Alabama Injury Lawyers Blog

The U.S. Supreme Court Keeps Slamming the Courthouse Door Shut on We The People

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:23:31 -0600

Talk about "activist judges." When people talk about activist judges, they are referring to judges who make law, rather than interpret law. They think only "liberal judges" make law. However most activist judges are big business conservatives many say.

For years, the law in this country would not allow people or corporations to enter into arbitration agreements until they had a dispute that needed resolving. In other words, the courts would not enforce pre-dispute contracts to arbitrate. The courts thought the dispute should be known before constitutional rights could be waived. Once people knew there was a dispute that needed settling, they could chose to go to arbitration instead of going to court. Generally only big businesses and contractors used the arbitration process. Big corporations were much more successful in front of arbitrators they hired. Big business learned that if they could lure people to arbitration it was a win -- win for them. Traditionally, the courts would not enforce arbitration agreements unless the dispute was known and those involved knowingly chose to arbitrate, giving up their rights to a jury trial and ever going to court.

How could big business get around the law or get it changed? If they could entice people to sign an arbitration agreement before the people knew there was a dispute and somehow get the courts to enforce the arbitration scheme, they would have it made. They thought it would be even easier if they could trap people into arbitration without them knowing it. "We could keep the consumer from suing us no matter what -- buying a bad car, charging something on a credit card that shouldn't have been charged, and even taking money out of their bank account that we shouldn't have taken. We could even deny them their Constitutional right to trial by jury and fix it so they cannot appeal what our arbitrator says."

We know that cannot happen in America -- can it? The courts would never go along with Americans being denied their right to go to court and justice - would they? The Founders put the right to trial by jury in the very first 10 Amendments, along with freedom to bear arms, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. These are fundamental rights of every American, right? They cannot trick us into signing a contract that is against the law. For a contract to be enforceable, both parties have to know what they are doing, agree to it, and exchange something of value--just like buying a candy bar, a car, or even a house.

Believe it or not, it has happened! With money, power, and influence the special interests have managed to avoid being sued in court for the wrongs they do. "You can't sue us and take us to court," they say,"but if you have enough money, you can go before our arbitrators; of course, you have to pay, you are bound by what they say. No court for you, no jury of your peers, no right to appeal! You take what the arbitrator gives you, ha! If anything."

Credit card companies can now legally bury the "so called agreement" in a long document of fine print; send it in the mail, and if you use your credit card again, the courts will say you agreed to arbitration. Even though you had no idea or knowledge that would be the result. Your bank can bury the "so called agreement" in a long deposit agreement of fine print and the Supreme Court will say you entered a contract to arbitrate if you use your bank account again in any way. Big Business is rewarded with a "get out of jail free card." "What" you say, "that can't be true!" Well it is true! It is time to wake up and stop supporting those who are stripping our constitutional rights. Talk about courts and big business and big government controlling you, manipulating you, and leaving you with what the bird left on the pump handle (to use a phrase of the south), -- it has happened!

Even when Congress passes a law clearly requiring credit repair organizations to inform you of your "right to sue" for violations of the law, the U.S. Supreme court held 8-1 that Congress did not rule out arbitration for settling CROA (Credit Repair Organizations Act) violations despite the Act's provision, that said, the company must tell customers they had a right to sue. Guess Congress was just kidding.

In the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, the Court held that victims of predatory credit repair organizations who unwittingly and unknowingly sign credit card agreements containing pre dispute mandatory arbitration clauses cannot go to court, but must go to binding arbitration. (CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, No. 10-948 (Jan. 10, 2012).)

It is hard to believe that when Congress says, "right to sue," the Court would say that means, "right to arbitrate," not "right to sue." Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, concluding even though the Act says "right to sue" the law "is silent" on where you could sue, (don't you sue in court?), so since the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires the enforcement of arbitration agreements, you must go to binding arbitration. So there!

"The Federal Arbitration Act does not work for consumers and employees," said Gary Paul, president of American Association for Justice. "It is time for Congress to pass the Arbitration Fairness Act to protect consumers and employees from these abusive practices."
Gregory S. Cusimano

Alabama Supreme Court Says Wrongful Death Act Applies To Pre-Viable Fetus

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:59:33 -0600

Mack v. Carmack, 2011 Ala. LEXIS 141 (Ala. 2011).

In a rare victory for Alabama plaintiffs, the Alabama Supreme Court unanimously held that the Wrongful Death Act, Ala. Code § 6-5-391, permits an action for the death of a pre-viable fetus. With their decision in Mack v. Carmack, the Supreme Court overruled two 1993 cases, which held that no cause of action for wrongful death exists if the fetus is not viable at the time of death. See Gentry v. Gilmore, 613 So. 2d 1241 (Ala. 1993) and Lollar v. Tankersley, 613 So. 2d 1249 (Ala. 1993). In their conclusion, the Court stated that it is illogical and arbitrary to create a bright line that allows recovery for a fetus that was injured before viability and dies after reaching viability but that prevents recovery for a fetus injured, and as a result of those injuries, does not reach viability.

On September 13, 2007, Mack paid Thomas Carmack to drive her and her fiancé to the grocery store. On the way to the grocery store, Carmack knowingly made an illegal left hand turn at a red light. When Carmack turned, an oncoming vehicle hit the passenger side of Carmack's car causing injuries to Mack. At the time of the accident, Mack was twelve weeks pregnant and her injuries resulted in the miscarriage of her baby.

On November 15, 2007, Mack filed a wrongful death claim on behalf of her baby. On September 30, 2009, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Carmack on the wrongful death claim. The trial court, relying on the Lollar and Gentry cases, held that "the Alabama Wrongful Death Act does not allow for a cause of action for a nonviable fetus."

On appeal, the plaintiff's argued that the Lollar court failed to recognize a cause of action under the Wrongful Death Act for a pre-viable fetus "without a clearer expression of legislative intent." However, the plaintiff states that 2006 legislation, the Brody Act, changed the definition of the term "person" for the purpose of criminal homicide to "a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability." Ala. Code § 13A-6-1(a)(3). The defendant conceded that the legislature changed the definition of "person" for purposes of homicides, but did not change the definition for purposes of the Wrongful Death Act. The defense further stated that since the legislature did not amend the Wrongful Death Act at the same time they amended the criminal code, the change gives no basis for overruling Lollar and Gentry.

In analyzing the issue of whether or not the Wrongful Death Act applies to the death of a fetus before viability, the Supreme Court reviewed the history in Alabama of wrongful death claims arising out of prenatal injuries. In reviewing prior case law, the court found that the purpose of a wrongful death statute is to prevent homicide through punishment of the culpable party and the determination of damages. The court stated that it would be inconsistent if a defendant could be responsible criminally for the homicide of a fetus, but he would not be responsible civilly. Furthermore, the court held that the viability rule is an arbitrary rule that actually benefits the tortfeasor who inflicts a more severe injury.

Drug Testing To Receive Unemployment Benefits

Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:04:39 -0600

The holidays are here -- a time when we spread joy, gather with our families, be thankful for our good fortune, and open our hearts and pockets to those not so fortunate. I was in disbelief when I read what one party of congress proposed. Mandatory drug testing for Americans who find themselves unemployed and apply for unemployment compensation.

Only one state, as far as I know, passed such a law. The first 1000 people tested resulted in 98% being completely drug free. What a waste and an insult to working Americans who find themselves out of work through no fault of their own. There are 13,000,000 Americans who find themselves in this lot. If Florida is any example, each drug test will cost $30.00. Guess what folks, that is a cost of $390,000,000 (three hundred ninety-million dollars) to find 98% of those tested are clean! What a great Christmas present to the unfortunate and to taxpayers as well. Give me a break!

We Don't Need Big Government -- or Lawyers Either!

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:11:50 -0600

We don't need big government -- only a government big enough to to keep mega financial corporations from destroying our pensions, 401Ks and savings.

We don't need big government -- only a government big enough to regulate and keep massive oil companies from wrecking our commercial fisheries, decimating our sea food industries, destroying our coastlines, beaches, and demolishing our environment.

We don't need big government -- only a government big enough to keep us safe from pharmaceutical corporations grabbing billions in profits rather than properly testing medicines that are supposed to help us. We just need a government big enough to keep them from lying to our good doctors about medicines they spend millions to advertise that could and do kill us.

We don't need big government -- only a government big enough to prevent fraudsters and crooks from manipulating the stock market and scamming good honest Americans, robbing them of their future.

We don't need big government -- only a government big enough to regulate and develop clean water systems and keep uncaring corporations from polluting the air we breath and the water we drink without us even knowing about it.

We don't need big government -- only a government big enough to protect us from foods that can poison us from products sold and imported from foreign countries that injure and kill our children and families.

We don't need big government -- only a government big enough to insure we have available funds from our payments to Social Security to help take care of us in our senior years and medicare to help with our medical cost.

We don't need big government -- only one that will assure we won't die on the street from a treatable medical conditions because we don't have the money or insurance to cover the cost.

We don't need big government -- only a government that will assure when we fly in planes, the tops won't rip off because of bad maintenance.

We don't need big government -- only a government that will protect us from terrorism and attack from enemies without and within.

We don't need big government -- only a government that will protect our borders.

We don't need Lawyers -- only lawyers skilled in trial to protect our essential Constitutional rights of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bare arms.

We don't need Lawyers -- only lawyers skilled in trial to protect our essential Constitutional right to a jury trial rather than an arbitration scheme we can't afford.

We don't need Lawyers -- only lawyers skilled in trial to help us get justice when we have been cheated by crooked businesses and others taking advantage of us.

We don't need Lawyers -- only lawyers skilled in trial to secure payment of our just insurance proceeds when an insurance company that took our money refuses to pay our benefits.

We don't need Lawyers -- only lawyers skilled in trial to help us get justice when we contracted and paid for a new roof, or even a new home and we are unable to get the company to honor their promises.

We don't need Lawyers -- only lawyers skilled in trial to enforce the law when we have suffered discrimination, unequal pay and denied equal opportunity.

And yet we all fall for the same propaganda, over and over again that we should weaken our government regulations and our justice system because it is inefficient and out of control. Yes, it is inefficient but should we trust corporate America and their CEOs to do the right thing? Government and the judicial system is the only chance we citizens have to keep in check big money, big power, big influence and big special interest. We have never seen out of control until we allow big money, big power, big influence and big special interest to run roughshod over our citizens rights, without reasonable regulation of government and the threat of litigation.

They spend billions of dollars marketing their snake oil, and we willingly take it!
Br Gregory S. Cusimano

Please Check Out Gregory S. Cusimano's Blog Post The Law Of Beliefs

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:31:47 -0600

The Law Of Beliefs, jurybiasblog.com, March 20, 2011

The Assembly Line of Justice

Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:56:00 -0600

"No one believes that the justice system can be either perfect or pure because judges, lawyers, jurors, witnesses and government officials are human beings. Nonetheless, justice must be, as much as possible, an impartial and unbiased application of the law to the facts, which means that those who serve the law must be the best we have."

What a true statement. Human beings, be they judges, lawyers, or jurors, are instruments in the Anglo-American justice system. This system is not a robotic machine, but instead an assembly line of people, each with an important role to play. And if our justice system is flawed, it is flawed only because we, as human beings, are flawed. Lawyers feel the pressure of the expectations of their clients. Judges feel the pressure of getting elected or getting the appointment depending on the system. Jurors feel the pressure of attitudes and beliefs created by the media and other special interest.

Even the most successful players in our justice system feel these pressures. In the 1980s, trial lawyer Richard "Dickie" Scruggs did very well for himself by collecting millions for Asbestos victims. By the 1990s, Mr. Scruggs had made an even bigger name for himself by representing the State of Mississippi against the Tobacco industry. Despite these tremendous accomplishments, Mr. Scruggs was not immune to the pressure of great expectations, as Ben Toledano notes in his book review of The Fall of The House of Zeus: The Rise and Ruin of America's Most Powerful Trial Lawyer.

Despite our flawed nature, achieving justice requires an impartial and unbiased application of the law to the facts. To achieve this goal, each person on the assembly line must strive to set aside personal motivations, such as greed, ambition and a "win at any cost" attitude, so that a blindfolded lady justice may weigh the facts presented upon the scales of the law. Strive is the operative word, because no one can be completely objective. When those on the assembly line allow personal motivations to outweigh the impartial application of the law to the facts, lady justice's blindfold is removed and our system fails. It happens more than it should, but there is no perfect system. Regardless, the very best from our society must work on this assembly line. We should continue to use our best efforts to make it as fair as humanly possible , knowing that we will never achieve perfection.
By: Greg Cusimano and Eric Wood

Deaf to Danger: How Your Child's MP3 Player Could Cause Permanent Hearing Damage!

Sun, 05 Dec 2010 14:37:45 -0600

As parents know, listening to loud music on a MP3 player is a way of life for many young people. With today's MP3 players, users enjoy long battery life, vast storage space, and volume of up to 120 decibels. But as Yale's Professor Peter Rabinowitz notes, "the use of personal music players has grown faster than our ability to assess their potential health consequences."

In a recent study published in the British Journal of Medicine, Professor Rabinowitz observes that the misuse of MP3 players can have life-long consequences. This is because loud music, like any loud noise, can damage delicate hair nerve cells in the inner ear over time. Prolonged exposure to loud noise can cause permanent hearing damage, and the longer a person is exposed to loud noise, the worse the damage is.

And the design of popular MP3 players may exacerbate the potential for hearing loss. In a recent lawsuit, Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2009), the plaintiffs sued Apple alleging that the "iPod is defective because it poses an unreasonable risk of noise-induced hearing loss to its users." The plaintiffs brought multiple claims alleging that Apple's MP3 player is inherently dangerous because it comes with stock ear buds (designed to be placed deep into the ear canal rather than over the ears) which increase the danger of hearing damage, and lacks any volume meter that will inform users they are listening at dangerous levels. The district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument, holding that (1) the plaintiffs' allegations "suggest only that users have the option of using an iPod in a risky manner, not that the product lacks any minimum level of quality" and (2) the alleged injuries were merely hypothetical because no plaintiff had yet to suffer "the requisite injury in fact." Despite this court ruling, emerging medical research indicates that MP3 players can cause hearing loss in children if misused.

In light of this research, and this holiday season, parents can take simple precautions to protect their child's hearing. Monitoring the volume and length of exposure, as well as replacing stock "ear buds" with traditional headphones, are simple things which could go a long way toward preventing hearing loss.
By Eric Wood and Gregory S. Cusimano

Arbitration -- Another 5 to 4 decision U.S. Supremes

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 10:03:14 -0600

Scalia writes for what some have called the big business wing of the court, that if you signed an unfair arbitration agreement and therefore claim it is unenforceable, you still cannot go to court -- the arbitrator gets to decide if it was unfair.

The main question involved is whether one is able to go to court to determine if an arbitration agreement could be set aside because it was legally unconscionable.

The Supreme Court said if the agreement says the arbitrator is to determine if the agreement is enforceable, then under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), the arbitrator will make that decision and you cannot go to court. Justice Scalia wrote for the 5 justices that prevailed saying if the challenge was just to a particular part of the agreement rather than the whole, then a court could decide. So if one claimed just part of the agreement was unenforceable a court could decide, but if you claimed the whole agreement was unenforceable the arbitrator got to decide? Interesting!

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for what some have called the people side of the court dissented and criticized the majority for adopting a position not proposed by either party during briefing or oral arguments. From a legal standpoint it is nearly unheard of for the court to make a decision on an issue or facts not raised by either side. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, joined in the dissent.

The lesson for all of us -- reinforced -- Don't sign an arbitration agreement unless you are sure you know what you are doing and understand it will probably cost you more to go to arbitration than to court.

By Gregory S. Cusimano

Docket No.: 09-497
Petitioner: Rent-A-Center West, Inc.
Respondent: Antonio Jackson
Decided By: Roberts Court (2009-2010 )
Opinion: 561 U.S. ___ (2010)
Granted: Friday, January 15, 2010
Argued: Monday, April 26, 2010
Decided: Monday, June 21, 2010

SCOTUS -- Silence is Not Enough to Remain Silent

Fri, 04 Jun 2010 09:55:07 -0600

By Gregory S. Cusimano

You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney and have that attorney present when we question you. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided you at no cost.

If you have ever watched a law TV show you know an incriminating statement by a suspect cannot be used against them unless they have been Mirandized. An article in the ABA Journal reports that in a new Supreme Court opinion "Suspects Must Speak to Invoke Right to Silence"

In a 5-4 opinion the Court in substance held that remaining silent for 3 hours of questions from the police did not invoke the right to remain silent. I guess the suspect would have to speak to remain silent. Actually say, I refuse to waive my Miranda right to remain silent. Warden V. Thompkins ,(No.08--1470), 560 U.S._____(June, 2010).

The 4 dissenting Justices call the majority opinion a "substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination." The defendant took the position that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by actually remaining silent. The Majority disagreed.

It is also interesting why it seems recently the Court has not followed precedent of deciding cases as narrowly as possible. We have seen a shift. What do you think?

Alabama Consumers Beware of Exploding Plastic Gas Containers

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:07:00 -0600

Should we be concerned with current gas containers?
by Gregory S, Cusimano

Howard Dawn poured gasoline into the tank of his lawn mower, placed the cap on the gas container spout and placed it in the middle of a nearby outdoor table in his yard.   Jimmy, his 4 year old son, playing in the backyard, somehow picked up the gas container, the cap came off and Jimmy dragged the container into the open garage. When Howard saw Jimmy and the gas container lying on the floor in a puddle of gasoline, he ran and grabbed Jimmy.   As he did the gasoline vapors caught on fire and the gas container exploded, engulfing them in flames, severely burning Jimmy and Howard. How could that be? What could have ignited the gasoline? Why would the plastic container explode?

It's spring, we all love being outside, working in the yard, smelling fresh cut grass enjoying Alabama's new growth of azaleas. We can be close to tragedy without ever knowing it. If you have a weed eater, lawn mower or gasoline blower, you are likely to have a cheap red plastic gasoline container. Now we know that something we think is simple and cheap would not explode like dynamite engulfing us or our children in flames. Right? Wrong! Children and family members have been devastatingly burned by these yard bombs. Fumes can ignite from hidden sources and the fire re-enters the containers which explode. We never would have guessed how easily the fumes can ignite. A pilot light, light switch, an open flame or even static electricity can start the fire.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) just last year finally required plastic gas cans or containers to have safety caps which are resistant to being open easily by children. Although overdue, it was a good step.

Understanding the difference in Believing and Knowing!

Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:25:16 -0600

I have mused before about how a belief can form an attitude. I still think that is true, but, somehow there is a difference in what someone believes and what someone knows. The belief system is formed, adopted, modified, and solidified generally on what we have seen, heard, been, tasted, experienced, touched, or read. In other words, it is formed through our senses based on what we have been told, taught, or information we have received. Often supported by anecdotal information. Our belief system can be formed by our parents, schoolmates, media, employer, partner, books, T.V., internet, etc.--often from people we think are in authority or have more information than we have.

Generally, the belief system is formed from external sources, and then unconsciously adopted internally. If we are exposed to the same information over and over again with little if any contrary information, the belief system becomes more deeply held. The view may reach what can be called a core belief and can even approach something that is just known.

Knowing can be distinguished from most beliefs because it is something you just know. You can feel it. You are certain. You can't always explain why, but there is something within that just tells you this is so. Maybe some kind of internal guidance system, or innate knowledge, or even primal knowledge, but something is providing you with the needed answers, the direction, and the right reflex as long as you listen to the internal information. A belief is subject to contradiction and possibly can be changed--a knowing generally cannot.

Although beliefs can be altered, the more deeply a belief is held, the more difficult it is to alter. Once it reaches the state of knowing, it's much more difficult to alter, if it can be altered at all. It requires a much longer and a more systematic rhythmic experience. Sometimes the source of knowing is referred to as the inner voice, or may even have a spiritual dimension, but from wherever the source, it is undeniably there. There are just things we know, oftentimes on an unconscious gut level, but just as often on a conscious cognitive level. The level of knowing is much more powerful than the level of believing.

As lawyers who try cases, it is important to learn the beliefs and even the "knowings" of the people who compose our juries. Believing is seeing, not the other way around. It is just as important to understand views regarding politics, parties, religion and opposing views. Attitudes, beliefs, and knowings affect our very lives. Being aware of their effect on our lives is a plus.

I think it was Will Rogers who once said, "It's not ignorance that's so bad, it's what you know that ain't so".

Plastic Gas Container -- Dynamite in a Can?

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:21:26 -0600

Fumes Ignite Re-Enter Gas Container and Explode!

Do you have a plastic gas container you use? I'll bet it doesn't have a fire safety shield. For well over 100 years gas cans for gas storage were known to be equipped with safety shields - a simple mesh filter that keeps ignited fumes from going back into the container and exploding injuring and killing people. Once big box stores started buying and selling things for the cheapest prices possible makers of gas containers started using plastics and chose to sell the containers without the simple safety shield.

Since then many have been injured and killed by fires and explosions that could have been prevented if a simple safety shield costing pennies had been included. Fumes Ignite Re-Enter Gas Container and Explode!

Do you have a plastic gas container you use? I'll bet it doesn't have a fire safety shield. For well over 100 years gas cans for gas storage were known to be equipped with safety shields - a simple mesh filter that keeps ignited fumes from going back into the container and exploding injuring and killing people. Once big box stores started buying and selling things for the cheapest prices possible makers of gas containers started using plastics and chose to sell the containers without the simple safety shield.

Since then many have been injured and killed by fires and explosions that could have been prevented if a simple safety shield costing pennies had been included.

Radiation Overexposure -- CT Scans

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:19:28 -0600

Some people throughout the United States have received excess radiation as a result of medical imaging. Many of the scanners were GE machines. A case has been filed by our firm and others to create a medical monitoring fund to provide annual or semi-annual testing. The testing will (1) provide earlier detection of cancerous tumors resulting from the radiation; and (2) provide early detection to allow quick and decisive treatment.

GE has asked the Court to dismiss the case and is claiming that the patients' hair loss and subcellular damage are not a "present injury."

Hearing will be held in Washington D.C. this week concerning the safety and safeguards that can or should be implemented. Patients are hopeful that the hearings scheduled to be held tomorrow by the Committee on Energy and Commerce (Subcommittee on Health) will ask substantive questions regarding the safeguards that GE, and other CT manufacturers, have failed to include in their machines which would have ensured patient safety and eliminated this unnecessary risk. We further hope that the Committee will uncover why it has taken the overexposure of hundreds of patients to garner the industry's attention to this serious public health matter.

It has now been discovered that patients in Missouri have suffered exposure as well as patients in Alabama and California. The patients exposed to dangerous levels of radiation in Springfield, Missouri are appears to be another example of the industry's disregard for patient safety.

The law firms representing patients are Cusimano, Keener, Roberts, Knowles & Raley, LLC, Gadsden, Alabama, Watson, McKinney & Artrip, LLP, Huntsville Al, and Owen, Patterson & Owen in CA. Those wishing further information about the law suit may contact lawyers in those firms.

Government bans texting by bus & truck drivers

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:30:22 -0600

The United States Department of Transportation has announced new rules, effective immediately, to prohibit truck drivers and bus drivers from texting while driving commercial vehicles. Civil or criminal penalties of up to $2,750 may be imposed for violations. Specifics on implementation of the ban have not yet been established.

A Virginia Tech study concluded that 80% of crashes are related to driver inattention. According to the National Safety Council, drivers using handheld devices are 4 times as likely to be involved in wrecks serious enough to cause injuries.

Research by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration shows that drivers who text take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds out of every 6 seconds. Drivers who text are more than 20 times more likely to become involved in an accident than drivers who are not texting. Several states have already passed legislation prohibiting texting while driving.

Mike Roberts

Cadmium Concerns In Chinese Toys And Jewelry

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:13:13 -0600

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has expressed concern about cadmium in cheap metal jewelry, and has suggested that such jewelry and toys be taken away from children because of potential exposure to toxic metal.

In 2008, a federal ban was instituted on the use of lead in charms and jewelry. Many, however, have feared that some Chinese manufacturers simply began substituting cadmium, which is also toxic. The Associated Press reported high cadmium levels in bracelet charms and similar items in Wal-Mart and Claire?s stores, resulting in these products being withdrawn at those stores.

Cadmium can cause cancer and kidney problems. Typically, cadmium poisoning is associated with heavy industry workers, such as those involved in smelting ore or recycling batteries. Experts have not previously seen significant cadmium issues associated with children?s health issues. The president of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Inez Tenebaum, has suggested that children not be permitted to use cheap metal jewelry.

The problem has drawn the attention of Congress, where hearings are being requested, and legislation addressing the cadmium issue in jewelry and toys is being proposed.

Michael L. Roberts