Blog
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
Even the most experienced drivers can become distracted, and the consequences are often dangerous, as one Connecticut man was forced to learn painfully. In many cases, however, distractions may be considered negligence under the law, leaving a distracted driver liable for injuries or damages sustained as a result. Such was the situation in a New Britain courtroom recently, as the jury awarded more than $2 million in damages to a man whose foot had been crushed by a towed trailer.
Anger Over Parking
According to court records, the injured had parked the dump truck he was driving in a Farmington cul-de-sac in connection with a landscaping job for which he was partially responsible. The owner of the landscaping business, who was driving a pickup truck and towing a Bobcat on a trailer, pulled up extremely close behind the dump truck, reportedly to “chastise” the dump truck driver for how he had parked. When the owner finished, he went to drive away, and the 4-ton trailer drove over the dump truck driver’s right foot, causing a crush fracture. Surgery was not performed, but the accident allegedly also caused irreversible nerve damage and significant pain.
When you are pulled over on suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI), it is reasonable to presume that you might be asked to submit to chemical testing for blood-alcohol content, or BAC. The most common form of testing is a breath test, commonly referred to as breathalyzer, which calculates the concentration of alcohol in a person’s blood based on alcohol detected in a breath sample. In all 50 states, the legal limit for BAC (for a non-commercial driver over the age of 21) is 0.08 percent. A test that registers above the limit creates a presumption of DUI based on a quantitative standard.
Over the last several years, six states have instituted similar standards regarding the amount of marijuana in a driver’s system. With decriminalization and legalization efforts ongoing around the country and the implementation of medical marijuana programs in about two dozen states including Connecticut, many law enforcement officials believe that there needs to be a quantifiable way of determining that a driver is under the influence of marijuana. A new study from a very reputable source, however, suggests that the existing laws—along with those pending in other states—covering marijuana blood tests have no scientific basis, and even goes so far to recommend scrapping the statutes.
When you rent from a landlord, it is generally assumed that the property owner will keep common or shared areas safe and in compliance with building and safety codes. In many rental properties, staircases present the most danger, as even a single damaged step or slippery tread can lead to serious injury, and potentially, a lawsuit on the basis of premises liability. One such example can be found in the case of a man who fell down a flight of stairs, which his suit claimed did not have even a handrail, leading a Stamford jury to award him more than $2 million in damages.
“His Life Changed Forever”
The man’s injury dates back to 2010, when he fell down a staircase that led to a room he was renting from a couple on Irving Avenue in Stamford. According to the injured man’s attorney and subsequent lawsuit, the victim suffered a fractured skull and other injuries that kept him the hospital for six weeks. Much of the hospital stay was reportedly spent in intensive care and the man’s skull injuries required surgery.
While you have probably seen them on utility poles, overpasses, or mounted on the outside of police cruisers, they are probably not what you think. They appear to be cameras, and in today’s world, that would not be all that unusual. But, they are not regular surveillance cameras recording video for what most would consider “normal” security purposes. Instead, they are aimed in such a way that they can read the license plate of every passing vehicle, up to tens of thousands per hour, recording each plate and, according to law enforcement officials, assisting in the tracking of criminal suspects and stolen vehicles. There is growing concern, however, regarding the use of automatic license plate readers, and, perhaps more importantly, how the data they collect is stored and used to track innocent people without their knowledge.
Law Enforcement Applications
“Consult your physician before beginning any exercise program.” This disclaimer can be found on millions of workout DVDs and infomercials. It is meant to serve as a reminder that drastic lifestyle changes, even for the better, can be dangerous, and your doctor can help you take on the new challenges in a healthy, safe manner. But what if you are the doctor? And what if you join a health club and enlist the assistance of a paid personal trainer—a professional who is supposed to understand the body’s limits? The danger of injury is still very real, as it was exactly that situation in which a Connecticut man suffered a stroke following an intense exercise session. Earlier this year, a Connecticut Superior Court jury found the health club liable for the doctor’s injuries, returning a verdict of $14.5 million in his favor.
Pushing Through Limits
The doctor, a popular primary care physician, was 42 years old when he hired a personal trainer in 2011 at the Greenwich gym where he was a member. According to the man’s attorneys, the first four training sessions were without incident, but during the fifth, the trainer instructed the man to use a rowing machine. The trainer reportedly set the resistance on the machine to its maximum setting, and encouraged his client to do an “explosive pull.” When he did so, the doctor’s vision become blurry and he “did not feel right.” The trainer allegedly continued to push the man to finish his workout.
Around the country, crime rates have dropped to their lowest levels in more than 50 years, yet the rate of imprisonment remains much higher than in previous decades. In addition, a new metric—called the punishment rate—has been developed which make the situation seem even more out of proportion. According to a recent study by a prominent research organization, it would seem that the efforts by Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy to reform the state’s justice system and focus on rehabilitation are needed more than many may have realized.
Comprehensive Study
The Pew Charitable Trusts recently released a study conducted as a part of its Public Safety Performance Project. The study sought to examine the way in which crime is dealt with across the nation, based on two separate measurements. While, at first glance, the metrics may seem very similar, they are, in fact, quite different. When used together, they paint a very serious picture about the harsh punitive nature of the American criminal justice system.
When you are injured in an auto accident that was not your fault, you may be able to recover compensation for your injuries from the at-fault party. Similarly, when you are injured on the job, you are typically able to collect workers’ compensation benefits, though the available benefits are usually quite different. What happens, however, when the two scenarios are combined, and you are injured in a car accident in the course of your employment? The answer, as you might expect, depends heavily on the exact circumstances of your situation.
This dangerous combination, along with a few other important legal elements, seriously injured a maintenance worker at Mitchell College in 2012. The case was complex enough to require several attempts at mediation before a settlement was finally reached, netting the injured worker $735,000 in damages, just before a trial was scheduled to begin this month.
In 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in Florida v. Jardines, a case that involved the presence of a drug-sniffing dog on the porch of a suspect’s home without a warrant. The dog’s behavior on the porch and around the home suggested to law enforcement officers that there were illegal drugs inside the home. Based on the dog’s alert, the police obtained a warrant, searched the home, and arrested the suspect for marijuana trafficking. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the area “immediately surrounding and associated with home is part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes,” and that the introduction of the drug-sniffing dog with a warrant based on probable cause was a violation of the owner’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Precedent for Apartments?
From a practical standpoint, the high court’s ruling in Jardines applies fairly easily to single family dwellings and duplexes that share very little common area. But do the same Fourth Amendment rights apply to those who live in apartments, condos, and other homes with shared hallways and public spaces? In the federal court system, circuits around the country have been divided on the issue, which may be an indication that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately need to put the matter to rest. Meanwhile, the Connecticut Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case very similar to Jardines, but that involved a drug-sniffing dog in the common hallway of an apartment building in Hartford County.
Pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, crossovers, and minivans comprise a segment of the automobile market known as light trucks which are currently even more popular among new vehicle buyers than cars in the United States. Despite a frequent trade-off in gas mileage compared to cars, consumers continue to choose light trucks for many reasons, including their size, versatility, and visual appeal. Of course, a large number of buyers look at larger vehicles for themselves and their families because trucks generally offer a stronger sense of safety and security to drivers and passengers, especially when involved in an accident. This week, however, crash tests suggest that a well-known and very popular pickup truck did not perform as well as manufacturers may have hoped, raising serious concerns within the automotive industry.
Crash Test Research
Earlier this year, a judge from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals wrote an opinion that directly challenged a common practice in criminal courtrooms around the country. Issuing a concurring opinion in the appeal of a murder conviction against a 36-year-old D.C. man, Associate Judge Catharine Easterly wrote that claims by forensic experts that a bullet or shell casing can be unequivocally matched to a particular weapon lack a sound scientific basis and should not be permitted in criminal trials.
Thousands of Convictions
Anyone with any interest in criminal investigations, including readers of mystery thrillers and those who watch crime scene procedural dramas on television, can probably explain with reasonable accuracy the method used to match a bullet or shell casing to a particular firearm. When a slug or shell is found at the scene of a murder or other violent crime, forensic professionals then look for a suspect weapon. After firing the weapon, the technician compares bullets and shells known to have been fired by the gun with those found at the crime scene. If the markings, scratches, and scrapes on each slug or shell match one another, the technician concludes—and testifies—that they must have been fired by the same gun. Such testimony has contributed to the conviction of countless thousands of violent offenders.
50 Founders Plaza
