Maritime Injury Attorney Blog

We all read about attacks on our civil justice system. Tort reformers are consistently out there trying to influence the public and prejudice them against our current tort system.

One of the most well known cases tort reformers use in support of the argument that our system needs to be reformed is the McDonald's "hot coffee" case. This case consistently comes up for discussion during jury selection in a civil jury case. Most jurors have heard something about the case, but do not know all of the facts. The tort reformers promote the fact that someone received an extraordinarily high verdict for spilling hot coffee on themselves. At first blush, the verdict seems outrageous and is an example of a runaway jury, and the need to regulate our jury system. Tort reformers have jumped on this case as a good example in support of their arguments for tort reform.

As a trial lawyer who regularly tries cases, I am always faced with the issue of whether to try to inform jurors more fully about the "hot coffee" case in order to let them know there are additional facts and circumstances, they need to know or to let the jurors discuss their knowledge leave it at that.

We know that a lawyer is not going to change a juror's strong held beliefs during a jury selection process, and we also know that it is not a good practice to appear to be attempting to debate or argue with a juror. Therefore, we always look for a middle ground, which is simply to try to put in the juror's minds that there might be "more there" in some of the cases they read about that they believe is an example of a verdict that shows our jury system is broken and needs repair.

Tonight, June 27, 2011 at 9:00 p.m., HBO is going to have a documentary entitled "Hot Coffee", which is going to discuss the famous McDonald's case. In this documentary, the truth will be set forth about the case.

Continue reading "Let the Truth Be Told" »

Recreational boating is one of the greatest benefits of living in South Florida. We have the most beautiful weather in the United States. We have beautiful waters to go boating in. Whether it is going for a jet-ski ride or a leisurely cruise on a sail boat, or speeding through the waterways at high speed on a high powered Cigarette speed boat, one must navigate the waterways very carefully and be aware of the many types of accidents that can occur, and follow safe boating practices at all times. The United States Coast Guard annually publishes statistical information they receive from recreational boat casualty reporting systems. This information is then gathered and results in the recreational boating statistics of 2010 issued by the United States Coast Guard.
The following is listed as a summary of the year 2010, at least with respect to accidents that were documented:

• In 2010, the Coast Guard counted 4604 accidents that involved 672 deaths,
3153 injuries and approximately $35.5 million dollars of damage to property as a result of recreational boating accidents.

• The fatality rate was 5.4 deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels.
This rate represents a 6.9% decrease from last year's fatality rate of 5.8 deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels.

• Compared to 2009, the number of accidents decreased 2.66%, the number
of deaths decreased 8.70% and the number of injuries decreased 6.10%.

• Almost three-fourths of all fatal boating accident victims drowned, and of those,
eighty-eight (88) percent were not reported as wearing a life jacket.

• Only nine percent of deaths occurred on boats where the operator had received boating safety instruction. Only six percent of deaths occurred on vessels where the operator had received boating safety instruction from a NASBLA-approved course provider.

• Eight out of every ten boaters who drowned were using vessels less than 21 feet in length.

• Operator inattention, improper lookout, operator inexperience, excessive speed, and alcohol rank as the top five primary contributing factors in accidents.

• Alcohol use is the leading contributing factor in fatal boating accidents; it was listed as the leading factor in 19% of the deaths.

• Twenty-one children under age thirteen lost their lives while boating in 2010. 42% of the children who died in 2010 died from drowning. 44% of those who drowned were wearing a life jacket even though only half of them were required to do so by state law.

• The most common types of vessels involved in reported accidents were open
motorboats (46%), personal watercraft (20%), and cabin motorboats (14%).

• The 12,438,926 recreational vessels registered by the states in 2010 represent a 2.2% decrease from last year when 12,721,541 recreational vessels were registered.

The National Recreational Boating Safety Program has stated their mission is "to ensure the public has a safe, secure, and enjoyable recreational boating experience by implementing programs that minimize the loss of life, personal injury, and property damage while cooperating with environmental and national security efforts".

The National Recreational Boating Safety Program has created a strategic plan with eleven objectives to reduce casualties. These objectives include:

• Tracking and increasing the number of educated boaters;
• Increasing boating safety messages to target audiences;
• Increasing on-the-water boating instruction;
• Studying and increasing life jacket wear rates;
• Increasing knowledge of and compliance with navigation rules;
• Decreasing boating under the influence;
• Decreasing the number of defective vessels;
• Increasing boater compliance with vessel carriage requirements;
• Increasing the accuracy and reporting rates of reportable accidents;
• Conducting research and development of boating safety initiatives; and
• Measuring the effectiveness of non-profit organization grants.

Again, recreational boating is a part of South Florida. On a beautiful sunny day, it is a beautiful thing to see all the different types of boats out on Biscayne Bay, and out in the ocean. There are large boats, yachts, small boats, jet-skis, kayaks, all types of water crafts out there simply having a good time. No one expects to have an accident. However, the statistics such as those reported by the Coast Guard in 2010 reflects the need to be aware of all these safety concerns and to take appropriate safety precautions anytime you go out on the water.

Our firm continues to represent those who are injured or harmed at sea, and to be boating and safety advocates.

In an article that appears in the Washington Post, there is a discussion about the problem of wrong site surgeries occurring in our nation's hospitals. The Joint Commission is an organization that accredits the nation's hospitals. An alarming static was revealed that wrong-site surgery happens forty (40) times per week in our United States hospitals and clinics.

The wrong site surgeries include amputation of the wrong leg, performing the wrong operation, removing a kidney from a wrong patient, and other egregious mistakes. The mistakes are so unbelievable that they are referred to as "never events" because obviously they should never occur. However, they do occur, and the Joint Commission report suggests that the problem of wrong-site surgery has not improved and might even be getting worse over the years.

These egregious examples of clear medical malpractice involving wrong site surgery emphasizes the need for an appropriate mechanism for medical malpractice victims to receive fair and just compensation from the physicians who commit medical negligence. The tort reformers do not like to discuss statistics like this or problems such as this. Instead they try to focus on the isolated case that appears to be a runaway verdict or a verdict that appears to be unjustified.

I am sure any tort reformer who becomes a victim of a wrong-site surgery would not want to see his medical malpractice claims artificially capped by the legislation, but instead would want full and complete justice for the harms caused.

Our firm continues to strongly oppose any attempts at reducing the rights of those injured or killed due to the negligence or fault of another, including medical negligence of a health care provider.

USA Today reported that Princess Cruise Lines, which is owned by Carnival Cruise Lines, cancelled any visits by their ships to the port in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico for the remainder of the year. The reason being given is safety concerns. This move to cancel Puerto Vallarta as a port of call happens approximately three (3) months after Princess and other cruise lines stopped visiting nearby Mazatlan, Mexico due to safety concerns.

I have previously blogged about the cruise line's obligation to determine the safety of the various ports of calls it takes the passengers to, and to warn and guard against known risks in these various ports of call. The cruise line is in a much better position to determine the risks of certain ports of call, and this decision by Princess shows that this particular cruise line is taking some accountability for the safety of the passengers who may be taken to ports of call that have high crime rates.

I previously blogged about an incident where a passenger was shot and killed during gang violence in an area where it was very well known that there was a lot of gang violence. It was a known dangerous area the cruise line took the passenger into. A lawsuit was filed on behalf of the family of the deceased passenger alleging a failure on the part of the cruise line to warn of the dangers, and alleging negligence on the part of the cruise line for taking the passenger into a known dangerous area.

There are numerous reports and statistics of the high crime that is taking place in the ports in Mexico, which is a popular stopping point for the cruise lines. Princess is the first of the major cruise lines to cancel visits to Puerto Vallarta, and it remains to be seen whether the other cruise line companies will follow in the wake of Princess' move.

I give credit to Princess for taking into consideration the safety concerns of visiting Puerto Vallarta, and recognizing that those concerns outweighed the attraction of this particular port of call.

Our firm continues to be cruise ship and boating safety advocates representing those harmed at sea.

I think the word they use is hypocritical. I have previously reported in a blog about John Stossel going on TV and attacking the jury system in the United States and lawsuits in general. John Stossel continues to attack our system, and attack the attorneys who represent individuals who have been injured as a result of the negligence of others.

In his blog New York personnel injury law blog, attorney Eric Turkewitz. Turkewitz quotes from a magazine interview where Stossel referred to personal injury lawyers as his "mortal enemy". This strikes me as amusing because why in the world would Stossel need to consider personal injury lawyers as his "mortal enemy". Surely, he has more of a life than that to have to focus on personal injury lawyers as being his "mortal enemy".

As I previously reported, and Turkewitz discusses, Stossel previously ran to a personal injury lawyer in the legal system to seek redress when he was hit by a professional wrestler after calling wrestling fake.

How could personal injury lawyers be referred to as "the mortal enemy" when day in and day out they are making our society safer for people to live in, and helping the disadvantage obtained fair and just compensation when they are harmed by another wrongfully? Our firm handles Maritime personal injury and wrongful death cases on behalf of passengers and crewmembers. Our crewmembers come from third world countries. They are exploited by the shipping companies by requiring them to work excessive amount of hours, seven days a week, and at the same time paying them slave labor wages. Often times, the wages are less than a dollar per hour. The conditions they live in have been described as horrible in the past. The working environment they are subjected to is very dangerous. In fact, the fact that they are so disadvantaged with respect to the shipping companies, and that they have to work under harsh conditions, has lead to recognition by the courts that they should be considered "wards of the court", with the need for extra protection.

It is through the efforts of personal injury attorneys, like our firm, that individuals such as the crewmembers who work aboard the numerous cruise ships, are able to fight back against large corporations when they are harmed due to harmful conduct. All individuals are entitled to fight back when they get slapped, not just John Stossel. The way individuals fight back when they get slapped is through our civil jury system by exercising the constitutional right to a jury trial. While there may be stories out there where our system appears to have failed, leading to what many people would describe as runaway verdicts or outrageous verdicts, the vast majority of the cases prove that our judicial system is the greatest system in the world. It is individuals like Stossel who for some reason, has a motive or interest in attacking our judicial system and personal injury lawyers, that threaten this system.

Continue reading "John Stossel Slapped By Professional Wrestler Slaps Back With a Lawsuit; Stossel Then Launches Attacks On the American Jury System Which Provided Him the Gloves to Fight Back" »

Our firm has recently filed several lawsuits arising out of improper medical care and treatment provided to crewmembers who have been sent to foreign countries to receive their medical care and treatment by the cruise ship companies. Carnival Cruise Lines and Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, both based in Miami, Florida typically send their crewmembers to foreign countries for medical care and treatment after they suffer an injury onboard ship.

Unlike passengers on cruise ships who receive poor medical treatment from the ship's medical doctors, and are often times denied a lawsuit against the cruise ship company on the basis that the ship's doctors are independent contractors for whom the cruise ship company has no liability for, crewmembers may sue the cruise ship companies for the negligence of not only the ship's doctors, but any shoreside doctors the cruise line company chooses to treat them.

We recently received a verdict of over Two Million Dollars for a female crewmember from Nicaragua who was sent to Nicaragua to receive medical care and treatment for a knee injury. She received an improper arthroscopic surgery which led to a total knee replacement. We proved that the medical care and treatment provided in Nicaragua was improper. The evidence suggested that the medical care and treatment was provided in Nicaragua because it cost the cruise ship company a lot less money than providing the medical care in the United States. The cruise ship companies have agreements with many doctors in the United States and can easily provide medical care and treatment to their crewmembers if they chose to. However, they continue to insist that the crewmembers receive treatment in foreign countries where the medical care and treatment is known to be sub-standard and inadequate.

We have handled many cases where the medical care and treatment has been provided in countries such as Trinidad, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama, and the crewmember received inappropriate and improper medical care and treatment. We have handled many cases involving not only improperly performed surgeries, but unnecessary surgeries.

Our firm has seen an increasing number of unnecessary back fusions being performed by doctors in the foreign countries. Our firm utilizes Board Certified Orthopedic Surgeons and Neurosurgeons in the United States to evaluate these cases on behalf of the crewmembers to determine whether they receive appropriate medical care and treatment. We have seen many cases where the crewmembers receive inappropriate and improper treatment in a foreign country, and then a physician finds that the crewmembers has reached a point of maximum medical improvement and needs no further medical care and treatment. The cruise ship company then abandons the crewmember and provides no further medical treatment despite the crewmember voicing continued complaints of serious symptomotology. It is only when we are able to get these crewmembers to Board Certified Orthopedic, and Neurosurgeons, and Neurologists, that we are able to prove that the crewmember in fact needs further medical care and treatment and their condition was worsened by having received the unnecessary or improperly performed surgery.

Continue reading "Crewmember Lawsuits for Improper Medical Care and Treatment Filed in Southern District of Florida" »

The Nassau Guardian reported that a body was found from the waters off the Western New Province on June 7, 2011. This follows a short time after a passenger from a Carnival Cruise Line's ship was reported missing. The passenger, Nathaniel Wells, had rented a jet-ski on Paradise Island. Wells along with friends, rented jet-skis and agreed that they would meet up again on shore after the rental time had expired. However, Wells never showed up. The newspaper article says that there are conflicting reports regarding whether the jet-ski was returned to the vendor who rented it or whether it was simply found on the beach.

The investigation is continuing into what occurred. However, the dangers of jet-ski rentals in this area are well documented. This tragic incident again spotlights the dangers in shoreside activities and excursions cruise ship passengers participate in on a regular basis in ports that the cruise ships take them to. It emphasizes again that the cruise ship companies need to be responsible for investigating these various ports of calls to determine all of the potential dangers to their passengers, and then take actions to warn all of the passengers about these known dangers, as well as take steps to guard against them where possible. We are hearing of many incidents where passengers suffer serious accidents, including death, as a result of participation in shoreside activities that the cruise line knew, or should have known posed dangers to the participants. This includes passengers who travel into areas that have high crime rates, which is unknown to the passengers, but known to the cruise lines.

The cruise lines continue not to want to emphasize the various dangers when taking a cruise because it takes away from the image the cruise lines have worked so hard to maintain, which is that a cruise ship vacation is a fun loving, care free vacation with no dangers. While it is true a cruise is a great vacation for the family, and can be very safe, there are many potential dangerous situations associated with taking a cruise which we feel the cruise lines should be required to warn about, and take reasonable steps to protect the passengers from these dangers.

I previously testified in Congress about the need for the cruise ship companies to be more open with the public about dangerous conditions and problems onboard a cruise ship. I testified in Congress regarding issues relating to reporting of serious crimes aboard ships, as well as safety issues aboard cruise ships. The Congressional Hearings I testified at eventually led to the passage of the Cruise Vessel and Safety Act that was signed into law by President Obama on July 27, 2010.

My firm continues to be advocates for safety at sea, and to help victims of accidents and crimes at sea.

We had previously blogged about an incident involving a tourist duck boat being operated in Philadelphia that collided with a barge in the Delaware River in Philadelphia. The duck boat was carrying 37 passengers, and was overturned in the incident. ABC World News Reported on the incident on July 7, 2010.

This was not the first major incident involving a duck boat. In 1999 a duck boat had sank in Lake Hamilton in Hot Springs, Arkansas and killed 13 of 20 people that were onboard the boat.

Duck boats are interesting configurations, which were made famous as landing crafts in World War II. They are utilized by many of the local tour providers in the United States. You can see them navigating the street ways, as well as local waterways.

These amphibious vehicles are operating in various locations around the country.

In a press release dated June 20, 2011, the NTSB announced that they are having a meeting on June 21, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. to discuss the final report regarding the July 7, 2010 incident. The NTSB is charged in cases like this with the responsibility to conduct a complete investigation and issue findings of facts, probable cause for the incident, as well as issue safety recommendations. The findings of the NTSB become very significant in any litigation surrounding such an incident because although there are laws governing the admissibility of these reports which severely limit the admissibility of the findings, their findings and safety recommendations often times lead to the resolutions of any claims or lawsuits. The findings and conclusions do carry a lot of weight, and will lead to discoverability by all parties involved, investigators, attorneys, and experts, of significant information concern the cause of the incident and why the operator should be held accountable under the Maritime laws.

The Maritime law dealing with collisions on navigable waterways can be complex, and often times require utilization of Maritime experts who investigate the Rules of the Road and any violations by the vessels involved in the incident. Often times, a collision results in blame being placed on more than one vessel or boat. Under the Maritime laws, the blame for the incident in any lawsuit can be allocated by percentage of fault among the vessels involved in an incident. Often time a collision involving more than one ship or boat results in not only claims made by the passengers or crew involved, but also involves cross claims by the different vessel operators against each other. Most of the time the resolution is an allocation of fault among all involved. The injured passengers would be able to collect 100 percent of their award against any of the parties determined to be at fault under the Maritime law referred to as joint and several liability.

The law of collision further emphasizes the complexities involved in Maritime litigation, which is federal based judge made law in most part, with various federal statutes that may also apply. In addition, state law, including state statutory law, can be applicable in a Maritime case under certain circumstances. An experienced Maritime law firm will be able to sort throughout all the complexities and handle such matters.

Our firm continues to be cruise ship and boating safety advocates for those injured at sea.

The residents of Charleston, South Carolina are outraged with the increased presence of cruise ships in their historic city and have decided to file a lawsuit in order to protect their historic city.

USA Today Travel reports several groups that have formed in order to file a lawsuit against Carnival Cruise Lines, who has moved one of their cruise ships to the historic city on a year around basis. The groups that have formed together to pursue the lawsuit include the Charleston area's Coastal Conservation League, Historic Ansonborough Neighborhood Association, the Charlestowne Neighborhood Association, as well as other local groups. The complaints focus on the problems of cruise ship noise, size and pollution.

Regarding the lawsuit which will attempt to make Carnival subject to city and state regulations governing pollution, Stephen Gates from the Charlestowne Neighborhood Association stated: "until that compliance is in place the cruise ship activity probably ought not to be taking place." The Carnival Cruise Line's ship, Fantasy, sails out of Charleston weekly. It is based there year around. The main complaints are that the cruise ship is causing air and water pollution in the city, as well as increasing traffic congestion. The main result of all of this is that it is damaging Charleston's reputation as a historical city, free from these types of issues that are more present in the big cities.

At the same time this lawsuit is being filed, the South Carolina Port Authority is going forward with a plan it has for a new cruise ship terminal in Charleston that will handle larger ships which can carry up to 3,500 passengers at a time.

The port officials of South Carolina have quickly dismissed the concerns, and have written to the city's Mayor that any claim that Charleston will be "overrun with cruise ships without appropriate regulation" is nothing but "sensationalism... not borne out by any reasonable and factual assessment of the size of the Charleston cruise market."

The officials also have sharp criticism for any claims that the cruise ships are bringing people to Charleston that are not the type of people that are welcome in Charleston. The port officials stated: "the cruise passengers that chose to be tourists are representatives of the general tourist population in Charleston."

It appears the debate will continue in Charleston as to the benefits/costs of the cruise ship presence in Charleston. It has been my experience that the cruise ship company is very powerful, and based on their lobbyists and the money they bring to a particular state or city, they end up doing pretty much what they want to do, and groups such as this usually have very little success in stopping them.

There was an explosion of a tank at the port of Gibraltar, where the Royal Caribbean ship Independence of the Seas was docked. Flames burst high into the sky and there was thick black smoke filling the air space. The cruise line reported 12 passengers received minor injuries and were treated onboard.

The investigation is pending as to the cause of the explosion. Immediately following the explosion of the nearby fuel tank, the cruise ship left the pier to a safe area.

An interesting report stated that the possibility of an attack has not yet been ruled out.

Our personal injury and wrongful death firm has handled several cases involving catastrophic injuries due to explosion and fire aboard a cruise ship.