Columbus Personal Injury Lawyer - Motor Vehicle Accidents

CSX Train Derails in Northern Ohio, Setting Off Fire

Courtney Mills — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:53:57 GMT

A CSX train derailed in northeastern Ohio in Painesville, starting a large fire and forcing about a half-mile area around the fire to be evacuated. The train was carrying toxic chemicals that spilled everywhere, although no injuries were immediately reported.

Witnesses also reported seeing a tanker from the train explode, with flames shooting high into the air. The other hazardous chemicals in the fire were as yet unidentified. Emergency environmental response teams were dispatched to the area to evaluate the extent of the damage to the surrounding business district and residential areas.

According to CSX, based in Jacksonville, Florida, the company was working to identify exactly which chemicals were involved in the accident on Wednesday.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Airline, Cruise, Bus, and Other Mass Transit Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Courtney Mills

Tips for Preventing Motorcycle Accidents and Injuries

Scott Smith — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:59:32 GMT

â€¢ If you ride a motorcycle, always wear a helmet. Helmets are your best defense against serious and fatal brain injuries.
â€¢ In additions to your helmet, wear eye and fact protection. Many helmets have built-in visors or other face guards. Wear long pants, gloves, boots and a durable long-sleeved jacket.
â€¢ Get licensed. All states require a motorcycle license.

â€¢ Never drink alcohol before operating a motorcycle.
â€¢ Follow all rues of the road. Don't speed - 40% of motorcyclists who died in crashes were speeding.
â€¢ Watch for hazards on the road, such as large cracks, holes and bumps. Keep an eye out for vehicles coming from driveways and side streets.
â€¢ Make sure your headlight is on every time you ride. (This is a law in most states.)
â€¢ Don't let anyone ride with you until you are skilled at riding in all kinds of conditions.
â€¢ If you're a new driver, take a motorcycle riders' course. To locate a course near you, call 1-800-446-9227.
â€¢ Insist that passengers sit behind you on the motorcycle.
â€¢ Make sure passengers' feet can reach the footrests. Insist they keep their feet on the footrests at all times, even when you stop.
â€¢ Don't let passengers get on the motorcycle until after you start it.
â€¢ Tell your passengers to lean with you when you turn.
â€¢ Insist that all passengers hold on to your waist all the time.
â€¢ Instruct passengers to keep their legs away from the muffler to avoid burns.
â€¢ Ask that all passengers limit their movement and talking.

In all motor vehicle accident cases it is essential that measures be taken promptly to preserve evidence, investigate the accident in question and to enable physicians or other expert witnesses to thoroughly evaluate any injuries.

The above is not legal advice. That can only come from a qualified attorney who is familiar with all the facts and circumstances of a particular, specific case and the relevant law.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Smith

Motorcycle Accidents

Scott Smith — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:58:22 GMT

In Ohio, motorcyclists are subject to the same speed restrictions as other vehicles. All motorcyclists are required to drive at a speed that is reasonable and prudent. Ohio Revised Code Â§4509.11. Any speed in excess of the following speeds is evidence of unreasonable driving:

â€¢ 20 mph approaching a school crossing
â€¢ 55 mph in other locations O.R.C. Ann. Â§4509.11

Approximately 2000 motorcyclists are killed, and more than 50,000 are injured in traffic crashes each year. Many of these injuries and deaths could be prevented if motorcycle riders and their passengers wore helmets. In 2001, more than 3,181 motorcyclists were killed, and another 60,000 were injured in traffic crashes in the United States. More than 7,000 of those injured were riders between ages 15 and 20, and 36% of those who died were between ages 16 and 29. Ninety percent of the people who died were male; nearly all of them were operating the bike. Among females who died, 72% were passengers.

Per mile driven, motorcycles are about 21 times more likely than persons in a car to die in a motor vehicle crash, and they're about 4 times more likely to be injured. While motorcycles make up less than 2% of all registered vehicles in the U.S., motorcyclists account for 8% of total traffic deaths. In 2001, 39% of all motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes were speeding, approximately twice the rate for drivers of passenger cars and light trucks. The percentage of alcohol involvement was more than 37% higher for motorcyclists than for drivers of passenger vehicles.

Wearing a helmet lowers a motorcycle rider's risk of fatal injury by 29% and reduces the risk of traumatic brain injury by 67%. Despite the documented effectiveness of helmets, many motorcyclists choose not to wear them, especially when state laws don't require helmet use. Surveys show that in states without universal helmet law, only 34-54% of motorcycle riders wear helmets. But in states where helmet use is mandatory for all riders, 98% of motorcyclists use this safety gear. Currently, less than half of the states require helmet use by riders of all ages.

In most other locations the Department of Transportation department may determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 60, 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30 or 25 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate.

In all motor vehicle accidents it is essential that measures be taken promptly to preserve evidence, investigate the accident in question and to enable physicians or other expert witnesses to thoroughly evaluate any injures.
The above is not legal advice. That can only come from a qualified attorney who is familiar with all the facts and circumstances of a particular, specific case and the relevant law.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Smith

Car Hits Boy on Bicycle in Danville

Shannon Weidemann — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:39:48 GMT

A boy out for a ride on his bicycle in Danville was struck by a car last week Tuesday. He may have ridden into the path of the car and the car did not have time to stop. The victim was 11-years-old and suffered from numerous injuries according to his mother.

"He has a titanium rod in his femur and a broken collarbone," she said. "He also had a large laceration on his top lip that took stitches on the inside and outside."
According to Danville Police Sgt. Tom Looney, the boy was struck by a vehicle on Cedar Street in Danville. He was taken by ambulance to Knox Community Hospital and later Med-flighted to Columbus Children's Hospital.

He has been released from the hospital. The driver of the car was not issued a ticket.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann

Determining Fault Resulting from a Car Crash

Scott Smith — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:15:19 GMT

When a lawsuit is brought for damages caused by a car crash, the judge or jury must decide who caused the accident, since more than one person may have been negligent (fault), including the person who is bringing the lawsuit. Once the amount or percentage of negligence has been determined for each person, damages are awarded as determined by what system of fault the state follows. There are four predominant systems used throughout the United States: "contributory negligence," "pure comparative fault", and "modified comparative fault," which as two different modification options. There are also a handful of states that have their own unique systems of determining damage awards.

Ohio uses a modified comparative fault system. A judge or jury decides how much fault should be allocated to each person responsible for an accident and apportions the amount of damages accordingly. But unlike a pure comparative negligence system, a limit on the percentage of fault of the person bringing the lawsuit is used. There are two different limits used: the 50 percent fault rule, and the 51 percent law rule. Ohio follows the doctrine of 51 percent fault.

50 Percent Fault Rule

If the 50 percent fault rule is used, the person bringing the lawsuit (Plaintiff) cannot recover if he is 50 percent or more at fault, but if he is 49 percent or less at fault, he can recover, though his recovery is reduced by his degree of fault. Thus, if a person is found to be 50 percent at fault, he recovers nothing, but if a person is found to be 49 percent at fault he can recover 51 percent of his damages.

51 Percent Fault Rule

If the 51 percent fault rule is used, the person bringing the lawsuit (Plaintiff) cannot recover if he is 51 percent or more at fault. This follows the principle that a plaintiff who is more negligent than a defendant (at fault party) should not be able to recover anything. Here, if the person bringing the lawsuit is 50 percent at fault, he can recover 50 percent of his damages, but he cannot recover anything if he is found to be 51 percent or more at fault.

In all matters involving a personal injury it is essential that measures be taken promptly to preserve evidence, investigate the accident in question, and to file a lawsuit prior to the deadline imposed by the statute of limitations.

The above is not legal advice. That can only come from a qualified attorney who is familiar with all the facts and circumstances of a particular, specific case and the relevant law.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Smith

What is a Statute of Limitations and How Does it Apply to Bodily Injury from Auto Accidents and Medical Malpractice Claims?

Scott Smith — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:12:11 GMT

As with all lawsuits, a statute of limitations restricts the time in which you can file a lawsuit for negligence. In Ohio, the statute of limitations for most personal injury negligence is two years. If you miss the deadline, you usually have no legal recourse. Note that the statute of limitations for medical malpractice cases is only one year with exceptions. O.R.C. Ann Â§2305.11. If you are injured, it is essential that you contact an attorney immediately so as to be sure to preserve all of your legal rights before they are barred by law.

The above is not legal advice. That can only come from a qualified attorney who is familiar with all the facts and circumstances of a particular, specific case and the relevant law.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Smith

The Myth of Tort Reform

Scott Smith — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:48:34 GMT

Constantly looking for a scape goat, big business, big media and insurance companies have targeted trial lawyers and injured persons seeking compensation as villains who negatively effect the economy. Regardless of the propaganda that constantly spews from the Chamber of Commerce, there is a continuous outpouring of evidence that the cost of personal injury automobile insurance litigation and damage claims are lower now than they were twenty years ago. America's legal system is designed to compensate those injured by wrongful acts of others including giant corporations and other powerful interests who are behind the propaganda of tort (civil wrong) reform. Despite known facts, business groups, big media and insurance companies advocate changes in America's tort laws claiming the system negatively impacts the United States competitiveness and employment. However, this claim has never proven credible.

Tort costs have not slowed job growth. According to insurance industry consultant Towers Perrin, tort costs as a percent of the gross national product fell from 1986 through 2004. (Tillinghast-Towers Perrin 2006, 15.) Since 1987 the costs of litigating torts have dropped and stabilized. Nonetheless, the Bush Administration also jumped on the bandwagon either as a result being falsely informed or succumbing to the special interest big business community. One would expect the latter but the former is reminiscent of the Iraqi War.

Tort reform does not increase employment, contrary to the big business critics. Historically, there is no evidence that changes in tort litigation has lead to an increase of jobs. Dr. Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at the well respected Econometric Consulting Company, Moody'sEcomony.com, conducted a macroeconomic simulation of the effect of changes to the tort system. This simulation included the assumptions that changes to the tort system would be effective over the next four years, tort costs would increase at 3.3% per annum, that corporate tax liability would be reduced by an amount equal to the tort cost savings and that law firms income of personal transfer payments (jury verdicts), would be reduced accordingly. The results, using the assumptions as espoused by big business, did not provide any support for the Bush Administrations claim that a tort crisis exists and tort reform would generate employment growth.

Further, there is no evidence of significant effects on productivity through tort reform. The Economic Report of the President infers that tort costs harm the economy by diverting resources to non-productive uses as set forth in Executive Office of the President 2004, 207. However, the Economic Report presented no data or analysis to substantiate the claim. Moreover, the economics report is self contradictory inasmuch as it concludes higher tort costs do not lead to lower productivity. If this were true, countries with the highest tort costs should have the lowest productivity. However, no such relationship exists. In fact, studies revealed if there is an association between litigation costs and employment productivity, higher litigation costs would appear to lend creditability that higher productivity ensues. The Towers Perrin report ranked United States, Germany, Italy, Belgium and France with the highest productivity but also were noted as four of the five with the highest litigation costs.

Moreover, no evidence supports the claim tort litigation effects healthcare costs. The Towers Perrin study showed medical malpractice claims and tort litigation is so small a part of national healthcare expenditures the number is insignificant. The Congressional Budget Office concluded that "even a reduction of 25% to 30% of malpractice costs would lower healthcare costs by only about .04 to .05%" (Congressional Budget Office 2004, 6). To demonstrate the insignificance of this number, healthcare inflation in 2004 would have only been 7.8% instead of the 8.2%. In addition, health insurance companies constantly regulate recovery or reimbursement of medical bills paid for treatment, costs associated with victims of automobile collisions, medical malpractice and large corporation product liability claims.

Finally, there is absolutely no evidence of any significant effect on United States Corporate profits resulting from tort costs. If this were true, tort costs could be directly correlated to decreased corporate profits. However, despite Tower Perrin's claim of mounting tort costs, U.S. Corporate profits increased at a double digit rate in each of the past four years and are now at an all time high. If there is any question in this regard, a simple review of public documents relating to the Fortune 500 and casualty insurance companies profit and loss statements would dispel even the slightest reference this claim was credible.

The nation is being hoodwinked by the United States Chamber of Commerce controlled by big business, big media and the insurance industry into believing those who are actually injured at the hands of companies who poison our climate, flood the market with defective products or insure individuals who are reckless in the operation of their vehicles should somehow be limited or precluded from compensation all at the expense of increasing corporate profit.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Smith

Astrology and Car Crashes

Scott Smith — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:42:10 GMT

Website InsuranceHotline.com, conducted a study that demonstrated individuals with certain zodiac signs were more likely to be involved in car crashes, yet another example of the insurance industry's arbitrary and less than sophisticated means of determining auto insurance rates.

InsuranaceHotline.com quotes drivers on insurance rates and conducted a study that included 100,000 North Americans whose driving records for the past six years were analyzed. The study revealed individuals born between September 23 and October 22 (Libras) and those born between January 20 and February 18 (Aquarians) received more traffic citations and were involved in more automobile crashes than any other sign of the zodiac.

The best drivers were born July 23 through August 22 (Leo) and those born between May 21 and June 20 (Gemini). The study went on to reveal another factor for determining insurance rates, age, was less of a consideration than the zodiac sign of each applicant. According to InsuranceHotline.com, the cutoff line for being considered a high risk driver is 24 years of age and therefore anyone older than 24 would not be considered high risk unless, of course, the person was a Libra or Aquarian.

The "lesson" to be learned from this alleged erudite insurance research project would be when driving avoid Libras and Aquarians. Further, because Leos and Geminis appear to be the safest drivers on the road they should expect a discount on auto insurance rates. Whether this is merely a coincidence or credible support for astrology and horoscopes is far from conclusive. Nevertheless, ask your insurance agent for a discount on your auto insurance rates if you are a Leo or Gemini.

What can consumers look forward to next; palm reading to determine the amounts insurance companies will pay on claims for property damage, personal injury and death?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Smith

Runaway Verdicts or Runaway Insurance Profits

Scott Smith — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:29:10 GMT

Most of America is badly misinformed about what is really happening in our Courts and hospitals. Is the nation experiencing a plethora of runaway verdicts or is there really a run on insurance profits? Are we losing doctors due to high insurance premiums caused by frivolous lawsuits or is the insurance industry fooling us all?

Surprisingly, the facts are clear. As a representative example, in Ohio, the 2000 United States Census placed the population of the State at 11,353,140. The official tabulation of the Ohio Supreme Court showed that there were only nine product liability lawsuits that went to trial in Ohio Courts in 2004. Since 1998 in Ohio there have only been five jury verdicts in product liability cases. The verdicts were: $0, $0, $0, $100,000.00, and $4,100,306.18.

Statistics from the Bush Administration show the number of Federal personal injury trials was down in 2005 nearly 80% since 1985. In 2004, the Bush Justice Department reported the number of personal injury cases filed in U.S. District Courts fell by 79% between 1985 and 2003. In 1985, 3,600 personal injury trials were decided by a judge or jury in U.S. District Courts. By 2003, that number had dropped to less than 800 as reported in the "Federal Tort Trials and Verdicts, 2002-2003, Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 17, 2005".

As for State Courts, the decrease in trials was similar noting a 31.8% drop between 1992 and 2001 as cited in "Civil Trial Cases and Verdicts in Large Counties, 2001, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 4/04".

With respect to medical malpractice claims, contrary to the propaganda espoused by the Chamber of Commerce, personal injury lawyers are not clogging the Courts with multi-million dollar lawsuits that threaten families access to life saving medical care. Payouts in medical malpractice claims dropped over the last several years. According to the 2005 study by "Public Citizen", malpractice payouts have remained flat for more than a decade and have actually dropped over the last fifteen years as noted in "Medical Malpractice Payout Trends 1991-2004: Evidence Shows Lawsuits Haven't Caused Doctor's Insurance Woes, Public Citizen, May 2005". The study also revealed the number of malpractice payments paid on behalf of doctors fell 13.6% between 2001 and 2004. Adjusted for inflation, malpractice payments on average showed an annual increase of only .8% between 1991 and 2004. Adjusted for inflation, the median payout from judgments grew from 125,000 in 1991 to 146,000 in 2004, at only a 1.2% average annual increase. The percentage of payments of over $1,000,000.00 dropped from 2.25% in 1991 to just 1% in 2004. Adjusted for inflation, this represents a 56% drop.

The American Medical Association (AMA) own statistics show the number of doctors in the United States is actually increasing, not decreasing due to malpractice lawsuits or verdicts. According to data from the AMA, the number of physicians in the United States is up more than 40% since 1990, from 615,421 to 884,974 in 2004 as reported in "Physicians Characteristics and Distribution in the U.S., American Medical Association, 2006 Edition", page 312. Over the same time period the total U.S. population increased by only 18% from 248.7 million in 1990 to an estimated 293.9 million in 2004 as noted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The number of emergency room doctors has nearly doubled from 14,243 in 1990 to 27,864 in 2004 also noted in the "Physician Characteristics and Distribution" AMA article of 2006, page 312. The study went on to note the number of neurosurgeons and OB/GYN's has also increased in the United States from 20 to 25%.

How then does America save on health care? Rather than providing immunity to doctors, capping jury awards and shielding insurance companies from paying what is due injured victims, which is the medical community and Chamber of Commerce answer, one common sense approach is to cut the number of medical negligence cases by reducing medical errors. Insurance companies want to continually increase the premiums paid in by medical providers but reduce the amount of claim paid out for medical mistakes that cause preventable injury and death. Reducing medical errors would reduce medical claims and resultant lawsuits thus eliminating or at least reducing claims paid by insurance companies. However insurance companies would then not have a basis in which to lead the fight against trial lawyers by perpetuating the myth new laws are needed to curtail nonexistent frivolous lawsuits and runaway verdicts.

To gain a clearer understanding of the myth propagated by the insurance industry and Chamber of Commerce who has since brainwashed the medical community, Tom Baker, a law professor at The University of Connecticut who studies insurance, showed the propaganda about medical malpractice suits is myth mixed with an occasional true story, supported by carefully chosen references to skewed academic studies in his book "The Medical Malpractice Myth" published in November, 2004. When synthesized, including legal fees, insurance costs and payouts, the cost of medical negligence lawsuits come to less than one half of 1% of health-care spending. So why the increase in medical malpractice insurance premiums?

Baker notes the most impressive and comprehensive study that form the basis of the statistics he compiled was conducted by the "Harvard Medical Practice", released in 1990. The Harvard researchers took a huge sample of 31,000 medical records dating from the mid-1980s and had them evaluated by practicing doctors and nurses, the professionals most likely to be sympathetic to the demands of the doctor's office and operating room. The records went through multiple rounds of evaluation and a finding of negligence was made only if two doctors, working independently, separately reached that conclusion. Even with this conservative methodology, the study found that doctors were injuring one out of every twenty-five patients, and that only 4% of these injured patients sued.

If there are no runaway verdicts nor a glut of lawsuits, what is the basis of the insurance companies push for lawsuit reform? In its simplest form, the answer is greed. One must only look to the bottom line. As an example, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company reported that its total assets in 2004 were $84,403,000,000.00 (Eighty-four billion, four hundred three million dollars)!! In Ohio, that is more than $7,400.00 for every man, woman and child in the State. State Farm's net income for 2004 was $3,076,000,000.00 (Three billion seventy-six million dollars). That is $8,427,397.00 (Eight million, four hundred twenty-seven thousand, three hundred ninety-seven dollars) per day in profits.

When an injured person is forced to file a lawsuit because the insurance company will not pay the reasonable value of the losses, the injured party cannot even mention insurance during the trial. The jury is left to infer the person, company, doctor or hospital who committed the negligent act that lead to injury or death must personally pay the verdict thereby creating an atmosphere of misdirected sympathy and passion. In reality it is the insurance company who refuses to accept responsibility for their insured's negligence and settle cases for a reasonable value forcing injured parties to file lawsuits in the first place. The insurance industry has been quite effective with its high paid lobbyists to make sure the public is not made aware of the fact the rich are getting richer. The man behind the black curtain is not the trial lawyer but the greedy CEO who seeks runaway insurance profits.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Smith

Insurance Law Intimidates Emergency Room Doctors from Alcohol and Drug Testing

Scott Smith — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:23:49 GMT

Because a 1953 Ohio insurance law permits health insurance companies to deny claims for injuries that result from alcohol or drug use, emergency room doctors and nurses don't test patients for fear the costs of the procedure would be denied. Accordingly, many hospitals don't routinely test patients for drug or alcohol use and won't until the law is overturned. Of course, if the ingestion of alcohol or drugs would affect the patient's treatment or mortality, the appropriate tests would are performed.

Grant Hospital of Columbus, Ohio, claimed through it's representative, about one-half of motor vehicle accident victims taken to Grant have alcohol or drugs in their systems. Inasmuch as Grant estimates they have approximately 2400 Emergency Room patients a year, 1200 patients potentially could have their health insurance claims denied if tested and found to have drugs or alcohol in their system.

To not screen patients for drugs or alcohol ingestion has a negative far-reaching effect. Not screening patients permits the individual to escape being assessed as needing help for alcohol or drug abuse.

Moreover, many of the automobile collisions that occur in Ohio are a direct result of those operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If the individual who caused the collision is not tested, the innocent injured person who suffers an injury as a result is without medical evidence of the at fault party's drug or blood alcohol level.

If the patient committed a traffic offense or crime that resulted in hospital treatment a criminal defense attorney could argue the at fault party was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs as no test would be available to contradict this claim. The same would hold true if the patient was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs and a test would exonerate the person.

In addition, property and casualty insurance company claims adjustors and insurance defense attorneys often argue the fact that because no alcohol or drug testing was conducted no evidence exists to prove the culpable but injured patient is guilty of recklessness.

Ohio lawmakers are currently preparing a bill that would overturn the 1953 law and would require hospitals to test patients for alcohol and drugs to maintain Level I and II Trauma Center status as set forth by the American College of Surgeons in Chicago which verifies that medical centers meet particular standards to maintain the rating. Mandatory patient screening for alcohol and drugs is not only beneficial to the patient but also to those who are injured by the patient.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Scott Smith