bus passengers had administered first aid before Marines and rescue workers arrived. "It's the most serious thing I've seen in my three years here," Price said.
A recent Washington Post story illustrated the dangers associated with these buses. An article published July 18, 2008 noted that many riders on scenic, open-air bus tours of Washington D.C. are forced to duck and dodge low hanging branches during their trips. The Washington Post article also indicated that sometimes, the announcements made by the bus drivers regarding the vehicle height do not correspond with the vehicle's actual height. Patrons are warned about the dangers of standing during the ride.
Incidents such as this one are horrible to hear about. It is a shame when a young life is cut short, especially when under such tragic circumstances. The attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester fight on a daily basis to make sure that companies and organizations do everything they can to ensure the safety of their passengers and patrons.
Mark A. Schofield, Esquire
Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC
(301) 589-2999 extension 123
Because of parking concerns near the stadium, the Washington Nationals provide free shuttle service from RFK Stadium to the new stadium, located along the Anacostia River and near the Navy Yard Metrorail stop. At this time, it is unclear if this bus was part of this service, called the "Nats Express," or was another private organization providing transportation services. Buses that are part of the "Nats Express" are typically standard coach buses, not double-decker, open-air buses like the vehicle involved in last night's fatal incident. According to ABC 7/NewsChannel 8 Horace Holmes, the bus was headed to Nationals Stadium from RFK. The bus was carrying around 6 people who were on a company outing, Holmes reported.
The incident occurred about 8:45 p.m., as the open-topped double-decker bus, which was westbound on the Southeast Freeway, passed beneath the 11th Street overpass. "They were standing in the upper part of the bus, and their heads struck the under part of the overpass," said Commander Andy Solberg, field supervisor for the police.
After the men were injured, other passengers apparently alerted the driver of the bus, who stopped at Ninth and I streets SE, near the Marine Barracks. Gunnery Sergeant Will Price, a public affairs representative at the barracks, said witnesses described a horrific scene. He said one of the bus passengers had administered first aid before Marines and rescue workers arrived. "It's the most serious thing I've seen in my three years here," Price said.
A recent Washington Post story illustrated the dangers associated with these buses. An article published July 18, 2008 noted that many riders on scenic, open-air bus tours of Washington D.C. are forced to duck and dodge low hanging branches during their trips. The Washington Post article also indicated that sometimes, the announcements made by the bus drivers regarding the vehicle height do not correspond with the vehicle's actual height. Patrons are warned about the dangers of standing during the ride.
Incidents such as this one are horrible to hear about. It is a shame when a young life is cut short, especially when under such tragic circumstances. The attorneys at Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester fight on a daily basis to make sure that companies and organizations do everything they can to ensure the safety of their passengers and patrons.
Mark A. Schofield, Esquire
Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester, LLC
(301) 589-2999 extension 123
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
