TVNSP

All of the news, none of the time.

Navigation Menu

What may Look Formidable does not always Guarantee Safety

Posted by on May 28, 2017 in Personal Injury | 0 comments

In any type of business, profession or activity, the one common thing that is almost always the source of danger and injury to unsuspecting victims is negligence. Negligence has resulted to so many mistakes and accidents which, in turn, have caused damage to properties, severe injuries and even untimely death.

Severe injuries and deaths are most common in car accidents, which can be due to failure of a driver to observe traffic safety rules; dangerous road conditions; or, manufacturing mistake resulting to a defective motor vehicle or motor vehicle pars that do not comply with government and industry standards.

Car defects, in particular, can be a major threat to car owners since defects are usually never detected until these have caused an accident. The belief that “the bigger the car, the safer the passenger” is also not always true as proven after the production of the “high and mighty” sport utility vehicles (SUVs). SUVs do look formidable since these are higher and bigger compared to ordinary cars. In the event of an accident, however, there is no guarantee that SUV occupants will be safe.

The very features that make SUVs look high and mighty, though, are also the very same features that put their occupants’ lives in greater danger. This irony actually lies in the SUV’s high design, which also means higher ground clearance and narrower track width: major factors in rollover accidents. Why? Because a higher ground clearance and a narrower track width make vehicles less stable on the road and reduce their steering capacity. Thus, during collision avoidance maneuvers at fast speeds or if these slide sideways or their tires trip over an object, the chances of these rolling over is almost ascertained. Adding to SUVs’ susceptibility to rollover are cargo and the number of passengers, especially if their weight is not equally distributed inside the vehicle.

According to Tucson car accident lawyers, “Advances in technology and increased awareness of the importance of safety on the roads have, in recent years, reduced the threat posed to public health and safety by car accidents. Nevertheless, car accidents remain one of the leading causes of serious injury and wrongful death in the United States each year, and the sad truth is that far too many of these accidents could easily have been prevented.”

Furthermore, these lawyers “believe that victims of car accidents should not have to pay for the consequences that they may face if someone else was to blame for their injuries. Fortunately, through the protections afforded by personal injury law, victims may not have to. In fact, they are often entitled to financial compensation and justice that allows them to better deal with the aftermath of a car accident.”

Read More

Lorem ipsum?

Posted by on Feb 28, 2017 in Divorce | 0 comments

Marriages don’t always work out, resulting into divorces. Generally, divorces are filed because of disagreements between spouses. Divorce can be a sophisticated ordeal, resulting into more disagreements with the parties involved. According to the website of Kirker Davis, LLP, the most common issues associated with divorce involve child custody, division of property, alimony, and domestic violence charges.

Child Custody and Support
Contrary to popular belief, the courts do not have biases toward mothers in child custody. In fact, the gender of the parents don’t even play a role in determining custody. The best interest of the child is the main thing that determines whether he or she goes with the mother or father.

The same can be said for child support. The amount of financial support is for the best interest of the child, in terms of food, shelter, clothing, education, health, and other general factors that may affect the child’s life.

Division of Property
Properties, debts, businesses, and other liabilities are divided to the spouses upon divorce. This is a common thing to fight about because it directly affects the financial standing of both parties, so the husband and wife will fight for the best interest of themselves.
These properties may include houses, cars, lands, and even furniture. The most complicated liabilities include retirement plans and pensions. They may be complicated enough to warrant the assistance of experienced legal professionals.

Alimony
Alimony or spousal support exists to help bridge the disparity between the separating couple, a disparity that has occurred mostly because of the sacrifices in marriage. The best example of this is when the wife is a stay-at-home to look after the kids, while the husband gets to work.

Upon divorce, the wife will have limited financial opportunities because of her absence in the job market, making her more financially vulnerable compared to the husband. In these instances, the husband may be required to pay alimony for a certain period until the wife can reasonably sustain a life.

Domestic Violence Charges
Domestic violence refers to abuse committed to a member of the household, such as the spouse or children. It may come in many forms, such as physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, and even financial. This may be legitimate grounds for divorce and even charges against the abuser.

These may also be used to win over other legal matters concerning divorce, such as child custody, division of marital estate, alimony, and even settlement. This is especially true if the acts of abuse have had a significant impact on the abused, such as injuries resulting into lost time at work.

Read More

Spinal Cord Injury resulting to Partial or Total Paralysis

Posted by on Sep 27, 2016 in Personal Injury | 0 comments

Each year, at least 12,000 individuals acquire a spinal cord injury (SCI), adding to the more than 200,000 already suffering from this condition in the U.S.. A spinal injury is a result either of a traumatic or non-traumatic experience. A non-traumatic spinal cord injury can be caused by an infection, disc collapse, inflammation of the spine, cancer, arthritis, or other types of illness; a traumatic spinal cord injury, on the other hand, is a result of a sudden, forceful blow that crushes, fractures or dislocates a region in the vertebral column.

A spinal cord injury is damage or harm to the spinal cord or spinal/vertebral column. Since damage to the spinal cord will cut the communication between the brain and the different parts of the body, affected areas of the body, which no longer receive signals from the brain can, therefore, become paralyzed.

The brain and the spinal cord form the Central Nervous System which, in turn, is made up of nerve segments that are protected by the spinal column/vertebral column (simply called backbone or spine). To cushion and protect the spinal cord’s delicate nerve tissues, the Cerebral Spinal Fluid (CSF) encircles it, keeping it undamaged despite impact; protection is only possible, however, if the impact is not extremely forceful.

The excessive force that a gunshot, a motor vehicle crash, a slip and fall or a sports-related accident causes can be serious enough to cause disability or even death. Injuries resulting to disability can result either to Paraplegia (partial paralysis) or Quadriplegia (total paralysis).

Paraplegia is characterized by loss of function and control on one side of the body. There are certain cases wherein a person suffering from paraplegia remains to have sensation on the paralyzed part of his/her body, In Quadriplegia, on the other hand, the parts of the body that are paralyzed or where functions and control are totally lost depends on the part of the spinal cord that has been injured. This means that the higher the area of the injury, the greater the extent of paralysis

Partial paralysis, which is almost half of all the cases of spinal injuries, may also be a result of medical malpractice or a mistake committed by a professional healthcare provider. As explained by the Zavodnick, Zavodnick & Lasky, LLC, it is more possible than not, that if anyone is suffering from a spinal injury, ssuch injury was sustained due to someone else’s negligent or reckless acts. Under the law, victims of personal injury ought to be compensated by the person, firm (or whatever entity) that caused such injury. Pursuing legal action against the negligent party is often necessary in seeking compensation.

Read More

Defective Airbags

Posted by on Apr 26, 2016 in Personal Injury | 0 comments

Jacksonville, Florida resident Patricia Mincey, who has sued Jacksonville-based Honda Motor Company, Duval Motors and Japanese auto parts manufacturer Takata Corp., which made the defective airbags that her vehicle was in possession of, which caused her back to break after said airbags had exploded during a crash two years ago and made her a quadriplegic, recently passed away.

Mincey’s case against the companies would be rescheduled for trial on Aug. 15, 2016 in Duval County.

Attorneys for the family said they had uncovered overwhelming evidence that Takata falsified test results regarding their airbags, but never informed Honda about said test results, and that what the attorneys discovered gave credence to their lawsuit alleging that Takata knew about the defective airbags in 2001 and Honda learned about them in 2004, but neither of the companies immediately issued a recall.

Palm Beach Gardens attorney Ted Leopold, who is employed at a Washington, D.C. law firm that is handling the case, said Mincey’s death is related to the 11 fatalities he knows of which had been the direct result of the defective airbags in the Hondas manufactured in the United States, noting, “Takata knew that millions of vehicles would be driven with defective airbag inflators and vehicle occupants would be killed, or, like Patricia Mincey, seriously injured…the only thing the company did not know was the names of the people who would be killed or injured and the date those incidents would occur.”

According to documents analyzed by Reuters, Takata’s plant in Mexico had a defect rate that was “six to eight times above” acceptable limits, meaning there had been around 60 to 80 defective parts for every 1 million airbag inflators shipped.

Takata, meanwhile, denied allegations that they had prior knowledge of such defects, and said that such reports ae “fundamentally inaccurate” and “unfairly impugned the integrity of Takata and its employees”.

Attorneys at Schuler, Halvorson, Weisser, Zoeller and Overbeck, P.A. say that Takata is currently facing civil fines of $14,000 per day for not cooperating with federal investigation regarding the defective airbag inflators. As of April 14, 2016, there are still 85 million Takata airbag inflators in the U.S. that have yet to be called, information on the website of the LaMarca Law Group, P.C. shows.

Read More

Open Carry/Gun Laws

Posted by on Apr 25, 2016 in Gun Control | 0 comments

Texas Attorney General Kenneth “Ken” Paxton, Jr. called out Dallas County for disallowing the carrying of firearms at a facility that housed courts, but he did not do so when Austin City Hall made the similar move.

There has been instituted a new law in the state of Texas last year that allow its residents to question the “no gun” signs that government entities post within their vicinity, especially if said firearms are concealed guns, giving teeth to a 2003 law that solidifies the right of handgun license holders to carry guns at most state or local government property. And so, when Paxton served Dallas County with a notice of violation, it is expected that the city of Austin would receive the same notice of violation. It didn’t.

What happened was, unlike Dallas County, the city of Austin took down its “no guns” sign at its city hall, even if it kept its gun ban in place in the building which housed its courthouse. Because the notice of violation specifically focused on the “no guns” sign, when Austin took down their sign, technically, they had complied with the ordinance of doing away with the gun ban.

Also, they can be said to not be violating any new law, because the exception in the law for where guns can be banned is the “premises of any government or court offices utilized by the court”.

Some residents argue that this provision allows gun ban on any building utilized by the court – meaning, the whole building, and not merely the part of the building which utilizes the court, is subject to the gun ban. Some residents want a narrower interpretation of the new ruling.

Paxton, a Republican, is of the opinion that government buildings cannot ban guns just because a part of their location is used by the courts or has a court-like function, meaning he might not agree with how Austin interprets the new law, attorneys at the Law Offices of Mark T. Lassiter say.

Read More