
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
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
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!

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
"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
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
The following products are covered by this voluntary recall:
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
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.

Secrets to Buying Car Insurance in Kentucky

What The Insiders Don't Want You To Know About Semi-Truck Accidents.

Nursing Homes: What you absolutley, positively must know before choosing one.
The Poppe Law Firm
6004 Brownsboro Park Blvd.
Ste. E
Louisville, Kentucky 40207
Phone: (502) 895-3400
Fax: (502) 895-3420
Get Directions