Blog

Do we really need to be reminded to stay connected with the people we love? I guess so since we have been inundated with commercials from Values.com telling us to take time to talk to our husbands and wives and call our children when we are away on a business trip. While the commercials are sweet, what has become of our society when we have to be reminded to do these things; or worse yet, being guilted into believing we are bad people because we may need an occasional reminder to remember what is important in our lives? In today’s world, there are many households where both parents find themselves having to work to make ends meet. It is not really surprising that many times it is our family who gets the short end of the stick. Everyone gets a piece of us except those who are nearest and dearest. By the time we get home and get dinner and homework out of the way, most of us find it a win when we can carve out thirty minutes to spend time with those we love. But after all, it’s quality over quantity, right? According to Today Parents it is. Now they tell me! I have spent more guilty moments wondering how I was failing my children because I had to work than I have spent actually working. Had I worked at Bordas & Bordas back then, I wouldn’t have had to miss out on all the school plays and field trips with my children since they recognize how important these events are in our lives. Unfortunately, that was not the case, so I spent a lot of time feeling like a failure for missing out on those things and envious of the stay-at-home moms that could, it seemed, do it all. Now, I find out that the quality time that I did spend with my children was more than enough to make them successful adults. And as they say, the proof is in the pudding. All of my children are terrific people and great parents. I guess I can finally give myself a break. So I say to all the working parents out there, cut yourselves some slack and give your family the quality time they deserve instead of worrying so much about quantity. While I do believe in “being there” for my family and to “pass it on” to those that might need a nudge to remember what is important, as the Values.com commercial stresses, most of us don’t really need a reminder to do these things. We have been doing them all along.

Traveling for depositions is not one of my favorite things.  It’s usually a quick in and out trip with no time for fun.  Trips to the west coast are especially hard due to flight schedules and time zone changes.  But, when I recently learned I needed to attend an expert deposition in Los Angeles the wheels in my brain immediately started to spin.  A little California sunshine would be a welcome break from the long, cold winter that we’ve had; a winter that just doesn’t seem to want to end.  I was going to need to be there at least two days: one to meet with our expert and one for the deposition.  I started to think that I might, just might, be able to make this into a little mini-break depending on the day the deposition took place.  I got lucky.  The party taking the deposition chose a Tuesday and I decided to look into making a weekend out of this trip if the airfare cooperated. Once I started checking on flights and realized airfare as actually cheaper if I went on Friday instead of Sunday and spent the weekend, I knew I could make it happen and I started contacting the people I know in Southern California to see who might be up for a visitor.  Samantha Winter, my former Bordas & Bordas colleague, is temporarily residing in San Diego and immediately extended an invitation for me to stay with her for the weekend and have a little Southern California fun.  So, on a recent cold, rainy and gray Friday afternoon, I boarded a flight to sunny California. Samantha had a prior commitment Saturday afternoon so I spent the day wandering around the San Diego Harbor area and exploring what San Diego had to offer.  I even took a harbor cruise where I got to see a good portion of our Pacific fleet and some sea lions lounging in the bay.  Once Samantha was free from her prior commitment, we watched the sunset from the Sunset Bar at the world famous Hotel del Coronado while we enjoyed one of “the Del’s” signature cocktails before dinner at a local seafood restaurant. Sunday started with a short stroll to one of Samantha’s favorite spots for an outdoor brunch.  One thing that struck me on Saturday and even more so on Sunday was how dog-friendly San Diego is.  Pups are allowed everywhere and are everywhere: in stores, in restaurants and on just about every street.  There is even an area of beach on Coronado Island reserved for dogs.  As I sat enjoying brunch in the sunshine, I thought about how much my own Cassie and Tripp and the Bordas pups Barley, Guinness and Caroline would enjoy being able to go everywhere with their people.  I could see them all making friends with each passerby they encountered. One thing about Samantha is she can be just as big of a kid as I can be.  Destination of choice for our Sunday afternoon: the San Diego Zoo.  I know Samantha was just as excited to be there as I was.  One of our first animal interactions was seeing Kalluk the polar bear having a grand time playing in the water and putting on a show for the tourists while we took the guided bus tour of the park to get our bearings.  When we got off the bus, we just so happened to pass the giraffes during the one hour that day when park visitors were given an opportunity to hand feed them.  What an experience that was! The giraffes were so beautiful, friendly and gentle.  You can barely feel it when they take the “treat” from your hand and they appeared to be smiling for the cameras -LOL. As we wandered the zoo grounds, we could not figure out why the various flocks of flamingos were so upset.  In one area, they were “barking” at the trees; in another, they appeared to be fighting with each other.  The wait to see the pandas was well worth it.  Not only did we see a full grown panda; but there was a baby panda roaming around another area playing and showing off for the crowds.  I very much enjoyed the zoo visit and can see why the San Diego Zoo is as famous as it is.  However, I think we both left questioning whether some of the animals, particularly the larger ones and apes, could really be happy there. After a walk on the beach and another wonderful dinner, my time with Samantha was drawing to a close.  Early Monday morning, I started the drive north to Los Angeles.  The view was amazing and the traffic not quite as bad as I had imagined it would be.  Once there, I met with our expert in preparation for the following day’s deposition and had a little time left over to visit the famous Santa Monica pier and walk around a little.  As I sat in the deposition on Tuesday, I could look out the conference room in the Century City tower where we were and see the Pacific Ocean in the distance.  I couldn’t help but think how nice it would be to have sunshine, mild weather and views like that on a daily basis.  On the other hand, the traffic and inflated costs of EVERYTHING in Los Angeles is not something I would like to deal with each day. A quick dinner after the deposition and it was time to head to the airport for my flight back.  I had the “brilliant” idea that I should take a red-eye back instead of spending another night in the hotel and sitting on a plane the majority of the following day.  Why sit on a plane during the day when you could sleep on a plane at night? Right?  Wrong.  I slept very little on the plane and struggled through a two and a half hour layover in Washington before finally arriving back in Pittsburgh Wednesday morning to more cold and rain.  By the time I got home, I was exhausted and my plan to shower and head to the office quickly gave way to a much needed nap. A taste of the California sunshine was just enough to help me through the remnants of winter.  It also inspired Samantha and me to start planning a trip to Walt Disney World.  Like I said before – we are both still big kids at heart.

As we noted last year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") has been given Congressional authority to trash mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for financial products and services, such as automobile loans, credit cards and checking accounts.  The Act explicitly empowers the CFPB to adopt regulations that "prohibit or impose conditions or limitations" on the use of arbitration agreements if it finds doing so to be "in the public interest and for the protection of consumers."  The CFPB is expected to announce the results of the second phase of its study early this year.  The second phase of the CFPB's study is expected to address a number of areas, including: whether consumers are satisfied with arbitration; whether consumers are aware of or have read the terms of arbitration clauses and whether arbitration clauses influence consumers' decisions about which consumer products to purchase. Late last year, the CFPB issued its phase one findings, which indicated consumers very rarely invoke arbitration and prefer class-action proceedings.  The study further indicated that the use of arbitration agreements was rampant and potentially abusive to consumers. The abusive nature of arbitration clauses and the need for the CFPB to act was exemplified in a recent decision by the Missouri Court of Appeals.  Therein, an 88-year-old “neighborhood staple," Kenny Johnson, rented a refrigerator from Rent-A-Center.  After servicing the refrigerator twice, an alleged Rent-A-Center representative came to Mr. Johnson’s home for a third time and beat him, gashed his head and robbed him. He wasn’t discovered for three days. The assailant has been criminally charged. In the fine print of the “agreement” the consumer had to sign to rent the refrigerator was a forced arbitration provision. The forced arbitration provision says that the arbitrator, not a court, will decide when the arbitration clause applies.  Here, the consumer argued that he went to Rent-A-Center to get a refrigerator, not to be beat or robbed. Too bad, the court says. Listing some very pro-corporation U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the Missouri court holds that it has to enforce the arbitration clause, and let the arbitrator decide whether the dispute over a physical assault is covered by the consumer’s contract about renting an appliance.  In fairness to the Missouri Court of Appeal, it directly stated that it was bound to follow a U.S. Supreme Court decision, “regardless of whether we agree with the reasoning expressed therein.” Of course, the consumer now must deal with the bias of the arbitrator, who is paid by the hour.  If the arbitrator finds that the case can’t be arbitrated, he or she only gets paid for an hour or two.  If the arbitrator finds that the case can be arbitrated, he or she can bill for many hours. These mandatory arbitration clauses are buried in the fine print of consumer finance, employment, cell phone, credit card, retirement account, and nursing home contracts. Just by taking a loan, a job or buying a product or service, consumers without warning are forced to give up their right to go to court if they are injured by a company.  Make no mistake the private system of forced arbitration benefits companies - and disadvantages consumers and employees.  In arbitration, there is no publicly accountable judge, jury, or right to an appeal. The arbitrators are not made to follow the facts or the law, and there is no public review of decisions to ensure the arbitrator got it right. Moreover, contracts typically name the arbitration firm that must be employed. That arbitration firm is typically one preferred by the company. These arbitrators have an incentive to favor the company, as they want to continue to be given repeat business by them. Most importantly for corporate America, arbitration is now being used to legitimize broad class action arbitration waivers in all types of consumer agreements, including consumer finance contracts. The practical effect is that companies now use forced arbitration clauses to eliminate the ability of consumers to band together, which is often the only means for consumers to vindicate their rights. Bordas & Bordas welcomes action by the CFPB, but is by no means waiting on it. Bordas & Bordas has successfully beaten back numerous arbitration clauses forced on its clients by banks, creditors, cell phone companies, nursing homes and employers, allowing its clients to proceed in a public court.   Despite the increasing number of bad court decisions enforcing arbitration, those of you who have been harmed by corporate America should not assume that these shocking arbitration clauses are valid and are welcome to contact us to discuss your rights. EndFragment As we noted last year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") has been given Congressional authority to trash mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts for financial products and services, such as automobile loans, credit cards and checking accounts. The Act explicitly empowers the CFPB to adopt regulations that "prohibit or impose conditions or limitations" on the use of arbitration agreements if it finds doing so to be "in the public interest and for the protection of consumers." The CFPB is expected to announce the results of the second phase of its study early this year. The second phase of the CFPB's study is expected to address a number of areas, including: whether consumers are satisfied with arbitration; whether consumers are aware of or have read the terms of arbitration clauses and whether arbitration clauses influence consumers' decisions about which consumer products to purchase.

Distracted driving is not illegal in all states, but it is deadly in every state.  I thought I would begin with that HUGE statement.  Don’t be a statistic.  Distracted driving and texting related accidents are on the rise. Texting on your cell phone and now talking as well while driving, without a hands free device, is ILLEGAL in West Virginia.  It is also illegal in: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington, as well as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam & the U.S. Virgin Islands.  All drivers must use a hands free device for their cell phones while driving. I have listed below a few cell phone apps that you can download:  AT&T Drive Mode, Live2Txt, DriveOff and Canary.   I am sure there are others, but these are just a few that I discovered online. DESCRIPTION:  “AT&T Drive Mode” This App is what I use on my cell phone which is a Samsung S4.  I love it.  I set it up to automatically turn on when I am driving.  It automatically responds to text messages with this statement:  “Thank you for your msg.  I’m driving, but I’ll get back to you when I get off the road.  No text is worth a life, so never text and drive. It CAN WAIT.”  You can also set it up, if you have Bluetooth, to allow cell phone calls to come through to you.  That is, if you have Bluetooth “hands free” capability in your auto. This App does not work with an iPhone. DESCRIPTION: “Live2Txt” Live2Txt is the easiest way to block incoming texts and calls while driving or in a meeting. With just a click of a button you can easily silence your smart phone from the incoming notifications of texts and calls. Live2Txt will send a customized message alerting the person that you are unable to respond. This simple application will allow you to selectively block: phone calls and incoming SMS texts, incoming SMS texts only, or incoming phone calls only. The message feature is great for parents and loved ones who want to be notified when you are on the move. Simply turning the app on and off will send a SMS to the notification number. For Android users the notification function will pair two devices for push notifications. DESCRIPTION for ESURE’S:  “DriveOFF” Mobile devices are more of a distraction to motorists than a screaming child and feeling stressed. A single beep of a phone diverts motorists’ gaze away from the road four times longer (2.30 seconds vs. 0.48 seconds) compared to standard driving conditions even when unanswered. Esure’s DriveOFF app will prevent your phone from distracting you while you drive. Once you reach 10mph the app will automatically turn off all notifications and incoming calls and display a static screensaver of your choice, instead of your distracting phone screen. Download the app:  - Choose your own distraction free screensaver - Start driving - The app detects that you are driving and off it goes! Description for: “Canary” You can go on their website and peruse all you want and the app is FREE- http://www.thecanaryproject.com/support/ Please check out the above apps for your cell phone. PLEASE NEVER TEXT & DRIVE OR TALK & DRIVE WITHOUT A HANDS FREE DEVICE. IT CAN WAIT!! IT COULD BE DEADLY FOR ANY ONE OF US!! Distracted driving is not illegal in all states, but it is deadly in every state. I thought I would begin with that HUGE statement. Don�t be a statistic. Distracted driving and texting related accidents are on the rise. Texting on your cell phone and now talking as well while driving, without a hands free device, is ILLEGAL in West Virginia. It is also illegal in: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington, as well as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam & the U.S. Virgin Islands. All drivers must use a hands free device for their cell phones while driving.

So imagine that you are involved in an automobile accident and injure another person. It is clearly your fault and you demand your motor vehicle liability insurance company to settle the claim. After all this is why you have paid thousands of dollars in insurance premiums over the course of your driving life. Fortunately, the victim makes a demand for settlement within your insurance coverage limits. However, your insurance company refuses to settle the case; and, instead, tells you that you should consult with (and pay) a lawyer to protect your personal assets. You are forced to take time off from work and family and go to trial. You lose big time and are left holding the bag for a judgment that you cannot pay and may now lose everything that you had worked for over the course of your life. What to do? On December 15, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that an insured may assign the right to recover damages from his insurance company deriving from the insurer's bad faith toward the insured. Jared Wolfe was injured when his vehicle was struck from behind by an automobile driven by Karl Zierle. Wolfe attributed blame to Zierle and demanded $25,000 from Zierle's insurer carrier, Appellant Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company. Allstate counter offered $1,200, which Wolfe refused. Wolfe sued Zierle seeking compensatory damages only; however, during discovery, it was determined that Zierle had been intoxicated at the time of the collision. Therefore, Wofe filed an amended complaint to advance a claim for punitive damages. Allstate, in turn, advised Zierle that coverage for punitive damages was unavailable under his policy and, therefore, Zierle might wish to consult with a personal attorney to address this aspect of the litigation. A jury awarded Wolfe $15,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages. Allstate paid Wolfe $15,000.00. As to the punitive-damages portion, Wolfe and Zierle entered into an agreement whereby Wolfe committed to forbear from executing on Zierle's assets in exchange for an assignment from Zierle of all claims arising under the policy, which he might possess against Allstate. Wolfe sued Allstate alleging that Allstate's refusal to settle reflected bad faith on the carrier's part because Allstate exposed its insured's personal assets. Wolfe sought damages under common- law contract theory, and per Section 8371 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §8371, which served to supplement the remedies previously available to insureds in certain scenarios involving bad-faith conduct by their insurers, inter alia, by authorizing punitive-damages awards. In Allstate v Wolfe, Allstate argued that sanctioning assignments of punitive-damages claims under Section 8371 would foster mischief by encouraging plaintiffs to pursue unreasonable settlement demands and advance bad-faith claims which otherwise never would have been initiated. Wolfe argued assignability would put the claimant on more of an equal footing with the insured's insurance company in settlement negotiations without tipping the balance against the insurer who can still refuse to settle in good faith. Furthermore, Wolfe argued that assignments equalize the strategic advantages between the insured and the insurer, where the insurer's bad faith exposes its policyholder to the sharp thrust of personal liability. Fortunately for PA citizens, the PA Supreme Court held that the entitlement to assert damages under Section 8371 may be assigned by an insured to an injured plaintiff and judgment creditor thereby offering an avenue for protection of one's personal assets.   So imagine that you are involved in an automobile accident and injure another person. It is clearly your fault and you demand your motor vehicle liability insurance company to settle the claim. After all this is why you have paid thousands of dollars in insurance premiums over the course of your driving life. Fortunately, the victim makes a demand for settlement within your insurance coverage limits. However, your insurance company refuses to settle the case; and, instead, tells you that you should consult with (and pay) a lawyer to protect your personal assets. You are forced to take time off from work and family and go to trial. You lose big time and are left holding the bag for a judgment that you cannot pay and may now lose everything that you had worked for over the course of your life. What to do?

Join Jamie Bordas and Chris Regan this week on the Bordas & Bordas Legal Review to hear them explain some of the ins and outs of auto insurance coverage. Liability, underinsured, uninsured, med pay, and the impact of health insurance will all be explained by the two noted college football analysts. As a special added bonus treat, Chris and Jamie will each give you their pick for the winner of Monday night's National Championship game. You may be surprised how that turns out! You can view the Bordas & Bordas Legal Review locally on Comcast Channel 14 or also online, both streaming and in the archive. The current episode is embedded within this post. Pick it up through the WLUTV archives here: http://vimeo.com/album/2087104/video/116372357 Check the full WLUTV schedule for other B&BLR show times and programming from WLUTV: http://westliberty.edu/wltv/2011/08/03/wltvschedule/

Following a wave of recent political efforts undertaken by insurance companies and healthcare providers, numerous states enacted harsh limitations on a victim's ability to seek compensation in the event that they were harmed by the malpractice of a doctor or hospital. The nature of these limitations is unique to the medical field and many members of the public would be surprised to find out just how severe these restrictions are. In many cases, these restrictions are so burdensome that it has become very difficult for victims of medical malpractice to seek justice for their injuries. One of the arguments advanced by the proponents of these limitations is known as the "defensive medicine" argument. The argument asserts that because doctors are worried about getting sued, they order otherwise unnecessary and costly tests just to protect themselves from a lawsuit. The argument goes that this type of "defensive medicine" drives up costs for everybody and if only doctors and hospitals could be protected from the consequences of their negligence, these costs would go down. However, the link between lawsuits and defensive medicine now appears to be a myth. A recent study published by the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine looked at emergency rooms costs in Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina; three states that enacted restrictions on their citizens' ability to hold emergency rooms responsible for acts of negligence. The NEJM report concludes as follows: "Legislation that substantially changed the malpractice standard for emergency physicians in three states had little effect on the intensity of practice, as measured by imaging rates, average charges or hospital admission rates." That is, the severe limitations on victims' rights resulted in no significant reduction in emergency room costs. I have long been of the belief that medical care costs are rising for many reasons other than medical malpractice litigation. As a result, it never made sense to me to attempt to contain these costs by severely and significantly limiting the ability of a family to seek justice when their lives had been destroyed by the careless acts of a doctor or hospital. Those who advocated for these restrictions promised cost savings to all, if only healthcare providers were better protected. At least when it comes to the concept of "defensive medicine," there appears to be good reason to wonder what we gained when we limited victim's rights. I hope the legislatures of West Virginia and Ohio will carefully study this issue and take a hard look at what benefits, if any, ordinary citizens received as a result of the damage done to victim's rights. If it turns out that ordinary citizens received no benefit at all for giving up important rights, we can take the steps necessary to correct these misplaced laws.   Following a wave of recent political efforts undertaken by insurance companies and healthcare providers, numerous states enacted harsh limitations on a victim's ability to seek compensation in the event that they were harmed by the malpractice of a doctor or hospital. The nature of these limitations is unique to the medical field and many members of the public would be surprised to find out just how severe these restrictions are. In many cases, these restrictions are so burdensome that it has become very difficult for victims of medical malpractice to seek justice for their injuries.

A deposition is a critical part of the litigation process. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines deposition as "a formal statement that someone who has promised to tell the truth makes so that the statement can be used in court; especially: a formal statement that is made before a trial by a witness who will not be present at the trial." A deposition has been defined by those in the legal community as a " witness's sworn out-of-court testimony. It used to gather information as part of the discovery process and, in limited circumstances, may be used at trial." Some say that a deposition has two purposes: (1) to find out what the witness knows and (2) to preserve the witness's testimony. A deposition, however, has far more important purposes than simple fact finding. One of the most important purposes of a deposition is to judge the appearance the witness will make before the jury. Is the witness pleasant? Is the witness likeable? Does the witness appear to be forthcoming and honest? Is the witness argumentative and evasive? Judging the appearance that the witness will make before the jury is just as important as learning what factual knowledge the witness may possess. It is the rare case where all of the witnesses agree on the facts. The jury is going to be required to make credibility determinations at trial, determine how much weight to give each witness's testimony and decide who to believe. Knowing how the witnesses will present to the jury provides crucial information, which helps to assess the value of your case, including whether the case should be settled or taken to trial. At Bordas and Bordas, we know that the visual image of a witness when he or she is testifying is just as important as the words they say so we generally videotape depositions. Having a video of the witness's testimony brings life to otherwise plain words on a page. When an attorney, adjuster, judge or juror is simply reading a deposition transcript, important clues such as tone, pauses and hesitation are lost. Whether consciously or unconsciously, people use visual clues to gauge other's credibility and honesty. A video deposition records these important components of a witness's testimony, which are otherwise in a written transcript. Two depositions I once conducted on the same day provide good examples of what would be lost if we did not have the visual component of the testimony. The first witness was a woman in her mid-thirties. She looked at me with pure disdain throughout her testimony, her body was positioned in a defensive posture and her voice in responding to my questions was one of disgust. My questions were met with audible sighs and eye rolls that would not appear in the written transcript. The hostility she was conveying was palpable and it was obvious she was attempting to evade answering any question, whether the question had significance or not. However, when she would address her counsel or answer questions posed by him, her demeanor was entirely different. Her body relaxed and her voice took on a sugary-sweet tone. Upon watching a portion of the video, one of our legal assistants commented to me that a jury would very much dislike this witness and not believe a word she says. However, had we not videotaped the witness, we would have lost that crucial information. Contrast that deposition with the second deposition I took that day, that of the first witness's supervisor. The second witness was pleasant, direct and maintained a relatively relaxed body posture. While I may not have liked all of her answers, I came away from the second deposition believing that a jury would like the witness and place more credence in her testimony than the first witness. By comparing and contrasting witnesses' demeanor during depositions, an attorney is provided with critical information on which witnesses the attorney will want to focus upon at trial. At Bordas and Bordas, we tell our clients to just be themselves and answer the questions posed directly and to the best of their ability. If they do that, they will come across to the opposing side well and defense counsel will walk away from the deposition knowing that the jury will like this person. Whether the deposition is videotaped or not, attempts to avoid direct answers to simple questions serves only to call into question the veracity of the witness's testimony. The first witness in my example above provides a prime example of how hostility and attempts to avoid answering simple and direct questions will ultimately work against the deponent. Her deposition took over twice as long as it should have taken because she tried to avoid answering any questions. In the process, she gave me great information on how she would present to a jury, including great visual evidence and sound bites that cause any reasonable juror to question this witness's credibility. She is also a prime example of why a deposition is so much more than a simple method of learning a witness's factual knowledge. A deposition provides crucial information regarding what witnesses should and should not testify at trial.

Last week, I posted on how my daughter's fifth Grade class was using sentences about the legal profession to learn how to use their vocabulary words. That first post discussed the word "aggressive." The next vocabulary word my daughter learned about was the word "associate." Her sentence read: "From the newest associates to senior partners, lawyers must research cases to find ways to support their arguments. For this reason, they often spend long hours in law libraries." That one made me chuckle a little bit. As is true for a lot of professions, technology has brought about sweeping changes in the way law is practiced and researched. The days of the law library are nearly gone and now most legal research is conducted on the computer. At Bordas & Bordas, we are at the cutting edge of this technology and have available to us very powerful research tools that would have been unimaginable a generation ago. This technology allows us to quickly and accurately identify the cases, statutes, and rules to help our clients win on important issues. Our use of mobile technology puts these powerful research tools in the hands of our attorneys even if they may be out of town at a hearing or trial. I have experienced firsthand how useful these tools can be, even in the middle of a complex argument. Beyond legal research, we also have the technology to present our clients' cases in the most effective manner possible in the courtroom. We have the tools and expertise to display to judges and juries, in "real time," the documents and records necessary to help our clients win. We have the ability to show deposition video clips during a trial. If a defense witness attempts to change his or her story during trial, we have the ability to show, on a screen in the courtroom, the same witness swearing to a different story earlier in the case. A number of our cases involve working with experts to create medical illustrations to help the jury understand the full nature of the injuries and losses experienced by the victims of a catastrophic injury. We have even created and developed a computer-generated animation that recreated an industrial gas explosion. This animation allowed the jury to visualize a complex set of engineering information and to see what impact the explosion would have had at the time. The days of the law library may be fading away, but the door is open to the use of technology as a powerful tool to help us fight for justice for our clients. We embrace those opportunities at Bordas & Bordas.

Jamie Bordas and his special guest, Christopher Regan, will be on the Bordas and Bordas Legal Review's college football mid-season edition, airing all this week. Find out from Jamie and Chris who they have in their college football top ten, which teams are likely to make college football's four-game playoff, and how Notre Dame was unfairly treated by the referees at the Florida State game last weekend. Don't miss this opportunity to receive fascinating college football insights from two experienced analysts of the game. You can view the Bordas & Bordas Legal Review locally on Comcast Channel 14 or also online, both streaming and in the archive. The current episode is embedded within this post. You can tune in to Comcast Channel 14 or watch this episode in the Vimeo archives. Check out the WLUTV schedule for other B&BLR show times and programming from WLUTV.

The other night I was helping my 5 th grade daughter with her vocabulary homework. Part of her lesson was a "fill in the blank" section that tested her ability to use her words in a sentence. It caught my eye that the sentences were all about the practice of law. This entry is the first in a series of posts that will address those sentences and what I think they mean in the context of my own experiences as an attorney. The first word my daughter had to use was the word "aggressive." After she filled in the blank, the sentence read like this: "It is a lawyer's duty to act in an aggressive fashion in order to protect the interests of his or her clients. Trial lawyers especially cannot afford to be timid or shy." I completely agree with the authors of the vocabulary textbook on this concept. I believe as a trial lawyer my clients have the right to expect that I will aggressively protect their interests at all times, guided, of course, by the limits of the law and the ethical rules designed to ensure that the system is fair to all involved. This aggressive mentality is why we say at Bordas & Bordas that we are "Fighting for Justice." What I found most helpful about the vocabulary question, however, was the word "protect." It seems as though many believe that lawyers are out to create trouble where none exists. The truth of the matter is that before someone even comes to an attorney for help, something significant has happened to them out in the world. Perhaps a loved one has died at an understaffed nursing home. Perhaps their family is being taken advantage of by a gas and oil company. Perhaps their insurance company is not making the payments they are obligated to make. It's only then that people come to us for help, to see what their options are, and to seek protection. We are lucky enough to live in the greatest country in the world with the greatest legal system in the world. Our laws exist for the protection of all of us as citizens. At our best, even the most aggressive trial attorneys serve to protect our clients and the rights that have been given to them by our legal system.

Every year, thousands of children are tragically injured or killed in vehicle crashes. In fact, collisions are the leading cause of death for children ages one to thirteen. Unfortunately, in our line of work we routinely encounter folks who have been seriously injured in automobile or tractor-trailer collisions. These incidents are often heartbreaking. But nothing is more upsetting than when a collision involves injuries to a child. Statistics shows that road injuries are the leading cause of preventable deaths and injuries to children in the United States, but correctly used child safety seats can reduce the risk of death by as much as 71 percent. As the father of a seven-year-old, I thought we were past the days of bulky car seats and five-point harnesses for her. However, I recently learned how wrong I was. Apparently I am not alone, as 73 percent of car seats are not used or installed correctly! For those of us with children, we understand how much time our kids spend in vehicles. So it's always a good idea to periodically review child car seat laws and guidelines to make certain that we, as caregivers, are doing right by our children, no matter their age, every time we put them in the car. What follows are some handy tips: 1. Seatbelts Are the Law. W.Va. Code 17C-15-49 makes it unlawful for a person to operate a passenger vehicle on a public street or highway unless all front seat passengers and back seat passengers under 18 are restrained by a seat belt. W.Va. Code 17C-15-46 requires every child under the age of eight to be in a child passenger safety device that meets applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. These are primary laws, meaning you can be pulled over and cited if you or your child are not belted. More importantly, however, keep in mind that these laws set minimum standards for child car safety. To keep your child as safe as possible, please remain mindful of the following guidelines. 2. Choose the Appropriate Child Seat. Age Group Type of Seat General Guidelines Infants/Toddlers Infant seats and rear-facing convertible seats All infants and toddlers should ride in a Rear-Facing Car Seat until they are two-years-old or until they reach the highest weight and height allowed by their car seat's manufacturer. Toddlers/Preschoolers Convertible seats and forward-facing seats with five-point harnesses All children two years or older, or those younger than two years who have outgrown the rear-facing weight or height limit for their car safety seat, should use a Forward-Facing Car Safety Seat with a five-point harness for as long as possible, up to the highest weight or height allowed by the safety seat's manufacturer. School-aged children Booster seats All children whose weight or height is above the forward-facing limit for their care safety seat should use a Belt-Positioning Booster Seat until the vehicle seat belt fits properly, typically when they have reached 4 feet 9 inches in height and are between eight and twelve years of age. Older children Seat belts When children are old enough and large enough to use the vehicle seat belt alone, they should always use Lap a nd Shoulder Seat Belts for optimal protection. All children younger than 13 years should be restrained in the Rear Seats of vehicles for optimal protection 3. Install the Seat Properly. - The seat you choose must be appropriate for your child's age, height and weight. - The seat must fit as tightly as possible in your vehicle and not move more than one inch from side to side and front to back. - Child seats go in the back seat only. - Not all child seats are the same. Refer to the manufacturer's instructions (you can almost always find them online if you have a hand-me-down seat) for weight limits, proper use and installation. - Make sure the harness is tightly buckled and coming from the correct slots (check your car seat manual). Place the chest clip at armpit level. Then pinch the strap at your child's shoulder. Your harness is properly tight if you are unable to pinch any excess webbing. - Avoid seats that are too old. Most manufacturers recommend replacing any seat over six years old or seats that have been involved in a significant crash. Although this all seems simple enough, in my experience proper installation can be deceptively difficult and maddeningly frustrating. I can't tell you how many times we were late for appointments as new parents because of car seat installation problems. I became better with time and effort, but it was no picnic at first. Even now, it can still be a time-consuming endeavor when dealing with a different car or a different seat, but proper installation is way too important not to make the effort to get it right. Fortunately, there organizations like Safe Kids, who sponsor more than 8,000 car seat inspection events across the country each year. 4. Buckle Your Children Every Time. It seems incredible to me that any parent, grandparent, or caregiver in this day and age would skip the 30 or fewer seconds it takes to appropriately secure a child, but studies have shown that 20 percent of parents with graduate degrees (versus 10 percent with high school diplomas) think it's acceptable not to buckle their children when they are in a hurry and one in three affluent parents (defined as annual income over $100,000) think it's okay not to buckle their children if they are not traveling far. These are major fallacies. Statistics show that 60 percent of crashes involving children occur less than 10 minutes from home. In 2011, in cases involving child deaths, a staggering 33 percent of those children were not buckled properly. The fact is that there is no excuse for not buckling a child the right way, every single time you start the engine. Although attention is focused on this issue during a week in September, we would do well to remain diligent about child car safety year-round. By following these tips, you can ensure that your child has the best possible opportunity to avoid injury and walk away from an unfortunate collision.