Atlanta, Georgia Personal Injury Lawyer
The Associated Press reported last week that a Santa Fe jury returned a verdict of more than $14.5 million to the family of an Albuquerque man killed by a drunken driver in 2003. Daniel Gutierrez was in a coma for about five weeks before he died.
His mother, Janet Jaramillo, sued the driver, Daniel Durand, and the Albuquerque convenience store he worked for before the crash. She alleged that Alameda Meteor, which owned the convenience store, and its parent companies were negligent when employees sold alcohol to Durand when he was obviously intoxicated.
Her attorney, Jacob Vigil, said store employees sold Durand beer throughout the day knowing he was a chronic alcoholic.
Blood-alcohol tests on Durand three hours after the crash found his blood-alcohol content was 0.09, above the legal limit.
Durand was sentenced in September 2003 to 10 years in prison and five years on probation for the drunken driving crimes he committed after he leaving work at the store drunk and colliding with five vehicles, including Gutierrez's motorcycle.
The lawsuit named El Baracho Inc., which leased the liquor license to the store operators, along with Meteor Monument, Alameda Meteor and Meteor Stores Inc., which held the franchise for the convenience store.
———
Information from: The Santa Fe New Mexican, http://www.sfnewmexican.com
His mother, Janet Jaramillo, sued the driver, Daniel Durand, and the Albuquerque convenience store he worked for before the crash. She alleged that Alameda Meteor, which owned the convenience store, and its parent companies were negligent when employees sold alcohol to Durand when he was obviously intoxicated.
Her attorney, Jacob Vigil, said store employees sold Durand beer throughout the day knowing he was a chronic alcoholic.
Blood-alcohol tests on Durand three hours after the crash found his blood-alcohol content was 0.09, above the legal limit.
Durand was sentenced in September 2003 to 10 years in prison and five years on probation for the drunken driving crimes he committed after he leaving work at the store drunk and colliding with five vehicles, including Gutierrez's motorcycle.
The lawsuit named El Baracho Inc., which leased the liquor license to the store operators, along with Meteor Monument, Alameda Meteor and Meteor Stores Inc., which held the franchise for the convenience store.
———
Information from: The Santa Fe New Mexican, http://www.sfnewmexican.com
Labels: attorney, avoid wrecks, car accidents, drunk driving, jury, lawsuit, personal injury, sue, verdict, wrongful death
The below comes from a Judge in Arkansas as he addresses the federal government taking rights away from citizens to sue in their own state courts.
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
In re:
PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION
DONNA SCROGGIN
v.
WYETH, et. al.
MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW
4:04CV01169
SUPPLEMENT TO APRIL 10, 2008 ORDER
As Defendants note, I did state that I was “as confident as a Christian with four aces” with respect to my FDA preemption ruling.
In view of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. 128 S. Ct. 999 (2008) and other recent appellate decisions, my confidence, while still in place, is at a lower level.
It appears to me that an expansive reading of preemption is a part of the overall “assault upon the citadel of the right to trial by jury” (to paraphrase Cardozo). The finer points of the vice of too much preemption are well presented in Justice Ginsberg’s dissent in Riegel, and by Judge Thomas Ambro in his dissent in Colacicco v. Apotex, 2008 WL 927848, at *18-26 (3d Cir. April 8, 2008).
The thought underlying expansive preemption (“backdoor federalization”, Id. at 25.) is that bureaucratic experts are better at determining what is reasonable, what is too dangerous, etc., than are juries.
Over the past several years I believe all three branches of government have become more and more distrustful of juries. They seem to forget that a jury is a cross section of the citizens who elected them to office (or elected those who appointed them). In political campaigns these citizens are paragons of virtue; but when they are called for jury service, they somehow become incapable of making important decisions. The language in the decisions favoring preemption is high flown; but, at bottom, it reflects distrust of the randomly selected citizens who sit on juries. Perhaps our public officials, including judges, have read too much Plato and too little Alexis de Tocqueville.
Trial by jury is the essence of government reposed in the people. We should trust this institution in fact, not just in word.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of April, 2008.
/s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.______________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
In re:
PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION
DONNA SCROGGIN
v.
WYETH, et. al.
MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW
4:04CV01169
SUPPLEMENT TO APRIL 10, 2008 ORDER
As Defendants note, I did state that I was “as confident as a Christian with four aces” with respect to my FDA preemption ruling.
In view of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. 128 S. Ct. 999 (2008) and other recent appellate decisions, my confidence, while still in place, is at a lower level.
It appears to me that an expansive reading of preemption is a part of the overall “assault upon the citadel of the right to trial by jury” (to paraphrase Cardozo). The finer points of the vice of too much preemption are well presented in Justice Ginsberg’s dissent in Riegel, and by Judge Thomas Ambro in his dissent in Colacicco v. Apotex, 2008 WL 927848, at *18-26 (3d Cir. April 8, 2008).
The thought underlying expansive preemption (“backdoor federalization”, Id. at 25.) is that bureaucratic experts are better at determining what is reasonable, what is too dangerous, etc., than are juries.
Over the past several years I believe all three branches of government have become more and more distrustful of juries. They seem to forget that a jury is a cross section of the citizens who elected them to office (or elected those who appointed them). In political campaigns these citizens are paragons of virtue; but when they are called for jury service, they somehow become incapable of making important decisions. The language in the decisions favoring preemption is high flown; but, at bottom, it reflects distrust of the randomly selected citizens who sit on juries. Perhaps our public officials, including judges, have read too much Plato and too little Alexis de Tocqueville.
Trial by jury is the essence of government reposed in the people. We should trust this institution in fact, not just in word.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of April, 2008.
/s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.______________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Labels: judge, jury, tort reform, verdict
U-Haul International Inc. must pay $84 million to a 74-year-old man who was injured when the truck he rented ran over him when the parking brake failed. According to the man’s lawyer, "The truck's parking brake did not work at all. He stepped out of the truck and it rolled right over him."
A Dallas jury found U-Haul negligent and awarded Waldrip $84.25 million, including $63 million in punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to punish a Defendant for improper conduct. Perhaps the jury was angry that the U-Haul truck had 234,000 miles on it. Or maybe the jury was outraged because evidence showed that six previous renters had similar problems with the truck. Yet U-Haul continued to rent it to the public.
Waldrip's pelvis was crushed in the 2006 accident, leaving him unable to walk and with no bowel control. Instead of accepting responsibility, U-Haul said it would appeal the verdict. In fact, U-Haul stated that "The final verdict is another example of abuse of the legal system against corporate citizens in America."
That’s an interesting perspective since in February 2008, U-Haul settled another case involving a defective parking brake on a truck that killed a customer in San Francisco. In that case, Demetrio T. Nagtalon was killed at a U-Haul center in San Francisco in December 2006, when he was crushed between a post and a rental truck.
Nagtalon had returned the truck because the parking brake didn't work. A U-Haul employee was working on the brake when the truck suddenly began rolling forward. According to a police report, Nagtalon rushed to the cab, apparently trying to climb in to stop the truck, but was pinned against the post.
Where is the corporate responsibility?
Full article at:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-uhaul19apr19,1,6754747.story?track=rss
A Dallas jury found U-Haul negligent and awarded Waldrip $84.25 million, including $63 million in punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to punish a Defendant for improper conduct. Perhaps the jury was angry that the U-Haul truck had 234,000 miles on it. Or maybe the jury was outraged because evidence showed that six previous renters had similar problems with the truck. Yet U-Haul continued to rent it to the public.
Waldrip's pelvis was crushed in the 2006 accident, leaving him unable to walk and with no bowel control. Instead of accepting responsibility, U-Haul said it would appeal the verdict. In fact, U-Haul stated that "The final verdict is another example of abuse of the legal system against corporate citizens in America."
That’s an interesting perspective since in February 2008, U-Haul settled another case involving a defective parking brake on a truck that killed a customer in San Francisco. In that case, Demetrio T. Nagtalon was killed at a U-Haul center in San Francisco in December 2006, when he was crushed between a post and a rental truck.
Nagtalon had returned the truck because the parking brake didn't work. A U-Haul employee was working on the brake when the truck suddenly began rolling forward. According to a police report, Nagtalon rushed to the cab, apparently trying to climb in to stop the truck, but was pinned against the post.
Where is the corporate responsibility?
Full article at:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-uhaul19apr19,1,6754747.story?track=rss
Labels: negligence, punitive damages, verdict
Our firm has had two premises liability verdicts in February. In the first, a United States District Court jury returned a verdict for $340,000 in a negligent security case. A truck driver parked his truck at a local truck stop. The truck stop had only 1 security guard on duty despite knowing of prior violent crimes. The client was hit on the back of the head and suffered a concussion (a mild brain injury) and a herniated disc in his neck. The plaintiff later had surgery to have his spine fused.
In the second, a Canadian family was staying at a local hotel. The water temperature in the shower was allowed to reach scalding levels and the father suffered a second degree burn which caused a scar on his chest. Attorney Dwayne Adams presented evidence showing that the Defendant had destroyed evidence relating to maintenance records. An expert showed how the boiler was 35 years old and the hotel knew that it had frequently hit unsafe temperatures. The Dekalb County jury returned a verdict of $75,000 for pain and suffering.
In the second, a Canadian family was staying at a local hotel. The water temperature in the shower was allowed to reach scalding levels and the father suffered a second degree burn which caused a scar on his chest. Attorney Dwayne Adams presented evidence showing that the Defendant had destroyed evidence relating to maintenance records. An expert showed how the boiler was 35 years old and the hotel knew that it had frequently hit unsafe temperatures. The Dekalb County jury returned a verdict of $75,000 for pain and suffering.
Labels: avoiding personal injury, brain, damages, pain, spine, suffering, trial, verdict
Archives
February 2007 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
