Articles Tagged with Personal Injury

Rule No. 3 of 12: The successful cross-examiner avoids the appearance of pettiness, nit-picking or unfairness to the witness.
Even though we practice in an adversarial system, there is no necessity to be adversarial with the cross-examination of each and every witness. Righteous indignation needs to be saved for appropriate occasions where the witness is clearly lying or needs to be exposed for some form of aggravated misconduct. Counsel must reserve outrage and indignation for the proper case.
If trial counsel is unfair to any witness or is otherwise petty, the jury may subliminally hold this against counsel and by definition counsel’s client. Thus, the third rule of successful cross-examination is to be fair but firm in the cross-examination of all witnesses and where appropriate, adversarial, provided the case justifies it.

Raptiva, a drug manufactured by Roche HoldingAG’s Genentech Inc. and marketed for the treatment of psoriasis has been linked to a rare but often fatal brain disorder. As a result of these findings, Genentech has issued a voluntary recall of the drug.

Genentech previously disclosed that three cases of the disorder, called progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, had turned up in patients taking Raptiva since October of last year. Two of these cases were fatal. A fourth patient died of unknown cause after developing neurologic symptoms. All had been taking the drug for more than three years.

Last month, Genentech updated the Raptiva label to reflect the increased risk associated with the drug. But the company said it ultimately determined that the risk of the disorder outweighs the benefits of the drug.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented, and continue to represent, victims of day care child abuse. The statistics on physical child abuse are alarming. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of children are physically abused each year by a parent or close relative; however, abusers include daycare workers, healthcare providers, mental healthcare workers and others who care for children on a daily basis.
We currently represent a young victim who was abused while a patient in the psychiatric ward of a Georgia hospital and a young victim of a sexual assault that occurred while a patient in an Atlanta brain injury rehabilitation facility. Just last week the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on a case where children were abused by a staff member at a Kennesaw day care center. According to the article, an investigation revealed that other employees of the day care center knew the abuse was happening! Although physical abuse is perhaps the most common form of abuse, it is not the only kind of child abuse. Many children are victims of neglect, or sexual abuse, or emotional abuse.
In 2005, 899,000 children in the U.S. were victims of child abuse, neglect and maltreatment: 90% suffered neglect, 3.6 suffered medical neglect, 13% were physically abused, 4% were sexually abused and 1% were psychologically mistreated. Children who have been abused may display:
a poor self image
sexual acting out
inability to trust or love others
aggressive, disruptive, and sometimes illegal behavior
anger and rage
self destructive or self abusive behavior, suicidal thoughts
passive or withdrawn behavior
fear of entering into new relationships or activities
anxiety and fears
school problems or failure
feelings of sadness or other symptoms of depression
flashbacks, nightmares
drug and alcohol abuse
Proper treatment through experienced professionals is the key to starting to heal the damage. Legal action is often the only way that those who allow the sexual abuse to occur will take responsibility for their failures.

Continue reading

Many Georgia residents may be driving General Motors cars which have a dangerous propensity to ignite in flames. General Motors and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced yesterday that the possibility of engine fires has prompted General Motors to recall nearly 1.5 million passenger sedans manufactured between 1997 and 2003.
The recall covers certain mid- and full-size passenger sedans under GM’s Chevrolet, Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac brands.
The problem involves a potential for oil to leak on the exhaust manifold during hard braking. When a car operates under normal conditions, the manifold can get very hot. Oil that runs below the manifold’s heat shield can ignite and spread to plastic channels that hold spark plug wires.
The affected vehicles have naturally aspirated 3.8 liter V6 engines. These engines use atmospheric pressure rather than a mechanical blower to bring in air for combustion.
General Motors has proposed a change in the bracket that holds spark plug wires, which will be done free of charge, as a solution to the problem. Owners and dealers affected by the recall will be notified by letter next month with details.
The vehicles involved are:• 1997-2003 Buick Regals.• 1998-2003 Chevrolet Luminas, Monte Carlos and Impalas.• 1998-1999 Oldsmobile Intrigues.• 1997-2003 Pontiac Grand Prix.
If you are driving one of vehicles you should contact a GM dealer for a repair even if you do not receive a notice in the mail.

Continue reading

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented many victims of defective products which have caused serious injury and sometimes death. Recently, there was a recall on a device meant to save lives, a defibrillator. Each year 250,000 to 450,000 Americans suffer a sudden heart stoppage or cardiac arrest due to a rhythm disturbance or silent coronary artery disease, according to the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. About 95 percent of those people die. A defibrillator delivers a shock which is meant to restore a person’s regular heart rhythm. Zoll Medical Corp has issued an alert because some of its AED Plus external defibrillators, used in public settings such as airports, have defective batteries and software, leading to failures to deliver a shock and two patient deaths. On February 2009, Zoll began asking customers to download new software that will help detect a potential defective battery. In addition to airports, the potentially defective defibrillators may be located in health clubs and schools. If you know of one of these products manufactured by Zoll, you should advise the owner that the manufacturer is asking customers to download free software from its website which will diagnose whether the batteries need replacement.

Rule No. 2 of 12: The successful cross-examiner always has a purpose for each question that is asked or not asked.
When preparing a cross-examination of any particular witness, counsel has to consider what they want to say about the witness in closing argument. Sometimes, if a witness does not hurt your client’s case, the best cross-examination is to ask no questions at all. The general rule is “no harm no foul,” therefore, if a witness is called against your client and ends up testifying in a manner that really does not hurt them in any way, the best cross-examination may be one that asks no questions whatsoever. However, if questions are asked, they have to be asked in such a way as to do no harm to one’s case.
Sometimes, the purpose of the cross-examination may be to conceal the fact that you do not really have anything to attack the witness on. In other situations as addressed above, it may be possible to successfully impeach the witness through prior inconsistent statements. Either way, as part of the preparation by counsel, in advance of trial, counsel has to consider each question being considered for the witness and has to satisfy him/herself that the question will achieve a goal and that the goal is worth pursuing with respect to the cross-examination of that witness. Again, the successful cross-examiner always have a purpose for each question that is asked or not asked.

The news media in Georgia frequently reports on tragic accidents in which young children are killed by cars traveling in reverse. Many times these accidents occur when a parent is backing out of a driveway or garage.

According to data from a recent study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shifting into reverse may be more dangerous than previously thought. According to the first study conducted on the issue, 221 people were killed by vehicles backing up in 2007. That is more than 4 deaths per week. In the same period, about 14,000 people were injured in backup accidents.

The United States Congress passed legislation last year to attempt to address the issue. The Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act, is named for a 2-year-old boy who was accidentally backed over and killed by his father on Long Island, New York. It was this legislation that prompted the new study.

In our prior four (4) entries, concerning the art of cross-examination, we have discussed the objectives of cross-examination and have suggested that there are four (4) alternative purposes for successful cross-examination that should be considered by trial counsel. In this article, we are going to address techniques involved in successful cross-examination. Any experienced trial counsel will recognize these rules as being fundamental to a truly successful cross-examination of any material witness.
Rule No. 1 of 12: The successful cross-examination is well prepared in advance of the exercise.
When you shoot from the hip during a trial, you generally shoot yourself in the foot. Depositions, witness statements, exhibits and everything in the file must be carefully considered and reviewed in advance of trial to find material for suitable cross-examination. As an example, trial counsel should look for opportunities to get two witnesses for the opposing side to contradict one another. Trial counsel must review every single thing in the file to see what objectives can be met when considering the four (4) alternative purposes of cross-examination. This requires extreme attention to detail and meticulous preparation in advance of trial. Even the nature of the questioning, as we shall see in a later discussion of the discipline required for this art is very important because preparation in advance of trial allows counsel to craft questions carefully, usually in a leading manner, which will insure that counsel gets the answers they seek while at the same time insuring against eliciting answers they do not seek.

Our Georgia automobile accident attorneys often review crashes involving very small cars, sometimes referred to as “micro cars.” We have frequently noticed that there seems to be a correlation between the severity of injuries suffered in car accidents and the size of the vehicles involved. Now, a study by the Insurance for Highway Safety has confirmed our observations.

In crash tests released this week, the Institute found that drivers of 2009 versions of the Smart “fortwo,” Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris face significant leg and head injuries in severe front-end crashes with larger, mid-size vehicles.

Sales of small cars soared when gas prices topped $4 per gallon last year but have fallen off as the costs of gasoline has returned to about $2 a gallon and the economic downturn has slowed car sales. The small cars are affordable — prices of the three cars tested range from about $12,000 to $18,000 — and typically achieve 30 miles per gallon or more.

In this our fourth entry, we discuss again the objectives of cross-examination. We have talked about obtaining evidence which is favorable to one’s case, impeaching or corroborating the testimony of another witness in the case and discrediting the testimony of the witness through proof of prior convictions, inconsistent statements or prior writings. In this entry, we address another alternative to cross-examination and that is “to appear to be cross-examining a witness without really doing so” because counsel really does not have anything that can be accomplished otherwise.
A classic example of what we address in this article is the testimony of a wife or close friend who is called to testify in support of their spouse or friend. Here, questions about the relationships with the parties, cross-examination about their having met with lawyers concerning their testimony before taking the stand and other such innocuous matters may appear to be effective cross-examination in front of the jury when in actuality there is very little that can otherwise be accomplished. If the other alternatives of cross-examination are unavailable, that being that there is no ability to impeach the witness and there is no favorable testimony that can be elicited from them (this is the rare case as typically there is always some favorable testimony that can be elicited) then in such a case, counsel should consider a very brief cross-examination which will leave the jury with the impression that no cross-examination is even necessary given the close relationship between the parties.