If you break your arm because you’ve been hit by another vehicle, or are bitten by a dog at someone’s house, you have sustained two types of personal injury.

What legally differentiates a personal injury from other physical injuries, such as carelessly cutting your own finger?  In legal terms, a so-called personal injury results from someone else’s negligence – someone not acting in a responsible manner.

You’ve suffered a personal injury — next steps?

New Hampshire law states that in the event of a personal injury, you may be entitled to compensation for medical expenses (past, present and future), lost time at work, any permanent disfigurement or disability, and more.

So how do you begin your pursuit of fair and just compensation?

Some start by telling the responsible party’s insurance company about your injuries. If you do so, you may find they minimize your pain and suffering and don’t really care about what you’re going through. The truth is that most insurance companies are in business to make money and they will try to disparage your claim or, if need be, settle it as fast as possible for as little as possible.

Better idea: start by consulting with a personal injury lawyer. Most do not charge you for a consultation, but instead work on a contingency fee basis; if the attorney can’t get a settlement for you, you won’t owe him anything. A personal injury attorney will tell you whether or not you have the basis for a claim and subsequent settlement.

Insurance Settlements

Your attorney will begin by negotiating with the insurance company for a settlement. If your attorney cannot obtain a suitable offer, he may talk to you about other options, such as arbitration, mediation, or filing a lawsuit.

By hiring your own personal injury attorney, you won’t have to deal directly with an intransigent insurance company. Your claim will be in the hands of a New Hampshire professional who knows the law and has experience in obtaining the best possible settlement for you.

Stay tuned for Part 2 – a discussing about how to file a lawsuit, and the subsequent pros and cons of your filing.

Unfortunately, there are two major problems with this proposition. First, the law protects DUI suspects by providing them with a way to obtain independent lab results. Second, the technology currently used by New Hampshire law enforcement is outdated. Currently, New Hampshire law enforcement depends on the Intoxilyzer 5000 to preserve a breath sample – a machine whose technology is more than 20 years old.

The Intoxylizer is the only machine on the market that can preserve breath samples. Unfortunately, the quality of breath preservation has not advanced at the same rate as lab tests, meaning that samples obtained at the scene with current technology often present very different results than those obtained from the Intoxilyzer. To demonstrate the degree to which the results differ, in 2008 approximately 250 cases were thrown out due to the low correlation of the Intoxilyzer breath test with the independent lab tests.

Despite differing correlations in breath results, the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer, CMI, Inc., will not release its source code due to its own proprietary interest. Their conversion ratio from breath to blood is unknown and outdated. Relying completely on a machine that has been shown to have a large percentage of discrepancies is extremely worrisome for individuals who are accused of drunk driving.

Although the defendant’s independent breath tests receive the same degree of consideration as those obtained by police, not all suspects use this to their advantage. Only approximately 15% of DWI defendants actually pursued independent breath tests last year.

It is in the state’s best interest to continue offering individuals the opportunity for an independent evaluation. Due to the inconsistently of state equipment, stripping individuals of this right would surely lead to the wrongful conviction of numerous individuals.

Although this is statistically fortunate for most employees, the Bureau cites the slowing economy as the main reason for lower death rates.  This, of course, is not necessarily a good sign for New Hampshire.  A down economy results in fewer employees in the workplace and fewer hours for those who have work.

[According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a fatality is a “workplace death,” if the employee was engaged in legal work activity or in an area as a part of his or her work requirements.  Deaths while commuting to or from work do not count in these statistics.  Neither do deaths from illness during employment (unless, of course, the employee's illness could be traced back to the work environment).]

The Bureau’s statistics on Occupational Injuries and Illness showed that rates of work-related personal injuries and illness also fell.  The time required to recover from these injuries, however, increased.

This brings up two issues: (1) deaths and injuries attributed to workplaces must have sufficient documentation in order to blame employers; and (2) there may be reasons why some employees fail to report accidents.

Furthermore, fewer workers and work hours result in fewer overall injuries and deaths, but perhaps even greater stress for those still on the job.

Again, these statistics cover only what was recorded and do not take into consideration injuries and illness unreported by either the employee or the employer.

While the economy may have impacted the number of employees and, therefore, the incidents of death and injury, it may also have affected the likelihood that either a worker or a business would report minor injuries or illnesses.

In fact, with a slowing economy it’s likely that some workers may choose not to report personal injuries for fear of losing a job.  This would support the idea that only the most severe personal injuries are being reported to employers, therefore decreasing the number of reports but increasing recovery time.

Conclusion: Workers need to remember that personal injuries should be taken seriously, especially if they are job-related, and should report them accordingly.  Laws and regulations are set up to support and compensate injured employees, even if the injury is minor.  A slow economy may influence statistics, but that same economy can affect individual workers who may put themselves at risk with higher stress.

Keep this in mind if you or a loved one is injured on the job. Regardless of fault, injuries and deaths at work need to be reported to help prevent future injuries on the job.

Statistics only tell part of the story. Injury prevention is really up to the employees who must report problems to maintain a safe and healthy work environment.

As a result, Nash has sued Herold for $50 million and the state of Connecticut for $150 million in a personal injury suit. Herold’s attorney, however, claims that since Nash was an employee of his client, the suit should be for worker’s compensation and not personal injury. By switching claims, the attorney may be able to shield Herold from personal liability and ultimately lower the possible award to Nash. This would also shift the focus from the duties of pet ownership to employer responsibility and compensation.

So how does this affect you? Although not everyone owns a 200-pound chimpanzee, the story certainly gives rise to questions regarding animal attacks, liability and personal injury suits.

Dog owners especially are targeted for personal injury laws regarding pets. According to the CDC, there are over four million dog bites every year and almost a million of these require some type of medical attention.  While we’d all like to believe that our beloved pets wouldn’t harm a soul, it’s important to recognize that, under stress, many animals will defend themselves and their owners through biting.

Leash and fence laws are designed to help protect pedestrians from unknown canines and to help shield owners from liability. In order to help protect both owners and civilians, some states even restrict the types of breeds allowed in certain districts and maintain strict liability laws.

New Hampshire Statutes Pertaining to Animal-Inflicted Injuries
New Hampshire happens to be one of the states with strict laws. Basically, if a dog attacks another person (and that person was neither trespassing nor committing a crime), the owner of the animal is legally responsible for the injuries caused by their dog. In short, the owner of the animal is financially responsible for all lost wages, suffering, medical bills and stress that result from the attack.

In general, a person injured from a dog bite in New Hampshire does not need to prove that the owner of the dog knew that the animal had aggressive tendencies or that the owner was in any way at fault or negligent. The law also covers non-contact injuries such as causing a biking accident by scaring the rider. It also covers damage to property or livestock including fowl, cats and other domestic animals.

The law does not, however, cover harm to individuals who were trespassing, committing a crime, harassing, tormenting, teasing, or harming the dog in any way. This is important information for dog owners who keep their animals properly contained and may be concerned about counter suits from trespassing individuals who get harmed on their property.

Pet ownership is both a great privilege and a huge responsibility. New Hampshire laws are designed to protect both the owner and the civilian and it’s important to understand your liabilities before acquiring a new pet. Dog bites are more common than most people recognize, so be sure to follow the regulations to protect yourself, your property and your dog.

Note:  The laws are even more harsh if you own exotic pets.  Be sure to read up on the laws and regulations regarding wild or exotic animals before adopting anything other than common domesticated animals.

According to the courts, the bat company failed to adequately warn users of the dangers of aluminum bats which, according to the company, supply more power in the game when compared to the wooden alternatives. According to the courts, these aluminum bats can cause a ball to travel faster and can apparently cause a baseball to become a deadly projectile.

The family claimed that the faster speed did not give their son enough time to react in order to avoid the ball. As a result, Brandon was hit in the head, ultimately causing his death. At the time of the incident, Brandon was playing as pitcher in the game.

Interestingly enough, the jury didn’t find that the Louisville Slugger was misused in anyway nor did they find it to be defective.

In the past it was assumed that players understood the risks associated with the sport of baseball and the potential dangers of bats and balls. The Montana case, however, brings about the discussion of placing warning labels on bats to give players a greater understanding of the dangers of baseball.

Debbie Patch, Brandon’s mother, had not expected a Plaintiff’s verdict, but instead hoped that other parents and players would become more aware of the dangers involved with aluminum bats. As a result of the court decisions, however, Patch hopes that more youth leagues would switch to using wooden bats instead of the aluminum ones that played a part in her son’s death.

This is not the only personal injury case against Hillerich & Bradsby, the makers of the Louisville Slugger. Last year a New Jersey family pressed charges against the bat maker after their son suffered brain damage after an injury during a baseball game.  He was struck by a line drive off of an aluminum Slugger bat similar to the one used in Montana. The New Jersey case is still pending in the State’s Supreme Court.

As personal injury cases become more and more complex, they begin to affect different areas of society. This one, for example, can potentially impact the entire sport of baseball all over the country. As a result of both the Montana and New Jersey cases, parents and students in New Hampshire might begin to see new labels on all kinds of sporting equipment. Louisville Slugger might be the defendant in this case, but it’s possible that cases for other sports might surface in the coming years.

In order to prepare for the changes in the industry, sporting equipment companies may begin to preemptively warn individuals of the dangers of using their goods. Although this will help protect the companies against personal injury suits, it may also change the nature of sports. With the Louisville Slugger cases, for example, parents in Montana, New Jersey, and even New England may begin adopting the practices of the professional leagues by using wooden bats instead of aluminum.

We’ll have to keep an eye on this to see how far and how fast this trend might go.

New Hampshire state laws surrounding DWI offenses are very strict. Individuals convicted of multiple or aggravated DWI charges must serve their sentence within 21 days of conviction.  This type of sentence comes with a contingency that they must serve at least ten days in jail, seven of which must be spent in an intervention program for offenders.

New state budget cuts and resulting job losses, however, have closed the state-run Multiple Offender Program (MOP), based in Laconia, giving convicted individuals no choice but to serve more time in jail or find alternative options.

Privately run intervention programs are certainly available to offenders, but many of these cost more than $1,000 in up-front fees.  This means that individuals who are unable to pay these private costs may have to spend up to 30 days in jail instead.

The Laconia job losses come as a result of statewide budget cuts. Nancy Rollins, the associate commissioner of health and human service, said it was a difficult decision to cut MOP.  To assist individuals, Rollins said the state may offer to pay the up-front costs of private programs and collect the costs from the offenders after the treatment has ended.

No definite plans are in place, however, and Rollins says the state is working hard to find a good working alternative to the previously state-run program.  To assist in this transition, many courts are withholding sentencing.

In 2008 there were 2,732 DWI cases in New Hampshire that involved multiple or aggravated offenses.  Seventy five percent of those cases were handled by MOP.  Now that the program is gone, government officials will be working hard to find feasible alternatives that appease the court as well as maintain an efficient system to handle these DWI cases.

For a video on this news topic, visit http://www.wmur.com/news/21341593/detail.html

In fact, the dangers of texting while driving have become so prevalent, texting laws are fast becoming as strong as DWI/DUI laws.  Many law enforcement officers believe that driving while texting impairs drivers in a way similar to intoxication.

New Hampshire passed a law banning texting while driving back in early August of this year.  While this is not the same as DWIs or DUIs, it’s certainly a wake-up call for people who like to multi-task and text while they drive.  The details of these laws are also different than those for driving under the influence and it’s important to take note of the rules, regulations, and potential consequences of these activities.

According to the NH texting law, any text messaging or typing (including on handheld or computers) while driving is considered a crime.  The law does, however, allow drivers to type names and numbers into their phones to make calls.

So how do the police no the difference?  In the event of an accident or other driving infringement, the officer is allowed to check the phone log provided the driver consents to a search warrant.

The New Hampshire texting law takes effect in January, 2010.

Other states have passed similar measures banning cell phones and texting.

Maine, for example, has just passed a distracted drivers law that covers texting.  Maine’s law brings attention to the level of distraction by making it a traffic infraction and penalizes drivers who cause accidents while distracted.  Although texting has become the  heated issue, the law actually covers any distraction including talking on a cell phone, eating, or any other activity.

There’s a push in Washington to get texting banned nationwide.

Whether it’s talking on the phone, using the internet, texting, or messaging, more and more drivers are attempting to stay connected behind the wheel.  As a result of these distractions, more people are getting into accidents  and states are having to find ways to deal with this new problem.  So, as communication and technology become increasingly more accessible, it’s easy to see how laws are quickly catching up with the growing trend.

To curb this fear and remove legal repercussions in a lawsuit-crazed society, the Good Samaritan Law was enacted nationwide on a statutory basis. As a general rule, the Good Samaritan Law provides protection for medically untrained individuals to help those in distress. This law gives defense of the rescuer from torts that might subsequently be issued on behalf of the individual who was assisted.

New Hampshire has a general Good Samaritan Law in Section 508:12 of S.B. 67 that reads:

“If any person, in good faith, renders emergency care at the place of the happening on an emergency, or while in transit in an ambulance or rescue vehicle to a person who is in urgent need of care as a result of the emergency, and if the acts of care are made in good faith and without willful or wanton negligence, the person who renders the care is not liable in civil damages for his acts or omissions in rendering the care as long as he receives no compensation for the care from or on behalf of the person cared for, and provided further that any person rendering emergency care shall have the duty to place the injured person under the care of a physician, nurse, or other person qualified to care for such person as soon as possible and to obey the instructions of such qualified person.”

Like statutory laws in many other states, Section 508:12 provides defense from torts arising against individuals who have provided emergency aid to persons in need. This defense, however, does not extend to physicians, medical practitioners and other emergency personnel – a standard component of other Good Samaritan Laws nationwide.

Outreach to those in need – whether physically, financially or emotionally – is a charitable, noble tendency that has become a defining component of American culture. With the Good Samaritan Laws in action, you can safely give reasonable assistance to injured individuals at a motor vehicle collision or other accident without the threat of tort litigation.

So, if you are ever faced with the opportunity to rescue someone who needs your help, at least know you have legal protection if your efforts somehow backfire. If, despite the Good Samaritan Law, you are sued, a qualified personal injury attorney will take firm steps to have the law applied in your case.

Proponents of the checkpoints argue that the minor infringement of the Fourth Amendment is worth the greater cause of reducing drunk driving. Clearly this poses as issue when the government decides the degree of which infringements are acceptable.

In 1990, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled DWI roadblocks were in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted checkpoints to be Constitutional.

So what is a properly conducted checkpoint mean? DWI checkpoints are supposed to be random, and the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration has issued guidelines in an effort to curb overly intrusive behavior on the part of law enforcement. These guidelines and standards from Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) include:

• Decision-making must be at a supervisory level, rather than by officers in the field.
• A neutral formula must be used to select vehicles to be stopped, such as every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field.
• Primary consideration must be given to public and officer safety.
• The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving.
• Limitations on when the checkpoint is to be conducted and for how long, bearing in mind both effectiveness and intrusiveness.
• Warning lights and signs should be clearly visible.
• Length of detention of motorists should be minimized.
• Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.

The reduction of drunk driving is an admirable cause, and you’ll be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn’t support educational efforts. Law enforcement, rehabilitation programs and national education efforts are helping to educate Americans about the reality of drunk driving.

Fortunately, these drunk-driving reduction efforts have had a positive impact. The national percentage of alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities has declined from 60 percent in 1982 to 37 percent in 2007. On a state level, New Hampshire has a slightly higher rate; 40 percent of all automobile fatalities are alcohol-related.

As the debate moves forward, I hope a proper balance remains between Constitutionality and safety. The moment an individual’s rights are taken away in an effort to “protect citizens” is the moment our government has stepped beyond its boundaries and become a police state.

Last week a new statutory bill passed the Texas state senate. The bill, the Nicole “Lilly” Lalime Act, does three main things:

1. Expands the definition of offenses committed while intoxicated to include operating water crafts, which were previously not covered.
2. If an officer has reason to believe suspect has a prior DWI conviction or a child is in the car, the law permits the officer to collect breath and blood sample without a warrant.
3. Law has also been expanded to allow any magistrate who is a state-licensed attorney to issue a blood search warrant — and such magistrates are at the jail 24/7

The new law goes into effect in September.

Source: Dallas Observer