Red Light Running Accidents: What You Need to Know

There are scary car accident statistics and then there are scary car accident statistics. This is the latter. A new study from AAA’s Foundation for Traffic Safety, 939 people were killed in red light running crashes in 2017, representing a 28 percent increase since 2012 and a 10-year high in the data.
A survey of drivers as part of the study also showed that 85 percent of drivers thought running a red light was very dangerous, but almost a third say they had done it within the past month. "More than 40 percent said they didn’t think police would stop them," according to AAA. "Nevertheless, it’s against the law and if a driver is involved in a deadly crash, it could send them to jail."
Per Se Legal Proof
Running a red light is a criminal offense (as is vehicular manslaughter). But breaking the law while behind the wheel could have civil lawsuit implications as well, thanks to a legal concept known as negligence per se. Negligence is a central factor in any car accident injury case, and a driver who violates traffic laws by running a red light before a crash is often considered negligent per se, because the law is intended to promote safety and avoid the kind of injuries that occurred.
In many jurisdictions, proof that the defendant violated a statute, regulation, or ordinance enacted to protect against the harm that resulted to the plaintiff means that the defendant’s negligence is conclusively established. In other jurisdictions, a defendant’s violation of a statute is merely evidence that the defendant might have acted negligently. So, evidence that someone ran a red light could go towards proving negligence and fault in a car crash, or it could decide the matter entirely.
Stopping an Accident
Demonstrating fault in any car accident claim can be tricky. But having evidence that one party ran a red light certainly helps. "Drivers who decide to run a red light when they could have stopped safely are making a reckless choice which puts other road users in danger," according to executive director of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Dr. David Yang.
AAA also has some recommends drivers to avoid running red lights and causing accidents:

Prepare to stop: Lift your foot off the accelerator and ?cover the brake? when preparing to enter any intersection by positioning your right foot just above the brake pedal, without touching it.
Use good judgment: Monitor ?stale? green lights, those that have been green a long time as you?ve approached the intersection. They are more likely to turn yellow as you arrive at the intersection.
Tap the brake: Tap your brakes a couple of times before fully applying them to slow down. This will catch the attention of drivers who may be inattentive or distracted behind you.
Drive defensively: Before you enter an intersection after the light has turned green for you, take a second after the light changes and look both ways before proceeding.

If you’ve been involved in a crash caused by someone running a red light, talk an experienced car accident attorney about your legal options.

The post Red Light Running Accidents: What You Need to Know  appeared first on Rutberg Breslow Personal Injury Law.

Red Light Running Accidents: What You Need to Know 

Is a Nationwide Opioid Settlement Coming?

According to the Centers for Disease Control, 130 Americans die every day from an opioid overdose, and opioid overdoses are representing an increasing percentage of more than 700,000 drug overdoses since 1999. The opioid epidemic has also unleashed a torrent of litigation: cities, counties, states, and Native American nations are suing manufacturers and distributors seeking liability for what has become a public health crisis.
And a recent court ruling in Oklahoma has spurred negotiations to settle all of the opioid-related lawsuits in one fell swoop.
One State, One Family, Thousands of Claims
A federal judge has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay Oklahoma $572 million for its role in fueling the state’s opioid crisis. And in other settlements with the Sooner State, Purdue Pharma (the manufacturer of OxyContin) agreed to pay $270 million, and drug maker Teva agreed to pay another $85 million. Now NPR is reporting that those companies, along with Endo International and Allergan are attempting settle around 2,000 more suits that have been consolidated in another federal court in Ohio.
Initial reports indicate that Purdue Pharma, run by the secretive Sackler family, could pay up to $12 billion to settle all the claims against it, and that the agreement may include the family paying $3 billion of its own money and giving up ownership of the company. "For years, members of the Sackler family tried to hide their role in creating and profiting off the opioid epidemic," said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. "We owe it to families in Massachusetts and across the country to hold Purdue and the Sacklers accountable, ensure that the evidence of what they did is made public, and make them pay for the damage they have caused."
Public Pharma?
The settlement talks, it appears, would only include state and local governments — "a ‘negotiating class’ of tens of thousands of local governments," according to NPR. And who would control any money paid out, and who would get how much, remains to be determined. There is also talk of transforming Purdue from a private company into a "public beneficiary trust," which would send all profits from drug sales to states, cities, and tribes.
"While Purdue Pharma is prepared to defend itself vigorously in the opioid litigation, the company has made clear that it sees little good coming from years of wasteful litigation and appeals," the company announced in an email to NBC. "The people and communities affected by the opioid crisis need help now. Purdue believes a constructive global resolution is the best path forward, and the company is actively working with the state attorneys general and other plaintiffs to achieve this outcome."
Opioid lawsuits can be complex, and any claims you have may already be subject to ongoing litigation. If you have questions regarding opioid-related lawsuits, contact and experienced personal injury attorney for answers.

The post Is a Nationwide Opioid Settlement Coming?  appeared first on Rutberg Breslow Personal Injury Law.

Is a Nationwide Opioid Settlement Coming? 

Evidence of Football Brain Injury Risk Continues to Grow

Parents of America have one more reason to keep their kids off the football field.
In recent years, the high incidence of football concussions has been linked to ongoing brain deterioration, and now a new study has revealed that the dangers of playing football may be even worse.
Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Rochester Medical Center say that it?s not just the big hits that are bad; a season-long series of routine hits can also cause long-term brain damage.
The researchers studied 38 University of Rochester players over the course of a season by placing accelerometers ? devices that measure accelerative force ? into their helmets before practices and games. The results: Two thirds of the players? brains experienced a reduction in white matter by season?s end.
?Our research ? is beginning to indicate that accumulation of many sub-concussive hits is instrumental in driving long-term damage in football players? brains,? said lead author Brad Mahon, an associate professor of psychology at Carnegie Mellon.
Declining Participation
The National Federation of State High School Associations reports that the level of participation in high school sports declined in 2018-2019 for the first time in 30 years. But the decline in football has been going on for more than a decade. Just over 1 million high-school students play 11-man football, about a 3-percent drop from the previous year, to the lowest number since 1999-2000.
The impact of the brain-injury research is particularly noticeable on youth football leagues due to strong sentiment by parents to restrict, or even ban, football for kids. A University of Washington School of Medicine survey found that 61 percent of 1,025 parents who were polled nationally favored age restrictions for tackle football. Massachusetts, meanwhile, is seriously considering an outright ban on youth tackle football.
Expanding Litigation
And then there are the lawsuits.
The NCAA has been on the receiving end of what will eventually be some 200 filings from litigants who allege that the NCAA and individual schools knowingly exposed them to risks of brain injury.
There?s also been litigation on the high-school and youth-football front. Last year, a California high school settled a brain injury case for $7.1 million. And a trial has been set to start in January for a closely watched case in California where a mother has filed suit against Pop Warner Little Scholars, claiming that youth football was responsible for the chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) that was detected in her son?s brain after he died in a motorcycle accident.
So is the day coming when football will be waving the white flag of surrender? Or might a different flag be waving? According to The New York Times, there are now more 6- to 12-year-olds playing flag football than tackle football.
But is America ? and the NCAA and the NFL ? ready for football without the violence?

The post Evidence of Football Brain Injury Risk Continues to Grow  appeared first on Rutberg Breslow Personal Injury Law.

Evidence of Football Brain Injury Risk Continues to Grow 

Playground Injuries: Are Waivers Enforceable?

Whether your child is off to daycare or kindergarten for the first time, or is a seasoned fourth- or fifth-grader, chances are they’ll be spending some time on the playground. And while playground equipment has made some great strides in safety from the old metal bars and merry-go-rounds of our youth, any kind of play carries some injury risk.
Just as every school has a playground, just about every school requires parents and students to sign liability waivers at the beginning of the academic year. Often, these waivers purport to protect schools from any legal liability if a child is injured while at school. But are they enforceable? And do they mean you can never sue if your child is injured on the playground?
Waiving the Right to Sue?
Most courts have found that liability waivers are enforceable, but only if they meet certain criteria and only to a limited extent. First, student injury waivers must be clear, unambiguous, and explicit in their terms. So, waivers printed in faint or small font, or in an inconspicuous place like hidden in a large document, are less likely to be enforceable.
Second, injury waivers only limit school liability for injuries arising out of ordinary negligence, and do not generally prevent parents from suing for injuries resulting from gross negligence, recklessness, intentional torts, or the illegal acts of school staff or other students. What does all that legal jargon mean?
"Negligence" is generally defined as the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to others. So, for example, if a teacher inspects playground equipment and doesn’t notice that a bolt is loose on a swing set, that would normally qualify as ordinary negligence. Gross negligence or recklessness, on the other hand, refers to the lack of any care, or an extreme departure from what a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation to prevent harm to oneself or to others. Therefore, if school staff didn’t bother to inspect the playground equipment at all, or worse, saw the loose bolt and did nothing, a jury might find the school liable despite the waiver. The same is true if school staff or students intentionally hurt your child.
The Right Party to Sue?
Most courts recognize a general duty of schools, administrators, and teachers to adequately supervise students placed within their care, and some have specified that schools must provide student with adequate instruction, proper equipment, and non-negligent supervision. So if your child is injured on a school playground, and staff failed to properly supervise the space or your child, you may be able to file an injury lawsuit against the school.
Additionally, manufacturers may be liable if faulty playground equipment causes an injury. Manufacturers have a general duty to ensure their products are safe, and they may be strictly liable for injuries caused by their product.
To find out if a school injury waiver is enforceable (or if you even need to sign one), or whether a school may be liable for your child’s playground injury, talk to an experienced personal injury attorney about your case.

The post Playground Injuries: Are Waivers Enforceable?  appeared first on Rutberg Breslow Personal Injury Law.

Playground Injuries: Are Waivers Enforceable? 

With Curfews and Bans, Cities Crack Down on E-Scooters

Public menace? Or valuable innovation?
Cities continue to seek a common ground on e-scooters, the rentable solo vehicles that now swarm across many urban areas. On one hand, the dockless devices are a great transportation alternative; on the other, they?ve often proven to be a safety hazard. And in the interest of public safety, some cities are starting to take a tougher stand on scooters.
From Evening Bans to Total Bans
One of the latest cities to act is Atlanta, which has imposed a temporary ban on evening operation after four riders died this year. ?Sadly, we have seen a pattern in the recent and tragic fatalities involving scooters ? they all occurred after sunset,? Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said in a statement. All companies operating the scooters in Atlanta have been asked to disable the devices from 9 p.m. to 4 a.m.
Evening bans have also been instituted in Chicago, with a curfew from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m., and Jersey City, which prohibits operation from 11 p.m. to 6 p.m.
Some cities are placing geographical limits on where the scooters can operate. Virginia Beach, for example, prohibits their use in the city?s Oceanfront area or on any sidewalk. Chicago won?t let them operate in the downtown Loop and other busy areas.
Other cities, meanwhile, are taking an even tougher stand. Last month, Chattanooga, Tennessee, issued a six-month ban on e-scooters. Summit County, Utah (Park City) and Breckenridge, Colorado, recently banned them. Nashville Mayor David Briley called for a ban after the first scooter death occurred in that city, but the Metro Council there overruled Briley and called for a reduction of the scooter fleet instead.
Injuries and Promise
The largest analysis of e-scooter injuries and deaths, conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, looked at medical records in Austin, Texas, from September through November of last year. The study identified 271 injuries, of which 45 percent were head injuries and 39 percent involved fractures. ?A high proportion of e-scooter related injuries involved potentially preventable risk factors,? the report concluded, ?such as lack of helmet use, or motor vehicle interaction.?
While e-scooters have plenty of enemies (including vigilantes who throw them into the nearest body of water), they also have lots of supporters. Besides the people who just enjoy riding the devices, there are also transportation planners who see them as them as filling an important ?micromobility? role: A quick and inexpensive way of getting to and from existing public transportation networks.
They might make our cities greener. But as city officials mull that desired outcome, they are forced to grapple with an inescapable question: At what cost?

The post With Curfews and Bans, Cities Crack Down on E-Scooters  appeared first on Rutberg Breslow Personal Injury Law.

With Curfews and Bans, Cities Crack Down on E-Scooters 

Leading Cause of Medical Malpractice Claims: Misdiagnosis

When most of us think of medical malpractice, we tend to think of an error that occurred on the operating table.
In fact, however, the most common settings for medical mistakes are not surgical wards. They are doctor?s offices and emergency departments, where doctors diagnose what?s wrong with you. 
The Impact of Diagnostic Errors
A recent article in the medical journal Diagnosis focused on the significance of diagnostic errors, pointing out that 34 percent of medical malpractice claims resulting from a patient?s death or serious disability were caused by inaccurate or delayed diagnoses. Twenty-eight percent of total payouts were attributable to diagnostic errors.
The study examined data covering a 10-year period from a database comprising 28.7% of all closed medical-malpractice claims in the U.S. Using that data, researchers identified 11,592 claims that alleged diagnostic errors, nearly three-quarters of them stemming from erroneous or missed diagnoses involving the ?Big Three? diseases: cancer, infections, and vascular events such as strokes and heart attacks. Outpatient clinics were the primary location for missed cancer diagnoses, while emergency departments are where most vascular missed diagnoses occurred.
The article pointed out that the impact of missed diagnoses in the U.S. is largely unknown ? estimates on the number of people who have been harmed by them range from 40,000 to 4 million. The authors characterized their study as ?a first step toward a national epidemiological estimate of serious misdiagnosis-related harms.?
?Serious harms are disproportionately due to failures in clinical judgment,? the authors concluded. ?Research and quality improvement initiatives should target interventions that improve clinical diagnosis for high-harm diseases in specific practice settings such as stroke in the ED, sepsis in the hospital, and lung cancer in primary care.?
Take Steps to Reduce Risk
So, if you find yourself in one of those settings ? or any medical venue, for that matter ? what might you do to reduce the likelihood of a misdiagnosis?
The best way is to become an active member of your health-care team. Tell your doctors about every aspect of your medical history, your medications, your allergies. Do your own research and gather as much information as you can from the doctor. Be assertive and speak up if you have questions.
So, if you find yourself in one of those settings ? or any medical venue, for that matter ? what might you do to reduce the likelihood of a misdiagnosis?
And if you believe you may have been the victim of malpractice, you?ll want to consult with a skilled attorneyskilled attorney who focuses their work in that complex area of law.

The post Leading Cause of Medical Malpractice Claims: Misdiagnosis  appeared first on Rutberg Breslow Personal Injury Law.

Leading Cause of Medical Malpractice Claims: Misdiagnosis 

What Will the NY Child Victims Act Mean for Abuse Lawsuits?

Recent child sex abuse scandals — from churches to billionaires — have put an increased focus on the statute of limitations when it comes to lawsuits involving past sexual assault. An array of factors can keep child victims from speaking out about abuse until years later, and while they can theoretically sue their abusers, in practice, the time limits on those lawsuits can vary significantly from state to state.
Case in point: New York’s Child Victims Act will go into effect this week, and legal experts expect that it will unleash a "tidal wave of litigation."
State Statute of Limitation
Under existing New York state statutes, child sex abuse victims have until they reach the age of 23 to sue their attacker. Additionally, victims can’t sue institutions (like churches or schools) after they turn 21. That means the Empire State has some of the most restrictive civil statutes of limitation when it comes to child sex assault. (Criminal offenses like rape, aggravated sexual abuse, or course of sexual conduct against a child can be prosecuted at any time.)
But the Child Victims Act will now allow survivors could file criminal charges until they turn 28, and a civil lawsuit until they turn 50. It also gives anyone who was previously barred from filing a lawsuit one year to sue over allegations of sexual abuse, regardless of when they said it occurred.
"It’s going to be a tidal wave of litigation," Mitchell Garabedian, a lawyer who represented victims of Catholic priests in Boston told Reuters. And Jeff Anderson, an attorney specializing in clergy sex abuse cases, said his firm has now assigned almost 100 employees to New York cases. The New York Bar Association also noted that judges in state courts "will also receive special training in dealing with cases involving child sexual abuse."
Federal Fight
Most cases of child sexual abuse are governed under state law, although the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act provides funding for state-run child abuse and neglect programs that meet certain federal standards. And in high-profile nationwide cases like the abuse reported within Catholic dioceses, the Department of Justice may investigate.
Otherwise, it is left to victims, their families, and their lawyers to navigate restrictive statutes of limitation to hold abusers accountable. If you think a child is being sexually abused, or have other questions about child sex abuse claims, contact an experienced attorney today.

The post What Will the NY Child Victims Act Mean for Abuse Lawsuits?  appeared first on Rutberg Breslow Personal Injury Law.

What Will the NY Child Victims Act Mean for Abuse Lawsuits? 

Tesla Sued (Again) for Autopilot Fatality

Like any car, Teslas have had their fair share of accidents, and fatalities. As of this writing, there have been four reported fatalities in accidents involving Tesla’s Model S, Model X, and Model 3 automobiles, all in the last three years. (That’s compared to an estimated 40,000 deaths in car crashes in 2018 alone.) Perhaps what’s most striking about the deaths involved in Teslas, however, is that many of the victims were using the company’s autopilot at the time of the accident — a feature many believe will make driving safer.
Case in point was Jeremy Banner, who was killed when his Tesla slid under a turning semi-truck while travelling 68 miles per hour on a Florida highway. Banner’s family is now suing the car manufacturer, claiming its Autopilot system failed and should have braked or swerved to avoid the truck.
Autopilot Accidents
According to investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board, Banner engaged the Autopilot system about 10 seconds before the crash and his hands weren?t detected on the steering wheel for eight seconds before the collision, which should have set off the car’s automated warning system. The Banner family’s attorneys claim Tesla falsely advertised its Autopilot system as self-driving technology that would "eliminate the risk of harm or injury to the vehicle operator caused by other vehicles or obstacles." The lawsuit also alleges that Banner "reasonably believed" his Model 3 was safer than a human-operated vehicle based on Tesla’s marketing campaign.
"My family is devastated due to the untimely and tragic death of a loving husband and father," a statement from Banner’s wife, Kim, said. "It is difficult to discuss and relive what happened to Jeremy at this time. Our family has faith in the legal system that justice will be done and those responsible for his death will be held accountable."
Defective (Self) Driver
Tesla has not responded to the lawsuit yet, but released the following statement following the crash in May: "Our data shows that, when used properly by an attentive driver who is prepared to take control at all times, drivers supported by Autopilot are safer than those operating without assistance."
Auto manufacturers have a legal duty to ensure their cars and trucks are safe, and there are three main types of product liability claims that injured drivers and passengers can make:

Design Defects: The design of the autopilot feature is flawed in a way that renders it unreasonably dangerous
Manufacturing Defects: The vehicle is manufactured in a way that departs from the intended design, causing it to malfunction
Warning Defects: The manufacturer failed to provide adequate instructions or warnings regarding the dangers present when using the autopilot feature

If you have questions about autopilot reliability — or legal liability — talk to an experienced car accident attorney for help.

The post Tesla Sued (Again) for Autopilot Fatality  appeared first on Rutberg Breslow Personal Injury Law.

Tesla Sued (Again) for Autopilot Fatality 

California Cities, Counties Settle Lead Paint Legal Claims for $305M

Lead paint was officially banned in 1978, but continues to live on in millions of homes. It remains the single biggest contributor to lead poisoning in children, causing developmental delays, learning difficulties, deafness, and even seizures.
Low-income neighborhoods are particularly rife with lead paint, almost 40 years later. "Lead paint is prevalent in Oakland homes and disproportionately impacts African-American, Hispanic, Asian and other communities of color and low-income communities," according to Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker.
Finally, after decades of litigation, the State of California has settled claims against paint-makers Sherwin-Williams, ConAgra Grocery Products Company, and NL Industries for $305 million.
Leading the Way
"Today’s settlement holds former manufacturers of lead paint responsible for the harm they have caused to generations of California?s children," said Santa Clara County Counsel James Williams. "We have fought to hold these companies accountable for nearly 20 years, and will finally have needed funds to devote to protecting our children from lead poisoning." Santa Clara, along with other counties and cities including San Francisco, Oakland, and San Diego, claimed that paint manufacturers marketed and sold lead-based paint for years despite knowing for years that it was dangerous to children.
The settlement, which will be paid in six annual $75 million installments, will allow local governments to mitigate lead poisoning dangers still present in older residences. Much of the money will go to a home clean-up program, free for property owners, to hopefully prevent thousands of new lead exposure cases. But how exactly how many residences may qualify for remediation remains to be seen.
Indoor Paint a Public Nuisance
Over 10,000 California children tested positive for lead poisoning in 2014, according to the Mercury News, with paint believed to be the main culprit. The three defendants in this case were found liable for knowingly marketing toxic lead-based paint in a 2013 trial, but the ruling was limited on appeal to apply only to homes built before 1951.
"This litigation, which started nearly 20 years ago, challenged the companies’ legal advertising of lead-based paints over a century ago when lead-based paints were the ‘gold standard’ and specified for use by the federal government, as well as state and local governments across the country," Sherwin-Williams contended in a statement released after the settlement. "While Sherwin-Williams continues to believe that this litigation was unfair, unwarranted and unwise, the resolution announced today will enable all parties to move forward and is in the best interests of the company and its shareholders."
While the manufacturers admitted no fault as part of the settlement, it remains one of the few successful pieces of litigation against lead paint makers based on public nuisance liability. To learn more about toxic paint liability or to file a lead paint-based legal claim, talk to an experienced personal injury attorney.

The post California Cities, Counties Settle Lead Paint Legal Claims for $305M  appeared first on Rutberg Breslow Personal Injury Law.

California Cities, Counties Settle Lead Paint Legal Claims for $305M