Blog
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
When you or someone you love has been hurt in a car accident, slip-and-fall accident, or an accident involving recreational equipment, it is important to determine if the actions or negligence of another party contributed to your injuries. If someone else is found to have caused the accident and, therefore, your injuries, he or she may be held liable for the losses you have suffered, including both economic and noneconomic damages. But, what if more than one party shares the blame for the accident? How is each to be held liable for his or her contribution and what if one of those at fault is unable to pay? A recent ruling by a jury in Middletown Superior Court took these questions into consideration as it awarded a teen more than $360,000 from three defendants for injuries sustained in a 2012 ATV accident.
Weekend of Fun Turns Dangerous
According to reports, the incident occurred in May 2012, when a teen girl invited three friends to her parents’ ranch in North Branford, all of whom were 15 or 16 years old at the time. As part of the weekend’s fun, the teens went for a ride on a four-wheeled all-terrain vehicle, or ATV, owned by the girls’ parents. The rides went without a problem on Saturday night, but on Sunday morning, two of the boys took the ATV back out again. During the morning ride, the driver began turning tight circles, or “doing doughnuts,” and, due to its high center of gravity, the vehicle tipped over and landed on the teen passenger’s ankle. The teen suffered severe lacerations, soft tissue damage, and a torn ligament, which, along with complications in the healing process, led to approximately $100,000 in medical bills.
In light of increasing concerns over police violence and the right of the public to film officers as they respond to calls and incidents, very few videos have been made public that provide insight into the discussions between responding officers on the job. Recently, one such video from West Hartford has gained a level of notoriety as a protestor from Connecticut captured a conversation between Connecticut State Troopers as they seemed to fabricate justifications for citing him. Despite promises from the State Police to investigate the matter, there has been no publicized action involving the officers as of yet, and the man is due in court next month in his effort to get his citations dismissed.
Open-Carry DUI Checkpoint Protest
The incident arose when 27-year-old man mounted a protest against a DUI checkpoint near an Interstate 84 exit ramp in West Hartford last September. Choosing to exercise both First and Second Amendment rights, the man held a sign warning motorists of the checkpoint and encouraging them to remain silent, while openly carrying a holstered handgun. Connecticut is an open carry state, and the man had both a license to carry and a valid permit for the weapon. Within about an hour, Connecticut State Troopers arrived, secured his gun, and confiscated his video camera. One officer can be seen on the video saying that it is illegal to take his picture. Without realizing that it was still recording, the troopers placed the camera on the roof of a cruiser.
In many personal injury cases, the keys to success include calling the right witnesses, providing detailed testimony, and proving your claim with relevant evidence. Knowing what not to say and who should not testify are equally important, but rarely does the situation call for the sole injured party to remain silent. This unusual strategy paid off earlier this year when a Bridgeport jury awarded a car accident victim more than $150,000 in damages without the victim having to speak a single word in proving her case.
Interstate 95 Accident
The case in question involved a 53-year-old woman injured as a passenger in a car crash on Interstate 95 in Bridgeport. She filed claims against both the driver of the car in which she rode and the driver of the other car involved in the accident. The woman was able to reach a settlement agreement with the insurance company of the other driver. She and her attorneys attempted to do the same with the driver of the car she was in at the time of the accident, but the two sides could not reach a compromise, and the case proceeded to trial. Liability was adjudicated by default when the defendant failed to respond to interrogatories, so the amount of damages was the only matter brought before the jury.
Here in Connecticut, Governor Dannel Malloy has been garnering a great deal of national attention for his work toward marked criminal justice reform. A large portion of his efforts focuses on developing a new approach to rehabilitating juvenile and young adult offenders. The Governor and his supporters believe that the developmental and cognitive differences between younger offenders and adults are significant, and processing defendants of all ages in the same system with the same sentencing standards may be doing more harm than good. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in recognition of such differences, extending a previous ruling that found mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles to be unconstitutional.
No More Automatic Life Without Parole
In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down federal and state laws that require life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles convicted of murder. By a 5-4 vote in Miller v. Alabama, the high court established that a young person found guilty of murder could be sentenced to life without parole, but only after careful consideration by a judge or jury of all the relevant factors, including the defendant’s age, maturity, and appreciation of consequences. In the majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that, based on individual consideration, “sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon.”
“The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.”
You have probably heard this line derived from an 18th century Scottish poem, thanks largely to the 1937 John Steinbeck novel Of Mice and Men. The maxim is meant as a reminder that, even with the best intentions and meticulous planning, occasionally things go wrong. When they do, in some instances, there is little to be done other than to pick up the pieces and move on, making the best of a bad situation. Other times, plans are upset by the actions or negligence of another, who, depending on the circumstances, could be held responsible for such actions under the law. Such was the case in a Rockville courtroom, where a jury found in favor of a woman whose wedding was delayed following an auto accident which greatly affected her health and well-being.
Uncertainty Regarding Injury
In late 2012, the woman was injured in a motor vehicle accident on Trumbull Highway in Lebanon, Connecticut. The driver of the other vehicle was ticketed for failure to yield the right of way and admitted to police, and eventually in a deposition, that he was at fault for the crash. The woman was taken to the hospital by ambulance where she was diagnosed with a fractured bone in her neck. Doctors, however, were not positive that the fracture was caused by the accident, positing that it could have been a preexisting condition. A specialist subsequently shared the emergency doctors’ uncertainty.
The state of Connecticut, in recent years, has been taken a leadership role in the national conversation regarding criminal justice reform thank, in large part, to the efforts of Governor Dannel Malloy. In the last year, Governor Malloy has focused much of his political attention on building what has become known as his “Second Chance Society,” one that, in his own words is “a little more forgiving” of those who may have broken the law but are willing “to fly right.”
As part of the initiative, penalties have already been reduced for simple drug possession, including the elimination of minimum sentences for nonviolent offenses. Now, Governor Malloy has set his sights on reforming the Connecticut juvenile justice system, aiming to prevent young lawbreakers from being forsaken as career criminals. While some of his ideas regarding juvenile justice have been met with skepticism—and in some cases, outright criticism—the governor and his supporters maintain the average 18-year-old is not mature enough to assume adult criminal responsibility. Lawmakers have yet to act on the juvenile reform proposals, but there is at least one major change in the works anyway.
For the second time in less than a year, a claimant has successfully sued a Connecticut municipality for injuries caused by unsafe sidewalk conditions. The most recent decision was handed down by a Superior Court jury, finding that the City of Bridgeport had been negligent in maintaining a safe sidewalk, and awarding the woman more than $416,000 in damages.
Dangerous Negligence
According to reports, the 69-year-old woman and sister had been walking on a public sidewalk in Bridgeport when she tripped over a portion of the walkway that was raised as much as two inches. As a result of her subsequent fall, the woman broke her left arm, requiring substantial surgery to repair, along with a number of other more superficial injuries. Her lawsuit also claimed that she was left with limited strength and mobility, which has greatly impacted her everyday life.
When properly collected and analyzed, DNA evidence is among the most clear-cut and convincing forensics in any criminal proceeding. Countless cases in the last several decades have been greatly impacted by the biological technology, including those of a large number of previously-convicted defendants who were later exonerated by DNA analysis.
Unsurprisingly, the success of such efforts has led all 50 states and the federal government to mandate the collection of DNA samples from at least some categories of convicted offenders, so as to assist in future investigations. Here in Connecticut, however, the state’s authority to use force in collecting DNA was recently brought before the state Supreme Court, promulgated by the appeals of two convicted felons who refused to submit to DNA collection.
Reasonable Force
The first of the two appellants was convicted of robbery in 1997 and was asked to provide a DNA sample under the law currently in place at the time. When he refused, the state filed a motion to be allowed the use of reasonable force to obtain the convicted felon’s DNA, which was granted, though court documents contained an explanation of what constituted reasonable force. The man appealed on the basis that forcing him to submit to DNA collection represented a second punishment for his crime, but the appellate court ruled that the law requiring DNA samples is regulatory, not punitive. Additionally, the appeals court found that, “prohibiting the state from using reasonable force would permit a felon to avoid his or her obligation to provide a DNA sample,” thus hampering the state’s efforts at future investigations.
Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy has become relatively well-known throughout the country over the last few years. Since taking office in January 2011, the Democratic governor has built himself a reputation for his sustained efforts regarding criminal justice reform throughout the state. Impressive results, including a drop of more than 20 percent in the state’s prison population and nearly a 30 percent reduction in violent and property crime, earned Malloy a spot as an invited guest to President Obama’s State of the Union Address earlier this month.
As his reform efforts continue, Governor Malloy is turning his attention to the state’s bail system. In a recent letter to the Connecticut Sentencing Commission, Malloy requested that the commission take up the concern, consider the various options, and make recommendations to the legislature about changes to the existing law. The Sentencing Commission exists primarily as a review and advisory body and includes appointed individuals, as well as the state’s Commissioner of Correction, Chief Public Defender, and other influential officeholders.
After four years of medical bills and legal wrangling, a Connecticut man will finally be receiving just over $1 million in a settlement stemming from an incident that occurred as the man and his friends were helping a disabled vehicle on Route 15 in Stratford. The accident left the man with 13 fractures and a degree of permanent disability due to injuries to his cervical spine and shoulder. The case highlights a number of important concerns regarding personal injury claims, including negligence and contributory fault, which ultimately played a role in arriving at a reasonable settlement.
How It Happened
In October 2011, the claimant, along with several friends, were traveling northbound on the Merritt Parkway when a vehicle in front of them ran out of gas. Along that particular stretch of the parkway, there is very little room along the shoulder, so the disabled vehicle was forced to stop partially in the right-hand travel lane. The man and his friends stopped to offer their assistance, helping to push the vehicle to a safer location. As the Good Samaritans attempted to get back into their own vehicle, still partially blocking the travel lane, the defendant’s vehicle slammed into their car, seriously injuring the claimant. The man suffered multiple fractures to his spine and ribs, along with numerous internal injuries.
50 Founders Plaza
