JUDGES GONE WILD: DON’T TEXT WHILE SOMEONE ELSE IS DRIVING AND DON’T USE YOUR GPS!

Should you be held responsible for an accident just because someone was reading your text while THEY were driving? Should you be held liable for an accident when you weren’t even there? Should you be held liable for thousands in punitive damages for using your GPS while driving?

_______________________________________

Two recent shocking state court decisions may have you worried about what you can and cannot be held responsible for in an accident case.

The first of these cases held that a remote texter can be held liable to third parties for injuries where another driver got into an accident while reading their text.

The New Jersey appellate court stated that “…a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.”  The court noted that this is especially true where there is a special relationship between the two individuals where one may control the other’s conduct.

The court eventually held that the defendant was not liable for the injuries that resulted from the accident because there was no evidence that she sent the text with knowledge that the driver would read it while driving.

Although the court did not hold this particular defendant liable, the new rule the court iterated can have immense impacts in the realm of torts and personal injury cases. The fact that a remote texter miles away who is sitting on the sofa at their house or at their office desk, may be held liable for injuries to third parties caused when another driver gets into an automobile accident, seems a bit unnerving.

Even though this decision may disincentivize texting while driving, it nonetheless seems a bit harsh to put the blame on a third party who was not physically present at the time of the accident.

Another novel case which may impact future accident cases was decided in Lackawanna County. The trial judge stated that “looking away from the road at a GPS on a smart phone to the point of distraction could amount to reckless conduct to support a punitive damages claim”.  The record before the judge however did not have sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant driver was looking away and thus distracted. Therefore, the judge granted defendant’s partial summary judgment motion on punitive damages.

A ruling such as this if adopted by higher courts could cause greater damages to be awarded in automobile accident cases. However, it may also go against the rationale of punitive damages. Punitive damages are only to be awarded in cases where the jury believes that defendant needs to be punished in order to prevent against future similar harmful conduct. Punitive damages are usually only awarded in such exceptional circumstances. However this ruling would award punitive damages for most plaintiffs in accident cases where the defendant driver was distracted.

Although both New Jersey appellate court decision and the Lackawanna County trial court decision are not binding in California they are nonetheless persuasive authority and highlight the possible impacts and issues that may arise in future automobile accident cases.

PRESIDENT OBAMA BELIEVES LAW SCHOOL SHOULD BE 2 YEARS INSTEAD OF 3

Earlier today, as part of his bus tour to promote his plan to make college more affordable, President Obama weighed in on how long he believes the law school curriculum should be.

__________________________________________________________________________________

“This is probably controversial to say, but, what the heck, I’m in my second term, so I can say it,” said President Obama. “I believe, for example, that law schools would probably be wise to think about being two years instead of three years,” he told his audience at a town hall meeting earlier today at Binghamton University.

The Harvard Law School graduate and former law school professor believes that this change in curriculum will substantially decrease the amount of loans taken out and the affordability of law school.

He went further to say that the last year of law school would be better served clerking or working in a firm. He said, “In the first two years, young people are learning in the classroom. The third year, they’d be better off clerking or practicing in a firm even if they weren’t getting paid that much, but that step alone would reduce the costs for the student.”

The President did, however, identify a concern that decreasing the number of years required for law school would decrease the funds available for those schools to maintain quality and keep good professors. He addressed this concern by stating, “My suspicion is that if they thought creatively about it, they probably could [do it].”

In addition to this campaign to make college more affordable, President Obama has also been fighting hard not to allow the huge proposed cuts to education and science programs. He believes that these cuts will threaten the country in the long run. Obama said “That’s like eating your corn seed, you know? It’s like being penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

President Obama’s attempt at keeping funding for education and shortening the years required in law school are still only proposals and hopes. But President Obama has not given up, and continues in his strides at making education more affordable for students.

 

The Deadly Race To Wealth

     Moritz Erhardt, a University of Michigan student from Germany, collapsed at his London home in Bethnal Green on Thursday, after allegedly working until 6 a.m. for three days in a row at Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s investment banking division.

The cause of his death is unknown but several sources have claimed, credibly, that Erhardt was working exceedingly long hours in an attempt to secure a full-time offer. An intern who worked with him told the Guardian that Erhardt “worked very hard and was very focused. We typically work 15 hours a day or more and you would not find a harder worker than him.”

   After news of Erhardt’s death rocketed around Wall Street, most young banker sources were shocked but not surprised. “This was only a matter of time, given how many people go through similar stretches,” one banker said. “The human body is not meant for such abuse.”

What can be done to ensure this does not happen again?

In California, the general overtime provisions are that an employee shall not be employed more than eight hours in any workday or more than 40 hours in any workweek unless he or she receives one and one-half times his or her regular rate of pay for all hours worked over eight hours in any workday and over 40 hours in the workweek  Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work, and employment beyond eight hours in any workday or more than six days in any workweek is permissible provided the employee is compensated for the overtime at not less than:

1. One and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight hours up to and including 12 hours in any workday, and for the first eight hours worked on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek; and
2. Double the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 12 hours in any workday and for all hours worked in excess of eight on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek.

So if Erhardt lived and worked in California, would he have been paid an obscene amount of overtime?  No, generally, executive, administrative or professional employees are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime and minimum wage protection.  As an investment banker, Erhardt would have been exempt under the “professional employee” exemption.

However, should Erhardt been protected?   We are currently in one of the toughest job market experienced in recent times and the competition is high.  Entry level jobs and “internships” has become a sort of initiation process of low pay, tortuous hours and tasks designed to push the young person to their limits, even of health.

If you feel you have an employment claim, contact an attorney today.

Michael Jackson: Drug Seeker or Victim?

It is this generation’s “Where were you when you heard about Kennedy’s assassination?”.

When Michael Jackson died on June 25, 2009, the world was left wondering why. Now, Michael Jackson’s mother wants a jury to determine why.    Jackson’s estate is suing AEG, the promoter of Jackson’s This is It comeback tour, for their alleged failure to properly investigated Dr. Conrad Murray.  Dr. Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter by a criminal jury for Jackson’s June 2009 death.

The issue comes down to one question:  Did Jackson make a personal decision to have Dr. Murray as his doctor so that Jackson would be provided doses of propofol?

This past week, Jackson’s ex-wife Debbie Rowe tearfully testified about the singer’s fear of pain after sustaining burns to his scalp during a shoot for a Pepsi commercial in 1984.  Debilitating pain persisted for decades and might have contributed to a drug dependency. “When it came to the pain . . . it was more begging for relief than anything,” Rowe said. “He respected doctors so he wouldn’t question what they were doing.”

“Unfortunately, some of the doctors decided that when Michael was in pain that they would try to outbid each other on who could get the better drug. And so he listened to the doctors,” Rowe said, describing what she said a competition by Jackson’s dermatologist and a plastic surgeon to convince the singer their pain medications were better.

He also had frequent legitimate appointments to treat acne and vitiligo, a skin-lightening condition. Nevertheless, the specter of addictive drugs concerned Rowe.  Doctors were giving him propofol to help him sleep more than a decade before Murray did, she testified.

So what does this all mean?  Rowe was called by AEG to prove that Jackson misused propofol for years thanks to various drug-pumping doctors.   Seems like AEG believes they won this round:  ” She let everyone know that people in Michael’s life were worried about his propofol use as early as the late 80, early nineties,” AEG Attorney Marvin Putnam says.

Criminal defense attorney, and Michael Jackson’s former attorney, Tom Mesereau, disagrees and believes Rowe’s powerful testimony ended up helping the plaintiffs, “I think she added a lot to the plaintiff’s claim that AEG had every reason to know that he needed the right doctor to deal with these prescription drug issues.”

What do you think?  Was Rowe’s testimony enough to convince a jury that AEG couldn’t have done anything to save MJ?  Or did Rowe’s testimony convince the jury that AEG could have completely avoided MJ’s tragic death?

United States is softening its all-out war on drugs, and California is following!

California is considering reducing penalties for minor drug offenses after the Obama administration announced a change in US policy to do the same.

___________________________________________________

Monday, August 12^th, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a change in US policy aimed at reducing the country’s federal prison population and overcrowding. This reform will change the way the Justice Department prosecutes minor drug cases. Specifically, Holder stated, in his speech to the American Bar Association in San Francisco, that “Low-level, non-violent” drug offenders will no longer face mandatory minimum prison. Offenders will now be charged with “sentences which are better suited to their individual conduct, rather than excessive prison terms more appropriate for violent criminals or drug kingpins”.

These proposed changes are a great transformation from the tough on crime policies of the past 40 years. However, Holder attributes the new reform to the bad consequences and results of those earlier policies. “Too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law enforcement reason,” Holder said.

The strict war on drug laws of the past have, also, cost the U.S billions of dollars. They have “a significant economic burden — totaling $80 billion in 2010 alone… with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate”, Holder stated.

Holder announced several states that have already taken the step in reducing their prison population. Among the states he cited were Texas and Kentucky. Holder stated that “Kentucky is projected to reduce its population by more than 3,000 over the next 10 years, saving more than $400 million”.

California may be joining states like Kentucky as well. There is a measure before the California state legislature that would allow prosecutors to treat minor drug offenses as misdemeanors instead of felonies. This would significantly aid California’s overpopulated prisons, and may be something California needs.

In 2011, the Supreme Court in Brown v. Plata ruled that conditions in California’s overcrowded prisons were so bad that they violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The court had ordered California to reduce its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates. Although that decision was a few years ago, the problem has not gone away.

Just last Friday, the U.S Supreme Court refused to excuse California from a lower court order demanding their prison system reduce its inmate population by about 10,000 convicts.

Thus, this wave of drug sentencing reform may aid California in its problem with overcrowded prisons, and even reduce revenue spent on the prison system.  However, the legislations accompanying such policies have still not been voted on.

Too Attractive? Too Ridiculous!

It’s a problem that perhaps some of us wished we had:  being too attractive.  But perhaps not.

When twenty-seven year old Iranian politician Nina Siakhali Moradi won her bid as an alternate to the Qazvin City Council earlier this summer, she epitomized the promise of more civil rights for the country’s women.  But now, Moradi has been barred from from taking up office because she was too beautiful to serve.

“We don’t want a catwalk model on the council,” balked an unnamed senior official in Qazvin, according to a report in the Times of London.

The official reason, according to Seyed Reza Hossaini, Qazvin’s representative in Parliament and a review board member, was, “Her votes have been nullified due to her disqualification, as the review board did not approve her credentials. We have told her the reason why she has been disqualified.”

But Nina Siakhali Moradi is more than just a pretty face.   A review of her “credentials” reveal that she is an architect and website designer. She managed to collect 10,000 votes during the June election.  Moradi placed 14th on a list of 163 candidates, which allowed her to become an “alternate member of the Council.”

A similar issue arose in Iowa last month when the Iowa Supreme Court stood by its ruling that a dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant because he found her too attractive and worried he would try to start an affair.  The court said such firings do not count as illegal sex discrimination because they are motivated by feelings not gender.

So when do such firings become illegal?

In California, it is not illegal to fire someone because he or she is too attractive or not attractive enough.  Generally in California, there is a presumption that any employment is “at will”.  (See Labor Code § 2922).  This means employees can quit their jobs at any time they choose to do so. This also means that employers can fire employees with or without any reason as long as employers do not violate workplace laws that protect employees from retaliation or discrimination.Unless an individual’s age, gender, race, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, religion or pregnancy is a factor in an employer’s decision to fire someone, it is not illegal to fire someone simply on the basis of one’s physical looks.

A violation, however, would be when an employer terminates your employment, refuses to hire you, demotes you, or fails to promote you because of your gender.  Gender discrimination can take many forms.  Gender discrimination can manifest itself in more insidious ways, such as sexual harassment or workplace retaliation. Men, as well as women, can suffer the effects of gender discrimination.

All of the behaviors described above are violations of California and federal law.  However, laws are complex and obtaining justice in such cases is not always easy. If you believe you have been terminated illegally from your job, contact an attorney who is able to assist you through this stressful time.

Usher wins custody battle after emergency court hearing

Usher has retained full custody of his two sons after his ex-wife, Tameka Foster, filed for an emergency child custody hearing for temporary primary custody of the kids in an Atlanta court.  Foster requested the emergency hearing last Tuesday after their eldest son nearly drowned to death at the singer’s home.

The 5-year-old was swimming in the singer’s pool with Usher’s aunt when he dove under water to retrieve a toy from the drain.  His arm then got stuck in the drain and neither his aunt nor a maid could free him.  Two contractors who had been working in the house reportedly came out and were able to get the child’s arm out.  Usher’s son is currently recovering in the hospital and he is expected to be fine.

During the hearing, Foster and Usher offered conflicting versions of the incident and what happened afterwards.  After two hours, the judge dismissed Foster’s petition.  

In California, child custody and visitation orders generally are modifiable throughout the child’s minority whenever the court finds a modification is “necessary or proper” in the child’s best interests.  When a party wants to modify a “permanent” custody order, it may only be done upon a showing of a significant change of circumstances so affecting the child that modification is essential the the child’s welfare.  Absent such a showing, any modification would be an abuse of discretion as denying the child the benefits of a stable home environment and thus would not be in his or her best interest.  The so-called “changed circumstances” rule furthers the Court’s goal of preserving the need for continuity and stability in custody arrangement, unless some significant change in circumstances indicates a different arrangement would be in the child’s best interest.

Although Usher’s custody battle was fought in an Atlanta court, applying California standards, the Court may have found that the incident was merely an accident and maintaining primary custody with Usher would have been in the “best interest” of the child.  Custody battles are never an easy war to fight.  There are numerous and complex issues involved in custody and child sharing cases.  If you or anyone you know has these issues, make the right decision and contact an attorney to advise you of the short- and long-term impact of any decision you make regarding child custody.

 

 

Venice Beach Hit-and-Run Driver Kills 1 Person and Injures 11 Others

On a summer Saturday afternoon the Venice boardwalk is the perfect place to stroll and enjoy a wonderful day at the beach. Unfortunately, that was not the state of events this Saturday when a man plowed his car through a crowd of people on the boardwalk, killing one person and injuring 11 others.

Surveillance video from a nearby restaurant shows the man getting in and out of his car several times, before sitting and gunning his vehicle straight into the pedestrian filled crosswalk.

Witnesses said the car appeared to reach speeds up to 60 mph as it raced down. “That man was after blood.” “He was trying to hurt as many people as he could”, witnesses told ABC news.

The person killed was identified as Alice Gruppioni, a 32 year old Italian woman on her honeymoon. Gruppioni was visiting California from Italy with her new husband, before this tragic incident took place.

Among those injured, one was in critical condition, two were in serious condition, and the remaining eight had minor injuries. Bystanders showed aid to the victims before firefighters and police showed up. The victims were then taken to be treated at nearby hospitals.

The suspect is 38 year old Nathan Louis Campbell. Campbell was held in custody after he walked into a police station in Santa Monica and told officers he was involved in the incident. Campbell’s bail is set at 1 million dollars and he is facing a murder charge. However, police have yet to determine whether the suspect was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Whether or not he was, witnesses and commentators say that the surveillance video clearly shows his intent to harm individuals. Witnesses said he purposely was turning the vehicle to hit as many people as he could. Police are still trying to determine Campbell’s motive.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that an estimated 2.24 million people are injured in motor vehicle accidents each year. Getting injured in an accident is a serious matter that requires your full attention as it could leave you with thousands in medical bills, cause you pain and suffering, and could even prevent you from working again.

Daniel Chong, student forgotten in a holding cell, gets $4.1 million settlement

How do officers forget about someone and leave them locked up in a dark holding cell for days without food or water?

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

Daniel Chong, a 25 year old undergrad student from UC San Diego, settled with the Justice Department for $4.1 million just last week, after being left in a dark holding cell for 5 days with no access to food, water, or a restroom.

Chong was picked up by the Drug Enforcement Administration agents on April 20^th of last year after a drug raid on a friend’s off-campus house.

The police took nine individuals, including Chong, into custody. According to officials, after being questioned Chong was to be released and not charged.

However, officers forgot about Chong and left him in a windowless holding cell for days. The ordeal pushed Chong over the edge. He even drank his own urine to stay alive. Chong told NBC news, “I had to do what I had to do to survive ….” Believing that he was left there to die, he even made a suicide attempt, as he began carving “Sorry Mom” into his flesh with broken glass. He stated “I hallucinated by the third day, I was completely insane”.

After being discovered by officer days later, Chong was taken to a nearby hospital for dehydration, kidney failure, cramps and a perforated esophagus.

Although this is a jarring incident, no officer has yet been disciplined, punished, or held responsible for it. However, the Drug Enforcement Administration has introduced national detention standards including daily inspections of cells and even cameras to view individuals in holding cells.

DOMA is Dead, But There is Still a Ways to Go

Traian Popov and Julian Marsh are the first bi-national same-sex couple to have their green card petition approved in the United States. Just last month, the 41 year old Bulgarian graduate student, and his husband, Marsh, got an email from the U.S Immigration Office stating that their green card petition was approved. All this occurred just days after the landmark Supreme Court decision last month finding DOMA unconstitutional.

The decision paved the way for gay rights, and it is clear by stories just like Popov and Marsh’s that the current administration has been working hard to implement the decision swiftly and afford same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration’s support for the decision is evident; President Obama released a statement after the court ruling stating “This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it.” One can sense a definite change in the climate when the Pope is saying; “Who am I to judge?”  Exactly Father!

Although amazing strides have been made in the realm of equal rights, there is still a ways to go. Unfortunately, the DOMA decision does not legalize gay marriage in America but only requires the federal government to afford same-sex couples who are legally married the same benefits as married heterosexual couples. However, the decision does not improve the situation for the same-sex married couples living in the over 30 States that still ban same-sex marriage.  The decision found unconstitutional the provision of DOMA that dealt with the federal government, however, it left standing the section that allows states to deny recognition to other states’ marriages. Therefore, it leaves unresolved situations where a same-sex couple marries in one state and later moves to another state where same-sex marriage is not legal.

All in all, the decision has given rise to numerous success stories and abundant strides in the realm of equal rights, however there are still many more things left to be achieved.