Birmingham Personal Injury Lawyer - alcohol

Accidents Caused by Drunk Drivers - Part 4

Jon Lewis — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:47:33 GMT

In Part 3, I discussed Dram Shop claims against bars, restaurants and package stores. In this part, I will explain that while this law attempts to protect those injured and killed as a result of bars, restaurants, and package stores' attempts to sell alcohol contrary to the provisions of law and make more money, it has little teeth.

In order to obtain a license to sell liquor in Alabama, you must provide the Alcohol and Beverage Control Board proof that you have insurance of $100,000 or assets in that amount. Is $100,000 enough to cover someone who is seriously injured or killed as a result of a bar serving a minor or obviously intoxicated individual? I would suggest to you that it is not.

In addition, many of the policies which cover such establishments are diminishing policies. That means that the attorney fees are subtracted from the face amount of the policy. Consequently, if a claim is made and the bar hires an attorney to defend it (actually, the insurance company hires the attorney for the bar), the fees paid to the attorney to defend the case are subtracted from the policy's face amount. For example, if the attorney fees are $25,000 and the verdict is $100,000, the plaintiff will only recover $75,000 unless the bar can afford to pay the difference. Many times, these bars go out of business before a verdict is ever rendered. In addition, the defense attorneys have an incentive to bill the case because it gives them negotiating power against the injured individual - "you better settle now for $50,000 because it will cost us $75,000 to defend the case".

These laws need to be changed. If you want to take part in such a change, contact your legislators and tell them how you feel. That is the way to affect change.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Trucking Regulations - Part III - Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing

Jon Lewis — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:16:07 GMT

Obviously, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act prevents drivers from driving 18 wheel rigs while under the influence of controlled substances or alcohol. Section 382 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations governs the requirements trucking companies must follow with regard to testing for controlled substances and alcohol abuse. The Department of Transportation has specific rules regarding the testing processes.

Trucking companies must test at various times during a driver's employment. The various tests include: pre-employment testing, post-accident testing, random testing, reasonable suspicion testing, return-to-duty testing, and follow-up testing. These tests insure that drivers meet the qualifications for performing safety-sensitive duties without being under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances.

In addition, drivers have certain requirements for when alcohol use is permitted. For instance, drivers may not perform safety-sensitve functions within four hours of the use of alcohol. Drivers may also not use alcohol within eight hours after an accident or after a post accident alcohol and controlled substance test, whichever occurs first. These rules attempt to make sure that drivers are not engaging in safety-sensitive measures while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances.

Unfortunately, not all trucking companies abide by these rules. Consequently, there are rules regarding the retention of testing records. Records reflecting a positive test for a driver with an alcohol concentration greater than .02 must be kept for five years. Records reflecting any negative test must be kept for one year.

These rules assist us as attorneys in helping those whose loved one has beenkilled or those who have themselves been injured by a tractor trailer. We ask for this information in discovery, and if the trucking company cannot produce the proper documents, it helps us in pushing the case to a successful conclusion.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Club Liable for Stripper's Car Accident?

Jon Lewis — Wed, 28 May 2008 11:00:00 GMT

This is an interesting case. The Birmingham News reported in its May 27 edition that Patsy Hamaker has sued her employer, the Furnace, as a result of a single car collision which occurred after work one evening. According to the article, the club encourages dancers to increase liquor sales by giving them a percentage of the drink sales. As a result, Ms. Hamaker allegedly became highly intoxicated and was allowed to leave work in that state.

Without knowing more facts, it is difficult to assess whether the Furnace would have liability in this situation. Surely, the club's owners will deny the allegations. Furthermore, even if they agree that they encouraged their dancers to increase drink sales of customers, they will most certainly argue that they do not encourage their dancers to actually drink the beverages and get drunk.

While I would not argue that this is a frivolous case, it will definitely lead to such arguments simply given the facts, and the tort reformers are probably licking their chops. They will argue that the employee should be responsible and not get intoxicated. But, this is a business which allegedly encourages intoxication because it leads to more money. Whether you approve of strip clubs or not, an employer of such a business should never allow an employee to leave work intoxicated. In fact, the employer should have a duty not to allow an employee to leave work intoxicated. This should be the case not only to protect the employee but, also, to protect the other motorists.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis