Norfolk-Portsmouth Personal Injury Lawyer

Are Government Subsidies to Railroads Serving The Public Interest?

Rick Shapiro — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:35:03 GMT

The nation freight railroads such as CSX and Norfolk Southern (NS) are posting healthy profits, but should state and federal governments be paying Norfolk Southern and CSX railroads for infrastructure improvements or for benefits that the railroads will reap privately?

Gregory Richards, of the Virginian Pilot, based in Norfolk, Virginia near Norfolk Southern's headquarters, recently published a thoughtful analysis on the public benefit vs. private corporate benefits of government dollars going to pay for railroad improvements.

Essentially the railroads argue that getting trucks off the highways (of Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, and others states) have a significant public benefit, much less reduction of pollution also.

In Florida, the state newspapers are now reporting on what many Florida citizens and bloggers are calling a "secret deal" and a "public subsidy" of CSX also.

David DeCamp a staff writer with the St. Petersburg Times, recently reported on the tentative state deal as follows:

The fight is over a complex plan struck under former Gov. Jeb Bush to run commuter trains on CSX's railroad through Orlando. In exchange, the state would subsidize the building of the biggest railyard in the Southeast in Winter Haven. It would help improve CSX's freight line through west-central Florida.

But largely unnoticed before the deal was struck was what would happen to Polk County. Clearing rail space in Orlando meant more trains slicing through Lakeland and trucks chugging around Winter Haven.

"They are going to divide our city," says Lakeland Mayor Buddy Fletcher, whose citizens are in an uproar. "They are going to destroy our downtown."

Lakeland's Republican Sen. Paula Dockery, among others, wants more study and a new train route around her hometown. Some Tampa Bay lawmakers worry the extra freight traffic could curtail Tampa's own bid to one day have commuter rail.

Aside from the Lakeland uproar, it seems that CSX is turning over/selling areas of its Florida tracks to Florida state government, but the state is picking up a significant part of the cost to pay for maintenance of the same tracks in the future. One lawyer in Florida sued with the main argument being that the public subsidy to CSX violates the law. Other news reports have questioned whether the CSX deal violates the Florida constitution. Also, some argue that since CSX is running its freight trains over the same tracks, that the freight trains (heavy weights) actually cause a much bigger toll on track maintenance than the running of passenger/commuter trains the state of Florida plans to run.

A careful analysis of the public benefits of both freight and passenger railroad/train travel reveals that the true "public" benefit of government "subsidies" is a very difficult economic analysis which includes: 1) pollution; 2) reduced trucking traffic, 3) reduced car/auto traffic at least on commuter rail projects.

My viewpoint: There are numerous examples of government's contributing to railroad projects that have a significant private corporate interest co-mingled with a public benefit also. Each situation requires a careful look--the government should never over-contribute, however government funding may serve to reduce air pollution and foster the goal of reducing car and truck highway traffic. No comments on the localized Florida issues-those are well beyond my viewpoint here.

Women Awarded $7.5 Million From Norfolk for Son Who Was Hit by City Truck

Jenny Albano — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:01:51 GMT

The city of Norfolk is awarding a woman $7.5 million because her son was hit by a truck which was driven by an employee of the city.

The circuit judge hearing the case must approve the settlement so the case is scheduled to go to trial next week. Council approval isn't necessary but the judge sought approval anyway.

Renee D. Wilson brought the lawsuit in January 2007. Wilson's attorney, Jack Drescher, said Travis Dalton was standing in the median on Brambleton Avenue near Posey Lane in December 2006 when he was struck by a city truck driven by city employee Theodore Goodman. Dalton suffered serious brain injuries. The lawsuit first named Goodman as a defendant. Wilson later added the city.

Dalton is now 19 years old, but can only has the brain capacity of an 11 year old. According to the lawsuit Dalton will never be able to work or support himself. He spent three months in the hospital after the accident and must return frequently for check-ups. Dalton had to have part of his skull removed because of the pressure from the swelling in his brain and his medical expenses cost over $329,000.

The city of Norfolk is arguing that it is not liable because the driver, Goodman, was traveling between two of the city's facilities. The prosecution states that Goodman could be held personally liable because he was driving and not performing tasks of his job.

Because the city is self-insured, it puts revenue each year into an account to pay legal settlements. Sources said the council was told Tuesday night that the fund will pay most, but not all, of the $7.5 million settlement. That means some money likely will have to be set aside to pay for the settlement in the next budget, which Williams is currently putting together.

DRIVERS ON CELL PHONES SLOW YOU DOWN

Rick Shapiro — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:10:15 GMT

Authored by: Randall Appleton

As a personal injury lawyer with a long commute from Nags Head, NC to Virginia Beach, VA each day, I was amazed at some news about cars and cell phones in the Virginian-Pilot newspaper. Recent studies have indicated that drivers talking on cell phones are making commutes longer.

Motorists speaking on telephones move about 2 mph slower on congested highways and just don't keep up with the flow of traffic. The study also showed that if your commute is an hour a day, this could add about 20 hours a year to the commute. The study was based on three dozen students driving in simulators which indicated that drivers on cell phones are far more likely to stick behind a slow car in front of them and that they change lanes about 20% less often than drivers not on a cell phone. Overall, cell phone drivers took about 3% longer to drive the same route than people who were not on a cell phone. About one in ten drivers is typically on a cell phone so the time adds up quickly according to the study. Together with the fact that cell phones also distract the motorist, this news makes me even more ready to sue the insurance company of a person talking on the cell phone when he runs into and hurts my client.

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

Malpractice Settlements Not a Lottery for Injured Plaintiffs

John Cooper — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:05:30 GMT

Authored by: James C. Lewis

A recent study, "What We Know About Malpractice Settlements," which appeared in the
Iowa Law Review establishes that the likelihood of payment in a malpractice claim against a negligent physician and the amount paid to the injured patient by that negligent physician was "closely related to the merits of the underlying claim of medical negligence."

"Tort reformers" have long alleged that medical malpractice settlements are an "irrational lottery," where fault and settlement are unrelated. Many critics of our tort system intended to bring negligent healthcare providers to the bar of justice relied on a small analysis in a widely cited Harvard Medical Practice study which was originally published in 1996.
The study which appears in the recent addition of the Iowa Law Review looked at ten other studies completed between 1988-2006 that examined settlements in almost 20,000 medical malpractice cases against doctors, hospitals, nurses and nursing homes. This analysis found that weak claims are much less likely to result in payment to injured malpractice victims than strong claims with only 10-20% of weak cases resulting in payment and then, usually only in a "token" amount, such as forgiveness of unpaid medical bills.
Other hand, this investigation revealed that stronger cases against negligent doctors, nurses, hospitals and nursing homes resulted in payments to injured malpractice victims at a much higher rate (85-90%) and for much larger average payments.
The result of this study should put to rest the frivolous claims being put forth by "tort reformers" that medical negligence cases are unjustifiably increasing insurance premiums for healthcare providers who are supposed to be providing good and safe care to the American public. Rather, this study seems to bear out the fact that those negligent healthcare providers who inflict injuries on their patients are being held responsible for compensating those injured patients by the tort system.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.

Nursing Homes Bow to Big Money

John Cooper — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:39:25 GMT

Authored by: John M. Cooper

A disturbing trend is emerging across the county regarding the quality of care and treatment that nursing home residents are receiving from nursing home operators. This trend involves the purchase, by wealthy investors, of numerous nursing homes. Upon acquiring these nursing homes as new investments the trend is for the quality of care provided to nursing home residents to fall dramatically. This has given rise to a steep increase in the number of medical negligence law suits being filed by injured nursing home residents or the families of those who have perished at the hands of inadequate care.

A recent article that appeared in the New York Times used the Habana Healthcare Center in Tampa Florida as an example. Habana Healthcare was struggling financially, when it was purchased by a large private investment firm as part of a 48 nursing home acquisition which occurred in 2002. The nursing home managers quickly cut costs and within months, the number of clinical registered nurses at this nursing home was half of what it had been a year earlier. The investors and operators were soon earning millions of dollars a year from their 48 nursing homes.

Residents faired less well. Over three years, 15 nursing home residents at Habana died from what their families contented was negligent care. Habana is one of thousands of nursing homes across the nation that large Wall Street investment companies have bought or have agreed to acquire in recent years. As such investors have acquired nursing homes, they have often reduced costs, increased profits and quickly re-sold facilities for significant gains.

But by many regulatory benchmarks, the residents at those nursing homes are worse off, on average, than they were under previous owners, according to an analysis by the New York Times of data collected by government agencies from 2000 to 2006.

Because of this kind of conduct, the frequency of nursing home medical malpractice cases has sky rocketed. Injured residents and the families of residents from nursing homes who have died are increasingly making these nursing homes stand accountable for their inadequate care in courts across the United States.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Nursing home and Elder Abuse.

Virginia (VA) Cities May Be Responsible For Injuries

John Cooper — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:54:10 GMT

Authored by: John M. Cooper

As a personal injury attorney practicing in Hampton Roads, Virginia (VA), I am all too aware of the special rules that apply to injuries caused by a city employee.

Under some circumstances a city employee can be held responsible for bad driving or other negligence, but sometimes a special law called sovereign immunity prevents the injured person from making a claim against the city, whether that is Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Suffolk, Williamsburg, Newport News, or Hampton, Virginia (VA). The rule is not always clear as to when a city will be at fault and when they won't be. The key is to contact a personal injury lawyer as soon as possible after an injury occurs especially when a Virginia (VA) city is involved. There are many special rules including deadlines for bringing a claim in order to make to get a recovery where a city is involved.
In 2004, Hampton, Virginia (VA) was forced to pay 7.5 million dollars to settle a case against the school district where a school bus driver hit a motorcyclist causing brain injury. The liability of the city depended on the fact that the bus driver had not yet gotten any students on the bus when the incident happened. The tricky rules as to when a city in Virginia (VA) is responsible for ordinary negligence, like the rest of us on the road, or where they are responsible only for gross negligence, which is very hard to prove, depends upon the specific facts.
Additionally, when you have against a city like Norfolk, Virginia (VA), for instance, you have to send a letter in a certain format to the government official specified in the Virginia (VA) code. If this letter is not sent out within six (6) months of the event there will be no insurance coverage or other city responsibility under Virginia (VA) law.
It is important that you have an attorney who knows about these complex rules, if you or a loved one gets hurt or killed by the fault of someone who is a government employee. We have successfully handled many of these kinds of cases over the years. Recently, my law partner Jim Lewis had successfully handled a case against a police officer in Albemarle County, Virginia (VA) who severely hurt a woman riding on a motorcycle. The accident was not the fault of the woman and she had horrible broken bones with hospitalizations and huge medical bills. It is a good thing that this lady contacted an attorney who was experienced in this area of the law to make sure that she was able to get compensation for her medical bills, permanent injury, and future lost wages.

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

Stunt Plane Pilot Crashes and Dies Before Air Show

Jenny Albano — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:11:50 GMT

On Friday, September 7, a stunt plane crashed just hours before an air show. The pilot was practicing his stunts when the plane crashed; the pilot did not survive.

Jan Wildbergh, the flight leader with the Skytypers Air Show Team, died following the crash at the Oceana Naval Air Station.

The pilots in the show had just finished their routine and were landing when the last plane, No 6, crashed. A witness said that the plane flew into the ground while still under its own power. According to the team spokesman, the plane had no ejection system, and the plane was flying to low for him to try and escape with a parachute.

"He probably tried to continue to make the maneuver and save the plane, possibly by doing a belly flop," team spokesman Ralph Roberts said. There will be an investigation into the crash of this plane.

The Skytypers Air Show Team performs at shows across the country, often doing low-level flying maneuvers and creating aerial smoke messages, called skytyping, according to its Web site. A computer in the lead plane sends radio signals to the others to coordinate puffs of smoke to form words while the planes fly about 250 feet apart.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Airlines, Cruises, Buses, and Other Mass Transit Accidents.

Bunk Beds Recalled Due to Collapse Hazard

Jenny Albano — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:32:36 GMT

d-Scan Inc., in conjunction with the CPSC, is recalling about 500 Jubee Bunk Beds because the upper bunk may collapse on top of the lower bunk which could seriously injure or kill consumers.

The recalled bunk beds do not comply with federal safety standards and have wooden side slat supports that can separate from the bed frame causing the upper bunk to collapse. The firm is aware of seven incidents in which the upper bunk collapsed after the side slat supports separated from the bunk bed's frame. No injuries have been reported.

The bunk bed are twin size and were designed for children. The bed does not come assembled and the consumer must put it together. The beds are made from maple wood and have a four-step ladder attached to one side of the bed; there are also three pullout drawers under the bottom bunk. Only model number 82008 is included in the recall.

The bunk beds were sold at at specialty furniture stores across the U.S. and on several websites from December 2004 to April 2006.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

One Woman Is Dead After A Collision With A Mack Truck

John Cooper — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:16:29 GMT

Authored by: John Cooper
The driver of a Toyota Camry was confirmed dead at the scene by Norfolk, Virginia (VA) police officers Monday morning after her car collided with a Mack truck hauling dirt.

The accident happened at the intersection of 27th Street and Llewellyn Avenue. Reports indicate that the trucked which was headed west on 27th Street, pushed the car that was southbound on Llewellyn into the intersection and wedged it around a metal utility pole.

The woman driving the car has not been identified and no charges have been filed against the driver of the truck at this time. The property damage to the car was serious. The vehicle was crumpled up and seemed cut in half in the newspaper picture. No wonder the female driver was killed in the crash. Huge trucks on city streets scare me to death!!!

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Tractor-trailer accidents.

Medical Malpractice Lawyers for Injured People Need To Learn Simplicity

John Cooper — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:12:58 GMT

The lawyers in my law firm Hajek, Shapiro, Cooper, Lewis and Appleton exclusively handle injury and wrongful death cases and only do them on behalf of the injured people and families never the insurance companies.

We are always tying to continue our legal education to make sure to do the very best job possible in court in the complicated area of medical malpractice lawsuits. When I was at a convention recently of the American Association for Justice, the National Plaintiff's Lawyers' Group, I got a copy of an excellent book which describes a method of trying to keep the complicated subject of medical malpractice and surgical errors as simple as possible. The idea is to make clear to a judge and a jury so that the injured person wins their case. The book is called the Rules of the Road: A Plaintiff Lawyers Guide To Proving Liabilityby Rick Freidman and Patrick Malone.

Because medicine is so complex sometimes the lawyer helping a family whose loved one has been killed by an error in a hospital operating room may let the issues become so confusing that the insurance company wins the lawsuit. Confusion about the medical malpractice may mean the family does not get fair compensation for the wrongful death of their loved one. The "Rules" provides a method to help plaintiff' personal injury attorneys win more of these complicated, medical malpractice cases by keeping things clear and simple. For example, there is a common sense rule of surgery that the doctor should never cut any part of the patient's anatomy in the operating room without being sure what it is before he cuts it. This rule of surgery is so basic that every doctor and medical expert should agree to it. If the plaintiff's medical malpractice lawyer can show that the surgeon in fact failed to know what it was that he was cutting, then a strong pattern of medical malpractice can be shown.

Our law firm has seen many cases of surgical errors where the doctor has cut something in the plaintiff's body without confirming what he was cutting properly first. In these types of lawsuits, it is helpful for the attorney working for the injured person's family to show the medical mistake as simply as possible by establishing a clear rule that was violated, because complexity and confusion will only help the insurance defense lawyer to win the case if the judge or jury does not understand exactly what the doctor should have done. This technique keeps the jury focused on exactly what the doctor should have done and failed to do rather than worrying about such general legal terms as the reasonably prudent doctor standard which is too vague to really mean anything to the jury.

It is hard to summarize all of the great ideas in this super book in this short article. Suffice to say that by continuing out legal education and going to the best seminars offered by the Trial Lawyers' Associations in Virginia (VA), North Carolina (NC), and nationally, we are constantly trying to improve our skills in trying medical malpractice cases. I wish all lawyers trying these cases would do the same and perhaps improve the odds of winning against the medical malpractice insurers. However, I think that by our constantly striving to be the best medical malpractice lawyers in Tidewater, Virginia (VA) we show our clients that we are willing to invest the time and money to separate ourselves from other law firms by the level of our knowledge and skill.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.