Birmingham Injury Blog

Yahoo News has posted an article that discusses the ongoing problem of teenagers continuing to text while driving. The majority of teens choose to ignore bans on texting while driving. Bans are hard for police to enforce:

Some police agencies, while strongly in favor of such mandates, say its tough for officers to enforce them.

The California Highway Patrol has handed out nearly 163,000 tickets to drivers talking on hand-held phones since mid-2008. But it has issued only 1,400 texting citations since January in a state of 23 million drivers -- not for lack of trying.

"The handheld cell phone is relatively easy for us to spot, we can see when somebody has their phone up to their ear," CHP spokeswoman Fran Clader said.

"But with the texting it's a little bit more of a challenge to catch them in the act, because we have to see it and if they are holding it down in their lap it's going to be harder for us to see."

Texting increases the likelihood of being in an accident by as much as 23 times.

"What I would say is that texting and cell phone devices have become such a component of life for teens and for young people that it's hard for them to differentiate between doing something normal and doing something wrong," said Steven Bloch, senior research associate for the Automobile Club.

Justice Begins Here has reported a 1.5 million dollar verdict in Macon County in a slip and fall. According to the post,

As a result, Mr. Lawrence fell and suffered multiple spinal cord injuries. The verdict was for $1 million in compensatory damages (to compensate Mr. Lawrence for his injuries, lost wages, future lost wages and future care) and $500,000 in punitive damages (to punish VictoryLand and send a message to other establishments).

We appreciate the lawyers at Justice Begins Here, Lewis & McAtee, P.C. for alerting us to this important verdict. Slip and fall cases are very difficult and often times people don't think about someone really suffering an injury from slipping or tripping due to the defendant's negligence but this case reminds us that a victim can be seriously injured in one of these cases.

Be careful out there and if you are injured, get medical help as soon as possible and contact a good personal injury attorney for a free consultation to know what your options are in your particular situation.

Congratulations to the Beasley Allen firm for its verdict on Thursday, February 22 against AstraZeneca PLC. This was a difficult and hard fought case that is far from over.

The Beasley firm represented the State of Alabama claiming that the drug company had over-charged the State's medicaid system for drugs. Through the trial process, they discovered that the drug company had been charging medicaid one fee and then selling the drugs to wholesalers for much less money.

After hearing all of the evidence, the jury returned a verdict against AstraZeneca PLC for a total of $215 million, $40 million in compensatory damages and $175 million in punitive damage. The drug company vehemently denies any wrongdoing and plans on appealing.

To read more about read the story at several different cites including, here, here or here.

This was an important win for the State and several other states, as there is another trial scheduled in April under the same theory, but against another drug manufacturer. Additionally, other states are looking at bringing similar type suits. We wish them luck.

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court ruled against an injured man and in favor of a medical device manufacture in an 8-1 ruling. The basis of the ruling was that the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) had approved the device so that consumers are not allowed to sue under state law claiming that the device was defective or that the warning was inadequate.

The excellent Washington Post article by Robert Barnes summarizes the case:

The court ruled 8 to 1 against the estate of a New York man who was seriously injured when a balloon catheter manufactured by Medtronic burst during an angioplasty in 1996. Charles Riegel, who died three years ago, and his wife sued under New York law, alleging that the device's design was faulty and its labeling deficient.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said federal law preempts the imposition of liability under state laws for devices that have undergone the Food and Drug Administration's pre-market approval process, the most rigorous of the FDA's testing procedures.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the lone dissenter. Congress did not intend the preemption clause, Ginsburg wrote, "to effect a radical curtailment of state common-law suits seeking compensation for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical devices."

The Washington Post article notes the basis for the majority's opinion (authored by Scalia) is

Allowing juries to award damages when something goes wrong, Scalia wrote, would be unfair. A jury "sees only the cost of a more dangerous design, and is not concerned with its benefits; the patients who reaped those benefits are not represented in court," Scalia wrote. Patients "would suffer without new medical devices if juries were allowed to apply the tort law of 50 states to all innovations."

We are pleasantly surprised at the reaction among congress -

"The Supreme Court's decision strips consumers of the rights they've had for decades," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "This isn't what Congress intended, and we'll pass legislation as quickly as possible to fix this nonsensical situation."

The whole issue of federal preemption of state law is very active one that we will continue to watch as the more the courts find preemption the more state law claims are swept away without normally any federal claim being put in its place to compensate injured citizens of Alabama and other states.