Maine Injury Lawyer Blog

The Role of Causation in Bangor Personal Injury Cases: McIlroy v. Gibson

Sat, 05 May 2012 20:48:43 -0500

All accidents are caused by something; however, it is often difficult to establish the cause of an accident after it has occurred and when you were not involved.

A recent Maine motorcycle accident case delves into the idea of speculation in the determination of causation in personal injury cases.

McIlroy v. Gibson's Apple Orchard exemplified the importance of having an experienced Bangor personal injury attorney helping you prove the cause of your recent accident case.

This case began where Charlotte Small (Small) was driving his car through an intersection where he had the right of way. There was a very large sign on the side of the road causing Small to move her vehicle in order to have an unobstructed view of the road. McIlroy (plaintiff) was riding his motorcycle when he saw Small move slightly, thus he maneuvered in an attempt to prevent a collision. Small lost control of his motorcycle. Plaintiff did not collide with Small or any other vehicles but he was seriously injured when his motorcycle turned over.

The issue in this case became what caused the accident. Causation is an integral part of a personal injury claim. Most motorcycle accident cases fall under personal injury, and in order to prove a personal injury case the elements of negligence must be proved by the plaintiff. Negligence is a civil wrong where a party fails to act as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances. There is no requirement that the plaintiff prove that the defendant acted with intent; however, the plaintiff must show the defendant acted carelessly or recklessly.

Negligence consists of four elements that must be proved by the preponderance of the evidence. First, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a specific duty of care. Next, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant breached this required duty of care. Then, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Lastly, the plaintiff must show damages.

In McIlroy, Small argued that because he had the right of way and did not collide with the plaintiff, he should not be held liable for the injuries the plaintiff sustained. Thus, plaintiff sued Gibson's Apple Orchard (defendant).

Defendant had placed an eight-foot-square sign advertising their location near the intersection where the plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff argued that because of the size and location of the sign, Small had to sway into plaintiff's lane in order to have an unobstructed view of the road. Thus, plaintiff said the defendants' sign was the "proximate cause" of the plaintiff's accident and injuries.

Proximate cause is where the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant could have reasonably foreseen the plaintiff sustaining injuries as a result of defendant's carelessness.

In the alternative, the plaintiff argued that because of the size and placement of the sign Small had to maneuver around the sign. This maneuver made plaintiff think that Small was about to pull his vehicle in front and cause a collision, leading plaintiff to lose control of his motorcycle.

This court found that there was evidence to show that the location of the defendant's sign could have caused the damages plaintiff suffered. Because a reasonable jury could have found this link in causation, the court held that the case needed to be presented to a jury for a determination of damages owed to the plaintiff.

What Type of Insurance Benefits are You Entitled to in Your Personal Injury Case? Casale v. Cranston Answers

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:48:44 -0500

Casale v. City of Cranston is a recent Rhode Island case dealing with issues surrounding insurance coverage and injured on duty benefits.

If you have been involved in a car accident in Bangor, it is important to know what insurance proceeds and benefits you are entitled to. Having an experienced Bangor injury attorney can give you the award you deserve to get the medical help you need.

James Casale (Casale or plaintiff) was employed by the City of Cranston (City) as a firefighter. After receiving notification of an emergency, plaintiff was driving a firefighter emergency vehicle to the location of the call. In transit, the emergency vehicle was struck by a vehicle driven by an uninsured driver. This uninsured driver was driving the vehicle negligently, and caused the accident with the emergency vehicle being driven by plaintiff.

As a result of this accident, plaintiff suffered serious injuries which caused him to be unable to perform crucial job related activities for several months. Because plaintiff had been injured while on duty, the city gave him injured-on-duty (IOD) benefits. While receiving these IOD benefits, plaintiff began a claim for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits with his insurance company, Amica Mutual Insurance Company (Amica). This dispute between the plaintiff and the City is a result this plaintiff's claim with Amica.

Uninsured motorist coverage is a type of insurance benefits offered when you buy your automobile insurance. This type of coverage provides protection if you are involved in an accident with an uninsured driver. Because you cannot collect benefits from an uninsured driver, your insurance company will compensate you. This type of coverage is not standard in every state; however, it is critical to speak with your insurance representative to discuss the option of purchasing this coverage.

In this case, the plaintiff had a UM policy for $100,000. Because the City had already paid the plaintiff a significant amount in IOD benefits, Amica subtracted that amount from the policy limit of $100,000 and gave plaintiff the difference. Upon finding out about this claim, the city argued that the plaintiff was required to pay it back the amount they paid in IOD benefits. Plaintiff countered this argument by claiming that the city was not entitled to this reimbursement and asked the court to make a judicial determination of this.

The City acknowledged that the plaintiff was injured while he was performing his job duties and that he rightfully obtained IOD benefits from the city. However, the city countered the plaintiff's argument stating that because the plaintiff had received UM benefits from Amica, the city should be reimbursed consistent with a state statute regarding liability to third persons. States have adopted statutes to protect liable parties from situations where the injured victim collects double the damages.

The city reasoned that Amica should be seen as "the person liable to pay damages" under the statute governing liability of third persons for damages. They argued that just as the insurance company steps in the shoes of the uninsured driver and pays benefits to their insured, the insurance company should be treated as the uninsured driver. And the statute the city pointed to stated that where the uninsured driver makes payments to the injured victim, the insurance company is reimbursed for any over-payments.

The lower court found in favor of the plaintiff and refused to award the city with the reimbursement they asked for. This court heard the appeal from the lower court's decision and found in favor of the plaintiff finding that the City of Cranston was not entitled to reimbursements from the proceeds of plaintiff's UM benefits.

The Court in McCain v. Town of North Providence Says Your Job Title Makes a Difference in Bangor Workers' Compensation Cases

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:43:02 -0500

Firefighters are one of the most crucial components of our society today. But when safety personnel are injured on the job, statute says they cannot collect benefits under workers' compensation. They must receive benefits through the states "injured on duty statute."

If you have questions surrounding the benefits you are entitled to in your Bangor workers' compensation case, our experienced Bangor injury attorneys can help.

McCain v. Town of North Providence is a case that tackles questions surrounding the Rhode Island's "injured on duty statute." The mayor's chief of staff in 2001 wrote a memorandum to the town's fire chief indicating that the town had hired McCain (plaintiff) as a 3rd Class Firefighter. The fire chief then issued an order which formalized this appointment of McCain. Subsequently, McCain received an identification card where he was considered a technician and a member of the town fire department. As a technician or lineman, plaintiff was not considered to be part of the operations division, as he was not obligated to attend fire department training. Plaintiff was responsible for maintaining communication equipment, aiding inspectors from the Fire Prevention Division, and assisting the fire chief in any departmental issue.

Plaintiff was a member of the AFL-CIO (the union) which was exclusively responsible for bargaining for all fire department employees. The union had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the fire department for which all employees of the fire department were subject to.

Five years after he was initially hired, plaintiff was putting a ladder back on a bucket truck when he lost balance and struck his head on a bucket apparatus. Because putting the ladder away was part of plaintiff's job duties, he was considered to be injured in the line of duty. This classification resulted in the plaintiff receiving injured-on-duty (IOD) benefit payments as of the date of injury in addition to his salary payments. After three years of making these IOD and salary payments the town stopped payments. The town never gave the plaintiff notice and did not give the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard on the issue. Town argued that because plaintiff was not a "sworn firefighter" they had been mistakenly sending these IOD payments to plaintiff. Basically, there was a difference between the IOD benefits and the workers' compensation related injury benefits.

Plaintiff asked the court to enter a declaratory judgment stating that he was a firefighter under the statutory definition of said title. Additionally, plaintiff wanted the IOD payments to resume.

This court looked to interpretation of the statute to determine whether the plaintiff was considered a firefighter and whether he should be entitled to the IOD benefits. When interpreting statute the court looks to the intent of the legislature in codifying the statute. In this case, the IOD statute was to provide a greater level of benefits to public employees who are injured during work-related activities where their jobs are often dangerous. IOD statutes are seen as a replacement to workers' compensation in that it provides greater protection to police officers and firefighters. It is noted further that the Workers' Compensation Act excludes police officers and firefighters from collecting benefits under that act as the legislature encourages states to enact IOD statutes.

The applicable statute says that anyone employed as a member of the fire department is considered a firefighter by the statute. Because the language in the statute is so clear, the court explains that they cannot hold counter to the statute's clear intent.

Because the statute defines firefighter in such a broad sense, the plaintiff was considered a firefighter who was injured on duty; therefore, IOD benefits should be paid.

Bangor Injury Cases: Court in Himmelstein v. Windsor Discusses Liabilty

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:39:27 -0500

Roads are a critical component of our daily lives. We rush along and often take for granted that there will not be any obstructions on the roads we rely on. But have you ever wondered why you have this perception?

The law imposes specific duties of care on states and cities. If you have been injured in a bicycle accident in Bangor, it may have been because of the failure of your state or municipality to maintain the streets.

Our experienced Bangor injury attorneys understand that when you have been injured, your main concern should be getting better. Let us concentrate on getting you the justice you are entitled to while you concentrate on recovering from your injuries.

Himmelstein v. Town of Windsor is a highway defect case that arose because the plaintiff was in a bicycle collision with a police radar trailer that was parked on the side of the road. The main question in this case was whether a town can be held liable for injuries the plaintiff suffered as a result of a defect in a state road. There was significant confusion surrounding municipal and state liability, thus the court defined several applicable legal doctrines.

Himmelstein ("Plaintiff") was riding a bicycle in heavy traffic. This traffic caused the plaintiff to ride onto the outer part of the road, in between the fog line and the curb. On this portion of the road, the city police department had a radar trailer stationed. Plaintiff hit the radar trailer and suffered several physical injuries and economic damages. Because of these injuries and damages, plaintiff sued the town claiming that because they breached their statutory duty of care, the town acted negligently. Plaintiff argued that in the alternative to negligence, the town should be held liable under nuisance.

Negligence is a reason for the imposition of liability where the defendant has a specified duty of care. Statute is often created to impose a duty of care on specific parties. This duty imposed by statute is called a statutory duty of care. In a negligence claim, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the four elements of negligence. These elements are: the defendant has a duty of care, the defendant breached their duty, the breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages, and the plaintiff must prove damages.

Conversely, nuisance is a principal of civil liability imposed where there is an intrusion on an individual's rights to be free from injury or distress. Nuisance is comprised of two classifications: private nuisance and public nuisance. Private nuisance is where a property owner or leaseholder is obstructed from their right of quiet enjoyment of property. In order to assert a claim under this theory of private nuisance, the plaintiff is required to have a legal interest in the land that is affected by the intrusion of a third party which causes some type of damage to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, public nuisance is where the acts or omissions of party causes damage or inconvenience to the public at large. This is most commonly seen in the areas of public health, safety, peace and convenience.

In Himmelstein, plaintiff argued that his injuries were the result of the placement of the radar trailer , which should be considered a highway defect. Because of this classification as a highway defect, plaintiff argued that the town created this unsafe condition thus imputing liability onto the town. Furthermore, plaintiff argued that the town had failed to comply with their statutory duty of care when they did not warn the public that the radar trailer was on the side of the road. It was because of this failure to comply with their duty, plaintiff was injured and suffered damages.

Conversely, the town argued that the road where the collision occurred was a state highway and the town is not liable for the maintenance of state highways. Because this was a state highway, the town argued that they had no duty to warn of any unsafe conditions or make the road safe.

Because the town cannot be held liable for the lack of warning and maintenance of a state road, the court entered summary judgment for the town. However, the court did explain that the plaintiff could sue the state for their failure to warn the public of the potential dangers associated with the placement of this police radar trailer.

This case is an example of how important it is to identify the proper parties in your Bangor personal injury case.

Teens Risks High for Car Accidents in Bangor and Elsewhere

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:32:35 -0500

To help reduce the risks of car accidents in Bangor and elsewhere, we'll be using the entire month of April to raise awareness about National Distracted Driving Awareness Month.

While this month-long campaign is used to urge drivers of all ages to curb the distractions behind the wheel, we're going to focus this effort on teenage drivers. According to a recent study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, teenage drivers are most likely to use cell phones, text messaging devices and other electronic devices behind the wheel in Bangor and elsewhere.

The study even took it a step further and determined that it's the teenage girls who are most likely to engage in distractions, twice as likely as male teen drivers of the same age group in fact, according to Consumer Reports.

Our Bangor injury attorneys understand that more than 3,000 people were killed on roadways across the U.S. in 2010 because of distracted drivers. As a matter of fact, officials estimate that about a quarter of all auto accidents involve a distracted driver. These kinds of risks are much higher for teenage drivers, experts say.

The recent study, conducted by AAA, looked at in-car video from more than 50 families in North Carolina and took notes on the novice drivers and their driving behaviors. Researchers noted distractions and how they affected driving behaviors. Texting and talking were the two top causes of distraction for these young drivers -- found in nearly 10 percent of the video. Some of the results from these distractions included rapid acceleration, jerky braking and swerving.

Unfortunately, the distractions didn't stop at talking and texting. These young drivers were also commonly witnessed eating, drinking, grooming and adjusting controls behind the wheel. These actions were observed in nearly 20 percent of the video. All of these distractions were more common among female drivers.

These drivers didn't grow wiser with age either. Video footage determined that the older the teens got, the more likely they were to engage in dangerous distractions behind the wheel. Researchers believe that they did this because they eventually got more comfortable behind the wheel, ultimately feeling safer even as they were engaging in more dangerous driving behavior.

Although girls were witnessed engaging in more kinds of distractions, it's clear that both boys are girls are facing problems in the driver's seat.

Car accidents are a very serious threat to our teenagers. Car accidents continue to be the number one cause of death for this age group. In recognition of National Distracted Driving Awareness Month 2012, sit down with the teen driver in your family and talk to them about the dangers and the risks that are associated with this dangerous driving behavior. Your talk could help to save their life. Believe it or not, parents have been proven to be some of the most influential people in the lives of teenage drivers.

Work Injury Victims' Compensation Could Soon Be Capped

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:33:27 -0500

Massachusetts lawmakers are mulling whether to change the state's workers' compensation laws - a move that those who have suffered workplace injuries in Bangor staunchly oppose.

Our Bangor personal injury attorneys are closely following the developments surrounding legislative request 2781, which would cap the amount of time people can receive workers' compensation claims for partial but permanent injury to less than 12 years. As of right now, certain types of injury claims are limited to a cap of 10 years, though the most serious have no cap at all.

The portion of the proposal that is causing the greatest stir is that dealing with permanent, partial injury. This would not be a case in which you, say, broke your leg on the job and you are going to be receiving workers' compensation benefits until it heals, and then you return to work. Instead, these are for cases in which you have suffered an injury on the job that is going to impact you forever. So instead of breaking a limb, say you lost one. Or, maybe your back has been permanently injured.

Workers' compensation laws are fairly complicated, but they basically ensure that the 25 percent of people who have suffered the most serious permanent, partial injury are going to get benefits for life. The other 75 percent have a 10-year cap. Legislative request 2781 would change that.

Among those testifying at a recent hearing:

A nurse who fell and seriously injured her back while treating a patient, leaving her unable to continue working in her field;

An electrician who was jolted with more than 200,000 volts of electricity, rendering him disabled;

The widow of a construction worker whose boss accidentally backed over him with a truck.

Each of these individuals is very much against the changes, though any alteration of the law thankfully would not impact those who are already getting workers' compensation benefits.

Those who proposed the bill say the state's decades-old workers' compensation system is need of an overhaul. They say consistency is required because the law the way it is now is strange in that a person with a certain injury might not qualify for lifetime benefits one year, but someone with the exact same injury would the next. It would all depend on what kinds of other injuries there were in the state that year.

Payouts for these permanent, partial injuries are generally higher here - about $185,000 annually - than the national average - which is about $90,000 a year. However, they don't represent a large portion of overall workers' compensation claims in the state. For example, as the Bangor Daily News reported, there were about 2,200 workers' compensation claims in the state in 2010, each of those averaging about 13 weeks. That was down a great deal from 1993, when there were more than 7,100 claims that generally spanned about 33 weeks.

Bangor Spinal Cord Injury Victims Work Hard to Lead Normal Lives

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:57:45 -0500

A Pastor from Lewiston is proving that it is possible to overcome insurmountable odds to thrive after a Bangor spinal cord injury - though that doesn't mean you shouldn't have the experience of a Bangor personal injury attorney who will fight for fair compensation.

According to The Sun Journal, the pastor, who goes by the name "Wally," is preparing to return to the pulpit of his Methodist Church following a recent car accident that left him quadriplegic, meaning he doesn't have the use of his arms or legs. What he isn't doing, however, is allowing the accident to also rob him of his voice - or his message.

The 74-year-old pastor was traveling on Route 119 early one morning in December when frost and mist contributed to a crash in which a sport utility vehicle collided with him head-on. In an eerie similarity, his wife had an almost identical accident nearly 13 years to the day as his own. In that case too, slippery roads caused another driver to slam into her head-on. It took her months to recover, and she still to this day must use a crutch to walk.

The couple has been married more than 40 years.

The pastor has been left with a broken neck, broken ribs, a bruised spinal cord and a broken wrist. He had to have pins and rods placed in his neck, and has spent the last several months in a Portland rehabilitation center before being transferred to another center in Lewiston, some 100 miles southwest of Bangor.

Since the wreck, he has gained slight movement in his limbs, but he can't bear weight or lift with either. His wife described the entire ordeal as "quite a siege."

Indeed, as with any spinal cord injury, it is not only the individual who suffers. Relatives are often left to cope with mounting medical expenses and the exhaustion of working out a care plan. It is also extremely difficult to watch someone you love struggle through or be unable to complete even basic tasks such as dressing themselves or brushing their teeth.

When the root cause of this is the negligence or recklessness of someone else, you deserve at the minimum to have these basic and necessary expenses covered. Any additional award received is never going to return life to the way it was, but it can help to ease the struggle.

According to the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, the top causes of spinal cord injuries are:

Motor vehicle accidents (48 percent)

Falls (21 percent)

Sports Injuries (14 percent)

Violence (15 percent)

Other (2 percent)

Of these, about 45 percent result in loss of use of all four limbs.

The cost of such an injury is vast. You are looking at a minimum of 15 days in the hospital for acute or intensive care. Then you're going to spend a minimum of 45 days in rehabilitation. Those two stays alone will run upward of $140,000. After that, the average first-year expense is $200,000. All of that is if you are lucky. People who are left with quadriplegia are going to rack up bills that total well over $400,000 annually.

Rippy v. Shepard Discusses Liability in Personal Injury Cases

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:55:07 -0500

Accidents are a common occurence in our society; however, it is so rare for people to pay attention to liability until after an accident. This case addresses this issue of liability in something a little less common, farm tractor accidents.

Although you may feel that this does not apply to you, the court in Rippy v. Shepard says this case affects people in all different communities because the court here identifies the different theories of liability in addition to defining one of our every day words: "motor vehicles."

Bangor personal injury cases rely upon many of the same principles. Our Bangor personal injury attorneys understand that the last thing you are thinking about until you are involved in an accident is liability.

This case arose when Rippy was injured because of the negligent driving of a third party who was given permission by Shepard, to drive Shepard's farm tractor. People frequently lend their cars to others without knowing whether they can be held responsible for the negligent driving of another. This theory of liability for the negligence of others who are using your property is referred to as Respondeat Superior or vicarious liability. Every state has adopted this type of liability in some form.

In Florida, the court notes that this doctrine surrounding imputed liability in reference to motor vehicles and is referred to as the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The court dictated that this specific doctrine imposes liability on the motor vehicle or automobile owner when they lend their instrumentalities to another person who, when operating it negligently, injures another. This rule applies to motor vehicles and automobiles, which can cause serious injury to a person.

The court in this case notes that motor vehicles are generally safe when used correctly. However, they can injure someone when they are not operated with the appropriate care. This rule imputing liability on the owner is applied to both instances where the motor vehicle is operated on public streets and private property.

Now this case got interesting with its holding that in Florida a farm tractor is legally considered a motor vehicle. Rippy v. Shepard shows us that although we feel we are familiar with the terminology surrounding things in our daily use, we may not be aware of how these things are defined in a legal capacity.

The question of what to classify a farm tractor began with the determination of what the legal system in Florida has historically considered them. The court cited statutes that defined farm tractors as, "any motor vehicle designed and used primarily as a farm implement for drawing plows, mowing machines and other implements of husbandry." Florida Statute § 316.003(12). And then the court went further as to cite Florida Statute § 322.01(19) where farm tractors are again explicitly referred to as motor vehicles.

This court ruled that this liability doctrine of dangerous instrumentality extends to include, "golf carts, trucks, buses, airplanes, tow-motors and other motorized vehicles." Most people may not be readily aware that they are accepting liability for the actions of another when they are lending these types of motor vehicles to another person.

The main idea of this case is that the court upholds the use of the very old dangerous instrumentality doctrine in the determination of present day liability. The purpose of this is to hold the owners financially responsible for the negligence of anyone using their property. The reason to impute liability on the owner is to discourage people from allowing irresponsible people to use their motor vehicles.

Maine School Safety Watch: Pace v State of Maryland Says It Is Your Responsibility to Watch What Your Kids Eat at School

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:44:22 -0500

When you become a parent your obligations never stop. Your primary responsibility is to protect your children from any possible injury, mentally or physically. If they every are injured, you need a Maine injury attorney who is experienced and knows the law.

In the case Pace v. the State of Maryland, a Maryland court addresses the crucial question of whether the State has a duty imposed on it by the National School Lunch Act (NSLA) to ensure that children with food allergies are not being served foods containing allergens.

Food allergies are very common and in some cases, they can even be life threatening. If your child has food allergies, it is important to be vigilant and prepare your kids lunch yourself in order to ensure that your child is not exposed to the foods they are allergic to.

In this case, the court found there is no duty on your children's school cafeteria to maintain a record of your child's allergies.

This case arose because a child who was allergic to peanut butter was served a peanut butter and jelly sandwich while at school, and suffered an attack that was life threatening. It is never stressed enough how important it is to be vigilant of the foods your children eat and the precautions you can take in order to avoid an child injury in Maine. When your child has a food allergy, it is important to be well informed as to the schools practices and how they affect your child.

In this case the child was sent to school without a lunch and without sufficient funds to purchase lunch. As was the policy in this school, when a child does not come to school with lunch the school provides a free lunch consisting of a bologna sandwich or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. This school policy is a result of the NSLA, which provides funds to schools in order for them to provide these "credit lunches" to children. National School Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C §§ 1751-1769.

The child in this case was allergic to peanut butter, and upon eating her sandwich became very ill. She was rushed to the hospital and although she did not sustain serious physical injuries, she was left traumatized and suffering from post traumatic stress. Additionally, the child began to suck her thumb and exhibited symptoms of withdrawal, accompanied by a fear of attending school. As a result of these symptoms, the Paces had to relocate out of the state.

Soon after, Pace sued several people in addition to the state and county entities ( "Defendants") she felt were responsible for the injuries her daughter sustained. She sued on the principal of negligence, claiming that the Defendants breached their statutory duty of care.

To plead a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must argue with definiteness and certainty four things. First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendants had a duty of care, then that the duty of care was breached. Third, the plaintiff must prove that the injuries sustained by plaintiff were the direct and proximate cause of the defendant's breach of duty. Lastly, there must be damages resulting from the incident.

In this case, the court held that the Plaintiff did not establish that the state in this case owed her and her daughter a duty of care in serving the free school lunch. When discussing this duty, the courts observed the legislative intent and procedural history of the legislation that was being considered. Basically the question becomes, whether the drafters of the NSLA intended there to be a duty imposed on the cafeteria workers and the school when the law was created.

Consequently, the court says that this case is contingent on the public duty doctrine. This doctrine states that where a duty to the public is imposed on a public entity by a statute or by common law, the duty is not enforceable in an action for breach of duty.

The court holding was that the NSLA applied to participating schools but only to the extent that the lunch program was government subsidized. There was no specific statutory duty of care imposed on the Defendants to exercise a heightened degree of care to students with food allergies. It was not important that the parent warned the school of the food allergies, because there was no duty of care to begin with. This case was dismissed and the Pace's did not receive any recovery.

This case teaches us that we need to really educate ourselves about things that are important to us, especially our children.

Children in Maine Risk Injury in Bumbo Seats

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:23:47 -0500

Many parents have embraced the Bumbo - a soft, foam seat that allows their infants to sit upright. However, consumer safety groups are now pleading with the U.S. federal government for a recall, following a number of child injuries in Maine and throughout the country.

An article recently ran in the Bangor Daily News about this very issue.

Our Bangor child injury attorneys understand that there have been nearly 100 reports of infants being hurt while using this product. That is only in the last five years, following a voluntary recall in 2007, when the manufacturer pulled all the seats from the shelves because there weren't adequate warning labels.

At that time, there were 46 injuries reported to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. In 14 of those cases, babies suffered serious head injuries.

After the recall, the South African manufacturer of the Bumbo seat agreed to print warning labels on the side of the seats, saying parents shouldn't put their children in the seats if they are on an elevated surface, like a desk or table.

But that apparently wasn't enough because after the recall, there have been 45 more children who fell out of the seat when it had been placed on a tall surface. Of those, 17 infants had skull fractures. Another 50 babies were said to have fallen out of the seat when it had been on the floor. Of those, one had a concussion and two others suffered head injuries.

Still, the government has given no indication that it will issue a recall, though one official from the safety commission admitted it seemed as if there were a large number of injuries. What's perhaps more confusing is that often times, recalls are issued when there haven't been any reports of death or injury. So why would the government hesitate to recall a product that has been proven to cause injuries to babies?

Even if there isn't a second recall, we believe this warrants parent attention - and perhaps avoiding use of this product, given its track record.

While some might argue the number of injuries is relatively small in comparison to the number of seats sold (about 4 million) you have to consider whether your child's safety is worth the risk.

The Bumbo seat is designed in such a way that it does not have straps or buckles or restraints. There are tray tables that are also available for purchase with these seats, but they are not meant to act as a securing device.

Manufacturers of the seat say it's safe when used as intended, and that parents should be nearby at all times. But there have been numerous reports of parents who HAVE been nearby, and their children were still seriously injured.

In one case, a father in Washington reported his son was seated in the Bumbo seat on the kitchen table. He was right next to him. The boy arched his back, and fell onto the kitchen floor, landing on his head. The baby boy had to be rushed to the hospital, and undergo emergency brain surgery for his injuries. While the child's parents are hopeful he will make a full recovery, they are still watching him closely for signs that he may have suffered permanent injuries.

Car Accidents in Portland and Elsewhere Kill Too Many Child Passengers Annually

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:40:37 -0500

Experts estimate that about 75 percent of child passengers are improperly restrained in car seats and booster seats. It is critical for parents to know how to properly buckle in child passengers and for them to do so during every car ride. Risk of child injury or death in the event of a car accident in Portland and elsewhere decrease by more than 70 percent if he or she is buckled in correctly.

Our Portland car accident attorneys understand that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released new recommendations for children and car seats last year. Unfortunately, many parents did not seize these new recommendations and in fact continue to improperly seat their children in motor vehicles. To help to spread the word about child car seats, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the Center for Injury Research and Prevention (CIRP) launched a new website to offer parents with access to important child passenger safety (CPS) tips.

The new website, "Car Seat Safety for Kids" offers newly released videos regarding the 2011 child seat recommendations from the AAP. In addition to educating parents about the proper ways to buckle children in, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) lists car seat inspection locations nationwide. There are 31 child car seat inspection locations in Maine. Parents are urged to visit one of these sites to help ensure that their children are safe when traveling in a motor vehicle.

The new recommendations from the AAP state that children under the age of 4 should remain in rear-facing car seats. Once a child has exceeded their car seat's height and weight limitations, they should be placed in a forward-facing car safety seat. It is important for children to stay in these rear-facing car seats for as long as possible.

When a child exceeds the size limits of a rear-facing car seat, it's time for them to move to a forward-facing seat. This seat should have a harness and children should be kept in these seats for as long as possible.

Once your child exceeds the height and weight limits for a forward-facing seat, it's time for them to move to a booster seat. Booster seats allow a small child to fit correctly with an adult seat belt. When riding in these seats, make sure that the bottom part of the seat belt fits snugly across your child's upper thighs and that the top part of it fits across the chest and not on the neck. Children riding in booster seats should always ride in the back seat of the car and away from an active air bag.

In Maine, two children under the age of 14-years-old died in car accidents in 2008.

Car accidents continue to be the number of cause of death for individuals aged 3- to 14-years old. Parents are urged to register their child's car seat and to sign up to receive notifications on car seat defects and recalls.

Super Bowl Sunday Increasing Risks for Drunk Driving Car Accidents in Maine

Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:26:06 -0500

Get ready! Super Bowl Sunday is this weekend!

With the festivities revolving around the unofficial American holiday and our Patriots, drunk driving car accidents in Portland and elsewhere are sure to happen, unfortunately. That's why we're asking all football fans to go out with a plan. Make sure your party activities are planned out before kickoff to help avoid a drunk driving accident or arrest.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that there will be more than 150 million football fans sitting in front of a television to catch the big game between the Patriots and the Giants. During this time, fans are expected to consume nearly 350 million gallons of beer. That's enough to fill about nearly 500 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Unfortunately, a lot of that booze will be consumed by fans who are planning on hopping behind the wheel of a motor vehicle after the game. And since the Patriots are in the big game, you can expect a lot of Maine residents to be a part of the celebrations.

Our Portland drunk driving accident attorneys understand that there were more than 10,000 people across the county who died in drunk driving-related traffic accidents in 2010. These types of accident fatalities accounted for nearly a third of all traffic fatalities. On Super Bowl Sunday -- ranked one of the most dangerous days of the year to be on the road -- about half of fatal accidents are the result of alcohol-impaired drivers. Football fans are reminded that officers will be out in full force over the weekend, combing the roadways for alcohol-impaired drivers. Do your part to cheer on our team responsibly by joining the 200,000 people who have already pledged to be a designated driver this season. These pledges were all made as a part of the "Fans Don't Let Fans Drive Drunk" safety Campaign.

The "Fans Don't Let Fans Drive Drunk" campaign coveys a message that responsibility has its rewards. Through this program, NFL teams constantly recognize those who have pledged to be a designated driver. That includes fans of the Patriots.

The Pledge Includes:

-Vowing to never drive drunk.

-Always find a designated driver when you go out drinking.

-Never offer alcohol to someone who is under the age of 21.

-Wear a seat belt during every car ride.

Maine's Bureau of Highway Safety encourages all football fans to have a safe and sober way to get home this Sunday. Those who are planning on drinking need to not plan on driving. A designated driver should be a part of everyone's plans who will be drinking, If for some reason a designated driver is not in your plans, we're hoping that a taxi, hotel or a friend's house are. We hope that everyone enjoys the big day and that the Patriots bring home a win!

Improperly Licensed Drivers Showering Roadways Increasing Risks for Car Accidents in Maine, Nation

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:10:53 -0500

We'd like to believe that everyone behind the wheel of a motor vehicle has the proper knowledge to operate the car, as well as the proper licensing and insurance to back it up. Unfortunately, a recent report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety concludes that's not always the case.
In fact, the recent study concluded that about one out of every five drivers who is involved in a fatal car accident in Bangor and elsewhere does not have a proper driver's license. The new study examined crash stats from 2007 all the way through 2009 to determine just how big of a problem improperly licensed driving is in the U.S.

Our Bangor car accident lawyers understand that nearly 90 percent of drivers who were involved in fatal accidents from 2007 to 2009 on U.S. roadways had a valid driver's license. Unfortunately, the rest did not. When the statistics are broken down, more than 6.5 percent of drivers had a driver's license that was either suspended or was revoked, more than 1 percent of drivers had a driver's license that was either canceled or denied and a whopping 5 percent of drivers were completely unlicensed. This means that nearly 20 percent of drivers who were involved in a car accident in which a life was lost from 2007 to 2009 were not even allowed to be driving in the first place.

Between 2007 and 2009, nearly 21,100 people died in accidents in which the driver wasn't properly licensed. Recent statistics illustrate that the number of unlicensed drivers' involvement has been reducing, if not reversing, since 2007. Researchers don't know if this is a long-term trend, and will be continuing to keep an eye on the numbers.

Through this study, researchers determined that a driver's age has to do with his or her licensing, as well as involvement in fatal crashes. As a matter of fact, drivers aged 21 to 34 are more likely than drivers in any other age group to not be legally licensed. Statistics concluded that about half of the fatal accidents with unlicensed drivers, the driver was in that age group.

Unlicensed drivers aren't only common in fatal accidents, but they pop up quite frequently in alcohol-related and drunk driving car accidents as well.

Unlicensed drivers don't like to stick around at the scene of an accident either. The AAA study revealed that more than 51 percent of the people who left the scene of a fatal car crash from 2007 to 2009 were unlicensed drivers. When an unlicensed driver leaves the scene of an accident, you can probably assume he or she wasn't insured either. Drivers who are unlicensed oftentimes lack the proper car insurance.

Road Rage Cited as Cause of Car Accident in Bangor

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:33:07 -0500

Officers are attributing road rage to a recent car accident in Bangor. The accident happened on Essex Street after a driver stopped for improperly passing and hitting another vehicle. The driver was cited for not having their current insurance card as well, according to the Bangor Daily News.

Officers report the driver said he felt a vehicle was following too closely, so he asked the female passenger to scream out of the window to get the driver to "back off." She did. The female driver being yelled at reportedly passed the vehicle to get away. As she passed the vehicle, she hit the side-view mirror and driver's side door.

Our Bangor car accident attorneys understand that we see aggressive and dangerous driving habits on our roadways every day. These incidents often result in road rage. According to recent studies, these occurrences have increased significantly over last year. Avoiding one of these incidents is quite simple if you're equipped with the proper safe-driving knowledge.

According to 2005 stats from the Status of Transportation Safety in Maine, aggressive driving has increased the total number of accidents and accounts for nearly 40 percent of accidents. These statistics indicate 2005 was the most dangerous year to date. Road rage incidents are often the result of unsafe lane changes, tailgating, traveling at unsafe speeds and improper passing.

According to recent statistics, aggressive driving leads for about 6 million accidents every year. Many of these accidents result in serious injury or even death. Officials believe that these statistics could even be much higher.

More studies on road rage and aggressive driving reveal that road rage accidents are up more than 50 percent in recent years, with nearly 65 percent of people driving less courteously and more dangerously and roughly 80 percent of drivers saying they are angry during most of their time behind the wheel.

Maine's Bureau of Highway Safety offers you some safety tips to help you avoid road rage. With these incidents so common on our roadways, you're urged to review the following tips and share them with your friends and family members.

Tips to Help Avoid Road Rage:

-Leave for your destination with plenty of time to spare to avoid rushing.

-Avoid traveling during rush hour and in congested areas.

-Keep an eye on your vehicle. Make sure the air conditioner and radio are working properly and that your seat is comfortable.

-If you're being hassled by another driver, do your best not to react.

-Keep your driving steady. Avoid braking, swerving or accelerating suddenly.

-If you think an aggressive driver is following you, drive to the closest police station for help.

-Get out of the way of aggressive drivers and allow them plenty of room to get around you. This can help you to avoid a potentially costly accident.

-If you're being challenged by another vehicle, do not insist on your right-of-way.

-Never tailgate.

-Use your vehicle's horn sparingly.

-Never block the passing lane.

-Refrain from using obscene gestures or expletives.

-Use your blinker to alert other drivers of your intended maneuvers

Bangor Skiing Accident Leads to Death

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:48:31 -0500

A recent skiing accident on Sugarloaf Mountain killed a man as he headed to the hospital in the back of an ambulance, according to Bangor Daily News. The accident happened after the 41-year-old skier hit a tree at roughly 3:30 p.m. as he was making his way down the Lower Timberline Trail. He died just a few hours later.

Our Bangor ski accident attorneys understand that skiing is a recreational sport many residents take part in for fun. Unfortunately, there are many serious and fatal injuries sustained in the winter activity, many of them preventable. Take the accident that happened last December, for example. You may remember this incident, when high-speed winds contributed to an accident on a Maine ski chair lift that caused skiers to fall 30 feet after the double-chair lift's cable derailed. According to CBS News, eight skiers were injured and others were trapped for hours. Inspectors with the Maine Board of Elevator and Tramway Safety said that the lift was in fact up to safety code, but was in line to be replaced and was known to be vulnerable to strong winds.

Skiing and Snowboard Statistics from the National Ski Areas Association:

-Average number of fatalities a year over the last 10 years: 40.6

-In 2009/2010, there were 38 people who died.

-Twenty-five of the deaths were skiers and thirteen were snowboarders.

-There were more than 10 million skiers and snowboarders in 2008.

There are a few simple ways that skiers and snowboarders can help to reduce risks of injury or death while skiing. If you enjoy hitting the snowy, white hills, please review the following safety tips. Consider sharing them with friends and family members to help to increase their safety, too.

Skiing Safety Tips:

-Wear a helmet. It isn't mandated, but it is recommended by the Professional Ski Instructors of America (PSIA) and the National Ski Patrol (NSP).

-Get your exercise. You'll have more fun and be safer on the slopes if you're in good physical shape. Exercise before you plan on hitting the hills.

-Make sure you have the proper ski equipment. Get your gear from a ski shop or a ski resort. It's extra important to make sure that your boots fir properly and that your bindings are properly adjusted.

-You're urged to wear a helmet.

-Be ready for the weather by wearing layers of clothing. Bring an extra pair or mittens or gloves, in case the first pair gets wet.

-If you're not a veteran skier, get some ski lessons from a professional before heading out.

-Wear ski goggles.

-If you feel tired, take a break.

-Be sure to eat and drink plenty. Skiing burns a lot of energy.

-Always ski with a buddy so you can look after each other.

-Know your limits. Never try a ski trail that's above your skill level.

-Always follow the rules of the slope and never go off trail. Trails are marked for a reason and trail closures are to help reduce the risks of injury.

-Remember that skiers who are in front of you, and below you, on the trail have the right-of-way.