Orlando Personal Injury Lawyer - Wrongful Death - Most Commented

Protecting Your College-Student from Alcohol

Mark Willingham — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:50:45 GMT

We tell our college-bound (or college attending) children to be careful. We tell them not to drink. We may even tell them that if they must drink, always ride with a designated driver. Yet, 1,700 of our sons and daughters die each year and another 600,000 are seriously injured in alcohol – related incidents at college. Many of our children are the victim of sexual assaults and more still suffer academically as alcohol consumption interferes with their studies.

Is this the preverbal right of passage? Is this the experiential transition to adulthood that college students see as their birthright? More importantly, are the resulting alcohol related deaths, injuries, assaults, unprotected sex after drinking, and impaired driving crashes that come from youthful alcohol abuse part of the college experience you envisioned for your son or daughter? As the father of two children who managed to survive their college experience, I am sure it is not.

What can you do to help your children survive their college experience? Of course, you can provide them with guidance and “pearls of wisdom.” Parents can have a significant impact on their children’s drinking by setting expectations and reminding them on a regular basis of those expectations. Too often, however, college students fail to heed their parent’s advice. After all, they believe they are 10 feet tall and bulletproof. Unprecedented freedom and unlimited drinking opportunities are often temptations too great to ignore. Another alternative is to help ensure that their environment is as safe as possible.

Many universities, including public universities across the country, have bars on campus. This seems counter-intuitive when the majority of students attending the university are under the age of 21 and when few students over the age of 21 live on-campus. Logic suggests that at least some of these bars may rely on underage students to help pay the bills. What can you do to reduce the risk these bars present to your son or daughter? You can ensure that these businesses run properly. A bar on campus has an even greater obligation to prevent the sale to and consumption of alcohol by persons under the age of 21 because of the enhanced risk of underage sales caused by their proximity to underage students. Ask the university administrators to outline the responsible retailing practices utilized in these businesses. Make certain that on-campus establishments utilize effective alcohol service policies, practices, employee training, and management systems to prevent the sale and service of alcohol to minors.

Look at the advertisements posted on the bulletin boards, the walls of campus buildings, and on the columns of the colonnade. You may be surprised to see that on many campuses, almost all of these advertisements are for local bars. These bars are advertising in an environment where the vast majority of their target audience is not legally entitled to purchase their product. Advertisements such as these not only encourage underage drinking by offering all-you can-drink, drink-till-you-drop, free drinks for females, and low price drink specials, they also set a pro-drinking tone on campus. Encourage university administrators to restrict advertisements for bars and to restrict ads featuring all you can drink, gender based, and other “specials” designed to encourage over-consumption. University officials have the right to limit advertisements placed on their campuses. Remind them that consumer protection laws are available to restrict advertisements directly primarily at an audience that is precluded by law from purchasing the product.

On most campuses, local bars run shuttles to and from the campus to pick up students wishing to visit their establishments even though the vast majority of on-campus residents are under 21. Encourage university administrators to limit this practice. Party busses trolling through campus creates an unreasonable inducement to drink. Motivate the university to interact with the bars surrounding campus to implement responsible drinking practices. University officials can provide training resources and encouragement to establish safe alcohol service policies and practices in these establishments, which will prevent underage and youthful abusive drinking. For example, university administrators can reduce dangerous drinking practices in off-campus establishments such as the service of twenty-one shots on a student’s twenty-first birthday and drinking games like the ubiquitous beer-pong by working with off-campus bars to encourage acceptable practices. University officials can also utilize community and legal pressure when encouragement fails.

On average, 75 young men lose their life in alcohol – related fraternity hazing or initiation incidents each year. Others die from non-hazing alcohol-related activities. While fewer young women die while engaged in sorority focused alcohol-related activities, many die nonetheless. Members who are over 21 rarely live in the house and occupy positions of leadership. As a result, underage chapter members are left in charge of regulating the alcohol consumption of fellow underage members and pledges. The university’s interfraternity council office can tell you which fraternity or sorority has received alcohol use violations. This information can help you and your son or daughter make pledging decisions. Encourage university officials to require that each house have a house father or mother who will be present at all social events. Contact the fraternity or sorority’s headquarters and insist that national representatives visit the house on a regular basis enforcing fraternity or sorority alcohol policy.

Finally, insist that university officials promote alcohol-free sporting events. These range from prohibitions on alcohol advertising in and around sports stadiums to prohibiting the distribution of free alcoholic beverage samples to students at the event. Encourage the university to assign police resources to pre-game tailgating to prevent underage and youthful abusive drinking. Suggest the university breath test students under the age of 21 and those who have been ejected previously for alcohol offenses before allowing them into the stadium as the University of Minnesota does. Encourage students to come to the games sober. They will have a better time and will be safer at the game and afterwards.

Most university administrators understand the physical, emotional, and intellectual harm that comes from underage and youthful abusive drinking and want to reduce its impact in their communities. Your encouragement is often all they need to move forward with effective policies and restrictions.

Maj. Mark Willingham, www.alcoholsolutions.org

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark Willingham

Dram Shop Laws - Effective Elements for Reponsible Alcohol Retailing

Mark Willingham — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:08:37 GMT

A foreseeable and preventable tragedy unfolds several times a day somewhere in the United States. Over fifteen thousand people are killed and thousands more are seriously injured in impaired driving crashes in the United Sates each year. Even more shocking is that half of these deaths and injuries can be attributed to drivers who were coming directly from a beverage license premises where they were over-served or allowed to over-consume alcohol.

Beverage alcohol is the only universally available consumer product that has the capacity to cause changes in the consumer’s emotional state, his or her cognitive ability, gross and fine motor skills, and can diminish the drinker’s ability to make rational decisions. Beverage alcohol is widely sold and consumed in businesses that are primarily accessible through the use of personally operated vehicles creating a reasonable expectation that many customers will also drive those vehicles away from the bar or restaurant. Many will be under the influence of the intoxicating effect of the product and unable to safely operate those vehicles. At least 80 million trips are made annually in the United Sates by drivers with a BAC over .08.

The business model under which the alcoholic beverage industry operates can be antithetical to the elements of responsible retailing. In many cases tips; a significant part of servers’ income, come from “good service” which often equates to heavy pours of alcohol, frequent replenishment, and a wink and a nod at increasing intoxication levels. Beverage retailers often utilize questionable promotions, two for one or all you can drink specials, for example, to gain a competitive advantage or to maintain marketing parity with other retailers. The choices bar owners and bartenders make in over-serving their guests often eliminate the choices their guests might have in moderating their drinking behavior.

The decision to have the first, second or perhaps the third drink rests solely with the drinker. At a certain point, however, the drinker loses his or her ability to make rational decisions about further alcohol consumption. The drinker’s ability to engage in appropriate behavior and make rational decisions is diminished. It is a truism worthy of a scientific designation; the more alcohol one consumes, the lower one’s ability to assess their own intoxication and assess their own ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. This most certainly creates a “Catch 22” logic model in which the person the retailer often believes responsible for determining whether their faculties are impaired becomes more and more impaired with each drink the retailer serves.

A beverage license is a privilege issued by the government. Its issue and retention is conditioned on the licensee’s agreement to act in the public’s interest. Responsible retailers provide an inviting and enjoyable hospitality experience with alcohol service as an adjunct to that experience. A responsible retailer’s obligation under that mantle is to prevent patron intoxication. Unfortunately, not all beverage retailers act in a responsible manner. Not all beverage retailers serve alcoholic beverages with the goal of providing hospitality while preventing patron intoxication.

Laws exist in every state except Florida and Nevada that place criminal and/or administrative responsibility on the bar or the bartender/server to monitor the behavior of the drinker and their consumption of alcohol. Once a drinker reaches the point where he or she reaches various levels of intoxication, and therefore, loses the ability to make rational decisions, responsibility for insuring the drinker’s safety and those the drinker may harm, shifts to the retailer through criminal and/or administrative prohibitions.

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have determined that their public policy interests are better served by placing some responsibility for over-service or over-consumption on the alcohol server or the licensee through the civil justice system. These dram shop laws provide a plaintiff legal standing to bring an action against a tort feasor for an alcohol related injury or death. Most instances that bring rise to a civil dram shop lawsuit stem from a traffic crash. Other causes of action, however, relate to homicide, sexual assault, and other incidents where the intoxicated patron loses the ability of self-regulation.

Standards for dram shop lawsuits vary widely among states. Those standards include prohibitions of service to intoxicated, visibly intoxicated or obviously intoxicated patrons or when it should have been known that the patron was intoxicated. One state prohibits service to a drunken person in a criminally negligent manner. Another allows a civil action when the service was to a person clearly intoxicated. Several states require proof that the alcohol service was done in a reckless manner or that the alcohol was provided with reckless disregard to the rights of others. Other states require proof that the patron was intoxicated to the extent he or she presented a clear and present danger to self or other. Florida allows a dram shop action only when the alcohol service was to someone habitually addicted to alcohol. This standard is particularly difficult because alcoholics do not carry or present identification cards identifying them as such and rarely make self-admissions to bartenders.

The phase dram shop is based on a unit of measure popular in Victorian times; approximately 1/8^th of an ounce in our vernacular, and has become synonymous with a prohibition on the over-service of beverage alcohol to a patron or guest. The principal purpose of dram shop laws is to protect the public; and even the drinker himself, from the over-service or over-consumption of beverage alcohol and from the service of alcohol to persons under 21 years of age. This law calls upon beverage licensees and their employees to play a significant role in the enforcement of this important public policy. No other business type comes to mind where the holder of a government license; by acceptance of that license, is required to act as an agent of the state in taking affirmative action to monitor and intercede in the behavior of a citizen/business invitee.

Responsible retailing involves the development and implementation of effective alcohol service policies, practices, employee training and management systems. These elements are the keys to responsible retailing and the prevention of acts and situations leading to a dram shop lawsuit. Conversely, irresponsible beverage retailers do not employ these elements or they have developed ineffective policies, practices, training and management systems that fall below a reasonable standard of care.

Dram shop cases involve an examination of two elements; the fact situation involving the alleged service to an intoxicated patron or service to a minor and an examination of the premise’s alcohol service practices, polices, training and management systems, which allowed the beverage service to occur. In fact, findings related to the insufficiency of practices, policies, training and management also serve as the basis for punitive damages in many states. Beverage retailers simply cannot ignore the dangerous nature of these products and sell them as those the danger did not exist.

Examination of the fact situation can demonstrate that the retailer served an intoxicated patron. The drinker’s self-admission and/or witnesses describing the condition of the patron at the time of alcohol service can be illustrative. Over-service of alcoholic beverages can also be determined through receipts, credit card charge slips and extrapolation of the drinker’s BAC based on his or her personal characteristics such as gender, weight, and the elapsed time. Elapsed time can be determined through witnesses, charge slips, crash reports, and even triangulation of the drinker's cell phone position.

Examination of the business policies, practices, employee training and management systems can support the testimony of the fact witnesses. It can also illustrate the businesses’ alcohol service pattern and practice serving to support a finding of benign neglect or intent. This examination can be done through an assessment of written policies and training curriculum, through depositions of current and past employees, and through observations of current business practices.

Beverage retailers should have written policies that address, at a minimum, the prevention of the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21, including an apparent age that triggers an ID request, acceptable forms of identification, and how to properly examine and verify an ID; and policies to prevent over-service and service to an intoxicated patron including identification of an intoxicated patron, identification of a patron habitually addicted to alcohol, discontinuance of alcohol service and the provision of alternate transportation. When a beverage retailer does not have written policies, application of responsible retailing practices will be inconsistent and will be subject to the interpretation of the individual employees. Servers and bartenders will have no point of consistent reference guiding their actions and behavior. In fact, their interpretation may even vary from day to day without the consistency provided by a written policy. The lack of written policies also limits the licensee's ability to provide effective and consistent oversight and employee training.

The business practices of bars and restaurants should be designed to mitigate the risks presented by the business model, clientele, location, and environment. Beverage licensees have an obligation to prevent law violations regardless of the size of their establishment or their success. For example, happy hour and other gender, price, time, or quantity based drink specials and promotions are legal, however, they contribute significantly to the probability of patron over-service and service to minors. The court will look at these practices to determine if the beverage retailer appropriately scaled their intervention and prevention practices in response to the risks at their business. While many beverage retailers will seek to explain that they were unable to adequately control consumption by minors or over-consumption in their establishment because they had 1000 patrons going to 5 internal bars, dram shop liability does not diminish simply because the business is financially successful. Responsible retailing practices are scalable to meet the risks, if the retailer chooses to utilize them.

A responsible retailer will provide appropriate training to his or her employees and will ensure that the employees understand what is being taught and can apply the information. Training is not a one-time practice. It is unreasonable for a beverage retailer to believe that an hour or two of instruction on responsible retailing practices on the employee’s first day will serve that employee well for the next 5 or 10 years. Training must be ongoing. At the very least, beverage retailers should provide a structured training program to employees two or three times a year and provide mini-courses or shift reminders on a daily basis.

It is critical that bartenders and servers be trained using objective standards to determine if a patron exhibiting signs of intoxication. Beverage retailers will instruct their bartenders and servers not to serve alcohol to an intoxicated patron and then provide the server with outrageous examples of behavior to use as a guide, behaviors that would only emerge when a person’s BAC was already twice the legal limit. Even when the retailer tells the server to watch what they serve the patrons, the licensee will not provide the employees with BAC calculators or BAC charts or even information about standard drink units to help the bartender or server determine the maximum amount of alcohol that could be safely served to that employee in a given period.

Training should include role-play exercises so that servers and bartenders become accustomed to interacting with patrons and asking questions to help them determine whether the patron is of legal age or becoming intoxicated. Unfortunately, many bars and restaurants, including national casual dining chains, invest extensive resources and time in training their employees about menu items and the alcoholic beverages available for purchase and almost no time training a bartender or server to be a responsible alcohol server. Many retailers operate under the false economy that “telling” is easier and less expensive than training.

Management systems, may in fact be the most important aspect of responsible retailing. Without active and knowledgeable management, a beverage premises may be nothing more than a collection of independent contractors serving alcoholic beverages. Servers and bartenders stress those things they perceive to be important to management. If management believes that responsible retailing is important and continually stresses compliance with the law prohibiting service to a minor or service to an intoxicated patron, the servers will stress this as well through their actions. Conversely, if this is not important to management, it will not be important to the servers, regardless of potential criminal penalties.

How can the jury determine if a beverage licensee acted in good faith and exercised the appropriate standards of care to ensure safe service and consumption of alcohol? The jury will look at many issues concerning the operation of the business in making their determination. Did the business utilize appropriate policies, practices and training? Did the manager overrule a server’s assessment of intoxication and subsequently require the server to provide alcohol to intoxicated patrons? Did the manager downplay the importance of appropriate service standards? Did the business value repeat customer visits and high alcohol sales over responsible alcohol service?

The jury will look to see if the business attempted to comply with the law. Did the beverage licensee simply tell his or her employees not to violate the law or did they provide encouragement, knowledge, and tools to empower compliance? Did the beverage licensee provide BAC calculators to assist the bartenders and servers do their job? Did the beverage licensee or manager remind his or her employees what to look for to determine the subtle signs of intoxication before the person was a risk to themselves or others? Did the licensee employ mystery-shopping programs and video surveillance systems to ensure the bartenders and servers were not over-pouring alcohol, and were not ignoring signs of obvious and visible intoxication? These, and many more practices are indicative of responsible alcoholic beverage service.

Dram shop laws provide greater benefits than simply being the basis for civil lawsuits. Dram shop laws contribute to responsible retailing in a way that criminal and administrative penalties prohibiting over-serve and service to minors often cannot. It is an unfortunate fact that many beverage retailers look at misdemeanor criminal charges brought against their servers and administrative action brought against their alcoholic beverage license as a cost of doing business. To many, it is a cost benefit-risk analysis. In fact, these penalties are generally quite modest when they are actually imposed. Criminal and administrative laws against over-serving, when they even exist, are among the most disregarded laws in the country. Even though the bars and restaurants that over-serve and usher their intoxicated patrons out the door and into vehicles represent fewer than 10% of the beverage premises in any community, law enforcement and regulatory agencies either do not have the resources to adequately investigate and prevent these occurrences or do not give over-serving sufficient priority.

At least one large national beverage retailer has determined that their bottom line is better served by settling several wrongful death lawsuits per year rather than implementing effective alcohol policies and employee training which may offend some patrons and cause those patrons not to return. This bean-counter approach to the sale and service of alcoholic beverages is reminiscent of Ford Motor Co.'s decision to weigh the cost of correcting deficient fuel tanks in Ford Pintos against the cost of wrongful death lawsuits. Ford valued each potential death at $200,000 and determined that wrongful death settlements would cost less than investing $11 to correct the deficiency in each fuel tank. It is unfortunate that some members of the hospitality industry have the same perspective and value repeat and happy customers over responsible service practices.

Civil judgments can be significant and can cause change in the way in which alcoholic beverages are served both by the beverage retailer against whom the suit was filed and against other beverage retailers in the community. Their appreciation of the financial risk they face from engaging in irresponsible alcoholic beverage service, in many cases, will have an affect on the policies and practices they employ. The utilization of a civil dram shop law can significantly affect impaired driving crash deaths and injuries.

The use of dram shop laws and the civil justice system increases awareness of the negative consequences of over-service and over-consumption of alcohol because of the publicity that is generated about dram shop cases and their verdicts. Dram shop laws decrease excessive and illegal alcohol consumption by both adults and underage persons by reducing the incidence of lower-price drink promotions (like “happy hours”) which encourage excessive consumption in a limited amount of time and are attractive to underage drinkers. States with dram shop liability have more thorough checks of identification reducing the number of underage drinkers who are able to drink illegally in beverage-licensed premises.

Finally, dram shop laws do not decrease personal responsibility as more responsibility is shifted to beverage retailers. Creating a cause of action against an establishment that engages in over-service of alcohol does not mean that the individual is not also held responsible. Rather, punitive damages for both drinking drivers and serving establishments serve similar purposes – to show that penalties come with these actions and to cause the retailer and server to rethink their practices leading to over-service and over-consumption of alcohol.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark Willingham

NBC Settles "To Catch a Predator" Lawsuit

Diego Madrigal — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:45:31 GMT

NBC has settled a lawsuit filed by the family of a man who killed himself after being confronted regarding his illicit communications with what he believed to be underage boys. The deceased also happened to be a 5 term district attorney and respected prosecutor in Texas. According to court documents, when the man did not show up to meet with a decoy who he thought to be a 13 year old boy, Dateline's Chris Hansen and local authorities decided to go to the man's house. Hansen convinced the police chief to get arrest and search warrants from a judge before they traveled to the man's home an hour away. When they got to the man's home, he did not answer the door for conventional police so a SWAT team was called and entered the home an hour later. Hansen waited outside while his cameramen and SWAT team members entered. Upon arriving in the house the man appeared in a hallway, told the police he was not going to hurt anyone and then proceeded to shoot himself. An officer informed Hansen by saying "that should be good TV."

An episode of the show aired in February 2007 and dedicated approximately 1/3 of its coverage to the pursuit of the district attorney. In the segment, a police officer wonders aloud what could have been so bad on the man's computer that he had to commit suicide. The officer also stated that the deceased's secrets probably went much further than illicit internet chats with children.

The family then sued NBC for intentional infliction of emotional distress. After NBC's motion to dismiss was denied because the judge felt that a jury might find that NBC's actions met the standard for IIED, NBC and the man's family decided to settle and put the case behind them.

It seems NBC was worried that their acts might be viewed as egregious by a jury and that the jury might think they were trying to go to extremes for good ratings. Alternatively maybe the jury would have found that a pedophile must have been hiding something and that NBC did not do anything wrong by taping a normal law enforcement sting. What is your opinion? Should NBC had settled the case, or should they have tried to take it to trial in hopes of being fully exonerated?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Diego Madrigal

Florida Leads United States in Boating Accident Deaths

Ed Normand — Thu, 08 May 2008 12:56:30 GMT

According to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, Florida has the unhappy distinction of again leading the nation in boating deaths. Over last year accidental boating deaths in Florida increased by 10% in in 2007. Florida has now lead the nation in boating related fatalities 16 out of the last 20 years. Nationally there are over 8,000 boating accidents each year with around 800 deaths per year nationally caused by boating accidents.

There are many things that can be done to make boating safer. First and foremost of course is limit the alcohol consumption. Additionally a boater safety course should be taken by every boat operator. Just because you do not need a boating license to operate a boat does not mean you should not get proper instruction in the rules of the waterways and is safe boating. A good source of information on boating safety can be found at MYFWC.com, which has a section devoted to boating safety in Florida.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Chiquita Sued for Wrongful Death

Mike Damaso — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:18:18 GMT

According to a recent article in the press, Chiquita Brands International, Inc., is being sued for wrongful death in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuit accuses the company of contributing to the deaths of five U.S. missionaries through secretly financing rebel groups in Latin America. The lawsuit claims that Chiquita's protection payments to FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia) were a contributing factor in the deaths of five missionaries because they financed and provided logistical support to the left-wing group's operations when the missionaries were kidnapped and killed. According the the article, Chiquita has had a long and contentious history in Latin America going back to the 1950's when they were perceived to have too much influence over the banana republic. Additionally, the article reports that Chiquita has made similar payments to FARC's right-wing opposition, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia. Further, last year, Chiquita agreed to pay a $25 million fine to resolve charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice related to similar matters.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Damaso

Hit and Run Kills Teen and Injures Adult

Mike Damaso — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:26:45 GMT

Around 10:45 p.m. Thursday night in Deland a hit and run crash killed one teenage girl and critically injured a 43 year old man. At the intersection of Winnemissett and Brooks Avenues, the accident victims were in a vehicle struck by a speeding car that ran a stop sign. The 43year-old man was driving. After slamming into the passenger side of the vehicle, the 2001 Dodge that caused the wreck propelled both vehicle into a light pole. The teenager was not wearing a seat-belt at the time of the collision. The driver of the Dodge fled the scene and has not been found. He has been described as a thin man with shoulder-length dread locks.

The eighteen year old died at the scene of the accident, and the driver was airlifted to Halifax Medical Center in Daytona Beach.

This is a horrible tragedy on our local roadways and our sympathies go out to the families of all involved. This incident reminds us of the importance of wearing seatbelts every time we get into a motor vehicle and get out on the roads - every time, no matter how short the time or distance of the trip. Additionally, it is a wonder whether the 2001 Dodge was owned by the driver who fled the scene, owed by someone else but used with the owner's permission, stolen, or insured at all. This is another devastating reminder - always carry uninsured/under motorist coverage. If there is no liability insurance carrier to make a claim with, or if there is a minimal policy that does not cover the injureds' damages, uninsured/under-insured motorist coverage would permit the victims or victim's families to pursue the possibility of a claim against the UM insurance carrier.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Damaso

Child Killed at Bus Stop

Mike Damaso — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:38:41 GMT

Monday afternoon a sixth grade student was struck by a sport utility vehicle and killed after exiting a school bus. The bus stopped to let the children off on a busy road in Osceola County. The boy crossed the the street. Then, as the bus pulled away the student tried to run back to the other side. This is when he was struck by a Range Rover SUV. The newspaper article in the Orlando Sentinel did not report, and maybe no one knows, why the boy decided to run out into the street. This is likely one of many questions the family must be asking.

Surely this child is not 100% responsible for this tragedy. According to the article, the driver of the SUV swerved trying to avoid the child. No criminal or traffic charges will be filed against the driver the article reports. But, had the driver been more careful, could this have been avoided? Simply because no charges were filed by law enforcement does not mean wrongdoers are not responsible in the civil courts. Should the driver be held responsible, at least partially? What about the school board? Does the school board have a duty to drop children off away from dangerous intersections? Kids will be kids. Shouldn't the school board buses drop kids off at stops aways from busy congested highways?

We sincerely hope the family of the youngster involved in this horrible event gets through this difficult time with the support of their other family members, friends, and the community. We hope they have their questions answered.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Damaso

$4 MIllion Judgment in Wrongful Death of 5 Year Old Son

Sandy Grinnell — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:15:53 GMT

An Anne Arundel County jury found DRD Pool Service Inc. negligent in the drowning death of the 5-year-old boy at the Crofton Country Club. The pool service was responsible for the safety and security of the swimmers at the pool by supplying the lifeguards. The jury decided the defendent was negligent in providing the proper training for their personnel and did not supply enough lifeguards. The lifeguard on duty at the time of the boy's death was only 16 years old and had only been employed by DRD for 3 weeks.

Since the $4 million award will be reduced due to the $1.3 miilion cap on wrongful death verdicts, the attorney for the parents said they are considering an appeal. The parents said the award would assist their foundation, Connor Cares, in its pursuit to standardize Maryland pool safety guidelines and lower the lifeguard to swimmer ratio from 50-to-1 down to 25-to-1.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Wrongful Death.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sandy Grinnell

Helicopter Crashes into Gulf Killing 1, Injuring 2

Mike Damaso — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:25:12 GMT

Tuesday morning, September 11th south of Sarasota a helicopter crashed into the Gulf of Mexico in an area where the water was approximately 20 feet deep. The occupants were doing a video shoot for a boating magazine.

Several boats in the area attempted to rescue the victims of the crash, All three occupants on board were pulled from the wreckage. Two of the occupants were transported to hospitals. For one, it was too late - he was pronounced dead once on shore.

The associated press report printed in the Orlando Sentinel did not report any mechanical or design defect in the helicopter, pilot error, or any other cause of the crash.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to our section on Wrongful Death.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Damaso

Jury Awards Widow $21.6 Million in Wrongful Death Suit

Chrissie Cole — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:08:18 GMT

A stay-at-home Dad was awarded $21.6 million Thursday for a fatal car crash that killed his wife. The jury found the driver negligent for talking on her cell phone or some other distraction that caused the horrific accident.

The Husband filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the driver and the corportation that owned the company car she was driving when she was involved in a rush hour crash that killed his wife, Lesley.

After almost two weeks of trial testimony, it came down to this: Did former Boca Raton resident Sheila Hulick's failure to focus on the busy Sawgrass Expressway during morning rush hour in 2004 cause a horrific series of crashes that killed Lesley Beers, the 32-year-old mother of two toddlers?

Her lawyers told the jury, she was guilty of causing the crash, but not due to being on her cellphone.

A personal assistant to former Miami Dolphin Dan Marino, her lawyers said "she made a mistake, plain and smple." For whatever reason her vehicle crashed into the back of the victim's car as the two were traveling south on the Broward County toll road.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole