A study published in the September 2010 issue of Pediatrics reports the number of sports-related concussions is highest in high school-aged athletes, but the number in younger athletes is significant and rising. Visits to emergency departments for minor traumatic brain injuries occurring during organized team sports have increased dramatically over a 10-year period, and appear to be highest in ice hockey and football.

What should schools being doing to protect their students? For one thing, every coach can take the free online concussion training course offered by the Center for Disease Control. The course, which is designed for parents as well as coaches, includes video segments, quizzes and a resource center. It takes approximately 40 minutes to complete, but the time will vary because it’s interactive. The training dispels many of the “myths” about brain injuries that we’ve blogged about previously here and here.

Event Data Recorders (EDRs) have been in cars since at least 1997. They are similar to the“black box” found on airplanes. The EDR in a vehicle is usually part of the vehicle restraint system and records information generally related to accidents. Some EDRs continuously record data and others are activated by crash-like events.

Manufacturers are not required to install EDR’s in the cars they manufacturer. But they do anyway. Ford, GM, Chrysler/Daimler and Toyota include them on most  models. 

In 2006, NHTSA set minimum standards for manufacturers who install EDRs.  The manufacturers must comply with those standards for EDR’s installed on or after September 1, 2012. The NHTSA standards will require that the following data be recorded:  speed, engine throttle position, brake use, measured changes in forward velocity (Delta-V), driver safety belt use, airbag warning lamp status and airbag deployment times.

Currently, some manufacturers shroud the quantity and quality of EDR data in secrecy. For example, no one, other than Toyota, knows exactly what data Toyota’s EDRs record, what data is retrieved, and how it is processed and analyzed to produce a report.  Sean Kane of Safety Research and Strategies sheds some light on the murky subject of EDRs in his report found here.  All this will change in 2012, when NHTSA will require manufacturers to make their EDR data publicly available.

Governor Schwarzenegger has signed a bill into law that will allow adults who serve alcohol to minors to be held accountable for their actions.  Under the new law, adults who serve alcohol to those under the legal drinking age of 21 can be sued for any injuries or death that result from the intoxication.  Surprisingly, before the law was passed, adults who served minors in their homes were immune from civil liability.

 As discussed here, trial attorneys and Mothers Against Drunk Driving  teamed up to sponsor this bill aimed at protecting everyone from the harmful consequences of under-age drinking.

 

Following a burn, dead tissue provides a breeding ground for bacteria to grow and bacteria can lead to infection. The dead tissue will eventually fall off as part of the skin’s natural healing process. However, when burns are particularly severe, the natural healing process can take too long. Surgeons must act to reduce the risk of infection by "debriding" the wound. Debridement is the process of removing dead tissue and contaminated material from and around a wound to expose healthy tissue.

The surgeon may debride the wound in several ways: surgically, chemically, mechanically and autolytically. To decide which method to use, the surgeon will consider the wound’s depth, its extent and location, whether it lies close to other structures like bones, the risk of infection and antibiotic use, and the type of pain management that will be used during and after the procedure.

Surgical debridement:
Dead tissue is cut from the wound by using scalpels, forceps, scissors and other instruments. Surgical debridement is the most effective method if the wound is large or deep. It is often the best choice if the need for debridement is urgent. The wound is cleaned with saline and then the dead tissue is cut. Surgical debridement often needs repeating. Sometimes skin grafts may need to be transplanted into the debrided site.

Mechanical debridement:
This method is one of the oldest, potentially the most painful, and most controversial. It is done by applying a saline moistened dressing over the wound and allowing it to dry and adhere to the dead tissue, when the dressing is removed the dead tissue will be pulled with it. Ouch! It is controversial because it may not remove reliably all of the dead tissue.

Chemical debridement:
This is done by using enzymes and other compounds to dissolve dead tissue in the wound.

Autolytic debridement:
This method involves using dressings that retain wound fluids, allowing the body itself to naturally get rid of the dead tissue. It is not used if the wound is infected or quick treatment is needed, since it takes more time than the other methods and is a good method if the body cannot tolerate more aggressive treatment.

Debridement may be done under general or local anesthesia; pain medications may be administered afterwards. The debrided burned area of the wound must be properly dressed and kept clean and dry. The patient and family members must be attentive to signs of infection: discharge from the wound, color change, swelling, redness, increasing pain, excessive bleeding, fever and chills. Infections will often lengthen the hospital stay and if not treated properly may lead to pneumonia and even death.

In personal injury cases, the testimony of the health care providers who manage the burn care and debridement is helpful in explaining to the jury the nature of the care and the risks involved. 

Assuming that car rental agencies provide safe and well-maintained vehicles, drivers often choose to rent a car for a long road trip rather than put the miles on their own car. Renters trust the rental agency to provide safe vehicles because that’s their business. That’s the service customers are paying for in daily rates. Apparently that assumption may be wrong and the trust misplaced. Sometimes rental agencies seek to push cars off the lot, even when they know the cars have problems with tires, brakes or steering.

In 2004, the Houck sisters were returning to Santa Cruz from their mother’s home in Ventura when their rented PT Cruiser crossed the grass median and hit a southbound big rig and burst into flames. Both were killed in the crash.

The girls had rented the Cruiser from Enterprise Rent a Car in SF. What the girls didn’t know when they signed for the car was that, a month earlier, Daimler Chrysler recalled 435,000 PT Cruisers manufactured from 2002 through 2005. That recall included the Cruiser that Enterprise provided them. The reason for the recall was that the power steering hose could leak, resulting in a fire.

Nor did Enterprise tell the girls that it had ignored the recall, renting it out to four previous customers without ever getting the necessary repairs completed.

When experts concluded Rachel Houck lost steering ability because of a power-steering fluid leak, the girls’ parents sued Enterprise seeking to hold the company responsible for the accident.

Mark Matias, the manager of Enterprise’s Northern California area testified that before the accident, he was not aware the PT Cruiser had been recalled. Furthermore, he said the Enterprise corporate philosophy was "you’ve got to keep booking, because you don’t know when you are going to get a car back. But then of course, you run short on vehicles, and if all you have are recalled vehicles on the lot, you rent them out. It was a given. The whole company did it."

His statement explained his understanding of the policy: If a priority recall appears on the computer screen in the rental office, the employee is required to write the word "recall" on a Post-it note and place it on the key in an area designated for non-rentals, but nothing prevents an employee from renting out that vehicle.

A jury disapproved of Enterprise’s business practices and returned a verdict against Enterprise and in favor of the girls’ parents in the amount of $15 million. Given the Houck family tragedy, hopefully Enterprise, along with other rental agencies will reconsider renting a recalled car and strive to meet the renter’s expectation of safety.
 

Serving alcohol to minors is illegal. But strangely parents do it or permit it to happen in their home. Stranger still, the law doesn’t allow civil recourse against the parent when a teen is killed or injured as a result of the alcohol the parent served. That may soon change.

The Consumer Attorneys of California and Mothers Against Drunk Driving have teamed up to deter underage drinking and hold parents accountable for serving alcohol to minors . They are co-sponsors of the narrowly-crafted Teen Alcohol Safety Act of 2010. It is aimed at adding California to the large preponderance of states that impose potential "social host" liability on adults who knowingly provide alcohol to minors who are subsequently injured or killed as a result of this lack of parental care.

The Senate has signed the bill.  It’s now on the governor’s desk. If he signs it, it will become law and no longer will parents be immune from liability when they serve alcohol to minors.

Thank you fellow trial attorneys!  

1. "You couldn’t have suffered a brain injury if you didn’t lose consciousness." 

Not so.  A brain injury results from any traumatically induced disruption in brain function.  The victim needn’t have "blacked out" to have suffered a brain injury.  A disruption of brain function may be evidenced by the victim’s inability to recall events immediately before or after the accident, or any feelings of being dazed or confused after an accident.

2. "You couldn’t have suffered a brain injury if you didn’t hit your head."  

The brain can be injured anytime the head comes to a sudden stop.  The damage occurs when the brain moves inside the skull.  No impact to the head is needed.  If the head and neck makes a sufficient whipping motion, or if the head is shaken sufficiently hard, a brain injury can result..

3.  "Children recover from brain injuries better than adults do."

In fact, children often seem to do worse than adults. The reason is that, for a child, the injury is a "double hazard."  First, the child struggles in the first year or two to recover physically from the injury, if he can.  But even if his physical condition improves, he will find himself behind his peers in school.  Unable to catch up, he may simply fall further behind. 
If you don’t have any complaints, you’re fine.

4. "It’s just a concussion."  

Concussions, though considered "mild" brain injuries, are serious.  For most victims, their symptoms of a concussion will resolve within a year.  However, for a minority of victims — perhaps as many as 15% — their symptoms can persist for many years of for the rest of their lives, and can be devastating. 

5. "If you feel OK, then you’re fine."

Sometimes, the symptoms of a brain injury occur right away.  Sometimes, however, they can begin weeks later.  Frequently, a victim of a brain injury will suffer a serious loss — such as the loss of his sense of smell — and not even be aware of it until he is tested.

A family member who has lost a loved one due to the negligence of another is entitled to be compensated for his or her loss. In most jurisdictions, that compensation properly includes money to replace the financial support the family member would have received from the loved one had the accident never happened. Here are some of the factors that are considered in determining what sum is appropriate.

  • How much was the victim earning? This is usually determined by wage or earnings records.
  • How much was the victim capable of earning? The victim’s "earning capacity" may be higher than what his actual earnings reflected. A higher earning capacity is sometimes evidenced by the victim’s education, employment history, and work-related accomplishments.
  • How much was the victim actually contributing to the family member’s support? Though actual contributions may be relevant, the family member need not prove legal support obligation as in the case of the forgotten widow.
  • Was future support likely? Even if the family member hadn’t received support in the past, he or she may still prove that he or she expected support in the future. For example, parents have been allowed ompensation when they proved that misfortune, ill health, or simply old age might eventually have forced them to rely on the victim for financial help.
  • How much would the victim have spent on himself? In some states, the wrongdoer is entitled to argue that appropriate compensation is determined by subtracting the amount of money the victim would have spent on himself (for things like tuition, health care, hobbies, etc.) from the victim’s total projected lifetime earnings.
  • But for the accident, how long would the victim have been expected to work? The victim’s "work-life" expectancy is often the subject of dispute. In determining how long the victim would have continued to work, and thus provide financial support, courts consider evidence about the victim’s health, lifestyle, and attitudes about work.
  • What is the family member’s life expectancy? The family member can recover only the support he or she would have likely received from the victim. That means that the family member’s life expectancy, if shorter than the victim’s work-life expectancy, may be relevant. In California, mortality tables  are frequently considered when trying to determine life expectancies, but aren’t conclusive. 

The family member is entitled to be compensated today for all the support that he or she would have likely received in the future. That means that the total amount of support that the family member would have received must be discounted to present value.  Finally, if the victim acted carelessly or negligently and his actions were a contributing factor in causing his death, then the amount of compensation due will be reduced in proportion to the fault attributable to the victim.

Of course a wife is entitled to recover against the wrongdoer who caused the death of her loving husband. But what if the husband had long ago abandoned her? Without a loving relationship or continuous support, is the "forgotten widow" entitled to any compensation at all?

In most cases, yes, because the forgotten widow or abandoned wife who has lost her husband is viewed as having lost her husband’s financial support. Even if the husband had not been paying that support, the widow is entitled to compensation.

In the usual wrongful death case, an award for loss of support is based on the amount of support the widow proves her deceased husband would have provided to her in the future. But a California court has ruled that, in the case of the forgotten widow, that proof is not necessary.

The California court  in Powers v. Sutherland Auto Stage Co., considered a case where the deceased spouse had deserted his wife more than 13 years before his death. During that time, he had sent her only infrequent small checks, and for several years prior to the his death, the claimant wife had heard nothing from him and did not know his whereabouts. The spouse was entitled to no compensation for the loss of her husband’s "care comfort or society.’ But the court determined that the wife was entitled to be compensated for the loss of her legal right to support.

It made no difference that the wife had never attempted to enforce her rights. Her right to support was created by the marriage and would exist so long as the marriage itself existed. By causing the death of her husband, the wrongdoer deprived the forgotten widow of a right to which she was legally entitled.
 

There’s no longer any debate.  Tires older than six years should be discarded and replaced, even if they otherwise appear to be in good condition with plenty of tread.  In fact, they should be tossed out  even if they’ve nDetreaded Tireever been used.  That’s because tires older than six years are prone to "detreading."  Detreading is a type of tire failure where the tread peels from the tire much like the skin may peel from a banana.

Detreadings are more dangerous than flats or blow-outs.  Some vehicles, including SUV’s, can become uncontrollable after a detreading and can roll over, especially if it’s a rear tire that fails.

One need look no further than the vehicle’s owner’s manual for guidance.  Almost all the car manufacturers now warn to replace tires after six years, regardless of condition.  That includes Volvo, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, and even Ford. In fact, Ford posted a warning on its website: 

Tires degrade over time, even when they are not being used. It is recommended that tires generally be replaced after 6 years of normal service. Heat caused by hot climates or frequent high loading conditions can accelerate the aging process.  

Until recently, the tire manufacturers argued that tires were good for at least 10 years.  Maybe even indefinitely if they had adequate tread. It’s only now that the tire makers agree that the "six-year" rule should be followed.

What gives?  Wouldn’t a tire manufacturer want consumers to toss out tires sooner, so that they could sell more?

No.

Tire manufacturers make tires in batches and then store them until needed. That’ means the tire you buy at a tire store as "new" may be up to 10 years old.   Sometimes even older.  If buyers began rejecting those tires, tire manufacturers would have to change their whole way of making and distributing their product to get them to market and sold while still "fresh."

Consumer groups have argued that tire makers should stamp the year of manufacturer on the outside tire sidewall, so the consumer would have no trouble telling how old the tire is.  Or at the very least, tire shops should be required to advise customers when the new tire they are buying isn’t exactly "new." 

Tire makers and tire shops resist.  They say the code containing the tire’s date of manufacture is stamped on the inside sidewall for anyone to see.  But the problem with that is the coded information is hard to find and is, well, in code.