Poppe Law Blog

view all


Law News

more

Law We Know

Kentucky Accident Attorney

Ketucky Legal Malpractice Attorney

Kentucky Medical Malpractice Attorney

Accounting Malpractice Attorney

Unfair Insurance Practices Attorney

Kentucky Nursing Home Neglect Attorney

Video

General

more

Testimonials

  • I would like to take this opportunity to write to your law firm and thank you for coming through for me when I lost hope in my previous attorney. 
  • We will gladly be a reference for you, and we certainly will recommend you as the attorney to have in Louisville.  You have a gift in the way you are able to communicate with your clients and within the legal system.

  • My father would have been so proud to know that his case was driven home with such passion and genius.  Thank you for giving that jury every tool they needed to hold those people accountable for the torture they inflicted on my Dad.


     

  • Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you...
  • You have now made it possible for me to rest assured that I have everything I need now and in the future to cover the expenses of my disability

more


print page

Blog Category:

Kentucky Accident Attorney

6/21/2010
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

KY Supreme Court Rules Widow Entitled to Benefits in Lexington Plane Crash

On Thursday, June 17 the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in Fortney v. Airtran Airlines that Sarah Fortney, the widow of and administratrix for the Estate of her late husband Clarence Fortney, is entitled to work-related benefits from her husband’s death in the tragic Comair Flight 191 crash at Bluegrass Airport on August 27, 2006.

Labels:
6/21/2010
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Ohio Supreme Court Rules Cops Can “Eyeball” Speeding Motorists

In a decision with ramifications for many Kentucky drivers the Ohio Supreme Court on June 2nd handed down a ruling that “a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a driver’s speed is sufficient” in issuing a speeding citation, as long as the officer is “sufficiently trained and experienced in estimating speeds.”

Labels:
6/1/2010
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

You Wont' Believe What This Trucker Was Doing When He Killed This Mother of Two....

Truck driver streaming porn and driving while sleep deprived runs his eighteen wheeler over a young mother of two.

4/24/2010
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Study About Kentucky Court System is Bogus

Too many bogus studies put out by business and insurance interests falsely portray the civil justice system as being unfair to business when nothing could be further from the truth. A recent op/ed reveals the truth about the people behind these studies.

4/11/2010
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Trucking Company Involved in Second Worst Wreck In Kentucky History Has Poor Safety Record.

A fatal Kentucky accident put semi trucks on the front page news of Louisville’s Courier Journal newspaper. After a wreck between a semi and a passenger van left 11 dead, reporters began to dig deeper into truck accidents and found some unsettling facts.

 

The springboard of the reports resulted from a serious accident that occurred in the early morning hours of March 26th. A large Mennonite family and other close friends were traveling to a wedding when their van was hit head on by a tractor trailer that had broken through the cable barriers at the median across I-65. According to the article, this wreck was one of the deadliest in Kentucky since the May 14, 1988 crash in Carroll County between a bus full of my classmates from North Hardin and a drunk driver.

 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) created a six-person investigation team to uncover more details of this wreck. They have yet to determine an exact cause of the accident or a reason why the truck veered off course. Days later, the trucker was identified by the Courier-Journal as Kenneth Laymon who drove for Alabama based company, Hester, Inc.

 

According to federal reports cited in a later Courier Journal article, “Large trucks in Kentucky account for a disproportionate share of the state's fatal crashes…” The Kentucky State Police records show that in 2008, trucks made up 4.6 percent of the state's registered vehicles but unfortunately a disproportionate 8.9 percent of its tragic accidents. Even more disturbing is that accident statistics prove similar nationwide.

 

Things are being done to try to combat the problem. Recent legislation disallowed truckers to text while driving and a new federal regulation will require trucking companies that repeatedly violate driver time limits to install electronic recorders that track how long truckers spend behind the wheel according to an Andrew Wolfson article. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood sees the regulation as a way of reducing the number of accidents caused by sleeping drivers. It is suspected, though not confirmed, that the lack of brake marks could indicate dozing off could have been the cause behind the Mennonite crash. The problem however is that according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, recorders will only be required for companies flagged during on-site reviews but only about 2 percent or less of the 750,000 U.S. trucking companies are reviewed on-site throughout the year.

 

Thanks to the American Association for Justice (AAJ) citizens can do a search state by state of trucking companies and their violations through the Violations Database.

hp

ps be sure to download or FREE E-Book "What The Insiders Don't Want You To Know About Semi-Truck Wrecks."



3/6/2010
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

The Tort Reform Myth Explained....

Below is Andrew Cohen's insightful piece in the Atlantic....

Tort Reform Is Anti-Democratic (And Ingeniously Marketed)

Feb 10 2010, 9:52 AM ET

If President Barack Obama has to hand his adversaries a bauble in order to achieve success with health care reform, it might as well be the misnomer commonly known as "tort reform." The ends of providing insurance for millions of uninsured Americans, never mind whatever good it might do for the rest of us, is worth the means of giving Corporate America yet another legally-sanctified level of protection against the wailing interests of its customers, consumers, patients, and just plain innocent bystanders. 

But let's not kid each other any longer. As we brace ourselves for yet another round of wrangling over the tail and not the dog, let's all stipulate that "tort reform" is one of the most blatantly anti-democrat concepts to have hit the legal system in the past century. It takes control over damage awards in many civil cases away from local judges and juries and gives them to state politicians, who often are just shills for their corporate campaign contributors and lobbyists. It protects corporations from punishment for their worst excesses. It diminishes good incentives for corporate carefulness and increases bad incentives for shoddy work and services.

"Tort reform is little more than a scam by an unpopular minority (corporations) against an enormous majority (anyone who is eligible to serve on a jury or who ever already has)." Wouldn't it be great if the President forced those words out of the mouth of the Chamber of Commerce president in exchange for even friendlier litigation rules for Big Business as it confronts changes to our national approach to health care? 

I don't use the word "scam" lightly above. Supporters of tort reform, invariably corporatists and others who believe in this self-defeating supply-side notion of justice, have scammed or otherwise brainwashed millions of Americans into thinking that tort reform will save them from despicable "trial lawyers," a convenient target group in this ever-litigious world. But no 'trial attorney" ever went into the jury room and voted for a large verdict against a greedy corporation which purposely hid health risks from its customers. No "trial judge" ever put a gun to a foreperson's head and made that man or woman sign off on a big reward against an environmental polluter or tobacco company or maker of unsafe toys.   

Instead, these verdicts came from jurors, one of the justice system's--one of all of governments'--few remaining unassailable cogs. Each time a jury awards a large sum to a plaintiff against a negligent defendant, it's a statement from jurors that the sort of conduct alleged and proven is worthy of punishment by the community. Sometimes, this is the only time in the lives of these people, these jurors, when they will have such an extraordinary say about the events of their time and place. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes they are wrong. But at least in these circumstances they make a difference based solely upon the fact that they are residents of a particular venue. 

Make no mistake--the "reform" in "tort reform" is about eliminating or reducing the ability of trial juries to act as levelers of the playing field; as avengers of otherwise toothless victims; as the voice of a community in meting out justice. It is about helping corporations before individuals; about the bottom line and not the bottom rung. Alas, many of the same folks who tout individualism and freedom and liberty against government control evidently have no qualms about using support for tort reform as their ticket to worship at the Altar of corporate control.     

The reason the topic is again in the headlines is because opponents of health care reform evidently don't have anything better to argue about in their efforts to stop passage of the pending legislation. Fine. The President and his fellow Democrats should concede on tort reform. And at the same time, he should figure out a way to track whether reductions in jury awards, and concomitant decreases in the costs of malpractice insurance, reduce the ultimate cost to consumers of health care and at the same time generate better quality of service.

Of course, we all know what the answers to those questions will be. Which now that I think about it is another thing we ought to be honest about.



3/2/2010
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Drunk Drivers Get Locked Out....

Seeking to reduce the number of Kentucky car wrecks, Kentucky's legislature is considering a new law that would require ignition locks for people convicted of DUI.

2/27/2010
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Toyota Accelerator Problem May Have Caused Car Wreck That Led To Criminal Conviction

A man convicted of vehicular homicide following a fatal car wreck may be granted a new trial due to the sudden emergence of the Toyota acceleration problem.

1/27/2010
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Can The Tobacco Companies Get Any More Evil.....

It always seems that everyone wants a piece of big tobacco companies but it seems that the state of Florida may have finally gotten behind them. According to Jordana Mishory of the Daily Business Review, the newest Big Tobacco Strategy is putting the hurt on potential plaintiffs. The article was featured in the Kentucky Justice Association’s weekly clips.

 

According to Florida law, “plaintiffs who obtain a significantly smaller judgment than a rejected settlement offer must pay the other side’s attorney fees.” Particularly in Florida, but also around the country tobacco companies have been offering settlement amounts as low as $500 in wrongful death and negligence cases.

 

Fear on the side of the potential plaintiffs of having to pay opposing attorney fees has caused numerous people to drop tobacco lawsuits. Such was the case with Jerome Cohen of Fort Lauderdale. According to Cohen’s attorney, his client, who suffers from lung cancer, dropped the case because of medical reasons. But Philip Morris USA parent company Altria Group Inc. said the settlement was to avoid paying company legal fees in the case of a loss at trial. Regardless of the reason, Cohen ended up with a mere $1,000 settlement. Two other Florida plaintiffs had to pay $100,000 and $30,000 after losing a trial recently.

 

Altria and other tobacco companies contend that the majority of cases against them are either ill prepared or flawed and in many cases believe that the small settlement amounts they offer are equivalent to what the claims are essentially worth.

 

hans



11/5/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Louisville Bat Maker Hit With $850k Verdict

            WAVE 3 announced the verdict on October 28th regarding the case against the maker of Louisville Slugger bats, Hillerich & Bradsby. Guilty. The Lewis & Clark County District Court in Helena, Montana found H & B guilty for failing to place a warning label on aluminum bats the company produced which played a role in the death of 18-year-old Brandon Patch in 2003.

            Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of the Patch family and ordered H & B pay $850,000 in damages. In 2003, Brandon Patch was struck in the head with a baseball coming off of an H & B aluminum bat while pitching in an American Legion baseball game. Attorneys for the Patch family argued that Brandon did not have enough time to react to the ball being hit before he was struck by it. The plaintiffs contended that baseballs hit off of aluminum bats fly at a greater velocity than those off of wooden bats. Although the jury ultimately concluded that the Hillerich & Bradsby aluminum bat was made according to standards and not in any way defective, it still should have contained a warning label for users.

            The Patch lawsuit is just one of several over the past few years against the company because of baseball related accidents. Included are a New Jersey family whose son suffered brain damage after he was struck by a line drive off of an aluminum Louisville Slugger and the parents of an Oklahoma teenager who endured severe head injuries after a similar incident according to an Associated Press article on the case. This is also not the first time aluminum bats have come under fire. Michael Rand of the Minneapolis Star Tribune recorded an account from eight years ago that listed numerous instances of aluminum bat related accidents and injuries. He mentions that before the 1999 baseball season, the NCAA adopted new rules relating to the size of aluminum bats which were copied by The National Federation of High Schools 2 years later.

            The latest verdict is just one of many from the past and left to come against aluminum bat manufacturers. Hillerich & Bradsby Vice President of Corporate Communications Rick Redman released a statement following the verdict expressing the company’s condolences to the family but stated that it was an emotional court decision. Redman maintained that the company violated no rule governing the production of the bat and stated, “The verdict that our company ‘failed to adequately warn of the dangers of the bat’ has left us puzzled. It seems contradictory for the jury to say the bat is not defective but our company failed to warn that it could be dangerous. It appears to be an indictment of the entire sport of baseball.” Reactions to the ruling have resulted in mixed responses but Hillerich & Bradsby have no plans for an appeal.



10/25/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

DWT--Driving While Texting. Death on Kentucky Roads

Will Kentucky pass laws prohibiting texting while driving?  Well, there is a bill pending in the Kentucky state legislature that could do exactly that in 2010.

 

Rep. Rick Nelson, D-Middlesboro, has prefiled a bill for consideration during the 2010 regular session that would make “texting” while at the wheel a no-no.  It also would prohibit drivers under the age of 18 from using any cell phone. Violators would face $50 fines.

 

The Kentucky State Police’s annual report for traffic collision stated there were a total of 962 reported accidents caused by cell phones in 2008. The true number is actually much higher, but a lot of people will not admit to using their phone at the time of an accident.

 

A study conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institution concluded that a driver who is texting is 23 times more likely to be involved in an accident. But even if the bill is passed, it could be difficult for police to enforce.

 

According to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, some statistics show that nearly 6,000 people were killed and more than half a million were injured on America's roads last year in crashes linked to texting or talking while driving. As a result, more than 25 states have created some type of law restricting drivers from texting while operating their vehicles and many states have already proposed similar legislation, though it has not yet been passed.

 

Nevertheless it seems some states have been sending mixed messages, almost literally, when it comes to texting while driving according to a USA Today article from mid September. In the piece, Associated Press writer Andrew Demillo explains the possible contradiction resulting from certain states, including those with cell phone laws, sending traffic updates to drivers via text message or Twitter updates. The states argue that these updates are not cause for concern because they stress to drivers to check their messages and updates prior to leaving for their destination. However there are times when these “tweets” turn into an exchange of conversation between motorists and state officials, as demonstrated in Demillo’s article one user posted, “any idea what's going on westbound on 520? It's worse than rush hour..," and within a few minutes, officials responded: "Yes! There is a disabled vehicle just east of Lk Wash Blvd blocking right lane." The danger arises when these types of exchanges are being conducted while moving.

Amidst the talk of texting bans, one large group of motorists was at first absent from the conversation, truckers. In a report by Montana’s News Station, High Plains Owner and Operator Doug Landru was quoted in response to distracted drivers saying, “People don't realize they're sitting in a 4,000 pound weapon.” On the same token, distracted truck drivers are often behind the wheel of roughly 80,000 pounds and in most cases doing so while operating cell phones, radios and even laptops. But to that, Landru commented that to him a cell phone and internet are vital and Oregon trucker Edwin Parrish agreed saying, “Being able to check my text messages or my email messages, I'm able to know when I'm supposed to be some place.”

 

 Fox 4 out of Kansas City, MO reported that several trucking companies are concerned about a texting ban because they use on board computer systems for communication. Nevertheless, a study at Virginia Tech University found that truckers driving while using the computers were 10 times more likely to have an accident. Often, the devices are disabled for use while driving, but not all are turned off and there is no way to tell whether or not they are being used while operating the vehicle. According to LaHood, the Obama administration will ban texting by truck drivers and restrict the use of other in-cab technologies as part of its effort to eliminate distracted driving.

 

Texting while driving has become such an issue in Kentucky that a statewide media campaign has been launched including a public service announcement by a Louisville girl involved in a wreck due to texting.

 

hp



9/15/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

The Secret Reason Why There Are So Many Semi-Truck Wrecks…

It is a well known fact that the odds of you, your car, truck or SUV winning in an interstate battle with an 18-wheeler are slim to none.  So far in September, Kentucky has seen the effects of semi-truck accidents when an I-64 accident killed a Mt. Sterling man, and a Daviess County woman was struck on Audubon Parkway on the same day. But most people may be unaware of why these accidents are happening in the first place. We all know that foul weather, icy roads, alcohol are often catalysts precipitating car and truck accidents, and for the most part, most drivers often increase their efforts to avoiding the road during these times.

 

So it may surprise you to learn in 2002 71% of truck accidents in Kentucky occurred in good weather and on dry roads, 75% occurred during the daytime and 88% on weekdays when driving is part of the daily routine. In fact, there were no contributing weather conditions at all in 78.6% of Kentucky truck accidents.

 

So if bad weather isn’t causing the wreck, what gives?

 

One of the top reasons for accidents is driver fatigue which can lead to dozing off or distraction related accidents in Kentucky and across the nation.  According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, “truck drivers behind the wheel for more than 8 hours had a twofold increase in crash risk…truckers’ long work hours cause sleep deprivation, disruption of normal sleep/rest cycles and fatigue.” Despite this statistic, in 2004 a new federal work rule went into effect allowing truck drivers to drive for up to 11 hours per day.  And this was an improvement over the previous rule!  The new rule’s goal was to improve safety but the Institute's survey showed the opposite as truckers are using new provisions to squeeze even more driving hours into the week. Just see this blog post by a real trucker who seeks to unveil the truth behind the profession.

 

And the driving force in money! Truck drivers drive more hours to get deliveries dropped off faster which then leads to more deliveries and essentially more money and higher satisfaction.  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, driver fatigue is responsible for an estimated 100,000 motor vehicle accidents and 1500 deaths each year.

 

Let’s put two and two together. Sleepy truck drivers plus sleepy car drivers equal accidents. Not to say that there aren’t a plentiful variety of other reasons causing truck accidents, but this is a factor each of us can control to some degree.  I know that if there was one thing that could prevent me from being in an accident, I would make sure to keep it in mind. Perhaps being alert and awake can help us recognize and avoid other drowsy drivers.  So get more sleep!



8/26/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Hans Interviewed on 840 Whas On Commonwealth Dodge 100mph Accident Case

Francene of the Francene Show on 840 WHAS read my recent blog and wanted to know more about why Commonwealth Dodge may be liable for the deaths of two people involved in the 100 mph test drive that resulted in a car wreck this weekend.  The interview aired live this morning.

You can download the interview here:

8/23/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (2)

Is Commonwealth Dodge Liable for Fatal Wreck on Fern Valley Rd

Tragedy happened today in Louisville, Kentucky when a Dodge Challenger on a test drive from Commonwealth Dodge was involved in a fatal crash with a Mercury Sable.  The two occupants of the Sable were both killed and the driver of the Challenger was arrested.  According to some news reports, the Challenger may have been driven at a high rate of speed. Wave 3 news reports witness Rick Lee said, "I heard the car racing down through here and of course, they race down through here all the time, and it kind of got mine and my son's attention. When we got up to try to see the aftermath of what was going down the road, we heard an impact."

According to the Courier Journal, a Commonwealth employee was a passenger on the test drive.

This leads to the obvious question.  Can Commonwealth be held liable for the two deaths.  I see two potential ways the dealership can be held liable.  First, liability insurance follows the vehicle.  This means that the owner of the dealership must provide liability insurance for every vehicle on its lot. So, even though a Commonwealth employee wasn't driving, the dealer's auto insurance will still have to provide coverage. 

The second cause of action against Commonwealth Dodge could be filed based on the conduct of its employee that was on the test drive IF it can be proven that the salesperson allowed the driver to speed or drive in a reckless manner.  The dealership would be liable under the theory of respondeat superior, a legal term that means the employer is liable for the actions of its employees.  Here, the dealer's Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy would provide coverage.

Here, it will be important to obtain as many witness interviews as possible as soon as possible.  Unfortunately, memories fade and stories change the farther away in time interviews are conducted. 


Hans

p.s. As a side note, this story was of particular interest to me because at age 18 I test drove, and wrecked, a Toyota MR2 while on a test drive.  Fortunately, no one was hurt.

7/29/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (2)

Why The Michael Jackson Wrongful Death Lawsuit May Be Worthless....

Well, it hasn't been filed yet, but there's no doubt its coming-- a wrongful death lawsuit by the Estate of Michael Jackson.  Some lawyers are calling it the "mother of all medical malpractice lawsuits."

Well I say, "not so fast my friends."  The wrongful death lawsuit may be virtually worthless. Here's why.

The primary component of damages that the Jackson Estate would be allowed to claim in a wrongful death suit is the loss of future earning.  This would include concert ticket sales, royalties from albums, and commercial endorsements, any appearance fees, etc.  In fact, Jackson was scheduled to start a 50 show tour later this year.

So, it should be simple to calculate the loss to the Estate, right?  You simply hire an expert economist, an expert promotor, an expert music producer and manager and you have them estimate how much MJ would have earned over his projected lifetime.  That would then be the loss to the Estate and it would then have the right to recover that amount amount from the negligent parties (assuming there are any).

That is would typically happens in wrongful death cases, albeit it on a much smaller scale; however, here, that formula may not work for one simple reason....

Celebrities often make more after their death than when they are alive. Or, to put it another way, Jackson's Estate may INCREASE in value as a result of his death.

For example, according to Forbes Magazine, in 2007 Justin Timberlake pulled in $44 million; Madonna $40 million. Not bad by anyone's standards.  But compare that to Elvis Presley's $52 million and you start to see where I'm going.  Elvis has been dead for 32 years yet his Estate is making more today in one year than he made over his entire career when he was alive.  In fact, Elvis even has his own station on Sirius Radio. 

Every October, Forbes compiles its list of the 13 richest dead celebrities.  In 2008, the ranking were as follows:

The Lucky 13

  1. Elvis Presley ($52 million)
  2. Charles M. Schulz (Peanuts + Snoopy = $33 million)
  3. Heath Ledger ($20 million)
  4. Albert Einstein ($18 million in 2007, think Baby Einstein videos!!!)
  5. Aaron Spelling ($15 million)
  6. Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel)($12 million)
  7. John Lennon ($9 million)
  8. Andy Warhol ($9 million)
  9. Marilyn Monroe ($6.5 million)
  10. Steve McQueen ($6 million)
  11. Paul Newman ($5 million)
  12. James Dean ($5 million)
  13. Marvin Gaye ($3.5 million)


This will likely be the case with Jackson's Estate as well.  The "King of Pop" will likely equal or surpass the "KIng of Rock N Roll" in the post-death celebrity earnings category.  Let's face it, when you think Hollywood you think James Dean and Marilyn Monroe, but when you think music, you think of Elvis and Michael.

In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, it may have already started.  According to an article about Apple's projected earning in the WSJ,  "Michael Jackson’s death did move some recordings.  According to The Journal’s Ethan Smith, U.S. retailers sold 415,000 albums by Michael Jackson in the four days following his June 25 death, according to Nielsen’s SoundScan. That’s compared with fewer than 10,000 copies that were sold in the previous full week. Over half of those sales were digital downloads made on services such as iTunes and Amazon.com’s AmazonMP3."  Apparently, Jacksons fans appreciate his music more now that he's gone.  Interesting. 


And that, my morbid readers, is why the Jackson wrongful death lawsuit may not be frivolous, but it may be worthless. 

hans


7/27/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

How (Not) to Hire a Lawyer....

Previously, I posted The Truth about TV Advertising Lawyers.  I later learned I wasn't the first person to point out the obvious.  Aaron Larson, a Michigan attorney, has a website devoted to answering the question "how to hire a lawyer." 

On it he discusses the benefits of hiring a contingent fee attorney, "Many attorneys take certain types of civil suits, particularly personal injury cases, on a "contingent fee" (or "contingency fee") basis, where they do not charge an attorney fee unless they recover money for you. Please note that there are legal costs involved in litigation, and that ordinarily you will be required to repay those costs even if you lose. Almost every state limits contingent fees for personal injury and workers' compensation cases. If your case is potentially worth a lot of money, you may be able to negotiate a reduction of the attorney's contingent fee -- however, the best personal injury attorneys are sometimes able to recover substantially more money for their clients than attorneys with lesser skills, resulting in a greater award to you regardless of the percentage taken by the attorney." (emphasis added)

He goes on to explain "One of the best ways to find an attorney is to consult an attorney you trust. If you do not know any attorneys, ask your friends for names of attorneys they trust. It is not important that the attorney can handle your case -- what is important is that the attorney is likely to comprehend the issues of your case, and is well-positioned to know which attorneys in your community have the skills to handle your case. Even if the attorney cannot personally take your case, he will often be able to refer you to an attorney who can."

He also cautions, "A number of commercial on-line directories claim to screen their attorneys, or claim to list only highly qualified attorneys. Most are not being completely honest. Regardless of their promises, most on-line directories will list any attorney who pays the required fee, and there is absolutely no guarantee that the listed attorneys are qualified to handle your case."

And finally, he issues the same warning I did in my post.  "Should I hire the guy with the 1-800 number, and all of the ads on TV?

Generally speaking, television and radio advertisements are a bad way to find an attorney. Many advertisements are paid for by referral agencies, which collect large numbers of calls and then divide them up between member attorneys. Even when the advertisements are paid for by a law firm, often many of the cases are referred out to other firms who share the enormous cost of advertising. Most of the time, the attorney with the big advertising campaign will not have an office near you. Unless your case is worth a lot of money, you may well find that you are quickly referred to a different firm or that you can't get much attention for your case. There is something very important to remember, when it comes to hiring a personal injury lawyer -- some of the best personal injury attorneys do little or no advertising. They get their cases through "referrals" from other attorneys, due to their reputations for doing good work and getting good results. Should I hire the guy with the big "yellow pages" ad? If you look at the "full page" ads in the yellow pages, you will likely find that there are two types. The first type is an ad for a local attorney, who has chosen to pay for the full page. The second type is an ad for an attorney from outside the area, sometimes from the same attorney who runs the huge television ad campaigns. Typically, the biggest ads are from "personal injury" firms, who hope that their large advertisements will bring them large numbers of injury cases. The better personal injury attorneys and firms typically do pay for full-page ads. However, as was previously noted, some of the best personal injury attorneys do little or no advertising at all. Also, there are many attorneys who buy the largest ad that they can afford, in order to make their practices appear better than they really are. If you look through the yellow pages, you will see that most attorneys claim to specialize in "personal injury" cases. Many of these attorneys have handled very few personal injury cases, and some have never had even a single personal injury case. The yellow pages can provide some degree of confirmation that a particular law firm is established, but even a big advertisement does not certify that a firm is qualified to handle your case."

Hans



7/3/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

"Admit nothing. Deny as much as possible. Stall. Protect, protect, protect. Blame somebody who isn't here to protect himself."

Nothing New Here  "Admit nothing. Deny as much as possible. Stall. Protect, protect, protect. Blame somebody who isn't here to protect himself."  Rick Bozich, Louisville Courier Journal, Max Gilpin, The Real Loser in JCPS Report, July 1, 2009

Bozich's article was a scathing indictment of the "investigation" into the death of a 15 year old boy during football practice at a Jefferson County, Kentucky public high school.  The death, and the tragic circumstances surrounding it, have made national news. 

However, this post isn't about that.  Instead, this post is about why no one should be surprised that a defendant would refuse to accept responsibility for its actions. 

As a lawyer that represents people that have been injured as a result of someone else's negligence or misconduct, I see defendants utilize this above strategy everyday in litigation. 

Blaming the victim has long been the strongest weapon in a defense attorney's arsenal.  And it matters not what kind of case it is.  Failure to diagnose breast cancer?  The patient should have sought out a second opinion when her first doctor told her she was cancer free.  Rear-end car wreck?  Injured driver had a pre-existing condition that is unrelated to the accident.  No matter what the kind of case, the defendant always seeks to shift responsibility to the injured party.  Without fail.

And it works.  If you don't believe me, all you have to do is read any of the comments to any online newspaper article and you will see post after post blaming the victim instead of the wrongdoer (most recently in the Louisville Zoo lawsuit they blame the victims and their lawyer, too).

I find this behavior inconsistent with the oft spoken mantra of tort reformers that we need more "personal responsibility."  It seems that what people really want is for innocent injured people to take responsibility for someone else's snegligence.  How else can you justify blaming injured patients when their doctor makes a mistake?  You can't.  At least you can't do so and remain intellectually honest.  Tort Reform = Tort Deform

The simple fact of the matter is that deny, delay, defend and blame is business as usual for defendants in litigation, especially corporate defendants and insurance companies. 

Sorry, Bozich.  Sadly, that's just the way it is.  And not just for poor Max Gilpin's family, but for any person that gets injured and seeks justice. 

Hans


6/11/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Leveling The Playing Field...

Recently, a local Louisville personal injury lawyer filed the first lawsuit against the Louisville Zoo for injuries his client received after the zoo's train derailed.  Nothing unsual about it.  Nothing unusual at all, including the sarcastic and baseless attacks that were launched against the attorney on the Courier Journal's website in the comment section following the story.

What people don't understand is that most personal injury lawyers don't file baseless lawsuits.  There's no money in doing so.  Trust me, insurance companies don't pay big money for frivolous claims (heck, they seldom pay big money for legitimate claims).  A lawyer that works on a contingency fee (meaning she doesn't get paid unless she wins money for her client) has no incentive to file a lawsuit and incur thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses getting the case ready for trial.  Think I'm exaggerating?  I'm not, in my last three trials we spent in excess of $100,000 getting each of them to trial.

Contingency fee lawyers are just like any other business owner, they must turn a profit to pay the salaries of their employees, the rent, and other overhead and expenses.  If they fail to do so, they are not in business long.  My respected colleague John Day in Nashville has a great post on this topic.

Hans

5/8/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Guess What Forbes Magazine Says We Need More Of? The Answer Will Shock You....

It's no secret that Forbes Magazine hates lawyers.  Especially trial lawyers.  After all, aren't the trial lawyers the ones running the economy into the ground, forcing those nice insurance companies to raise premiums and making it impossible for doctors to deliver babies? (don't forget trial lawyers are also probably responsible for acide rain, global warming, famine, locusts, termites, etc.)

So, why is Forbes now saying we need more trial laywers, not less?!  Well it seems that Forbes is concerned with all of the foodborne illness that come from contaminated foods that are not properly prepared or packaged.  William Baldwin writes "One possible solution is more government and more laws. Those familiar with the proclivities of this magazine will not be surprised that I take a dim view of this solution (and, in particular, of the proposed Food Safety Modernization Act, which would bury food preparers in paperwork). No, I would prefer to have the same government and the same laws, but--here's the surprise--more tort lawyers."

Baldwin concludes by saying "Add technology to tort law and you get a powerful force for safety."

Something us trial lawyers have known and preached for a long time.  However, it isn't limited to food, you can thank lawyers for seatbelts, airbags, kids pajamas that don't burst into flame, and a million other things that keep people safe.  It's about time someone over at Forbes recognized the vitally important role lawyers play in society.

hans



5/4/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

FDA Warns "Stop Using This Diet Drug RIght Now."

One of the fundamental problems with most diet supplements is that they don't have to go through a Federal Drug Administration approval process.  There are simply too many diet supplements on the market for the FDA to test, approve and monitor all of them.  This leads to a lot of products we put in our bodies being untested by any meaningful organization to ensure they aren't harmful.

Because the FDA isn't involved in the process on the front end, the best they can do is to ask that products be pulled on the back end, once there is a question about safety.  That's exactly what happened this past week went the FDA warned consumers to STOP using the popular diet and energy supplement Hydroxycut.

You can see an Associated Press video of the recall here:

"The Food and Drug Administration said the company that makes the dietary supplement has agreed to recall 14 Hydroxycut products. Available in grocery stores and pharmacies, Hydroxycut is advertised as made from natural ingredients. At least 9 million packages were sold last year, the FDA said.   Dr. Linda Katz of the FDA's food and nutrition division said the agency has received 23 reports of liver problems, including the death of a 19-year-old boy living in the Southwest. The teenager died in 2007, and the death was reported to the FDA this March. Other patients experienced symptoms ranging from jaundice, or yellowing of the skin, to liver failure. One received a transplant and another was placed on a list to await a new liver. The patients were otherwise healthy and their symptoms began after they started using Hydroxycut."  Katz went on to say "Part of the problem is that the FDA looks at dietary supplements from a post-market perspective, and an isolated incident is often difficult to follow."  Public health researcher Ano Lobb, who has studied Hydroxycut and other dietary supplements for Consumer Reports, said "You really have to be careful about dietary supplements, especially weight-loss pills. People believe that the FDA has verified that these products are at least safe and effective, and that's really not the case. When you see fantastic claims _ that's generally what they are."

The recall covers the following 14 products:

The following products are covered by this voluntary recall:

  • Hydroxycut Regular Rapid Release Caplets
  • Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Rapid Release Caplets
  • Hydroxycut Hardcore Liquid Capsules
  • Hydroxycut Max Liquid Capsules
  • Hydroxycut Regular Drink Packets
  • Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Drink Packets
  • Hydroxycut Hardcore Drink Packets (Ignition Stix)
  • Hydroxycut Max Drink Packets
  • Hydroxycut Liquid Shots
  • Hydroxycut Hardcore RTDs (Ready-to-Drink)
  • Hydroxycut Max Aqua Shed
  • Hydroxycut 24
  • Hydroxycut Carb Control
  • Hydroxycut Natural

I predict this will lead to mulitple lawsuits over the safety of the diet supplement for people who have possibly been injured as a result of using it.  These lawsuits will likely be filed as a class action or, perhaps, individual lawsuits will be combined in  a multidistrict litigation (MDL).  A second kind of lawsuit will likely be filed for those consumers that weren't physically injured but who purchased an unsafe product and will not use any remaining product because of the recall.  These consumer's are entitled to receive the purchase price returned becuase these sales likely violate various state's consumer protection laws.  These claims can be brought by individuals or, perhaps, by states' Attorneys General.

I predict that hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits will be brought by users of Hydroxycut against the Canadian company lovate Health Sciences USA Inc.

If you want more information on the recall or your rights, feel free to contact us.

hans


4/10/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

New York Times Exposes Hired Gun Doctors

Recently, the New York Times wrote this great article exposing what lawyers that represent injured people have known for a long time.  The so-called "Independent Medical Exam" doctors are really hired to keep injured people from getting the compensation the deserve for their injuries.
Here in Kentucky, I see the same doctors, hired by the insurance companies, over and over and over again.  There's a reason for that.  The insurance company knows that these doctors will say the injured person a) was never really injured, or b) they injury wasn't very severe and they should have recovered in 4-6 weeks.  This is especially true in car wreck cases.  So much so, that we have started calling them what they really are, Defense medical exams.  There is nothing "independent" about them.
hp

3/25/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (1)

Jury Awards $24 Million in Truck Wreck Case

$24 million award in fatal truck crash

A Will County jury has awarded nearly $24 million to families of two people killed and another seriously injured when a truck crashed into a line of cars on Interstate Highway 55 near Plainfield in April 2004.

Jurors on Friday issued the judgment—the highest verdict amount in a civil case in Will County in at least 50 years—against C.H. Robinson Worldwide, a Minnesota freight broker that had contracted with the truck driver, De An Henry of Utah.

3/19/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

$65 Million Dollar Semi-Truck Wreck Verdict

BARTOW, FLORIDA – A Polk County jury awarded a 21-year-old woman $65 million in damages Wednesday in a personal injury lawsuit against a trucking company.

 

“Trucking companies should get the message that they need to follow safety regulations designed to protect the public,” said Tampa attorney Jim Freeman, of Wilkes & McHugh, P.A. “This accident was preventable if the driver only waited for a clear view before turning.”

 

On Aug. 21, 2007, Kendra Lymon was a normal 19-year-old woman whose life was shattered when an 18-wheeler, owned by Bynum Transport Inc., T-boned her little Dodge Neon at the intersection of State Road 17 and State Road 64.

 

Kendra had no pulse when emergency personnel arrived at the accident scene. The lack of oxygen to her brain caused parts of it to die, and she suffered brain damage. She was in a coma, and hospitalized at Tampa General Hospital for months.

 

Today, she can’t speak. She can’t eat without assistance. She can’t control her bladder. She has trouble walking and sometimes needs a wheelchair. She needs around-the-clock care and continued rehabilitation, including physical, occupational and speech therapy.

 

Kendra was a beautiful young woman who knew what she wanted and worked hard to get it. She was a good student in high school, who participated in drama club and helped care for her siblings while their mother worked. Kendra loved to read and could speak six languages.

 

After graduating a year early from Hardee High School, she enrolled in South Florida Community College. She wanted to be a psychologist and was the first person in her family to attend college. She was about to enter her second year there when the accident happened.

 

Now she requires care and supervision 24 hours a day, seven days a week – and will need that for the rest of her life. Her medical bills alone are estimated to be more than $24 million over the span of her life, according to experts.

 

“She has suffered these terrible injuries needlessly,” Freeman said. “Kendra Lymon is one of the most deserving clients I’ve had in 30 years of practice.”

 

The defendants, Bynum Transport Inc. and driver Robert Bohn, tried to blame the accident on Kendra. Bohn claimed he had a green arrow, but eyewitness Ralph King said Kendra had a green light and wasn’t speeding. King said she tried to turn to the right, but by the time the truck entered her lane, there was no time to avoid it.

 

Bohn was fresh off a 24-hour shift as a full-time battalion chief for Polk County Fire Services when he headed to Bynum Transport Inc. for his part-time gig. Just after 8:30 a.m., he picked up a red 1997 Freightliner tractor and 2004 trailer, which together weighed 28,000 to 30,000 pounds. The plan was to haul a load of juice to Georgia that day to make some extra money.

 

But Bohn didn’t have 10 hours of off-duty time before driving the Bynum truck that day. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Rules require such a break because driver fatigue is biggest cause of truck accidents.

 

And Bynum Transport, where Bohn had worked part-time since 1993, didn’t have any system to crosscheck what the driver told them. They didn’t monitor Bohn’s hours of rest. The Driver’s Log he filled out the morning of the accident shows zero hours of work for each day in the week before the accident, despite the fact he had just finished a shift at the fire department. Federal regulations consider that or any other work the same as driving.

 

As Bohn approached the intersection of state roads 17 and 64, there was a tractor-trailer in the opposite turn lane, blocking Bohn’s view. Bohn turned left anyway, and he plowed into Kendra’s car on the driver’s side, crushing it and sending it spinning off the highway.

 

The Lymons, represented by Wilkes & McHugh, P.A. attorneys Jim Freeman and Bennie Lazzara, sued Bynum Transportation Inc. and the truck driver, Robert Bohn, for negligence.

The trial, which lasted over a week in the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court in Polk County, concluded Tuesday. The jury came back Wednesday with a unanimous decision: Jurors found the defendants were 100 percent at fault in the accident and awarded $65 million to the Lymons.

 

“With this verdict, the family – including her mother, uncle, aunt and siblings who have been caring for Kendra – can now afford to get her the professional help she needs,” said Tampa attorney Bennie Lazzara. “Doctors say with proper medical care, Kendra will have a normal life expectancy.”

Hans




3/16/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

Kentucky Supreme Court to End Inequity Dealing With Loss of a Spouse (Hopefully)

The following article appeared in yesterday's Lexington Herald Leader

Ending an inequity

court should right wrong brought to light by 5191 crash survivors


FRANKFORT - Kentucky statutes seem to say clearly that a surviving spouse may seek damages for loss of companionship (consortium, in legalese) in wrongful death cases. "Either a wife or husband may recover damages against a third person for loss of consortium, resulting from a negligent or wrongful act of such third person," KRS 411.145 says in part.

But Kentucky case law holds just the opposite. Prevailing case law allows a parent to sue for loss of consortium when a child dies because of an accident or negligence. It allows a child to seek damages for that reason when a parent is the victim.

Even a spouse can claim such damages if their mate survives the incident and remains injured. However, that same spouse cannot ask for post-death damages, Kentucky courts have ruled despite the fact that there are no such limitations in the language of KRS 411.145, enacted in 1970.

But the Kentucky Supreme Court now has an opportunity to correct what strikes me as a nonsensical inequity in our state's case law. The court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case involving the death of an Ohio County woman in which post-death loss of consortium is a prominent issue.

Since justices and judges assume the role of devil's advocate during oral arguments, one should never jump too far toward any conclusion about how a case will be decided.

So I will limit my leap to saying some of the devil's advocacy going on in the courtroom Wednesday made a good argument for overturning Kentucky's case law.

Justice Will T. Scott, for instance, noted the "clear trend" in this country toward allowing post-death claims for loss of consortium. Surviving spouses can seek post-death damages in more than 40 states now.

Kentucky's case law adheres to English common law, which limited spousal claims for loss of companionship to the period of time between the injury and death. But KRS 411.145 contains no such limitation.

That prompted Justice Lisabeth Hughes Abramson to suggest that the state's courts have "grafted a common law restriction" on a statue that has no such restriction.

Justice Wil Schroder noted that an oft-cited 1969 court decision that adhered to the common law restriction on post-death claims may have been the impetus for lawmakers enacting the 1970 law that contained no such restrictions.

Justice Daniel T. Venters followed that same line by suggesting Kentucky courts just haven't paid attention to what the legislature did in 1970.

Venters also posited a scenario that, to me, most clearly demonstrates the utter absurdity of the current inequity in the law.

Under present case law, Venters noted, it would be in the financial interest of a spouse whose partner had been comatose for 20 years to keep that person alive as long as possible so the damages for loss of consortium continue.

To someone who desperately wants the plug pulled quickly if I ever go into a permanent vegetative state, the thought that Kentucky case law might encourage the husband or wife of a vegetative spouse to do otherwise to keep the money flowing is an abomination of reason.

Again, you can't judge a justice by his/her devil's advocate questions.

But the simple fact that the Supreme Court is hearing a case involving loss of consortium gives me hope that some extremely unjust case law may soon be overturned.

If that should happen, it would be at least a small, if belated, consolation for the surviving spouses of the Flight 5191 victims.

They came to Frankfort two years ago, asking lawmakers to tell the state's courts that KRS 411.145 means what it says. They had success in the House, which passed their proposed legislation 93-7. But they were met with insults in the Republican-controlled Senate, where they were accused of having a "lottery mind-set."

Senate Republicans, so often obsessed with marriage when it's about homosexual unions or adoptions by gay or lesbian couples, spat on marriage in 2007 with their insulting treatment of Flight 5191 widows and widowers.

Here's hoping the Kentucky Supreme Court rectifies that wrong with the case it heard Wednesday.

Reach Larry Dale Keeling at (859) 231-3249, 1-800-950-6397, Ext. 3249 or lkeeling@herald-leader.com.


2/12/2009
Hans G. Poppe
Comments (0)

The Myths of Arbitration

I hate mandatory arbitration agreements, especially in healthcare cases.  Nursing homes force residents, or their family members, to sign these agreements before admission to the facility.  They then injur the resident and hide behind the arbitration agreement to shield them from have a jury pass judgment on their care in an open courtroom that is subject to public scrutiny.  Many of these companies, and the legislators whose pockets they line with campaign contributions, point to all sort of supposed "benefits" to arbitration.  These benefits are mostly myths:

THE ARBITRATION FAIRNESS ACT
MYTHS AND FACTS

The Arbitration Fairness Act (AFA) would continue to allow voluntary arbitration while preserving the right to trial by jury.  The bill would prohibit a corporation from forcing a consumer into a rigged mandatory arbitration system where the corporation hand-picked the arbitrator and all of the rules of the process before a dispute even occurred. 

Myth: The AFA prohibits arbitration.
Fact: The AFA encourages voluntary arbitration; it only prohibits corporations from forcing mandatory clauses on consumers without them having a chance to negotiate the terms and often without them knowing about it. 

Example:
When admitting his father into a nursing home, Charles Miller Jr. signed a lengthy contract that, unbeknownst to him at the time, contained a binding mandatory arbitration clause.  His father was not seen by a physician until three weeks after his admission, during which time he lost 19 pounds and suffered from dehydration and pneumonia, all of which led to his death.  Charles Miller Jr. filed a claim against the nursing home corporation, but a court held that because he had signed this contract, he would be forced into arbitration for his claims against the nursing home, under the terms the nursing home corporation chose to put into the contract.  Because Charles Miller Jr. had unknowingly signed a contract that contained a mandatory arbitration clause before any dispute had arisen, he was bound by its terms, no matter how unjust.


Myth:
Most consumers favor binding mandatory arbitration. 
Fact: Consumers favor voluntary arbitration and being given the choice to arbitrate. Would an employee with a claim against Halliburton want Halliburton deciding how her claim should be handled?  Would a homeowner with a claim against his home contractor want the contractor deciding how his claim should be handled?

The Chamber of Commerce's recent study, which purported to show that voters did not support HR 3010, asked voters: "If you could choose the method by which any serious dispute would be settled between you and the company, which would you choose?" (Emphasis added.)  But what they didn't tell these voters is that binding mandatory arbitration takes away a consumer's choice. Under the current system, consumers are not allowed to choose which option is best for them.  They are not allowed to choose to file a claim in court nor are they allowed to choose who the arbitrator will be, or even what state they will have to arbitrate the claim in.  Instead, they are forced into an arbitration system that is set up to favor the corporation and trample on the rights of the consumer.  When consumers are given the choice to arbitrate after a dispute has arisen, they gain bargaining power and are better able to enter into an arbitration system that is fair. 


Myth:
Arbitrators are neutral, unbiased decision-makers.
Fact:  Binding arbitration favors corporations because only corporations are repeat users of arbitration companies. 
If an arbitration company wants to be used in a company's mass consumer or employment contracts, the arbitration company has a huge financial incentive to appear favorable to those businesses in arbitration proceedings.  Why would a company choose an arbitrator that rules against them? 


Myth:
Arbitration is cheap and more accessible to consumers. 
Fact: Arbitration is so expensive that most consumers will not be able to pursue their claim against a corporation because they can't afford the costs of the arbitrator. 

Under mandatory arbitration clauses, consumers must pay steep filing fees just to initiate a case-seldom less than $750 – and pay their share of the arbitrator's hourly charges, which are routinely $400 or more per hour.  All these fees must be deposited in advance and almost always amount to thousands of dollars.  In addition, arbitration clauses often allow the corporation to choose the location, regardless of how inconvenient or costly travel will be for the consumer.


Myth:
Arbitrators are like judges; they have to follow the law and publicly state the reasons they made their decision. 
Fact: Arbitrators are not bound by any laws.  They do not have to follow the law and they don't have make public or even provide to the consumer any explanation for ruling the way that they did. 

Most arbitration clauses require that proceedings be kept confidential, even if the case raises important public policy issues.  As a result, only the corporation can track past decisions and know which arbitrators have ruled for them.  In addition, arbitrators do not set or follow judicial precedent, something our judicial system requires to ensure consistency and fairness in legal proceedings. 

 
hans


Bookmark and Share


Firm Free Report

We Can Help You!

Name:

Phone:

Email:

Tell us more:


The Poppe Law Firm
6004 Brownsboro Park Blvd.
Ste. E
Louisville, Kentucky 40207
Phone: (502) 895-3400
Fax: (502) 895-3420

Get Directions

Videos

Kentucky Accident Attorney:

Ketucky Legal Malpractice Attorney:

Kentucky Medical Malpractice Attorney:

General:

more

Frequent Questions

Kentucky Accident Attorney

Ketucky Legal Malpractice Attorney

Kentucky Medical Malpractice Attorney

Accounting Malpractice Attorney

Unfair Insurance Practices Attorney

Kentucky Nursing Home Neglect Attorney

General

more

Personal Injury and Accident Attorney for Louisville, Jeffersontown, Elizabethtown, Radcliff, Lexington, Frankfort, Bardstown, Ft. Knox, Richmond, Covington, Bowling Green, Newport, Owensboro, Paducah, Pikeville, Ashland, Morehead, Murray, Jefferson, Bullitt, Shelby, Hardin, Meade, Spencer, Henry, Larue, and Fayette Kentucky as well as New Albany, Jeffersonville, Indianapolis, Clark, Floyd, Harrison, Jefferson, Scott, Washington, Crawford, Perry, Marion and Spencer in Indiana.

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.