Posts Tagged ‘Personal Injury Attorney’

Cell phone, texting update: Wisconsin’s ban on text messaging takes effect Wednesday, Dec. 1. Wisconsin was the 25th state to outlaw texting while behind the wheel.

Current prohibitions:
Text messaging outlawed for all drivers. Fines from $20 to $400 with a possible 4 points against the driver’s license.
The state outlaws distracted driving, or “being so engaged or occupied as to interfere with the safe driving of that vehicle.” The fine is $173 and 4 points.

Distracted driving notes:
Wisconsin’s new ban on text messaging while driving specifically prohibits the writing and transmitting of messages while the vehicle is in motion. It does not outlaw the reading of text messages or use of the Internet. Police say they’ll fall back on the inattentive driving law if other activities on handheld electronic devices lead to unsafe behaviors.

State officials say 18 percent of Wisconsin’s vehicle crashes in 2009 were caused by distracted drivers. 

2010 legislation:
Wisconsin Assembly Bill 496: Would outlaw text messaging while driving. Fines from $20 to $400 (formerly $100-$800). The Assembly Transportation Committee voted 12-0 to approve the bill on Nov. 10, 2009. Approved by the full Assembly on Jan. 19, 2010, and sent to Senate, which amended and signed off on the bill April 13. Final approval came in the Assembly on May 4 and AB 496 was sent to the governor, who signed the legislation May 5. (Barca)
Wisconsin Senate Bill 103: Would prohibit use of text messaging devices while driving on state roads and highways. Approved by the state Senate in a 27-5 bipartisan vote on Oct. 20, 2009. The Assembly approved its version, AB 496, above, on Jan. 19. (Lasee)
AB 341: Would prohibit any under age 18 who is driving under an instruction permit or probationary license from using a cell phone of any kind, or other wireless telecommunications devices if they are not installed in the vehicle. Last seen in Assembly Rules Committee. (Pasch)
SB 91: Would ban school bus drivers from using cell phones or other wireless communications devices while transporting students. Approved by the Senate Transportation Committee in a unanimous vote on Sept. 16, 2009, and sent to the Rules Committee. (Carpenter)
SB 355: Seeks to outlaw text messaging while driving. Sent to Senate Transportation Committee on Oct. 16, 2009. (Lehman) 2010 legislation notes:
Rep. Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, saw his anti-text messaging legislation AB 496 approved by the full Assembly in an 89-6 vote on Jan. 19. The Senate passed its version, SB 103, in October. Fines and penalties are the only differences of note between the two bills.

“We don’t foresee a problem with the Barca bill,” a spokeswoman for state Sen. Russ Decker, D-Weston, told the Wisconsin State Journal in a story on the text messaging bill passage.

Assembly Majority Leader Tom Nelson, D-Kaukauna, made it a priority to schedule a vote on the text messaging bill AB 496 when the 2010 session began.
The Wisconsin teen-driving bill, AB 341, would bring fines of up to $40 for a first offense and up to $100 for subsequent violations in the same year. Sponsor Rep. Sandy Pasch, D-Whitefish Bay, is not in favor of expanding the bill to include all drivers. “Many people are still reluctant to give up their cell phones, despite the evidence.” The bill received an Assembly committee hearing on Sept. 10, 2009.

The text messaging bill SB 103 would bring fines of between $100 and $400 for first offenses; between $200 and $400 for subsequent offenses; and between $300 and $2,000 for causing bodily harm while texting. 30-day jail terms could apply for injury accidents. State Sen. Alan Lasee, R-De Pere, is the sponsor. The bill was approved by the transportation committee on July 17, 2009. Lasee agreed to change the bill to include just drivers under 18, but Republicans pushed for the plan to cover all drivers before passage on Oct. 20. The text messaging ban was sent to the Assembly and approved by its Transportation Committee.

A similar bill on driving while text messaging — SB 355 — passed the Senate but ultimately failed last year. “It does not take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that text messaging is one of the most dangerous things that one can do while driving,” Lasee has said. “This is no different than writing out Christmas cards to your family while driving down the road, and it is an accident waiting to happen.”
The city of Black Rock is considering a ban on cell phone use for all drivers.

State Rep. Jerry Petrowski, R-Marathon, has three times proposed bans on teenage drivers using cell phones and text-messaging devices.
Here’s a scary one: Two teenage girls in the Town of Rietbrock were both cited for driving while drinking and text messaging. They crashed their car and it rolled over. Apparently the passenger was steering while the driver text messaged.

Regional ordinances
Waupaca County has banned handheld cell phone use by drivers and text messaging, but the sheriff has refused to enforce the mobile phone ordinance. “I think the right way to go about it is statewide,” Sheriff Brad Hardel said. “I would prefer to use it as a warning and educational device at this point.”

The city of Kenosha has banned text messaging while driving. The ordinance was approved in November 2008.

So far in 2010, 16 deaths were caused by dogs in the U.S. Eleven of the victims were little children. Fourteen of the deaths were caused by “family dogs.” Pit bulls and Rottweilers were responsible for 15 of the 16 deaths.

It was one of the worst dog-bite injuries he’s seen, said Hausmann-McNally Attorney Patrick O’Neill. The two-year-old boy’s face was torn, his skull fractured. The boy had been bitten by a dog– his grandparents’ Pit Bull. While he was recuperating, he contracted a staph infection in the hospital.  O’Neill represented the boy’s family in a case to obtain compensation for his injuries and losses. On August 20, 2010, the Milwaukee County Circuit court approved a settlement for the family of over $300,000, the maximum coverage of the homeowner’s policy that covered the incident.

Attorney Patrick O’Neill has handled over 50 dog-bite cases for clients during his career as a personal injury attorney. He has achieved settlement amounts from $7,500 to $305,000.

While, in O’Neill’s opinion, the amount is not sufficient to cover the life-long consequences of the boy’s injuries, he is satisfied that Hausmann-McNally was able to obtain maximum compensation for the child as the grandparents had little money or property to draw on.

After the experience of this case and others he has brought to trial, O’Neill said he cannot understand why people insist on keeping unsafe animals. “If they knew the law and its consequences, they would pay more attention to the selection, training and restraining of their animals.”

Dog owners need to be aware that their pet could get them into big trouble if they bite someone.  In Wisconsin, for example, the owner is strictly liable for the full amount of damages caused by the dog, subject to the defense of comparative negligence. However, Wisconsin law also recognizes that children under the age of seven are incapable of being guilty of negligence. For those children, the fact that the dog may have been teased or provoked is not a defense.

Wisconsin law states that if the owner knew that the animal had attacked or injured a person or property in a previous incident, then the owner is liable for two times the full damages. What many people do not know, O’Neill points out, is that even if the dog injures another dog in a fight, the owner could be liahle for double damages on subsequent incidents, if he or she had been notified. Further, the law provides statutory penalties up to $500 if the owner had no prior notice of the dog causing previous injury and up to $1,000 if the owner had notice.

Patrick O’Neill likes dogs, but has seen the serious injuries they can cause. Dog owners need to be vigilant in order to avoide the damage they can inflict, especially to children. Families need to know that sometimes the family pet can do serious harm.

____________________________________________________________________________________

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention offers some useful recommendations for would-be pet owners.

(http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/biteprevention.html),

How Can Dog Bites Be Prevented

Before you bring a dog into your household:

• Consult with a professional (veterinarian, animal behaviorist or responsible breeder) to learn what breeds of dogs are the best fit for your household.
• Dogs with histories of aggression are not suitable for households with children.
• Be sensitive to clues that a child is fearful or apprehensive about a dog. If a child seems frightened by dogs, wait before bringing a dog into your household.
• Spend time with a dog before buying or adopting it. Use caution when bringing a dog into a house hold with an infant or toddler.

If you decide to bring a dog into your home:

• Spay/neuter your dog (this often reduces aggressive tendencies).
• Never leave infants or young children alone with a dog.
• Don’t play aggressive games with your dog (e.g. wrestling).
• Properly socialize and train any dog entering your household. Teach the dog submissive behaviors (e.g. rolling over to expose the abdomen and giving up food without growling).
• ŸImmediately seek professional advice (e.g. from veterinarians, animal behaviorists, or responsible breeders) if the dog develops aggressive or undesirable behaviors.

In a box

Dog-bite facts from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention

• 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year.
• Almost one in five of those who are bitten–a total of 885,000–require medical attention for dog bite-related injuries.
• ŸIn 2006, more than 31,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs.

When a dog bites someone, it can cause serious injury. Tearing of flesh, broken bones, infection, disfigurement can result. Often the injured party sues the dog owner to help recover from the loss and injuries incurred. In many cases, homeowners’ insurance is called upon to compensate victims for injuries inflicted at people’s homes. Uninsured dog owners may have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their own pockets and may lose their homes and other property as a result of court judgments.

Dog bite cases call for an attorney who has in-depth knowledge of your state’s laws. If you were injured by a dog, you need an attorney who knows the laws and who will investigate all avenues of recovery so that you receive maximum compensation for your injuries.

Call Hausmann-McNally, S.C., 800-227-6699.

Hausmann-McNally Attorney William Smoler knew he had his hands full when he had a client who had suffered a back injury in a truck accident. Smoler heads the firm’s Madison office. The man was injured and required back surgery, but his legal problem was that he had a previous back injury.  The defendant’s  insurance company tried to use this man’s prior injury as a reason to dismiss the claims of the more recent injury. It takes a skilled attorney to present a convincing case that a pre-existing condition does not invalidate someone’s more current injury claim.

Smoler had to demonstrate before a jury in Rock County Circuit Court that the back injury from the most recent accident did cause the man’s injuries, pain and suffering. While the defendant’s insurance company never offered the man more than $200,000 during negotiations, the jury awarded him $518,000.

Smoler points out that it is often difficult, sometimes impossible, to receive a good settlement if there was a pre-existing condition because it is difficult to determine which injury caused the current pain and suffering. Smoler convinced the jury that the injuries—and resulting pain and suffering—resulted from the most recent accident. The  jury awarded him over a half million dollars, $518,000 to be more exact.

At the end of the hard-fought trial, the judge commented to the jury that they had witnessed two of Wisconsin’s attorneys going head-to-head in the trial before them. Fortunately for the client, the Hausmann-McNally attorney came out the winner.