2009 March | www.reinerinjurylaw.com

Auto Accidents Down Since Photo Enforced Red-lights

Posted under: Automobile Accidents — tslaughter @ 9:39 am

Recent reports released by the Shasta County Grand Jury indicate that the number of traffic accidents in Redding have decreased since the advent of the photo enforced red-lights around town. According to the Record Searchlight, the Grand Jury has recommended that even more traffic lights be photo enforced in hopes of greater traffic safety.

According to the Searchlight article, intersection collisions decreased by 48% in the first half of 2008 where cameras were installed. Traffic collisions around town were down 21% during this same time period. The jury reported that the photo enforced intersections did not experience an increase in rear end collisions, as had been initially feared. These statistics prompted the jury’s finding that camera enforcement is a “phenomenal law enforcement tool.”

While we applaud the apparent decrease in intersectional crashes, we think that the decision to go forward with more cameras needs a bit more study. We believe that the reduction in crashes may be attributable to a heightened vigilance which attends the existence of the current selected photo enforced locations. This increased vigilance is a positive safety development. However, if photo enforcement becomes commonplace, a downslide in the level of vigilance can be expected. The decrease may also be attributable to other factors, such as the decrease in traffic due to the cost of fuel.

Further, as the article points out, the revenues generated by the photo enforcement has all gone to the private company that installed and maintains the cameras and programming. It was pointed out that $30,000 per year is absorbed by the City for part-time officers to review the camera data, but this is not where the costs end. There are also costs associated with processing and prosecuting the infractions, which by this method of enforcement, have increased dramatically. Hence a specific cost/benefit analysis should be conducted before buying into more equipment.

The personal injury lawyers at Reiner, Simpson & Slaughter greatly encourage the enhancement of safety on our roads, and therefore join the Grand Jury in appreciating the decrease in accidents at the subject camera-equipped intersections. However, further study is clearly needed before increasing the number of these devices to make sure that we do not experience a “reversal of fortune.”

Comments Off

Supreme Court Holds Defective Drug Manufacturers Responsible

Posted under: Drugs and Medical Device Recalls, Legal Issues — tslaughter @ 12:02 pm

In a remarkable change of vision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its previous course and refused to exonerate Drug Manufacturers from liability for injuries caused by defective drugs or inadequate labeling under the Federal Preemption doctrine.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pharmaceutical giant Wyeth could not escape liability for its defective labeling of the drug Phenergan simply by asserting that the FDA’s approval of the drug “pre-empted the field,” thus precluding state court actions against the manufacturer. In making this ruling, the Supreme Court confirmed a 2004 $6 million verdict in favor of Diana Levine that was rendered against the pharmaceutical manufacturer by a Vermont jury. This ruling is being hailed by consumer protection groups around the nation.

For background on this case, Wyeth v. Levine, see our previous post.

The Court’s ruling today appears to set a new tone about corporate/manufacturer’s responsibility. In response to Wyeth’s (and many other manufacturers) criticism that state court tort actions “substitutes a lay jury’s decision about drug labeling for expert judgment of the FDA,” the Supreme Court rebuked the corporate “hand-wringing” with the following:

Wyeth suggests that the FDA, rather than the manufacturer, bears primary responsibility for drug labeling. Yet . . . it has remained a central premise of federal drug regulation that the manufacturer bears responsibility for the content of its label and with ensuring that its warnings remain adequate as long as the drug is on the market.

The Court went on to recognize that:

[S]tate-law remedies further consumer protection by motivating manufacturers to produce safe and effective drugs and to give adequate warnings. . . [In this regard,] the FDA stated that it did “not believe that the evolution of state tort law [would] cause the development of standards that would be at odds with the agency’s regulations.” . . . [T]he FDA traditionally regarded state law as a complementary form of drug regulation.

At bottom, it appears that the corporate effort to end-run responsibility for defective products has been dealt a heavy, if not potentially fatal blow. This is good news for consumers.

Comments Off

Should I Waive Uninsured Motorist Coverage to Get My Premiums Down?

Posted under: Uninsured Motorist Coverage — tslaughter @ 2:07 pm

The simple answer is an emphatic “No!”

Under California law, every automobile liability policy must offer Uninsured Motorist coverage with minimum limits of $15,000 per person/$30,000 per accident. Insurance companies offer additional Uninsured Motorist coverage, usually up to the limits of your liability coverage. So, if you carried a $100,000/$300,000 bodily injury liability policy, the carrier will allow you to carry as much as $100,000/$300,000 in uninsured motorist coverage.

When this California law was adopted, the Legislature wanted to make sure that every insurance company offered protection to its policyholders in the event that they were hit by an uninsrued driver. To assure that this coverage would be “automatically offered,” the Legislature provided that Uninsured Motorist coverage could be waived only when the policy holder entered an express Written Agreement deleting the coverage. (Insurance Code 11580.2(a)(1)). In such an Agreement, the policy holder could delete the coverage completely, or eliminate it when the vehicle was driven by a designated person(s). If a written agreement could not be produced by the insurance company showing that the policy holder deleted the coverage, Uninsured Motorist coverage was deemed to remain part of the coverages of the policy.

In hard economic times, people are often compelled to review their automobile insurance policies to see if things can be cut out to save money. We strongly recommend against deleting Uninsured Motorist coverage.

Uninsured Motorist coverage in an automobile liability policy is there to protect you and your family. The other coverages, such as Bodily Injury or Property Damage, are their to protect the other guy. These later coverages apply to provide money to settle bodily injury or property damage claims against you. In an automobile liability policy, the only coverages that protect you for your bodily injuries are Uninsured Motorist coverage and Medical Pay coverage. Thus, to eliminate Uninsured Motorist coverage exposes you to the potential of suffering significant harm, such the incurrence of medical bills, lost wages and disabling injury, while having no ability to recover from the uninsured driver. Uninsured drivers typically do not have signficant assets.

Even without the current economic problems, approximately 25% of motorists in California illegally fail to carry insurance. We believe this number is even higher in Northern California. And, this number is to increase with the continuing downward spiral of the economy.

Protect yourself from this potentially catastrophic potential, and carry as much Uninsured Motorist coverage as you can afford. I have never had a client say, “Gee . . . I guess I was carrying too much Uninsured Motorist coverage.” I have clients say, however, “I sure wish that I knew that my coverage wasn’t going to be enough to pay for all my losses when that (uninsured) guy hit me.”

Comments (0)

Blog

March 20, 2009

Auto Accidents Down Since Photo Enforced Red-lights

March 4, 2009

Supreme Court Holds Defective Drug Manufacturers Responsible

March 3, 2009

Should I Waive Uninsured Motorist Coverage to Get My Premiums Down?