Our message is resonating.  Special interest forces like TLR are losing the battle of public opinion on the so-called “Loser pays” bill.  After throwing their weight around by getting the Governor to declare it an “emergency” and the Texas House passing the bill without any debate, the media has awoken to just how devastating this legislation is.  TLR and its ilk are scrambling to push their corporate immunity agenda before the session closes on May 30.  We know how powerful our adversaries are.  We won’t let up until the last gavel falls.

Check out this great Houston Chronicle Editorial and other great news clips, op-eds, and editorials:

Tort deform
House Bill 274 further stacks the legal deck in favor of big-money defendants
Houston Chronicle Editorial, May 14, 2011

The campaign by so-called tort reformers in Texas has long since moved beyond its avowed goal of preventing frivolous lawsuits and massive damage judgments. With the passage of HB 274 by the Texas House last weekend, it has graduated to an all-out assault on the ability of consumers and small business owners to seek legal redress in civil courts against powerful business interests. You might call the latest iteration “stealth tort reform.” The primary damage isn’t in what the bill adds to current law. The injustice is in what it eliminates.

The last major tort reform legislation passed in 2003 in Austin mandated that plaintiffs who spurn settlement offers and win a jury verdict must receive a judgment award of at least 80 percent of the offer. Otherwise, they are responsible for paying legal fees for the losing defendant from the date they refuse the settlement offer. However, those fees could not exceed the amount of the judgment, so at worst the winner went home empty-handed.

That existing provision is already a powerful weapon in the legal arsenal of deep-pocket defendants such as insurance companies and corporations, since plaintiffs would be tempted to accept low-ball settlements rather than risk receiving nothing. It’s not fair, because winning plaintiffs in most tort cases cannot seek reimbursement of their legal fees, only much smaller court costs. The playing field is already sharply tilted in favor of the defendants.

Not content with that advantage, the crafters of this bill have further stacked the deck. It removes limits on the legal fees a winning plaintiff could be forced to pay if they eschew a settlement offer and the judgment falls below that 80 percent margin. Rather than receive nothing, the winner could be tagged with the loser’s huge legal fees. As Houston personal injury lawyer Steve Waldman puts it, “The moral of the story being told by the advocates of this bill is this: If you have a claim against a big corporation, take whatever it offers, because if you dare to take them to a jury, you risk your economic life.”

Florida implemented similar provisions, and the ensuing public outcry forced legislators to repeal it five years ago. We agree with Alex Winslow, executive director of the citizen advocacy group Texas Watch, that HB 274 “is designed to force families and small businesses with valid claims to weigh the possibility of paying the legal costs of insurance companies and multinational corporations [and] is at best detrimental to public accountability and at worst unconstitutional.” The concept of making plaintiffs with valid cases potentially responsible for defendants’ legal fees is a feature of British law that our nation’s founders wisely rejected. It’s a legal concept that should have no place in Texas courtrooms.

It’s hard to believe this legislation was designated by Gov. Rick Perry as an “emergency” to facilitate its already inevitable passage by the House GOP super majority during a raucous, Mother’s Day eve session that ended in flaring tempers and abrupt adjournment. Perhaps the only emergency was the governor’s need to placate his backers at Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a major contributor to GOP state legislators.
Let’s Focus on the Families
Texas Watch Op-Ed, May 16, 2011

Legislature loses its way with ‘loser pays’ blow-up
The Dallas Morning News Editorial, May 9, 2010

‘Loser pays’ is false advertising
Houston Chronicle, May 10, 2011

Why “Loser Pays” is a Loser
Texas Tribune, May 13, 2011

The British are Coming … Apparently to Texas
The Pop Tort, May 10, 2011
At Texas Watch, we will continue to fight for the rights of an individual’s right to a trial by jury.  Join us in this fight today.

Stephenslegal.com Blog by Stephens & Stephens is provided as a public service for general information only. Material contained herein may not reflect the most current legal developments. This material does not constitute legal advice, and no person should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information contained in the Stephenslegal.com Blog without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice on that person’s particular circumstances. Stephenslegal.com Blog and all contributing authors expressly disclaim all liability to any person with respect to the contents of this web site, and with respect to any act or failure to act made in reliance on any material contained herein.

Transmission of the information on the Stephenslegal.com Blog does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between the Stephenslegal.com Blog and any viewer or user of such information. Stephenslegal.com Blog is not intended to be advertising or solicitation, and Stephenslegal.com Blog does not wish to represent anyone who desires representation based upon viewing this web log in a state where this web log fails to comply with all laws and ethical requirements of that state.

Copyright 2011 Stephens & Stephens, Attorneys, PLLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

HOW TO ADJUST YOUR CAR’S MIRRORS:

1. Adjust Your Seat (and steering wheel, and put on your seatbelt).

Proper adjustment of your seat will affect your view to the mirrors. You should be seated high enough to see the road and still reach all of the vehicle’s controls.

• Many newer vehicles feature tilt and telescoping steering columns to help you get more comfortable.
• Some new Ford Motor Company products (Ford, Mercury, and Jaguar) offer electrically adjustable foot pedals that allow short, medium, and tall drivers a comfortable driving experience.
• If you don’t have adjustable seats, and are still sitting too low, you should use a seat cushion, or better yet, have your mechanic raise your seat permanently.

2. Adjust Your Interior Rearview Mirror:

The positioning for the inside rearview mirror is fairly obvious; you should be able to see out of the rear window from the driver’s seat. Be sure the day/night switch found on most rearview mirrors is in the day position during daytime operation. The night setting reduces the headlight glare from cars behind you and helps you see better.

• Auto-dimming rearview mirrors: If you drive at night, you’ve undoubtedly experienced it – annoying and often dangerous glare from the headlamps of vehicles traveling behind you. While normal rearview mirrors are equipped with a day-night switch, automatic dimming mirrors darken to reduce glare from the headlamps of vehicles approaching from the rear. The brighter the glare, the darker the mirrors become, making nighttime driving safer. About 10% of vehicles sold in the US are currently equipped with this valuable safety feature. Usually auto-dimming mirrors can’t be ordered separately and are only available as part of expensive luxury group packages.

• Be aware of the SUV glare: In addition to other hazards posed by sport utility vehicles(SUVs) and trucks, their headlights are usually mounted at the same height as most normal car’s rearview mirrors. When an SUV travels behind a car, the glare from its headlights is reflected off these mirrors directly into the driver’s eyes. Dr. Alan Lewis, president of the New England College of Optometry, has done extensive research on the effects of glare. He found that during nighttime driving, headlight glare from vehicles traveling behind you can temporarily blind you, increasing your reaction time by up to 1.4 seconds, even after the source of the glare is removed. The time it takes to stop your vehicle, or to avoid someone in the oncoming lane, is doubled if you succumb to temporary glare blindness.

3. Adjust Your Exterior Rearview Mirrors:

Incorrect:Adjusting them so you can see the side of the car on the inside edge of the mirror. You are creating HUGE blind spots. Consider the view when the side view mirrors are set up as just described. Essentially, you have created “tunnel vision” to the rear. Your side view mirrors overlap much of what your inside rearview mirrors sees and you’ve also created blind spots.

Rule of thumb: If you can see even a glimpse of the sides of your car in your outside mirrors, they are turned too far inwards.

Correct: For the driver’s side mirror: Place the side of your head against the window, then adjust the mirror until the side of your vehicle comes into view. For the passenger’s side mirror: While sitting in the driver’s seat, lean to the right so that your head is in the car’s center line. Adjust the mirror until the side of your vehicle comes into view. With this setup, you almost completely solve the blind spot problem. It takes a little while to get used to, but it is an improvement.

The following graphic shows the sightlines from your rear view and side view mirrors and how to adjust them (the car is facing to your right):

Be safe out there while you are driving, and as always, wear your seatbelt, and don’t drive while drunk or distracted!

What do you think? Do you have any tips or tricks???

Article Source: www.SmartMotorist.com

Stephenslegal.com Blog by Stephens & Stephens is provided as a public service for general information only. Material contained herein may not reflect the most current legal developments. This material does not constitute legal advice, and no person should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information contained in the Stephenslegal.com Blog without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice on that person’s particular circumstances. Stephenslegal.com Blog and all contributing authors expressly disclaim all liability to any person with respect to the contents of this web site, and with respect to any act or failure to act made in reliance on any material contained herein.

Transmission of the information on the Stephenslegal.com Blog does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between the Stephenslegal.com Blog and any viewer or user of such information. Stephenslegal.com Blog is not intended to be advertising or solicitation, and Stephenslegal.com Blog does not wish to represent anyone who desires representation based upon viewing this web log in a state where this web log fails to comply with all laws and ethical requirements of that state.

Copyright 2011 Stephens & Stephens, Attorneys, PLLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The Federal Highway Administration reports that run-off-the-road accidents account for a third of all traffic deaths in the US. In 2000, almost 16,000 traffic fatalities were attributed to these type crashes at a taxpayer cost of almost $80 billion a year.

Fatigue, drowsiness, and driver inattention play a significant factor in these single-vehicle crashes. In 1998, the National Sleep Foundation reported that more than 52% of all adults surveyed in the past year had driven a vehicle while feeling drowsy.

TxDOT is addressing this problem with rumble strips. When tires cross these raised or grooved patterns along the edges of a roadway, drivers hear a loud rumble and feel a strong vibration to alert them that they are leaving the main lane. Research indicates the use of rumble strips can reduce run-off-the-road crashes up to 50 percent.

The strips cost less than 12 cents a foot and are installed during initial construction or later. TxDOT often puts rumble strips along rural interstate and multi-lane divided highways, which tend to have a higher incidence of one-car accidents. In addition to being cost-effective, rumble strips provide savings to taxpayers by helping reduce these types of crashes.

TxDOT is currently researching the use of center-line rumble strips to help prevent head-on collisions on undivided highways.

Article Source: www.safemotorist.com

Stephenslegal.com Blog by Stephens & Stephens is provided as a public service for general information only. Material contained herein may not reflect the most current legal developments. This material does not constitute legal advice, and no person should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information contained in the Stephenslegal.com Blog without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice on that person’s particular circumstances. Stephenslegal.com Blog and all contributing authors expressly disclaim all liability to any person with respect to the contents of this web site, and with respect to any act or failure to act made in reliance on any material contained herein.

Transmission of the information on the Stephenslegal.com Blog does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between the Stephenslegal.com Blog and any viewer or user of such information. Stephenslegal.com Blog is not intended to be advertising or solicitation, and Stephenslegal.com Blog does not wish to represent anyone who desires representation based upon viewing this web log in a state where this web log fails to comply with all laws and ethical requirements of that state.

Copyright 2011 Stephens & Stephens, Attorneys, PLLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

A while back, a friend told me about someone he knew who had an accident and went into the cable barrier on I-10 West.  She walked away from the crash uninjured, yet she was upset because the barrier had sliced into her car and had caused significant damage.  I wonder if she realizes that the barrier quite likely saved her life, or at least prevented serious injury.  Had it not been for the barrier, she would have gone into the oncoming traffic and probably been struck head-on or T-boned by traffic going 70 mph.  I also wonder if she realizes that her vehicle would’ve suffered equal or greater damage if there had been a traditional concrete barrier instead.

As of late 2009, Texas had about 800 miles of cable median barrier installed.

Article Source: http://www.texashighwayman.com/cablebarriers.shtml

Stephenslegal.com Blog by Stephens & Stephens is provided as a public service for general information only. Material contained herein may not reflect the most current legal developments. This material does not constitute legal advice, and no person should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information contained in the Stephenslegal.com Blog without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice on that person’s particular circumstances. Stephenslegal.com Blog and all contributing authors expressly disclaim all liability to any person with respect to the contents of this web site, and with respect to any act or failure to act made in reliance on any material contained herein.

Transmission of the information on the Stephenslegal.com Blog does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between the Stephenslegal.com Blog and any viewer or user of such information. Stephenslegal.com Blog is not intended to be advertising or solicitation, and Stephenslegal.com Blog does not wish to represent anyone who desires representation based upon viewing this web log in a state where this web log fails to comply with all laws and ethical requirements of that state.

Copyright 2011 Stephens & Stephens, Attorneys, PLLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Stephenslegal.com Blog by Stephens & Stephens is provided as a public service for general information only. Material contained herein may not reflect the most current legal developments. This material does not constitute legal advice, and no person should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information contained in the Stephenslegal.com Blog without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice on that person’s particular circumstances. Stephenslegal.com Blog and all contributing authors expressly disclaim all liability to any person with respect to the contents of this web site, and with respect to any act or failure to act made in reliance on any material contained herein.

Transmission of the information on the Stephenslegal.com Blog does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between the Stephenslegal.com Blog and any viewer or user of such information. Stephenslegal.com Blog is not intended to be advertising or solicitation, and Stephenslegal.com Blog does not wish to represent anyone who desires representation based upon viewing this web log in a state where this web log fails to comply with all laws and ethical requirements of that state.

Copyright 2011 Stephens & Stephens, Attorneys, PLLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Of the food pathogens that cost society the most money — in terms of medical care, lost days of work, long-term chronic health problems or deaths — half are found in poultry, pork, beef and other meat products, according to a study due for release Thursday.

For the first time, researchers used federal data on food-borne illnesses to link the pathogens — bacteria, viruses or parasites — and the foods that most often carry them and then ranked them according to the financial burden they place on society.

“We tend to think of food-borne disease as 24 hours of diarrhea and it’s over,” said J. Glenn Morris, the director of the Emerging Pathogens Institute at the University of Florida and one of the authors of the study. “What this shows is that there are diseases that have significant other manifestations, that result in complications, even death. And as a result, the public health burden is so much greater.”

The food contaminant that causes the most economic damage is campylobacter in poultry, which sickens more than 600,000 people and costs society $1.3 billion a year, the study found. In second place is toxoplasma in pork; that parasite poses a particular danger for pregnant women and costs an estimated $1.2 billion a year.

While relatively few people get ill from toxoplasma compared with more common bacteria such as salmonella, when a pregnant woman is sickened, the results can be devastating in terms of lifelong disability for her baby or even loss of the fetus, Morris said.

Listeria in deli meats was ranked third, at a cost of $1.1 billion a year.

Together, the 10 most expensive pathogens associated with specific foods cost the U.S. economy $8.1 billion a year, the study found.

Salmonella was flagged as the bacterium that causes the most disease overall, resulting in $3 billion in annual costs. Besides contamination in poultry, salmonella can be found in produce, eggs and other foods. Morris and the other researchers recommend that the U.S. Agriculture Department and the Food and Drug Administration form a joint strategy to reduce salmonella contamination.

The federal government estimates that one in six Americans gets sick every year from food-borne illnesses. Most suffer mild symptoms and recover on their own, but more than 100,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die.

Policymakers at the USDA, which regulates meat, poultry and some egg products, and the FDA, which oversees the rest of the food supply, should consider the economic burden on society when deciding how to direct food safety resources, Morris said.

“You can begin to use these more sophisticated analytic tools, which can serve as the basis of spending public dollars in terms of food safety,” he said.

Despite the heavy public health burden of campylobacter in poultry, the USDA only recently set standards for that bacterium in chicken and turkey. The standards will take effect in July and place limits on the amount of cam­pylobacter in poultry products that are processed in a slaughterhouse. The agency also tightened the existing standards for salmonella in poultry.

The fact that half of the most costly food pathogens are found in meat suggests that food safety laws at the USDA need an overhaul, similar to the new powers Congress approved for the FDA last year, said Carol L. Tucker-Foreman of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America.

“In the desire to get support for modernizing FDA’s food safety laws, I think the discussion slighted the public health dangers associated with meat and poultry,” Tucker-Foreman said.

“By definition, the slaughter of meat and poultry products is always a high risk,” Tucker-Foreman said, “and if you get contamination coming out of the slaughterhouse, you increase the risk it will get through to consumers at the end.”

Article Source:  Lyndsey Layton, Published April 27

Stephenslegal.com Blog by Stephens & Stephens is provided as a public service for general information only. Material contained herein may not reflect the most current legal developments. This material does not constitute legal advice, and no person should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information contained in the Stephenslegal.com Blog without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice on that person’s particular circumstances. Stephenslegal.com Blog and all contributing authors expressly disclaim all liability to any person with respect to the contents of this web site, and with respect to any act or failure to act made in reliance on any material contained herein.

Transmission of the information on the Stephenslegal.com Blog does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between the Stephenslegal.com Blog and any viewer or user of such information. Stephenslegal.com Blog is not intended to be advertising or solicitation, and Stephenslegal.com Blog does not wish to represent anyone who desires representation based upon viewing this web log in a state where this web log fails to comply with all laws and ethical requirements of that state.

Copyright 2011 Stephens & Stephens, Attorneys, PLLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

More Product News and Articles

More about Gary Stephens