PA & NJ Personal Injury, Car Accident & DUI-DWI Lawyer Law Blog: Philadelphia, Bucks County, Montgomery County, Delaware County, Chester County, Pennsylvania, Mercer County, Burlington County, Middlesex County, Camden County, Hunterdon County, New Jersey

This week, the NJ Attorney General, herself was ticketed for speeding in New Jersey on Route 1 South.   Reportedly she was clocked at 69 m.p.h. in a 50 m.p.h. speed zone.

This is refreshing to hear after all the news about NJ Municipal Court judges and employees getting in trouble for ticket fixing in the last few years.

Although, the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer and should set an example for the citizens of New Jersey, it appears that she was honest and did not use her position, power, and influence to talk her way out of the NJ speeding ticket.  

Conspiracy theorists may  have a different opinion and think that this was a set-up to make NJ public officials appear more honest…although she did break the law.  

What do you think?

For any of you that have used the drug Fosamax, you should know that is has reportedly caused major damage to people’s jaw bones, especially after there has been an injury to the jaw bone or dental work affecting the jaw bone.

The New Jersey court system has just recognized Fosamax “mass tort” case status. This means that since the there have been so many lawsuits for injuries resulting from Fosamax in NJ, the courts give special attention to help manage these NJ injury cases. Other drugs similar to Fosamax that have been given mass tort status include Novartis, Aredia, and Zometa.

If you have taken any of these drugs in any state and have suffered any sort of personal injury. Please telephone us and we may be able to find you an experienced lawyer who regularly handles cases involving these drugs.

Yesterday, news broke about the case a was filed in Camden County, New Jersey regarding a doctor applying an unauthorized temporary tattoo.

For those of you who may not know, there is a surgeon in New Jersey that leaves his patients a “special present” when they wake up from surgery. In this case a woman went in for spinal surgery and came out will a temporary type tattoo on her bikini line. The woman has reportedly filed a lawsuit against the doctor.

Do you think this will be a good case or not?

The doctor’s position is that he does this to cheer up his patients.

The woman’s position is that he was unauthorized to do this and it was placed in an inappropriate area.

This doctor was supposed to be doing a spinal surgery. I am not a doctor, but shouldn’t he have been working on her back and not her front side, especially around her private area? Furthermore, what if this woman detested tattoos? Now this woman probably feels like her body and privacy could have been violated and has to live with a temporary tattoo for a week or so…

Good case or not? What do you think she should get from the lawsuit?

We are currently creating a new website exclusively dedicated to Bucks County DUI – DAI- drunk driving.

The address for new website will be www.buckscountyduilawyers.com.

We hope to have the new website up and running by the end of July 2008.

A Pennsylvania Superior Court case came down this week ruling against a Pennsylvania personal injury plaintiff.   This case involved an interpretation of a Release.  

In this case, the Pennsylvania personal injury plaintiff settled her case against one defendant and the defendant’s insurance company and signed a Release.   The Pennsylvania personal injury plaintiff believed that the case was still open against the other defendant, Ford Motor Company for a design defect case. 

Unfortunately, the Release was overbroad and the Superior Court ruled that the Release included all defendants, including Ford Motor Company.   This means that the Pennsylvania personal injury plaintiff unknowingly gave up her claim against the other defendant, Ford Motor Company.

The important lesson to be learned here is to carefully review any Release presented to you as a litigant in any case.   Each word has meaning.  Do not sign any Release without reading and re-reading the Release.  It is also advisable to have any experienced Pennsylvania personal injury lawyer to review any Release in a personal injury case.  

Unfortunately, in this case, a lawyer did review the Release.    I am sure his or her malpractice insurance company is well aware of this situation.   Be careful!

See Ford Motor Company and Keyser and Miller Ford Inc. v. Robyn Buseman here: Ford Case.pdf 
 

As many people suspected there are several unresolved issues regarding the final State v. Chun NJ Alcotest decision. The NJ State Bar Association has recently requested that the NJ Supreme Court re-appoint Special Master, Michael Patrick King to help with unresolved Alcotest issues and help manage the multitude of cases that are subject to the Court’s recent ruling.

One of the main issues is that the maker of the Alcotest machine, Drager, has not yet provided the education classes to NJ defense attorneys as required by the Court Order.

This week the NJ Supreme Court turned down the NJ Bar Association’s request for the continued involvement of the Special Master.  Perhaps the NJ Supreme Court wants to stay active in the tens of thousands of backlogged NJ DUI (drunk driving cases)?

In a recent case brought before the United States Supreme Court, a man was charged under the Armed Career Criminal Act which imposes a special mandatory 15-year prison term upon a person who unlawfully possesses a firearm and who has three or more prior convictions for committing certain drug crimes or a violent felony. 

After the Defendant pled guilty to his 13^th DUI (drunk driving) offense, a judge sentenced him to the enhanced sentence of 15 years in prison. 

The United States Supreme Court ruled that a DUI (drunk driving) involves conduct that “presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” under clause but is not the type of conduct that the legislature intended it to cover. 

Do think this was a good decision? 

Throughout NJ, police enforcement will start the 2008 Click It or Ticket program on May 19^th. The campaign includes various seatbelt check points and other patrols to check for New Jersey seatbelt compliance.

NJ law enforcement was given about $4,000 in grants to conduct the operation.

Last year during New Jersey’s “Click It or Ticket” campaign, 58,170 citations were issued to individuals who were not properly restrained. The number of summonses was up from 2006, when 56,360 seatbelt citations were issued.

If you receive an NJ seatbelt ticket the fine should be about $46.00. Recently, Governor Corzine agreed to sign into law a new NJ seatbelt rule that would require seatbelts on rear seat passengers also.

Months ago we reported to you the NJ Appellate Division decision in the case of Reilly v. AAA Mid-Atlantic.    This was the case which involved a one car NJ car accident where the driver reportedly slipped off the road due to icy conditions.   The case was basically about the NJ car insurance company claiming that it was automatically the driver’s fault in a one car NJ car accident.  This prompted the NJ car insurance company to issue the driver 5 eligibility points relating to the driver’s NJ car insurance.

After losing in the NJ Appellate Division, the Plaintiff (who represented himself) took his case to the NJ Supreme Court and won!  The NJ Supreme Court held the NJ Department of Insurance regulation regarding the one car NJ car accident situation was unreasonable and against public policy.

Here, a single person, not even a lawyer, beat a powerful insurance company in the NJ Supreme Court. Congratulations!

See a Copy of Reilly v. AAA Mid-Atlantic  here: Reilly v. AAA-Mid-Atlantic.pdf

Yesterday, the NJ Appellate Division ruled on the case of Penn National Insurance Company v. Costa. This NJ personal injury case involved an injury on land which Frank Costa owned and lived. Next to Mr. Costa’s house was his business. An employee of his business walked over to Mr. Costa’s driveway (on his personal property) where Mr. Costa was working on a vehicle and was injured when he slipped on ice and fell on a “bumper jack” causing serious injuries.

The Appellate Division analyzed NJ law on the topic and stated that because the injuries were directly related to the maintenance of the vehicle, the NJ car insurance company must pay for the personal injuries.

N.J.S.A. 39:6B-1 requires owners of motor vehicles to have liability coverage “insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury, death and property damage sustained by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation or use of a motor vehicle.”

Homeowners’ Company Wins!

See a copy of Penn National Insurance Company v. Costa here:  Penn National Ins. Co. v. Costa.pdf

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared for marketing a device that a doctor can use to see inside a blood vessel to assess the fat content of the plaque which builds up on the wall of the coronary arteries.

Plaque is a deposit made up of cholesterol-rich fat, calcium, and other substances found in the blood. As plaque accumulates on the artery wall, it reduces blood flow to the heart muscle and increases the risk of blood clots which can lead to a heart attack.

Nearly one million Americans suffer a heart attack every year and about half die. Many heart attacks occur when a fatty coronary plaque ruptures, forming dangerous blood clots. Pathologic studies of patients who died from heart attack have identified a large lipid (fatty) core among features of coronary artery disease that were associated with plaque rupture and thrombosis (blood clots). Research is currently underway to determine how plaques that are prone to rupture can best be identified before they cause a heart attack.

“This is the first device that can help assess the chemical make-up of coronary artery plaques and help physicians identify those plaques with lipid cores, which may be of particular concern,” said Daniel Schultz, M.D., director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

The InfraReDx LipiScan NIR Catheter Imaging System uses infrared imaging to detect lipid core-containing plaques of interest and assess a patient’s coronary artery lipid core burden index. The device works by placing a catheter equipped with a fiber-optic laser light into the artery. The device shines the near infrared light delivered through the blood to the artery wall, and measures the light reflected back from the artery wall, a technique called spectroscopy. The reflected wavelengths vary depending on how much fat and other substances are in the plaque in the illuminated portion of the wall.

LipiScan is manufactured by InfraReDx Inc. of Burlington, Mass. The device is cleared for use by physicians who are evaluating patients with symptoms of coronary heart disease during a heart test known as cardiac angiography, to help in detection of plaques that have lipid (fatty) cores.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Name of Product: LawnBott Lawn Mowers

Units: About 530

Importer: Kyodo America Industries Co. LTD., of Lawrenceville, Ga.

Manufacturer: Zucchetti Centro Sistemi S.P.A., of Italy.

Hazard: The cutting blades continue to rotate when the mower is lifted from the ground and the spacing on the side of the lawn mower could allow room for a consumer’s foot to go beyond the shield and be struck by the blade. Both instances pose a serious laceration hazard to consumers.

Incidents/Injuries: Kyodo America has received one report of a consumer lifting the mower from the ground and suffered minor lacerations from the moving blade.

Description: This recall involves LawnBott lawn mowers with model numbers LB2000, LB2100, LB3000, and LB3200. The robotic lawn mowers freely and automatically cut grass by detecting the signal of a perimeter cable. The mowers have a docking station for recharging and a shiny plastic cover sold in red, green or blue. “Evolution” or “deluxe” is printed on the side of the mower.

Sold by: Kyodo America dealers nationwide from January 2006 through December 2007 for between $1,750 and $2,750.

This month, the Pennsylvania State Police advised citizens that an e-mail circulating in Pennsylvania that warns of a “speeding ticket frenzy” involving State Police is a hoax.

The misinformation in this e-mail is an urban legend that originated in New Jersey in May 2005.  Since then, the hoax has targeted police in several other states. Versions of the e-mail forwarded to State Police by citizens claim that massive speed enforcement detail will pay the costs of Trooper’s overtime and target certain highways and intersections.

The PA State Police suggest that anyone who receives such an e-mail to simply delete it.  Don’t become part of the hoax by forwarding the message to others.  It is simply not true.

The State Police claim that they routinely engage in speed enforcement efforts as part of our highway safety programs.  The Department never issues traffic citations as a way of raising funds for the state.

Yesterday, the NJ Supreme Court upheld the NJ Appellate Division’s decision holding your screen name or internet addresses private. We reported to you in an earlier blog entry that a New Jersey police officer used an invalid NJ Municipal Court subpoena to obtain information from Comcast regarding a criminal suspect.

The Appellate Division said this type of request is illegal without a search warrant, a grand jury subpoena, or an order to produce from the Superior Court based upon a showing of probable cause. We also told you that federal law permits this type of invasion.

Yesterday, in State v. Reid, the NJ Supreme Court said that the NJ Constitution demands that citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their subscriber information provided to internet service providers.

The Supremes did say that a law enforcement officer can obtain this information by serving a grand jury subpoena without notice to the individual subscriber.

In this case, the police can still get this information since it is probably still in Comcast’s records. I believe this was a wise decision to protect the citizens of New Jersey!

You can view State v. Reid here:  State v. Reid.pdf

Every 39 minutes and nearly 40 times a day, someone in the United States dies in an impaired driving-related crash. 

In 2006 alone, more than 13,000 people died in impaired driving-related highway crashes and hundreds of thousands more were injured, according to research by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  NHTSA also estimates that about three in every ten people in United States will be involved in an impaired driving crash at some point in their lives.

Cinco de Mayo has become a big night out for many, particularly young adults.  It has also become a dangerous night out due to impaired driving.
 

• Americans who drive while impaired on Cinco de Mayo make it a high-risk evening on the nation’s roadway for everyone. 
• From 2002 to 2006, an average of 43 percent of all highway fatalities each year on May 5^th and overnight into the early morning of the next

day were caused by impaired drivers with blood alcohol content levels of .08 percent or above, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Whether your are just meeting a few friends after work or attending a Cinco de Mayo party, if you plan on using alcohol, never drink and drive while impaired -and never let a friend drive if they show signs of impairment.

If you are planning to use alcohol this Cinco de Mayo, keep in mind the following:

Designate a sober driver before going out to celebrate;

Eat during the evening; load up on the chips and salsa and other appetizers, and then enjoy your other favorite Mexican foods during the evening;

Don’t even think about getting behind the wheel if you’re drinking.

Ask a sober friend for a ride home; call a cab, your local sober rides  program, (if your community has a local sober rides program, please insert the phone number here) or friend or family member to come and get you; use other mass transit if available; or just stay where you are and sleep it off until you are sober;

Take the keys and never let a friend leave your sight if you think they are  about to drive.

The tragedies and costs from drinking and driving impaired do not just end at the potential death, disfigurement, disability and injury caused by impaired drivers.

Driving impaired or riding with someone who is impaired is not worth the risk. The consequences are serious and real. Not only do you risk killing yourself or someone else, but the trauma and financial costs of a crash or an arrest for driving while impaired can be really significant and not the way you want to celebrate Cinco de Mayo.

People that break the law, often face jail time, the loss of their driver’s license, higher insurance rates, and dozens of other unanticipated expenses from attorney fees, other fines and court costs, car towing and repairs, lost time at work, etc.

Remember on Cinco de Mayo, Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk.

Check out our Spring 2008 Newsletter here: Spring 2008 Saile & Saile LLP Newsletter.pdf

The insurance industry uses data that weigh the following risk factors in calculating your policy payments: 

• Accidents – Every fender bender increases a driver’s risk quotient.
• Age – Youthful males and older drivers can be expected to have more accidents.
• Credit rating – Lower FICO credit scores translate to higher insurance risk.
• Gender – Women are safer drivers than men.
• Location – Rural drivers are lower risks than urban drivers.
• Marital status – Married individuals are considered safer drivers.
• Occupation – Significant business-related driving increases risk.
• Traffic citations – Every speeding, red-light running, and other traffic ticket raises the risk ante.
• Vehicle – Sporty vehicles are more risky than conservative family sedans.  Also, air bags, braking-safety systems, theft-deterrent devices, and other features decrease risk.
• Others – Insurers also factor annual mileage, distance to work, and years behind the wheel into risk assessment.

The Center for Auto Safety reports that although by law children in all states are currently required to use seat belts or child safety seats when they ride in the family car, every school day 23 million youngsters travel back and forth to school without this basic crash protection because large, yellow school buses are not equipped with seat belts.

“This just does not make sense,” said Dr. Arthur Yeager, Vice-President and co founder of the National Coalition for School Bus Safety.

We have to wear them on airplanes, cars, amusement rides and other types of moving objects. Why not school buses? The law makes us use special seats for infants, but when they go to school…forget it!

Does anyone have any idea why this is?

It’s not like school buses never get into accidents. If you watch the news you hear about school bus accidents all the time. What are our legislators thinking?

A recent unpublished New Jersey DWI case appears to have removed the Constitutional “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

According to the case brief, the NJ DWI Defendant was convicted in the local NJ Municipal Court. The Defendant then appealed to the Law Division which affirmed his conviction.

In his appeal to the NJ Appellate Division, the NJ DWI Defendant asserted the following problems with the prosecution’s case:

2.    An inspection report of the Breathalyzer prepared two months after the DWI test showed that a malfunction    occurred sometime before, during, or sometime during the 2 months after the DWI offense.

Is this what happens when a NJ DWI Defendant appeals his or her NJ DWI case?

It appears that the court did not presume that the NJ DWI Defendant was innocent and ignored these major problems in the prosecution’s case. From the case brief from the New Jersey Lawyer newspaper, there appears to be reasonable doubt. What do you think?

During the Easter Holiday 2008, Pennsylvania State Police have reported that they investigated 508 accidents on Pennsylvania roads and highways.

Of the 508 accidents, 14 people were killed and 202 were injured. A telling statistic is, of the 14 who died in the accidents, 11 of the 14 did not have their seatbelts fastened. Also, 52 of the 508 accidents, which also included 4 of the fatal accidents, were alcohol related.

What can we learn from this? If you have to drive at night, on a holiday weekend, please wear your seatbelt.