Rhode Island Injury Lawyer Blog

I have written about the ongoing debacle at Toyota Motor Corp. regarding their accelerator problems and numerous product liability lawsuits, and I have received a lot of calls from people who feel they have been victimized by a defective Toyota vehicle.

The more I investigate the situation, the more incredible it becomes. Toyota apparently was well aware of their problems, hid the evidence, and chose to ignore the problems. This may go down in history as a classic example of corporate greed overtaking public safety...not unlike the Ford Pinto, the tobacco industry, or asbestos manufacturers.

As product liability cases are launched across the country, attorneys have discovered that Toyota withheld potentially damaging information in previous lawsuits. The so-called "Book of Knowledge" was uncovered under subpoena by the House Committe on Oversight and Government Reform. According to Committee chair, Edolphus Towns, Toyota conducted a "systematic disregard for the law" and routinely violated "court discovery orders in litigation."

Among the information uncovered, Toyota has been concerned about the unintended acceleration problems as far back as 2005 and conducted numerous meetings and safety assessments. Toyota would often enter into negotiations during these early product liability lawsuits rather than disclose damaging evidence in discovery. These early plaintiffs would walk away satisfied that they were able to settle the case, but future victims were left in the dark regarding the dangers of these Toyota vehicles. The Committee has already placed the death toll from "runaway toyotas" at 39 (12 more than the afformentioned Pinto disaster).

One of the most interesting stories (at least to me) to develop from the recent discoveries at Toyota, involves a Minnesota man, Koua Fong Lee, who was convicted of vehicular manslaughter after an accident he caused killed a family of three. Mr. Lee defended from the onset that he was unable to stop his car or avoid the crash, but the Minnesota jury did not believe his testimony and he was subsequently convicted and sent to prison. In light of recent information, his case will be reviewed. I certainly hope for Mr. Lee that justice will prevail if he truly was not at fault for this accident.

Continue reading "Problems for Toyota Go From Bad to Worse" »

El abogado Joseph Lamy está aquí para ayudar a las víctimas de accidentes u otro daño corporal dentro de nuestras comunidades Latinas en Providence, Pawtucket, Fall River, Woonsocket, Central Falls y otras áreas a sus alrededores. En mi oficina se habla Español y podemos asistirle con todo el proceso, de principio a fin.

Soy un abogado licenciado para ejercer en Rhode Island y Massachussets. Mi especialidad son los casos de daño corporal, incluyendo: accidentes de auto, accidentes de camión, accidentes de motocicleta, lesiones causadas por resbalón y caída, muerte por negligencia, negligencia médica y la responsabilidad civil del fabricante. Soy un abogado muy atento y agresivo y manejo todos los casos personalmente, de principio a fin. Antes de graduarme de la escuela de Leyes de Boston College, trabajé para una compañía de seguros nacional como mediador de reclamos por lesión. Sé exactamente como las aseguradoras evalúan esos reclamos y sé como obtener la mayor cantidad de dinero disponible para su reclamo de lesión corporal.

Me enorgullezco en ofrecer un excelente servicio al cliente. Contesto todas las llamadas telefónicas y correos electrónicos que recibo dentro de veinticuatro horas. Me aseguraré que usted entienda todos sus derechos y opciones antes de decidir si llegar a un acuerdo en el caso. Aunque mi oficina se encuentra en el centro de Providence, siempre estoy dispuesto para una consulta a domicilio o para visitar a una víctima en el hospital.

Aunque mi portal en Internet esté escrito en Inglés, tengo una página que resume mis servicios legales en Español.

Si usted, un amigo o un familiar ha sido herido en un accidente de auto, de camión o de motocicleta, o debido a un resbalón y una caída, y está buscando un abogado para daños corporales que trabaje con talento y efectividad, llame de inmediato a mi oficina para recibir una consulta gratis.

Anyone who has been seriously injured at work may have a love/hate relationship with the Worker's Compensation system. The benefit to the system is that anyone injured at work can be compensated for lost wages and medical bills regardless of who was at fault for the accident. Even if you caused your own injuries, you are covered under worker's compensation. The drawback... victims injured at work can not sue their employer and can not collect damages for pain and suffering. Even if your employer did something negligent or put you in a dangerous situation, you can not sue for pain and suffering.

That said, I think it is important that people realize the many instances in which damages can be obtained for pain and suffering even if you were injured while at work.

• If you drive a truck or personal automobile for a living and are injured in an automobile accident caused by the other driver, you can still collect damages from the at-fault driver in addition to worker's compensation;
• if you are working outside and are struck by a vehicle, the victim of a pedestrian accident, you can pursue damages against the driver;
• if your employer sent you to another building or residence and you suffered a slip and fall, you can sue the owner of that building for the injury if there was a defect on the property;
• if you are a construction worker injured by a defective product, you can seek damages against the manufacturer of the faulty product.

As you can see, you are not limited to the constructs of the worker's compensation system just because you are entitled to worker's comp or were injured at work. If you were injured in a car accident, pedestrian accident, slip and fall, construction accident, or other similar accident while working, it may still be possible to collect damages from the at-fault third party. The above list contains only common examples and is not a complete list. It is important to speak with an attorney right away to understand your rights regarding worker's compensation and damages against at-fault third parties.

Continue reading "Obtaining Damages Beyond Worker's Compensation" »

Deciding which attorney or law firm will represent you for your personal injuries sustained in an auto, truck, or motorcycle accident is a huge decision. You should conduct research (the internet has made this incredibly easy) and even talk to a few attorneys before deciding who is best to handle your case. Regardless of which attorney or law firm you decide to hire for your personal injury, it is in your best interest to hire someone to represent you.

Years ago, before law school, I worked as an injury adjuster for a national insurance company. I can say with experience that insurance companies do not want you to hire an attorney because they know the settlement for a car or truck accident without an attorney will be much lower than if you hire an attorney. That is not to say that ALL insurance companies are evil corporations looking to rob and ignore injury victims (but I do believe that may be the mission statement for at least a few insurance companies!)

There is a series of television commercials in this state for a well-known law firm (I refrain from stating their name since their advertising budget is high enough and they do not need my help) which depicts an adjuster trying to coerce an unrepresented car accident victim into singing a release only to find out that they are represented by _______ law firm. Cut to the adjuster choking on some form of food.

While these commercial spots clearly take artistic license, it is true that insurance companies would prefer that you not hire an attorney for your car or truck accident. That is because insurance companies are in the business of making money, and they do this best by withholding money from injured victims. But if you really want the insurance company and adjuster to choke on their sandwich, you need to hire the right attorney.

Attorneys across the country attend seminars and buy books regarding the inner workings of insurance companies and how they evaluate auto or truck accident cases. I, on the other hand, was on the other side and know exactly what an insurance company will do to try an find flaws in your case and how they will ultimately evaluate your injury. This knowledge is essential to helping you obtain the best possible settlement for your car or truck accident injury.

A few things to consider and take away from this post:

• It is in your best interest to hire an attorney to represent you for injuries sutained in a car or truck accident


• insurance companies know who the best attorneys are, so it is imperative that you perform some research and hire an attorney with a great reputation


• if your injury is a minor one that required only minimal or no treatment, you might be able to work directly with the insurance company

Once you have chosen to hire an attorney for your car or truck accidednt, I have written an additional post which should help you understand the settlement process.

Continue reading "Hiring an Attorney for Your Auto, Truck, or Motorcycle Accident" »

The most important decision you will make following a personal injury is which Attorney or law firm you will hire to take your case. The second most important decision you will make is whether to settle the case for the amount offered.

I feel that a lot of injured victims might not understand their rights and options regarding settlement, so I have decided to write this post. This is basic information that you should consider when deciding whether you should settle your personal injury claim, and if so, for how much. Be prepared to have this conversation with your attorney when the time comes.

If the other person is clearly at fault for causing your personal injury, you can expect to receive an offer for settlement from the insurance company. This will likely occur in many types of personal injury cases especially, auto accidents, motorcycle accidents, dog bites, ATV accidents, pedestrian accidents, and slip and fall accidents. Settlements might be offered in medical malpractice or product liability cases, but typically only after a lawsuit has been filed.

It is important to remember that you, the victim, decide whether to settle a case or not. An Attorney can advise you whether the offer is fair or too low, but he or she should not decide whether to settle the case. If you feel that the offer does not fairly compensate you for the injury sustained, you should ask your attorney to carefully explain your options.

If you choose to refuse a settlement offer, then your only option is to file a lawsuit. Not all cases are good candidates for litigation and you should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your case with your attorney. Remember that by filing a lawsuit you are running the risk of losing the case and receiving no compensation. Furthermore, minor injuries can often be settled for fair amounts without the additional expense and time required from a trial.

Settlement, however, is not always the best option. Settlement means that you are accepting an amount in lieu of exercising your right to go to trial and have a jury decide what is reasonable compensation. If the offer from the insurance company is fair, then it makes sense to settle the case and receive your money right away rather than waiting years for litigation. If the offer is unfair, or less than you initially wanted, than it might not be in your best interest to settle the case.

The most important thing to remember is that you are in control of your case. It is your injury and compensation. Do not be afraid to discuss your options and rights with your attorney so that you fully understand the decision you are making.

Continue reading "Some Thoughts on Settling Your Personal Injury Claim" »

All-terrain vehicles (ATV's) may be a great way to explore and enjoy the countryside, but they can also be extremely dangerous. Nationwide nearly 1000 people die each year and over 150,000 are seen at emergency rooms. Like motorcycles, ATV accidents often result in very serious injuries such as fractures, head injuries, internal bleeding, etc. This is because ATV drivers and passengers have very little protection.

Rhode Island and Massachusetts have their fair share of ATV related injuries and it is important to understand your rights and options following an ATV accident. Drivers of an ATV can not make a claim if the accident is their own fault, however, there are two common scenarios in which an ATV related accident can result in a successful claim:

1. The injured party is a passenger on the ATV. Since the driver is likely to be at fault for the accident, the passenger is without negligence and can collect from the insurance company of the driver or the owner of the ATV.
2. The ATV came into collision with another vehicle (or ATV) on an open road and was not at fault for the accident.

Today, several insurance companies offer coverage for ATV's. If the ATV is not separately insured, then the homeowner's insurance may cover the loss. If there is coverage, damages can be obtained similar to an auto accident:

• Medical Bills


• Lost Wages


• Scarring


• Pain and Suffering


• Permanent Injury

Continue reading "ATV Accidents" »

This story seems to be popping up everywhere after I first heard it on NPR. A study to be released this week in the Archives of Internal Medicine, reports that CT scans are exposing patients to far more radiation than previously believed and in doses that could cause thousands of cancer cases each year.

CT scans, which use computer and X-ray technology to create detailed internal images, have become a very common procedure due to its accessibility and accuracy. In fact, nearly 70 million CT scans were conducted last year alone. It turns out, however, that CT scans expose patients to far greater radiation than conventional X-rays and the benefits of conducting the diagnostic test may be outweighed by the dangers.

The study reviewed approximately 1100 patients undergoing various routine CT scans. The results were startling. First, there is a huge variance in the amount of radiation sustained by each patient. The dose of radiation for a multiphase abdomen-pelvis CT study ranged from 6 to 90 millisieverts, and the average dose was 31 millisieverts. Dr. Andrew Einstein of Columbia University stated that 90 millisieverts, depending on how counted, is equal to "many thousands of chest x-rays." Thousands!

One CT Scan procedure can generate nearly thirty years worth of background radiation to which humans are typically exposed.

What is startling to me about this story is that this information was never discovered sooner. How is it possible that so few recognized the extreme dangers inherent in one of our most common diagnostic tests.

If such an exposure can truly cause cancer, then lawsuits are bound to occur. I am curious to see what information will be uncovered during the discovery phase as to how much was known regarding the danger of these seemingly innocent tests. This may be one to watch.

As a long dark period of Rhode Island history comes to an end, additional settlement details concerning the Station Fire which killed 100 people and injured over 200 on February 20, 2003, have been released.

Plaintiff lawyers worked diligently and brought in dozens of defendants to try and ensure the best possible compensation for victims of this disaster. In total, approximately $175 million dollars will go into the pot. Children under 18 who lost a parent in the fire will receive an average award of over $200k. The settlement amounts for minors who lost a parent will range from $171,685.44 to $241,631.36. The youngest children will receive the highest awards because they have spent the largest part of their lives without their mother or father.

Of course, the awards to the actual victims, as opposed to dependents, will be resolved on an individual basis and dependent on the severity of injury.

I wish the best to all of the victims and family of victims affected by this awful disaster.

I found an interesting story on the website TMZ which I am embarrassed to comment on or admit that I read. Nonetheless, it turns out that the family of DJ AM (aka Adam Goldstein) has filed a wrongful death suit against several defendants involved in his airplane crash in 2008. You may remember that DJ AM died in August of this year from a drug overdose. The family alleges in the lawsuit that DJ AM became addicted to painkillers following the serious injuries sustained in the airplane crash and ultimately died from this addiction.

Proximate cause is an essential topic in personal injury litigation. It asks if an event is sufficiently related to an injury to be determined as the cause of that injury. For example, we can easily link a broken wrist to a slip and fall. In more complicated scenarios, the classic test is often referred to as "but for". In this scenario, DJ AM would not have died of an accidental drug overdose but for the negligence of the airline that caused his prior injuries.

I think that it is a stretch to link an accidental overdose of prescription drugs to an accident that occurred almost a year earlier, and the attorneys will have a tough case to present, but kudos to them for thinking outside of the box.

In the world of interesting injury lawsuits comes one from Tennessee.  A college student is suing the Coyote Ugly Saloon, made famous by the movie of the same name and known for women dancing on top of the bar, after she fell off the makeshift dancefloor striking her head.

I would be quite astonished if this was the first time the bar was sued for such an event.  The situation does present interesting liability questions.  According to the plaintiff, she was encouraged to climb on to the bar by employees of the club.  She claims to have fallen because the bar top was slippery with drinks.  So it sounds like a great liability claim until we consider that she is a college student in a bar.  I'm going to guess that defense will argue she was bombed.  Then again, all the more reason for the employees to keep her from dancing on the bar.

Here's wishing her a quick recovery.

Boston.com is reporting that a commuter rail pulling into South Station has been involved in an accident injuring at least 12 people.  Apparently, the conductor pulled the train too far into the station striking the rubber bumper at the end of the line.  Although, the conductor was driving at a low rate of speed at the time of the accident, many passengers were already standing and collecting their bags which presumably caused a number of passengers to fall.  There is no word if any of the injuries are serious.

I first came across this law review article in the Law Professors blog which included an abstract and I decided I had to read the article.   Professors Ariel Porat and Alex Stein have written a compelling argument supporting liability for future harm in tort cases.

Historically, a plaintiff could not be compensated for the "chance" that illness might develop at a later time.  A small example of this is a plaintiff who suffers a concussion in an auto accident.   Obviously, the plaintiff will be compensated for the head injury, but it is well documented that concussions can occur more easily, and with greater severity, after the first one is suffered.  The plaintiff, however, will not be compensated for the increased likelihood that he or she will suffer concussions in the future.

Professors Porat and Stein begin their argument with a relatively recent Supreme Court case, Norfolk & Western Railway Company v. Ayres.  The plaintiff in that suit contracted asbestosis from exposure to asbestos along the railway.  The plaintiff suffered emotional distress because he was aware that 1 in 10 people suffering from asbestosis eventually develop mesothelioma, a fatal form of cancer.  Even though the plaintiff had not yet developed mesothelioma, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, held that the plaintiff was allowed to recover if the distress was proven to be "genuine and serious."

This case, while a step forward, is not far enough because the plaintiff had already contracted asbestosis, a very serious condition.  Common law courts have often allowed recovery for emotional distress stemming from an illness or injury, in this case, asbestosis. 

This article takes the next step and argues for liability for future harm without the necessity of a pre-existing condition.  The authors propose a probability approach where the plaintiff should be compensated for the illness he or she has been exposed to multiplied by the probability of such illness manifesting.

Before I do any further disservice to the authors argument, I will stop and suggest that you read their article in the full.  I was able to download it via SSRN here.

I receive a lot of questions asking whether one has a valid case for slip and fall.  Often there is a fall on private property causing injury, but while these elements are essential, they are not enough.  A landowner is not always responsible for a flaw in the property that leads to a fall.  Occasionally weather, or another's mistake can cause a temporary flaw that the landowner may or may not be responsible for.

So, when might a landowner be responsible for a fall.  Here are the most common scenarios for a landowner to be legally responsible:

• The owner of the property or his or her employee, caused the flaw in the surface by either damaging it or spilling something onto it, or otherwise causing something to be underfoot;


• The owner of the property or his or her employee knew of the flaw on the property and did nothing to correct it;


• The owner of the property or his or her employee should have known of the flaw in the property because a reasonable landowner would occasionally inspect his or her property and repair any known flaws.

In the first two scenarios, the landowner knows of the flaw either because he or she caused it or because he was told directly.  In the third scenario, often the most litigated, we have to ask if the "reasonable" landowner should have known of the flaw and repaired it.  Considerations include:

• What is the nature of the object - size, shape, consistency;


• Does the landlord have a routine inspection schedule? Is it sufficient?


• How long has the object or flaw been present?  Would a routine inspection have identified it?;


• Could a simple barrier or warning have prevented injury?;


• Was there a legitimate reason for the object's presence?

So you see, a seemingly simple slip and fall can become a very fact intensive matter.  Report all falls immediately to someone of authority so that the condition is documented.  If the flaw is located in your apartment building, immediately notify the landlord or owner so that their knowledge is established.

This primer is an introduction only and does not cover all potential scenarios.  As you can see, a slip and fall can be very fact intensive and you need to speak with an attorney to determine your rights.  If you have been injured in a slip and fall accident, contact our office for a free initial consultation.

The article, "Driven to Distraction", reports that a federal study investigating the true danger of cellphone use in automobiles, was shelved to avoid a confrontation with Congress.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, given the task of research was hesitant to become a lobby group, and chose not to release the findings.  After a freedom of Information Act filing, the information has become public.

According to their findings, "motorists talking on a phone are four times as likely to crash as other drivers, and are as likely to cause an accident as someone with a .08 blood alcohol content."  In total, the highway safety researchers estimate that cell phone use caused 955 fatalities and 240,000 accidents in 2002.

The use of cell phones, either to talk or to text, greatly increase the risk of an accident and should be discussed with your attorney when determining the liability for an auto accident.

It  is the first and most obvious question to ask oneself if injured in an accident.  Because of my prior work experience as an adjuster for an insurance company, I seem to be asked this question an awful lot.  I have worked on both sides of an injury claim, previously for the insurance companies, and today for my injured clients.   So knowing how insurance companies evaluate claims, the question is often raised to me - does an attorney make a difference? Do I need a lawyer?

The simple answer, no surprise, is yes.  I do not give this answer simply to solicit business.  A good lawyer (and I include myself in this grouping) takes a case with the expectation that it will have to go to trial.  That said, evidence and all vital information is secured early, the theory of liability is well thought out, and the case is monitored from the onset to ensure that nothing goes wrong.  In so doing, a good lawyer gains leverage over the insurance companies.

In addition to protecting the strength of the case, a lawyer is necessary to secure a fair value for the injury suffered.  Adjusters are quick to say that they evaluate claims the same way whether a claimant has an attorney or not - and to some extent this is true.  If an injury is a relatively minor one, the evaluation will be approximately the same with or without an attorney.  If you have been seriously injured, however, you NEED an attorney to obtain fair value.  Insurance companies will make sometimes embarrassingly low offers for fractures or scarring, for example, and an unsuspecting claimant might accept such a number thinking it is a good deal.

Therefore, if you have been seriously injured in any kind of accident, hire an attorney to protect your rights and ensure that you receive full value for the injury suffered.  My office offers a free consultation and is open to discuss any questions you may have regarding the process.