Missouri Injury Law Blog

Each year in the United States there are well over 1 million people who suffer from some sort of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Of that, between 50,000 and 100,000 people die from a TBI incident and approximately 80,000 to 90,000 are left with some sort of long lasting TBI impairment. Often times those injured must report to a hospital and/or specialty care facility and undergo some kind of rehabilitative treatment, like that offered at CareMeridian. While TBI can be caused by any number of incidents, falls, assaults, etc. many (as much as 20%) are caused by automobile accidents. Many of these automotive accidents are due to drunk or impaired driving. Young adults have a high incidence of TBI due to automotive accidents, and a large number of these involve alcohol or other mentally impairing drugs.

While drunk driving related Traumatic Brain Injuries are high there are measures that can be taken to prevent such incidents, the most important being don’t drive when impaired by alcohol or any other mind altering substance. Drunk driving is illegal in all 50 states and due to the recent increased enforcement of these laws TBI incidences have been on the decline. Nonetheless precautions should always be taken to reduce the likelihood of a drunk driving accident.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Drunk Driving Law

Bookmark:

Record Missouri Verdict - Drunk Driving Accident in Franklin County

Recently a Franklin County jury returned a massive Missouri wrongful death verdict stemming from a death resulting from a drunk driving collision. Sansone Law has handled multiple drunk driving personal injury cases and often the likelihood of these massive verdicts facilitates very favorable settlements in favor of our clients.

Our prior Missouri and Illinois drunk driving personal injury settlements and ongoing cases:

Illinois drunk driving lawsuit - settled for policy limits

$575,000.00 Settlement - Traumatic Head Injury resulting from Illinois drunk driving collision

Good Samaritan injured by Missouri drunk driver, ongoing St Louis personal injury lawsuit

Four Illinois teens severely injured in Illinois drunk driving collision - personal injury lawsuit filed.

Drunk Driving accident case referred to Sansone Law for personal injury lawsuit and trial

Auto dealer vehicle involved in drunk driving accident - Personal injury claims of negligence, recklessness, and negligent entrustment

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injury Law , Drunk Driving Law

Bookmark:

Back in early 2008 we were retained as the injury lawyers by the victim of a Belleville Illinois drunk driving crash at a major intersection. Initially, the victim retained a different personal injury law firm who secured a settlement offer of just under $50,000, however, the victim did not want to accept and the previous attorneys did not believe the case was worth more than that offer. We immediately filed a lawsuit on her behalf and eventually settled the case for the policy limits of $100,000.00.

The personal injury lawyers at Sansone Law at not looking for a quick settlement but will put all the necessary hard work into your case to make sure the absolute best result is obtained, as in the case above.

Our Missouri and Illinois personal injury law firm has handled and is currently handling many drunk driving accident cases in Missouri and Illinois. Personal injury lawyer Ben Sansone spent many years of his practice defending DWI cases and has extensive knowledge of all the tests, procedures, and facts necessary to prove the other driver was intoxicated in the civil case and thus open the defendant up to aggravated liability.

See below links of previous posts regarding the above case:

Illinois Drunk Driving Personal Injury Lawsuit

Illinois Drunk Driving Lawsuit - Complaint with Punitive Damages

The above link discusses an Illinois Complaint that includes punitive damages. In both Missouri and Illinois the rules of civil procedure require you initially file the lawsuit without punitive damages claim, gather the necessary evidence to support a punitive damages claim then file a motion for leave to amend the complaint and add punitive damages. This is technically the rule, however, it has been my experience that if you initially file the punitive damages claim by the time the defense files a motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff not obtaining leave as described above, the evidence has already been gathered and the court will grant the leave for punitive damages at the same hearing the defense is trying to get it stricken.

this is the approach I take when the evidence is overwhelming that the driver was intoxicated and we usually have evidence of a plea of guilty or a conviction prior to filing the case.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Drunk Driving Law , Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

The recent enactment of legislation in Missouri requires an ignition interlock on drivers who have been convicted of two or more DWI charges, thus making the roadways safer for all drivers. RSMo. 577.600 upheld that this is required on all vehicles that are operated by such repeat convicted offenders and is a required condition of the limited driving privilege for a short period. Only three states in the nation do not have any laws that require ignition interlock devices: Alabama, South Dakota, and Vermont. However, the rest of the nation believe that mandatory ignition interlocks are a necessary need for repeat DWI offenders; 85% of the general public agree with this law and offenders themselves believe it is essential towards helping to curb their addiction with drinking and driving.

Missouri was one of the first states to implement this law for repeat offenders; ten other states have issued the law as prudent for first time DWI offenders, while many other states offer discretionary status of the law. The ignition interlock has been hailed as one of the most effective tools in the fight against drunk driving. Statistics in Missouri alone have revealed that almost 20 percent of highway deaths are a result of drunk driving, many of which were double the legal limit. This new device helps in ending the decades long debate against drunk driving while not infringing on public liberties. It is more useful in noting that offenders themselves believe this sanction to be fair and effective in forcing them to remain sober when operating their vehicle.

The ignition interlock device works by requiring the driver to blow into a type of breathalyzer which does not turn on the engine if the BAC is higher than a predetermined amount, usually around .025 in Missouri. Additionally, many interlock devices now require that the driver blow into them a second time while the car is in motion to guarantee that the driver themselves was the person blowing into the device (many times, a friend initially blows into the device). This second testing is not mandatory on all of the devices, but is an important aspect to guaranteeing the safety of roads from repeat offenders. If the driver fails this test, however, the car does not shut itself off as this is dangerous on a busy street, but rather sets of the alarm and causes the car to honk and flash unless the vehicle stops. This is important to alerting law enforcement to the driver’s condition; the device itself cannot stop the car once it is running, but this method is effective in causing the driver to stop the car.

Thus far, the device has been very effective in curbing the persistence of drunk drivers who continue their repeat behavior after multiple convictions. While many states have passed this law after first-time offenders, Missouri remains in the range of multiple convictions. It therefore becomes important to decide whether or not it should be made a mandatory device of first-time offenders. Organizations such as MADD list the fact that most first-time offenders have driven drunk around 87 times before they are pulled over for a first offense. This consequently determines that the device should be mandatory for many first-time offenders because of their previous actions, although Missouri has yet to include this in the law thus far. The addition of this law in general has proven to be a milestone in preventing repeat drunk drivers and has helped to ensure the general public’s safety on roadways.

This post was contributed by Kimberly Peterson, who writes about the criminal justice degree online. She welcomes your feedback at KimPeterson2006 at gmail.com

This was a contribution by a visiting author not associated with Sansone Law, LLC and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of Sansone Law, LLC or Missouri InjuryLaw Blog or any of its personal injury lawyers or staff.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drunk Driving Law

Bookmark:

If you are the injured victim of a drunk driving accident in Missouri, Illinois, or any other state your personal injury lawyer should know that the drunk driver cannot insulate himself from liability by declaring bankruptcy. The Federal bankruptcy law is very clear on this point. See, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(9) exceptions to bankruptcy discharge include "(9) for death or personal injury caused by the debtor’s operation of a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft if such operation was unlawful because the debtor was intoxicated from using alcohol, a drug, or another substance"

As discussed in a previous entry, I am currently handling a case where a drunk driver slammed into the rear of my client's car when she was waiting at a stop light in Belleville IL. See Drunk Driving Car Accident Picture and ALLSTATE UNDERHANDED NEGOTIATION TACTICS Allstate has refused to settle the case for a reasonable amount and when my client refused to accept their low offer Allstate, through their insurance lawyers and the insured drunk driver, threatened that their insured, the drunk driver, would declare bankruptcy if my client did not take their low offer for settlement of her Illinois drunk driving personal injury claim as a result of Allstate's insured drunk driver.

After calling Allstate out on their misrepresentation about the law they now claim, through their lawyer, that only punitive damages would be prevented from discharge in bankruptcy and all the compensatory damages would be discharged; another blatant misrepresentation of the law. The motivation behind this bad faith action by Allstate is two fold:

1. They want their insured feel safe that any judgment over the policy limits will not come back on him personally. This is done to explain to their insured why they are not settling a drunk driving case within policy limits when we are willing to do so. Thus opening their insured up to an excess judgment.

2. Allstate, through their lawyers, are hoping that I am stupid and will fall for their threat of bankruptcy and convince my client to take their low offer. Fortunately, I did not sleep through law school. Additionally, as a Missouri and Illinois personal injury lawyer, I have argued this point in past cases in federal court, and it is clear that a drunk driver's liability cannot be discharged.

Allstate is willing to sell out their insured and make ridiculous legal claims in order to save a buck and try to protect a drunk driver that seriously injured my client. This is coming from the self proclaimed "Good Hands" people, that when they take off those white gloves expose their truly dirty hands with their bad faith negotiation tactics.

SAMPLE PETITION - Prevent Discharge of Judgment or other Debt Arising From Drunk Driving Car Accident - Prevent at Fault Drunk Driver from Avoiding Liability by Declaring Bankruptcy

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injury Law , Automobile Accidents , Drunk Driving Law

Bookmark:

I handle a lot of DWI and DUI cases in Missouri and Illinois and have seen a lot of very interesting cases. As a DWI lawyer, it is disturbing, the number of cases wherein the police blatantly step over the line of proper policing by consistently stopping people solely on the the gamble that if a person is driving late at night on a weekend, and particularity a holiday weekend, that they are drunk driving.

Two drunk driving cases I recently handled last month highlight this abuse and the descriptions below are based on undisputed facts:

1. Designated driver goes through a sobriety checkpoint in a convertible, police officer interviews him briefly, indicates he is fine, and tells him to proceed. Well, the driver was taking his friends to a local gas station for beer and on the way back the same officer accused him of drinking and driving and ran him through a battery of field sobriety tests and arrested him without probable cause, why? because there was a case of beer in the back of the car. No other possible explanation for the harassment.

2. Police stop my client who was driving an ATV, specifically, a Rhino 660, which is a side by side seater 4 wheeler that essentially looks like a small jeep. The officer stopped him because he was on the road for a brief time to get to his neighbors property. The officer arrested him for DWI and illegal operation of an ATV on the road. Again, ridiculous! The Missouri definition of an ATV that is illegal to drive on the road is less than 600lbs, straddle seating as opposed to side by side, handlebars as opposed to a steering wheel, and less than 50: wide. My client's vehicle clearly, upon simply looking at it, did not fall under any of these specifications.

My advice to the police, enforce the laws on the books and stop using the ends to justify the means of arrest through harassment an blatantly unfounded charges. I vigorously fight these cases.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drunk Driving Law

Bookmark:

To my dismay as a DUI and DWI Lawyer, Gov. Matt Blunt recently signed legislation closing a claimed "loophole" in Missouri law that required the use of a non-alcohol swab when taking a blood test. If an alcohol swab is used the result is inadmissible in court.

How is this a loophole? Requiring police to properly administer a blood draw, that's a loophole? It is not difficult or unreasonable to require the use of an iodine swab or other permissible disinfectant, in fact most police carry blood draw packs that have all the necessary and previously allowed disinfectants.

On July 2, 2007 HB 574 was signed into law. It was prompted by a 2004 DWI arrest of Rep. Charles Portwood, R-Ballwin, following a one vehicle accident when his vehicle ran through a fence and hit a pool house.

The Officer that arrested him used an alcohol swab to draw the blood, therefore, the result was inadmissible and supposedly forced the prosecutor to drop the case. This is the excuse used to pass this law.

Fact is, almost everybody who refuses a test (therefore no BAC result) are still prosecuted, why? because your demeanor, smell, speech and other factors observed by the officer are admissible to show intoxication and are enough to convict you, granted it makes it harder.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drunk Driving Law

Bookmark: