Pensacola Personal Injury Lawyer - Automobile Accidents

Accident Leaves Vehicle Wedged Between Two Toll Lanes

Chrissie Cole — Wed, 20 May 2009 20:08:00 GMT

A two-car accident on Saturday left a vehicle wedged on its side between two tollbooths.

Carrie Anne Dolamore, 32, of Pensacola, was driving south toward the Garcon Point Bridge Plaza in the inside lane when she abruptly switched lanes, according to Florida Highway Patrol.

The other driver, Gerald A. Henrikson, saw Dolamore’s vehicle coming toward him head on and was able to stop his vehicle. Dolamore's vehicle swerved left, bouncing off two barriers before rolling onto its die and becoming stuck between both toll lanes.

Henrikson was not injured in the crash and Dolamore was taken to the hospital with minor injuries.

Pending blood work results, Dolamore may be charged in the crash.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Three Injured in Pensacola Car Accident

Shannon Weidemann — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:21:49 GMT

A car accident in Pensacola on Thursday sent three people to the hospital. The accident involved two cars traveling on Mobile Highway. One car flipped and landed on top of the other car.

The first

car was stopped, facing west on Boulder Avenue, then pulled out into the path of McClain's vehicle, which was traveling north on Mobile Highway, troopers said. McClain's vehicle collided with the driver's side of Wiseman's vehicle, causing it to skid sideways and flip.

There were two people in the first car and one in the second. They were all taken to Sacred Heart Hospital to be treated for their injuries. Two of the people were listed in serious condition. The driver of the first car was cited with violating the right of way.

If you would like to learn more about car accidents, please visit InjuryBoard's Car Accident information page.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann

Police Officer Flipped Vehicle Due to Hydroplaning

Shannon Weidemann — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:27:21 GMT

An officer of the Pensacola Police Force flipped his police cruiser while driving on Interstate 10 on January 27th.

It had rained most of the day resulting in standing water on the road. Officer Young was driving 45 miles an hour, which is the speed limit, when he hit a patch of water. His car hydroplaned, ran into the concrete barrier, and flipped over. He suffered minor injuries. There was approximately $20,000 in damage to the vehicle.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann

Women Killed Car Traveling the Wrong Direction

Shannon Weidemann — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:14:23 GMT

A woman from Panama City was killed while driving in the eastbound lane of U.S. Highway 98 in an accident on Friday.

Baheejah T. Jackson, age 26, was traveling westbound in the eastbound lane when he hit the car being driven by Ruth J. Lakey, age 76, head on. Lakey's car was then hit another time by a car driven by Russell Mann, age 69. Lakey was pronounced dead at Sacred Heart. Mann was treated for minor injuries at Sacred Heart in Pensacola. Police are investigating the accident and are unsure if alcohol was involved.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann

Brain Injury

Robert Blanchard — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:32:43 GMT

Most of the serious trauma victims seen in emergency rooms are cases involving motor vehicle accidents. A new study may help change the quality of care for those patients who suffer a brain injuries in such accidents. The conclusion of the study finds that neurosurgeons are rarely needed to intervene. Given the number of traumas and the limited number of neurosurgeons, the study suggests that trauma surgeons be trained in evaluating patients for braiin injury and be qualified to render a number of treatments that now entail the involvement of a neurosurgeon.

Investigators studied this question with the National Trauma Data Bank maintained by the American College of Surgeons. Of the nearly 732,000 patients in the data bank, 29% had a head injury diagnosis, and, of these head-injured patients, only 3.6% required a craniotomy. The median time from injury to craniotomy was 195 minutes, and only 6.5% of craniotomies were performed within 1 hour. In view of the infrequent need for neurosurgical skills, the study authors conclude that immediate access to a neurosurgeon is not required if trauma surgeons or other healthcare providers can appropriately evaluate and monitor head injury patients.
With only about 3400 neurosurgeons in the United States, it is difficult to imagine how such a small group of specialists can supervise the care of an estimated 1.5 million annual head injury patients. The study authors suggest that trauma surgeons should be trained not only in the evaluation of head injuries, but also in some of the more common procedures, such as insertion of intracranial pressure monitors and even drainage of epidural and subdural hematomas. This is clearly a controversial topic, needing additional studies to determine how trauma centers should manage the complicated manpower issues related to the care of patients with head injuries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Robert Blanchard

Jury Duty

Robert Blanchard — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:49:33 GMT

We all may dream of being called to jury duty on a notorious murder case, but in reality we are more likely to be asked to sit on a jury involving a motor vehicle accident claim. Many people don't want to serve because of the time it takes away from work and other important personal activities. Our local Courts recognize the sacrifice of jury duty and do everything they can to have the cases move quickly through trial. Much in the process has been streamlined since the days when you would have to show up every day for a week or more just to see if you would be chosen for a jury. Now, all jury selections for the week are over by the end of Monday. Everyone not chosen gets to go home. Those who are called back to sit on a jury through trial may find an unexpected satisfaction in doing their civic duty, even in the most mundane cases.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Robert Blanchard

Spinal Injuries in Motor Vehicle Accidents

Robert Blanchard — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:38:35 GMT

Not all spinal injuries receive the immediate care they need at the scene of an accident. It may be helpful to understand the procedures that emergency personel should go through when presented with a possible spinal injury.

Paramedics and first responders ascribe to the basic tenet of "do no harm." Their routine protocol is to use spinal immobilization for patients with major traumatic injuries, patients whose mechanism of injury is not clear, and patients who may have experienced some trauma. Of course, the initial focus is on cervical spine injuries, and they routinely apply a cervical spine immobilization device, typically a rigid plastic cervical collar. They use a logroll technique when transferring the patient onto a long spine board or rescue board, which avoids unnecessary movement. Once on a spine board, the patient is secured and prepared for transport. Even patients with no spinal tenderness or neurologic deficits are transported in this fashion. The goal of routine spinal immobilization protocols is to avoid injuries during transport and during the prehospital phase.

Once in the hospital, remove the patient from the board as soon as practical. Prolonged use may be uncomfortable and even counterproductive because uncomfortable patients may start moving on the board. Some patients develop skin breakdown and decubitus ulcers, even after 1 hour of use. Controlled transfer, use of a sliding board or scoop system, and the logroll technique can prevent further injury. Adequate personnel are needed to facilitate these transfers.
Once in the Emergency Room, focus the initial assessment and stabilization of patients with spine injuries on the ABCs and patient immobilization. As part of the initial assessment and stabilization, the airway may need to be secured using rapid-sequence intubation and spinal stabilization. Once the ABCs algorithm is satisfied, focus attention on the secondary survey. Quite often, these patients are victims of multiple traumas. Associated injuries, such as brain, thoracic, or abdominal injuries, take precedence. The neurologic examination helps determine the presence of deficits. In the presence of neurologic deficits, hypotension and bradycardia may indicate neurogenic shock.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Robert Blanchard

Jury Voir Dire

Robert Blanchard — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:03:50 GMT

Voir Dire is the beginning of the jury trial, where potential jurors are questioned and then selected to sit on a case.

Voir dire is not only about uncovering bias and learning about your jurors; it is also your jurors' first opportunity to learn about your case. In previous jury tips, I have often stressed how critical the jurors' first impressions of your case are, how quickly jurors build a framework of your case, and how influential this framework is in shaping how they view the evidence and their verdict decisions (see www.yournextjury.com/jurytip.htm for these tips).
In those tips I have emphasized that 80-90% of jurors are closed to persuasion and locked into their verdicts by the end of opening statements. Keep in mind, however, that your opening statement is not your first opportunity to begin persuading jurors. A properly done voir dire can guide jurors to frame the case in your terms, make them more receptive to your themes, and highlight aspects of the case that will give your strengths added importance in their minds throughout trial. All of this can be done without arguing a position, discussing case information directly, or even using direct pre-conditioning techniques, using a subtle persuasive technique called exposition.

The principle of exposition, as it applies to voir dire, is to let jurors know what the case is about through the topics and phrasing of the voir dire questions themselves. In a theatrical or literary context, exposition is a narrative device used at the beginning of a play, story, or film to give the audience necessary background information and introduce them to the characters, the conflict, and the plot. Keep in mind that you are telling a story during voir dire, and consider how clearly that story is coming through.

In a case about a car accident, a voir dire session revolving around questions about occupations, hobbies, former jury experience, feelings about lawsuits and damages, and opinions about vague principles and values presents jurors with a confusing, disjointed story that leaves them confused about what your case is about. Failing to use exposition wastes a golden opportunity to guide your jurors in building their framework about what the case is about and, more importantly, to persuade them about what is important.

Spend time thinking about not only the topics that you want the jury to focus on, but also about the order of your voir dire questions. The order of the topics you bring up should mirror your introduction of topics, evidence, and themes in your opening statement. For example, a strong expository voir dire in a breach of contract case might begin with questions about experiences with business deals and contracts, delve into experiences and feelings about broken contracts, highlight evidence by asking the jurors if they have ever been involved in dispute with a vendor who refused to remedy faulty products or services, and move into questions about lost revenues, business valuations, and damages. By the end of voir dire, your jurors should know what the case is about, what the defendant or plaintiff did wrong, how the plaintiff was harmed (or was not), and how damages should be defined.

With each question you ask, think about more than the answers your jurors give you; think also about the message that each question sends to the jury. Each question implicitly tells your jurors that the topic of the question is an important topic in the trial, and may tell them even more than that. Questions may give jurors information about the actions of the litigants, and may even give jurors the impression that you are concerned or nervous about certain topics. Lingering too long on a topic, no matter how important (plaintiff attorneys, this often includes feelings about frivolous lawsuits and tort reform), sends the message to many jurors that you are overly concerned and nervous about the topic and is a red flag to many that this reveals a weakness in your case.

When listening to your questions, jurors will assume that the situations your questions present are identical to those involved in the case, so make sure to highlight your strongest evidence, your client's strongest conduct, and the opposing litigant's worst actions in your questions. Defense attorneys, ask your jurors how they feel about an employee who takes 38 unrelated sick days off from work in a year, or how they feel about a plaintiff in an employment lawsuit who applies for only 3 jobs in a year without success and remains unemployed for 18 months. Plaintiff attorneys, ask your jurors if their employer has ever passed them up for promotion in favor of a less-qualified employee of a different race or gender, if their doctor has ever failed to respond to an emergency phone call, or if their contractor has ever gone over budget on their home improvement project without providing adequate justification. These questions not only uncover potential biasing experiences and opinions, they also give the jurors a strong, persuasive sense of what your case is about.

Exposition during voir dire takes a great deal of care and thought, especially when your primary goal is to learn about your jurors and uncover biases. If properly done, jurors will be far more receptive to your matching opening statement and your trial themes, and will be far more likely to view the case in your terms throughout trial.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Robert Blanchard

Approaching a Jury

Robert Blanchard — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:55:02 GMT

For an attorney, the key to establishing credibility and delivering a persuasive opening statement is to approach the jury and begin trial in the frame of mind that you were in when you first met your client. I is mportant to be the open-minded, objective, skeptical person you were when you were unsure whether to take the case, not the confidant, closed-minded lawyer you have become learning about the case and preparing for trial. Take the jurors through your skepticisms, doubts, and reservations. Say them out loud, because these are the same skepticisms, doubts, and reservations that your jurors will be thinking about at that moment. Share with them the questions you asked and the answers you needed to know to determine whether the case was legitimate, or worth defending. What did YOU need to know to determine if the case had merit? Your jurors probably have the same questions, and voicing your questions show the jurors that you were focused on seeking the truth, not building a smokescreen.

Give the jurors examples of things that, had you found them, would have convinced you NOT to take the case. Tell the jurors things that, had you found them, would have made you drop certain claims or damage requests, or concede liability or causation (or perhaps settle the case entirely). For example, "had I found that Mr. Martinez was being lazy about searching for a new job, I wouldn't be asking for lost wages." Or perhaps "had human resources suspended the defendant or allowed Ms. Johnson to transfer to a different location, I wouldn't be suing the company for this sexual harassment as well." Build additional credibility by admitting all your weaknesses, and give the jurors your honest opinion about why (in your mind) your strengths outweigh those weaknesses. Even better, tell the jurors about all the damages that you are NOT asking for (or conceding), and why. Show the jurors that you are being reasonable instead of greedy, because skeptical jurors assume that frivolous lawsuits don't leave any claims and damages out, and that dishonest defenses deny any and all liability and causation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Robert Blanchard

Getting a Fair Shake from a Jury

Robert Blanchard — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:51:44 GMT

With all the Republican and corporate propaganda that goes on every year without ceasing, it gets ever harder to get a fair jury trial in an injury case. The notion of the "frivolous lawsuit" has saturated jury panels across the country and has a negative influence in every jury trial nationwide. No doubt every plaintiff attorney that has had the pleasure of going to trial in the past few years has had to suffer through at least a few complaints on every jury panel about frivolous lawsuits, outrageous damage awards, and the harmful effects on our economy and our society of each. I can't count how many times I have heard at least one juror on every panel mention the infamous McDonalds coffee case in each of my last ten trials.

By the same token, anger against corporations, attorneys in general, and those who dodge responsibility generate plenty of juror distrust against defendants and defense attorneys. Both sides now begin trial in the unenviable position of having to overcome healthy doses of juror skepticism and doubt, and every attorney faces an uphill battle just to establish credibility, which is the biggest ingredient of success in trial.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Robert Blanchard