Missouri Injury Lawyer Blog

A Belleville city police cruiser was involved in a three-car accident Tuesday on Illinois 161, the Belleville News-Democrat reported May 27. The officer, who was alone in his car, apparently lost control just before 8 p.m. and veered into oncoming traffic, hitting a minivan head-on. Another sedan then rear-ended the minivan. Fortunately, nobody was seriously injured, but the police car and the minivan were both badly damaged, and emergency responders had to cut the doorjamb off the minivan to release the two children who were passengers.

According to the article, it was raining hard at the time of the accident. A spokesperson for police declined to say whether the officer had his lights and siren on to respond to a call, and the Belleville chief of police referred questions to Illinois state troopers.

This could be an important question for southern Illinois auto accident lawyers like me, because whether the officer was speeding, and whether he was responding to an emergency, are both important questions for establishing liability in any Belleville car wreck lawsuit. Under Illinois law, local government employees, including police officers, are not liable for acts that arise out of doing their jobs. However, they can be liable for unsafe acts that fall outside their jobs, or doing their jobs in a “willful and wanton” way. If the officer was driving at a safe and reasonable speed, especially if he had warning lights and sirens on, he probably cannot be held liable for the accident.

This is not to say that suing a government agency in Illinois is easy. Every Illinois lawsuit has a deadline by which you must start your claim, called a statute of limitations. These deadlines vary according to the type of claim you’re making and your own circumstances, but they typically give plaintiffs two or three years. By contrast, if you’re suing a local government agency (such as a city, township or county), you have just six months to start your claim. For claims against a state government, that deadline is one year.

The process of starting a claim against a local government in Illinois is also more complex than usual, requiring you to give written notice to the government of your claim, including details about the accident, before you can file a formal lawsuit. Mistakes could take away your right to sue at all, which is why experts recommend that plaintiffs call a southern Illinois car crash attorney as soon as possible. At The Lowe Law Firm, we prefer to hear from potential clients with these cases as soon as they begin to consider a lawsuit. One of the least pleasant parts of our job is telling clients that they are unable to get the compensation they’d otherwise by entitled to because a deadline has passed.

Based in St. Louis, The Lowe Law Firm handles personal injury lawsuits for people throughout Missouri and southern Illinois. If you or a loved one was seriously hurt because of someone else’s negligence, our Missouri auto accident lawyers would like to help. We offer free, confidential consultations, so you can learn more about your rights and your claim with no risk or commitment. To set one up, please contact us online or call toll-free at 1-877-678-3400.

Lawmakers in Missouri and Illinois are both on the verge of making it illegal to send and read text messages behind the wheel, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported May 18. Missouri’s legislature has already passed a bill forbidding drivers under the age of 21 from texting while driving, while their counterparts in Illinois are considering a broader bill that would apply to drivers of every age. The goal is to reduce the number of crashes caused by irresponsible uses of cell phones while driving, which even opponents of the bills agree is a problem, the article says.

The Missouri measure was originally written to apply to all drivers, but died in the state House and was passed in its current form as an attachment to a different bill. The article did not specify a penalty for those caught breaking the new law, but judging by other states’ approaches, the drivers would be ticketed. Opponents of the bill argued that it could give bad police officers an excuse for racial profiling, and that police have better things to worry about. But the sponsor of the original bill, state Sen. Ryan McKenna, D-Crystal City, worried only that the bill doesn’t go far enough. After all, he pointed out, the conductor in the recent Boston train accident involving texting was over 21.

In Illinois, the texting ban would apply to drivers age 19 and over outside Chicago; younger drivers and Chicagoans are already banned from using cell phones in any way while driving. Lawmakers debating the texting ban brought up concerns about allowing police officers unfettered access to drivers’ phones. They also worried that the use of GPS devices, which are intended to help drivers navigate unfamiliar roads, would be illegal under the bill. Nonetheless, the paper said, the bill is expected to pass and go to Gov. Pat Quinn for approval. The bill was driven in part by a fatal 2006 crash in which a teenaged driver hit a bicyclist while she was downloading new ringtones to her phone.

As a St. Louis car accident attorney, I believe these bills, if they are enforced properly, could do a lot to prevent accidents caused by cell phone use. Anyone who drives has a story about driving behind someone who is drifting or driving at the wrong speed for conditions with a phone pressed to one ear. While cell phones are far from the only distraction that can cause an accident, they are one of the most common -- even people who cannot afford a car can afford a phone. While a ticket may seem like a cynical revenue-generating device, our Missouri car crash lawyers believe it has value both as a deterrent and as a way to show younger drivers that cell phone use while driving is a safety problem, teaching them to change their behavior without the need for tickets.

Based in St. Louis and Belleville, Ill., The Lowe Law Firm represents victims of serious personal injuries caused by car wrecks in Missouri and southern Illinois. Our Missouri auto accident lawyers help people who were seriously hurt or lost a loved one in a car, truck or motorcycle accidents recover the money they need to pay their medical bills, make ends meet and eventually move past their accidents. If you and your family are in this position and you’d like to learn more, please contact The Lowe Law Firm online or call us toll-free at 1-877-678-3400.

A patient with cervical cancer who claimed that a pathologist misread her Pap smears over the course of 12 years was awarded $2 million by a Chicago federal court jury on May 14. Fordham was represented by attorneys Jeffrey J. Lowe of The Lowe Law Firm and John J. Carey of the firm Carey & Danis.

Between 1990 and 2002, Barbara Fordham underwent annual gynecological exams that included the Papanicolaou test, also known as the Pap test or Pap smear, which is used to diagnose abnormalities of cells from the cervix. The Pap smear slides were sent to Mendota Community Hospital, located in Mendota, Ill., a suburb of Chicago. H.J. Choi, M.D., a pathologist who held a series of contracts with the hospital, interpreted the specimens as normal. However, Fordham alleged, the slides clearly showed atypical, pre- cancerous cells from 1990 through 1999 and cancerous from 2000 through 2002.
In 2003, Fordham changed physicians. A Pap smear performed that year revealed cervical cancer that was categorized as class 2B, meaning that it was inoperable and could only be treated with the use of chemotherapy and radiation.

In a medical malpractice lawsuit filed against Choi and Mendota Community Hospital in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois—Fordham v. Choi, cause no. 07 C 0568—Fordham alleged that Choi negligently misread her Pap smear slides.
Fordham settled her claims against Mendota Community Hospital for a confidential amount. The hospital did not admit liability.

The claims against Choi proceeded to trial. Dr. Dorothy Rosenthal, a professor of cytopathology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, testified that if Fordham’s cancer had been detected by 1999 it could have been treated with a simple outpatient procedure called a cone biopsy and would not have required chemotherapy and radiation.
On May 14, a Chicago jury awarded $2 million to Fordham.

Frodham was also represented by Jacob A. Flint and Francis J. “Casey” Flynn of the Lowe Law Firm. The Lowe Law Firm is a St. Louis-based law firm with a national practice. They handle
personal injury, medical malpractice, pharmaceutical liability, product liability and commercial cases throughout the United States.

Victims of a fatal a rear-end crash can have a new trial in their Missouri product liability lawsuit, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled May 5. According to the Associated Press, the court said misbehavior by attorneys for Ford tainted the trial, entitling motorist Michael Nolte and the family of Trooper Michael Newton to a new trial. The decision is also seen as a victory for law enforcement officers and families who have long contended that Ford Crown Victorias -- vehicles commonly used as police cars -- are unreasonably likely to explode into flames when rear-ended.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened to Nolte and Newton in 2003. Newton, the state trooper, had pulled Nolte over for a traffic violation and put him in the trooper’s car on the shoulder of Interstate 70. When they were rear-ended by a pickup truck, the cruiser burst into flames, killing Newton and injuring Nolte before he could be pulled from the fire. Newton’s family and Nolte sued Ford, alleging that Ford’s vehicle design was defective because it placed the fuel tank behind the back axle, making an explosion likely in a rear-end accident. They also sued the truck’s driver and his or her employer, a claim that has been resolved and is not at issue in the appeal.

At trial, Missouri product liability attorneys for the plaintiff wanted to introduce evidence of ten similar accidents involving rear-ended Crown Victorias -- four before Newton’s accident and six after. They were particularly interested in showing evidence that Crown Victorias retrofitted with shields on their gas tanks, as Newton’s was, still carried an unreasonably high risk of explosion. The judge ruled that they could only introduce the four earlier accidents, but a lawyer for Ford introduced evidence about the six others anyway. Because the plaintiffs were under the judge’s orders not to discuss that evidence or argue their side of the story, this put them at a disadvantage, the Missouri Supreme Court found. Thus, it said, they are entitled to a new trial.

Members of the law enforcement community have been concerned about problems with Crown Victoria gas tanks for more than 20 years. (The related Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Car may share this flaw, though they are less likely to be used as police cars.) The concern is the placement of the vehicle’s gas tank behind the rear axle, which critics say make it highly likely to be punctured in a rear-end collision, causing an instant explosion. Within moments, officers and others inside the car can be surrounded by flames. By one estimate, at least 21 law enforcement officers and uncounted civilians have died in this way. In 2002, Ford retrofitted hundreds of thousands of police Crown Victorias with gas tank shields, but critics dispute whether this has helped.

Flaws such as this with the design or manufacture of a vehicle are a form of product defects, just like problems with toys or hairbrushes. When they cause or exacerbate a serious car wreck, victims in Missouri have the right to file a St. Louis auto product liability lawsuit holding the vehicle’s manufacturer legally responsible. In these lawsuits, victims can claim compensation for the loss of a loved one, a permanent disability or a serious injury, as well as compensation for medical bills and other costs of the crash.

If you and your family are in this situation, The Lowe Law Firm would like to help. Based in St. Louis and Belleville, Ill., we represent people who were injured by flawed consumer products throughout Missouri and southern Illinois. If you would like to learn more, we offer free, confidential consultations -- so there’s no risk to you in telling us about your case and learning about your legal options. To set one up, you can contact us through our Web site or call 1-877-678-3400.

Legislation repealing Missouri’s mandatory motorcycle helmet law has passed the Legislature and is headed for the desk of Gov. Jay Nixon, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported May 1. The legislation, passed 95-63 in the Missouri House, makes helmets optional for riders age 21 and over. Riders below age 21 would still be required to wear helmets. If the bill is approved, Missouri would become the 31st state with partial or no helmet laws, including almost all of our neighboring states.

The law has provoked several disapproving editorials in the past few days, with the Post-Dispatch claiming that the repeal is “a spectacularly bad idea.” I know this is a sensitive subject for those who ride, many of whom feel strongly that they should have the right, as adults, to make their own decisions. The issue pits public safety arguments against freedom arguments, and both are worthy goals. I do not wish to comment on whether helmets should be mandatory. But, using my experience as a Missouri brain injury lawyer, I would like to explain why I believe that motorcyclists in our state should freely choose to wear helmets when they ride.

Helmets protect the brain, one of the few tissues in the body that cannot heal in the same way a cut or bruise heals. Once the brain is damaged, the abilities controlled by the damaged parts of the brain are most likely gone forever. Practically speaking, that translates to a lifelong disability of some kind -- physical, mental, sensory or emotional. In mild cases, this could leave the victim functional but with a permanent loss of abilities, personality changes or trouble controlling emotions. In serious cases, the victim will need lifelong care in an institution or with a live-in helper. It is also extremely expensive to treat -- hospital costs for a serious brain injury easily total five or six figures, and the lifetime cost reaches into the millions.

It’s well-established that states with mandatory motorcycle helmet laws have much higher helmet use rates than states without. It is more controversial, but still well-established, that helmets save lives and prevent brain injuries without adding risks. Studies by the federal Department of Transportation have found that an un-helmeted rider is 40 times more likely to suffer a fatal head injury and 15 times more likely to sustain a non-fatal injury than one wearing a helmet in the same crash.

Furthermore, of the states that have repealed their universal helmet laws, all have seen a pronounced rise in motorcycle crash fatalities -- a 31% rise in fatal motorcycle injuries in Texas, for example. And according to a 2002 study by the federal DoT, just under half of motorcycle accident victims have no health insurance, meaning that hospital charity care and government health programs pick up their bills. Given the staggering cost in abilities and money, I believe the protection a helmet offers is well worth the cost, both financially and philosophically. Riders may soon have the chance to make this choice for themselves, but as a St. Louis brain damage attorney, I hope they do it with full awareness of their risks.

Based in St. Louis, the Lowe Law Firm represents clients throughout Missouri and southern Illinois who have suffered brain injuries through another person’s careless actions. In addition to motorcycle accidents, this includes car and truck accidents, crashes with semis and big rigs, ATV crashes and accidents in the workplace. In a Missouri brain injury lawsuit, we can help our clients win the money they need to pay their sky-high medical bills, make ends meet while they cannot work and ensure that they get the care they need throughout a lifetime of disability. If this sounds like your situation and you’d like to know more, please contact the Lowe Law Firm today for a free, confidential consultation.