• Auto Accidents
• Bicycle Accidents
• Birth Injury and Birth Trauma
• Cancer Misdiagnosis
• Construction Accidents
• Dog Bites
• Medical Malpractice Cases
• Medical Prescription Errors
• Mesothelioma
• Motorcycle Accidents
• Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect
• Others’ Negligence
• Product Liability
• Property Liability Cases
• Slip and Fall Cases
• Surgical Mistakes
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Wrongful Death

Newswire - Most recent posts

Announcements

Always Something New

Even though I have practiced law for over thirty-five years, I still haven’t seen everything!  For instance:

1.  One of my clients had to be airlifted to a trauma center by a helicopter following a terrible car crash.  The helicopter bill was more than $16,000!  This was for a  fifteen minute helicopter ride.  What was more amazing was that even though his car insurance paid $10,000, the helicopter company still wanted the remaining $6,000 from my client.  If you need more information on insurance coverages, please call Steve Karp or Peter hart.

2.  Medical experts who testify in medical malpractice cases can get away with charging exorbitant fees for their testimony.  In my last medical malpractice case, a doctor charged $20,000 for a report.  He wanted an additional $15,000 to testify in court at trial.  If those same doctors were seeing patients in their offices, they would be getting about $250 an hour from Medicare.  Unfortunately, it is very hard for us to find physicians to testify against other doctors.  This, despite the fact that the client may have an extremely meritorious case and fairness would cry out for physicians to offer testimony against other physicians who have acted incompetently.  Unfortunately, most doctors are unwilling to testify against other doctors.  It is only the few, the proud and the brave who are secure enough in their positions and understand the need to police their profession,  who come forward to assist.  With that, however, comes a large price tag.   Stephen M. Karp, Esquire

Civil Justice Myths

EVEN BUSH ADMINISTRATION DATA DISCREDITS CIVIL JUSTICE MYTHS

Recently released data by the Bush administration Department of Justice (DOJ) confirms the falsehood of corporate attacks on the civil justice system.  Results from a recent DOJ study of civil trials directly refute the tales of “jackpot justice” and “runaway jury awards” propagated by opponents of the civil justice system and their political allies.

In the first nationally representative measure of general civil (tort, contract, and real property) bench and jury trials in state courts, the DOJ study found that the median award in tort cases in 2005 was just $24,000. (Lynn Langton & Thomas Cohen, Civil Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts 2005,  Bureau Just. Statistics (Oct. 2008).)

The new study supplements data that the AAJ Communications and Research departments have compiled to help members debunk myths about trial attorneys and the so-called litigation explosion.  A few highlights of these statistics:

Tort cases make up only 6 percent of civil filings in state courts, and tort filings in state courts declined by 21 percent from 1997 to 2006, accordingly to the National Center for State Courts.

Tort actions represent less than 1 percent of all civil filings in federal courts, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Manufacturing companies ranked “fear of litigation” as their lowest concern – well behind materials costs, energy prices, foreign competition, and taxes – in a National Association of Manufacturers survey.

Median legal expenses of individuals who incurred them in the last year were not exorbitant but ranged between $4,000 and $5,000, according to a National Federation of Independent Business poll.   Peter J. Hart, Esquire

Driving And Cell Phones

The Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association reported that 15 years ago approximately four million people owned wireless communication devices, such as cell phones.  Since then, that number has increased to almost to 225 million.

With increased dependence on mobile phones, the number of people using such devices while driving has, of course, substantially increased. There are predominately two dangers associated with cell phones and driving: drivers must take their eyes off the road to dial, and people become so absorbed in their conversations that they do not concentrate on their driving.  

One study from the journal of Human Factors suggested that , “If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, his or her reaction time is the same as a 70-year-old, senior citizen who is not using a cell phone.”  Cell phone related accidents cause approximately 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year, according to the journal’s publisher.

Drivers using cell phones are 18 percent slower to react to other’s brake lights, and inadvertently  keep a 12 percent greater following distance. But they also take 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lose when they slow down. Further, once drivers on cell phones hit the brakes, it takes them longer to get back into the normal flow of traffic.  The net result is that they are impeding the overall flow of traffic.

Over 60 percent of American teens admit to risky driving, and nearly half of those  also admit to text messaging behind the wheel.  Despite the risks, a majority of teen drivers ignore cell phone driving restrictions.  In 2007 driver distractions, such as talking on  a cell phone or texting, contributed to nearly 1,000 crashes involving 16- and 17-year-old drivers.

Each year, it is estimated that 21% of fatal car crashes involving teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19 are the result of cell phone usage. This result is expected to increase as much as 4% every year.  Studies have reported that drivers talking on cell phones are less adept than drunk drivers with a blood alcohol level of .08. The cell phone users’ impaired reactions involve seconds ( not just fractions of seconds), so stopping distance increases by car lengths, not just feet.

Between 2003 and 2006, car accidents from cell phone use have led to 50 deaths in Pennsylvania. According to PennDOT, from 2002 to 2006 there were 5,715 car accidents linked to the use of handheld cell phones.  

Pennsylvania has no statewide law prohibiting  talking on cell phones or sending text messages while driving.  However, due to the growing body of evidence that shows the connection between cell phone use and car wrecks, a change in the law is expected soon.
According to a Quinnipiac University poll, Pennsylvania voters support a ban on handheld cell phone use by 85 to 13 percent. Even cell phone users who comprise 79 percent of voters, support the ban.

Recently, Philadelphia finally took steps to correct the problem.  A new law effective November 19, 2009 prohibits talking, dialing or texting on a handheld device while driving a motor vehicle. It also prohibits these activities while on a bicycle, scooter, in-line skates or skateboard.

P.S.
On the same day this Bill was signed into law, Philadelphia police reported that a driver talking on a cell phone ran a red light, causing a city bus to run into several parked cars and a steel beam. Sixteen people, including a young child, were injured in the accident.    Peter J. Hart, Esquire

Legal Perspectives – Steve Karp – 10/3/2009

Legal Perspectives – Steve Karp – 10.3.09

As Heard on the Big Talker 1210 AM

Play podcast: