The Filutowski Law Firm, PLLC - Personal Injury Attorney, Employment Law Attorney, Auto Accident, Car Accident, Car Insurance
Feb
4
2010

Protect Yourself When Traveling for Renergizing Retreats and Recreation

The shocking deaths last year at the Arizona sweat lodge just outside of Sedona occurred at motivational speaker, James Arthur Ray’s retreat, “Spiritual Warrior.”

Some of the attendees (who paid $9,000.00 each for the 5-day retreat) started collapsing and vomiting during a session.  James ridiculed them and pushed them to stay in the 100+ degree lodge.   Those three who collapsed, died later.  18 more were hospitalized.

James is now being charged with three counts of manslaughter.   In response to those passing out and vomiting, James stated: “it’s a good day to die.”

Sweat lodges are traditionally used by American Indian tribes to cleanse the body and prepare for hunts, ceremonies and other events. The structure used by Spiritual Warrior attendees crudely imitated such a set-up with heated coals, tarps and blankets.

The American Indian ritual is to help restore balance and change people’s attitudes and self-image, according to Joseph Bruchac, author of “The Native American Sweat Lodge: History and Legends.”

Bruchac claims people have died in sweat lodges in the past – sick tribal elders who voluntarily stayed until they died or those who had heart conditions and were in poor health.

The Spiritual Warrior retreat schedule had few details about what to expect, let alone associated risks – one being illness or death.   Details, rather, came in a lengthy release of liability, stating:  participants may suffer “physical, emotional, financial or other injuries” while hiking or swimming, or during a multi-day personal and spiritual quest in the wilderness without food or water or the sweat lodge.

If you are someone you know has suffered at a retreat or spa in the United States due to negligence or recklessness, they may have a right to recovery.   Even if a waiver or release of liability has been signed, there may still be a right to recovery based upon what the releasing individual understood, appreciated and consented to.
However, if you were injured overseas, the ability to sue for personal injury is complicated by determining what law applies.  If a U.S.-based company (such as the Westin, Hilton, etc.) hosted a retreat overseas and you were injured, you may have a right to recover within the United States against the hotels and/or the U.S.-based travel booking company.

Regardless, though, when traveling, due to the risks of which laws protect you,  you should always read the details of all releases (even if it’s in size 6 point font & 2 pages long!)  – ask questions and become fully informed of the risks.

For example – para-sailing in Mexico – most are loosely operated by a couple individuals on the beach collecting cash.  No paperwork.  No questions.  If you were to be injured  while para-sailing – due to the negligence of the operator – you would likely have no feasible right to recovery under Mexico’s law.   Trying to sue in the United States would prove quite difficult.  Furthermore, the operator may not be insured and has little money, except what cash is collected from tourists.   Para-sailing operations are vastly different and more safe in the United States – where operators are required to carry insurance.

Therefore, when traveling abroad, it is important that you ask questions about the risks involved, age of the equipment, experience of the instructors/guides, etc. when traveling – and then, and only then, proceed at your own risk.

Copyright © 2010 The Filutowski Law Firm, PLLC. This post is intended for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on any specific facts or circumstances. An attorney-client relationship is not created or continued by reading this post. If you would like further information regarding the matters discussed herein, you may post a comment. If you need a consultation on a legal matter, contact Alexandra Filutowski.

Jan
29
2010

Hands-Free Cell Phone Use Doesn’t Reduce Driver Distraction

The New York Times (1/29, Jensen) reports that a study from the Highway Loss Data Institute shows that bans on cellphone use “haven’t reduced crashes” in some states, and the result “had the researchers scratching their heads.” The study, finished in December, compared all crashes in California, New York, Connecticut and Washington with crashes after bans were instituted, and researchers “can’t even see a blip in the data.” One possible explanation is “that while cellphones are a distraction, maybe they are not ‘all that much worse a distraction than many of the other things that we do,’” institute president Adrian Lund said. Alternately, the data may mean “drivers in places with these bans may be switching to hands-free phones,” and crash risks are “about the same as with handset phones.”
The Washington Post adds that in the capital, the study showed that a ban on cellphone use “hasn’t made the streets much safer.” The Post also notes the lack of effect from hands-free cellphones, and points out that “the larger issue of distracted driving has gained traction” with the finding that the practice does not reduce accidents. The Post adds, “The report is the latest in a growing body of evidence cited by those who advocate banning all cellphone use by drivers,” and it points out that the National Safety Council “called last year for a ban on cellphone use while driving.”
The Wall Street Journal also reports the story, noting that the study conclusions come as regulators are also focused on the practice of texting by both regular and commercial drivers.

Source: American Association for Justice

Jan
24
2010

Former Student, Distracted By Texting, Kills Bicycling High School Teacher

In Washington State’s first vehicle homicide case involving a driver distracted by texting, 18-year-old Antonio Cellestine was sentenced to 60-months in jail for killing his former Hudson’s Bay High School teacher, Gordon Patterson.

KATU: Man was texting when he hit and killed teacher.

Cellestine was texting his girlfriend when he swerved off the road and hit 50-year old Mr. Patterson, who was lawfully pedaling home from school in the bike lane, wearing a helmet.  Cellestine fled the scene and was later arrested at a party.

Cellestine’s statement to officers that he was also distracted by brushing cigar ashes from his shirt is unverified by any evidence from the vehicle.

Cellestine’s record includes two instances of driving with a suspended license, driving without insurance and a July 23 incident for possession of marijuana.

With his difficult past, Cellestine credits Mr. Patterson for focusing on academics and graduating from high school.

Mr. Patterson is survived by his stay-at-home wife Carrie Patterson and three children, Julia, Caleb and Jonathan.

The government has responded to the increasing concern with drivers distracted by cell phones, leading to the creation of distraction.gov

The Oprah Show raises awareness of the victims of distracted driving.

Currently Washington State lawmakers are working to pass a bill that will change existing law from using a cell phone as a second offense, to a first offense.

Sources: The Seattle Times

Copyright © 2010 The Filutowski Law Firm, PLLC. This post is intended for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on any specific facts or circumstances. An attorney-client relationship is not created or continued by reading this post. If you would like further information regarding the matters discussed herein, you may post a comment. If you need a consultation on a legal matter, contact Alexandra Filutowski.

Jan
24
2010

Washington State Lawmakers Working to Make Cell Phone Distraction Primary Offense For Drivers

Currently Washington State drivers can be cited for talking on a cell phone or texting only if a police officer pulls them over for some other traffic violation (e.g., speeding, swerving, running a red light, no seat belt, etc.)

Citizens and public officials recognize the serious (and sometimes fatal) risks caused by drivers distracted by cell phones, and therefore want a stronger law that will more effectively deter drivers from using cell phones in their cars.

Since the first cell phone bill took effect on July 1, 2008, the Washington State Patrol has ticketed only 2,341 drivers.  Sgt. Freddy Williams says the laws need to be strengthened, and that this is a step the department endorses: “we need to reduce distractions in any way we can,” he said. “Talking on a phone and texting are distractions that can prove injurious if not fatal.”

Lawmakers are working to pass a bill that will make it a first offense for drivers to text or talk on cell phones.

The proposed bills will be discussed this Monday:  HB 2635 and SB 6345.

Source:  KOMO News

Copyright © 2010 The Filutowski Law Firm, PLLC. This post is intended for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on any specific facts or circumstances. An attorney-client relationship is not created or continued by reading this post. If you would like further information regarding the matters discussed herein, you may post a comment. If you need a consultation on a legal matter, contact Alexandra Filutowski.

Jan
22
2010

Toyota Voluntarily Recalls 2.3 Million Vehicles With Defective Gas Pedal

Safe, reliable vehicle design and manufacturing are expected by all consumers of vehicles.   When this standard is violated by the manufacturer, lawsuits will arise and car manufacturers lose customer loyalty.

Such violation of customer trust has occurred twice for Toyota.  Toyota’s ineffective quality control and/or research and design teams have led to two, independent recalls of millions of vehicles in the past three months.

Toyota is recalling 2.3 million cars and trucks in response to the increasing reports of its cars suddenly speeding out of control due to a sticking accelerator pedal.  On December 26 four people died in Texas when the accelerator stuck and sped the Toyota Avalon into a pond.

The recall covers certain cars and truck models from 2005-2010.  Toyota states:

“In recent months, Toyota has investigated isolated reports of sticking accelerator pedal mechanisms in certain vehicles without the presence of floor mats,” said TMS Group Vice President Irv Miller.  “Our investigation indicates that there is a possibility that certain accelerator pedal mechanisms may, in rare instances, mechanically stick in a partially depressed position or return slowly to the idle position. Consistent with our commitment to the safety of our cars and our customers, we have initiated this voluntary recall action.”

Toyota’s accelerator pedal recall is confined to the following Toyota Division vehicles:

• 2009-2010 RAV4,
• 2009-2010 Corolla,
• 2009-2010 Matrix,
• 2005-2010 Avalon,
• 2007-2010 Camry,
• 2010 Highlander,
• 2007-2010 Tundra,
• 2008-2010 Sequoia

No Lexus Division or Scion vehicles are affected by this recall action.  Also not affected are Toyota Prius, Tacoma, Sienna, Venza, Solara, Yaris, 4Runner, FJ Cruiser, Land Cruiser and select Camry models, including all Camry hybrids.
The condition is rare, but can occur when the pedal mechanism becomes worn and, in certain conditions, the accelerator pedal may become harder to depress, slower to return or, in the worst case, stuck in a partially depressed position.  Toyota is working quickly to prepare the correction remedy.

In the event that a driver experiences an accelerator pedal that sticks in a partial open throttle position or returns slowly to idle position, the vehicle can be controlled with firm and steady application of the brakes. The brakes should not be pumped repeatedly because it could deplete vacuum assist, requiring stronger brake pedal pressure. The vehicle should be driven to the nearest safe location, the engine shut off and a Toyota dealer contacted for assistance.

Toyota will continue to investigate incidents of unwanted acceleration and take appropriate measures to address any trends that are identified.

Toyota owners who have questions or concerns should contact the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.

This is Toyota’s second recall in less than three months.  Last Fall, over 3.8 million cars were recalled following reports of the gas pedal sticking behind the driver’s floor mat.

Both recalls included Toyota’s best-selling model, the Camry.

Copyright © 2010 The Filutowski Law Firm, PLLC. This post is intended for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on any specific facts or circumstances. An attorney-client relationship is not created or continued by reading this post. If you would like further information regarding the matters discussed herein, you may post a comment. If you need a consultation on a legal matter, contact Alexandra Filutowski.

Jan
20
2010

Washington State Lawmakers Working To Ban BPA From Products for Children 3 and Younger

Following the Federal Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) changed position on the safety of bisphenol-A, or BPA, a widely used component of plastic bottles and food packaging that it declared safe in 2008 in products, The Seattle Times reports that Washington state lawmakers are pushing for new legislation that will protect children under age 3 from exposure to such toxic chemicals in products, such as toys.

House Bill 1180 is up for a floor vote, and Senate Bill 6248 has already passed out of the Senate Committee on Health and Long-Term Care.

The FDA says BPA is “of some concern.”

Tuesday’s media coverage of possible BPA risks:

In a front-page story, the New York Times (1/16, A1, Grady) reported, “In a shift of position, the Food and Drug Administration is expressing concerns about possible health risks from bisphenol-A, or BPA, a widely used component of plastic bottles and food packaging that it declared safe in 2008.” On Friday, the FDA said it has “some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.” While the agency plans to “join other federal health agencies in studying the chemical in both animals and humans,” federal “officials said there was no proof that BPA was dangerous to humans.” FDA principal deputy commissioner Dr. Joshua Sharfstein said, “If we thought it was unsafe, we would be taking strong regulatory action.”
Dr. Sharfstein explained, “We have some concern, which leads us to recommend reasonable steps the public can take to reduce exposure to BPA,” the Washington Post (1/16, Layton) added. “Sharfstein said the agency is conducting ‘targeted’ studies of BPA, part of a two-year, $30 million effort by the administration to answer key questions about the chemical that will help determine what action, if any, is necessary to protect public health.

USA Today (1/16, Szabo) reported that, along with the increased research, the FDA is “encouraging manufacturers to stop making baby feeding products containing BPA” and “wants to help manufacturers to find safer materials to line metal cans of liquid baby formula.” The FDA “also is looking into ways to expand its authority to regulate BPA, in case scientists do find definitive evidence of harm, says Joshua Sharfstein.”

The Boston Globe (1/16, Daley) reported that in precautionary recommendations Friday, HHS suggested consumers “throw away scratched cups and bottles with Bisphenol A because small amounts of the chemical can seep out and be ingested by children.”

CBS News (1/18) correspondent Kelly Wallace asks University of Missouri professor Fred Vom Saal, “How convinced are you that elevated levels of BPA in people’s bodies can lead to cancers, heart disease, obesity and early puberty?” Vom Saal replied, “I and other colleagues of mine at an NIH (National Institutes of Health) meeting said, with a very high level of confidence, we think Bisphenol A is a threat to human health.”
The San Francisco Chronicle (1/19) editorializes, “Our federal and state governments have dragged their feet in addressing the risks of BPA exposure – due mainly to relentless lobbying by the chemical industry, which has argued that the science is inconclusive.” The Chronicle notes that the FDA “deserves mild applause for reversing its position on BPA.”
Source: American Association for Justice.

Copyright © 2010 The Filutowski Law Firm, PLLC. This post is intended for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on any specific facts or circumstances. An attorney-client relationship is not created or continued by reading this post. If you would like further information regarding the matters discussed herein, you may post a comment. If you need a consultation on a legal matter, contact Alexandra Filutowski.

Jan
20
2010

Proposed Florida Bill Bans Indoor Tanning For Youth Under 16 Years

In follow-up to Monday’s blog post regarding tanning bed risks and inadequate warnings, comes today’s timely story regarding legislative efforts to protect the unknowing from serious health risks.
Florida’s Palm Beach Post (1/20, Cerabino) reports, “A national health group called Aim at Melanoma is backing a statewide legislative effort to institute what would be a tough ban on the use of ultraviolet-light-emitting indoor tanning beds by Florida teenagers.” Currently, “in Florida, melanoma is the second most common cancer type for both men and women under the age of 40.” In light of that fact, state Sen. Eleanor Sobel (D) recently revived a “bill that banned teenagers under 16 from indoor UV tanning, and required in-person parental permission for 16- and 17-year-olds.” On Jan. 19, that measure “sailed through the Florida Senate’s Health Regulation Committee on a unanimous vote.”" Source: American Association for Justice

Under current Florida law,  minors 14-17 can use UV tanning beds so long as they have an on-file letter of consent from their parents. Minors under 14 can use tanning beds only if accompanied by a parent.

Tanning has become an inexpensive activity, easily accessible to youth that offers an instant cosmetic and mood enhancement.  The instant gratification precludes teens from focusing on or understanding the possible, serious consequences of indoor tanning.

Copyright © 2010 The Filutowski Law Firm, PLLC. This post is intended for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on any specific facts or circumstances. An attorney-client relationship is not created or continued by reading this post. If you would like further information regarding the matters discussed herein, you may post a comment. If you need a consultation on a legal matter, contact Alexandra Filutowski.

Jan
20
2010

Recall of 635,000 Cribs From Sears, Kmart, Wal-Mart

Yet another nationwide recall of cribs following an infant fatality and several serious injuries from the cribs’ defectively designed door.

“In a story appearing on at least 177 news websites, The Associated Press (1/19) reported, “Barbados-based company [Dorel Asia] on Tuesday recalled about 635,000 cribs sold by Kmart, Sears, Wal-Mart and other stores after the death of a 6-month-old boy and multiple reports of injuries. The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the recall of 20 models of [the] with both drop sides and fixed front rails. Some of the Chinese- and Vietnamese-made cribs were recalled because their drop sides can detach, creating a space where a child can be trapped and suffocate or strangle.”
The Los Angeles Times (1/20, Chang) reports, “The safety commission said a 6-month-old from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, became trapped and died in one of the cribs after the drop-side hardware broke. The agency and Dorel Asia received 31 reports of drop-side incidents and 36 of slat breakage; a total of 10 injuries were reported. In a separate statement, Dorel Asia said it had learned from a safety investigator that the 6-month-old’s crib had been previously broken and that the parents had used duct tape to hold it together.” CNNMoney.com (1/19, Ellis) reported that Dorel “said the circumstances of the infant’s death were ‘highly unusual.’” “  Source: American Association for Justice

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reports that Dorel Asia cribs pose suffocation and strangulation hazards to infants and toddlers.

The cribs sold from January 2005 to December 2009, and cost between $120 and $700 apiece.  To see whether your crib is on the recall list, look for the model number on a bottom rail of the crib.

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the 6-month’s old tragic death, Dorel Asia foresaw greater risk in keeping the product on the marketplace, than recalling over half a million cribs.

On its website, Dorel proclaims to be the world leader in juvenile products: “Dorel is the largest juvenile products distributor in its categories in the world. Its products are well-recognized brands that have gained wide consumer acceptance for their high quality, safety and innovative designs [emphasis added] that incorporate state-of-the-art features and up-to-date fashion. Dorel’s disciplined, consistent approach to product development is underlined by the commitment of the various teams dedicated to innovation, quality and safety. This dedication has led to an uninterrupted flow of exciting new products.”  Dorel produces products under the brand name, Dorel Asia, among other names as well.

Additional Sources:

The Homemade Baby Food Recipes Blog

Mommy Blips

Baby 411

Copyright © 2010 The Filutowski Law Firm, PLLC. This post is intended for general information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on any specific facts or circumstances. An attorney-client relationship is not created or continued by reading this post. If you would like further information regarding the matters discussed herein, you may post a comment. If you need a consultation on a legal matter, contact Alexandra Filutowski.

Jan
19
2010

FDA May Require Clearer Cancer Warnings on Tanning Beds

For those who go to tanning beds to avoid the winter blues, build a base for vacation, or just like their skin a darker color should be warned that any amount of tanning under UV bulbs exposes you to getting cancer.  However, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) says that current warnings on tanning beds are arguably inadequate.

18-year old Katie Donnar of Illinois started tanning in the sixth grade for cheerleading.  By high school she had her own bed and was tanning regularly throughout the week.  By 17 she discovered melanoma on her leg that was surgically removed, leaving a 3 inch long scar.  She says had she known the serious consequences of her tanning, she would have made different choices.

We have heard time and time again, the sun and UV rays damage your skin – yet, it is a good source of Vitamin D and mood enhancement.

Moreover, many tanning salons pitch their beds as “safe” or “less damaging than the sun.”

Bottomline, anything with moderation may be OK.  But consumers should be adequately warned of serious consequences.  Especially when informed by tanning bed salon employees that the bed is “safe” and no outside SPFs are allowed in the bed.

Jan
16
2010

Proposed Bill Would Lower Red Light Camera Fine

Washington State Senator Jim Kastama has proposed Bill 6410, which would reduce the fine for running a red light issued by a traffic camera from $124.00 to as low as $42.00.

Senator Kastama recognizes that the traffic camera law was created to safeguard the public but has quickly shifted to an egregious revenue-generator for cities.  Representative Christopher Hearst shares a similar viewpoint to that of Senator Kastama’s, “the purpose of law enforcement is to protect and serve, not collect and serve.”

There are currently more than 20 red-light cameras in Seattle alone.

News Sources: Seattle-PI Blog, The Tacoma News Tribune, Sound Transit Blog