Blog

When humans become suddenly and overwhelmingly afraid, their biology introduces a fight or flight response into their bodies. Whether it is best to flee or fight is dependent upon the particulars of the frightening situation. Two years ago, Texas lawmakers passed legislation designed to inspire frightened underage drinking buddies to call the police rather than flee the scene if one of their peers seemed to be suffering from alcohol poisoning. The purpose behind this legislation was to encourage underage individuals to turn to law enforcement when they are involved in or witness underage drinking, rather than doing nothing out of fear for negative legal consequences. The hope is that if underage individuals know that they will be legally protected if they call the police, they will be less likely to flee the scene by driving under the influence. And ultimately, the law was designed to decrease the number of underage individuals who suffer from alcohol poisoning. Unfortunately, underage individuals have not taken advantage of their legal rights under this legislation, largely due to simple ignorance that the law exists. Young Texans need not fear legal consequences if they call the police about their peers illegally drinking, even if they were drinking themselves. Law enforcement wants to reward young people who do the right thing, not punish them after they've changed their minds about underage drinking. If you call 911 to help save the life of a friend who might be suffering from alcohol poisoning, you will not face negative legal repercussions. Do not hesitate to protect another's life if you find yourself in this situation. You are legally protected against criminal charges if you turn to the police in order to do a good deed. If you choose to call 911, your peers may panic. If they see you calling the police, ask them to remain calm and remind them of this important law that was designed to protect young Texans from alcohol poisoning. Source: Dallas News, “For young revelers who get alcohol poisoning, a lifeline in emergencies,” Scott Goldstein, March 13, 2013

Over the past few years, the media has paid increasingly close attention to the presence of hazardous, toxic and defective consumer products available in the marketplace. Despite heightened legal consequences for marketing dangerous products and increased enforcement of product safety laws, defective and dangerous consumer products seem to be abundantly available for purchase. Unfortunately, it can be difficult for American consumers to remain informed about the safety of the items they purchase. From spinach in the supermarket to plastic toys for children to the cars we all drive, dangerous products seem to be everywhere. As a result, many Americans are suffering from recall burnout. There are so many products we come into contact with every day that remaining educated about the latest recalls can be overwhelming and feel like a process best left alone. The government has recognized that remaining informed about safety recalls relevant to the lives of each individual American is prohibitively challenging. As a result, it has created a Recalls.gov application for smartphone users and a recall alert system via email launched by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). These two tools can empower Americans to take product safety into their own hands. By remaining educated about unsafe products and employing a user-friendly mechanism to report unsafe products, Americans can help to ensure that adults and children alike remain safe from toxic, dangerous and defective products. If you are suffering from recall burnout, consider downloading the new app or receiving email alerts from the CPSC. Checking these tools for relevant information may ultimately save your life or the life of your child. Source: Echo Press, “Families can sign up for dangerous product, toy recall alerts,” Mar. 17, 2013

Anyone can experience discrimination and hostile conditions in the workplace. However, some workers tend to become targets more frequently than others. The law recognizes several protected classes, specifically because these individuals tend to experience greater rates of discrimination and unfair treatment. These protected classes include gender, race, national origin, and religious affiliation. One group that is a particularly vulnerable target for sexual harassment is not associated with a legally protected class. However, the increasing rates at which members of this group are being targeted make the protection of this particular class worth considering. According to a recent study, teens are increasingly targeted for sexual harassment in the workplace. In particular, more than half of female teens and more than a third of male teens have experienced sexual harassment at their low-paying jobs in the last year, according to the sample analyzed by researchers at Illinois State University. Interestingly, the perpetrators of this teen-focused sexual harassment are more likely to be older workers rather than peers. The study’s lead author recently explained that “We suspect that adolescents may be targeted more frequently than adults given their relatively low status and power in the workplace. They may also be less comfortable reporting the harassing behavior or they may be unsure about the reporting procedures in their organizations.” Teens should understand that even though their age does not place them in a protected class, the law does protect them generally from sexual harassment in the workplace. They do not need to remain quiet if they become the objects of undesired sexual attention, coercion or lewd behavior. Teen workers should not hesitate to bring their concerns to the attention of an attorney if their superiors ignore their concerns or retaliate against them for speaking up. Source: Yahoo News, “Teens More Likely to Face Sexual Harassment on the Job,” Chad Brooks, Dec. 26, 2012

The New York Times recently profiled an approach of one trial judge that is slowly being adopted by more and more members of the bench. This particular judge was frustrated that those appearing before him with convictions for drug crimes tended to end up right back in his courtroom after a period of time. Rather than teaching them a lesson, incarceration only seemed to temporarily dry out the offenders until they could again gain access to the subject of their addictions. He began to recognize that the drug crime offenders were in far greater need of treatment than they were of incarceration and began sentencing offenders accordingly. Certainly, incarceration plays a necessary role in the criminal justice system when violent offenders need to be kept away from the population for a time, but research confirms time and again that incarceration tends to do more harm to offenders than good when the crimes in question are either non-violent or related to drug and alcohol abuse. Another interesting research conclusion is that swiftness of consequence is imperative to influencing an offender’s future behavior. If drug and alcohol abusers are given swift consequence in the form of arrest combined with swift consequence of treatment, the benefits to both the offender and society as a whole can be quite dramatic. If given access to swift and adequate treatment, drug and alcohol abusers are far less likely to reoffend, which benefits everyone. As prisons and jails continue to overflow and the crime rate continues to frustrate all Americans, legislators and judges need to rethink their approach to drug and alcohol crimes in particular. Locking offenders up is less effective than proper treatment. This fact should be the driving force behind criminal justice reform related to these kinds of offenses. Source: New York Times, “For Drug Users, a Swift Response Is the Best Medicine,” David Bornstein, Jan. 8, 2012

Rollover accidents are the number one motor vehicle accident-related killer of drivers and occupants of SUVs, trucks and mini vans. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 10,000 lives are lost in the 280,000 rollover accidents reported each year. Rollover accidents often eject occupants from their vehicle, which contributes to the high rate of fatalities for these types of accidents. SUVs and trucks are more prone to rollover than other passenger vehicles. This is because SUVs and trucks are often built to operate higher off the ground and carry heavier loads. This makes them more top heavy and more likely to rollover in an accident. Common Causes of Rollover Accidents Vehicle design is not the only cause of rollover accidents. Rollover accidents occur for multiple reasons, including: • Steering overcorrection: When a driver veers off the road, he or she will often overcorrect and jerk the steering wheel in the other direction. This often causes instability and can cause the vehicle to flip. • Overloading of the car: Overloading a vehicle with passengers and objects also decreases a vehicle’s stability and increases the risk of rollover. • Aggressive driving: Speeding and veering in and out of lanes can cause a vehicle to rollover. • Distracted driving: Multi-tasking while driving, such as texting and driving, is dangerous and will often cause a driver to veer off the road or hit an object, both of which can contribute to vehicle tipping. • Drunk driving: Driving while impaired increases the risks for rollover accidents. Many rollover accidents are preventable with safe driving. Those injured in rollover accidents should speak to an experienced personal injury attorney about their rights to recover compensation from any negligent motorists who contributed to the cause of the accidents. Source: Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, “Rollover Fact Sheet“

By now, most people are aware of the dangers of distracted driving, and there are substantial national and local efforts aimed at eliminating it. In fact, in 2010, the El Paso city council passed a law banning talking or texting on a cellphone, and El Paso is currently the only city in Texas with a ban on hand-held cellphone use. So, why then are the majority of police officers in Texas not held to the same standard? Accidents involving distracted driving by police officers have become frequent, with state accident reports listing a minimum of 70 such accidents in 24 months-that is an average of about three crashes per month. The problem stems from the fact that police officers are now able to use their cars like mobile desks; they are often juggling a variety of tasks involving dashboard-mounted computers and cameras, smartphones and two-way radios while driving. Even a top driving instructor at the Dallas Police Department admits that officers have become “complacent” about carrying out multiple tasks while driving, and how that complacency has impacted safety. Just like distracted citizens, multi-tasking police officers can cause accidents, some of which have had dire consequences. For example, in May 2010, an Austin police officer ran a stop sign while using his in-car computer and hit a man on a motorcycle. That man, a former tennis pro, now has difficulty walking and is in constant pain. Following the incident and a settlement with the victim, the Austin Police Department changed its rules governing police officer conduct in its vehicles. There is new technology becoming available that will allow officers to use voice commands instead of typing and could also lock a car’s computer while it is in motion. However, that type of equipment is expensive, and some departments are still skeptical about placing limits on their officers. Currently, only a few Texas police departments have a policy in place to prevent distracted driving by police officers. Until more police departments revise their policies on distracted driving by their officers, it is wise to be on the alert and to know your legal remedies if you are injured. Source: NBC 5 Investigates, “Distractions Lead to Frequent Police Crashes in Texas,” July 31, 2012 Our law firm handles personal injury claims due to distracted driving and other causes of car accidents.

New crash avoidance technology is supposed to reduce car accidents. A recent study by the Highway Loss Data Institute praises some of that technology for its effectiveness and criticizes others. Some of the technology that has been found effective in the reduction of the number of car accidents is forward collision warning systems and adaptive headlights. The manufacturers of Acura and Mercedes have equipped some of their models with technology that allows a car to automatically apply the brakes to avoid rear-end collisions. Owners of the cars with this collision warning system reported 14 percent fewer accident claims. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also believes that forward collision warning system can be effective at reducing accidents. Based on research collected from test vehicles, they opined that such warning systems could potentially reduce rear-end crashes by an estimated 15 percent. Similarly, the manufacturers of Volvo and Mazda equipped their cars with adaptive headlights. These adaptive headlights shine light around corners to allow drivers the ability to see better when taking turns. Owners of cars with this technology reported approximately 10 percent fewer property damage claims than owners of similar cars without the feature. Not all new car technology is effective at reducing car accidents. The study found that cars equipped with lane departure warning technology had higher rates of property damage claims than those cars that did not have the technology. Lane departure technology attempts to automatically turn a veering car back into its lane. Those that are injured in a car accident may be entitled to compensation for their injuries. A skilled personal injury attorney may determine whether the technology was defective or the driver was negligent. Contact an attorney in your area to learn about your rights if you have been injured in an accident. Source: Wall Street Journal, “Study Casts Doubt on Certain Crash-Aviodance Systems,” Joseph B. White, July 3, 2012

There is nothing more tragic than hearing or reading in the news about a child drowning, especially when so many of these deaths are preventable. Owners of swimming pools or spas can install and maintain certain safety equipment thus saving the lives of those young children who are most at risk for drowning. In states like Texas where weather is hot and swimming is common, drowning incidents are high. In 2011, there were 90 child drownings, up from 78 in 2010 according to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. For both years, the most drowning deaths were between May and July, involved children under the age of three and occurred in swimming pools. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drowning is the leading cause of death for children under five. The majority of young child drownings occur in in-ground pools on residential properties, which often lack appropriate safety measures. Pools should have sturdy fencing and locked gates that are well maintained so unintended child access is limited. Constant supervision by parents, childcare providers or lifeguards can also help to reduce the incidence of drowning deaths among young kids. At a minimum, children should also be provided basic swimming instruction. Sometimes, even when all safety considerations are present, drownings still occur because of the negligent actions by pool property owners or makers of pool products. Property owners who fail to take reasonable care to prevent a drowning, for example by not fencing a pool area, may be legally liable for a wrongful death. The negligent actions of other people, like a lack of supervision by lifeguards or poor installation of pool equipment, may also lead to legal liability. When the pool itself or any related equipment, fencing, locks or other safety products are defective, the manufacturers of these products could be liable for resulting injuries or deaths.

Texas residents may have heard about a recent tragic car accident that killed a Houston couple and left two of their children paralyzed. Surviving family members filed a lawsuit against Chrysler, the manufacturer of the minivan the couple was driving. The lawsuit alleges that numerous design flaws in the couple’s 2003 Chrysler Town & Country minivan were a significant contributor to the tragic deaths. One alleged design error is an insufficient “safety cage,” a tough, steel component meant to protect occupants in the event of an accident. Another alleged design flaw includes defective crush zones at the front of the minivan, which are supposed to absorb the impact of a crash. The family also claims that flawed seat belts and seat backs caused the serious internal and spinal cord injuries that . The driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident is also named in the lawsuit because of his distracted driving. The lawsuit claims he was reaching into the backseat, causing him to swerve into oncoming traffic. Although accidents like this are common, the couple’s family claim that without these design flaws, the couple would still be alive and the children’s injuries would have been prevented. The case has attracted national media attention and Chrysler has extended sympathy to family and friends of the couple killed. The couple’s family hopes that if the lawsuit is successful, it will encourage companies like Chrysler to design safer vehicles in the future. Source: The Houston Chronicle, “Relatives of Berry family sue Chrysler, driver in wreck that killed parents,” Susan Carroll, May 15, 2012

Megan Helal was a 19-year-old freshman at Navarro College. She went to visit her boyfriend at Baylor University in Texas. The two attended a Sigma Chi Fraternity party at a local bar in honor of new inductees to the fraternity. At the party, bar owners allowed the set-up of a bottle service where Megan, a minor, was served between 10-17 mixed vodka drinks within a two-hour period. Megan was found unresponsive on the bathroom floor of her boyfriend’s apartment the next morning; she later died at the hospital. Medical officials performed an autopsy in an attempt to determine her cause of death. Autopsy results ruled Megan died of natural causes. Tests show that Megan suffered from a heart condition, which was the cause of her death. However, Megan’s parents filed a wrongful death suit just two days prior to the tolling of the statute of limitations, naming the Sigma Chi Fraternity organization, the group’s chapter at Baylor University and the owners of the bar where Megan was served alcohol. Documents filed in the case point to negligence on the part of the bar owners as the cause of Megan’s death. Megan’s parents, as plaintiffs in the matter, assert that the owners of the bar were negligent for serving Megan alcohol even though she was a minor, and for continuing to serve her alcohol even when she was obviously intoxicated. In order to prove a claim for negligence, Megan’s parents may have to show that the bar owners had a duty, and that serving Megan alcohol was a breach of that duty. But just proving the bar owners had a duty to not serve Megan or continue to serve her after she was intoxicated is not enough. Plaintiffs have the burden of showing that the breach of this duty, not the heart condition, was the cause of Megan’s death. Source: The Huffington Post, “Megan Helal’s Parents File Lawsuit For Baylor Fraternity Wrongful Death,” Tyler KingKade, 3/20/12.

If you are under fifty, you’ve heard the message throughout your life: buckle up for safety. No matter the age of a driver or passenger, the wisdom of using a seat belt is accepted across Texas and throughout the U.S. But what if that simple act does not provide the protection you or a family member expected before a car accident? The troubling reality: safety restraints are sometimes a tragic example of a defective product that leads to a personal injury or wrongful death for which negligent vehicle manufacturers can be held liable. Seat belts can fail or malfunction in a variety of ways, jeopardizing the safety of car and truck occupants: One of the primary reasons for working closely with a Texas car or truck accident lawyer is the importance of looking at all potential sources of liability, including auto defects that either cause harm or make an accident much worse. Just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the rights of plaintiffs to sue manufacturers for seat belt defects. A full examination of vehicle wreckage can help an injury victim or family survivors of a fatal wreck identify all parties that should be held accountable. Source: Seat Belt Failure

Following significant delays, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration issued new Hours-of-Service rules on Thursday, December 22, 2011. The regulation restricts how long commercial truck drivers can operate their vehicles. According to FMCSA, the delay in issuing the final rules followed exhaustive scientific review and an extensive period for public comment. The administration stated that the new rules are based on the best science and research available. The intent behind the regulations is to ensure drivers receive the rest necessary to operate their vehicles safely on U.S. roadways and reduce the number of trucking accidents. The rules became a topic of debate following a legal dispute between safety advocates and the Department of Transportation. Citing safety and health concerns, safety groups sought changes to the old rules, while industry insiders such as the American Trucking Association opposed the introduction of new restrictions. The new rules introduced a number of changes, while keeping a few high-profile rules intact. The most controversial decision made by the administration was to not reduce the 11-hour daily driving limit for commercial drivers. Although the administration kept the 11-hour limit, it did reduce the weekly limit by 12 hours. Under the previous rule, truck drivers were allowed to work 82 hours a week. The new rule limits weekly driving time to 70 hours per week. This does not include non-driving time, which is a more complicated calculation. Drivers are also now required to take a 30-minute break at least once every eight hours. The rule also introduces changes to the mandatory “re-start” rule. Previously the HOS rules mandated a 34-hour restart period without stating when the rest period must occur. The new rule, however, adds a provision requiring at least two nights’ rest between 1 and 5 a.m. While the new rules certainly come with their fair share of changes, not all of the changes were as aggressive as advocates had hoped. The “re-start” for instance is not nearly as restrictive as those proposed by safety advocates, who sought to take drivers off the road between the hours of 12 and 6 a.m. Source: Truckinginfo.com, “Final HOS Rule Retains 11 Hour Driving Limit,”12/22/2011.