Lawsuit Claims Royal Caribbean Knew Of Toxic Gas On Cruise Ship Before Deadly Accident, Yet Failed To Make Timely Repairs Despite Numerous Warnings and Complaints
Attorney Jack Hickey Seeks Punitive Damages For Troubling Incident Aboard “Monarch of the Seas” That Killed Three Crewmembers, Left The Staff Captain With Permanent Brain Damage, And Endangered the Lives of Thousands of Passengers
MIAMI, FL, November 12, 2010 — Florida trial attorney John H. “Jack” Hickey has filed a lawsuit in Miami-Dade Circuit Court claiming that even though Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD. (RCCL) knew about a toxic gas leak onboard the “Monarch of the Seas” that killed three and injured several crew members, RCCL endangered the lives of thousands of passengers and numerous employees by continuing to operate the unsafe vessel for several months before completing the repairs.
“Royal Caribbean engaged in gross misconduct so reckless that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of every single person on that ship,” said Hickey who is representing former Staff Captain Bjoern Eidissen of Norway in legal action against RCCL. “There were indications that hazardous conditions were building on the ship for several months, even before the leak, but the company never warned passengers and staff about the presence of harmful toxic gases.
The fatal accident happened while the Monarch of the Seas with more than 3,400 passengers and crew was docked at the Port of Los Angeles in September 2005. According to the complaint, RCCL failed to maintain the permanent ballast tanks onboard the ship. These tanks contain mixtures of various types of water including gray water, pulper water and seawater. This combination creates hydrogen sulfide, a colorless, deadly gas that in the first minutes of inhaling it has a foul odor of rotten eggs. After the first few minutes, the person inhaling it smells nothing. Prolonged exposure can cause severe brain and lung damage while a high concentration can cause death.
“For this reason, it is essential that their ballast tanks, the vents and the connected piping be inspected, cleaned, maintained, repaired, reamed out and free of debris on a regular basis and under controlled circumstances,” said Hickey who has testified before Congress about safety and security onboard cruise ships and claims against cruise lines. “This type of maintenance can be a matter of life and death; if it is not performed on a regular basis, the resulting build up and leakage of noxious gas can be lethal to human life.”
The lawsuit claims as result of poor maintenance, one of the ballast tanks became clogged and the mixture inside created hydrogen sulfide gas. Hickey said the Marine Department directed RCCL to reroute the piping to that tank. When the workers assigned to fix the piping opened the tank, lethal hydrogen sulfide gas escaped in a huge cloud killing three crewmembers. Eidissen and other personnel who responded to the emergency were also exposed to the hydrogen sulfide gas.
According to the lawsuit, records show Royal Caribbean never alerted the crew that a worker fixing the same pipe in March 2005 was overcome by the noxious fumes and nearly died and continued to operate the vessel basically as normal even hours after the second accident in September.
The complaint states that a condition of class, an approval of inspection with exception, was issued. The exception required that the subject bilge tank must be vented overboard when the ship was at sea. Hickey claims the recommended procedure was not followed properly, therefore endangering the health of passengers and crewmembers.
The lawsuit claims that the venting of the gas from the location of its origin was accomplished by a jury rig of fire hoses to the exterior of the ship. These hoses would then transfer the toxic gas from the tank to the exterior of the ship. The complaint suggests the accommodation was inadequate, and constituted a situation where the toxic hydrogen sulfide gas was blown back into the air conditioning system, exposing passengers.”
The lawsuit alleges that despite the fact that Royal Caribbean represented on its logs that venting took place only when at speed and at sea, venting actually took place whenever there was a pressure build up sometimes when the ship was not at speed and even in port.
According to the lawsuit, when the ship was drifting, at anchor, or at dock, the noxious gas was sucked back into the vessel and into the passenger areas including cabins, through the air conditioning intakes. This reportedly allowed the methane and hydrogen sulfide gas to leak into habitable areas on the ship including the areas in which Mr. Eidissen worked. Attorneys said the Monarch of the Seas received numerous passenger complaints about a foul smelling gas, in addition to several complaints from a stevedore company, dockside businesses, and the workers who eventually fixed the pipe while the ship was in dry dock.
Hickey has filed a motion asking the judge’s permission to request punitive damages. The bases of the punitive damages are that RCCL reportedly forced Eidissen and others to work for months in unsafe conditions and refused to provide him with timely and adequate medical treatment. As a result, a special MRI of Eidissen’s brain shows brain lesions compatible with injury from gas exposure.
“Mr. Eidissen has been diagnosed with toxic encephalopathy, a degenerative neurologic disorder caused by exposure to noxious substances,” said Hickey. “His continued exposure during the next 26 cruises after the accident aggravated and contributed to his condition.”
In July 2010, RCCL filed a stipulation regarding liability in response to the allegations in Eidissen’s lawsuit. According to the document, the company states that it is liable for the release of noxious gases onboard the Monarch of the Seas. RCCL rejects the claims that it is responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries because he failed to wear safety gear and delayed his own medical care.
The hearing regarding punitive damages for Eidissen’s lawsuit will be held before Judge Marc Schumacher before the end of the year.
Founded by trial attorney Jack Hickey, Hickey Law Firm, P.A. handles personal injury and wrongful death cases in the areas of transportation torts (admiralty and maritime, railroad, and car and truck accidents), medical malpractice, product liability, and general liability. Hickey is Board Certified as a Civil Trial Lawyer by The Florida Bar and by the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA). Hickey is a Past President of the Dade County Bar Association and is on the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar. Hickey is A/V-rated by Martindale-Hubbell. He is also listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Emerging Leaders in America.
—
Share on Facebook
Legal Help At Your Fingertips, Jim Adler, Texas Personal Injury Lawyer Launches New Mobile Website
October 29, 2010
Personal injury attorney Jim Adler is now at the beck and call of clients on the go, which suits this forward-looking lawyer just fine.
Houston, Texas – Houston personal injury lawyer, Jim Adler, a pioneer in legal advertising on TV, has moved into the hottest field for staying in touch with a public whose love for mobile devices is growing by leaps and bounds. According to Bango, in the last year alone, the Smartphone market has driven an amazing 600% increase in traffic to mobile websites. Adler’s new site is in line with his business model: convenience for clients.
“I want victims to get the best representation they can as fast as they can get it. That’s been my mission since I started my legal practice more than 30 years ago,” says Adler, known around the state as “The Texas Hammer” for his unrelenting representation of victims who come to him for assistance.
Convenience is the number one reason the mobile market is so hot. According to Website Magazine, Seventy-one percent of 50,000 European and US mobile users surveyed by the Nielsen Company “anticipate they will use the mobile Web daily over the next two years.” The survey included phone users in the United States, the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. It concluded that “in the US alone, 52 percent” of those surveyed indicated their use of mobile websites would increase “by an average of 41.2 percent.”
Adler’s mobile website gives clients an immediate advantage. Keeping up with technology on their behalf, syncs with this lawyer’s lifelong mission to cut through red tape for victims.
“Creating a mobile website helps me put the law where I think it belongs – in people’s hands the minute they need it,” the veteran attorney says. “I’ve always worked that way. When somebody contacts my offices, they get an immediate response. Clients don’t sit around and wonder how their case is going. I’ve got phone banks, investigators, case managers and lots of other staffers to keep them informed. And now,” he says, triumphantly, I’ve got the mobile web.”
At the scene of an accident, the site works like an On Star device, putting immediate legal advice in victims’ hands when their legal rights could be in jeopardy. It can speed up settlements. Lawyers get much of the initial information they to start representing clients when they follow the site’s advice after a wreck. The Driving Buddy feature on the site has a step-by-step list of things to do after an accident and advice on what to be on guard against.
The Jim Adler mobile website also has all kinds of legal help in simplified, easy- to- read formats. People with questions about bad prescription drugs like Paxil and Accutane can get immediate answers. Articles with the latest information about new tires that can cause blowouts, contaminated foods, accidents that threaten victims with bankruptcy or other issues, are available at a touch. The mobile site is a dream come true for a lawyer dedicated to helping victims.
“They don’t have to sit around and wonder. You have no idea how great it makes me feel to know that I can help someone in an instant.”
Put http://www.JimAdler.com to work. A lawyer in the hand is worth two in the bush!
About the Company:
Houston personal injury lawyer, Jim Adler, is a lawyer with 30 years experience in all types of personal injury cases. He is also a TV and radio personality who has served the public for 25 years on TV and radio talk shows, in newspaper interviews and on civic group panels discussing the legal rights of accident victims. His law firm, Jim S. Adler & Associates represents the seriously and catastrophically injured in Texas and other states.
Media Contact Information:
Jodie Sinclair
Jim S. Adler & Associates
1900 West Loop South
20th Floor
Houston, TX 77027
1-800-505-1414
Web address: http://www.JimAdler.com
Share on Facebook
Southern California Personal Injury Lawyer Honored As 2010 Super Lawyer
Super Lawyers magazine names attorneys in each state who received the highest rankings, as given by peers and through independent research
PASADENA, California, October 30, 2010 — Stephen Ball of law firm Ball & Roberts was recently honored in Law and Politics Media Inc.’s listing of “Super Lawyers 2010.” Featuring the most recognized and reputable attorneys across the U.S., this year’s listing takes notice of Mr. Ball’s involvement in numerous benchmark cases.
Practicing for over 20 years as an employment litigation and catastrophic injury attorney, he has successfully represented victims and consumers in California and federal courts. His clients have included minors, workers, those suffering from a recent brain injury, the elderly, and insureds. Mr. Ball has been a court appointed settlement officer and mediator since 1991 and has participated in settlement programs in Van Nuys, Glendale, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Santa Monica Superior Courts. He received his law degree from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and has been admitted to practice in federal court since 1987 and in the United States Court of Claims since 1991.
The annual Super Lawyers top-attorney list names all types of lawyers in each state who’ve received the highest point totals, as chosen by their peers and through independent research. It is published throughout the country as a special insert in leading newspapers, city, and regional magazines and reaches more than 13-million readers. The magazine features articles about the honored attorneys and is distributed to all lawyers in the state or region, the lead corporate counsel of Russell 3000 companies, and the ABA-approved law-school libraries.
Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a rigorous, multiphase process through peer nominations and evaluations that are combined with third-party research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of recognition and professional achievement. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis with an objective to create a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers who are searching for legal counsel.
About Ball & Roberts
Ball & Roberts is a civil trial law firm that helps California plaintiffs successfully resolve non-criminal cases in which they’ve been seriously physically or financially harmed. The experienced and respected California trial lawyers at the Pasadena law firm of Ball & Roberts represent clients throughout Southern California in communities such as Los Angeles, Glendale, Burbank, Van Nuys, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, Brentwood, Hollywood, Malibu, Santa Ana, Hollister, L.A. County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Orange County, Ventura County and San Diego County, as well as SoCal regions such as the San Gabriel Valley, San Fernando Valley and the Inland Empire. For additional information on the personal injury attorneys and accident lawyers at Ball & Roberts, visit http://www.pasadenalaw.com
Share on Facebook
Helping Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys Find Value in Auto Accident Lawsuits
Steven M. Gursten will be speaking about McCormick v. Carrier to other personal injury attorneys throughout Michigan. He will be presenting at the State Bar of Michigan 2010 Annual Meeting in Grand Rapids: “Representing Injured Personal Injury Victims and Finding Value in Car Accident Claims After McCormick v. Carrier.”
“Understanding how to handle car accident cases has become more important than ever before for Michigan lawyers,” said Gursten, head of Michigan Auto Law, the state’s largest law firm exclusively handling auto accidents and No-Fault insurance litigation.
This is because, Gursten says, potentially thousands of auto accident victims who were seriously injured in Michigan – yet were told they had no case under the state’s harsh auto accident law – now have a second chance to bring pain and suffering lawsuits. The August 1, 2010 Michigan Supreme Court ruling in McCormick v. Carrier has overturned Michigan’s previous (and the nation’s harshest) auto accident threshold law Kreiner v. Fischer, opening the door for more fair lawsuits by people seeking compensation after being injured in auto accidents, he added.
“Over the past month, nearly every personal injury lawyer, insurance claims adjuster, and trial judge has been scrambling trying to figure out what McCormick v. Carrier, weighing in at more than 100 pages, really means for people injured in car accidents in Michigan,” Gursten said. “My presentation will help fellow personal injury attorneys better understand this important case.”
Gursten writes and speaks extensively about Michigan’s auto accident laws and No-Fault law, and is available for comment on McCormick v. Carrier and personal injury cases.
“Under McCormick v. Carrier, people who seek compensation for injuries and pain and suffering have a better chance at a fair recovery. McCormick says a person can qualify for pain and suffering damages if his or her normal life is affected – not completely altered by a car accident as Kreiner required,” Gursten explained.
For those who will not be at the Michigan legal seminar, take a look at Steve Gursten’s McCormick v Carrier outline. The McCormick v. Carrier decision reestablishes the proper interpretation of the clear and unambiguous language in the Michigan No-Fault Act, Gursten says. Here, he lays out the test anyone in Michigan who has been injured in a car accident must meet to recover pain and suffering damages.
Gursten also will cover what’s gone after Kreiner v. Fischer. “Kreiner was responsible for the worst possible public policy in Michigan. What made the old law under Kreiner so frustrating for lawyers was that the focus on duration and temporal factors meant that people who suffered very serious injuries of near total incapacitation but shorter duration were punished, as were good people who tried, despite the pain and medical restrictions of their injuries, to gut it out and try to get back to work as quickly as possible,” Gursten said.
“Thankfully, the Michigan Supreme Court restored common sense to the state’s auto accident law with its ruling on McCormick v. Carrier.”
About Steven M. Gursten: Steven M. Gursten is recognized as one of the nation’s top personal injury attorneys handling serious car and truck accident injury cases and automobile insurance litigation. He is co-chair of the Michigan Association for Justice Auto Accident No-Fault Committee, and holds leadership in several other local and national legal organizations aimed at helping car and truck accident lawyers and attorneys handling traumatic brain injury cases. Gursten received the top-reported auto accident settlement in 2008 and 2009, according to published reports from Michigan Lawyers Weekly.
About Michigan Auto Law: Michigan Auto Law is a third-generation law firm with 19 lawyers practicing exclusively in automobile accident and No-Fault insurance litigation throughout the state. The firm has offices in Farmington Hills, Sterling Heights, Detroit, Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids. Please call (800) 777-0028 to speak with one of our personal injury attorneys.
Share on Facebook
St. Louis, Missouri VA Hospital Alerts Patients of Potential Exposure to HIV
St. Louis, MO—More than 1,800 veterans who underwent dental work at a Missouri VA hospital recently received letters informing them that they have been infected with potentially lethal blood-borne diseases. The issue stemmed from several technicians’ failure to properly sanitize dental instruments, according to a Wednesday, June 30, 2010 New York Daily News report.
A routine inspection by a government medical team revealed dental tools may have been improperly sterilized. Technicians reportedly hand-washed the instruments in an attempt to prevent them from breaking or becoming damaged in the hospital’s special sterilization machine.
In doing so, potentially life-threatening diseases may have been passed on to veterans who received dental care at the St. Louis-based John Cochran VA Medical Center. Such deviations of the standard of care allegedly began in February 2009, continuing until March 2010.
Congressman Russ Carnahan referred to the violations as “absolutely unacceptable”. He also reportedly demanded the House of Veterans Affairs Subcommittee conduct a formal probe into the episodes.
John Cochran VA Medical Center sent letters to 1,812 possible victims, notifying them that they may have been wrongfully infected with diseases such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV.
“No veteran who has served and risked their life for this great nation should have to worry about their personal safety when receiving much needed health-care services from a Veterans Administration hospital…I can only imagine the horror and anger our veterans must be feeling after receiving this letter… They have every right to be angry,” Carnahan stated.
Share on Facebook
WILK v. LEWIS & LEWIS, P.C.
2010 NY Slip Op 05897
JAMES WILK AND LORIANN WILK, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
LEWIS & LEWIS, P.C. AND MICHAEL J. SKONEY, ESQ., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
CA 09-02316.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department.
Decided July 2, 2010.
ANSPACH MEEKS ELLENBERGER LLP, BUFFALO (MICHELLE M. PARKER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
THE MCGORRY LAW FIRM, LLP, BUFFALO, LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN LLP (KENNETH R. KIRBY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND PINE, JJ.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by granting the motion in part and dismissing the legal malpractice cause of action insofar as that cause of action is asserted with respect to the defendant Ford Motor Company in the underlying action, and by denying that part of the cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability on the legal malpractice cause of action insofar as that cause of action is asserted with respect to that defendant in the underlying action and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: James Wilk (plaintiff) was allegedly injured while repairing railroad cars, and he retained defendants to represent him, along with his wife, in seeking damages for those injuries. Defendants commenced a pre-action discovery proceeding against plaintiff’s employer to obtain information concerning the accident and, when defendants thereafter commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action on behalf of plaintiffs (hereafter, underlying action), they used the same index number that had been used in the pre-action discovery proceeding. Supreme Court granted the motions of the defendants in the underlying action (Labor Law defendants) to dismiss the complaint. Under the law at that time, the failure to purchase a new index number rendered the action a nullity because it was never properly commenced (see Chiacchia & Fleming v Guerra, 309 AD2d 1213, 1214, lv denied 2 NY3d 704). No appeal was taken by plaintiffs from that order, although plaintiffs retained other attorneys (plaintiffs’ successor counsel) shortly prior to the expiration of the time in which to take an appeal. Plaintiffs commenced a second Labor Law and common-law negligence action against the Labor Law defendants, who moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. We previously reversed an order denying those motions and instead granted the motions and dismissed the complaint (Wilk v Genesee & Wyoming R.R. Co., 45 AD3d 1274). We concluded that the second action did not relate back to the filing of the underlying action pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) because the failure to purchase a new index number rendered the underlying action a nullity (id. at 1275).
Plaintiffs commenced the instant legal malpractice action seeking damages arising from the dismissal of the underlying action. Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment “to the extent that malpractice is established against . . . defendants.” That was error only insofar as the malpractice cause of action is asserted with respect to the defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford) in the underlying action. We therefore modify the order accordingly.
“To establish a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal community, and that the attorney’s breach of [that] duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages’” (Velie v Ellis Law, P.C., 48 AD3d 674, 675, quoting Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 NY3d 438, 442). The plaintiff must also establish that he or she “would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action but for’ the attorney’s negligence” (AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 434). “To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the defendant in a legal malpractice action must present evidence in admissible form establishing that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of [those] essential elements” (Velie, 48 AD3d at 675). Here, defendants submitted evidence in support of their motion establishing that Ford “is not an owner or contractor and that it lacked contractual or other actual authority to control the activity bringing about [plaintiff's] injury’ ” (Scally v Regional Indus. Partnership, 9 AD3d 865, 867-868). Thus, they met their initial burden of establishing that plaintiffs would not have succeeded in the underlying action against Ford “but for” their negligence (see AmBase Corp., 8 NY3d at 434), and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect thereto.
Contrary to the further contention of defendants, the court properly denied those parts of their motion seeking dismissal of the instant complaint with respect to their failure to commence the underlying action against the remaining Labor Law defendants in a timely manner. In their answer to the instant complaint, defendants admitted that they used the same index number to commence the underlying action that had been previously used to commence the pre-action discovery proceeding. The failure to commence the underlying action in a timely manner, absent factors not at issue here, is sufficient to establish that defendants “failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal community’ ” (Velie, 48 AD3d at 675, quoting Rudolf, 8 NY3d at 442).
Defendants also failed to establish that plaintiffs could not prove the remaining elements of a legal malpractice cause of action. Defendants contend that their negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries because plaintiffs’ successor counsel did not file a notice of appeal when the Court of Appeals issued its decision in Harris v Niagara Falls Bd. of Educ. (6 NY3d 155). We reject that contention. Defendants are correct that the Court of Appeals changed the law by holding in Harris that a defendant could waive a defect in connection with filing requirements such as the failure to purchase a new index number (see id. at 159). Even assuming, arguendo, however, that we agree with defendants that the time within which plaintiffs could file a notice of appeal expired 35 days after the final Labor Law defendant had served the order dismissing the first complaint against the Labor Law defendants (see Blank v Schafrann, 206 AD2d 771, 773; Williams v Forbes, 157 AD2d 837, 838-839; Dobess Realty Corp. v City of New York, 79 AD2d 348, 352, appeal dismissed 53 NY2d 1054, 54 NY2d 754), we note that the time in which to file a notice of appeal against that final Labor Law defendant expired approximately 30 hours after the Harris decision was issued. It cannot be said that the failure of plaintiffs’ successor counsel to learn of the Harris decision and file a notice of appeal within that narrow time period constituted an “intervening and superseding failure of plaintiff[s'] successor [counsel]” to file a timely notice of appeal (Pyne v Block & Assoc., 305 AD2d 213). Defendants thus failed to establish that “plaintiff[s'] successor counsel had sufficient time and opportunity to adequately protect plaintiff[s'] rights” (Somma v Dansker & Aspromonte Assoc., 44 AD3d 376, 377; cf. Ramcharan v Pariser, 20 AD3d 556, 557; Albin v Pearson, 289 AD2d 272).
Contrary to the further contention of defendants, the court did not abuse its discretion in considering the cross motion of plaintiffs for partial summary judgment on liability despite their failure to submit the cross motion in proper form. In any event, defendants moved for summary judgment, and it is well settled that, “[i]f it shall appear that any party other than the moving party is entitled to a summary judgment, the court may grant such judgment without the necessity of a [cross motion]” (CPLR 3212 [b]; see Dunham v Hilco Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429-430; JCS Controls, Inc. v Stacey, 57 AD3d 1372, 1373).
Finally, defendants’ remaining contention concerning the issues of contribution and indemnification is not properly before us. Neither the motion nor the cross motion sought relief with respect to those issues, and said issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal (see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985).
Share on Facebook
Divorce Mediation A Relatively Speedy and Low Cost Alternative
Is it possible to have an easy divorce? A low cost divorce? Or do all divorce settlements necessarily end in hard feelings and financial ruin? The truth is that divorce can be low-cost and easy… or it can be a long ordeal that can drag on for months. No matter how emotional things get, just remember that you always have a choice and that your willingness to negotiate through mediation can help speed up the whole process, thereby minimizing the pain inflicted on your family.
Mediation is a legal process in which a trained, impartial third-party will offer divorce help and support by assisting both parties to reach an agreement. A couple preparing to divorce should not rely solely on a mediator. Rather, the husband and wife should consult their respective attorneys about their specific procedures and legal consequences of the mediation process.
If mediation is not successful, then the case must go to trial. In most cases, it is best to avoid a trial as attorney’s fees, alone, can pile up if delaying tactics are used. Furthermore, studies show that people feel more satisfied with mediated Separation Agreements than with those that are ordered by the court. Finally, since the process is more civil and less emotionally grueling, mediation minimizes any trauma to the children.
Life after divorce can be a fresh new start. Mediation can not only save time and money, but can also reduce emotional and psychological baggage for everyone.
Share on Facebook
Criminal Defense Help: What It Can Do
Sometimes we make mistakes. It is not that we deliberately break the law, sometimes it is just unavoidable. Sometimes we do not even know it unless charges are pressed against us. So what’s a poor citizen to do?
Well, that citizen can fight it out in court. But just as any person doesn’t go to battle without armor, you can’t go to the judge unprepared. That is just plain suicide. No, you need a good army of lawyers behind you to help you get out of your mess. You need a good, hardworking criminal defense attorney. You need to know your stand, and you need to stand your ground. You need to get your facts straight, and the place where you can have that is the website criminaldefensehelp.com.
Being pressed with charges can turn your life upside down, that is why it is important to act quickly and acquire damage control before it’s too late and people close to you are also affected. What is worse is when you are being accused of a crime that you did not commit. A criminal defense lawyer has the responsibility of providing legal representation to the accused. The lawyer does not have the responsibility of proving innocence or helping the guilty to be set free. He has your best interests in mind and it is his job to protect you. The criminal defense lawyer focuses on getting your case dismissed.
A criminal defense attorney can prevent you from ever being taken into custody. A criminal defense attorney also has the ability to assist you against further incrimination by instructing you what to say in interrogations. A criminal defense attorney is also able to speak on your behalf and defend against the prosecution’s case by questioning witnesses in the defense’s case and cross-examining the prosecution’s witnesses.
The criminal defense attorney in california deals with cases such as white collar crimes, drug crimes, sex crimes and more. They have been pioneers in developing all forms of alternative sentencing such as house arrest and diversionary programs. They have established relationships with Judges and District Attorneys in Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento and Ventura Counties. Choosing the legal counsel of a California criminal defense lawyer can save you from being found guilty in a criminal case. A California criminal defense lawyer often has the reputation of being staunch legal counsel by virtue of having passed the California Bar exam alone. This exam is known to be one of the toughest nationwide.
San Diego Criminal Defense Attorneys excell in DUI Defense, Drug Defense and defense of other misdemeanor and felony charges requiring the assistance of a professional attorney in San Diego and Southern California. A San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer defends each case specifically and according to the unique facts, and the law, as it is written related to the case. Attorneys argue relentlessly on behalf of their clients in the courtroom, as trial lawyers, and winning the confidence of the jury is their specialty.
Illinois attorneys are also known for their white collar criminal defense. This is their specialty.
So the next time you have been charged with a criminal offense from out of nowhere, there is no need to panic. After all, you’re innocent until proven guilty. All you have to do is employ the help and services of attorneys in criminal defense. Criminaldefensehelp.com provides you with the necessary information.
Share on Facebook
Highway Safety Attorney Calls for Distracted Driving Semi-Truck Accident Law
Highway Safety Attorney (http://www.hornlaw.com), Douglas R. Horn, calls for comprehensive distracted driving semi-truck accident law that includes prohibiting use of portable electronic devices.
Kansas City, MO, — Highway Safety Attorney (http://www.hornlaw.com), Douglas R. Horn calls for comprehensive distracted driving semi-truck accident law that includes prohibiting use of portable electronic devices. The long haul can be boring and drivers may want to pass the time texting or browsing the web on their laptops but driving a big truck at highway speeds.
A new study by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute compiled research by videoing semi-truck drivers behavior when they were driving and found that a driver texting has a 23 times higher collision risk than a drive not texting. This far exceeds previously estimated risk based on laboratory research.
An earlier study by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released in April 2006 found that almost 80% of crashes and 65% of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention within three seconds of the event, according to the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study.
“”When a truck driver takes their eyes off the road to text or perform any other activity not essential to driving the truck, it creates a new universe of risk. This is especially true when the truck is an 80,000 pound vehicle that will cause disaster when a driver loses control of their rig. As traffic volumes on major highways and interstates increase, safe operation of trucks is of premium importance to protect all motorists,” says Douglas R. Horn, Highway Safety Attorney and principal partner at the Horn Law Firm P.C. (http://www.hornlaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1483344.html).
“A comprehensive distracted driver law is a vital highway safety measure because it will help reduce the most deadly of all roadway collisions. You can be sure that trucking firms will act quickly to comply with new laws by establishing driver regulations that prohibit all forms of distracted driving in the cabs of their trucks. Without a comprehensive distracted driver law that covers all forms of driver multi-tasking, truck companies will lack a strong incentive to invest in necessary safety reforms brought on by these new technologies.” concludes Horn.
Confirming the need for comprehensive distracted driving laws, the federal government and many stats are putting regulations in place to prohibit government employees from using hand-help devices while driving in government business.
Highway Safety Attorney (http://www.hornlaw.com), Douglas R. Horn is the principal partner of Horn Law, a personal injury law firm that has an exceptional track record in maximizing client recovery in a wide variety of motor vehicle accident claims in Missouri and throughout the Midwest. Mr. Horn is a public safety advocate devoting a significant part of his practice to highway safety issues. His firm is based in Kansas City, Mo with consultation offices throughout Missouri.
###
Share on Facebook
Attorney Frank M. Petosa Joins Morgan & Morgan, PA as Partner in South Florida Office
Davie, FL — Morgan & Morgan, PA is pleased to announce that Frank M. Petosa has joined the firm as a partner in the Davie, Florida office. In addition to leading the firm’s South Florida personal injury practice, Mr. Petosa will also work with the National Consumer Class Action and Mass Tort Department.
Mr. Petosa is dedicated to helping Florida’s families when a loved one suffers a serious injury or dies due to wrongful conduct. When corporations, insurance companies, hospitals, health care providers and nursing homes put profits over safety and wrongfully injure another, Mr. Petosa fights for justice on behalf of Florida’s families. He focuses his practice on medical malpractice, nursing home neglect and abuse, personal injury, and wrongful death cases and also handles mass tort and class action litigation. In 2009, in recognition of his outstanding work on behalf of his clients, Mr. Petosa was named a Florida Super Lawyer, an honor which is limited to the top 5% of attorneys in his field.
He has held numerous leadership positions with the Florida Justice Association, serving as a past president of the organization and as the past chair of the Florida Justice PAC as well as the Nursing Home and Auto Insurance Committees. Mr. Petosa previously served as the Fundraising Chair and as a member of the Medical Liability and Arbitration Committees for the Florida Justice Association. Currently, he is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and a member of the American Bar Association, American Association for Justice, and the Southern Trial Lawyers Association.
Mr. Petosa has frequently lectured at Florida Justice Association and American Association for Justice seminars throughout the country on a variety of topics relating to medical malpractice, nursing home and personal injury litigation. He has also testified extensively before Florida Senate and House committees on a wide range of tort reform issues. Mr. Petosa is also involved with the Florida Bar Association, the Palm Beach County Bar Association, and the Palm Beach County Justice Association.
Mr. Petosa received his J.D. from the University of Florida in 1992, graduating with honors. In addition to his many legal memberships, he is also involved with the National Citizen’s Coalition for Nursing Home Reform, the Broward County Coalition on Aging, and Florida’s Voice for Mental Retardation. Mr. Petosa is admitted to practice in Florida, including the U.S. District Court, Southern and Middle Districts of Florida.
About Morgan & Morgan
Morgan & Morgan is one of the largest Personal Injury law firms in the country with offices nationwide. The firm handles product liability cases, personal injury cases, and medical malpractice cases, as well as claims against drug and medical device manufacturers. Visit ForThePeople.com for a free case evaluation and information about your legal rights.
Share on Facebook
