Train accidents have been making many headlines recently, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has responded with a bill which would aim to reduce a major culprit of these accidents and subsequent passenger personal injuries and fatalities: fatigue. According to a story in the Virginian Pilot, the FRA wants to replace 100-year-old laws addressing the work time of train crews’ with more modern and scientifically-based regulations. A reauthorization bill submitted to Congress last week would specifically regulate the amount of time train crews get to rest between shifts.
According to the story, the railroad industry’s current hours of service laws say that workers can work 12 hours straight as long as they get 10 hours of rest. However, the law only mandates eight hours of rest when train employees work one minute less than 12 hours. FRA Administrator Joseph H. Boardman said that train employees need schedules which promote safety and rest. While labor unions are happy that the government is addressing fatigue related issues, they are also concerned that repealing the current laws would leave workers without guaranteed rest and work limits.
Fatigue has been listed as the probable cause of 16 major train accidents, some of which involved fatalities, during the last 23 years, according to a National Transportation Safety Board statistic in the story. The reauthorization bill is currently before congressional committee and would carry through 2011 if passed this year. Visit The Injury Blog for more specifics on this reauthorization bill and the latest developments as they happen.
The severe injuries and consequences from ATV accidents have been detailed here in the past, and West Virginia has recently joined the growing list of states seriously addressing ATV safety concerns. Three ATV bills have been introduced in the West Virginia House of Delegates to bolster safety regulations and try to curb West Virginia ATV accidents.
According to a story in the Charleston Daily Mail, there were 54 West Virginia ATV deaths last year. The West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles says that nearly half of those fatalities involved ATV accidents on paved roads. Two of the three bills would ban ATV use on paved roads, require all riders to wear helmets, and ban any additional passengers unless allowed by the specific vehicle manufacturer.
• West Virginia delegate Corey Palumbo has introduced a bill which would essentially eliminate ATV use on open roads with the exception of riders on trails, who could drive an ATV vehicle on the berm of the road for up to one mile. Current West Virginia law allows ATV riders on trails to do so for ten miles. Palumbo said that the number of West Virginia ATV accidents and deaths on open, paved roads is an extremely important issue because their tires are not designed for pavement. Palumbo admitted that he does not think his bill will get passed but hoped that it would spark more discussion.
• Delegate Kenneth Tucker has introduced a similar ATV bill which would require state agencies to develop an incident form describing all known West Virginia ATV accidents. The West Virginia Division of Highway would then have to include these forms in its annual traffic accident analysis. This bill would exempt the restrictions on riders legally operating their vehicles in areas managed by the Hatfield McCoy Regional Recreation Authority, according to the story. Both Tucker’s and Palumbo’s bills would also take into account recommendations from ATV manufacturers and West Virginia State Police.
In addition to these ATV bills, delegate Sam Argento has introduced a bill that would require ATV owners and operators to get off-road driving permit cards and display this identification on the vehicle. According to Argento, only 150,000 of the near half-million ATV vehicles in West Virginia are registered! All three bills are pending in committees, according to the Charleston Daily Mail story.
ATV enthusiasts and opponents are at odds over bills in various states that would change current riding laws, some of which would allow riders more freedom and others which would strive to avoid ATV accidents like the fatal one in Mississippi last week. A 23-year-old woman was killed last Sunday when her ATV crashed with another man’s ATV, throwing her into the path of an SUV. This incident is the second ATV-related death in the Lucedale, Mississippi area already this month, and another example of why a state like Oregon is trying to tighten ATV-riding laws.
• An Oregon ATV bill would bar anyone under 12-years old from driving these vehicles. Strongly pushed by Senator Alan Bates, Senate Bill 49 would also limit 12 to 16-year olds to operating ATVs with engines of 90 cc or less. This bill has sparked much protest as Southern Oregon constituents are threatening to launch a recall against Bates. According to statistics from the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission, one-third of the near 6,500 victims who died in ATV accidents between 1982 and 2004 were children.
While this bill attempts to curb Oregon ATV accidents involving minors, other states are trying to open up the roads for younger riders.
• A North Dakota ATV bill would allow 10-year olds to ride off-road ATVs and dirtbikes under the supervision of their parents and refute a current law requiring riders on public land to be 12-years old. Proponents of the bill say that such a bill would allow North Dakota children to be trained in safety procedures at an earlier age while opponents question the full cognitive abilities of children below 11 years of age.
• A Nebraska ATV bill would allow ATVs to be driven on all roads except controlled-access highways. Legislative Bill 288 has drawn criticism from safety advocates who say that ATVs are designed for off-road and not on-road use and do not turn as sharply as motorcycles or cars.
Follow this personal injury blog for the latest developments with these ATV bills.
On Monday, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced steps aimed at improving the agency’s safety programs. The three key elements in the FDA’s plan to improve drug safety are:
- Strengthening the science that supports the FDA’s medical product safety system, including initiatives to:
- Develop new scientific approaches to detecting, understanding, predicting and preventing adverse events;
- Develop and incorporate new quantitative tools in risk / benefit assessment; and
- Conduct a pilot program to review the safety profiles of certain newly approved drugs on a regular schedule
- Improving communication and information flow among all stakeholders involved in promoting safe use of medical products by:
- Establishing an advisory committee to help improve the agency’s risk communication policies and practices; and
- Reviewing current public communication tools and developing a comprehensive risk communication plan
- Improving management / operations to ensure implementation of necessary review, analysis, consultation and communication processes, through the use of external management consultants
The FDA has been under fire from consumer advocacy groups for years, and the outcry has increased in recent years as multiple FDA approved prescription drugs have been found to cause serious medical problems and even death. In some of those cases, it has been revealed that information regarding these risks was available long before it was publicly acknowledged, leading to unnecessary medical complications and deaths.
Two sisters have filed a personal injury lawsuit against their former swimming coach and Florida preparatory school after learning that they were secretly videotaped while changing into their swimsuits in his office. Kimberly Brabson III secretly taped the two girls when they were 15 and 17 years of age at Tampa Preparatory School. Police say he had been videotaping students for at least three years.
Tampa Preparatory School fired Brabson on November 10th of last year after learning that he had asked members of the swim team to change in his office rather than the girls’ locker room. Brabson faces 10 charges of voyeurism. Under Florida law, illegally videotaping a person is only a felony for a repeat offender. Brabson has no criminal record.
Ironically, the father of the two girls bringing the suit is a Clearwater personal injury attorney. Tom Carey filed the suit on behalf of his daughters, who are now in college and for privacy reasons have been listed as Jane Doe Carey and Jane Roe Carey. He said he is seeking legislation to change Florida law, which appears imminent. State Senator Mike Fasano has said that he is working on a new bill that would make it a felony for anyone who videotapes nude children.
Due to his own personal feelings in the case, Tom Carey has turned representation in the suit over to his law partner, Jodi Leisure, who says the school should have known Brabson was a problem. Brabson had been reprimanded once before when a student complained that he made her model a swimsuit. She added that police have identified 21 of 50 victims on a seized Brabson videotape.
The National Transportation Safety Board is urging federal and state governments to ban cell phone use by bus drivers in order to prevent similar personal in injury accidents like the 1994 non-fatal bus accident involving a Massachusetts Catholic school bus driver who, while using a hands free cell phone, caused a personal injury accident involving 11 teenagers on a class trip. The NTSB also recommends that bus associations develop formal policies related to cell phone usage for its drivers.
In a recent report, the NTSB indicates there are not accurate statistics regarding cell phone use and personal injury accidents. There are still 20 states that do not have driver distraction codes on accident report forms. Those states would need to utilize some sort of driver distraction codes when reporting the cause of an accident in order to determine exactly how many personal injury accidents involve cell phone usage.
Colorado policyholders can expect to save an average of $50 per year on their car insurance when State Farm cuts rates this month. The tort reform enacted in 2003 requires only the insurer of the driver at fault to pay for damages in a Colorado personal injury automobile accident. Previously, Colorado had a more typical "no fault" personal injury payment system where the insurance companies for each person injured were required to pay the expenses no matter who was at fault in an automobile accident.
State Farm says expenses decreased steadily after the tort reform legislation went into effect three years ago.
Until 1996, the Internal Revenue Code excluded compensatory damages–those damages included to “make whole” a plaintiff or restore a person to their pre-injury status–from the definition of “income” for tax purposes. However, ten years ago the statute was revised to exclude only compensatory damages related to physical illness or injury.
In a tort case decided today, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that inclusion of non-physical compensatory damages in the definition of “income” for tax purposes violates the 16th amendment.
Relying on the definition of income as a “gain”, the appellate court held that damages intended to restore a person to pre-injury status could not be considered income, even where the losses were not physical or economic.
The ruling may be appealed, but if it stands it will mean that compensatory damages in personal injury cases are no longer taxable, even if they are awarded for intangible injuries like emotional distress and loss of reputation.
A change in Rhode Island personal injury law will make it easier for victims of the 2003 night club fire that killed 100 people and injured more than 200 others.
Surviving victims have faced difficulties in obtaining compensation needed for medical and living expenses because there are multiple defendants and the Rhode Island law in effect until this week–and still in effect for most cases–mandates a significant reduction in an award against other defendants if the defendant who settled is found to have been significantly at fault.
The new law changes the formula for “disaster” cases in which 25 or more people are killed, opening the door for injury victims to settle without risking their claims against other defendants.
In most states, someone who suffers personal injury, aggravated illness, or death caused by dangerous drugs can sue the manufacturer of those drugs. It seems reasonable that a drug manufacturer would be liable for dangerous products just like any other manufacturer who causes injury to the public.
However, Michigan lawmakers haven’t seen it that way. Instead, a Michigan law enacted in 1996 protects drug manufacturers from civil liability to their victims if the drug in question had FDA approval. That statute came under scrutiny after Michigan residents harmed or killed by the drug Vioxx were barred from filing suit against Merck last year. Now, Michigan lawmakers are considering revising the statute to narrow the protections and allow Michigan residents more ability to seek compensation for drug-related injuries.