Personal Injury

INJURED BY A DRUNK PERSON COMING FROM A SUPERBOWL PARTY? THE LAW CAN HELP….

The Superbowl is here again.  People are stocking up on junk food, beer, and liquor.  This festive time of year can become disastrous if a person gets struck by a DUII driver.   This is why people hosting Superbowl Parties must be careful to not over-serve a person alcohol and allow them to drive home.  In Oregon, homeowner’s can be held responsible for injuries suffered by a person that were caused by a visitor to the homeowner’s party.  This is important in serious injury cases when the bad driver’s insurance policy may only be $25,000.00.  The $25,000.00 can be evaporated by an ER visit, surgery, and a short hospital stay.  The injured person may be stuck with tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid medical expenses that can drive them into bankruptcy.

Oregon has a way to obtain compensation from additional insurance policies. Homeowner’s can be held responsible for serving alcohol to a person that is visibly intoxicated and later injures another in a DUII crash. (ORS 471.565). Oregon courts have determined a person who receives guests in a social l setting, in which the host serves or directs the serving of booze or beer to guests can be held accountable if the overly intoxicated person later injures another in a DUII crash. See Solberg v. Johnson, 306 Or 484, 490 (1988). This type of liability is referred to as “Dram Shop” liability. Dram Shop liability is important because home owner’s and renter’s insurance policies may cover DUII crash injuries and provide tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollars, in additional insurance coverage. This money can be used to pay medical bills, physical therapy, vocational rehabilitation, and to compensate the injured person or their family for their harms and losses.

It is important to keep in mind if you intend on making a dram shop claim there are time limitations that notice must be given in. Specifically, if it is a wrongful death claim then notice must be given within one year of the date of death, or within a year after the date plaintiff discovered, or should have discovered, the claim, whichever is later. (ORS 471.565) In a personal injury matter, notice must be given within 180 days of the injury, or 180 days after the injured person discovered or reasonably should have discovered, the existence of a dram shop claim which ever is later. (ORS 471.565) However, these notice requirements may not always apply and there are exceptions. Please refer to a current version of ORS 471.565 for notice requirements and time limitations.

Dram shop cases can be complicated and there are other theories an attorney can use to attempt to obtain maximum recovery for a person’s injury or loss. Please contact Portland Personal Injury Attorney, Jeremiah Ross, at 503.224.1658. for a free personal injury consultation. Please remember this post is for informational purposes only and you should rely on the current statute and case law when considering a dram shop claim. Please consult with an attorney if you believe you have a dram shop claim or have been injured by a DUII Driver.

CYCLIST BEWARE OF THE RIGHT HOOK..(CARS TURNING IN FRONT OF YOU)

As an avid bike commuter and cyclist, I encounter or often see dangerous situations involving vehicles and cyclists.  A particular intersection at 2nd Ave and Main St. in Portland, Oregon is a magnet for dangerous incidents. At that intersection, I routinely see cars make a right turn immediately in front of a cyclist who is riding straight in the bike lane. Vehicles often don’t account for cyclist in the bike lane when they are turning right. In downtown Portland, the problem is compounded by the various other distractions and dangers the driver is facing.  Pedestrians crossing the street, cars pulling out of parking spots and garages, buses, Max, and Street Cars all pose an added distraction for a driver.  The cyclist who is lawfully riding in the bike lane is often overlooked when the driver makes the right turn.  See The YOUTUBE video below for an example of the right hook. 

This causes the front of the cyclist bike to usually impact the side of the car.  These crashes are serious and often result in significant injuries to the cyclist and minimal damage to the vehicle.  The cyclist will likely suffer broken bones,  a head injury, soft tissue injuries (strains, sprains, etc.), bruises and swelling (edema), significant road rash.  Shoulder injuries and upper extremity injuries are common as many time the shoulder is the first thing to hit the car or pavement.  Some injuries are fatal because the driver ends up running over the cyclist wit the driver’s rear tire.  These unthinkable tragedies can be avoided if driver’s obey Oregon’s Laws. ORS 811.050  states: A person commits the offense of failure of a motor vehicle operator to yield to a rider on a bicycle lane if the person is operating a motor vehicle and the person does not yield the right of way to a person operating a bicycle, electric assisted bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, moped, motor assisted scooter or motorized wheelchair upon a bicycle lane.  This requires the vehicle to yield to the cyclist before initiating the right turn across the bike lane. Many drivers insurance companies will deny fault and claim the cyclist was traveling too fast, or not paying attention, or that the law requires the car to make the right turn as close as practicable to the curb. Some insurance companies will seek payment  from the cyclist for the damage to the vehicle. If you were injured or know someone that was hurt in a right hook crash, call Portland Personal Injury Attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658 for a free personal injury consultation.  Please note this post is for informational purposes only and you should contact an attorney about your case immediately.

GRADUATION IS HERE…HOMEOWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR SERVING ALCOHOL TO A DUII DRIVER

I graduated high school in a rural coastal community.  Every few years a dark cloud would hang over the high school graduation as the names of students that were recently killed in a car crash would be read to the audience.  In my experience ,the loss of a loved one is incomprehensible and the void it leaves in your heart is everlasting.  The stresses of losing a loved one to a DUII driver are often compounded when a DUII driver kills or seriously injures a person and and only has minimal insurance coverage.  Medical bills will quickly chew through a policy and parents may be left with mountains of debt related to medical costs.

However, in Oregon there may be a way to obtain compensation from additional insurance policies.   Homeowner’s can be held responsible for serving alcohol to a person that is visibly intoxicated and later injures another in a DUII crash. (ORS 471.565). Oregon courts have determined that a person who receives guests in a social or commercial setting, in which the host serves or directs the serving of alcohol to guests can be held accountable if the overly intoxicated person later injures another in a  DUII crash.  See Solberg v. Johnson,306 Or 484, 490 (1988).  This type of liability is referred to as “Dram Shop” liability.  Dram Shop liability is important to remember because home owner’s and renter’s insurance policies may cover DUII crash injuries and provide tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollars, in additional insurance coverage. This money can be used to pay medical bills, physical therapy, vocational rehabilitation, and to compensate the injured person or their family for their harms and losses.

It is important to keep in mind if you intend on making a dram shop claim there are time limitations that notice must be given in.  Specifically, if it is a wrongful death claim then notice must be given within one year of the date of death, or within a year after the date plaintiff discovered, or should have discovered, the claim, whichever is later. (ORS 471.565)  In a personal injury matter, notice must be given within 180 days of the injury, or 180 days after the injured person discovered or reasonably should have discovered, the existence of a dram shop claim which ever is later. (ORS 471.565)  However, these notice requirements may not always apply and there are exceptions.  Please refer to a current version of ORS 471.565 for notice requirements and time limitations.

Dram shop cases can be complicated and there are other theories an attorney can use to attempt to obtain maximum recovery for a person’s injury or loss.  Please contact Portland Personal Injury Attorney, Jeremiah Ross, at 503.224.1658. for a free personal injury consultation.  Please remember this post is for informational purposes only and you should rely on the current statute and case law when considering a dram shop claim.  Please consult with an attorney if you believe you have a dram shop claim or have been injured by a DUII Driver

RUNNING A RED LIGHT CAN KILL, BUT PEOPLE STILL DO IT….

We all know the rules of the road require you to stop when the light is red or about to turn red.   However, many people continue to run red lights.  This split second decision can have deadly consequences, but people still do it.

A recent study found  2.3 million drivers in 18 states ran a red light last year. Additionally, more red lights were ran during memorial day weekend than any other weekend.  The study determined that if the results of the study were applied to the whole country it would result in a person running a red light every 1.2 seconds.  This is a terrifying statistic considering in 2009 676 people were killed and 130,000 people were injured by other drivers running red lights. Cyclist and pedestrians are particularly vulnerable to being injured by  a driver running a red light.  For more information regarding the study click here.

Here in Oregon, the law states a “driver facing a steady circular red signal light alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, then before entering the intersection.  The driver shall remain stopped until a green light is shown except when the driver is permitted to make a turn under ORS 811.360 (When vehicle turn permitted at Stop Light).” ORS 811.260  Despite this law people continue to run red lights.  Not only do they risk a being convicted of a class B traffic citation, they risk killing or injuring another.  Knowing this, we have to wonder why are people running red lights.  Distractions, trying to save time, and failing to pay attention are common excuses.  Red light runners are aware these are not valid excuses, yet they still do it.

If you or someone you know has been injured by a person running a red light please contact Portland Personal Injury Attorney, Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658 for your free personal injury consultation.  Red light cases can be challenging because the insurance company and the driver may take the position that the light was green and force the injured driver to prove the light was red. Many times it is imperative that an injured person speak with an attorney or their claim may be denied.  Please remember this post is for informational purposes only and the law is constantly changing.  This post does not create an Attorney client relationship.

NEGLIGENT DRIVER KILLS ADVENTURE RACE PARTICIPANT….

As a proud participant of a GORUCK challenge, I was saddened to learn a participant was killed by a negligent driver.  The GORUCK challenge is a team event inspired by special forces training that involves carrying a backpack filled with bricks, walking and running for long periods of time carrying heavy items, and pushing yourself beyond your known physical limits.  

Recently in New York, GORUCK participants were walking along the side of a highway.  A car approached from the rear and veered onto the shoulder of the road striking and killing a participant.  For more information regarding the incident click here.  

This tragedy is a reminder there are real consequences to momentarily taking your eyes off of the road.  People are killed by people looking at cell phones, changing the radio station, or simply not paying attention. These tragedies are avoidable if drivers simply pay attention and follow the rules of the road. 

If you or someone you know has been struck by a car feel free to callPortland Personal Injury Attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658for your free personal injury consultation. Please remember this post does not create an attorney client relationship and is for informational purposes only.

THINK “SAFETY FIRST” WHEN HIRING A LIMO FOR PROM…

Oregon’s prom season is here.  Kids dream of the perfect evening and many want to hire a limo to arrive in style.   Most parents don’t give much thought about hiring a limousine and leave it to their children to scour the internet to find the limo the teen wants to hire. 

As a result, most of the effort in hiring a limo is focused to finding a limo that looks cool, can hold enough passengers, and is affordable and available.  Safety and insurance is often an afterthought.   However, safety and insurance should be the first thing parents look at when hiring an Oregon Limo company.

Limousines can be very dangerous.  They can carry numerous people, most passengers are not wearing seat belts, and there are limited exit routes.  The dangers of limousines are often compounded by the rowdy passengers. This is why it is important parents do their homework prior to hiring a prom limousine.  Below is a list of things parent should address prior to hiring a limo:

  • Ensure the limo is modern and preferably has more than two exit doors.  Multiple exit doors are important if passengers need to exit quickly if their is a fire or crash.  Try and see the limo prior to signing any contract, so you can see if there are any safety concerns prior to prom night.  For instance maybe the doors are inoperable due to interior modifications. 
  • Fires can be deadly in limos due to the limited exit routes. Ensure the limo has a fire extinguisher that is accessible in the rear of the vehicle. Ensure the fire extinguisher is up to date. Most importantly discuss where the fire extinguisher is with your child.  Do your best to ensure they know how to operate it and they feel comfortable doing so in an emergency.
  • Ensure the driver and company is reputable.  The Oregon Secretary of State keeps a data base of consumer complaints that are forwarded to them.  Click here to search for the particular limo company’s complaints.  Also, review on-line reviews, better business bureau complaints, and perform a search engine search on the limo company and the driver’s name if possible.
  • Ask about prior incidents, collisions, and injuries.  Be open about your concerns and ask the limo company how they are going to address them.  For instance you may be concerned with kids consuming alcohol in the limo.  You may want to ask how the driver will handle that situation if it arises. 

The tips above are things for parents to think about, but the list is by no means exclusive.  Prom night can be exciting for teenagers and terrifying for parents.  Doing your homework on the limo company may help alleviate some parental anxiety on prom night.  It may also save your child from getting in a dangerous situation. 

If you or your child has been injured in a limo crash, call Oregon Injury Attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658 for your free personal injury consultation.  Please remember this post is not to be construed as legal advice and is for information purposes only. In some states this post could be considered Attorney Advertising.   Lastly, this post does not create an attorney client relationship.  

HIT BY A RECKLESS DRIVER? YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES..

Actor Paul Walker’s recent death is a reminder that Reckless Driving is not a victim-less crime.  Law Enforcement officials recently determined the Porsche Walker was riding in was traveling between 80 and 93 MPH prior to the crash.   The speed limit on the road was 45 MPH.  Investigators determined speed was the sole cause of Walker’s tragic death.  CNN Link To Speed Killed Paul Walker. 

It is no secret that Oregon Drivers will be cited for speeding.  However, many people are surprised they are cited for “reckless driving” after a collision.   A person commits reckless driving in Oregon if they recklessly drive in a manner that “endangers the safety of persons or property.” ORS 811.140. A person is “reckless” if they consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk.ORS 161.085.  Reckless driving is not only a Class A Misdemeanor, but a driver that commits reckless driving and injures a person or property can be liable for punitive damages.  If your not sure what a reckless driving is, see the youtube video below for a great example. (Yes, that is a machine gun being fired out of the window.)

In many cases, Oregon Law allows person to collect money from people that recklessly endanger and injure a person. ORS 31.730   These damages are awarded to the injured person to punish the reckless driver, and can make a difference in the amount of money the injured party receives. For instance, a person with temporary minimal soft tissue injuries with medical bills less than $10,000.00  will most likely find it difficult to receive a substantial award or insurance settlement.  However, if the at fault driver was reckless in causing the injuries then the injured party may receive more money.  The additional amount will vary depending on the injuries, the reckless conduct, and the “record as a whole.” ORS 31.730   

There are many nuances with punitive damages that should be specifically addressed by an Oregon Attorney.  Sometimes the effort to obtain punitive damages and what it allows the defendant to do may be detrimental to the injured parties case. It should also be noted that the State of Oregon will receive a portion of a punitive damage award. 

If you have been injured by a reckless driver in Oregon feel free to call Oregon injury attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658 for yourfree personal injury consultation.  Ross Law LLC is always happy to discuss car crash cases with injured persons.  Please remember this post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Punitive damages can be a very complicated area of law and the law is constantly changing, so it is best to speak with an Oregon Lawyer about your case. Please also remember the post on the Ross Law LLC blog can be considered “Attorney Advertising” in some jurisdictions, and this post does  not create an attorney client relationship.

INVOLVED IN A CAR CRASH WITH A POLICE PATROL CAR-? GET THE AFTER ACTION REPORT

In recent litigation with a local city regarding a collision involving my client and a patrol car, I encountered an interesting issue involving the “Crash Review Board” report.  These reports can contain valuable evidence regarding who was at fault and they contain valuable witness statements.

Many Oregon police departments have Crash Review Boards that are made up of various members from the Police Department, Risk Management, and City Management. The City of Portland has a Crash review board that evaluates each officer involved car crash to determine if the crash was preventable or non-preventable.  If the crash was determined preventable then board will make a recommendation to the various management entities that decide if the officer should be disciplined.  A non-preventable collision does not require further action.  The board members may draft an After Action Review document noting what they believe the cause of the collision was and they then justify their decision with the evidence before them.

In rendering their decision board members are usually provided police reports and accident reports and a report from a higher ranking investigating police office with the officer’s recommendation regarding whether or not the collision was preventable.   The County or City that is tasked with defending a lawsuit involving a police car may assert a privilege or redact many of these documents in the discovery process. However, these documents should be disclosed.

In Oregon, every person has a right to inspect any public record of a public body , except as otherwise expressly provided by ORS 192.501 to 192.505. (ORS 192.410 (1)) The government must prove the public interest in nondisclosure “clearly” outweighs the interest in disclosure. City of Portland v. Oregonian Pub. Co , 200 Or. App. 120 (2005).

In City of Portland, v. Oregon Pub. Co. 200 Or App 120 (2005), the City refused to provide documents related to an internal investigation related to an officer involved shooting. Specifically, the Oregon Publishing Company requested, “documents that fill the gap between  the criminal investigation and the disciplinary letter to McCollister.” (Id.)  The City relied on ORS 192.502 (1) and a letter from the chief stating:

“I strongly believe that in order to encourage greater candor and critical self-evaluation, Bureau members need to feel comfortable that honest, candid assessments will be used solely to improve the performance of a particular employee (through disciplinary action should that be necessary) or to assist in improving the performance of the Bureau as a whole. In my opinion, public disclosure of records of the type at issue in this case would have a chilling effect on the free flow of frank, uninhibited advice and self-critical observations within the Bureau.”

    Id. at 121

The Court held an in camera review and noted: The City possessed an “after action memorandum” a “confidential memorandum” and logs relating to a review committing and their votes regarding if the officer breached protocol and what if any sanction should be imposed.” The Court held “none of these documents contains material the disclosure of which would have a seriously chilling effect on future investigations, particularly in light of the fact that the description of events, the findings, and the discipline imposed were already disclosed***” Id. at 123.)  The court went on to note, no whistleblower was identified, no personal criticism is leveled. Also, “Supervisory personnel render judgments, but they are clinical and detached. To conclude that public disclosure of such judgments, made pursuant to supervisory duties, would discourage future candor is an insult to the supervisors themselves.” Id. 

The Court ordered all of the documents to be disclosed and noted that the public needs to have complete confidence in an unbiased and thorough inquiry and “That confidence comes from transparency and its value is not outweighed by the speculation that transparency will quell candor at some future date. This is not a close case.” Id.

The government may argue that this report is inadmissible because it is a subsequent remedial measure.  However, Oregon Courts have ruled otherwise.   In Ensign v. Marion County, 140 Or App 114, 118-120 (1996), the court found a crash review board’s determination that a deputy Sheriff caused a collision was admissible against the County.  Specifically, the board’s finding was not a “subsequent remedial measure” because “one cannot investigate an accident before it occurs.” Id.Therefore it is admissible.

If you were struck by a police car or are an attorney representing an injured Oregonian feel free to contact Portland injury attorney Jeremiah Ross at Ross Law LLC.  Please call 503.224.1658 for yourfree personal injury consultation.  Please remember this post is for information only and is not meant to be relied on as legal advice. The law is constantly changing so consult with the applicable statutes, cases, and if necessary an Oregon Attorney before relying on the information in this post. This post does not create an Attorney Client Privilege.