Missouri Accident Lawyer Blog

A driver fled the scene of an accident after causing a fatal Missouri car accident. The Barton County Missouri car crash occurred on August 28, 2011 at 8:55pm.

Accident victim Christopher M. Wells drove a 2004 Ford pickup truck on U.S. Highway 160, 11 miles west of Lamar. David R. Bailey attempted to pass Wells in a 2007 Chevrolet pickup. Bailey slammed his vehicle into Wells vehicle while passing. Wells drove off the roadway and overturned. Bailey’s pickup struck a ditch to conclude the accident.

Bailey fled the scene of the accident. The accident proved fatal for Wells, a 39 year old from Carl Junction, Missouri. Both vehicles were totaled in the Missouri rollover accident. Bailey, the surviving driver, was not tested for intoxication because he fled the scene.

Missouri law empowers law enforcement officers to test surviving drivers of fatal Missouri car accidents for intoxication. Missouri statue §577.021 imposes a duty on law enforcement officers to test surviving drivers of fatal traffic accidents for intoxication. The statute specifically states: “Any state, county, or municipal law enforcement officer who has the power of arrest…shall make all reasonable efforts to administer a chemical test to any person suspected of driving a motor vehicle involved in a collision which resulted in a fatality or serious physical injury.”

The statute does not impose an absolute duty on law enforcement authorities. Instead, the statute commands that the law enforcement officers “make all reasonable efforts.” If drug testing cannot be done with reasonable efforts, the law enforcement officer has not violated the statute. For example, if the surviving driver fled the scene of the accident before law enforcement arrived, the law enforcement officers may not be able to test the surviving driver.

Missouri statute §577.021 ultimately improves the safety of Missouri’s public roadways. The statute states that the chemical tests may be used “as evidence of probable cause to arrest” in a trial. If law enforcement officers use their professional judgment to arrest the surviving driver at the scene of a fatal Missouri car accident, they can defend their judgment with the results of the chemical test. Enabling law enforcement officers to remove dangerous drivers from the road improves traffic safety for all Missourians.

Continue reading "Driver Flees Scene after Causing Fatal Missouri Car Accident" »

Two elderly residents from Marston, Missouri were killed in a fatal Missouri car accident this holiday weekend on July 2, 2011 at 12:17pm. The fatal Missouri car accident occurred on US-60 and MO-114 at Morehouse.

According to the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the Missouri car crash happened when Charlie S. Hammons pulled a 1998 Ford into the path of a 1996 Chevrolet driven by Bryian G. Brown. Brown’s Chevrolet slammed into Hammons’s Ford. The force of the collision pushed both vehicles off the roadway. Hammons was ejected from his vehicle during the accident, though he and the others involved wore seat belts. Both drivers were insured by State Farm.

93-year-old Hammons was transported by Air Evac to St. Francis Hospital for medical treatment. Nevertheless, he was pronounced dead by Cape Girardeau Coroner John Clifton at the hospital. 87-year-old occupant Essie P. Hammons was pronounced dead at the scene of the accident by Stoddard County Coroner Aaron Mathis. Teenaged occupant George D. Brown of New Madrid was moderately injured in the accident. An ambulance took him to Missouri Delta Medical Center.

Injured accident victims often wonder whether they can recover damages for their injuries if the driver at fault died during the accident. Is it possible to sue drivers for personal injuries from a Missouri car accident after they have passed away? The answer depends on whether your jurisdiction has passed a type of law called a “survival statute.” Survival statutes dictate that personal injury cases “survive,” even when a party does not.

Missouri statute §537.020 is Missouri’s survival statute. Statute §537.020 says that causes of action for personal injuries “shall not abate” because the defendant died. Rather the cause of action survives to a representative for the deceased defendant. The statute authorizes a probate court to appoint a personal representative for the deceased. Suing a deceased defendant is often referred to as “suing the estate of the deceased.”

The accident victim will not receive a lower judgment or settlement merely because the defendant has passed away. Missouri law dictates that “the liability and the measure of damages shall be the same as if such death or deaths had not occurred.” If the accident victim would have received a judgment of $25,000 against a living defendant, the accident victim would receive a $25,000 judgment against a deceased defendant.

Continue reading "Two Marston Residents Killed in Stoddard County Missouri Crash" »

A daytime stroll was almost deadly for an Illinois toddler who was saved from an Illinois car accident by her nanny. Jennifer Anton, a 25-year-old from Kansas City, took baby Tyler on a daytime stroller walk on Saturday afternoon. Suddenly, a white Streets and Sanitation truck accelerated towards the curb. Anton pushed the stroller away just before the pickup truck slammed into her. In all, seven people including Anton were injured in the accident. Anton was one of two people in serious condition after the accident.

The accident was caused when Dwight Washington, a City of Chicago worker, crashed into a group of people in the Gold Coast neighborhood. Washington drove a municipal F-150 into a crowd while he was intoxicated. According to reports, his blood alcohol level was .183, which is more than twice the legally allowed legal he sat next to an open bottle of brandy.

Washington was held on $400,000 bond. He was charged with several counts of aggravated driving under the influence and two counts of misdemeanor driving under the influence. Other citations include failure to reduce speeding, transporting open alcohol in a vehicle, and negligent driving. Washington faces lawsuits as a result of the Illinois car accident. The City of Chicago also faces lawsuits about the accident.

The tort principle of respondeat superior allows accident victims to sue the employer of the driver-at-fault when the driver-at-fault was acting within the course of employment. In this instance, Washington was a municipal worker who drove a municipal vehicle. The accident victims may successfully sue the City of Chicago for their injuries through respondeat superior.

Sovereign immunity may complicate a lawsuit against municipal employers. Traditionally, governments were immune from tort lawsuits – a concept known as sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is still in effect unless a public entity expressly waives it. If a public entity like a state or city chooses not to waive its sovereign immunity, accident victims may not sue the public entity for compensatory damages.

Missouri expressly waived its sovereign immunity when a Missouri car accident is caused by a public employee. Missouri statute §537.600 states that immunity for public entities is waived when an accident victims suffers from “[i]njuries directly resulting from the negligent acts or omissions by public employees arising out of the operation of motor vehicles or motorized vehicles within the course of their employment.” When a public employee injuries an accident victim in a Missouri car accident, the accident victim may sue the government through respondeat superior.

Continue reading "Nanny Saves Toddler from Chicago Illinois Drunk Driver" »

One man was killed and another man moderately injured in a Missouri front impact car accident when two F150s crashed on Route H in Perry County Missouri on April 4, 2011 at 8:07am.

Michael T. Tomkins, 39, of Herrin, Illinois was driving on Route H just .1 miles east of PCR 936 when his right wheel dropped off the side of the roadway. Tomkins overcorrected, causing the 1998 Ford F150 he drove to partially travel off the other side of the roadway. James E. Buck, 44, of Cape Girardeau, Missouri tried to swerve a 2004 Ford F150 off the roadway to avoid hitting Tomkins. Nevertheless, the two F150s collided in the Missouri front end collision, causing Buck’s vehicle to overturn.

Tomkins was pronounced dead at the scene by the Assistant Coroner at 8:45am. Buck was transported by the Perry County Ambulance to the Perry County Memorial Hospital with moderate injuries. Both of their vehicles were totaled. Tomkins was reportedly not wearing his safety device.

Missouri statute §307.178 currently requires that all drivers and front seat passengers wear a seat belt. The statute allows for secondary enforcement, meaning that law enforcement officers do not stop or detain anyone solely because of the seat belt law. Postal workers and agricultural workers are exempted from the law while performing their duties. People with a medical reason for not wearing their seat belt are also exempted from the law.

Missouri safety advocates have repeatedly pushed to change the law. MoDOT and the state transportation director want lawmakers to change §307.178 to allow primary enforcement. Primary enforcement would allow law enforcement to pull over cars in which some is not wearing a seatbelt. Safety advocates additionally want the law to require all passengers to wear a safety belt, not just front seat passengers.

Not wearing a seat belt greatly increases the risk of Missouri serious injuries and fatalities. According to MoDOT, 80% of Missouri teens that died in car accidents were not wearing a seat belt. Two thirds of Missouri car accident fatalities were people who were not wearing their seat belt. Only 76% of Missourians wear their seatbelt while driving – a rate that lags behind the national average. Wearing a seatbelt is key to preventing Missouri car accident injuries.

Continue reading "Man Killed in Perry County Missouri Head-On Collision Between Two F150s" »

A teenaged girl from Cowgill, Missouri lost her life in a tragic Missouri car accident in Caldwell County on the M-116, four miles east of Polo. The crash happened on the afternoon of Sunday, February 27 at 1:07pm.

Kasey L Bolling, age 16, lost control of her 1999 Ford Contour on the wet roadway. She skidded sideways into oncoming traffic and was involved in a side impact car accident on the front passenger-side by a 2009 Ford F-250 driven by Kevin T Smith, 47, of Polo, Missouri. Kasey was pronounced dead at the scene of the accident by the Caldwell County Coroner Dana Brown.

Kevin Smith and his passenger, Parker Smith, 13, were moderately injured. They were taken to Liberty Hospital in Liberty, Missouri by the Caldwell County ambulance.

Kasey Bolling was wearing her safety device according to the investigating officers. Under Missouri statute §304.012, all operators of motor vehicles are required to use the highest degree of care when driving on Missouri roads and highways. Missouri state law additionally requires drivers to operate at a “rate of speed so as not to endanger the property of another or the life or limb of any person.” This means that when the road is slick from inclement weather, driving the speed limit may not necessarily equate to driving with the highest degree of care. In these cases, Missouri law requires operators to drive at a speed less than the applicable limit. Violating § 304.012 R.S.Mo. is a class B misdemeanor. When an accident is involved, the violation is a class A misdemeanor.

Continue reading "Fatal Accident for Teenaged Girl from Cowgill, Missouri" »

Missouri lawmakers are taking aim, again, at Missouri's workers compensation laws to once again shield employers from injury claims by injured workers. In 2005, the Republicans spearheaded and passed sweeping reform to Missouri' s work comp laws. Since that time, Missouri courts have interpreted sections of this law and made a number of decisions that apparently do not sit well with Republicans. In an effort to further limit injured worker's rights, the legislature is preparing to modify the bill, which now allows co-workers to sue each other for workplace negligence. Another decision Republicans aim to change is a decision that allowed claims for occupational diseases to be brought outside the workers compensation system. As always, feel free to contact your state representative or senator to voice your opinion as to these changes.

While the economy is slow in recovering and local municipalities are feeling the pinch, some areas around the country have turned to what many call a "crash tax" as a way of saving some money.

The idea behind a crash tax or accident fee is that a charge will be assessed those involved in a serious car accident to pay for the cost of handling that accident. Many areas have had such fees for years, but the idea is gaining more traction in cash-strapped states, like California.

In a lot of cases, a driver's insurance policy will cover the cost of the accident fee, but not in every case. It would be a good idea to check your own policy and the laws in your city to know if you may be on the hook for one of these charges should you be involved in a wreck.

Theses types of fees vary widely from city to city, but to give you an idea of the costs we are talking about, some fire departments charge over $600 to put out a burning car, $1800 to use the jaws of life and more than $2,000 for an airlift to the hospital.

Legislators who allow these laws on the books argue that emergency response is an expensive job and these fees are necessary to recoup costs. Opponents argue that tax dollars already go to emergency responders and that an accident fee is excessive or even cruel. Some people who know about the fees may refuse needed medical care or fail to report an accident at all out of fear of being hit with one of these fees.

Here in Missouri, along with nine other states, we have banned any so-called crash taxes. This is not the case across the river in neighboring Illinois. One thing illustrated by the notion of crash taxes is the complications involved in handling a car accident injury claim. Laws vary so much from state-to-state and city-by-city that it is imperative you seek an experienced personal injury attorney with extensive knowledge about local laws if you are involved in a crash.

Over the the last week, you may have noticed some new anti-texting signs or logos getting posted around the state. That's because the Missouri State Highway Patrol, along with various other public departments and private sponsors, has begun a new public awareness ad campaign aimed at reducing distracted driving, specifically targeting texting.

The campaign logo will be popping up on billboards and on decals that you can stick to your car. It will also be seen on cars at Gateway International Speedway races.

Missouri has already banned texting while driving for people under the age of 21 and this ban will be strictly enforced over the coming weeks. While this law is aimed at younger drivers, campaign organizers hope that drivers of any age will heed the warnings and not engage in negligently distracting activities that could result in serious car crash injuries or fatalities.

Officials with the Highway Patrol say the new campaign is important because distracted driving is at least partially responsible for one-in-four Missouri car accidents.

Gov. Jay Nixon signed into law a reform of the state's DWI laws that aim to be stricter on repeat offenders and limit the number of serious Missouri car accidents caused by drunk drivers.

Some of the key components of the new bill are:

-Cases involving repeat offenders must be moved from a municipal court to a state court, where the penalties are tougher.
-All law enforcement agencies across the state must participate in a DWI reporting policy to better track the number of drunk driving wrecks across the state.
-All municipal court judges must complete a course focused on drunk driving laws.
-Special DWI courts will be created specifically for driver's who plead guilty and new penalties for drivers with a blood alcohol content of .15 or above.

Aside from those main changes, several procedural changes to how DWI cases are handled will be enacted as well. For instance, the law closes a loophole that allowed DWI offenders to have prior offenses expunged.

The bill comes after Gov. Nixon held a summit of state officials to come up with a plan to reduce drunk driving accident injuries in Missouri.

According to nationwide data, Missouri ranks in the bottom half of all states in terms of the number of drunk driving accidents and the percent of fatalities involving a drunk driver.

Since Missouri banned drivers under the age of 21 from texting behind the wheel last year, the debate has focused on whether to ban texting for all drivers. The state legislature has decided, for now, that it will not ban texting for adult drivers.

Laws against texting and driving have been adopted in numerous states around the country as a way of combating distracted driving and the serious car accident injuries it can cause. 42 states have at least considered such laws, with 24 adopting some type of texting regulation, while federal agencies have banned texting for commercial truck drivers and federal employees driving state-owned vehicles.

Since the Missouri law banning minors from texting took effect, only a few tickets have been issued. It's too early to tell what type of effect the law has had on crash statistics.

Nationwide, over 6,000 people are killed every year by car accidents caused by negligent distracted driving. In Missouri alone, there were over 500 injuries related to distracted driving crashes.

The Centers for Disease Control has issued a report stating that serious car accidents are the leading cause of death for teens in the United States. Over a third of all teenage deaths can be attributed to traffic accidents.

According to the report, over 16,000 teens die each year from car accident injuries. That equals about a third of all teenage deaths, beating out the other leading causes of death including non-car related accidents, homicide, suicide, cancer and heart disease. Accidents in general, both car related and not, are to blame for over half of all teen fatalities.

The numbers also show that male teens are much more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than female teens. At 16, males are about twice as likely to be in a fatal car accident and that disparity only widens as they get older. By 19, males are three times as likely to be killed in a car crash.

While the numbers are disheartening, especially since the loss of life of among teens is a such a tragic occurrence, there is room for optimism. Car accidents are a preventable cause of death. Safety advance through the years have done a pretty good job at preventing serious accidents. No advances in car engineering or safety technology will ever take the place of responsible driving. Teens need to receive plenty of practice in a supervised setting before being on the road on their own. Parents need to make sure to pass on safe driving tips and a encourage their children not to engage in risky or negligent driving practices.

Here in Missouri, state laws have also stepped in to try and prevent these tragic accidents. The graduated license system was implemented in the last decade and in just the last year, teens were banned from texting while driving.

The U.S. Department of Transportation is trying to educate drivers about the dangers of distracted driving using a new website, www.distraction.gov.

The site has an extensive list of statistics and facts about distracted driving and the serious car accidents they lead to. Talking on the cell phone and sending text messages are two distractions that have been featured prominently in the news, but the site warns against other activities that take your eyes off the road such as eating or applying makeup.

As the laws around these distractions continue to evolve, the site will update visitors on local regulations.

Recently, the Department of Transportation banned texting by all commercial truck and bus drivers as a way of cutting down on tractor trailer crashes.

According to the Department of Transportation, 80 percent of all automotive crashes are caused by distracted drivers and almost 6,000 people died in 2008 as a result of inattentive drivers.

Educating drivers on the dangers of distracted driving is one step toward limiting these incidents, but some people will undoubtedly continue to participate in these behaviors. Negligent drivers need to be held accountable. If you have been involved in a serious car accident and would like to learn your legal rights, consult a Missouri car accident lawyer as soon as possible.

Arguments on a case that could have big ramifications for medical malpractice laws in the state of Missouri were heard today by the Missouri Supreme Court. At the heart of the issue is the question of whether the state's $350,000 non-economic damage cap is fair to consumers and whether the cap can be applied retroactively to injuries sustained before a limit was in place.

As we reported earlier, the case was initially filed by James and Mary Klotz of Arnold, Missouri. James Klotz won a medical malpractice lawsuit after massive complications arose from an operation to insert a pacemaker. While the jury awarded Klotz $1 million, the non-economic damages were reduced to just $350,000. While the actual lawsuit was filed after the 2005 cap was put in place, the personal injuries were sustained in an operation that occurred in 2004.

Those opposed to the damage caps, including consumer advocates and Missouri medical malpractice lawyers, say that the caps are unfair and unconstitutional. They could also be seen as restricting access to the court system, especially for people earning lower to moderate incomes. If non-economic damage awards are reduced arbitrarily to $350,000, it makes it financially unfeasible to take a case to court, a process which could cost tens of thousands of dollars in itself.

It also seems particularly unfair to limit the award given to the James Klotz since his injuries were sustained prior to the cap being in place. According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the argument was made before the Supreme Court that limiting the Klotz award was similar to placing a limit on damages for accident victims the day after a bridge collapse. The defense argued that lawsuits arising from that hypthetical situation were different than the actual medical malpractice case before the court.

We will be sure to follow up on this story as it develops.

The writing has been on the wall for some time and it now seems more likely than ever that Missouri will see some sort of comprehensive texting while driving ban to prevent Missouri car accidents.

At least three bills will be filed and up for debate in the early 2010 legislative sessions. Some media reports suggest that up to five or more bills will be filed before all is said and done.

The high number of bills tackling the subject speaks to the complicated nature of trying to regulate this fairly new technological distraction. It's easy to say that texting while driving is dangerous and should not be allowed, but the details of such a ban will be the main point of debate. For instance, should drivers only be banned from typing texts, but be allowed to read them? Will the ban be for all roads or just highways? What about devices like the iPhone, which are capable of sending and receiving texts as well as playing music through a car's speakers?

Currently, Missouri has a ban on sending and receiving texts for drivers under 21 while they are behind the wheel. Since that ban took effect in August, the Highway Patrol has issued eight citations, according to a KRCG report.

Whatever plan eventually comes out on top, hopefully it will do something to curb the number of Missouri car and truck crashes caused by distracted drivers. Studies show that drivers are 23 times more likely to be involved in an accident if they are attempting to text while driving. Four out of five crashes caused by driver error are the result of distracted driving.

Governor Jay Nixon assembled a panel of 34 officials, including police, lawyers and politicians, to discuss the problem of drunken driving in the state of Missouri. The summit is in response to the large number of fatal Missouri car accidents caused by drunken drivers and a recent St. Louis Post Dispatch report exposing numerous loopholes allowing dangerous drivers back on the road.

One common problem is that repeat offenders were not charged as such. Despite having a three-strikes law in Missouri, numerous repeat offenders who should be charged with felonies are set free with misdemeanors or less. The Post Dispatch reports this happens about half the time in St. Louis County.

Officials on the panel said that law enforcement needs to have a better way of tracking these repeat offenders so they can be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Another problem discussed at the meeting was the issue of refusing a blood alcohol test. Under current Missouri law, if you refuse a blood alcohol test, you are supposed to automatically lose your license for a year. This is often not the case, though, as thousands of drivers were allowed to stay on the road after refusing the test due to various loopholes and appeals.

A suggested solution to this problem was to make refusing a blood alcohol test a crime punishable by more severe penalties than just losing your license. Several other states have adopted a similar law. This law would only reduce Missouri car accidents if it was more strictly enforced, though, and the loopholes that existed for the loss of license rule don't carry over to the criminal charges.

Missouri annually ranks among in the top third of states for most alcohol-related fatalities. With hundreds of drunk driving deaths every year, we often outpace similarly populated states.

If you have lost someone to a drunken driving accident or have been injured yourself, contact a Missouri personal injury lawyer to discuss your case.

A new law banning texting while driving will take effect today in Missouri. The law states that nobody under the age of 21 can send, receive or read a text message while they drive.

This law is aimed at preventing serious injury accidents caused by inattentiveness. A large number of car wrecks are caused by drivers simply not paying attention to the road. One of the most infamous incidents in the St. Louis area over the last couple years took place last summer when a tractor trailer driver plowed through a line of cars while allegedly reaching for his cell phone. This tragic incident killed three people and injured 15. Charges were filed earlier this year in relation to that crash.

This new law would not have affected that incident as the driver was over 21. While several other states have bans or partial bans on cell phone use or texting, only Missouri is restricting use by a particular age group.

The fine for violating this law is set at $200.

Advertisements for legal services like personal injury attorneys appearing in print, radio and television ads may soon face stricter guidelines if the Missouri Bar and Missouri Supreme Court adopt newly proposed regulation.

Currently, all legal advertisements must have the disclaimer “The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisement.”

According to the Missouri Bar Board of Governors, the new regulation would dictate how that disclaimer is included within the advertisement. For instance, if it is a print ad, the disclaimer must be in high contrast to the background and at least one-third the size of the advertising lawyer’s contact information. Television and radio ads that speak the disclaimer must say it no faster than the ad speaks the phone number of the advertising lawyer.

The use of celebrities as spokesmen would also be banned in legal advertising.

The proposal has sparked a debate in the Missouri legal community over the amount of regulation that should govern legal advertisements. Supporters of the proposal say that it is important to make special rules for legal advertisements because the public could easily be mislead regarding complicated legal matters. Opponents say it is a challenge to free commercial speech and it goes too far.

Regardless of whether or not these new rules are implemented or even necessary, the disclaimer does promote some useful advice. If you or a loved one have been injured by another’s negligence and you are seeking a Missouri personal injury lawyer for legal advice, you should thoroughly research all potential lawyers before making a decision. Don’t rely simply on ads as many attorneys do little or no advertising. Find a listing of St. Louis area attorneys and give them a call. Most will provide a free consultation of your personal injury case that will tell you more than any 30 second radio ad ever could.

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon vetoed a bill today that would have allowed many Missouri motorcycle enthusiasts to ride without a helmet.

The bill had passed both the Missouri House and Senate and had been waiting on Nixon’s approval for several weeks. We commented on the bill in a post last month about motorcycle safety laws.

The bill would have repealed many of Missouri’s existing helmet laws and allowed anybody over 21 to ride a motorcycle without a helmet if they so choose. Under Missouri law, all motorcyclists must wear a helmet at all times to protect themselves from motorcycle injury accidents.

Nixon said he made the decision that was the most safe and cost-effective one for Missouri. He believes that more motorcyclists would die in accidents and treating the additional injuries would cause health care costs in the state to rise.

A similar bill was vetoed by former Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan in 1999.

Several studies from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have shown that personal injuries and fatalities related to motorcycle accidents increased in states that have limited or repealed helmet laws.

Overall, motorcycle crashes are on the rise across the country. Over three thousand people die each year due to injuries sustained in motorcycle accidents. Sometimes these are wrongful death cases where another driver doesn’t see the smaller motorcyclists and pulls his vehicle into the path of the bike causing the tragic incident.

Supporters of the bill to repeal the helmet laws say they will continue to push for their cause.

A new law in Missouri will require people with multiple drunk driving convictions to install breathalyzer interlocks in their cars, according to the Hannibal Courier-Post.

These interlocks keep the car from starting until the driver breathes into a detector that measures blood alcohol content. If they are above the legal limit, the car will not start. The driver will have to re-test every 15 minutes while the engine is running to make sure the driver stays sober.

The interlock will also record data about the driver’s sobriety and driving habits and this data will be available to authorities.

About 70,000 people will be affected, according to the Hannibal Courier-Post. This includes people who have reapplied for licenses that had previously been revoked and people convicted of involuntary manslaughter for causing a fatal Missouri car crash while drunk.

The law takes effect on July 1 and the state will send out notices to all those affected.

Missouri joins Illinois, New Mexico, Arizona and Louisiana as the only states with mandatory interlock laws.

Drunk driving car accidents are a major problem on Missouri’s roads. We have commented on these tragic accidents in other posts on this blog. Alcohol is a factor in nearly half of all fatal car accidents in Missouri and roughly 500 people die each year in alcohol related crashes.

President Obama delivered a speech today before the American Medical Association. He talked about the need for health care reform in many areas including lowering costs of medical procedures. One way this might be accomplished, according to the president, is by putting more restrictions on medical malpractice cases.

Tort reform advocates and malpractice reform supporters have long claimed that the threat of a lawsuit is a major cause of outrageous medical costs. Doctors, in fear of being sued for not being thorough enough, will order dozens of unnecessary tests for their patients. All the excess demand for things like MRI’s and EKG’s drives up the price, they say.

Obama was quick to point out that he doesn’t believe caps on malpractice awards are the solution. He said that this is often unfair to people who have been wrongfully harmed by a doctor’s negligence.

The president did say he will explore many options that will keep patient safety first, but also allow doctors to practice medicine without fear of a medical malpractice lawsuit.

From a personal injury lawyer’s perspective, I believe the consequences of reform should be carefully weighed. It’s good to hear that president Obama is not in favor of placing limits on malpractice awards. All these arbitrary limits do is keep some people from getting the help they need and take the punitive sting away from lawsuits meant to expose a negligent doctor or hospital. Limiting the types of malpractice suits allowed could have a similar effect if not handled correctly.

Missouri Senate Bill 202, a bill that would allow motorcyclists to ride without a helmet, is still awaiting a signature from Governor Jay Nixon.

The bill passed through both the House and Senate last month and will become law if Nixon doesn’t veto it.

The bill will change two motorcycle related laws in Missouri if passed. The first, and most publicized change, is that anybody over 21 will have the option to wear a helmet when riding their motorcycle. Currently, all riders must wear a helmet at all times to protect against motorcycle injury accidents.

The other major element of Senate Bill 202 that’s not getting as much attention from the media, though it’s certainly getting the attention of Missouri personal injury attorneys, is the effect the bill will have on insurance law.

Under current law, if a motorcycle was involved in an injury accident with a car, an insurance company could deny the cyclist a large portion of their insurance claim on the grounds that a motorcycle is a hazardous vehicle. Insurance companies could do this even if the motorcyclist was fault-free in the accident.

Legislators found this discrepancy unfair to motorcyclists so the bill would close this loophole and force insurance companies to treat cyclists the same as car drivers.

If signed by the governor, the law would take effect this year and expire in August 2014 giving the Missourians time to see the ramifications with regard to public safety and insurance law before renew or rewriting the law.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is reporting complaints that safety training consultants are shortening the hours on a required safety course, according to the Springfield Business Journal.

According to the report, some trainers are giving workers two hours of instruction and giving them bogus certification for a normally 10-hour safety course.

While the article focused on trainings given here to prevent Missouri work place injuries, skimping on required training hours is a national problem for OSHA. A case in New York City had a safety trainer deliver a 10-hour course in a mere just a couple hours over drinks at a bar.

The reason this kind of cheating has become more rampant is that a law that takes effect August 28 will require all construction companies that are taking stimulus money to have their workers complete the training course. Safety trainers overwhelmed with training session requests have been shortening their sessions in order to schedule more and make more money.

The work place and construction injuries that this course is aimed at preventing can be a devastating problem for Missouri workers. If someone is hurt on the job by another’s negligence, not only will medical bills pile up but many are not able to work and generate money during their recovery. Consulting a personal injury attorney may be beneficial in these situations to ensure that your rights are protected.

The Missouri House and Senate have both passed a bill that would allow motorcycle riders to ride without a helmet except on highways. The law will go into effect if Gov. Jay Nixon doesn’t veto it.

Under the current law, all riders must have a helmet at all times to protect themselves from motorcycle injury accidents.

If the new law is put in place, anybody over 21 will have the option to wear a helmet when they ride their motorcycle. According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, 30 other states have similar partial helmet laws or no helmet laws.

Supporters of the change say riders should have the freedom to choose without the government becoming a nanny-state and legislating personal safety.

Opponents say that the costs associated with fatal and serious injuries sustained in Missouri motorcycle accidents are passed along to non-riders by increased insurance premiums and taxes.

In 2007, over 2,300 accidents involving motorcycles occurred in Missouri. 93 people were killed in these accidents and over 2,000 were injured. According to the Post Dispatch, Arkansas and Texas both saw sharp declines in helmet use after they loosened helmet laws in recent years. Fatalities in both states increased by 25 percent in the year after the laws were passed.

The Missouri House of Representatives has given initial support to a plan that would alter the way Missouri selects judges for its Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

The current plan, called the “Missouri Plan” or “Nonpartisan Court Plan”, has been in place since 1940. Under the current plan, a special commission nominates three candidates for judicial vacancies and forwards the names to the governor. This commission is made up of lawyers, residents, and the state Supreme Court chief justice. The governor then has sixty days to select one or the committee will make the selection. The judge that is selected must then stand in a retention election after completing one year of service.

The new plan being debated would add another citizen to the commission and would make the commission select four candidates to recommend to the governor. The governor could then veto the initial group of candidates and force the committee to select another. All the hearings and votes made by the commission would be made public and applicants would be posted online.

Opponents of the current Missouri Plan welcome the proposed changes and say that the current selection process gives too much power to lawyers who influence the selection process. The American Tort Reform Association and the Wall Street Journal have recently made criticisms of the Missouri Plan.

Supporters of the current system say that those asking for reform only want to target the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys. Tort reform groups seem to view “trial lawyer” as a nasty term and work to limit the damages that can be awarded by personal injury lawsuits among other reforms. Rep. Steve Brown (D-St. Louis) was quoted in a MissouriNet report asking for reformers to name just one unqualified judge selected by the plan.

The proposal for changes would need to be approved by the senate and go to a vote of the people before taking effect.

Representative Bob Dixon from Springfield, Missouri has introduced new legislation that would entitle juvenile witnesses a so called "Bill of Rights" when testifying in Missouri courts. The proposed law would bar lawyers from raising their voices while questioning juveniles and allow children to carry a "comfort item" while on the stand. This bill would apply to criminal cases as well as civil cases. However, many lawyers and legislators are voicing out opposition to this bill.

The problem some see with the bill is that it reaches too far. For instance, a 17 year old criminal defendant who is being tried for murder as an adult would have a safe haven under this proposed legislation. Some see this as conferring an unfair advantage in these types of situations.

The Missouri Bar is officially voicing opposition to this bill, calling it vague and questioning whether it would run afoul of other existing court rules. The Missouri legislature has passed this bill and it is now sitting at the footsteps of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

For me, I don't see the need for this legislation. For one, the Missouri Supreme Court has passed its own rules regarding courtroom practice and procedure, which has worked in my estimation just fine in the realm of juvenile matters. If this bill is aimed at "protecting children," does it presuppose Missouri judges are not doing a good job of this now? This is what a judge does. He or she controls the decorum and manner in which witnesses are examined under direct and cross examination. If a lawyer gets out of line, they are immediately stopped by the judge.

Recently, the Missouri legislature has not been content with just passing laws, which by definition is what the legislative branch of the government does. It seems like they want to pass the laws and then decide how the laws are interpreted as well as control every aspect of judicial proceedings. These are things left to the Judicial branch of the government- interpreting laws and administering courtroom procedure to determine if laws are violated. Perhaps the legislature should stick to passing constitutional laws and leave the administration of justice to the qualified judges that sit on the bench.

If you have questions or comments regarding this bill, contact the bill's sponsor and Representative Bob Dixon of Springfield, Missouri at (573)751-9809.