North Carolina is one of only four remaining states using a contributory negligence standard in personal injury lawsuits, and the state’s trial lawyers would like to see that change. But while those attorneys believe that comparative fault would be a more fair method for assessing liability, the insurance industry opposes the change. Senate Bill 813 would make comparative negligence the law in North Carolina.

Under contributory negligence, if an injured party contributed in any way to his own injury, he can’t recover damages in a lawsuit against anyone else who played a role in causing the injury, even if the other party’s fault greatly exceeds the injured party’s fault. Comparative fault standards, by contrast, allow recovery when the injured party is partially at fault but reduce the damages to reflect the contribution of the injured party to his own injury.

To illustrate the difference, imagine a lawsuit where an injured party was 10% responsible for his injury, the other tortfeasor was 90% at fault, and a jury awarded $100,000. In a state with comparative fault, the injured party would receive $90,000 (the jury award minus his own responsibility); under North Carolina’s current system of contributory negligence, the injured party would receive nothing.

Contributory negligence rules burden the injured party with the entire cost associated with the injury, even if someone else’s action was mostly responsible for the injury. Trial lawyers argue that comparative fault is more fair, allowing each party to bear costs proportionate to their responsibility in causing the injury.

Although there could be an increase in lawsuits filed if SB 813 passes, that would not necessarily indicate that any of the new cases lack merit. Trial lawyers who take contingency fee cases get paid only if they are successful; with a comparative fault standard, they would likely be more willing to take cases that might otherwise be thrown out due to minor acts by the injured party that a jury might consider negligent, thus broadening the ability of injured parties who can’t afford to pay a lawyer to obtain representation.

The vast majority of the country seems to have reached consensus that comparative fault is preferable to contributory negligence. Whether North Carolina will follow the prevailing trend is now in the hands of its legislature.

Article provided by The Law Office of Elam & Rousseaux, P.A.
Visit us at www.er-lawfirm.com

Facebook is the most popular social networking site on the Internet, helping users to reconnect with old friends and family and helping them make new friends. Facebook is also an increasingly popular and effective tool in divorce cases.

According to a survey of its members by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, more than 80 percent of divorce attorneys have seen an increase in cases involving evidence obtained from social networking in the past five years. The website providing the most evidence? Facebook, with 66 percent of the survey’s participants pointing to it as a source of useful divorce data.

Going from “LOL” to “OMG”

Divorce lawyers across the country are now routinely mining the Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other social networking accounts of the spouses of their clients for incriminating evidence. What they’re finding is evidence galore of flirtations, cheating, partying, lies about marital status, falsehoods about being parents, information about hidden income and assets – all of which can prove devastating in a family court where matters of child custody and divorce are being settled before a judge.

A New Jersey couple profiled in the Star-Ledger found Facebook complicating their custody battle when their 16-year-old daughter, while in her father’s care, posted photos on Facebook of drinking with her friends. The mother used the photo as part of an argument in court for custody of the girl, contending that the father wasn’t setting suitable limits.

In another case, a Hackensack lawyer told the newspaper of a wife who found her husband on dating sites claiming to be a single man without children – public lies, she pointed out to the judge presiding over her divorce case.

Even More Damage

The chair of the family practice division of the New Jersey Bar Association pointed out to the Star-Ledger that it’s not only friends and lawyers who see the postings of divorcing couples using Facebook to vent their feelings about each other. Their children can also read the comments, as can the friends of those kids.

When children see the vitriol spewed by their parents, they’re understandably devastated, regardless of how vindicated the parents themselves may feel about the comments.

What Legal Experts Say About Social Networking

Divorce lawyers say it’s best to leave all comments and photos about soon-to-be-ex and any girlfriends or boyfriends clients might be romancing. Don’t put anything on your Facebook page that you wouldn’t want your spouse’s lawyer to see, they advise.

Don’t brag about what a great kisser your new special friend is and don’t tell everyone about the fancy motorcycle you purchased with money you made under the table. Keep this very public information discreet, clean and above board, the family law attorneys say.

Above all, don’t delude yourself into thinking only your friends can see the information you’ve posted on your social network pages. No matter how closely held you believe the information to be, investigators (and friends of yours who are also friends of your spouse) can mine the pages and posts.

To find out how Facebook and other social networking sites can affect you in your divorce, contact a New Jersey divorce attorney.

Article provided by Goldstein & Bachman
Visit us at www.goldsteinbachman.com

Simply put, drunk driving is dangerous. When a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, everyone on the road is at risk. Accidents often occur at high speeds and can cause serious injuries and even death. This is especially evident given the rash of fatal accidents involving teen drivers in Minnesota.

New Minnesota laws aim to decrease the number of drunk drivers on the road. A pilot project began in June 2009 that allowed eligible offenders to get their licenses back sooner if they agreed to install an ignition interlock device.

After a DWI, driving privileges can be cancelled for a period of 90 days or more. By participating in the program, offenders can regain their privileges on a provisional (restricted) basis within 15 days (for first time offenders) or 30 days (for repeat offenders).

The Department of Public Safety sets forth recommendations detailing how long offenders will participate in the program. First time offenders must have the device for one year, while repeat offenders will have it for 18 months. Successful completion of the program would yield a new driver’s license. As of April 2010, more than 500 people have entered the program.

Beginning July 1, 2011, first time offenders with BAC of .16 and above and repeat offenders will be required to install ignition interlock devices if they want to drive. In addition to using an ignition interlock device, these offenders must also follow recommendations from a substance abuse assessment and any other directives from the court.

The law’s proponents find a basic benefit to this approach: those who have demonstrated their inability to drive safely will be less likely to do so. Research from the Pacific Institute of Research and Evaluation (PIRE) indicates that interlock devices reduce recidivism, or repeat offenses.

Currently, 27 states have interlock requirements for high BAC offenders (.15 and above) and repeat offenders, while 12 states impose interlock systems for all people convicted of drunk driving, regardless of BAC or prior DWIs. The overwhelming sentiment is that roads are safer with fewer drunk drivers on them.

It is not expected that the new interlock devices will eliminate the possibility of repeat DWI, but it appears to be a step in the right direction. Although the new law makes it a misdemeanor, a person could simply drive a different car that does not have an interlock device. Some people will continue to drive illegally, even though driving on a suspended or revoked license would likely lead to punitive damages.

If you have been injured in a car accident involving a drunk driver, contact an experienced personal injury attorney to learn about your rights and options under the law.

Article provided by McSweeney & Fay, P.L.L.P.
Visit us at www.mcfay.com