Archive for the ‘Legal News’ Category

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

Are Trial Lawyers More Important Than Doctors?

Thursday, November 13th, 2008

This thought will probably make most U.S. citizens cringe. But it’s a controversial contention made by famous trial attorney Gerry Spence who addressed a roomful of accident lawyers at the annual Consumer Attorneys of California convention. Mr. Spence, who received the organization’s coveted Lifetime Achievement Award, told the attorneys that legal representation was essential and more important than health care. He told the group: “There is no other profession in America that fights for freedom, that fights for what America is about, that fights for justice for ordinary people.” Spence asked the group to imagine a scenario where either all the doctors in the country disappeared or all the trial lawyers disappeared. He asserted that if all the doctors were gone, that we could live with that but would be unable to live if the ability to enforce justice disappeared.

In other remarks, Spence told the personal injury attorneys who had gathered that being a trial lawyer is about helping people – the poor, the helpless and the damned. He said: “There is so few of us and the responsibility and the opportunity and the need is so great.”

I too can imagine a scenario where if there was no one to enforce or defend the inspired protections and civil liberties guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, that the government as we know it, would erode and disappear. Our country could be reduced to other forms of government that we see in the world where its citizens have no civil liberties to speak of and where countless die because of the tyranny of its rulers.

Anyway, isn’t it great that we live in America and can have an active body of both doctors and trial lawyers to assist in times of need?

Ron Kramer is a Utah personal injury attorney with his central office in Draper, Utah. He can be reached by e-mail at Ron@RonKramerLaw.com

Published by: Ron Kramer

Super Lawyer Designation Under Fire

Thursday, November 13th, 2008

The term “Super Lawyer” is a designation created by the publication Law & Politics. This publication compiles lists of respected lawyers in the eyes of that lawyer’s peers. Its reputation of being an independent judge of an attorney’s abilities, however, has recently been called into question.

An attorney advertising bar committee in New Jersey, however, has called challenged the publication on the designation that some say is just a mere popularity contest. One attorney, John DuPre, a managing lawyer of a large firm in Concord, Illinois, said that attorneys get their friends to nominate them and become a Super Lawyer simply because they have a lot of friends. He said that being on the list doesn’t mean you are a great lawyer, and conversely, not being on the list, doesn’t mean you are poor lawyer.

The Committee, which is appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court, said that the use of the Super Lawyer designation violates a ban the state bar has on advertisements that compare one lawyer’s service with another’s as well as a ban on ads that create an “unjustified expectation about results the lawyer can achieve.”

Super Lawyers has appealed the Committee’s ruling. Super Lawyers claims that the Committee’s ruling was incorrect about the methodology they used to rank lawyers. He says that the Committee’s decision is a violation of the First Amendment and it is a “back-door” attempt to return to the days before 1977, when legal advertising was prohibited. The Super Lawyer’s people recently submitted their appellate brief to the New Jersey Supreme Court. We’ll wait to see what happens. Whether this will affect lawyers with that designation in Utah remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, the New Jersey State Bar is allowing the Super Lawyer designation to be used pending the resolution of their ruling.

Ron Kramer is a Utah personal injury lawyer with his central office in Draper, Salt Lake County.

Published by: Ron Kramer