Tragically, just 40 minutes can make the difference between a healthy baby and a little girl who will never walk, never talk, never feed herself, never have a boyfriend, never get married…

In this case handled by Elmira medical malpractice attorney Jim Reed, the Labor and Delivery nurses hooked the Mom up to an electronic fetal monitor and then left the Mom unattended for 40+ minutes. Unfortunately, fetal monitors are absolutely no good if no one is there to read the results….

That’s why the standard of care for labor and delivery nurses requires nurses to review the monitor strips for the first 20 minutes that the mother is placed on the monitor. If all is OK after 20 minutes, the Mom can then be left unattended for short periods of time. If the strips are not OK, then the nurse is trained to immediately intervene and summon a doctor if necessary.

In this case, a careful review of the medical records revealed that the mother had been left totally unattended for the first 40+ minutes she was placed on the fetal monitor. As you might have guessed, the monitor strips were bad meaning that the baby was in trouble and needed immediate delivery. The problem is that no one was in the room to hear read the results and respond to the baby’s cries for help. As a result, the necessary C-section to rescue the baby was delayed by more than an hour causing the baby to suffer profound brain damage (Cerebral Palsy). The baby was rushed from the Corning Hospital to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at the Arnot Ogden Medical Center in Elmira, but the damage was already done. The baby had a permanent brain injury called Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy (HIE) which means that the baby’s brain was deprived of oxygen at birth. Read the rest…

Over my 23 years of practice in Upstate NY and PA, I have handled my share of tragic cases due to falls on snow and ice:

• a woman from Ithaca, NY who suffered a permanent brain injury due to hitting her head on an ice sidewalk outside a Corning, NY pizzeria;
• a construction worker from Elmira who was caused to suffer a nasty, spiral fracture of his femur when caused to fall on icy steps at a Waverly, NY factory;
• a Binghamton, NY man who badly injured his back in a twisting fall in a shopping mall parking lot.

Each of these cases resulted in very substantial payments by the insurance carriers for the property owners.

The sad part about each of these cases was just how easily they could have been avoided had the property owner just taken the simple (and legally required) step of keeping their property free of snow and ice.

Now don’t get me wrong, as a property owner myself, I know that it’s often a pain in the neck to keep my home and my office clear of snow and ice but I also know that it is my legal responsibility to do so and even more important, I sure don’t want to see one of my family, friends or clients hurt just because I was too lazy to make sure that I kept my property safe.

During the cold and stormy months of winter, it seems as if we just get the sidewalks cleared before Mother Nature strikes with another storm. A new layer of snow and ice coats the area, making roads and sidewalks slippery and dangerous until we can treat and clear them again.

I want to share some advice about winter conditions and legal liability. This is good information to remember, no matter what your “walk” in life. You may a business or building owner with the responsibility of keeping sidewalks and entrances clear and safe, or you could be a victim of a nasty fall on ice, trying to figure out what your legal rights are.

I was inspired to share some information about this issue by a post, Snow and Ice: Five Ways to Avoid Legal Liability by attorney Tim Rayne. Tim’s tips address the potential liability of property owners. He basically cautions them to:

Determine who is responsible for keeping walking areas free of snow and ice. It may be the property owner, or it could be the municipality – the key is to KNOW for SURE and assume the responsibility if it is yours.

Treat ice and snow effectively and get rid of it quickly. Don’t dawdle! If you are a property owner, and you don’t address dangerous walking conditions quickly, you are opening yourself up to a lawsuit.

I want to add that if you are a pedestrian and you note poor conditions, be sure and tell the property owner. You don’t want to be the victim of a slip and fall accident – or allow anyone else to be, either.

And finally, Tim tells property owners to be sure and have enough liability insurance to cover the cost of perhaps serious injuries to victims of slip and fall accidents.

I know from my 20+ years of experience handling personal injury cases that even when insurance adequately covers the costs of physical recovery, serious injuries have repercussions in victims’ family life, careers, mental state and more. First and foremost, we need to keep people aware of their responsibilities and/or risk during this sometimes treacherous season.  Stay safe!

Thanks for reading,

Jim

_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
NY Fall and Injury Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Tel. (607) 733-8866 Fax. (607) 732-6062
Toll Free 1-800-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com http://www.zifflaw.com
E-mail me at FreeReports@zifflaw.com for two free books:

NY Car Accidents and NY Car Insurance Secrets YOU Need to Know.

In the aftermath of a NY auto accident you may think a lawsuit is the best means of achieving justice and receiving just compensation. Don’t be shocked to hear this from a lawyer, but there may be some compelling reasons NOT to bring a lawsuit.

I’ve been receiving the New York Injury Times online newsletter by Gerald M. Oginski, an experienced accident attorney practicing in the New York City area. Gerald has some great advice and he’s given his permission for me to repost a recent article from Gerald Oginski’s Blog. Be sure to visit www.oginski-law.com to read more of Gerald’s excellent advice on the topic or to request a copy of his book, “Secrets of a New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer.”

‘7 Reasons You May Not Want to Sue’

- by Gerald M. Oginski (originally posted at www.oginski-law.com)

If you were involved in a car accident, there’s an excellent chance that you would bring a lawsuit against the driver of the car that hit you. In this article, I explain 7 reasons why you may not want to bring a lawsuit if you were involved in a car accident:

1. You were not injured. You’d think this was self-explanatory, but it’s not. There are two types of claims you can bring in an auto accident. The first is a property damage claim for the damage to your car. The second is a personal injury claim which would be for the physical injuries you suffered, the medical expenses, your past and future pain and suffering, as well as lost wages and potential lost future wages.

2. Your friends will think you are greedy. Some people feel that the only reason to bring a lawsuit is because you are looking to “make money” off the system, and why not? It’s only the insurance company’s money. Other people don’t look at their injuries as a way to make money. They’d rather go to work and earn money the old-fashioned way by working for their income.

During a trial, a good trial lawyer can make the following argument when asking a jury to understand what his client went through and why he’s entitled to compensation:

Let’s suppose that this morning Mr. Jones put an ad in the newspaper and said he’d give away one million dollars, for free! Just show up at his door, and the first one there will get it. No questions asked. How many people do you think would sprint out their door and race to be the first one in line? Thousands of people would try. But …what if you placed certain conditions on getting that $1,000,000 dollars?

Let’s say now that the ad said that in order to get that one million dollars you had to be involved in a horrific head-on collision that ejected you from the car and you landed 30 feet from the car. How many people do you think would still be waiting on that line? A lot less than started. But what if the ad went further, and said that before you could get that money, you not only had to be involved in this terrible car accident, but you had to have suffered a fractured pelvis, shattered both of your femurs (the largest bone in your body – they’re the thigh bones) had to be placed on a respirator for 20 days, intentionally put into a medically-induced coma for 10 days, and had major reconstructive surgery to fix the broken bones. How many people do you think would still be standing on that line? Not very many, but maybe one or two very desperate souls.

What if we added a few more conditions on to that advertisement, so that in order to get that “free” million dollars, you had to learn how to walk all over again, you had to spend three months in a rehabilitation center, and had to have two more surgeries to fix complications and infections that happened from the original surgery. Then on top of that, explain that their daily activities would have to be forever changed and they could not play sports, run, jog, ski, play basketball, football and everything they liked to do before the accident. How many people do you think would still be standing at the door seeking that “free” million dollars? Nobody.

That’s what a good trial attorney tries to explain to a jury in a significant accident case. The money will help pay for medical bills and modifications to their home to ambulate. It will provide a safety net for the injured victim and their family. Anyone who thinks a seriously injured car accident victim is suing because they’re greedy should read this article. In addition, they should spend at least one day in a victim’s home watching them struggle with daily activities such as tying their shoes or buttoning their shirt. Only by showing someone the tremendous hardships you face will they realize how important it is to obtain full compensation for your injuries.

3. What good will the money do you? This is a famous defense attorney line. This is used during negotiations, and also used during summations. “Plaintiff’s attorney is asking for millions for his client. Think about this … what good will the money do him? He can’t use it. His medical expenses … sure, give it to him, he deserves it. But the millions he’s asking for? No way. His injuries prevent him from going out and spending such huge exorbitant amounts of money.

The reply to this argument is not what you think. As much as you’d like to shake some sense into the defense lawyer, this is a better approach. “Look, your client created the problems that my client suffered. He didn’t do anything to create this accident or his injuries that stem from this accident. My client has incurred medical expenses in the thousands of dollars. Who is going to pay for those expenses? Should he, or his insurance company, have to foot the bill for your client’s wrongdoing? I don’t think so. That only covers his medical expenses in the past. What about future medical expenses that he’s sure to have? You’ve got to cover that as well.

This doesn’t even begin to address the compensation that he’s entitled to for the suffering he’s endured from the time of the accident until today. Don’t forget about the future suffering he’ll have from his injuries and medical care he’s going to need to treat his ongoing problems. This is known as past and future pain and suffering. Thankfully for injured victims in New York, there is no cap on pain and suffering awards.

To answer the question above … it will do a lot for the injured victim and their family.

4. You don’t know a good New York lawyer anyway. If you don’t know a good lawyer, you should keep looking. There are many ways to find a good attorney. Importantly, you want an attorney who has handled many cases just like yours. You want someone with experience. The question of whether you want a big New York City firm, a small firm, or even a solo practitioner is simply a matter of personal preference. Keep in mind that whomever you choose, you must feel comfortable with him or her. Always ask, “Who is going to be handling your case day to day?” “Who will be appearing on your conferences with the Court?” “Who will appear at your deposition, and the depositions of the people you have sued?” “Who will be trying my case if it goes to trial?”

If you don’t mind many different attorneys handling different parts of your case, then you should have no problem going to a large firm.  If you want the same attorney to handle your case from beginning to end, you may want a small firm or experienced solo practitioner.

5. The chances of you recovering money are not good unless you have a significant injury. That may be true. If you have a minor injury, then your compensation will likely be minimal. If your injuries are significant, the compensation you may be entitled to may also be significant. Each case will differ. The answer also depends on where your case is venued – that is, which court it’s in. Is it in the Bronx or Brooklyn? Or is it in Westchester or upstate Albany?

If you don’t have any injury, or the injury was minimal, your case may be dismissed without ever getting to trial. Your injuries may not meet the “threshold” that is needed to continue your case. There are specific guidelines relating to the type of injury you must have to bring a case in the Supreme Court of the State of New York – which by the way, is the trial-level court.

6. The driver of the car that hit you will not like you if you sue him. My response is “So what?” Why would you care about what the other driver thought? You shouldn’t. The other driver was careless and his carelessness caused you permanent injury. If you want to live your life worried about what other people think, then you should re-think what you do on a daily basis.

A decision to sue someone isn’t about whether you’re popular or whether someone will or will not like you. It’s about your fundamental right to be repaid something that is owed to you. When a wrongdoer causes harm, he becomes obligated to pay you for your harm and the disability that he has caused. That’s an obligation we as a society recognize, not just in New York, but throughout the United States.

7. Your picture might appear in the newspaper. In most accident cases in New York your picture will not appear in the newspaper. Most cases are not deemed “newsworthy” by the local newspapers. They’re a common occurrence and unless it’s an extremely slow news day, or there’s something unusual about your particular case, it is unlikely your picture or your case will get any mention in the newspapers.

Conclusion

After reading this article you should have a better understanding of whether you should or should not bring a lawsuit if you’ve been injured in a car accident in the State of New York.

Thanks for reading, and thanks to Gerald for allowing the NY Injury Law Blog to post his advice!

- Jim
_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
Personal Injury & Malpractice Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Tel. (607) 733-8866 Fax. (607) 732-6062
Toll Free 1-800-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com http://www.zifflaw.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• NEW YORK CAR ACCIDENTS-Do You Even Need An Attorney? (medicalmalpracticetutorial.com)
• Six Mistakes That Could Ruin Your Accident Case (zifflaw.com)

Utica’s Observer-Dispatch newspaper recently posted a Guest View column titled “Tort Reform: Make Negligence Behavior Focus.”

I wholeheartedly agree with this Guest View. Rather than blaming the lawyers for the fictitious “lawsuit crisis,” why don’t we blame the true culprit — the parties responsible for injuring innocent people.

The doctors and hospitals that commit malpractice injuring more than 98,000 people a year…

The nursing homes who neglect their elderly patients…

The drunk drivers who maim and kill hundreds of thousands people each year…

You get the picture. I’ve reposted a copy of the column below:

“Tort Reform: Make Negligence Behavior Focus”

(Observer-Dispatch, Utica, 12/13/09)

In Washington, President Obama has said he would be open to suggestions about constraining lawsuits by victims of medical malpractice – and insurance companies and medical organizations are making their case.

In Albany, buttressed by so-called “research,” business advocates are launching their own campaign to insulate negligent entities from having to compensate those they injure.

Lawyers and lawsuits have been attacked politically for years, but in reality, civil lawsuits shine a spotlight on wrongdoing, call the offenders to account, deter future misbehavior and provide justice for people who have been hurt.

Repeated studies have shown that approximately 100,000 people die each year due to medical malpractice in our nation’s hospitals. These are not simply bad outcomes that were unavoidable; they are instances where physicians or hospitals failed to meet the normal standard of care – where other physicians deemed the damage done to have been avoidable.

If a hospital, for example, allows an expectant mother to lie in one of its labor rooms, fails to notice for several hours that the fetal monitor shows the fetus in distress, and the child is born severely brain damaged, should that institution be protected from a lawsuit? How is that family going to pay for a lifetime of care for their child? What incentive is that hospital going to have to correct its procedures to prevent such an incident from ever happening again?

State authorities normally don’t have the power to impose more than minor sanctions in cases like this. The one avenue that leads to a fair outcome is a lawsuit. That family should not be told there is an arbitrary cap on the amount of damages they can receive. They should have the right to have their case heard and decided by a judge and jury in an open courtroom.

This is not a new debate. No one likes to be sued and companies, hospitals and insurers have argued for years that lawsuits should be curbed. They point to a few cases where courts awarded large sums to injured parties. But they ignore some key facts:

The “lawsuit explosion” is a myth. In fact, the opposite is true. The number of tort filings in New York state actually decreased by 30 percent from 1998 to 2008. The total number of tort cases filed was down from 81,952 to 57,023.

These cases often take years to come to a conclusion. Lawyers working for contingency fees don’t get paid unless they win. It would be ludicrous for someone in that position to file a frivolous lawsuit.

There are checks and balances in the system. If someone files a frivolous lawsuit, a judge can sanction the lawyer for doing so and dismiss the case. If a jury awards too large an amount, a judge can reduce it. If the losing side disagrees with the result, they can appeal.

It’s easy to see the benefits to the individuals involved and to our society of these lawsuits.

Companies that have polluted the environment have been deterred by members of communities who have filed lawsuits. Automakers that have sold unsafe cars have been deterred by lawsuits. Manufacturers of items ranging from garage door openers to children’s toys have adhered to higher safety standards after lawsuits showed their products to be defective.

Usually, the people who bring these lawsuits are not people of means. They have no way of fighting back except through our court system. And without lawyers who were willing to work on a contingency fee basis, they would never be able to sustain an action against these deep-pocketed entities.

Anyone who wants to reduce the number of lawsuits should focus on reducing the type of negligent behavior that harms people and causes them to sue. Ignoring the underlying causes and simply blaming the victims and their lawyers for suing undermines an important safeguard that our civil justice system provides to all our citizens.

- Michael E. Getnick, a founding member of the Utica law firm Getnick Livingston Atkinson & Priore LLP, is president of the New York State Bar Association.

Thanks for reading,

Jim

_________________________________
James B. Reed
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
Mailto: jreed@zifflaw.com
Office: (607)733-8866
Toll-Free: 800-ZIFFLAW (943-3529)
Web: www.zifflaw.com

Blogs: NYInjuryLawBlog.com and NYBikeAccidentBlog.com

For the past two years I have been litigating a medical malpractice case involving a woman who was catastrophically injured at a hospital in Northern Pennsylvania when her surgeon cut the wrong part of her anatomy during a routine procedure.  The case is seated in Federal Court in the Western District of New York because the woman is a resident of New York and the hospital is located in Pennsylvania.  Under the rules governing diversity jurisdiction — a situation where the parties reside or are domiciled in different states — the Federal Court is required to apply Pennsylvania law to the action.

The case is still being litigated, and therefore I will not divulge the details of the woman’s injuries or how the injury occurred.  In fact, the interesting part of the case for now does not involve the malpractice itself, but rather the defendants’ primary defense to it.

Throughout the litigation the defendants have relied upon a principle called the “Error in Judgment” rule.  Under this principle, a surgeon could be excused for his negligence by claiming that although in retrospect it appears he made errors during a procedure, he used his best judgment at the time and therefore did not violate the standard of care.  The main problem with the defense for injured people is that it theoretically excuses medical providers for all but intentional conduct, leaving plaintiffs with little recourse.

However, it appears the days when a surgeon can argue “I thought I did it right at the time and therefore am not to blame” are over, at least in Pennsylvania.  In August, Pennsylvania’s Superior Court handed down a ruling in Pringle v. Rapaport, 2009 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3267 (2009) where it held the “Error in Judgment” is inconstant with Pennsylvania law.

Pringle is a medical malpractice case involving a child who suffered extensive nerve damage in his neck as a result of shoulder dystocia, a condition in which an infant’s shoulder is stuck behind his mother’s pubic bone at the time of delivery.  The child’s parents sued the delivery physician, claiming the physician negligently executed a maneuver (the “corkscrew maneuver”) to dislodge the child’s shoulder, resulting in injury.  The parties agreed the physician correctly diagnosed the child with shoulder dystocia and appropriately chose to administer the corkscrew maneuver.  The only remaining issue was whether the physician properly executed the maneuver.  At trial, the Court instructed the jury, inter alia, physicians “are not liable for a mere mistake in judgment”.  Id. at 1-4.

On appeal, the Superior Court – after addressing several seminal Pennsylvania cases dealing with the “Error in Judgment” charge – held the question of whether a physician exercised sound judgment is not relevant to whether the surgeon committed malpractice.  Id. at 40-42.  Indeed, the Court further reasoned the “Error of Judgment” charge “is inherently confusing and has no place in medical malpractice cases” for at least two reasons:

• “[I]t wrongly suggests to the jury that a physician is not culpable for one type of negligence – the negligent exercise of his or her own judgment”; and

• “[I]t wrongly injects a subjective element into the jury’s deliberations”…and may lead the jury “to conclude that only judgments made in bad faith are culpable – even though a doctor’s subjective intentions while rendering treatment are likewise irrelevant to the issues placed before a jury in a medical malpractice action.”

This is very good news for people who suffer injuries due to medical malpractice in Pennsylvania, and will hopefully result in greater safety and caution in hospitals.

Thanks for reading!

Christina Bruner Sonsire, Esq.

At long, long, last. A new documentary may reveal the TRUTH about a tragic case. One personal injury case in the early ’90s has been held up as the epitome of a “frivolous” lawsuit. In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck was severely burned by spilling a cup of McDonald’s coffee onto her lap.

After a long struggle with the McDonald’s legal forces, Stella was awarded $2.9 million in damages by a New Mexico jury. The story became a national lightning rod for controversy over personal responsibility and bogus litigation. Poor injured Stella was lampooned for stupidity, clumsiness and greed. The term “Stella Award” was even coined to refer to any lawsuit or victim award viewed as preposterous.

New documentary presents radically different view of coffee case

“Hot Coffee,” slated to be released in 2011 according to IMDB.com, returns to the principals in the case to find out the REAL details. In many of the most important, basic details, Stella’s hot coffee case was very different from what was reported in the media.

One thing that is mentioned in the trailer (check it out above) that is not usually emphasized is the fact that the courts drastically reduced the jury’s verdict. Despite that reduction, the tort reformers NEVER mention that fact and ALWAYS refer to this as the multi-million dollar McDonald’s case! Very dishonest.

Also in the brief trailer you can see participants reflecting on the case and the amount of disinformation that was spread. The reason, suggested by some experts: McDonald’s objective to embarrass Stella Liebeck, ridicule her legitimate claim and foster a public climate in which injured claimants were reluctant to press for justice.

Thanks to the filmmakers for all their hard work on this important story. Hopefully it will change the reigning public opinion about Stella Liebeck’s intentions and claims.

Thanks for reading,

Jim
________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
Personal Injury & Malpractice Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Tel. (607) 733-8866 Fax. (607) 732-6062
Toll Free 1-800-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com http://www.zifflaw.com

I have written before on the NY Injury Law Blog about the dangers of giving away your privacy online with social media. Sloppy postings on Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and other social sites can easily undermine personal injury cases – and believe me, insurance companies are well versed in any techniques to weaken plaintiffs’ cases.

The following guest post from Virginia injury lawyer Ben Glass provides a very clear outlines of the Do’s and Don’ts of using social media for people who want to protect their privacy and their personal injury cases. I’m reprinting it here with Ben’s permission. Here is Ben’s Guest Post:

Warning for Clients About Social Media

FACT – While initially people were quite guarded about what photos they posted online and who has access to them, people are gradually becoming more exhibitionist. Your friends may have photos of you, that can be searched by your name, on their pages. In other words, your own privacy settings cannot protect you entirely.

FACT – The courts have ordered injured plaintiffs to produce their Facebook pages to the insurance company lawyers.

FACT – Evidence from Facebook has been admitted in Ontario Courts and is used by the police and the traditional media.

FACT – Every insurance defense lawyer has a law clerk on Facebook who is looking for their opponents’ pages, profiles and pictures on Facebook.

So, does that mean you have to withdraw from the 21st century and avoid social media? As your lawyer, I would like to say, well, yes. Avoid it like the plague. However, as a human being, I recognize that may not be possible. So, what steps can you take to protect yourself?

Step One: Take a critical eye to your social media sites to see if there is anything you would not want the insurance company lawyer to see. Remember that the insurance company will not know the context of your photos or comments. They won’t know if you swallowed a bottle of pain killers to get through that party.

Step Two: Check your privacy settings. Most sites allow you to block certain people altogether from seeing that you even are on the site. Block the opposing lawyer and his/her clerk. Keep in mind, however, that there will be law students and others whose names you won’t know, so this is not foolproof.

Step Three: Search your name in the search field to see what comes up and make sure it is acceptable.

Step Four: While you are at it, do the same thing on Google and You Tube. Make whatever adjustments are necessary.

Step Five: Don’t accept friend requests or answer emails through social media from people you do now know. On Facebook, if you send a message, you grant the receiver access to your profile for a certain number of days. That is a common device to get access to your profile. Keep in mind that because of the lawsuit process, the opposing legal team knows a lot about you and could send you an email that might make you think you know each other.

If you are in doubt about whether or not your pages are acceptable, speak to your personal injury lawyer about it.

- Ben Glass, Virginia personal injury lawyer. Check out Ben’s website, BenGlassLaw.com, for more of his advice about personal injury law and protecting your case.

Thanks for reading,

Jim
_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
Personal Injury & Malpractice Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Tel. (607) 733-8866 Fax. (607) 732-6062
Toll Free 1-800-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com http://www.zifflaw.com

An unfortunate local story points out a big problem with newspapers’ transformation into online information centers with 24/7 commentary from anyone with free time.

Journalists are compelled by the law, ethics – and job security- to supply correct information to the public – and their names are on the stories they write. The public isn’t under the same obligations, and has the anonymity of user names. Malicious, even just careless remarks can be attached to news stories, to linger on the Web indefinitely.

The local story I referred is that of a teenage employee at the Corning YMCA falsely blamed for an awful crime on a newspaper’s website – not by the newspaper or the police, but by a citizen commentator. WETM published the tale online with the title “YMCA Employee Wrongly Named” (Meagan Kolkmann, 8/13).

The teen was falsely named as the employee arrested last week for having pornographic photos of children supervised at the YMCA.

The actual 18-year-old perpetrator, also accused of sexually assaulting a 2-year-old girl he was related to, was arrested and charged (though he’s currently out on bail).

The Corning YMCA sent a letter to parents after the false online accusation. The letter stressed three key points:

• The YMCA plans to review its employee screening process and supervision guidelines for the Child Watch program and the entire organization.

• YMCA employees are “shocked and saddened” by the betrayal of trust by the guilty employee.

• The teenager falsely named had nothing to do with the crime. J.D. Young, president of the YMCA board and the letter’s author, calls him a “dedicated employee and a great human being.”

Whoever wrongly pointed the finger at the poor kid may be facing a big lawsuit. Online, lies can spread quickly and be promulgated by people who don’t think it matters if they don’t have all the facts. A well-publicized lawsuit might make them think differently.

Thanks for reading,
Jim
_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
New York Accident Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Tel. (607) 733-8866 Fax. (607) 732-6062
Toll Free 1-800-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com http://www.zifflaw.com

You are not going to believe this video! I was alerted to it by a post on attorney Eric Turkewitz’s blog. Eric practices personal injury law in New York City, but “Minivan Mom Tasered in Syracuse” hits close to home here.

Apparently Syracuse mom Audra Harmon, a school bus driver and mother of three, was pulled over by Deputy Sean Andrews in January for talking on her cell phone. Except she wasn’t. And that’s provable with the cell phone records – so I think at that point the deputy was stuck.

Deputy Andrews changed the charge to speeding – 50 in a 45 mph zone. Harmon argued the charge (as a school bus driver, she’s likely to know and obey speed limits). She got out of the car to see the radar recording – Andrews ordered her back in the car, then decided to declare her under arrest and demanded she get out of the car. When Harmon resisted getting out again (she was frightened at that point) he forced her out and Tasered her – twice.

There is no way this cop was under any threat of harm from this mom and it’s clear that he Tased her only because she was asking him some questions he did not want to answer.

A Taser is a dangerous and potentially fatal weapon (over 200 people have been killed by Tasers). Its use should be reserved for those times when it is necessary to protect the officer or a third party. In this case it was a dangerous tool in the hands of somebody without the judgment or temperment to handle it.

You can watch what happened in the video here:

The video is courtesy of the Syracuse Post-Standard. The newspaper’s story “Mom in minivan tasered twice in Salina traffic stop; camera captures deputy’s rough roadside arrest,” (O’Brien, 8/13) was originally printed on Aug. 13. That was also the day Harmon planned to file lawsuit against the police department over the incident, she told the Post-Standard.

I have a high degree of respect for most police officers, but sadly there are a few rotten apples who spoil the entire bushel. The Post-Standard also reported that Deputy Andrews, at first just taken off road duty, has recently been suspended without pay (“Deputy in Tasered mom case is suspended without pay” (O’Brien, 8/19)

Thanks for reading,
Jim
_________________________________________
James B. Reed, Esq.
New York Accident Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14902
Tel. (607) 733-8866 Fax. (607) 732-6062
Toll Free 1-800-943-3529
mailto:jreed@zifflaw.com http://www.zifflaw.com

For all of us who have teenage drivers in the house, I just read a great post by NY Insurance coverage expert Roy Mura entitled: Suing the Kid for Crashing the Car Into the Garage. I strongly urge you to read Roy’s full post but the highlights are below:

Roy was asked: Can an unemancipated child be held “legally responsible” to a parent for crashing mom’s car into the garage?

He answered: In New York, the answer is yes. In 1969, in the case of Gelbman v. Gelbman, the New York Court of Appeals abolished the intrafamily immunity doctrine and permitted a mother to sue her unemancipated minor son for injuries she had sustained in an auto accident while riding as a passenger in a car her son was driving. Gelbman remains “good law” in New York.

But then Roy went on to ask the really relevant and practical question: Is there insurance coverage for the kid crashing the car into the garage?

Roy answered by saying that there probably is coverage for damage to the garage (but not its contents) under a homeowner’s policy and “there would also be liability coverage favoring the child under a personal auto policy that provides coverage for “damages for … ‘property damage’ for which any ‘insured’ becomes legally responsible because of an auto accident.”

Roy’s parting tongue-in-cheek comment is that while you might be able to successfully sue your kid for wrecking your car and your garage, and even though there might be insurance coverage to cover it, you might face non-renewal of your insurance coverage when your policy is up for renewal. That certainly is food for thought…

Thanks for reading, Jim
______________________________

James B. Reed, Esq.
Personal Injury & Malpractice Attorney
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William St., Elmira, NY 14901
Tel: (607) 733-8866
Fax: (607) 732-6062
Toll Free: 1-800-943-3529
Email: jreed@zifflaw.com
Web: http://www.zifflaw.com

Please visit the New York Injury Law Blog at: http://www.NYInjuryLawBlog.com

Email me at FreeReports@zifflaw.com for two free books:
NY Car Accidents and NY Car Insurance Secrets YOU Need to Know.