Blog
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
If you have ever been in an auto accident, you probably felt the effects of the crash for days or even weeks after the fact. Car accidents, obviously, can cause serious injuries such as broken bones, lacerations, spine and neck injuries, and head trauma. But what if you had already been diagnosed with a particular condition and your accident made your pre-existing condition worse? Should you be entitled to recover the costs of treating the new version of an old condition? This exact question was recently put before a jury in Middletown Superior Court.
A Summary of Facts
In August of 2014, a man from Old Saybrook, Connecticut, was driving on a road in Cape May County, New Jersey when he came to a stop in a line of traffic. Without warning, his vehicle was struck from behind by another car, throwing him violently forward. The driver of the second vehicle was found to be at fault for the crash, but her bodily injury liability coverage maxed out at $15,000—an amount insufficient to cover the Connecticut man’s injuries.
Over the last several years, Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy has been at the forefront of criminal justice reform. He has championed a series of measures to create what he has called a “Second Chance Society,” which focuses on educating and rehabilitating criminal offenders rather than jumping right into severe punishments. Most of the Second Chance Society efforts have been directed toward helping low-level, non-violent offenders. Recently, however, Governor Malloy turned his attention to those who have not yet been tried or convicted, as he sought to improve the state’s bail system and reduce the population of local and county jails.
Pretrial Justice
When a person is arrested on suspicion that he or she committed a crime, the suspect must often wait several days before he or she is brought before a judge for an arraignment. In the meantime, many defendants are forced to sit in jail because they cannot afford to pay cash bail. The wait is often much longer between arraignment and trial. Even a few days in detention, however, can be problematic for low-income individuals, as they may be forced to miss work. The resulting instability can ultimately lead to a cycle of criminal behavior.
With the exception of a WNBA franchise that plays its home games at the Mohegan Sun in Uncasville, Connecticut has not had a top-level professional sports team to call its own since the NHL’s Hartford Whalers moved to North Carolina in 1997. The state, however, is still home to a number of minor league teams in both baseball and hockey. For many residents, it is also fairly easy to travel to New York to catch a Yankees or Mets game on a warm, summer evening. Amidst the peaceful ambience, certain dangers still exist, as spectators are often at risk for being struck by a ball or bat during the course of a game.
With the potential for injury being so prominent, it is reasonable to wonder why there are not more high-profile lawsuits filed against sports teams and the venues in which they play. Sports spectator lawsuits are not very common because of an important element that is inherent to attendance for most fans: the voluntary assumption of risk.
It can be very intimidating to get pulled over by the police, regardless of the circumstances. You see flashing lights behind you, and you hope they are intended for someone else. When you realize that they are for you, your heart starts beating a little faster as you pull off to the side of the road. You stop the car, and it seems like hours before the police officer gets out and approaches your car. Depending on the time of day and the circumstances of the situation, the officer is likely to ask a common question: “Have you been drinking at all tonight?” How you answer that question—along with your overall appearance, demeanor, and other factors—may prompt the officer to ask you to submit to a blood-alcohol content (BAC) test, most often in the form of a breathalyzer. Should you agree to take the test?
Two Different Requests
There are two very distinct phases of a traffic stop involving suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The first phase is almost purely investigational. The officer gathers as much information as he or she can regarding factors such as how you were driving the vehicle, any presence of slurred speech, the smell of alcohol, and your presence of mind. At this stage, an officer may ask you to participate in field sobriety tests or to take a breathalyzer, and you have the right to refuse with no criminal or administrative consequences. Keep in mind that a test refusal during the first phase may prompt the officer to push a little deeper, looking for other possible signs of your impairment.
Do you use your cell phone while you are driving? If you can honestly answer that question with a firm “no,” you are squarely in the minority of American drivers, a new study suggests. With cellular phones and mobile devices having been a part of our lives for more than two decades, nearly everyone is aware of the dangers they present while behind the wheel. For a variety of reasons, however, we cannot seem to put our devices down and focus on the road.
Disturbing Numbers
According to a study recently conducted by Zendrive, a driving analytics company, U.S. drivers use their phones in some way on 88 percent of the trips they take. Think about that for a moment. These numbers mean that only about one trip in every ten is completed without the driver using his or her cell phone or mobile divorce. Even more telling was the scope of the research; Zendrive analyzed data collected from more than 3 million drivers covering some 5.6 billion miles of driving. The study’s findings suggest that the issue is not limited to a particular demographic or age group—nearly everyone uses their phone while driving.
In 2014, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the police could not force a person to allow his or her cell phone to be searched unless a warrant was obtained first—even if the person was arrested. Today, however, as technology has continued to advance, school students are more likely than ever to have mobile devices with them in the classroom. If a teacher suspects that a student is violating school rules on his or her phone or tablet, does the teacher have the right to check the student’s device? Connecticut could be about to answer that question as a proposed privacy measure is making its way through the state’s legislature.
Constitutional Protections
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable and improper searches and seizures of personal property. Over the years, case law has clarified what constitutes reasonable and proper searches, but such limitations, in general, only apply to law enforcement agencies and government entities.
Losing a loved one in any type of an accident is certainly heartbreaking. When a family member is killed as the result of negligence by another person or entity, the situation is often even more tragic. While nothing can truly make up for the grief and pain experienced by the victim’s spouse, children, and other relatives, depending on the circumstances, they may be able to seek compensation for their loved one’s death from the responsible party or parties. As a recent ruling by a New Haven Superior Court shows, in some cases, a wrongful death award can be quite substantial.
A Preventable Accident?
The wrongful death action was filed in New Haven in 2014 following a fatal accident in East Haven two years earlier. In July of 2012, a 51-year-old man was riding his bicycle on Coe Avenue when he was struck from behind by a van driven by a 52-year-old Milford woman. The van was owned by a Guilford-based outreach organization for children and adults with special needs, and the driver was transporting two clients of the non-profit group.
Throughout his two terms in office, Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy has been influential in implementing numerous reforms in the state’s criminal justice system. Many of his plans—known collectively as the “Second Chance Society”—have focused on rehabilitating non-violent and drug offenders rather than continuing to emphasize criminal penalties. Last summer, Governor Malloy renewed his efforts to help former offenders to become productive members of society once again by signing a measure that limits most employers’ ability to ask about a job applicant’s criminal history.
“Ban the Box” Laws on the Rise
The new law took effect on January 1, 2017, making Connecticut one of 26 states to institute what has become known as a “Ban the Box” statute. The phrase was coined by civil rights groups in reference to the check box on many job applications that an applicant must check if he or she has a criminal record. Proponents of such laws believe that employers tend to screen out applicants with blemishes in their background, despite being otherwise qualified for an available position.
Over the last several years, there has been much written and spoken about the need for police officers to wear video cameras attached to their person when on duty. Public outcry on the matter has grown as police shootings and alleged incidents of officer misconduct have continued to occur across the country. Proponents of mandatory body cameras believe that the recording devices can be used to hold law enforcement personnel fully accountable for their actions. While this may be true, body cameras can also provide supporting evidence in any situation to which the officer may have been a witness, including a motorcycle accident.
Dangerous Driving Leaves Motorcycle Rider Injured
In May of 2015, a middle-aged Watertown man was riding his motorcycle in Naugatuck when, without warning, a pickup truck attempted to turn across traffic. The truck hit the motorcycle, sending the man flying. The rider suffered a number of injuries, including serious damage to his left leg and ankle which required several surgeries. All told, the man incurred more than $100,000 in medical bills and remains partially disabled.
If you are on someone else’s property without their permission and you are injured, do you have any rights to seek compensation for your injuries? In many cases, you may be rather out of luck, as a property owner has relatively few responsibilities for keeping adult trespassers safe—children may be a different story. Depending on the circumstances, however, you may have some hope of holding the property owner liable for your damages. A ruling in federal court in Connecticut recently addressed this question and allowed a lawsuit to continue on behalf of an injured trespasser.
Gruesome Injuries
In March 2011, a 26-year-old man climbed an electrical tower on property owned by a commuter railway company. It is unclear how high he had climbed, but while well above the ground, the man was hit by an arc electric shock from one of the surrounding high-voltage wires. He subsequently fell from the tower and was caught by a network of live wires beneath him while electricity continued to surge through his body. Witnesses say they saw the man “hanging with his leg in flames from the tower,” before rescue workers could extract him nearly 45 minutes later. Somehow, the man survived but suffered burns over most of his body, and both of his legs had to be amputated.
50 Founders Plaza
