Phoenix Personal Injury Lawyer - Wrongful Death

Mother is Charged With Homicide After Son Dies in Car

Jenny Albano — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:24:57 GMT

A mother of a 17 year-old month boy went in to work at Hooters Tuesday morning and when she returned to her car when her shift was over she realized she had forgotten her son was still in the vehicle. Unfortunately the toddler died because of the temperatures in the car.

Ashly Duchene was booked with a felony count of negligent homicide. She normally dropped her son off at daycare before work, but for some unknown reason she did not drop her son off Tuesday morning. Instead she left her son in the car from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Efforts to revive the boy by witnesses, officers and firefighters were unsuccessful. Temperatures hit nearly 90 degrees Tuesday, but it would have been more than 100 degrees inside the car, said Sgt. Joel Tranter.

Officials think that the reason no one reported that the boy was left in the car was because their view was obstructed by tinted windows. Police requested an interview with Duchene Wednesday morning but were did not receive an immediate response.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Families Sue Bar in Wrong-Way Crash Case

Andrew Defusco — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:11:53 GMT

In early February, the families of three teenagers sued a bar in a Texas court, claiming that the bar should be held responsible for causing the motor vehicle accident and the teens' deaths. The accident was caused by a drunk driver who drove the wrong way and crashed into the teens' vehicle.

In Arizona, bars can be held responsible for causing injuries and deaths when they overserve alcohol to customers, when the customer was either "obviously intoxicated" or when the bar knew or should have known that the patron was intoxicated. Contrary to popular belief, it is unlawful for a bar to serve intoxicated patrons, when it knows or should know that the patron is intoxicated and likely to drive away from the bar. This type of litigation is known as "dram shop" litigation, and was formally recognized by the Arizona Supreme Court in 1983. Does this mean that the bar is entirely liable when a drunk driver, who was served at the bar, later causes an accident with injuries?

The short answer is no. In Arizona, people and businesses are responsible only for their proportion of fault for causing an accident or injury. Typically, even when a jury finds the bar at fault, the drunk driver will also bear fault for the accident and injuries. Bars are most often at fault when the following factors are present:

1. The drunk driver was served at the bar while obviously or visibly intoxicated;
2. The drunk driver consumed a large number of alcoholic beverages at the bar;
3. Witnesses report that the drunk driver was acting in an intoxicated manner while being served at the bar;
4. The bar failed to offer a cab or "safe ride" to the drunk driver;
5. The bar failed to call the police to prevent the drunk driver from harming other motorists after leaving the bar;
6. The accident occurs fairly close in time to when the drunk patron leaves the bar;
7. The drunk driver has a high blood alcohol concentration.

Occasionally, bars serve underage patrons, who get drunk and then cause a motor vehicle accident. As you can imagine, this raises additional liaiblity concerns for the bar AND its insurance company.

When the State of Arizona licenses a bar to serve alcohol, the bar is given a license to do so in a responsible manner. As Tucson, Arizona dram shop industry standard of care expert Randy Durnal has stated, "If bars are going to profit from the service of alcoholic beverages to members of the public, they must serve alcohol responsibly, and accept the liability for the tragic consequences that may ensue when they fail to do so."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Andrew Defusco

Enron and Corporate America

Staff Writer — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:01:44 GMT

The trial of Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling began this last week in a Houston, Texas courtroom. This corporate scandal and the beginning of the trial of its former executives has reinforced my opinion about why jurors rathern than government or corporate America should have the final say about what corporations should and should not do, and when corporations should be held accountable. Without the protection of our jury system, the quest for profit has the potential to place profits over safety. Please do not misunderstand me. I do not suggest that the quest for profit is a bad thing. Quite the contrary, I believe that coprorations need to maximize shareholder value and earn a return on investment capital. However, looking at the Enron scandal, I simply believe that when a corporation deliberately misleads or places a faulty product into the stream of commerce and people suffer harm, the corporation should be held accountable. With our jury system intact, corporations have more incentive to place safer products into the stream of commerce.

I further believe that government should not have the power to establish a rule to tell all victims of corporate negligence or Enron-type scandals how much damages are too much. Personal injuries vary by person. Corporate scandals vary by corporation. Corporations acting negligently should be treated differently than corporations which deliberately bilk consumers out of hard earned money. Therefore maximum damage awards may create good soundbites for the news media, but they are a bad practice. Caps on damages can do more to encourage corporate misbehavior if a corporation believes that it can earn more than the maximum penalty imposed upon it. The risk of an unlimited punitive damages award can be an amazing tool to discourage corporate malfeasance. Unfortunately, in Enron's home state of Texas, such a risk is non-existent. Texas law places a cap on punitive damages. While the Enron trial continues and you continue to see reports about one of the largest examples of corporate misconduct in America, keep in mind that this case involves such far-reaching issues as corporate governance, punitive damages, and tort reform and not just a trial involving Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. Click here for more information about this high profile trial with implications on injury and accident law.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Medication error blamed in patient death

Staff Writer — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:50:36 GMT

According to a 1999 report issued by the Institute of Medicine, medical errors by pharmacies, hospitals and nursing homes have been responsible for the deaths of between 44,000 and 98,000 people per year! This astounding statistic can be attributed to some very simple problems within our health system. For example, placement of similarly sounding medication in different locations on the pharmacy shelf has proven to save lives. Pharmacists are less like to mis-fill a prescription with similarly sounding medication located in different areas of the pharmacy. Prescription mis-fills can also occur when a pharmacist or technician has trouble reading the filling physician's handwriting.

Here is an example of a medication error incident which led to tragic results in a nursing home recently.

TUCSON, Ariz. Two Tucson-area care homes have been fined by the state for actions that led to the deaths of two residents in separate incidents.
The Arizona Daily Star says a medication error was blamed for the death of an 89-year-old man in May at ManorCare Health Services.

When you go to the pharmacy to pick up a prescription, make sure to check the label, look inside the bottle, ask the pharmacist to confirm the medication, its use and directions. Your pharmacist must offer to counsel you when you receive a new prescription. Accept this offer! Often times, simply opening up the medication bottle and pouring out the medication onto the counter can be a final check to catch errors and prevent injury. Simply looking at the medication inside a bottle can allow a pharmacist to catch confusion between similarly sounding drugs such as Zyrtec and Zyprexa, or Celebrex and Celexa. Pharmacists have the training to catch these mistakes through a final check before letting your medication go out the door. Also, ask your doctor to type or use computer generated prescriptions so that pharmacists do not have to analyze their handwriting. These simple tools save lives!

Nursing home injury details courtesy of KPHO TV News Five

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Supreme Court hearings to affect accident victims

Staff Writer — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:26:58 GMT

Today, Senate confirmation hearings begin for Samuel Alito, the newest nominee to the United States Supreme Court. His elevation to the highest court will have a profound affect on our judicial system. If confirmed, Judge Alito will be able to shape how and under what circumstances corporations will be responsible for failing to make products safe. He will provide input to determine under what circumstances a corporation must pay punitive damages for its wrongful conduct. He will have a say in deciding when State courts can exclusively decide whether somebody who suffers serious injury can seek a remedy. In addition, Judge Alito may have input in deciding a whole host of other hotly contested political issues. Whether you support his nomination or not, these hearings are an important step in shaping the future of our political and judicial system for a generation.

The opening session of his confirmation hearings present examples of how these hearings will be hotly contested:

"He applies the law on an even and fair basis to all of the parties and lets the law and the facts determine who wins and who loses." - Sen. John Cornyn Republican from Texas and a member of the Judiciary Committee.
"He could be a walking constitutional amendment turning back the clock seven decades on social justice accomplishments." - Ralph Neas President of People for the American Way, a group at the forefront of Alito opposition.
"He's no (John) Roberts. We're talking about the difference between a street fighter and an aristocrat . . . (Roberts) is a guy who went through his whole life never making one misstep. That's why it was so difficult for Democrats to do anything." - David Bositis A senior analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

Stay tuned to Washington for what will no doubt prove to be a lively debate.

Feedback from across the political spectrum courtesy of Az Central

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Taser Wrongful Death Lawsuit Dismissed

Staff Writer — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 10:33:00 GMT

Scottsdale-based stun gun manufacturer Taser International announced Friday that a Texas court has dismissed yet another wrongful death lawsuit against the company.

This is the 10th dismissed or Taser-won lawsuit in the last 18 months.

"We feel vindicated by this dismissal, and we will continue our ongoing strategy of aggressively defending this type of litigation," said Doug Klint, vice president and general counsel of Taser.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer