Archive for February, 2012
February 29, 2012
Today we’d like to take a look at a couple of seemingly different issues that both relate to personal injury. They are issues of drunk driving and prescription medications; the latter gets more televised attention than the former, though they both bring devastation to consumers around the world. It’s important to be wary of the dangers of drunk driving, especially with spring break approaching for colleges and high schools. Many students take this opportunity to let loose with their friends, have some drinks and forget about their responsibilities. Relaxing is fine, but endangering your life and the lives of others is NOT. Making yourself aware of what’s at stake, and why the dangers are so high, can go a long way in preventing the unspeakable.
In the last couple of years, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, binge drinking has become more popular—and the amount of drinks consumed during those binges have gone up as well. Currently, about one of every six adults binge drinks via consuming at least eight alcoholic drinks. Binge drinking does vary across the country; some states have rates as high as 26% and some have them as “low” as 11%. Even 11 out of every 100 people binge drinking is incredibly dangerous, especially when many of them get behind the wheel! No matter how you spin the statistics, the risks of being involved in an auto accident once you’ve been drinking increase tremendously. Alcohol is involved in approximately 45% of traffic fatalities.
45%. That’s a staggering number.
Now, you may think you can drive safely down a straight road when you’re “buzzed,” but that’s not the whole issue. When you drink, your reaction times are crippled, so you may not see that guy creeping out of his driveway on your right like you normally would. Alcohol makes you less-focused and more confident, and the combination of those makes for a deadly cocktail, so to speak. Please, don’t drink and drive. The cost of calling a cab is insignificant compared to the cost of a life.
The second issue today has to do with prescription medication. The Supreme Court in Utah has issued a ruling stating that doctors have a responsibility to their patients’ family members in a case brought by the children of a confessed murderer. The lawsuit claims that a physician and a nurse practitioner acted negligently when they prescribed six different medications to a man, including antidepressants and steroids. The man went on to shoot and kill his wife before entering a guilty plea to murder. This suit, and the court’s opinion, will go a long way in ensuring that doctors maintain a reasonable duty of care and ensure safety for their patients’ families as well as their patients themselves.
If you have any questions about this or any other legal matter, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com
February 28, 2012
Personal injury can come in many forms (and, because of that, personal injury law can appear in a multitude of situations). Off the bat, people might expect that personal injury law specifically relates to physical injury. On the contrary, that’s not the case. Dictionary.com defines “injury” as “harm or damage that is done or sustained.” Furthermore, example sentences include both physical injury (i.e. to a shoulder) and non-physical injuries (i.e. to one’s finances or one’s pride). So, to understand the scope of personal injury law, you must approach the subject with the understanding that it is more holistic than you may have thought. To illustrate this point, I’ve selected a few recent news stories that touch on personal injury stories of different types. Enjoy!
The first story has been in the news for the last couple of months. A playboy attorney has sued his ex-girlfriends for their having created and posted on a website about him called “liarscheatersrus.com,” meant to warn other women about the non-monogamous nature of the lawyer in question. As a result of this website, the lawyer filed a lawsuit against his ex-girlfriends claiming defamation that was affecting his life. However, the judge in the case recently tossed out the case, noting that the women’s statements on the website were obviously opinions and “clearly hyperbolic.” The lawyer plans to appeal the judge’s decision, arguing that his ruling means that every opinion is valid, even if it’s incredibly harmful. We’ll keep you updated on the appeal.
The next story hits close to (our) location in South Florida. 19 current and former employees of the Broward County Courthouse (in Fort Lauderdale) are suing, claiming that the courthouse is infested with asbestos and toxic mold. They are suing for financial compensation for their sicknesses as well as on-going medical monitoring and a work environment that is safe for its employees. The suing employees believe that the dangerous conditions of the courthouse came about after hurricanes Wilma and Katrina and the subsequent efforts to clean up the mess caused by the hurricanes. The judges in Broward County have recused themselves from the trial because they feel that because the county employs them, they would not be able to approach the issue with an unbiased mentality. As a result, the case is being handled one county south in Miami-Dade.
Our last story today has to do with a disappointed law student in Tennessee who has accrued virtually $80,000 in debt because of her education costs. Now she’s suing her school for $750,000, claiming that they should not have admitted her because she had not completed her undergraduate degree and thus won’t be able to take the bar exam. She’s claiming negligence in the suit and arguing that there was a violation of Tennessee consumer protection law.
For any questions about these stories or any other legal matter, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com
February 24, 2012
We can’t even look at the news anymore without learning something else about personal injury law. The field is always growing, because new cases are always coming about. These cases aren’t just lawsuits; relevant incidents can be accidents, negotiations, and even the release of relevant studies. In this blog I’d like to talk about two very different issues. The first has to do with the education of drivers, and the impact it has. The second has to do with a shocking case of an E-Cigarette gone terribly wrong.
So, we’ll begin with the study relating to driver education. There are some states in the nation that require teenage would-be drivers to complete a driver education course before they can receive their license. In other states, no such requirement is in place. And, as we all know, some teenagers think they know better than everyone else. So, as I’m sure you could imagine, in the states where the driver education course is not required, many teenagers choose to not take the course. This means that in the states without the requirement, millions and millions of teenagers get behind the wheel without any formal courses instructing them on how to properly operate a vehicle.
The publication that released the study, Pediatrics, noted that the teenagers that did not have the formal training were more likely to be involved in car accidents than were those who had taken the course were. This seems like a no-brainer. Of course the students with the driver education course would be more educated drivers, and thus, safer on the road. This becomes an issue not of personal liberty, but rather of roadway safety. Doctors aren’t allowed to practice without formal training. Lawyers aren’t allowed to practice without formal training. Heck, plumbers have to go to school for plumbing. So, why should people be allowed to get behind the wheel of a car, and endanger many other people, without any formal training?
Our next issue is more explosive, so to speak. This week a Florida man is in the process of recovering from grave injuries he received after his electronic cigarette exploded inside of his mouth. Officials associated the case have pinpointed the culprit as a faulty battery inside the device. The man’s wife heard the explosion of the e-cigarette and reported that it sounded like a firecracker was going off. Unfortunately, the awful sound wasn’t the most damaging part of this incident.
The explosion caused real physical damage to the man; it knocked out all of his teeth and destroyed part of his tongue. And then, to add insult to injury, the e-cigarette caused a fire to start. As of now, the particular brand of e-cigarette has not been determined. This will be an issue of product liability. The battery manufacturer, as well as the e-cigarette company may both be held responsible for this horrible incident. The man switched to e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to regular harmful tobacco products. As a result of his choice, he lost all of his teeth and part of his tongue. Currently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not control these “safer” e-cigarettes, though as of June 2009, other tobacco products are regulated by the FDA.
For questions about this or any other issue, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
February 21, 2012
A couple of recent developments in the news have led to increased scrutiny in the field of personal injury law. Each story deals with a separate area of personal injury law, and thus the approach to each issue must be different. The first one that we will discuss is the avalanche that occurred over the weekend in the state of Washington, resulting in the death of 3 people, including experienced skiers.
The avalanche occurred in Skykomish, Washington on Sunday, where about a dozen veteran skiers were enjoying the slopes on a certain part of the mountain. The sudden avalanche struck some of them in an out-of-bounds area, and three were hurled down the mountain with the avalanche, unable to make it to safety or to remain in a position where a rescue would have been possible. This tragic event reminds us that even the most skilled skiers can be put in compromising positions on the mountain. Similarly, in a more relevant form of interpretation, even the most experienced drivers can be tossed into a dangerous situation on the road.
So, who is responsible for the horrific events that happened on the west coast? Well, to begin with, the skiers should not have gone out-of-bounds; had they stayed within the designated skiing boundaries, they might not have lost their lives. Furthermore, looking at the avalanche itself: who—or what—is to blame? It’s safe to say that the avalanche can be classified as what is referred to, by lawyers and insurance companies, as an “Act of God.” An Act of God includes natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, etc. Surely, an avalanche will fall into this category, thus diminishing the opportunity for some individual, or some entity, to be found guilty of negligence. This is unless, of course, it can be proven that the ski resort in Skykomish was negligent in grooming the mountain in a way that might have prevented the avalanche. Either way, we’ll keep you up to date on this story.
The other recent issue was brought to light by the federal government’s Department of Transportation (DOT) this past Thursday. Late last week, the DOT called on auto manufacturers to take the lead in helping to reduce auto accidents by installing devices which would limit motorists’ abilities to use their mobile devices, such as cell phones, while driving. In addition, the DOT has asked auto manufacturers to rework navigation systems that would prevent drivers from inputting information while the car is in motion. All of these are efforts by the DOT to decrease the high levels of distracted driving. As of now, these measures have been referred to as “proposed voluntary guidelines” by a press release coming from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
For any information of these stories, or any other legal matters, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
February 17, 2012
We’d like to take this time to share with you some of the recent goings-on in the world of personal injury law. There are always new cases being tried, new verdicts being handed down, and new fines being imposed. It’s a good idea to be kept abreast of these developments in order to know what you can expect should you ever be involved in a similar case. People say, “the law never changes”—well, we have a couple of issues with that statement.
First of all, the law does change. Frequently. New legislators pass new laws. That’s why we vote for candidates: not because they look good or because they have the best ads, but (hopefully) because they plan to change the law in ways that we think will benefit society as a whole. Second of all, the law doesn’t have to change, per se, for you to expect something different. If a jury, or judge, or attorneys, interpret the law based on their own experiences, the outcome of a given case will be swayed toward their persuasion. Thus, in future cases, that case will be used as what is known as “precedent.” With every new case law, a new precedent is set. So, let’s look at some new developments.
Recently, in Tampa, FL, a jury in a case of negligent homicide awarded a woman $7 million dollars. Her husband, a former police officer, was killed in 2008 by a negligent motorist. Unfortunately, the woman has yet to see a dime for her struggles. In her lawsuit, she actually sought $5.1 million, but the jury decided that her loss was so detrimental that they awarded her $7 million. The defense team has 30 days to appeal the verdict. $7 million might seem like a lot of money—and it is! But the fact is that there is no amount of money that can replace a lost life. Human life is invaluable, and it’s loss is incredibly harmful to a loved one who is left alone. The widow is now forced to provide everything that her husband had been providing—in addition to continuing to prove what she had been providing. This includes financial support, emotional support, mental stability, etc.
In another form of vehicular news, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has fined BMW $3 million dollars for failing to alert the NHTSA, in a timely manner, of defects to their automobiles. By law, car manufacturers have to alert the NHTSA within 5 days of being made aware of defects in their vehicles. BMW waited longer than the 5 days, and thus left consumers in harm’s way longer than they should have been.
Keeping yourself up to date is useful in more ways than one. One verdict, one regulation, can change the scope of personal injury law and the different components involved. The Tampa jury’s $7 million verdict will surely set a precedent and the NHTSA fine of BMW will ensure that car manufacturers act in an expedient fashion in reporting defects—both of these changes will affect consumers in a positive way.
If you have any questions about any of these legal issues, or any other, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
February 15, 2012
There’s little in life that’s more terrifying and costly than being involved in an auto accident, no matter how small or big it may seem. Many questions swirl around the event. They include, how did this happen? and Whose fault is it? and Who is going to cover the damage? All of these questions are entirely valid—and all of them deserve answers!
So, let’s look at all of the questions. The first two questions, more often than not, go hand-in-hand. Assuming that the person who caused the accident didn’t flee the scene, you can determine how the accident occurred and whose fault it was. If a distracted driver plowed into the rear of your car while texting, it won’t be difficult to determine who was at fault and why the accident occurred. (Remember: if the person hits you and leaves the accident, you’re faced with a situation that is called a “hit and run” and that changes the scope of the case). The next answer you need, who is going to pay for the damage, depends heavily on the type of insurance both motorists in the accident carry. Almost always, if the guilty party has a substantial enough insurance policy (that covers the amount of damage and medical bills), they will be responsible for paying the costs of property damage and any medical bills you have as a result of treating injuries resulting from the accident.
A major problem that is not often considered in the aftermath of car accidents is sometimes the guilty party doesn’t have insurance—or if they do, it’s minimal coverage that isn’t enough to cover the damage. This comes as a shock to courteous and conscientious drivers on the road, but the fact is that roughly 16% of drivers in the United States are without car insurance and that means that if you’re involved in a car accident, you’re out of luck! Car accident damages in the U.S. amount to nearly $200 billion a year. Those 16% of drivers on the road put everyone at risk of not being able to rightfully recover money lost as a result of the negligent driving of others.
So, what do you do if you’ve been involved in a car accident in which the guilty party doesn’t have proper insurance? First and foremost, you retain an attorney! Uninsured motorist cases are some of the most intricate and complex personal injury cases around, and so it is imperative that you hire an experienced attorney who knows the ins and outs of these types of cases. Many people also have UM coverage – uninsured motorist coverage – included in their policy. That assures that if you’re hit by a driver without insurance, your insurance policy will cover the damage!
To preemptively protect yourself against dangerous drivers without insurance, you can make sure that you have UM coverage. If you’ve already been hit by a driver without insurance, and you don’t have the precautionary coverage, make sure to contact an attorney like the ones at the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg. Experienced attorneys like us will work on your behalf to ensure that you are justly compensated for your loss. You’ve suffered enough; let us handle the path forward.
For more information on this legal matter, or any other, please give us a call at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
February 14, 2012
Often times, when people hear of a “personal injury” lawyer, or a “personal injury” lawsuit, the first thing that comes to mind is a car crash or a slip and fall. That’s not necessarily a false belief — car accidents and slip and falls do constitute a great deal of personal injury cases. But why is that? Sure, there are a lot of cars on the road, and sure there are many people going in and out of different homes and stores where the opportunity for slipping, and falling, is not scarce to say the least. But another reason that people may be inclined to think of auto accidents and slip and falls is that people often think of them as being the easiest to prove.
In any personal injury case, one must have to prove that the purportedly guilty party acted in a negligent manner, thereby committing a tort, a “wrongdoing.” If someone hits someone else with their car, and there are police around to document it, it’s highly improbable that the guilty party would argue that it wasn’t their fault that the accident occurred. Similarly, if someone is visiting a chocolate factory and slips and falls on chocolate syrup, it would be hard for the chocolate company to argue that it wasn’t their fault that there was chocolate syrup on the floor of their chocolate factory. Furthermore, it is also assumed that for someone to be negligent in a personal injury suit, they must be directly involved in the plaintiff’s injury. That notion is false, and it is something that is dealt with on a regular basis in the world of product liability.
In an ever-growing economy, consumers put their faith in companies to produce products that work as advertised and don’t cause injury. When someone is injured while using a product, and the injury is the result of improper manufacturing, sub-par design, or a lack of instructions or warnings, the product itself can’t be held liable, so the manufacturer, supplier or retailer might be responsible for covering the damages. Any company that is directly involved in either the manufacturing or sale of a product is held to a very high standard: in legalese, this is referred to as “strict liability.” What this means is that even if the company that made or sold the product didn’t intend for it to hard a consumer, they can still be responsible if a consumer is harmed by their product.
There are a wide variety of incidents that could fall under the umbrella of “product liability.” Something such as having a chair collapse under you due to a lack of sturdy material would qualify as a product liability issue, as would a car accident resulting in defective tires. People who fall victim to defective products can — and should — expect to be compensated for their medical bills, medication costs, lost wages, pain and suffering, property damage, etc., that can be linked to their injury as a result of the defective product.
What becomes tricky in these cases is pin-pointing exactly who is responsible for the injury you incurred. Trying to fight the manufacturers yourself will result in them blaming you for not “using the product properly,” or some other scapegoat excuse like that. It’s crucial that, if you’ve been injured due to a defective product, you contact an experienced attorney like one at the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg. We can help you determine which party — and sometimes how many parties — are liable and therefore responsible for compensating you for your losses.
For more information about product liability law or any other legal matter, please give us a call at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
February 9, 2012
Despite certain state legislators’ efforts to place restricting limitations on the juries of the state in relation to this issue, multiple, beneficial settlements and verdicts in personal injury cases have been reached in Florida over the past year. These cases have helped set the precedent moving forward that serious personal injury cases need to be taken care of — if push comes to shove — in the courts. While tort reform continues to be a hotly discussed issue, both on the local and national scale, we’d like to take a look at some of the notable jury verdicts and settlements that took place in the Sunshine state in the very recent past. These decisions, made by juries, judges and attorneys, prove that justice can be achieved through litigation and/or attorneys working together on your behalf. Below are some stories of success following some gravely unfortunate events.
This past year, the family of an elderly woman, who died while on a drawbridge, was awarded $1.5 million dollars. In 2009, the woman was walking across a drawbridge in Broward County, and as she approached the midpoint, the drawbridge opened, causing her to fall to her death. The plaintiffs argued that the operator of the drawbridge neglected to properly check and make sure that there were no pedestrians utilizing the drawbridge; his negligence led to the elderly woman’s death. Living in South Florida, we’re highly aware of the amount of drawbridges that surround us. We use them frequently and they serve to connect us on the mainland to the other side of the intercoastal. However, this story reminds us of the dangers associated with them and the duty of care that the operators of the drawbridges have to ensure that pedestrians and motorists are safe. This $1.5 million award will serve to both compensate the traumatized family as well as to ensure that drawbridge operators will act more carefully going forward.
Recently, in Miami, FL, megabank JP Morgan Cahse & Co. tentatively acknowledged that they would pay $110 million in an effort to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by customers stemming from outrage over overdraft fees which they claim were excessive. The suit alleged that the bank processed debit card transactions in a way that would allow them to charge customers more frequently. The charges typically ranged from $25–$35, which may not seem like a lot; but with millions of customers around the country, the fees added up, and so did the public outrage. This settlement, which is still pending court approval, will both pay back some customers who could really use the money and serve to serve as a deterrent for banks planning on engaging in unfair business practices. This suit followed a similar class-action suit against Commerce Bank, which resulted in an $18.3 million verdict against the bank, with the money going to refund customers and pay for their legal fees.
A man in Miami, FL has recently been awarded $5 million for the serious brain injuries he sustained in an auto accident, caused by a drunk driver, that occurred in 2007, when the plaintiff was just 22 years old. The plaintiff was a passenger in a stopped vehicle when an intoxicated driver, being chased by police, struck the stopped car. The drunk driver fled the scene of the accident but was later caught. As a result of the horrific crash, the plaintiff endured awful fractures to his skull and face. The injuries led to serious brain damage, specifically to his frontal lobe. The plaintiff now suffers from seizures which require constant care. This settlement will both assist the plaintiff in his recovery and serve as a deterrent to those who might think that they can get away with drunk driving.
These suits and settlements show that justice can be achieved. If you’ve been injured, in any way, in an accident or at the hands of another, don’t think that there is no hope for you to receive compensation. We can help you get the justice you deserve. If you need advice or have any questions, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg by calling us at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
February 7, 2012
“Nursing home abuse.” Those three words don’t belong anywhere near each other, let alone as the sole components of a phrase. However, whether we would like to acknowledge it or not, our loved ones in nursing homes are faced with the prospect of being abused (and it happens much more than we’d like to think). There might not be anything more upsetting than learning about the abuse of a trusting, helpless, indefensible senior at the hands of their so-called “caretakers.” We put our loved ones in nursing homes so that they can receive the care and attention that they need in a nurturing setting.
When dealing with a possible nursing home abuse cases, one of the hardest things to do is to actually determine when an abuse has taken place. Seniors—especially those living in nursing homes—tend to be far less confrontational than younger people. That means that they are less likely to report an abuse—often times they just accept it as a fact of life and deal with it.
Even if they do understand that the manner in which they’re being treated is unfair, they often are out of touch with current legal codes and thus don’t know whether they have any rights. By educating yourself on the intricacies of nursing home abuse cases, you can help protect your friends and family against possible neglect. And as an educated individual, you can seek the assistance you need in filing a claim against someone who has abused a loved one.
Some examples of what abused elders may be faced with in a nursing home are:
1. Dehydration
2. Unsanitary toilet facilities
3. Lack of food
4. Poor grooming
5. Improper medical attention
6. Bedsores
7. Intimidation and
8. Sexual abuse
The above list is simply a short version of a variety of ways in which seniors can be abused. Often times, people don’t know what to look for in an abused individual. Some symptoms of nursing home abuse are personality changes, unexplainable bruises, venereal diseases, etc. If you notice something different about your loved one, for which there is no proper explanation, seek the guidance of a professional.
There are both federal laws (most notably the Nursing Home Reform Act) and state laws that directly dictate how elders should be treated in a nursing home facility. Violators of that law are thus subject to punishment under both sets of laws (assuming the laws are, even slightly, different).
Recently, in St Petersburg, Florida, a nursing home neglect lawsuit ended victoriously for an elderly woman who received poor care by those who were supposed to take care of and protect her. A jury awarded the woman $20 million in damages. These types of judicious rulings do a great deal to prevent future nursing home abuse incidents. While they are a deterrent, they are not a complete eradicator. There is no doubt that, unfortunately, others will be abused in nursing homes.
If you have any questions about this, or need legal advice about any other matter, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
February 2, 2012
Two days ago, registered Republicans up and down the state of Florida(hopefully) went to their respective polling places and cast their ballots for the candidate they think is best suited to go head-to-head with President Barack Obama in November. Florida is a winner-take-all state, and Mitt Romney was the only one basking in the sun. The breakdown of the results is as follows: Mitt Romney took 46.4% of the vote, Newt Gingrich took 31.9%, Rick Santorum took 13.4% and Ron Paul took a disappointing 7%. Additionally, 1.3% of Republican votes chose to cast their votes for “another” candidate (either one of the four former-GOP contenders who have since dropped out, or a write-in).
Many commentators and political pundits have argued – and with some substantiation – that the GOP candidate who takes Floridawill be the one who takes the nomination. Given last night’s results, if they’re right, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will be the man going up against our incumbent President. And, as of the most up-to-date polls, Governor Romney fares quite well against President Obama in a nationwide poll of prospective voters. So, what would it mean for you if Governor Romney were elected as our next president? What would it mean if any of the Republican candidates were elected as our next president? Their views on many issues stand in stark contrast to those of the current Democratic president, but I’d like to take a closer look at their views on tort reform.
The issue of tort reform is one that has come up multiple times in (sometimes heated) debates. There are opinions being espoused by some of these candidates that we feel it’s important you know about. For instance, Senator Rick Santorum supported a federal bill that would have put into effect a nationwide ban on lawsuits against gun manufacturers. It’s no surprise that the man is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but there’s a big leap from supporting an amendment to the Constitution to outlawing – entirely – lawsuits against some of the biggest corporations in this country that produce the deadliest products available in the U.S. legally.
In contrast, Ron Paul has argued that such issues should be left to the states. He argues that the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, which defers unmentioned issues to state legislatures, is evidence that the federal government would be overstepping its boundaries by intervening in the issue of tort reform – something that should be a state issue and a state issue only.
Governor Rick Perry (who has since dropped out of the race and thrown his support at Newt Gingrich) enacted tort reform laws limiting the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in a medical malpractice case in his state ofTexas.
And finally, let’s take a look at the front-runner, Governor Mitt Romney, who’s thought of as being the most moderate (in the best sense of the word). Governor Romney has said that he is a supporter of tort reform and opposes “excessive damage awards.” That’s fine; I think everybody supports excessive damage awards. The problem is, who’s to predetermine what is “excessive?” Everything is on a case-by-case basis. Every incident is unique, with its own set of contributing factors and long-term effects.
Tort reform falls short of true reform – it’s a limiting practice aimed at protecting business from the consequences of partaking in negligent and dangerous activity. Why would a business spend any more time ensuring that they make safe products if they know that even if they don’t they won’t be getting in trouble?
For questions or comments, please contact us at the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or emailing us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.
