Blog

Although many of the commercial truck crash cases we handle are caused by some combination of speed, fatigue or distraction, some also involve mechanical failure. These mechanical failures may be discovered by a motor carrier enforcement inspection after a crash, in an expert inspection our office arranges if we are hired quickly enough, or it may be disclosed later in expert examination of photos of property damage. When mechanical problems are found after a crash, most often the root cause is in the company’s systemic failure to follow the well-established rules in maintenance management. Perhaps just as important, evidence of poor maintenance over a long period of time helps jurors believe that the company neglected everything else about safety. Federal regulations require trucking companies and key personnel involved with vehicle inspection and maintenance to understand and comply with rules on vehicle safety. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 396.1 mandates that “every motor carrier, its officers, drivers, agents, representatives, and employees directly concerned with the inspection or maintenance of motor vehicles shall comply and be conversant with the rules of this part.” Too often when we dig out the truth behind a catastrophic truck crash, we learn that truck maintenance personnel were not trained and did not adequately understand what is required. Regarding brake system, for example, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 396.25 outlines specific requirements for anyone who performs maintenance, inspection or repairs on air brake systems: (a) The motor carrier shall ensure that all inspections, maintenance, repairs or service to the brakes of its commercial motor vehicles, are performed in compliance with the requirements of this section. (b) For purposes of this section, “brake inspector” means any employee of a motor carrier who is responsible for ensuring all brake inspections, maintenance, service, or repairs to any commercial motor vehicle, subject to the motor carrier’s control, meet the applicable Federal standards. (c) No motor carrier shall require or permit any employee who does not meet the minimum brake inspector qualifications of §396.25(d) to be responsible for the inspection, maintenance, service or repairs of any brakes on its commercial motor vehicles. (d) The motor carrier shall ensure that each brake inspector is qualified as follows: (d)(1) Understands the brake service or inspection task to be accomplished and can perform that task; and (d)(2) Is knowledgeable of and has mastered the methods, procedures, tools and equipment used when performing an assigned brake service or inspection task; and (d)(3) Is capable of performing the assigned brake service or inspection by reason of experience, training or both as follows: (d)(3)(i) Has successfully completed an apprenticeship program sponsored by a State, a Canadian Province, a Federal agency or a labor union, or a training program approved by a State, Provincial or Federal agency, or has a certificate from a State or Canadian Province which qualifies the person to perform the assigned brake service or inspection task (including passage of Commercial Driver’s License air brake tests in the case of a brake inspection); or (d)(3)(ii) Has brake related training or experience or a combination thereof totaling at least one year. Such training or experience may consist of: (d)(3)(ii)(A) Participation in a training program sponsored by a brake or vehicle manufacturer or similar commercial training program designed to train students in brake maintenance or inspection similar to the assigned brake service or inspection tasks; or (d)(3)(ii)(B) Experience performing brake maintenance or inspection similar to the assigned brake service or inspection task in a motor carrier maintenance program; or (d)(3)(ii)(C) Experience performing brake maintenance or inspection similar to the assigned brake service or inspection task at a commercial garage, fleet leasing company, or similar facility. (e) No motor carrier shall employ any person as a brake inspector unless the evidence of the inspector’s qualifications, required under this section is maintained by the motor carrier at its principal place of business, or at the location at which the brake inspector is employed. The evidence must be maintained for the period during which the brake inspector is employed in that capacity and for one year thereafter. However, motor carriers do not have to maintain evidence of qualifications to inspect air brake systems for such inspections performed by persons who have passed the air brake knowledge and skills test for a Commercial Driver’s License. When a truck crash is caused, in whole or in part, by brake failure, we usually find that the person responsible for maintenance at the trucking company had no idea what a certified brake was, much less qualifying as one. In these instances when a mechanical failure contributes to the cause of a truck crash, we are likely to find in depositions of the maintenance supervisor and the truck driver that the driver vehicle inspection report was never shown to any driver, either the driver that filled out the report or the next driver. Another section of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 396.11, states: “(c) Corrective action. Prior to requiring or permitting a driver to operate a vehicle, every motor carrier or its agent shall repair any defect or deficiency listed on the driver vehicle inspection report which would be likely to affect the safety of operation of the vehicle. Every motor carrier or its agent shall certify on the original driver vehicle inspection report which lists any defect or deficiency that the defect or deficiency has been repaired or that repair is unnecessary before the vehicle is operated again.” When we dig into the records, we are likely to find the company did not comply with this rule either. Requirements for annual truck inspections are outlined in 49 C.F.R. § 396, Appendix G. However, it is not unusual to find that the person in charge of maintenance was unfamiliar with this requirement, and therefore could not credibly sign off on inspection requirements with which he is unfamiliar. That very knowledge on the part of maintenance personnel is required of trucking companies. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 396.19 requires: “(a) It shall be the motor carrier’s responsibility to ensure that the individual(s) performing an annual inspection under §396.17(d) (e) or is qualified as follows: (a)(1) Understands the inspection criteria set forth in 49 CFR Part 393 and Appendix G of this subchapter and can identify defective components; (a)(2) Is knowledgeable of and has mastered the methods, procedures, tools and equipment used when performing an inspection; and (a)(3) Is capable of performing an inspection by reason of experience, training, or both as follows: (a)(3)(i) Successfully completed a State or Federal sponsored training program or has a certificate from a State or Canadian Province which qualifies the person to perform commercial motor vehicle safety inspections, or (a)(3)(ii) Have a combination of training and/or experience totaling at least 1 year. Such training and/or experience may consist of: (a)(3)(ii)(A) Participation in a truck manufacturer sponsored training program or similar commercial training program designed to train students in truck operation and maintenance; (a)(3)(ii)(B) Experience as a mechanic or inspector in a motor carrier maintenance program; (a)(3)(ii)(C) Experience as a mechanic or inspector in truck maintenance at a commercial garage, fleet leasing company, or similar facility; or (a)(3)(ii)(D) Experience as a commercial vehicle inspector for a State, Provincial or Federal Government. (b) Evidence of that individual’s qualifications under this section shall be retained by the motor carrier for the period during which that individual is performing annual motor vehicle inspections for the motor carrier, and for one year thereafter. However, motor carriers do not have to maintain documentation of inspector qualifications for those inspections performed either as part of a State periodic inspection program or at the roadside as part of a random roadside inspection program.” The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 396.25 requires that the brake inspector must be “knowledgeable of and has mastered the methods, procedures, tools and equipment used when performing an assigned brake service or inspection task.” But when brakes fail, we are likely to find that the maintenance personnel lacked the knowledge of how to deal with a simple brake out of adjustment with an automatic slack adjuster, which disqualifies them as brake inspectors. When there is a truck crash in which mechanical problems are an issue, when we review personnel files of trucking company mechanics, we are likely to find that they, too, are deficient in training, experience or certification. While we seldom see a truck crash case in which mechanical failure is the sole cause, if hired early enough we are able to get a thorough inspection to find what mechanical issues are involved. In representing the victims of a catastrophic truck crash in which mechanical issues are involves, we work closely with experts who inspect the truck and guide us through the technical details required to build the case. Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

I love living in a rural area. I have a 45 minute commute each day and I wouldn’t change it for the world, however, in the past few years my commute has become more and more of a daily challenge. I can take a few different routes, on back roads or main roads, to get to work each morning. Lately, I have found there are several questions I ask myself each morning to determine what the best route would be. Some things I take into consideration in trying to map out my morning commute are whether there’s a “super load” coming through, and which road it is on. What condition is the road in? For instance, how many potholes, slips, etc., will I encounter? I also consider where the pipelines are going through or where a well is being drilled, because usually that means a LOT more traffic on that roadway—everything from workers going to the job site, to tractor trailers hauling heavy equipment. It’s sad when you wake up and it’s raining and you’re happy because you know you won’t have to deal with the traffic because the workers are rained out. There is no doubt that the oil and gas boom of the past several years has boosted our economy and put people back to work and I am all for that, but there’s a price to pay for all of this progress and unfortunately all of the traffic, hauling of heavy equipment, etc., has taken a toll on our local roads. They simply weren’t constructed to handle the heavy loads and major traffic that they see now. There are three major slips on a seven mile stretch of my ridge alone. These are severe slips that have taken what once was a narrow, two-lane road, and turned it into a narrow, one-lane road.  In some places it is barely wide enough for a school bus to get through which, in my opinion, is a safety concern. Most of the roads in Marshall County and neighboring counties are in very bad shape, especially the rural ones, with multiple slips, pot holes, etc. The “solution” seems to be to put out a few orange barrels or signs and have people try to navigate around the problem area, rather than fix it. I have seen a couple of really good repairs on some of the ridges but was told that the oil and gas companies are the ones who actually repaired them. We constantly hear that the state has no money to fix the roads—why is that?  I’m not really sure who should be responsible for the repairs, but wouldn’t it be nice if someone would step up to the plate and get the roads fixed for the safety of everyone?

Recently, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in Dunlap v. Fed. Signal Corp., affirmed a trial court’s entry of summary judgment for a defendant in a products liability case wherein it was asserted that the design of the siren caused the hearing loss of a class of firefighters. 247 members of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Fire were plaintiffs in a mass tort products liability action who allegedly suffered permanent hearing loss due to exposure to siren noise from the Q2B siren (“Q-siren”) manufactured by Federal Signal. The firefighters complained that the Q-siren was unreasonably dangerous and defective and negligently designed because it emits omnidirectional, high-decibel sound that, over time, causes permanent hearing loss to firefighters occupying the fire truck. The firefighters’ claim was supported by the expert testimony of an acoustics expert, who opined that a shroud could be applied to the Q-siren to divert the noise to the front of the vehicle while still meeting industry standards for warning sirens. More specifically, the shroud would funnel the noise in a cone-shaped direction in front of the fire truck, thereby reducing the noise level in the cab of that vehicle. In its defense, Federal Signal argued that attaching a shroud to reduce the angle at which the sound was emitted would render its product less safe for the pedestrians and motorists it was intended to warn, especially at intersections, as the shroud would reduce the noise level of the siren to the rear and sides of the vehicle. Thus, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (motion to dismiss) contending that the firefighters had failed to offer sufficient evidence to show that the shrouded alternative was effective and safe for all users, including the pedestrians and motorists it was intended to warn. The trial court determined that the firefighters failed to produce expert testimony to show that the proposed feasible alternative design “will provide as much protection to motorists, pedestrians, and firefighters occupying the fire truck as the design of the Federal Signal siren that provides unrestricted 360-degree noise projection.” The firefighters appealed the trial court’s decision to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court initiated its analysis by referencing the seminal Pennsylvania Supreme Court case of Tincher v. Omega Flex, which held that a plaintiff could prove defective design in two ways: 1) by showing that the product’s danger is unknowable and unacceptable to the average consumer (the consumer expectations test); or 2) that a reasonable person would conclude that the probability and gravity of the harm caused by the product outweigh the burden or cost of taking precautions (the risk-utility standard). Here, the firefighters proceeded under the risk-utility test, which required the satisfaction of the following factors: 1. The usefulness and desirability of the product – its utility to the user and the public as a whole. 2. The safety aspects of the product – the likelihood that it will cause injury, and the probable seriousness of the injury. 3. The availability of a substitute product which would meet the same need and not be as unsafe. 4. The manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without impairing its usefulness or making it too expensive to maintain its utility. 5. The user’s ability to avoid danger by the exercise of care in the use of the product. 6. The user’s anticipated awareness of the dangers inherent in the product and their availability, because of general public knowledge of the obvious condition of the product, or the existence of suitable warnings or instructions. 7. The feasibility, on the part of the manufacturer, of spreading the loss by setting the price of the product or carrying liability insurance. The plaintiffs argued that the court focused on the third factor, and incorrectly expanded it to include non-users of the product, namely pedestrians and motorists. In addition, the firefighters contended that such expert testimony is unnecessary in light of evidence that the proposed alternative design, the shrouded siren, meets all SAE industry requirements. Federal Signal argued that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment since the firefighters did not demonstrate that the alternative design was effective and did not introduce a new or greater hazard. It also argued that compliance with the SAE is not de facto proof that a siren is safe and effective. It maintained that the standard only sets minimum noise outputs in the front of the vehicle and does not contemplate the general risk to pedestrians and motorists. Finally, Federal Signal, citing to Tincher, maintained that the trial court properly considered the safety of the public, namely pedestrians and motorists, as well as firefighters in determining whether the product’s design was defective. The Superior Court determined that defective design could be widespread in the industry, and hence, evidence that a product comported with industry standards was not proof of non-defectiveness. Ultimately, the court ruled that an alternative product design’s compliance with governmental or industries standards, in the absence of expert testimony, was insufficient to establish that an alleged defective product was unreasonable dangerous. More specifically, the Superior Court agreed with the trial court’s finding that the plaintiffs required expert testimony to establish that an alternative design of the siren just as an effective warning device for all persons, such as pedestrians, as the plaintiff’s reference to the industry standard was not an acceptable substitute for such required expert testimony. Ultimately, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the firefighters’ expert’s failure to provide an opinion regarding the alternative design of the siren for the safety for “all users,” namely pedestrians and motorists was fatal to the firefighters’ claim.

Our firm handles a wide range of personal injury and wrongful death cases throughout Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia concerning tractor trailer collisions. Most of these are not simple, slam-dunk cases. Often, we have to contend with a rat’s nest of convoluted, multi-layered liability defenses. Among those is often the “independent contractor” defense. The company that is the prime mover in an activity may cloak itself behind an “independent contractor” shell game, capturing most of the profits while trying to outsource all the risks of harm to others. Effective representation of a seriously injured person requires that counsel reach the pockets of a responsible entity with sufficient insurance coverage or assets to pay a judgment. That often requires reaching behind a screen of independent contractor business relationships erected to evade financial responsibility. The general rule is that a defendant is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, but there are many exceptions. While not comprehensive, this paper seeks to outline major theories for overcoming the independent contractor defense. So first we need to ask what is an Interstate Motor Carrier? Prior to 1956, interstate motor carriers commonly sought to evade financial responsibility by hiding behind “independent contractor” arrangements. In 1953, while addressing carriers, the United States Supreme Court described such practices as “evils that had grown up” in the industry, and that the ICC need not “sit idly by and wink at practices that lead to violations of its provisions.” American Trucking Ass’ns v. United States, 344 U.S. 298, 301, 311 (1953). The history of the regulations of motor carriers reveals that after the commencement of regulation in 1935, a substantial number of carriers began to use equipment owned and driven by truckers who had no such ICC operating authority. This use was accomplished by a variety of leases, trip leases, and by other arrangements under which owner-operator truckers carried on the operations of the carriers with operating authority. In contracting with such persons, the carriers took care to constitute the lessors as independent contractors which enabled them to avoid the commission’s safety, financial, and insurance regulations that had been prescribed for equipment and drivers in order to protect the public. Many of the owner-operators without authority were itinerant truckers known as “gypsies,” fly-by-night truckers with poor, unsafe equipment who had little financial ability. They may or may not have had adequate insurance. The hard core of the problem was the trip lease and its attendant evils which permitted an indifferent carrier to evade its safety and financial responsibility. The practice of leasing made it difficult in collision cases to fix responsibility, and certified carriers could thus escape the consequences of the regulations and responsibility for accidents by employing irresponsible persons as independent contractors who were not financially accountable and who had no insurance or were under-insured. The use of non-owned vehicles led to public confusion as to who was financially responsible for accidents caused by those vehicles. Thus, interstate motor carriers often were able to escape liability for virtually all motor vehicle accidents occurring in the motor carrier’s business. Cincinnati v. Haack, 708 N.E.2d 214 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). In such cases, it was “clear that the scheme as a whole is a mere subterfuge, an unpermitted evasion, not a real avoidance of the provisions of the law.” Since 1956, federal law has treated independent contractors as statutory employees of a motor carrier in the interstate motor carrier context. The 1956 amendment to the Interstate Common Carrier Act was intended to require a motor carrier to be fully responsible for the maintenance and operation of the leased equipment and the supervision of the borrowed drivers, thereby protecting the public from accidents, preventing public confusion about who was financially responsible if accidents occurred, and providing financially responsible defendants. The purpose is “to protect persons who are injured in highway accidents, by increasing the likelihood that a substantial entity will be available to respond to any judgment rendered.” This eliminates “the defense of independent contractor by making the owner/operator of the equipment the ‘statutory employee’ of the carrier.” Shell v. Navajo Freight Lines, 693 P.2d 382 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984). The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 390.5, defines the term “employee” as, “any individual, other than an employer, who is employed by an employer and who in the course of his or her employment directly affects commercial motor vehicle safety. Such term includes a driver of a commercial motor vehicle (including an independent contractor while in the course of operating a commercial motor vehicle), a mechanic, and a freight handler.” The Regulatory Guidance to 49 C.F.R. § 390.5 , at Question 17, explains: The term “employee,” as defined in § 390.5, specifically includes an independent contractor employed by a motor carrier. The existence of operating authority has no bearing upon the issue. The motor carrier is, therefore, responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs by its driver employees, including those who are owner-operators. These regulations were intended to safeguard the public by preventing motor carriers from circumventing applicable regulations by leasing the equipment and services of independent contractors exempt from federal regulation. The definition of “lease” as “contract or arrangement” extends to any arrangement by which a carrier allows another to haul its freight for compensation. Any other construction would defeat the Congressional policy of requiring financially responsible interstate transportation. If you or a loved one has been involved in a collision involving a tractor trailer we would be happy to answer any question you may have.

The United Way of the Upper Ohio Valley held their yearly Sandy O’Haver Day of Caring on Wednesday, September 12, 2018. This event is to bring awareness to the monetary needs of our many non-profit organizations and to provide assistance with any odd jobs that need completed at their facilities. A very large group of 350 volunteers assisted in this endeavor. Bordas and Bordas was the Campaign Kick-Off Sponsor and also generously asked for volunteers from the law firm to join in and lend a helping hand to the agencies we were assigned. The Laughlin Memorial Chapel on 18 th Street in Wheeling was visited by half of our volunteers where we organized a very large storage room of paper, crafts, art supplies, books, toys, games, and a myriad of school supplies, helped to move and clear items to be otherwise utilized and/or discarded from the basement and sorted through books in the library. The other half of our volunteers went to Wheeling Health Right on 29 th Street in Wheeling where they painted two offices. We were provided with lunch and met some wonderful, giving people. Both of these non-profit organizations (as well as all those the United Way assists) are very important and this day provided an insight into what they do for members of our community. The group I was with visited the Laughlin Memorial Chapel where they are on a mission to provide a safe haven after school for many of our community’s children. Some of the programs/activities provided for children in grades K-8 range from assistance with homework, art and music activities, teen G.A.P. (Get Ahead Program) among many others, along with providing a healthy snack and sitting down to a “family style” dinner and available transportation to and from the facility. Having a broad spectrum of ages and children from several different area schools proves quite challenging but is absolutely rewarding knowing they are providing children with a good, sound place to go after school. The children know they are cared for and that they matter to God. The Chapel’s mission statement: “Continue in what you have learned…” 2 Timothy 3:14. Supporting the United Way of the Upper Ohio Valley allows them to promote good health, quality education and sound financial stability by assisting many organizations in our community which in turn provides for a brighter future for everyone. * Photos courtesy of the United Way of the Upper Ohio Valley* "Supporting the United Way of the Upper Ohio Valley allows them to promote good health, quality education and sound financial stability by assisting many organizations in our community which in turn provides for a brighter future for everyone."

Many people are familiar with the term “power of attorney,” but understanding what that means can be a little more complicated. “Power of attorney” is often encountered in dealing with a loved one’s medical treatment when that person may not be able to make decisions for him or herself, but it goes beyond that. A power of attorney is a legal document that appoints someone to handle your medical, legal, and other decisions on your behalf. There is more than one type of power of attorney, and it is important to understand the type of power of attorney that is at issue because that will affect the scope of the authority that the appointed person or agent, sometimes referred to as “attorney-in-fact,” has. It will also affect the point at which the authority granted to the agent ends. A general power of attorney grants the agent fairly broad decision-making power. This could include managing finances for someone who is incapable of doing so for themselves, making decisions about sales and purchases of property for someone else, or any number of other decisions that would be involved in generally managing a person’s affairs. Documents creating a general power of attorney may say something to the effect of “I grant this person the authority to do anything on my behalf that I could legally do through an attorney-in-fact.” A special power of attorney is similar to a general power of attorney, but limits the agent’s ability to make decisions to a particular area of their affairs or a specific situation. This type of power of attorney could specify that the agent is only responsible for deciding what life insurance policy will be purchased, or could specify that the agent can make any decisions involving one’s finances but cannot make any decisions about one’s medical treatment. The document appointing the power of attorney will specify the scope of the authority. The most commonly recognized power of attorney is probably the medical, or health care, power of attorney. Many people will encounter this phrase and documents that can appoint one as a medical power of attorney when a close friend or family member is hospitalization or in an otherwise serious medical situation. Medical power of attorney allows the agent to make healthcare decisions for a person who is unconscious, mentally incompetent, or otherwise unable to make medical decisions on their own. Even more important that these categories of powers of attorneys, however, is understanding how the power of attorney relationship is created and when the relationship ceases to exist. For all powers of attorney, the person appointing the power of attorney must be competent at the time that the document is signed and the relationship is created. Where the power of attorney is an ordinary power of attorney, the agent’s authority to make whatever types of decisions they have been appointed to make will cease to exist at the time that the person becomes incompetent. Where the power of attorney is a durable power of attorney, the authority will continue to exist even where the individual becomes incompetent or incapacitated. For this reason, most medical powers of attorney are durable, rather than ordinary. The power of attorney document can also specify the point at which the authority ends, such as once a particular transaction is complete or a date certain. In any event, all powers of attorney end at the time that the appointing person dies, and the decision-making authority does not survive the person’s death. Powers of attorney can be helpful, or even necessary, in many situations, but it is important to understand what signing a power of attorney entails and the effect that it will have. It is best to contact an attorney to help guide you through the process and to answer any questions that you may have as you make important decisions about granting your authority to have someone act on your behalf.

Hygge (prounounced Hue-guh) is a Danish word used to acknowledge a special feeling or moment. It can be alone or with friends, at home or out, ordinary or extraordinary, but it is always cozy, charming and special. Recently, I have read that Denmark is one of the top three countries in the world that is considered the happiest.  You see, the Danes have created a method called “hygge” which is an art of creating intimacy and coziness in their homes. With so many cold, dark days the simple act of a glowing candle while sipping on a cup of coffee in the morning or a home cooked meal with friends by candlelight can make a huge difference to a person. Hygge is an art of taking in a deep breath of life.  It’s making a meal at home and taking in the tastes and smells. It’s making your home a sanctuary where people feel as though they live there as well. It’s surrounding yourself in warm blankets, fuzzy socks and hot tea. In short, it’s getting in touch with your senses and being at peace. Hygge is the ability of being present and appreciating the minimalist outlook.  It’s simple. Just be happy…and they are! *Image courtesy of Unsplash

I was asked By Bordas & Bordas if I would consider doing a charity event for them, I said sure why not, what do you need me to do?  When they told me, the event was called Over the Edge to help the YWCA I was a little nervous to say the least, but for all those of you who have been falling B & B on Facebook you’ll remember for my 50 th birthday I went skydiving thanks to all of you who read about it and voted. I’m guessing that is why they thought, I’d do it. Never in my wildest dreams did I know what I was in for. Making a short promo video for the Facebook page, being filmed coming down off the building and being interview by the news & by Wheelhouse Creative (who by the way did an awesome job with the before and after promo videos, special thanks to Don, Mike and all the others who helped) I’m not good with attention being focused on me, I’m more of a behind the scenes worker. This event changed my outlook on a lot of things 1. How many people in the Ohio Valley come out to do these events, but the people who come out to support these events are truly amazing. Thank you for supporting your local organization, you can all give yourself around of applause and a pat on the back because you truly deserver it. 2.  How kind and caring others at these events are to one another, building others up and not tearing them down. (Special thanks to Paula who was my partner for going Over the Edge) 3. How grateful the organizations are to have you do these events to help them raise the money needed to keep there organizations up and running so they can help others. 4. How many of our local businesses sponsor these events to keep the cost down for these organizations. I could go on and on, but these are the four things that I think are most important. Going Over the Edge for the YWCA was and honor & a privilege for me to represent Bordas & Bordas and to help raise a little extra money on for the YWCA to give them the means to help empower women and girls in Wheeling and to help them find a safe place to go when they need it the most. If you can get out and help any local organization do it, you never know when you might need to use the service of one of our local organizations. Giving back to our community is very rewarding and very helpful to your soul. God gave you abilities, us them to help others when you can. As I’ve told so many young people when you can pay it forward do it and think of the person who paid it forward to you when you needed it. Rock On People Rock On

As was read from Senator McCain’s final letter to America, “I tried to serve our country honorably.” There have been many, many descriptive terms used in memorializing Senator McCain since his passing August 25, 2018, and, of the many, this one, I think, does quite well in summing up the many years he gave to America and the American people. Mr. McCain continued serving his country after summarily being taken as a prisoner of war and hovering near death’s door in a prison camp for five and a half years. Lt. Commander McCain followed the rules of the U.S. Military Code of Conduct. Did he simply choose to do this knowing that he may be signing his own death warrant? The Webster Dictionary defines honor as: A keen sense of ethical conduct; Integrity. He not only chose honor, honor chose him. Honor was in his blood. The blood of a warrior. His lineage decried this. His father and grandfather were both men who served our country with distinction—both four-star Admirals. The McCains can trace their military lineage back to the American Revolution. He was one the largest champions of the U.S. military and served as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services and was a giant voice for all our military and its veterans. Senator McCain was the epitome of honorable. Few can stand in his shoes. It was citizens much like him in which this country was founded and citizens such as him is where our future lies. If everyone were to pause and choose just one of his many fine qualities to be applied somewhere in our own lives this country will stand proud and resilient as ever. John Sidney McCain III, you, sir, absolutely served our country and its citizens honorably! Rest in Peace. *Image courtesy of a free website

The Bordas and Bordas law firm sponsors the KeyBank Pavilion concert series. Recently, that sponsorship allowed me to travel in a time machine back to the 80’s and have a blast. I went to see the concert involving REO Speedwagon and Chicago. I was not a particularity big fan of either band and was not expecting much other than a nice evening out. We got to the concert a little early. We sat at the firm seats, which provided a spectacular view of the stage. I looked around and saw all the "old" people in the Pavilion. I thought, “What are all these old people doing at a rock concert?” It then dawned on me that I am one of these "old" people, which just heightened my questioning of why I came to a concert two see two bands that I never had any particular fondness for while I was growing up. However, then REO Speedwagon opened the concert with one of their songs that brought me back to my high school years driving my brother’s red Vega station wagon. As we belted out “Heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another that you’ve been messin’ around” it brought me right back to the 80’s. When Chicago came on stage, the time machine continued to fly us back through time zones. Watching these men on stage in their late 60s and early 70s having the time of their lives made me realize that if you are open to allow yourself fly in a time machine, you can have a great time no matter what your age. So the next time Hall and Oates are playing, count me in even though I was never practically a big fan of them, because I am a big fan of having fun. *Image courtesy of unsplash

My wife, Brenda, and I are no strangers to Amish Country. Brenda goes for the shops and the old-time feel of the Amish communities. I go for the food. Recently, we were driving through Amish country with our granddaughters. Someone suggested that we make a stopover at “The Farm” in Walnut Creek, Ohio. Besides traditional farm animals, “The Farm” also features a driving tour where you can see and feed other, more exotic animals. It sounded like fun, so we bought the food, piled into the car, and set off on our adventure. The girls were absolutely delighted by the deer, goats, and pot-bellied pigs that lined the roadway. Most of them were a little skittish, but a few came up to the car and were willing to eat out of your hands. Naturally, the girls were thrilled. As we kept driving, the animals became larger, more exotic, and definitely more aggressive. The llamas knew the routine. With their long necks they could stretch into the car and try to steal a mouthful right out of the food bucket.  The ostriches did the same thing.  If you worked hard enough, you could feed them handfuls of food through the car window, but they all knew that the bucket was the big score. So far everything was manageable. But by the time we reached the bison and the water buffalo, I was getting nervous. Before I knew what was happening, I had giant heads with giant tongues pushing through the window and reaching for the bucket. The girls were laughing, then screaming, then laughing some more. My wife and daughter were cackling nonstop as they snapped pictures from the backseat. Meanwhile, I got slimed by a water buffalo. That only made them laugh harder. I know my granddaughters thoroughly enjoyed their ride. And if I’m being perfectly honest, I did too. If you would like to have an adventure of your own, check out “The Farm.” It’s only about an hour and a half away and its fun for the whole family. And if you’re smart like me, you’ll stop for dinner at an Amish restaurant before heading home! *Image courtesy of Unsplash