Kansas City Personal Injury Lawyer

1. Law Makers Take Aim At Damage Cap In Metrolink Train Crash

   Lawmakers are working to change a federal law that could limit the amount of damages paid to crash victims who were injured in a Metrolink train crash near Chatsworth in September 2008. Twenty-five people were killed and more than 100 were injured in the commuter train crash. The Metrolink train crashed head-on into a Union Pacific freight train when the Metrolink engineer ran a red light while sending text messages on his cell phone. Despite the gross negligence and clear liability, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 limits liability to train crash victims at $200 million per incident.

   According to a report by Michael Collins at the Ventura County Star, a bipartisan group of lawmakers [including Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley, CA), Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)] are calling on Congress to raise or eliminate the damages cap after victims said $200 million would not come close to paying medical bills stemming from the train crash. Attorneys defending Metrolink and Connex Railroad have filed court documents asserting their intention to accept the maximum $200 million in liability as part of a potential settlement.

   This tragic crash reveals the dangers of arbitrary damage caps without linking the damages to the value of of the life, the nature of the injuries, or the conduct of the negligent actor. Damage caps such as this do nothing but protect a railroad and an engineer whose conduct killed 25 people and injured more than 100 more. Why do we permit our tax dollars to subsidize negligent conduct that kills and injures hundreds of people? Why do these railroads need federal bailouts for killing and injuring innocent people?

   Damage caps also have the effect of closing the doors of the courthouse to thousands of people. In my home state, Missouri, we now have arbitrary caps on medical malpractice awards. Missouri House Bill 393 (2005) lowered the previous inflation-adjusted cap on non-economic damages to a level of $350,000 with no adjustment for inflation (meaning the cap is effectively lowered each year in "real" dollar value).

   Missouri's medical malpractice cap effectively means that children, the elderly, stay-at-home-parents and others who do not work (i.e., those with little economic value in the eyes of the legislature) are limited to a maximum award of $350,000 regardless of the egregiousness of the conduct of the defendant. A hypothetical doctor could be drunk and on drugs and kill someone during surgery and it would not affect the level of this arbitrary cap.

   Litigation expenses (including medical expert witnesses, etc.) combined with this arbitrary cap means that the courthouse door is effectively closed for these victims, even in cases of clear liability and egregious conduct. Caps on damages do nothing but protect (and incentivize) negligent conduct at the expense of innocent victims and taxpayers.

   Update [10:10 a.m. (CDT):

   Peggy Peck at Medpage Today reported today that tort reform changes that would reduce medical malpractic premiums by 10% would only reduce the nation's total medical costs by 0.120% to 0.134%. So, restricting (or in certain cases, giving up completely) your constitutional right to a trial and determination of damages by a jury yields a net savings of between 1.2 to 1.34 cents per $1,000 of health care costs. Conclusion: "Taken together, the papers suggest that promoting tort reform as a means to control health care costs is a straw man, and their conclusions run contrary to the figures cited by supporters of tort reform."

   Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

2. Did You Know... Bars May Be Held Responsible For Drunk Driving Accidents?

   The term "dram shop" is derived from 18th century business in England that sold gin by the spoonful, called dram. Dram Shop Acts hold bars, restaurants and other commercial establishments liable for the actions of over-served and intoxicated patrons who subsequently cause an injury to another person.

   There is significant variation in Dram Shop laws from state to state, varying from no law at all (in 10 states) to a number of states with laws that not only cover bars and restaurants, but also extend to liquor retailers and social hosts. One thing that is common with all Dram Shop laws is that an "obvious intoxication" test must be met. That means the person or establishment providing the alcohol either knew or should have known that the customer was intoxicated and, therefore, was a danger to himself and others.

   The definition of "obvious intoxication" carries different meanings in different states. For example, under Missouri's Dram Shop Act, there must be proof that the customer demonstrated "significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction." Under the Illinois Dram Shop Act, the plaintiff mush show (1) alcohol was served to a patron by the defendant; (2) damages were sustained by the plaintiff; (3) the sale of alcohol was the proximate cause of the intoxication; and (4) intoxication was at least one cause of the plaintiff's damages. Illinois also severely limits the amount of a plaintiff's recovery by strict damage caps.

   The purpose of Dram Shop laws is to place responsibility for damages caused by intoxicants upon the establishments that profit from serving alcohol and to promote responsibility in serving patrons through the proper training and instruction of servers and bartenders.

   More: MADD's position statement on Dram Shop Liability.

   Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

3. Family of NY Mets Pitcher Brian Cole Awarded $131 Million In Ford Explorer Lawsuit

   ESPN has reported that the family of New York Mets prospect, Brian Cole, was awarded $131 million by a Jackson, Mississippi jury after Cole was killed when his Ford Explorer rolled over in 2001. Cole's family was represented at trial by Little Rock, Arkansas attorney, Tab Turner and Ted Leopold of Palm Beach, Florida. The case was settled for a confidential amount following the verdict.

   ESPN reported that Mets general manager, Jim Duquette, testified at trial. According to one of the Coles' attorney, Ted Leopold, Mets pitcher Brian Cole "was just a wonderful kid. As Jim Duquette stated, they were building the team around him. He was a remarkable athlete. He was going to be a superstar."

   Despite the verdict and confidential settlement, Ford continued to disclaim any responsibility, saying Cole was not driving at a safe speed and was not properly belted.

   The Cole verdict is just the latest in a series of significant verdicts against Ford in Explorer rollover cases. I've written before about the Ford Explorer's long history of stability and rollover problems.

   In March 2010, a Rancho Cucamonga, California jury awarded Cynthia Castillo more than $23 million after she was paralyzed during a Ford Explorer rollover. In that case, Injury Board member Bob Langdon presented evidence that Ford engineers found ways to improve the Explorer's stability and safety, but that Ford management refused to pay for the safety improvements. Ford's management put profits in front of safety.

   Earlier, the US Supreme Court upheld an $83 million dollar verdict against Ford in another California case in which a San Diego woman was paralyzed when her Ford Explorer rolled over.

   Ford settled another Explorer case in which a passenger was paralyzed while the jury was considering punitive damages after awarding more than $16 million to compensate the victim.

   I applaud these juries for holding Ford accountable for cutting corners on safety. It is time that companies who cut corners and put profits over safety are held accountable for the harm they inflict. More juries need to ensure that large companies play by the same rules as the rest of us. Innocent victims should not be forced to suffer for corporate greed.

   Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison