Archive for the ‘Legal News’ Category

Skier’s Death Sheds Light on Dangers of Tree Wells

Monday, January 19th, 2009

A skiing accident last week in Utah involving Bountiful, Utah teenager Megan Pysnak, is helping shed some light on the dangers prevalent in ski resorts where there has been a sizeable amount of snowfall. According to KSL news, Megan became separated from her family while skiing at Alta ski resort and was found face down in a tree well. It is well known among skiing professionals that tree wells can be quite dangerous in the winter when there has been a large amount of snow fall.

What happens is that the lower branches of a tree prevent snow from falling into and packing around the base of a tree. Some trees actually have hollow voids with no snow or very loosely-packed, powdery snow around the bottom portion of the exposed tree trunk. As a result, if a skier or snowboarder gets too close to the tree, they can actually get sucked into the well area, and by accounts, usually falling head-first into the area. The light, uncompacted snow causes them to plunge toward the bottom of the tree well. Loose snow then fills in around the victim’s face as they slip downward or struggle, causing those caught in this situation to literally suffocate to death. And since many fall in with their skis or snowboard still attached to their feet, getting out of this situation is said to be close to impossible. Depending on the size of the tree well, other passers by may never actually detect that someone has been swallowed up by a tree.

To reduce the risk of suffering a tree well death or injury, experts advise against skiing too close to pine trees, especially those where the branches appear to be touching the ground. Stick to groomed areas where machinery and skiers have helped to compact the snow. Skiing with a buddy is also recommended. I would also add that an electronic avalanche tracker could help in a situation like this.

I would finally add that the ski resorts themselves can do a much better job at educating their paying customers of the risks involved with skiing near trees. I think way too little is said on this subject. And although the article does not mention if Ms. Pysnak was skiing in an “out-of-bounds” or in a designated area, I would say the resort should still be providing education to their customers of tree well dangers. Anyone who has gone up the lifts of any given ski resort can see the tracks where others have skied through trees outside of the normal ski path of most skiers. In a sense, then, all areas of a ski resort are “designated” unless marked as “out-of-bounds.” As such, skiiers run the risk of suffering the same fate.

I would recommend the family contact an attorney who is versed in ski injury law to advise them and look into how this tragic ski accident happened and how it could have been prevented. If anything, I hope that news of what should have been a preventable injury will help educate and inform others of additional safeguards to take while out skiing.

Published by: Ron Kramer

Agency Aims to Reduce Text Messaging, Cell Phone Car Accidents

Friday, January 16th, 2009

The National Safety Council or NSC has issued a call to motorists, businesses and lawmakers throughout the 50 states to ban the use of cell phones and text messaging devices while motorists’ cars are in motion. A report by the Harvard Center of Risk Analysis says that around 636,000 car accidents happen every year from drivers who talk on their cell phone or who text. Of these auto accidents, around 2,600 involve fatalities and 330,000 involve injuries. “Studies show that driving while talking on a cell phone is extremely dangerous and puts drivers at a four times greater risk of a crash,” said Janet Froetscher, president and CEO of the NSC. “Driving drunk is also dangerous and against the law. When our friends have been drinking, we take the car keys away. It’s time to take the cell phone away.”

There has been recent legislative proposals in Utah that call for the use of hands-free devices while driving. The NSC, however, takes issue with whether these devices actually make driving while on the phone safer than simply putting the phone to the ear. In fact, the NSC cites to our own University of Utah study where researchers showed that talking on one of the many hands-free devices is actually not any safer than talking on a hand-held cell phone. Certainly this study calls into question the effectiveness of pending legislation where hands-free only cell devices are endorsed as a solution to the growing epidemic of cell phone-related Utah car accidents.

The NSC call to action also focuses on things that businesses can do to stem cell and text messaging accidents. It would seem that businesses would be very interested in this proposal since they stand to face big liability issues once the fact finder discovers that their employee was talking on their cell phone or text messaging on company time. Those business that never imposed limitations on cell phone use while driving will be the hardest hit since it is now widely accepted that cell phone and texting while driving can be a huge distraction.

NSC president commented: “Anyone with a busy job knows the temptation to multi-task and stay in touch with the office while driving, believe me, I’ve been there. I didn’t realize how much risk I was taking. Most people don’t. Employers understand how dangerous the behavior is and their potential liability. We are asking all businesses to join us by adopting policies banning calling and texting while driving on the job.”

According to studies by the Insurance Information Institute, a motorists’ ability to operate a vehicle safely is seriously compromised when that motorist is sending or reading a text message or is using their cell phone since motorists not only take their eyes off the road but get intensely involved in their conversations such that they cannot concentrate on the road. A recent survey by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. shows the magnitude of the problem: 73% of the participants in the study talk on their cell phones while driving.

Text messaging accidents has also become a big problem, especially among teen-aged drivers, since you are combining the inexperience of youth with the highly-distracting activity of text messaging. Nationwide Insurance in their study of January of 2007 found that 19% of motorists admitted to texting while driving. But that was two years ago. I’m sure the percentage is much higher now. Since then, we have learned that Salt Lake is tied for second place in the nation for number of text messages sent and received. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety have said that motorists who talk and text while driving are four times more likely to becoming involved in a Utah car accident with injuries than motorists who don’t use these devices.

I do know that in my office we are seeing an increase in the number of Utah car accidents caused by cell phone and/or text messaging use. This includes one of our current clients who was seriously injured when a motorist blew through a red light and hit my client’s car as he was driving through an intersection. This caused his car to spin out of control and strike a pedestrian who was getting ready to cross the street and who was unable to get out of the way quick enough. The woman admitted to police that she had been texting at the time she ran the red light.

Published by: Ron Kramer

New Cell Phone Legislation Aims to Reduce Utah Car Accidents

Friday, January 16th, 2009

On capital hill in Salt Lake City, Utah, lawmakers are debating new proposals to reduce the number of motorists who text message or use their cell phones while driving. According to KSL News, lawmakers say they are tired of hearing about drivers who drive while they are distracted. One proposal by Rep. Paul Ray of Clinton would ban texting while driving and while in parking lots and school zones. Another proposal by Rep. Phil Riesen of Salt Lake would prohibit both text messaging while cell phone use while driving. A violation of this law would be a class-C misdemeanor with possible jail time.

Yet another proposal, and probably the least restrictive, is proposed by Rep. Carol Spackman Moss of Holladay. She proposes that only hands-free devices can be used while driving. This would most likely eliminate texting since it is hard to text without using fingers.

I think these legislative proposals will provide a good start for a discussion on how to reduce the distractions that cell phone use and text messaging can cause. Currently, using a cell phone while driving is mostly allowed in cities in Utah. A few, however, have laws restricting cell phone use to hands-free devices. As far as texting goes, there are no laws the flat out prohibit it. There are laws, however, that make it a secondary offense if the at-fault motorist causes a car accident while text messaging or talking on their cell phones.

Ron Kramer is a personal injury attorney with offices in Draper, Utah and Provo, Utah (coming) who represents those injured by distracted motorists who were text messaging and talking on their cell phones at the time of a car accident.

Published by: Ron Kramer

Utah Car Accident Life Saver: Seatbelts

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

Last year in Utah, 270 people died in Utah car accidents. According to KSL News, most are said to have died because they didn’t have their seatbelt on. In fact, the UHP figures that 110 died for the reason that they didn’t have their seat belt on. This cause of death dwarfed other reasons for fatalities, such as excessive speed, fatigue, DUI or other distractions. Simply buckling your seatbelt is said to be the number one thing you can do to preserve your life while driving.

Of course, it is against the law in Utah to not wear a seatbelt while driving or while riding as a passenger as a vehicle. And as a driver of a vehicle, it is the driver’s duty to make sure their passengers are properly buckled, especially children.

Published by: Ron Kramer

Utah Aims to Reduce Sardine Canyon Accident Rate With Cement Barriers

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

In an effort to reduce the motor vehicle accident rate in Sardine Canyon, Utah, the Utah Dept. Of Transportation will begin to install concrete barriers between mile maker 7.5 and 9.5. According to KSL News, the work is expected to be completed by June 2009. Every year, there are at least 100 car accidents in the Sardine Canyon area. A small percentage of these are fatal car accidents. Just last month, three people died when a driver that had fallen asleep crossed over and ran head on into a Jeep Cherokee carrying two adults and three children. UDOT aims to reduce fatalities such as these in an area that some consider the most dangerous stretch of Sardine Canyon. “Crashing into a barrier and bouncing back out into a lane of traffic is a lot better than crossing over and hitting a semi truck or another vehicle,” said UDOT’s Vic Saunders.

Still, officials stress that while the barriers are designed to reduce the most injuring and deadly of the many car accidents that happen during the year, that they still rely on drivers to make safe driving choices. Along with barriers, I think they should consider speed signs in the more dangerous areas that tell motorists how fast they are going compared to the speed limit in the area. A mandatory lights-on policy could also help to make the highway safer.

Published by: Ron Kramer

Spanish Fork Car Accident Claims Life of 21-Year Old

Thursday, January 8th, 2009

A man is dead after losing control on an icy patch of I-15 in Spanish Fork. According to KSL News, the man, 21 year old Bryce Christensen, was traveling north on I-15 on January 7, 2009 around 8 a.m. when the back of his Toyota RAV4 was struck by a Ford SUV. The driver of the Ford had actually lost control of his or her vehicle after hitting a patch of ice. This all happened when the Ford driver was attempting to merge onto northbound I-15 from Route 6. After the impact occurred, Christensen’s vehicle careened into the median wall and bounced back into the main lanes of travel to be then broadsided by a semi truck. Bryce Christensen was taken to Utah Valley Regional Medical Center, but unfortunately, died a few hours later. A citation is pending against the driver of the Ford.

My condolences to the family of this man. It sounds like he was driving prudently in one of the right lanes when this all happened. From the facts of the story, I can’t see that Mr. Christensen contributed in anyway to the car accident. I also feel for the driver of the Ford. I’m sure he didn’t intend for this accident to happen, certainly not for it to happen the way that it did.

In most situations where car accidents occur in icy or snowy weather, it is because the driver is driving too fast for conditions or has faulty equipment, such as tires that are not in good condition to do well on snowy or icy roads. Although people like to blame God for crashes like this, the fact is that almost all of these crashes are because of human error. We hear this same thing from the UHP: that motorists are driving too fast for conditions and that they are not keeping enough distance between their car and the one in front of them.

In this case, I definitely see a claim against the driver of the Ford and possibly a claim against the driver and/or company of the semi-truck (although the crash may simply have been unavoidable). The family may also make a claim on the “under-insured” policy that was on the Toyota. (In situations like this, claims are almost always made against the insurance companies that insure these vehicles.) I would recommend that the family talk to a Utah accident/injury attorney that focuses on car accident cases to explore the legal remedies that may be available to them.

Published by: Ron Kramer

Gary Coleman Creates High Interest In Utah Pedestrian Accident

Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008

It is not often that every detail of a pedestrian injury case is reported as it happens in the press. Such is the case, however, when the case involves famous child actor Gary Coleman. The case stems from an incident that happened in Payson, Utah, in the southern part of Utah County in September of this year. According to newspaper accounts, local resident Colt Rushton recognized Coleman at an area bowling alley and started taking pictures of him on his camera phone. Police say that Coleman became agitated at the photo taking and Rushton was told that he would have to pay to take any more pictures of him. Rushton declined to pay and was outside attempting to take pictures of Coleman as Coleman exited the bowling alley. Rushton claims in a lawsuit filed in Utah Country against Coleman that the 4-foot 8-inch actor punched him in the chest and body. (According to booking records on Colt Rushton for charges of burglary and possession of a controlled substance, Rushton is 5-foot 9-inches.) Rushton further alleges that his cell phone was taken by Coleman’s wife Shannon Price-Coleman.

What happens next is a little unclear. According to an account of a friend of Coleman’s given to eonline.com, Coleman was backing up his truck when Rushton came behind it and was knocked over. Rushton wasn’t the only one hit as Coleman’s truck also hit another vehicle as it was leaving the parking lot. Rushton was reported to have been taken to an area hospital and treated for minor injuries. Mr. Coleman’s attorney, Randy Kester, maintains that “Mr. Coleman did nothing wrong.” Kester told People.com that “It was Mr. Rushton who provoked this incident. My client was simply trying to leave the bowling alley.”

Video Courtesy of KSL.com

Despite his plea of innocence, however, Gary Coleman pleaded no contest on December 2, 2008, to charges of reckless driving and disorderly conduct. Under the plea deal, these charges will be dropped in 9-month’s time if Coleman keeps his nose clean. Coleman told KSL.com that he took a plea deal because he wanted to get the case over with.

In the meantime, the personal injury lawsuit filed by Utah attorney Dustin Lance against Gary Coleman continues forward. In these types of auto accident cases, the insurance company for the alleged at-fault driver will hire attorneys to defend the action. I would expect the insurance company attorneys for Coleman in this case to allege that Rushton bears a good chuck of the responsibility for his injuries because he put himself behind the backing vehicle. Attorneys will probably also argue that if he was concerned that his phone was being stolen, he could have noted the license number of the truck and reported it to the police.

Injuries in this case also appear to be on the light side as far as personal injury cases go. If all Rushton had was a visit to the ER, you would not expect to see a lawsuit filed in such a case. Practically speaking, it would not be worth anyone’s time or money to let a low-injury personal injury case churn in the court docket for an expected 18-24 months. Rather, in a Utah pedestrian accident case, you would expect a settlement with the at-fault insurance company. That is, of course, unless they denied responsibility for the incident. Rushton’s criminal history may also prove problematic to his case at trial, especially if he has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or moral turpitude, such as burglary. Such a conviction can be used to impeach or discredit the story that Rushton may offer at trial. If he has any felonies on his record in the past 10 years, those likely will also come in at trial to his detriment.

One thing is clear, this is definitely an interesting case that we will continue to follow and comment on as it develops. See the criminal records source.

Published by: Ron Kramer

Text Messaging in Salt Lake City Among Highest in Nation

Tuesday, November 25th, 2008

A recent study shows that Salt Lake City is tied for second place for the number of text messages sent. Salt Lake tied with Dallas and Memphis for high texting rates. The “winner” overall was El Paso, TX. According to a story in KSL.com, the research firm Scarborough Research found that more than half of Salt Lake residents use their phone for text messaging and that the bulk of those texting are younger. Only 7 percent of Salt Lake’s cell phone users access the internet with their phones.

People commenting on this article wrote about the obvious: that high texting rates can lead to high distraction rate for Salt Lake drivers who text while driving, thereby leading to car accidents. Currently, there is no law in Utah, or Salt Lake City for that matter, that forbids texting while driving. While Utah Code Annotated 41-6a-1715 prohibits “careless driving,” a person will only be guilty of this ordinance if they first commit a moving violation in conjunction with using their cell phone or texting device. In other words, the law says you can text all you want while driving, you just can’t cause a car accident while doing so. This is a little backward, in my opinion.

While assorted Utah cities have laws that require cell phone users to use a hands-free device when talking on their phone, no city has enacted any law that bans text messaging while driving. Other progressive states, such as California, recently enacted such a law. Effective January 1, 2009, the California law prohibits drivers from reading, writing or sending text messages while operating a motor vehicle. First-time offenders in California will face a $20 fine with subsequent fines going up to $50. Gov. Schwarzenegger, in signing the law, said in a statement: “Banning electronic text messaging while driving will keep drivers’ hands on the wheel and their eyes on the road, making our roadways a safer place for all Californians.”

Ron Kramer is a Utah personal injury lawyer who primarily represents those injured in car accidents due to the carelessness of others, including those who cause accidents while text messaging or using their cell phones. He can be reached at 801-553-8838.

Published by: Ron Kramer

Settlement Cash Advances Can Help Attorneys Settle Cases

Thursday, November 20th, 2008

I am contacted almost weekly by clients who want to get an advance on their Utah personal injury case. It seems that with the souring economy, requests for these advances are increasing. While many attorneys grumble about having to help their client obtain an advance, I actually see it as something that will help me get a better result for my client.

The fact is, car accidents can cause significant financial hardship to those that are involved in them. Many times this comes from not being able to work like before. It can also come from accruing medical bills or not being able to work physically-intensive jobs like before. So when the normal financial stream is disrupted, it can cause a car accident victim serious financial difficulty. The financial pressures can get so bad that a client may actually tell her lawyer that she needs to settle her case now, even if she takes less money, because of the bills she has.

Settlement advances, sometimes referred to as lawsuit advances, can help in these situations. They help give the client more breathing room and can reduce the pressure on the attorney to settle the client’s case prematurely. Typically when cases are settled before their time, they will not be worth as much. The insurance adjuster will sense the desperation that a client may have and will not be as inclined to provide their top-dollar offer. The reality is that sometimes all a case needs to get at that top-dollar offer is a few more week’s of negotiation time. A cash advance that helps to relieve a client’s financial pressure, can be just the ticket needed to get a case resolved for a fair amount.

Settlement cash advances are not made by a client’s attorney. They are made by independent lenders who will advance money on the promise that they get the money back, plus interest, when the case is resolved. These advances are considered “non-recourse,” so if the case happens to be lost at trial, for example, that advance company will give up their claim to be paid back. Keep in mind, however, that the interest rates on these loans will not be low. Some cash advances charge interest rates upwards of 60-80 percent per year. However, when you consider that the extra breathing room can help an attorney get an additional thousand plus dollars, the interest payment suddenly seems to be a good value for the benefit obtained. Further, the interest rate is usually much less than that charged by one of those pay-day lender companies.

Lawsuit advances require that the person seeking to get an advance have an attorney. This is because the advance company requires that the attorney promise to pay them at the end of the borrower’s case. This gives them some leverage to get their money back. Theses companies also require that the prospective borrower have a “decent” case. If the case is speculative and uncertain, an advance company is much less likely to approve an advance. In terms of the amount that can be borrowed, I always tell my client to borrow as little as is necessary to get by. This is because the interest can eat up their settlement amount! Even without this self-restraint, however, most of these settlement advance companies will not advance more than 10-15 percent of the estimated value of the case, unless there are unique circumstances.

Ron Kramer is a Utah attorney who specializes in car accident-type cases and whose office regularly helps facilitate settlement cash advances for their clients for free. Along with the service guarantee that Mr. Kramer provides, he sees this as yet another value-added benefit he can provide his clients.

Published by: Ron Kramer

Civil Rights Lawyer Sues Over Client’s Invasive Strip Search

Thursday, November 13th, 2008

Robert Sykes, a prominent Utah civil rights attorney based in Salt Lake, filed a lawsuit on November 12, 2008, on behalf of his client Haley Hooper. According to KSL.com, Hooper, who was driving a friend’s car in 2004, was pulled over by deputies because she happened to be driving a car that was “of interest” to law enforcement. (They were looking for another man at the time.) After she was pulled over, deputies searched her car and then searched her. Because Hooper refused to take a field sobriety test, she was arrested on suspicion of DUI and taken “downtown.” In this case, “downtown” was the Sevier County Jail.

Video Courtesy of KSL.com

Once at the jail, deputies placed Hooper in a holding cell. A nurse then strip searched her. In the meantime, a deputy got a warrant for Hooper’s “bodily fluids.” Deputies told her that they would be drawing out her urine via a catheter. Deputies then brought her into another room where they held her down and stripped her of her clothes. They then told her to bend over so the catheter could be inserted. Hooper screamed and asked why a blood test couldn’t just be done. She was told that the judge wanted her urine. The urine sample came back negative for alcohol, but positive for other unknown “stimulants.”

After Hooper was released, she sued Sevier County, claiming that her civil rights were violated. She asked to have the urine test suppressed. A judge agreed with her, finding in September of 2005 that while the initial stop was justified since the car was part of the investigation, that the basis for holding Hooper was “unnecessary.” The judge also found that the search warrant failed to mention that the officers “were looking for another subject” and that when deputies were obtaining it “fail[ed] to reveal that a search was made of the defendant’s vehicle, against her will, and located nothing of an incriminating nature” and the warrant-issuing judge was “not told the defendant was searched and nothing incriminating was located.”

With regard to the use of the catheter to obtain the urine, the judge ruled that “[w]hat happened in this case is no less offensive and unreasonable, and perhaps more so for two reasons, one having to do with the helplessness of the defendant and the other with the fact that she actually requested that her blood be drawn.”

Hoopes is now back in court with Salt Lake attorney Robert Sykes to hold Sevier County responsible. Sykes has been involved in a number of high-profile civil rights cases over the years, including illegal strip search cases against various law enforcement agencies.

I think what happened to this poor woman was outrageous. The U.S. Constitution guarantees to its citizens that the government cannot do this kind of thing. It guarantees that the government cannot search or “seize” us in this way. Unfortunately, it takes a civil rights lawsuit like this to get the attention of law enforcement that this kind of unjustified treatment of someone who should never have been searched in any capacity in the first place, is unconstitutional, illegal and completely inappropriate. We’ll follow the case as it progresses.

The author, Ron Kramer, is a personal injury attorney practicing in Salt Lake County who, once upon a time, litigated civil rights cases (among other personal injury ones) with Mr. Sykes.

Published by: Ron Kramer