South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

More on Bogus National Chamber of Commerce “Study” / Propaganda Attack Against Civil Justice System

As I previously discussed on this blog, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released an updated “study” last week claiming to rank the best and worst state legal systems in America. But as with past editions, this “study” is a survey of corporate lawyers earning millions of dollars defending their CEOs from being held accountable for wrongdoing and negligence. Similarly, any felon would say that the justice system doesn't work. While the Chamber touts this “study,” the facts tell a different story. 

The Chamber's "Study" Is Bogus:

• The Chamber’s “Study” Is Actually a Survey of Corporate Lawyers Working for Multi-Million Dollar Corporations. Instead of attempting to measure the effectiveness of the civil justice systems in each state, the Chamber instead commissioned a poll of senior lawyers and corporate counsels.  These are the very same lawyers who work every day protecting and defending large corporations when they are sued by consumers or employees who have been injured or abused by the corporation.
• The Chamber’s Own Pollster Admitted that There is No Way to Measure the Fairness of a State’s Legal System. Humphrey Taylor of Harris Interactive, the polling firm that conducted the survey for the Chamber, admitted that there is no way to measure fairness of the legal system in each state. According to the Copley News Service, “Humphrey Taylor of Harris Interactive said the survey is based on the individual responses of the [corporate] lawyers because there is no hard data that can be used to measure the perceived fairness of a state's legal system.”  Nevertheless, the Chamber has mischaracterized the “study” as “rank[ing] the best to worst legal systems in America.”
• After Ranking West Virginia as Having One of the “Worst” Liability Systems, the Chamber’s CEO and Pollster Were Forced to Admit that Only of a Fraction of Those Surveyed Actually Knew Anything About the State’s Court System. When questioned about the methodology of previous versions of the “study” that ranked West Virginia as 49th in the list of state legal systems, the Chamber’s CEO, Thomas Donohue, and the pollster that conducted the survey, Humphrey Taylor of Harris Interactive, were forced to admit that only a fraction of the corporate lawyers surveyed actually knew anything about West Virginia’s courts. According to the Charleston Gazette, “Taylor and Donahue [sic] acknowledged not all of the 1,437 lawyers surveyed knew anything about West Virginia's courts. Taylor said ‘around 107’ said they had direct knowledge of the state. ‘You could argue that's a small sample, but what they keep saying is ‘49th, 49th, 49th,’ he said.”
• Florida Newspaper Criticized Chamber for Mischaracterizing the “Study” in a Television Ad. According to the Tallahassee Democrat , the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform sponsored a television ad in Florida that mischaracterized the results of their “study” of state legal systems. The Chamber’s ad included the line, “[a] recent Harris poll ranked the best to worst legal systems in America.” However, the Democrat reported that this claim was “wrong,” noting that the “ad did not mention the Harris poll was conducted among corporate lawyers who have to defend their clients against civil suits.”

Lawsuits Are Not A Major Concern For Business:

• A Recent Survey Published by the National Association of Manufacturers Found that American Manufacturing Companies Ranked the “Fear of Litigation” at the Bottom of Their Concerns. The National Association of Manufacturers recently released a survey of manufacturers in the United States showing that the “fear of litigation” ranked at the bottom of their list of concerns:

“Please rate the following factors in terms of their negative impact on your company's operations (with 1 representing the greatest negative impact and 10 the least).”

2.9   Cost of non-wage compensation
3.5   Cost of materials used in production
4.0   Inability to raise prices
4.1   Energy prices
5.0   Foreign competition
6.1   Taxes
6.3   Cost of wages
6.4   Shortage of qualified workers
7.4   Regulations/corporate governance rules (Sarbanes-Oxley)
7.8   Fear of litigation

• Survey by Business Week Magazine Found that the Threat of Lawsuits is Not a Major Concern of Small Business Owners. According to a survey published in Business Week magazine, owners of small and medium-sized businesses are generally not concerned about the threat of lawsuits: “One of the survey's more surprising results revealed that tort reform -- particularly limiting class-action lawsuits -- is not a major priority.” The survey found that the biggest threats to their businesses are: (1) Rising inflation, 44 percent; (2) The trade deficit and a weak dollar, 40 percent; (3) Energy shortages, 40 percent; (4) Excessive household and/or corporate debt, 29 percent; (5) The growing federal deficit, 28 percent; (6) Poorly prepared labor force/Shortage of skilled labor, 27 percent.

The Number of State and Federal Tort Trials Is Declining:

• Bush Administration Statistics Show that the Number of Federal Tort Trials is Down Nearly 80 Percent Since 1985. The most recent data from the Bush administration’s Justice Department reported that the number of tort (personal injury) cases resolved in U.S. District Courts fell by 79 percent between 1985 and 2003. In 1985, 3,600 tort trials were decided by a judge or jury in U.S. District Courts. By 2003, that number had dropped to less than 800. 
• The Number of State Tort Trials is Decreasing. According to the most recent statistics from the Bush administration’s Justice Department, the number of tort trials at the state level has decreased. These statistics were compiled as part of the Bureau’s survey of state civil justice systems in the nation’s largest 75 counties. Among these counties, the number of tort trials decreased 31.8% between 1992 and 2001.
• “Overwhelming Majority” of Federal Judges Don’t See “Frivolous Lawsuits” as Major Problem. According to a survey by the Federal Judicial Center – the research and education agency of the federal court system – the overwhelming majority of Federal judges do not view “frivolous lawsuits” as a problem. Seventy percent of the respondents called groundless litigation either a ‘small problem’ or a ‘very small problem,’ and 15% said it was no problem at all. Only 1% called it a ‘very large problem,’ 2% called it a ‘large problem’ and the rest rated it as a ‘moderate problem’ in their courts. In addition, 91% of the judges surveyed opposed provisions in the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, which won House approval in the last Congress.”

Source:  American Association for Justice.  As the world's largest trial bar, AAJ (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) promotes justice and fairness for injured persons, defends the constitutional right to trial by jury, and strengthens the civil justice system through education and disclosure of information critical to public health and safety. With 52,000 members worldwide, AAJ provides lawyers with the information and professional assistance they need to serve clients successfully and protect the democratic values of the civil justice system.  Visit http://www.justice.org

Rental Reimbursement vs. Loss of Use

A question that is frequently asked by people who have been in automobile accidents is "What is the difference between rental and loss of use?"  Jonathan G. Stein of the California Personal Injury and Insurance Blog answered this question by using the following illustration:

Okay, so your car is damaged in a car accident. You can't drive it and it is in the shop. You think you are entitled to a rental car (because you read this blog, you know you are entitled to a rental car). But what about loss of use? What the heck do you get?

This is pretty easy. If you were not at fault, the other person's insurance is going to either pay for a rental car or loss of use. In other words, you cannot collect both. However, if you do not rent a car immediately, you can collect loss of use for the days you do not rent a car.

For example, your accident is on day 1; on days 2 through 5, you do not rent a car; on day 6, you rent a car until day 10.  You would get 4 days of loss of use (days 2, 3, 4, and 5) and 5 days of rental (days 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10). Rental is basically what it costs to rent a similar car to what you had. If you had a luxury car, that is what you rent. If you had a Ford Focus, then you rent a compact car.

Loss of use is generally calculated at $20 per day. For some cars, it may be more. It is usually not less. But, the $20 per day number is a good number to start with.

In the above example, you get $80 plus your actual of out pocket rental expense. They will not pay for gas or the extra insurance (which most people do not need anyway), but they will pay for tax and fees.

Source:  "Car Damaged in Accident? - Rental vs. Loss of Use" by David Brannen, published at his Injury Law Blog.

Bogus National Chamber of Commerce “Study” Is Propaganda Attack Against Civil Justice System, Which Continues the Chamber's Effort to Eliminate Corporate Accountability for Wrongdoing and Negligence

From the American Association for Justice:

A bogus study released today by the national Chamber of Commerce claiming to rank so-called “anti-business” state legal systems is yet another baseless attack on the nation’s civil justice system in its campaign to eliminate corporate accountability for wrongdoing and negligence.

“This latest propaganda is a made-up survey primarily of corporate lawyers earning millions of dollars defending their CEOs from being held accountable,” said Jon Haber, chief executive officer of the American Association for Justice.  “The Chamber will stop at nothing to destroy the civil justice system in America, which protects the rights of consumers, employees, and shareholders against corporate wrongdoing and negligence.”

As the largest lobby in the country and a front group for corporations seeking to evade accountability for wrongdoing and negligence, the national Chamber of Commerce has led the effort to eliminate access to justice for Americans.

The American Association for Justice today released “The Ten Worst States to Get Sick or Injured In” providing sobering examples of how the national Chamber’s efforts and those of big corporations seeking to evade accountability for wrongdoing and negligence puts corporate greed over public good.

“The Ten Worst States to Get Sick or Injured In’’ shows what America is in store for if the national Chamber and powerful corporations get their way. “Efforts by front groups like the national Chamber to pass laws that allow corporate CEOs to evade accountability for wrongdoing and negligence have eliminated many Americans’ access to justice,” Haber said.   

The 10 Worst States To Get Sick Or Injured In:

1.  Don't Get Hurt in Alabama.
It doesn’t matter how seriously an individual is injured, Alabama law limits restitution for every injury or death caused by the government to what’s available under workers comp. If a local governmental entity is held responsible, no matter how great the loss, restitution is limited to $100,000 per person for injury or death, or $300,000 if more than one person is injured or killed in the same incident – no matter how many people were affected. So the more people hurt, the less restitution they receive. Alabama Code §§ 41-9-70, 11-93-2, 11-47-190.

2.  Alaska’s Big Freeze.
In Alaska, restitution for “noneconomic” losses is limited to the greater of $1 million or the injured person’s life expectancy in years multiplied by $25,000. That may not sound bad until one remembers that people can live 50 years or more after they are injured, and these injuries can include something as serious as the permanent loss of urinary and bowel function. Fifty years of tending to the necessary medical needs – let alone the initial treatment – would not come close to being covered by this limited amount. Alaska Statutes § 09.17.010; State v. Johnson, 2 P.3d 56 (Alaska 2000).

3.  Colorado’s Rocky Mountain Low.
Restitution for victims injured by a Colorado state employee is limited to $150,000. If two or more people are injured at one time, restitution is limited to $600,000, no matter how many people must divide the amount. In such cases, regardless of need, no one person can recover more than $150,000. For many victims of serious injury, this would never even cover the basic hospital costs. Colorado Revised Statutes § 24-10-114.

Colorado's legislators have also imposed arbitrary limits on the amount of restitution that can be awarded to medical patients, injured through no fault of their own. No matter the facts of the case, how badly the patient is injured, or how much the medical care and rehabilitation has cost in the past or will cost in the future, compensation is strictly limited to $1 million. Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-64-302(1)(b).

4.  Florida’s Gator Bite.
Florida has consented to allow its citizens to hold the state and its employees accountable – up to a point. Restitution in such cases is limited to $100,000 for one person and a total of $200,000 per incident, no matter how many people are injured or the severity of the harm. Personal losses exceeding $100,000 "may be reported to the Legislature," which may or may not do anything at all. Injured individuals can always hope the state agency involved bought liability insurance. If not, there is no recourse. Florida Statutes § 768.28(5).

In 1988 state legislators took away judges’ and juries’ right to determine cases of babies with brain injuries injured during birth. If expecting parents want to ensure a potential birthing center can be held responsible for its mistakes, they are forced to search out a “non-participating provider” in Florida’s bureaucratic “FBRNIC” Plan. But more often than not, expecting parents have no idea they could be signing away their child’s future in the often-confusing documents piled upon them during a prenatal visit. Florida Statutes §§ 766.301 - .316

5.  Illinois Hospitals Run on the Cheap.
If you get injured as a result of negligence by a state employee or agent – like a physician working at a state-operated hospital – restitution will be limited to $100,000 no matter how serious the injury or how expensive the recovery. Illinois Statutes Chapter 705 § 505/8(d).

6.  Don’t Get Sick in Indiana.
Legislators imposed an arbitrary limit of $1.25 million for injured patients’ restitution, no matter how bad the injury or how much it will cost to provide future care. Although future care for a badly injured person – like a baby with brain damage – can last for decades and cost millions of dollars, Indiana healthcare providers (in reality, their insurance companies) are liable for only the first $250,000. That’s a sweet deal for the insurance companies, which pass the rest of the bill on to the state taxpayers.  Ind. Code Ann. § 34-18-14-3.

A tragic example of this limit’s impact can be found in the experience of Frank Cornelius, a lobbyist who helped convince Indiana lawmakers to adopt it. After helping pass the limits, Cornelius was the victim of four separate acts of negligence in the course of routine surgery and post-operative care. He wrote a poignant article in 1994 stating that, at age 49, he was confined to a wheelchair, was in constant pain, his marriage ended, and he had amassed medical bills of more than $5 million. Due to the limits, his restitution was limited to $500,000.

7.  Oklahoma’s Not OK for Injured Patients.
Oklahoma legislators have imposed a complicated system on injured patients, which resembles a game of poker more than it does access to justice. For example, a guilty party can make an “offer of judgment” before trial – if they offer to settle the case, forego trial, and, if the injured patient will accept their offer, allow a judgment for that amount to be entered against them. If the patient declines the offer of judgment and proceeds to trial, and does not secure a judgment for at least 1½ times the amount offered before trial, any noneconomic compensation is limited to $300,000. Oklahoma Statutes, Title 23, § 1- 1708.1F-1.

8.  Texas: Dead on Arrival.
Legislators decided to let the families of dead patients fend for themselves. Even if a family has lost its breadwinner, if they sue for restitution, they are limited to an amount of $500,000 (to be adjusted to track the consumer price index). The limit applies to each patient killed, no matter how many medical centers, doctors, or other healthcare personnel were responsible for his/her death. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.303.

9.  Virginia May Be for Lovers, but It's Not for Injured Children.
Virginia has a separate system for cases where babies are brain damaged during birth. Such injuries can result from oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury. Babies who suffer them can be permanently disabled, and may need assistance with daily living activities, up to and including round-the-clock care for life. In some cases they need care long after their parents have died. The bureaucratic “VBRNIC” Program is charged with providing lifetime care for injured babies, related expenses and compensation for a child’s lost earnings. Once a baby is injured, the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission decides whether the baby will be covered, and the claim is never seen by a court unless the Commission’s decision is appealed. Once the Commission decides to cover a baby, the child and his/her family are prevented from ever holding the healthcare provider responsible for the baby’s condition, or for any harm coming to the mother.

Not only does this treatment go against the basic respect for human life, but it also forces an undue burden onto state taxpayers. The program’s expense is borne not by those who caused the injury, or even by their insurance companies. It is borne by every Virginian who purchases any kind of liability insurance – even homeowner and automobile insurance. What’s worse is that the program costs more to operate than the tort system it replaced, juries and all. Virginia Code §§ 38.2-5000 to -5021.

10.  West Virginia, Almost Heaven?
In West Virginia, as long as a healthcare provider has malpractice insurance with at least a $1 million limit, no victim of his/her negligence can recover restitution of more than $500,000 for a "noneconomic" loss. However, "noneconomic" is defined to include a number of conditions that can have major economic consequences. Such losses include permanent, substantial physical deformity, loss of use of a limb, loss of a bodily organ system, or a permanent physical or mental injury that leaves the victim unable to care for himself/herself independently and perform "life sustaining" activities. West Virginia Code § 55-7B-8.

As the world's largest trial bar, AAJ (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) promotes justice and fairness for injured persons, defends the constitutional right to trial by jury, and strengthens the civil justice system through education and disclosure of information critical to public health and safety. With 52,000 members worldwide, AAJ provides lawyers with the information and professional assistance they need to serve clients successfully and protect the democratic values of the civil justice system.  Visit http://www.justice.org

Automobile Insurance Company Not Allowed to Intervene in Family Court Action

Can an insurance company interject itself into a Family Court action filed to determine whether or not someone has a valid common law marriage?  The South Carolina Supreme Court answered this question by clearly stating "no" in an opinion filed yesterday, In Re Cooper.

By way of background, GEICO brought a declaratory judgment action in Circuit Court against Mr. Cooper to determine the parties’ rights pursuant to an automobile insurance policy issued to Ms. Goethe.  Specifically, Mr. Cooper claimed he was entitled to stack underinsured motorist coverage provided by Ms. Goethe's policy on the grounds that he was a Class I insured. GEICO denied Mr. Cooper’s claim, because it found that Mr. Cooper was not a Class I insured because he was neither the spouse nor resident relative of Ms. Goethe.

After GEICO denied Mr. Cooper’s claim to stack coverage, he filed an action in Family Court seeking an order validating his common law marriage to Ms. Goethe since 1991.  GEICO petitioned the Family Court to permit it to join an action pursuant to Rule 19 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (SCRCP), or to intervene pursuant to Rule 24, SCRCP.  As grounds supporting its motion, GEICO alleged that the Family Court’s decision on the parties’ common law marriage would impact GEICO’s ability to protect its interests under the insurance policy issued to Ms. Goethe.  The Family Court denied the motion, and GEICO® appealed. 

The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, although GEICO may be affected by the outcome of the Family Court action, its interest is insufficient to meet the requirements for joinder pursuant to Rule 19(a)(2)(i), SCRCP.  Further, it found that the Family Court did not err in denying GEICO’s petition to intervene in Cooper’s Family Court action. The subject matter of the Family Court action is the validity of a common law marriage, which does not involve a determination of insurance benefits. Accordingly, GEICO did not have standing to intervene in the Family Court action because it did not have an interest sufficiently related to the subject matter of the action.

You can read the full text of In Re Cooper by clicking HERE.

Types of Product Defects (Part Two)

In general, there are three types of defects which could render a product unreasonably dangerous:

1. Manufacturing defect  ::  Error in product manufacture or assembly
2. Design defect  ::  Faulty product design
3. Manufacturer or seller's failure to warn of danger associated with use of the product

Manufacturing defects are defects that typically occur in a relatively low number of units of a given product, since the defects occur during the manufacturing process of a product. Any number of problems can occur during production and assembly of complex products -- a screw may not be adequately tightened, a bolt may be missing, wires may be crossed or pieces may be incorrectly soldered. As a result, the product comes off the assembly line in defective condition.

Consider the situation of where a transistor is improperly installed into a hair dryer, causing the unit to smoke and eventually burn up. The manufacturing defect poses a risk of electrical shock, as well as a fire hazard. If it causes a shock or a fire in your home, the manufacturer will be liable for injury and damages which result.

Design defects are inherent flaws in the design of a product, such that even if a product is assembled and produced perfectly, it will always comes out of the factory in dangerous condition. An automobile that will explode upon impact would be considered to have a design defect.

An example would be where a ladder was constructed of lightweight aluminum, which can bend, or cause the ladder to tip with little force.  Even if every such ladder is assembled correctly, it will still create a dangerous situation for users of the ladders.  Such a ladder is considered to have a design defect.

Design defects also apply to the way products are packaged. For example, if an insect poison is sold in a bottle that is prone to leaking, or requires a user�s hands to come in contact with the poison, the manufacturer could be liable for injuries which result from the defective design.

Much of today's product liability litigation consists of design defect cases, and this field is broad enough to cover such claims as asbestos litigation, vaccine and other drug litigation, flammable fabric litigation, dangerous power tool or appliance litigation, defective medical implant litigation (including breast implants), and any other area in which a product's design makes it unreasonably dangerous for its intended use, thereby causing injury.

Inadequate instructions and warnings are also a basis by which a product can be determined to be defective. Inadequate warnings generally are those which fail to prevent the improper use or assembly of a product. Product manufacturers have a responsibility to provide consumers with clear and complete instructions to ensure the safe use of a product.

This is particularly important where the product is "intrinsically dangerous", i.e., of such a character to be harmful in its ordinary use absent proper caution (chemicals, drugs, machinery, etc.). In that case, the manufacturer must adequately warn consumers of the potential dangers, and the alert must be explicit and written in language that is easily comprehensible to the average person.

Failure to adequately and properly warn, with regards to use, handling, dangers, and other effects of a product is a common basis for product liability lawsuits. An otherwise useful product carrying inherent risks may be determined to be unreasonably dangerous for its intended use solely due to the absence of an adequate warning alerting the user to the danger.

In product liability cases it is essential that measures be taken promptly to preserve evidence, document the chain of custody of the product in question, and to enable engineers or other expert witnesses to thoroughly evaluate the product and your injuries.

At Stevens - MacPhail, P.A., we strive to obtain fair and just compensation for our clients' injuries.  Using our experience and the extensive resources available to us, we focus on achieving the best possible recovery for our clients.  In all matters involving personal injury it is essential that measures be taken promptly to preserve evidence, investigate the accident in question, and to file a lawsuit prior to the deadline imposed by the statute of limitations.

If you or a loved one has been injured, you can call Stevens - MacPhail, P.A. at (800) 897-8856 or (864) 598-9172 or e-mail us to schedule a meeting.  The initial consultation is free of charge, and if we agree to accept your case, we work on a contingent fee basis, which means we get paid for our services only if there is a monetary award or recovery of funds.  Don’t delay! You may have a valid claim and be entitled to compensation for your injuries, but a lawsuit must be filed before the statute of limitations expires.

Woman Files Lawsuit After Falling Into Open Grave

A federal judge has allowed an elderly woman to proceed with her lawsuit against a funeral home and the town of Highlands, NC. According to the lawsuit, she fell into a grave while attempting to place flowers on a friend's casket, and she sustained a broken hip in the fall.  The woman claims that the site was not safe for the June 2004 service, because workers did not dig the grave to the proper size, cover the opening with plywood, or warn people of the danger. 

Source:  "Woman Sues After Falling Into Open Grave" published in the Boston Globe.

Ford Avoids Major Punitive Damages in SUV Rollover Case

This past week, a jury in Middlesex County, New Jersey returned a sizeable verdict for a woman who was left paralyzed after her Ford Explorer rolled over.  The suit claimed that the 2000 accident was caused by a defective throttle design in the 1997 Ford Explorer that made its accelerator stick in the closed position and by the design of the vehicle's suspension, brakes, and geometry gave it a heightened propensity to tip over.

The woman's right hand was nearly severed in the crash, but doctors were able to reattach it in surgery. She also suffered torn nerves in her brachial plexus, leaving her with only 10 percent use of her right arm, and  rendering her unable to work as a cosmetics salesperson.

The jury's verdict included actual/compensatory damages of $8.5 million for pain and suffering, $1.5 million for medical expenses, and $1 million for lost wages.       However, the jury reduced the award by 28 percent, the proportion by which it found Zakrocki responsible for the crash, and the jury deducted another $2 million because the woman was not wearing a seatbelt.

Most notably in this case, the jury only awarded $42,500 in punitive damages after a lawyer for Ford was allowed to tell jurors (over the woman's lawyers' objections) of the company's dire financial straits and mass layoffs.  Ford's attorney referred to the automaker's net loss of $12.7 billion in 2006 and its plan announced in January to eliminate 25,000 to 30,000 jobs in North America and close 14 plants by 2012.

Source:  "Ford Motor Co. Ducks Major Punitive Damages in SUV Rollover Suit" by Charles Toutant of the New Jersey Law Journal, published at Law.com.

Insurance Industry Reform Legislation Introduced in Congress

The “Insurance Industry Competition Act” has been introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives and in the Senate.  Did you know that for more than 6 decades, the insurance industry has operated beyond the reach of Federal anti-trust laws?  This critical legislation would repeal the industry’s anti-trust exemption and give the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission the authority to hold insurance companies accountable for their behavior.

When Americans pay for their insurance every month, they should have every right to believe that, if tragedy strikes, their insurance carrier will be there for them.  After all, that is why American families and businesses purchase and rely on insurance for their homes, cars, property, or businesses.  When bad things happen, they should be protected.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many Gulf Coast residents who lost everything are facing insurance companies, many of which have refused to fulfill their commitments.  These families played by the rules, and insurance companies are shirking their responsibilities owed to them.  In fact, some of the area’s biggest home insurers – Allstate and State Farm – are pulling out of the Gulf States, leaving these families with nothing, even as their corporate profits surpass $5 billion as previously discussed on this blog.

Many homeowners are fighting back through the justice system to force these insurance companies to honor their contracts.  However, the insurance companies have greedily continued to push for legislation limiting the rights of consumers to hold them accountable in the courts –- the only place where Americans can face powerful interests on a level playing field.

Imagine your family loses everything, and your insurance companies will not live up to their end of the bargain.  Consider letting your Representative and Senators know that families are more important the insurance industry profits by telling them to "Protect People, Not Greedy Insurance Companies!"  You can access a directory to quckly and easily find your Representative and/or Senators by clicking HERE.

Source:  The People Over Profits Grassroots Action Center, sponsored by the American Association for Justice.

Microsoft Settles Consumer Lawsuit For Overcharged Software

Iowa consumers, who claim they were overcharged for software since 1994, will receive a $180 million settlement from Microsoft in the form of cash and vouchers. According to the class-action suit, the company used its position to overcharge for operating systems and applications software. The settlement is the largest for Microsoft in similar cases.

Source:  "Microsoft to Pay Iowa Consumers $180m" by Bloomberg News, published in the Boston Globe.

Types of Product Defects (Part One)

When making a claim for strict liability  in a product liability case, it is necessary to prove that the product was defective by proving that it was "unreasonably dangerous for its intended use" as a result of a defect or defects.  A product may be inherently dangerous but have substantial value, or "utility" such that the danger is one which would not be considered "unreasonable".

For instance, gasoline is an inherently dangerous product, but its utility far outweighs any danger posed by it. Therefore, the law does not consider gasoline to be unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. If there were an alternative, less dangerous, and no more costly fuel available, the law would likely permit a product liability action to prove that gasoline is an unreasonably dangerous product, and therefore, defective. Similarly, a knife is a dangerous product, but the law wouldn't consider it "unreasonably" dangerous unless it were manufactured with a handle so fragile that it will snap during ordinary use.

Certain types of products, such as medical drugs , may be considered unavoidably unsafe. There are many drugs used in the treatment of serious and fatal diseases which themselves may cause serious injury and even death. Although these products may be clearly "dangerous," they may not be considered "unreasonably dangerous" if proper information and warnings are given to users.

At Stevens - MacPhail, P.A., we strive to obtain fair and just compensation for our clients' injuries.  Using our experience and the extensive resources available to us, we focus on achieving the best possible recovery for our clients.  In all matters involving personal injury it is essential that measures be taken promptly to preserve evidence, investigate the accident in question, and to file a lawsuit prior to the deadline imposed by the statute of limitations.

If you or a loved one has been injured, you can call Stevens - MacPhail, P.A. at (800) 897-8856 or (864) 598-9172 or e-mail us to schedule a meeting.  The initial consultation is free of charge, and if we agree to accept your case, we work on a contingent fee basis, which means we get paid for our services only if there is a monetary award or recovery of funds.  Don’t delay! You may have a valid claim and be entitled to compensation for your injuries, but a lawsuit must be filed before the statute of limitations expires.