It's gut wrenching to read this. A mother of three kids, Angela Buyas, was run over and killed by a 21-year old driver late Tuesday night on SE Stark in Portland. She was walking. On the sidewalk.
According to news reports, the driver, lost control of his vehicle due to speed and intoxication. That's fairly sanitized. So a speeding drunken driver decimated a family. It's another tragic driving under the influence story. This one is even more poignant because the children earlier lost their father, and are now orphaned.
The takeaway from this horror is that alcohol + driving = disaster.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Monday, December 10, 2007
Washington Trial Judge Disciplined for Slurs
According to an Associated Press news report, the Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct censured Clark County Superior Court Judge John P. Wulle. In a public training session in Los Angeles last year, Judge Wulle reportedly referred to one speaker as, "the black gay guy." At the same forum, when the Clark County team--including Judge Wulle--was awarded a star for their performance, Judge Wulle loudly declaimed that he didn't need a star because, "I'm not a Jew."
I imagine it's tough being a judge because you're held to a higher standard. But there's good reason for that. It's hard to imagine that if you're black, gay or Jewish, you would be eager to have Judge Wulle decide your case.
Judge Wulle was ordered to undergo alcohol evaluation--some witnesses at the conference suggested that he smelled of alcohol. Judge Wulle disputes that alcohol was involved, saying instead that he had taken cough medicine. I have to say that as a trial lawyer, I would have derived more comfort from an admission of alcohol abuse, as it seems a lot less chilling than thinly concealed racial, religious and sexual orientation prejudices.
According to the news report, Judge Wulle was initially dismissive of complaints about his conduct. While he has since issued an apology of sorts--as in I didn't mean to offend anyone--it seems like there's a shortage of insight and willingness to confront some nastiness. Judge Wulle must also undergo judicial ethics and diversity training. Here's hoping it opens his eyes, as everyone deserves a judge who can be fair.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
I imagine it's tough being a judge because you're held to a higher standard. But there's good reason for that. It's hard to imagine that if you're black, gay or Jewish, you would be eager to have Judge Wulle decide your case.
Judge Wulle was ordered to undergo alcohol evaluation--some witnesses at the conference suggested that he smelled of alcohol. Judge Wulle disputes that alcohol was involved, saying instead that he had taken cough medicine. I have to say that as a trial lawyer, I would have derived more comfort from an admission of alcohol abuse, as it seems a lot less chilling than thinly concealed racial, religious and sexual orientation prejudices.
According to the news report, Judge Wulle was initially dismissive of complaints about his conduct. While he has since issued an apology of sorts--as in I didn't mean to offend anyone--it seems like there's a shortage of insight and willingness to confront some nastiness. Judge Wulle must also undergo judicial ethics and diversity training. Here's hoping it opens his eyes, as everyone deserves a judge who can be fair.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Friday, December 7, 2007
Bush Mortgage Bail Out: Thin at Best
With great fanfare, President Bush announced yesterday a new program that would freeze adjustable rate mortgage increases on subprime mortgages. Sounds great, until you review the fine print.
The freeze in rate increases is only available for those with subprime mortgages. Further, it is only available for those who are current on their mortgages and only if there has been no increase already.
A number of lenders went to great lengths to lend money, including using artificially lower interest-only adjustable rate mortgages, mortgages with tremendous balloons, and artificially discounted teaser rates.
The Bush plan applies to an estimated 10 to 15 percent of borrowers who are at risk of foreclosure. That's thin, at best.
At the same time, regulation of lending is lax at best. Oregon, for example, sets no legal underwriting standards. Oregon allows lenders to penalize early payment. Oregon allows refinancing even when doing so does not benefit the lender.
For those who qualify, the President's provision may provide some breathing room. On the other hand, it may merely create future problems for those who get the benefit of the freeze. Regardless, you have to wonder what they were intending to do when they created this great bailout for 10 percent of consumers who are at risk.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The freeze in rate increases is only available for those with subprime mortgages. Further, it is only available for those who are current on their mortgages and only if there has been no increase already.
A number of lenders went to great lengths to lend money, including using artificially lower interest-only adjustable rate mortgages, mortgages with tremendous balloons, and artificially discounted teaser rates.
The Bush plan applies to an estimated 10 to 15 percent of borrowers who are at risk of foreclosure. That's thin, at best.
At the same time, regulation of lending is lax at best. Oregon, for example, sets no legal underwriting standards. Oregon allows lenders to penalize early payment. Oregon allows refinancing even when doing so does not benefit the lender.
For those who qualify, the President's provision may provide some breathing room. On the other hand, it may merely create future problems for those who get the benefit of the freeze. Regardless, you have to wonder what they were intending to do when they created this great bailout for 10 percent of consumers who are at risk.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Ford Recalls SUVs, Vans and Trucks for Engine Flaw
Through the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, Ford announced the recall of some 1.2 million SUVs, vans and trucks for an electrical system problem that can cause engine stalls. According to the NHTSA web site, the camshaft position sensor located on the engine of the vehicle may function intermittently, possibly resulting in an engine stall and crash.
Affected vehicles are equipped with the 7.31 diesel engine for the Ford E Series, Excursion, F-450 Superduty and F-550 Superduty for model years 1997-2003.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Affected vehicles are equipped with the 7.31 diesel engine for the Ford E Series, Excursion, F-450 Superduty and F-550 Superduty for model years 1997-2003.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Federal Jury Finds for Oregon Welder in Toxic Injury Case
A federal jury in Cleveland, Ohio found that an Oregon welder suffered serious injuries from exposure to toxic welding fumes. For years, welders have claimed that manganese fumes from welding causes profound damage to the nervous system. The problems appear similar to Parkinson's disease, with brain damage that affects movement and memory.
Approximately 3,000 cases are pending in Cleveland. Previously, the manufacturers had won most cases; however, the multi-million dollar verdict in this case may represent a turning point in the litigation.
In this era of mass-production, when many people are injured by the same misconduct, there seems to be a fairly predictable pattern in litigation. In almost all cases, the company wins the early cases because it is hard for injured consumers to fully investigate and understand what happened. Later cases build upon the early failures, and consumers or workers often break through with a major victory. At that point, it is not unusual for consumers and workers to achieve a critical mass that allows them to establish higher and higher verdict values by repeatedly trying cases for the same injuries.
Perhaps this is victory represents a turning point for welding workers who are seeking justice.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Approximately 3,000 cases are pending in Cleveland. Previously, the manufacturers had won most cases; however, the multi-million dollar verdict in this case may represent a turning point in the litigation.
In this era of mass-production, when many people are injured by the same misconduct, there seems to be a fairly predictable pattern in litigation. In almost all cases, the company wins the early cases because it is hard for injured consumers to fully investigate and understand what happened. Later cases build upon the early failures, and consumers or workers often break through with a major victory. At that point, it is not unusual for consumers and workers to achieve a critical mass that allows them to establish higher and higher verdict values by repeatedly trying cases for the same injuries.
Perhaps this is victory represents a turning point for welding workers who are seeking justice.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Friday, November 30, 2007
Supreme Court Considering Far-Reaching Cases This Term
I remember as kid growing up in Texas that a generalized fear settled in when the Texas legislature convened every other year for its regular sessions. The general sentiment of those of us who didn't own oil wells, ranches or corporations was, "Quick, nail everything down tight. They're going back into session."
When it comes to consumer safety, it may be that the U.S. Supreme Court will come to resemble the Texas legislature. This term, the Court considers whether federal regulations will preempt state law claims in injury cases.
What does that mean?
Preemption is a legal term that describes the relationship between federal law and the laws of the states. Because federal law is supreme, Congress can make laws that displace state rules. Sometimes this is a good thing. For example, without preemption, states would be free--if they chose--to allow slavery. That, of course, is unacceptable.
Unfortunately, preemption can also be used to eliminate consumers' access to the courts. In the pending case of Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., the Court will hear a claim from the manufacturer of a potentially dangerous catheter that it should not face a claim from a consumer who died when the product malfunctioned, even if it was defectively designed. Medical equipment manufacturers are relying on the Medical Device Amendments, claiming that Congress eliminated the rights of injured consumers to sue for damages when injured by careless manufacturers.
Maybe the Court will steer by principle and stick with the well-developed rules that consumers retain the ability to have a jury decide whether the manufacturer was in the wrong. Or maybe it's a new era reminiscent of the Texas legislature. The Court hears argument in early December, with a decision expected by June.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
When it comes to consumer safety, it may be that the U.S. Supreme Court will come to resemble the Texas legislature. This term, the Court considers whether federal regulations will preempt state law claims in injury cases.
What does that mean?
Preemption is a legal term that describes the relationship between federal law and the laws of the states. Because federal law is supreme, Congress can make laws that displace state rules. Sometimes this is a good thing. For example, without preemption, states would be free--if they chose--to allow slavery. That, of course, is unacceptable.
Unfortunately, preemption can also be used to eliminate consumers' access to the courts. In the pending case of Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., the Court will hear a claim from the manufacturer of a potentially dangerous catheter that it should not face a claim from a consumer who died when the product malfunctioned, even if it was defectively designed. Medical equipment manufacturers are relying on the Medical Device Amendments, claiming that Congress eliminated the rights of injured consumers to sue for damages when injured by careless manufacturers.
Maybe the Court will steer by principle and stick with the well-developed rules that consumers retain the ability to have a jury decide whether the manufacturer was in the wrong. Or maybe it's a new era reminiscent of the Texas legislature. The Court hears argument in early December, with a decision expected by June.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Comcast Loses Another Arbitration Clause Case
In September 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit followed a clear trend when it ruled that Comcast could not enforce its mandatory arbitration clause against subscribers who brought an overcharge case against Comcast. In Dale v. Comcast Corp., 498 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2007), the Court ruled that the arbitration clause was unconscionable and unenforceable because it made consumers’ pursuit of claims nearly impossible.
The case is part of a growing trend in which federal and state courts are scrutinizing mandatory arbitration clauses. Full disclosure: Paul & Sugerman represents consumers in litigation against Comcast and has successfully fought the Comcast arbitration clause in Oregon. That case--Martin v. Comcast--is still pending.
The problem with mandatory arbitration clauses is that they are often one-sided and unfair. A requirement that both parties go to arbitration isn’t necessarily so bad IF both sides agree. But often these clauses are buried in fine print. Worse, they frequently contain other provisions that hurt consumers, like limits on recovery of attorneys fees, prohibitions on class actions, and elimination of certain types of damages. The one-way clause often includes a choice of arbitration services that favor large corporations. In the end, it’s often about as fair as a rigged ring toss at a carnival.
It’s nice to see things turning back toward the middle. This is one area in which the pendulum went way out of whack.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
The case is part of a growing trend in which federal and state courts are scrutinizing mandatory arbitration clauses. Full disclosure: Paul & Sugerman represents consumers in litigation against Comcast and has successfully fought the Comcast arbitration clause in Oregon. That case--Martin v. Comcast--is still pending.
The problem with mandatory arbitration clauses is that they are often one-sided and unfair. A requirement that both parties go to arbitration isn’t necessarily so bad IF both sides agree. But often these clauses are buried in fine print. Worse, they frequently contain other provisions that hurt consumers, like limits on recovery of attorneys fees, prohibitions on class actions, and elimination of certain types of damages. The one-way clause often includes a choice of arbitration services that favor large corporations. In the end, it’s often about as fair as a rigged ring toss at a carnival.
It’s nice to see things turning back toward the middle. This is one area in which the pendulum went way out of whack.
David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
