Des Moines Personal Injury Lawyer - Construction Site Accidents

The McDonald's Verdict, Tort Deform and other Riddles Revisited

Steve Lombardi — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:03 GMT

I have to admit that this one was too good to pass on without comment. I've written previously about tort deformers and their mantra and how Madison Avenue has brilliantly fooled most of the nation into believing the sky is falling and we can only save the nation with more tort deform. But as my mother is fond of saying, "This one is a real doozy!"

I have to admit that this one was too good to pass on without comment. I've written previously about tort deformers and their mantra and how Madison Avenue has brilliantly fooled most of the nation into believing the sky is falling and we can only save the insurance industry with more tort deform. But as my mother is fond of saying, "This one is a real doozy!" Here are the links to the previous blawgs.

Coffee Warning - It's Hot! Tort Deformers Mantra

When did Iowa road kill take on more value than human life wrongfully taken?

Tort deformers usually won't identify themselves. Most add comments with anonymous monikers. They like to remain hidden from public scrutiny. Heaven forbid that the parents of the brain damaged baby who are neighbors might learn it was they who advocated taking away the rights of the injured to receive fair compensation. Oh no instead they hide behind a false name to continue their lies and deceit to compel emotions to deny fairness. The McDonald's coffee case is their mantra. With it they distort the facts and then claim that it was merely not warning of the coffee being hot that compelled an out of control jury to award a lotto ticket to the injured. Experience tells me this is an organized advertising campaign and that the current warning - "Warning coffee may be hot and cause injury!" is just more of the same advertising campaign. That warning is worthless. If you order a hot drink you expect it to be hot. Not 170 to 180 degrees hot, but hot enough to improve the taste but not so hot that it burns the inside of your mouth. After all if you ordered iced coffee you would expect it to be cold.

Here is the good part that I just couldn't pass up. I'm watching television and drinking hot coffee like I do most mornings. A commercial comes on for Flomax. It's a drug that improves urination in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia, aka an enlarged prostate. The commercial warning says: "Avoid situations where injury may result."
What a ridiculous warning. This warning couldn't get any sillier. And it's my opinion this warning has nothing to do with any real education about side effects. (See real warnings below.) And that is my point about "Warning coffee may be hot and cause injury!" It too is ridiculously simplistic and provides no real warning about the risk you take when tipping a vessel of 170 degree coffee into your mouth. The risk is not one of the coffee being hot, but how absurdly hot was her coffee.

Next Madison Avenue will be warning us that razor blades are sharp and may cause a cut. Or that a knife is pointy and can cause a puncture wound. How about warning that using a lawnmower can cause injury to your grass? Or how about that needles can cause a boo-boo. I'm also big on the warning "Ingesting poison may reduce your need for exercise."

I rest my case.

Real Warnings:

What is the most important information I should know about Flomax?

Flomax can cause side effects that may impair your thinking or reactions. Be careful if you drive or do anything that requires you to be awake and alert. You may feel dizzy when getting up from a sitting or lying position. Avoid standing up too quickly to keep from falling. Avoid drinking alcohol. It may increase dizziness caused by Flomax.
Before taking this medication, tell your doctor if you are allergic to sulfa drugs. You may also be allergic to Flomax.
Flomax can affect the pupils of your eyes during cataract surgery. If you have cataract surgery during your treatment with Flomax, tell the surgeon ahead of time that you are using this medication. Do not stop using Flomax before surgery unless your surgeon tells you to.
Stop using Flomax and call your doctor at once if you feel like you might pass out, or if you have an erection of your penis that is painful or lasts longer than 4 hours.
This medicine should not be used by women or children.

What should I discuss with my healthcare provider before taking Flomax?

Do not use Flomax if you are allergic to tamsulosin, or if you are also taking any other alpha adrenergic blockers such as alfusozin (Uroxatral), doxazosin (Cardura), prazosin (Minipress), or Terazosin (Hytrin).
Before taking this medication, tell your doctor if you are allergic to any drugs, or if you have prostate cancer.
If you will be having cataract surgery, tell the surgeon that you are taking Flomax.
Although Flomax should not be used by women, this drug is in the FDA pregnancy category B. This means that it is not expected to be harmful to an unborn baby. Flomax is not for use in children.

How should I take Flomax?

Take Flomax exactly as your doctor has prescribed it for you. Do not use more of the medication than recommended. Do not take Flomax for longer than your doctor has prescribed. Follow the directions on your prescription label.
Your doctor may occasionally change your dose to make sure you get the best results from Flomax.
Take each dose with a full glass of water. Swallow the capsule whole. Do not crush, chew, or open the capsule. Flomax is usually taken once a day, approximately 30 minutes after a meal. Try to take Flomax at the same time each day. If you stop taking Flomax for several days in a row, call your doctor before starting the medication again. You may need to restart at a different dose.
To be sure this medication is helping your condition, your doctor will need to check you on a regular basis. Do not miss any scheduled appointments

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

My mother proved that helmets work when she said: "Two wrongs don't make it right."

Steve Lombardi — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:00:00 GMT

My advice to those riders, who don't wish to wear a helmet, is to be very good to your spouse, because one day soon you're going to need them for a very long time. I rest my case.

This post is about marriage advice. On January 22, 2008 the blog I posted was: Motorcycles, Helmets, Wrecks, Brain Damage and the Freedom to be Stupid. That entry discussed one potential solution to the enormous costs associated with mending and then caring for those who suffer the debilitation of traumatic brain injury. Unfortunately for those who disagreed they have not been able to comment on the IB site due to what I'm being told is a technical glitch with spam issues. But I'm not going to accept this problem and duck. Instead I'll tell you what they are saying and comment further. But first allow me tiime to put on a helmet.

One rider from California referred to me as the "callous nazi pi lawyer blames victim". He asserts that 1/10th of the TBI or head injury cases are from motorcycle accidents and that car and SUV accidents account for 90% of those types of injuries. Well I don't buy that because he's ignoring the TBI's from work place and construction site accidents, those coming about as a result of falling merchandise from store displays, those from farming accidents, boating collisions, skiers without helmets colliding with fixed objects like trees and ski lift supports and other sport collisions causing injury. He then asserts this fictitious right to live free or die type argument and that the American way of life will end if motorcycle riders are forced to wear a helmet or pay for higher insurance coverage. If this argument were about "Live Free of Die" I'd say fine, just carry enough insurance so we can bury you, but that's not the point or the problem. Victims of head injury don't always die and that's where the major costs associated with TBI come into play. Whom do they expect to pay for medical care, rehabilitation, medicines, physical therapy, speech therapy, occupation therapy, surgeries and ongoing living costs, me and you? We require all workers in construction sites and miners to wear hard hats. Many ski resorts are quickly requiring young skiers to wear ski helmets, organized sporting events require helmets, football players have long been required to wear helmets and for a good reason, most states require seat belts to be worn by occupants and manufacturers are installing roll over protection and seat belts in tractors and other farm equipment. So what makes motorcycle riders so special to warrant an exemption?

http://www.ski-injury.com/helmet.htm

It's been a hot topic in the snow-sports safety forum for best part of ten years now - the issue of helmets. High velocity collisions with trees lead to the deaths of Sonny Bono and Michael Kennedy in 1998 and the inevitable mass media hype - rarely a forum for informed debate! Since then, arguments have been put forward that more should be done to encourage the use of helmets on the slopes (particularly children) with some advocating enforcement by law, citing the undoubted success of earlier seat belt campaigns amongst car occupants.
To add fuel to the fire, the US Government got on the bandwagon and commissioned the controversial CPSC study which in January 1999 concluded that more than 7,000 head injuries on the slopes each year in the USA could be prevented or reduced in severity by the use of a helmet. You can read it in PDF format here.

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/skihelm.pdf

History of the Hard Hat -

A hundred years ago, the hard hat didn't exist. And fifty years ago, head protection wasn't widely required for workers. But, thanks to advances in safety, the hard hat has evolved over the decades.
Established in San Francisco in 1898, Bullard sold carbide lamps and mining equipment to gold and copper miners. "The miners used to wear a soft derby, similar to a baseball cap. It had a small, hard-leather and shellac brim," said Edward D. "Jed" Bullard, the company's fourth-generation president and chief executive officer.

In January 1999 the Consumer Product Safety Commission evaluated ski helmets and the potential to reduce the 7,000 head injuries per year. I don't hear the skiers whining about live free or die! But let's get back to the motorcycle.

Back to my reality. Here this kid sets next to me in traffic. We are both first in line at the light. Between his legs is this crotch rocket that will in seconds go 180 mph. The light turns green and he's through the intersection before I can even think of pulling forward an inch. He's up on the rear wheel with his hair flying back like we are in a tornado. He's not attached to the bike by anything except his Levi's and two white knuckled death grips. The Des Moines police don't have a vehicle that can match the speed. Now I'll be the first to say those Harley Davidson commercials are pretty enticing. But that kid next to me makes me think of a shovel, because that is what the accident investigation officer will need to pick him up.

America's first designated "Hard Hat Area" was set up at the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge construction site. "The project's chief engineer, Joseph B. Strauss, shared a vision with my grandfather that the workplace could be a safer environment for the worker. One problem the bridge project faced was falling rivets, which could cause serious injury," said Bullard. "My grandfather transformed the mining helmet into a durable industrial hard hat."

The Sportster models are sweet to look at and the video on the site is remarkably authentic for digital imagery. There are seven models from which to choose; from the 883 to the 1,200 Roadster with all that chrome makes any American man's heart stop to propose marriage to the open road. But all the marketing doesn't answer our question and for that matter neither has Harley-Davidson USA. I'll bet if we did an overlay of the companies stock price and the medical costs associated with those injured from motorcycle accidents we'd see a mirror image. Add the increasing number of baby-boomers buying Harleys and you now add depth to the chart.

Then the second reader steps up to the plate to say this: "When you can prove to me that a helmet IS in fact a proven piece of safety equipment, then you can request riders wear helmets. Why do you miss the most important piece of the puzzle? Education? Educate riders and non riders before mandating helmets! Who tests them? How are they tested? Who made them safe? Where did manufacturers go to get away from liability law suits?"

Okay, I will prove it to you. I want you to walk to the parking lot where you work or live, look for an SUV, one with a big fender. Did you find one? Okay, now bend at the waist, and start running full force into it with your head? Okay after you wake up now try it with a helmet. What do you think is it a piece of safety equipment?

My advice to those riders, who don't wish to wear a helmet, is to be very good to your spouse, because one day soon you're going to need them and for a very long time. I rest my case.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Iowa Workers' Compensation - Another Example of a Potential Third-party Claim

Steve Lombardi — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:00:18 GMT

The Associated Press reports that two eastern Iowa companies were cited for failing to divert power from a substation and not properly grounding the work site. Two workers at the Alcoa plant in Davenport received severe injuries on May 7, 2007 when while cleaning insulators and equipment at a substation they were burned by a "burst of electricity". One worker returned to work a month later the other was hospitalized for 47 days with severe burns to his leg, arm and face. He is now in a rehabilitation unit for further treatment.

If you've never seen what electricity does to the human body, you should, especially if you work around electricity. In my early years my grandfather and father worked for Narragansett Electric and then New England Power. It's now known as National Grid. The linemen in the 60's and 70's would at times get a jolt from the street lines so I'm familiar through my early years and after law school working at a firm in Waterloo we had several cases for clients whose severe burns came about as a result of transformers and other sources. Once in contact with the human body electricity finds the weakest points and bursts out. I mention this only to impress on those working around electricity to know what you are dealing with and to protect yourself even if the employer or some other company isn't. Don't be afraid to ask questions about safety and for manuals to read to know what the safe course to take.

The OSHA Construction eTool box has a very good article on "How Electrical Current Affects the Human Body."

In this instance the article did not mention the name of the employer. It does mention that IOSH fined Tri-City Electric Company of Davenport and Alcoa Inc. for their failure to divert the power from the substation and for improper grounding at the work site. One employee doesn't work for two employers so in this instance a lawyers attention being drawn to the other company will certainly want a copy of the IOSH file to see who isn't the employer and what laws and regulations it violated. This can and probably will be the basis for a lawsuit against the non-employer. Don't be lulled into thinking the worker gets a windfall by receiving both workers' compensation benefits and damages from the non-employer company. They do receive both but credits adjust in favor of the company paying workers' compensation benefits. It's all very complicated and timing is important but this gives you, the worker a general idea.

Know your rights, protect yourself and guard against those preaching tort-deform.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Another confined space incident claims four men's lives.

Steve Lombardi — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:00:15 GMT

On November 2, 2007 four Superior, Wisconsin workers were found dead in a confined space. This is the second time I've blogged on confined space deaths associated with asphyxiation. (See Iowa Workers' Compensation - Death caused by sewer gas. December 14, 2007. ) Four workers from Superior, Wisconsin were overcome by toxic vapors after entering a manhole to unplug a blockage in the village. Often times smelling like rotten eggs hydrogen sulfide in high enough concentrations can be odorless and deadly. Workers need to know that hydrogen sulfide is heavier than air and can remain below ground even while air escapes.

What is unfortunate about this incident is that it's avoidable if proper procedures for entering confined spaces are followed.

In these situations there are well known risks neither identified nor avoided.

Risk #1 The Company in charge of the site needs to formally communicate to the workers the identified hazards and proper safety procedures. This has to happen before work begins. (OSHA 29 CFR 1910.146 (c) (8-9)).

Risk #2 Employers must ensure that all components of a comprehensive confined space entry program are communicated to all workers and enforced. These rules can be read in NIOSH publications 80-106 (Working in Confined Spaces) and 87-113 (A Guide to Safety in Confined Spaces), and they must comply with OSHA Standard 1910-146 (General Industry) or 1926-21b (Construction).

Risk #3 Respirators are a required piece of safety equipment that must be used and the employer needs to enforce the use. (See OSHA requirement 29 CFR 1910.134 (c)(1)).

Risk #4 For all the reasons the original workers should not enter the sewer pipe.

These risks are so well known that I wonder if it's not gross negligence for an employer to send workers in without the proper training. In Iowa a wrongful death claim outside of a workers' compensation statute may be actionable.

Know your rights, protect yourself and guard against tort deformers looking to make a profit on the backs of the injured.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

When did Iowa road kill take on more value than human life wrongfully taken?

Steve Lombardi — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:00:23 GMT

A Polk County jury awards nothing to the parents for love and companionship when their daughter is killed. Some people justify it by saying money won't bring her back. Heck, if I shot a deer out of season the Iowa DNR would get $20,000.00. The State of Iowa would get more for a frog killed out of season than my clients were awarded for the investment of their time, energy, love and money in the life of their daughter. Deform the facts all you want but pure and simple this isn't about money it's about meanness.

My son Nick told me he reads all of what I write and sans the misspelled words, according to Nick my writing shows I am passionate about personal injury work, but it also shows I am angry. He's right. I am angry. I'm more than just angry. I've litigated for over 26 years and never have I seen juries so mean towards the injured and dismissive of the facts and the rule of law. I haven't become angry for no good reason. As a lawyer it galls me to witness this first hand. Recently I tried a wrongful death suit where an 11 year old girl died. It sent me into orbit when the jury after finding a defendant 100% liable awarded my clients virtually nothing for the wrongful death of their 11 year old daughter. They awarded the grieving parents the bare out-of-pocket expenses. I know that money won't bring the girl back, but awarding nothing to the parents for their loss of consortium sent the wrong message to every wrong doer and gave no value to the investment these parents made in this child. The child was an intelligent, obedient, healthy 11 year old girl who aspired to attend law school. With what we spend on raising our children how would awarding the parents even $10,000.00 per year have made them anything more than whole? That was the mere out of pocket expenses for raising this child.

Every future wrong doer simply has to hang their head for the jury's sake, profess to be sorry, and then claim, "too bad but it won't bring back the dead". Do that and you get to walk away virtually Scott-free. Heck, if I shot a deer out of season the Iowa DNR would get $20,000.00. Under Iowa law a poached buffalo is worth $2,500.00, $200.00 for a wild turkey, $50.00 for a bird, $15.00 for a fish, reptile, mussel or amphibian, $200.00 for a beaver or raccoon, $500.00 for a swan or crane and even ginseng brings 150% of the market value. It's codified at Iowa Code section 481A.130. The State of Iowa would get more for a frog killed out of season than my clients were awarded for the investment of their time, energy, love and money in raising their daughter.

You probably think I'm making this up, don't you? Here is the code section.

481A.130 Damages in addition to penalty---animals---ginseng.
1. In addition to the penalties for violations of this chapter and chapters 350, 461A, 481B, and 482, a person convicted of unlawfully selling, taking, catching, killing, injuring, destroying, or having in possession any animal, shall reimburse the state for the value of such as follows:

a. For each elk, antelope, buffalo, or moose, two thousand five hundred dollars.

b. For each wild turkey, two hundred dollars.

c. For each bird or animal or the raw pelt or plumage of such bird or animal for which damages are not otherwise prescribed, fifty dollars.

d. For each fish, reptile, mussel, or amphibian, fifteen dollars.

e. For each beaver, mink, otter, red fox, gray fox, or raccoon, two hundred dollars.

f. For each animal classified by the commission as an endangered or threatened species, one thousand dollars.

g. For each deer, one thousand five hundred dollars.

2. In addition to any other penalty, a person convicted of unlawfully harvesting wild ginseng in violation of section 456A.24 shall reimburse the state at one hundred fifty percent of the ginseng's market value, as determined by the department.

And then there is the McDonald's verdict, how many times do I have to pick a jury where someone brings it up? In jury selection the Judges won't allow us to get into the facts of that case with the prospective jurors. Too bad because from my discussions with lay people none of you know the facts or what that case was about. I mean that sincerely, you are all wrong and allowing yourselves to be misled. No matter how well intentioned you may be, you don't know what you are talking about.

Before forming any more opinions about it I'd suggest you learn the truth about the McDonald's case. You claim to know the facts yet most of you don't even know whether the injured person was a man or woman. The assertion of an insignificant injury is both wrong and mean. And although no one wrote a comment when I blogged on it, you would find a very enlightening discussion of what the McDonald's verdict is all about just by reading it. Those people voting for tort deform like to gloss over the facts. Nice people just like you. Although well intentioned, you are allowing yourselves to be misled by a false prophet.

Unlike most of you, lawyers in real lawsuits can't just gloss over the facts. We have to deal with real facts, facts that when woven together are the fabric of what truth is made. Sort of like the fact the McDonald's coffee was 180 degrees and when poured onto a woman's groin she required surgery. At 180 degrees skin virtually melts; a fact you probably glossed over and didn't know. McDonald's did and their attitude was so what and who cares, we like it that way, we sell more coffee. Coffee served at 180 degrees, per McDonald's own expert, isn't drinkable. According to a neurologist (whose opinion about this case I changed in just five minutes) at 180 degrees a person can't even react fast enough to protect themselves from the scalding liquid. As for the size of the verdict; it was one day of coffee sales for McDonald's. If McDonald's were a paperboy the punitive damages awarded would be less than $10.00. Not high enough if you ask me. The Judge should have left it alone.

As jurors you are glossing over the facts which are just another way of deforming the rule of law. My guess is that if Mrs. Liebeck were on your jury she would not gloss over the facts in your case. Why then does everyone believe they have the right to do so with her case? Answer that and you'll see why I'm so angry. Yes Nick, I'm angry. I'm also disappointed and after 26 years I'm disgusted.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

I'm hurt! How long should I wait to see a lawyer?

Steve Lombardi — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:00:06 GMT

How long should I wait to sue? Wait too long and you have no case and no one in the Court system will offer your any sympathy. The best advice is you shouldn't wait even one week. Why? Because there are so many rules created to defeat your case that only those who are trained in the law can possibly know the rules and how to preserve your claim.

How long should I wait to sue? Wait too long and you have no case and no one in the Court system will offer your any sympathy. The best advice is you shouldn't wait even one week. Why? Because there are so many rules created to defeat your cases that only those who are trained in the law can possibly know the rules and how to preserve your claim.

You shouldn't wait, because the burden will be on you to prove your case, not for the person or corporation you sue to disprove the allegations you make. In other words, if you can't produce evidence or witnesses to prove the elements of your claim, then you lose. It's that simple.

Judges and elected officials act as if they will never be injured. They've created rules that do nothing but defeat your claim. Generally speaking these rules are named statutes of limitation. A statute of limitations is a time rule that says if you don't settle or file your law suit before that date passes then you can never bring your case before the Courts. The law doesn't like delay. In fact the law punishes those who delay filing their cases and the rules of evidence punish those who don't preserve the evidence necessary to prove their cases.

And understand this folks, I'm talking to YOU. You aren't special in the Court's eyes and the rule of law won't carve out an exception to make sure you are treated "fair". It's often the case that clients come into my office and are looking not for justice but for fair treatment. Forget fairness. Fairness has nothing to do with tort law. Did you know that justice turns a blind eye to how you might feel about the way the system treats you? Everyone is supposed to be treated the same and that has nothing to do with one individual might think is fair. The rules get applied to you and me as if we were somewhat meaningless.

In Iowa most statute of limitations are two years, or three years, or five years or ten years. You say, "Come on Lombardi you're not telling me how long I have to file suit!" That's right because without knowing the kind of case you have I can't. So don't delay in seeing a lawyer. Get to one and get there the day or the week of the accident but after you've taken care of your medical treatment. Take pictures of the cars, the motorcycle, the accident location and your injuries. Get names of witnesses and their contact information. If your head broke the windshield then photograph the star in the windshield. If there is hair in the star use the close up lense setting and take a picture of it. Preserve, preserve and then preserve more. Don't worry about what the insurance adjuster says about it, because in their eyes you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you don't get the pictures and preserve evidence they will say you can't prove your case. And if you do they will criticize you as to eager to sue. They will call you litigious. So see a lawyer early and let the lawyer get out and preserve the evidence. All you have to worry about is being able to prove your case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

I'm hurt! How do I know if I have a case?

Steve Lombardi — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:00:25 GMT

Personal injury is a broad area of the law having to do with civil wrongs to a person. People are "injured" in many ways. Some times it's not just about a bodily injury. It could be legal malpractice or libel and slander, it could be damage to a person's reputation or damage caused to a claim they have against another. It might even be damage to their business. We call it personal injury because it's personal to you.

How do you know when you have a personal injury that is actionable? Something is actionable if there is a legal reason to bring suit or file a claim. Probably one of the simplest forms of actionable personal injury is bodily injury from a car, motorcycle or truck accident by a passenger. Say you're a passenger and the driver drives through a red light, crashes with another car, truck of other vehicle and you suffer injury. The law has created rules of the road for drivers driving on the public streets and roads. In this instance you have a right to sue the driver for negligence. This is a very straightforward example of an actionable wrong. Here is an example of one that is not actionable. Say a five year old child is running through the grocery store, slips on water that's been there for hours, falls, is not injured, gets up and starts running again. The standards for the store to maintain the floor in a clean and safe condition may have been breached but there is no damage to the person. So we have a civil wrong but it's not actionable. Clear?

What is a tort? A tort is a civil wrong for which the law allows monetary or other equitable damages. A civil wrong can be in many forms. The car accident is one example. Another example would be a libel against you. Another would be an injury at work on the construction site or even on private property. A tort is an actionable personal injury claim. In other words, it's a right to sue someone in civil court and to have a jury consider awarding you monetary damages.

So if you suffer bodily injury or some personal injury see a lawyer that handles those kinds of cases. We'll talk more about how long to wait in a later post.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Tort Reform Is Easy Just Kill the Lawyers and Let the Injured be Damned

Steve Lombardi — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:00:20 GMT

... or so that is what we are being lead to believe. Yesterday I wrote about China's 2,000 unlicensed manufacturing plants and the 1,202 drug and medical instrument companies that had their licenses revoked. China is just one example of the end stages of tort deform. Russia is another example but in tort reforming the purpose is always the same, to remove consequences from the tortfeasor, the wrong doer, the one injuring another. You doubt me; then consider the following.

In July of this year I visited Russia and got a firsthand look at some parts of that country. While I didn't visit any factories or hospitals I did get to walk around Moscow and went outside of Moscow to Mineralnye Vody on my way to Cheget. And what I saw left me concerned about where our country is heading. We are heading towards the same destination as China and Russia and will meet them somewhere in the middle, but a lot lower in terms of the quality of life we now enjoy. We've been going through tort reform in this country as if there were no end in sight. This government of ours, yes it's still ours, isn't interested in regulating industry but allowing industry to regulate itself. So what did I see in Russia that still bothers me and why do I draw this analogy?

What I saw was the end result of a society that doesn't regulate its industry. In Russia newly constructed buildings were constantly under construction because they don't know how to set a footing. They were constantly jerry-rigging what had just been built because there are no uniform building standards or work rules. Ceilings and walls cracked, no flashing was being used and stucco was in the process of being applied over cement block where all the mortar between the block had not yet been added. There were walkways with broken concrete and stairways where the steps all had different rises and runs. And there were large buildings with weather stripping hanging off the side of the building. I watch a worker cutting boards and never using a tape measure or square.

At the airport I witnessed six workers standing on the roof in a circle around one worker turning a wrench. The iron workers were uploading re-rod to the roof top of the terminal. Not a single worker wore a hardhat. The iron worker on the ground was moving re-rod and lumber. He wore a jump suit with the legs rolled up allowing me to see the flip flops he wore on his bare feet. He wheeled lumber around nearly striking passengers waiting for taxis. Re-rod being lifted by a crane from a truck was an accident waiting to happen. The re-rod in the sling that hung from the crane was so haphazardly in the sling that I thought for sure it would dump out and come crashing down like pickup sticks. It came to me that what this Russian work force needed is a good union training program that teaches workers construction standards and safe work habits.

Still not convinced? I stood on a bridge and figured they must have started building at both ends and met in the middle. Unfortunately it didn't quite meet in the middle because at the middle they were at least four inches apart. Out came the welding torches.

It's ironic that Russia, a country created for and by the workers, would be so lacking in construction standards and safe work habits. And that's when it struck me; this is where we are going. This is the road we are on. Russian businesses don't bother with safe work habits or good sound construction methods because they know injured people can't sue them. If they do sue good luck proving a case where there are no standards and governmental regulations are slack or lacking. This is where American industry is heading. When our government is through with deregulation and tort deform no business will concern themselves with the financial responsibility of injuring people.

And so that is where we are heading in America. Today our juries take the jury box full of fear and intolerance, prejudiced against the injured before they ever hear a word of evidence. We can see it in their eyes, their arms crossed across their chests and legs crossed. We can hear it in the questions about the McDonald's verdict even though no one on the jury understands the facts of the McDonald's case but everyone uses it as an example that there are too many lawsuits. The facts have become meaningless to the decision making of a typical contemporary civil jury. Prejudice is an easier, faster and cheaper route. They damn the injured because it's just cheaper.

And then ... they come into my office injured and demanding justice! Yes, demanding the law make an exception for their case. Injured insurance adjusters or doctors are the worst offenders of "make me an exception". Sorry folks you can't have it both ways. You wanted tort deform and you got it. Now you need look no father than your comrade in arms at the next voting booth, because he's the same one that sits in the jury box staring out at you, the injured plaintiff.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Minneapolis Bridge Collapse Results In Several Deaths - Tort Reform Needed?

Steve Lombardi — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:59:16 GMT

A bridge along the main north-south highway through Minneapolis, Interstate 35W, collapsed on Wednesday, August 1. At about 6:00pm, the bridge began to buckle and sway before it fell into the river below. Officials say there were about 50 vehicles on the eight-lane bridge when it fell, killing at least 4 people instantly. Rescue workers are waiting to help this morning until officials decide that the area is safe to work in.

There are currently about 20-30 people missing, says Chief Tim Dolan of the Minneapolis Police Department. About 60 people are also injured, some of them in serious condition. Although officials can only see about 12 submerged cars in the river, it is possible that there are more cars underwater.

A school bus full of children ages 5-17 had just crossed the bridge when it collapsed. The children were on the way back from a trip with the Waite House Summer program. A few children were injured, but they all were able to evacuate the bus quickly.

Recovery work around the area of the bridge collapse could last for three to five days. The area is officially being treated as a crime scene, although all evidence suggests a collapse.

A 2001 evaluation of the bridge, prepared for the state transportation department by the University of Minnesota Civil Engineering Department, reported that there were preliminary signs of fatigue on the steel truss section under the roadway but no cracking. It said there was no need for the transportation department to replace the bridge because of fatigue cracking.

The bridge had been under construction to repair guard rails, lights, and the concrete deck. 17 of the 18 workers on the bridge at the time of the collapse have been accounted for. Interesting, none of this has anything to do with the structural integrity of the bridge itself. Why then did it collapse?

Where are the tort-deformers now? Why aren't we hearing more from the tort deform lobby about investigating those that are supposed to be protecting us? What? I don't hear you. Remember this incident because when the chips are down and you need legal help, it's not the tort deformers who want or can help you. It's the trial lawyers. Yes the trial lawyers, the ones who hold those responsible accountable for not doing what they were supposed to do but were too busy golfing or shooting their mouths off to actually do the job of protecting you. Yeah, I'm talking to you Mr. and Ms. High Paid Lobbyist. Where are you now when the common citizens of Minnesota need you?

And now the victims and families of the victims can pay the price in the future so the Polo Shirt Lobbyists can golf more and buy more million dollar vacation homes. While those families suffer the future economic consequences of past-tort-deform, the lying lobbyists can vacation far away from their suffering, and laugh all the way to the bank.

We may now be in agreement, more tort reform is needed, but not the kind golfing deformers will like. We need reform to restore the rights of those injured by those who didn't do their jobs. We need criminal prosecutions against those state officials who were too lazy or were bought off to look the other way instead of doing what they were supposed to do to protect us. Where is my former college classmate Norm Coleman when you need him? Why isn't Norm calling for an investigation of the State of Minnesota Highway Commission supervisors? What's the matter Norm, no good publicity like you got from investigating the Food for Oil Program? Huh? You were once a trial lawyer but that didn't pay with contributions so you joined the other side with all the Polo shirted lobbyists. If I'm wrong tell me so but you sold out a long, long time ago when you forget from whence you came.

We need more not fewer trial lawyers. One's that don't forget their roots and do their jobs.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Construction Workers at High Risk of Injury

LLFClerk LLFClerk — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:55:50 GMT

An increase in the construction industry in King County, Seattle has resulted in more people working in high-risk construction jobs. In 2006 alone, 14 workers died in King County as a result of construction-site accidents. Tyler Scott, a victim of a work related accident, says that construction workers are pressured to produce more and at a faster pace, and safety is compromised as a result.

Although safety at some construction sites may need improvement, the ratio of safety inspectors to workers in Washington is one of best in the country. Rick Gleason, a former work-site inspector, said that safety in the construction industry is getting better. Regardless of safety, however, there will still be about 90 workers killed a year as a result of job-site accidents in Washington state.

One victim of a job-site accident was Cesar Umayam, who fell 15 feet through a roof on a house he was building. He died 25 days after the accident. Cesar's employer was issued five violations and a $6,500 fine after an investigation. The roofing company for that building was fined $18,000.

Incidentally, falls such as the one that killed Cesar Umayam are common in the construction industry. Most of the 1,200 American construction workers killed each year in job-related accidents die because of a fatal fall.

While the industry employs only about 7 percent of the nation's work force, accidents on construction sites accounted for about 21 percent of workplace deaths, Gleason said, citing numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In Iowa, the risk for construction workers being injured in job-site accidents is high as well.

Fatal work injuries in Iowa totaled 88 in 2005, an increase
of 6 from the previous year, according to the U.S. Department of
Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics.

This fatality count for Iowa in 2005 was the second highest annual total since 1992 when workplace fatalities were first recorded in the state. The nationwide workplace fatality count in 2005 was 5,702.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by LLFClerk LLFClerk