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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The owner of the cruise line that was operating the Costa Concordia, Carnival Corp., a Miami-based company, has offered $14,500 to the uninjured survivors of the cruise ship crash.  Make a note that this compensatory offer does not include any of the crewmembers on board the ship that night, any of the passengers injured in the crash, or any of the distressed family members who lost loved ones in the crash.  The offer solely applied to uninjured survivors who were onboard the ship but escaped without harm.  So, what was the $14,500 supposed to cover? 

The $14,500 is supposed to cover both lost luggage as well as any psychological trauma that the passengers sustained as a result of the crash.  In addition, Carnival Corp. has offered to refund the cost of the cruise tickets, cover the cost of travel expenses for the passengers to return home, and cover any medical bills that may arise in the future that can be tied to the ship disaster that occurred on January 13^th.

The quick offer by Carnival Corp. to the uninjured survivors is a ploy to minimize their financial loss.  Don’t misunderstand this; I’m sure that Carnival Corp. feels horrible about the crash – that isn’t the issue.  Nevertheless, the fact that Carnival Corp. made an offer so quickly is evidence that they want to write a check and have the survivors sign a release agreement which means that they thereby release Carnival Corp. from any liability with regard to anything that may occur in the future.  How are passengers to know what kind of emotional trauma they will begin to deal with in the years to come following the crash?  This offer – and it’s intended accompanying agreement – would mean that the company would write the check today, and if a passenger begins to suffer years down the road from traumatic stress, and needs psychological help, Carnival Corp. won’t be responsible.  It’s not right. 

This is seen all the time.  Often times, right after a car accident, insurance companies will offer people involved in the car wreck a settlement before they’ve had a chance to fully be evaluated by medical professionals, and therefore don’t know the extent of their injuries.  Many of the uninjured parties, knowing this, have rejected Carnival Corp.’s offer. 

As a response, attorneys for some of the uninjured parties have filed legal paperwork in Miami to sue Carnival Corp. for $460 million ($10 million in compensatory and $450 in punitive damages).  Punitive damages are intended to “punish” the defendant to ensure that this kind of disaster won’t happen again – at least not on their “watch.”  This lawsuit may or may not be sucessful as Carnival may have an argument that all cases have to be brought in Italy. Yes, thats right, ITALY!!!  According to the passenger cruise ticket, in very small print, all passengers on board that ship agreed, if they had a lawsuit, to bring that lawsuit in ITALY.  Unfortunately, Carnival may win on that point.   There is a very good argument though that cases can be brought in Miami as that is where Carnival’s main headquarters are located.  It will take a Judge in Miami to rule in favor of the passengers to allow the cases into Miami court.

As the legal story relating to the crash continues to unfold, we will keep you up to date with any new developments. 

For more information, please contact us at the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg by calling us at 561-266-9191 or emailing us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.

Conditions were so awful that rescue workers had to locate victims by their screams – the fog was so thick that nobody could see anything; not the drivers who crashed fatally and not the rescuers who searched frantically for any signs of life among the carnage. An unknown survivor of the crash has been quoted as saying that the wreckage strewn across I-75 made the scene look like “the end of the world.” The pictures of the crash are horrific; they are reminiscent of scenes from the film 2012 in which mass chaos suddenly erupts on highways all over the world.

I-75 was finally reopened on Monday morning as investigators continued to try to determine the true initial cause of the crash that sent people to the morgue and hospital and sent a highway full of drivers into absolute chaos. From what investigators have learned so far, the cause of the low visibility is being reported as smoke and ensuing fog caused by a brushfire near I-75. Despite the fact that there was no deliberate negligence by drivers or criminal activity on the highway, this case may evolve from a mere tragic turn of natural events to a criminal investigation. People involved with the investigation have reason to believe that the fires were started intentionally; they believe this is a deadly example of the harmful effects of arson.

In addition to arson, other means of negligence may be involved. Apparently, the spot where the accident took place had been closed off previously due to the complete lack of visibility caused by the brushfire. Then, early Sunday morning, somebody made the decision to reopen that section of I-75, and it was only because the highway was reopened that cars were driving through the fog and ended up causing the horrific accident that the country has been hearing about for the past couple of days.

So, it’s obvious that the highway shouldn’t have been reopened when it was. The question at hand is, did the person who made the call to reopen the highway make the judgment in error? I.e., was there reason to believe that conditions had improved, or was he bending to pressure from higher authorities I-75 reopened? In addition to the issue of negligence, the search is underway for anyone who might have been involved with starting the deadly fire that led to the low visibility which, in turn, was the cause of multiple deaths.

 The smoke and fog could not have been contained by anyone driving on I-75 on Sunday morning. However, staying focused while behind the wheel can dramatically increase response time and may come in handy when unforeseen events plague the road in front of you.

We will keep you abreast of any new developments in this story should they arise. For more information on this story of any other legal matter, please don’t hesitate to call the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.

Nowadays there seems to be an app for everything.  Want to go to a good Indian restaurant tonight?  There’s an app for that.  Want a flashlight to help read the menu?  There’s an app for that. Want to calculate the tip at that restaurant?  There’s an app for that.  It seems like there’s an app for everything.  And now there are even apps for us attorneys, so that we can do our job better!  In this blog I’d like to outline a couple of the most innovative and useful apps currently available on the iPad for attorneys to use. 

The first one I’d like to talk about is called “Dropbox.”  Dropbox is a (free) file-sharing program in which users can share any type of file (whether it be photo, doc, video, etc.) from one device to another.  These devices can be iPads, iPhones, Android phones, or any Blackberry device.  That means that if each attorney in your office has a separate type of mobile phone or tablet, you can be in different states on different networks and still stay up-to-date on each other’s projects.  Dropbox provides a great way to keep in touch and stay up-to-the-minute with new developments.  

The great thing about this program is that it can be used by any company with more than one employee and/or client.  Say an attorney in New York with an iPad needs a document from an associate in Miami with an iPhone who needs an electronic signature from the client in Philadelphia who’s working with a Blackberry tablet.  Dropbox takes care of it!  This easy-to-use, fast system has propelled itself to the forefront of the legal applications world that is just beginning to explode.  With an iPad 3 expected to be released this year, we expect only great things to emerge from the Dropbox!

The next app that has really piqued our interest is called “Fastcase.”  It touts itself as “one app that no lawyer should leave home without.”  Fastcase provides easy – and fast – access to a complete database of federal and state case law (in addition to statutes).  The most amazing thing about this app, which quickly scours the entire history of American law at your convenience, is that it is as small as any other app on the iPad!  You can be scrolling through pictures of your family vacation to Lake Tahoe and in the next minute be reading the Supreme Court’s ruling in a landmark case!

Want to know the best thing about this app?  It’s free!  That’s right, all you need to do is sign up with a username and password so that the app can customize the search engine for you so that you can find what you’re looking for even faster.

These types of apps have made our jobs much easier in that they enable us to keep up a world that seems to be moving at an incredibly fast rate.  For more information on this or any other legal-related information, please contact the Law Offices of Aronberg and Aronberg at 561-266-9191 or email us at daronberg@aronberglaw.com.