Blog

The summer is a great time to be outdoors doing fun activities and enjoying the nice weather. But there are some things to keep in mind to ensure that you and your family are having a healthy and safe summer while still having fun. Wear sunscreen. By now, everyone is well aware of the many dangers that the sun can pose to our skin and the importance of wearing sunscreen. However, many people still think that the standard SPF 15 or 30 will be sufficient to protect them from harmful UV rays. While the CDC recommends use of an SPF 15 at minimum, many dermatologists recommend SPFs of much higher, particularly on one’s face. Additionally, even with application of sunscreen, other protective methods such as hats, clothing, and umbrellas should also be used, and sunscreen should be reapplied frequently, especially after swimming, sweating, or toweling oneself off. Be smart about watersports. Boating, waterskiing, tubing, kayaking, or canoeing are a great way to relax and enjoy nice weather outdoors, but these activities should be undertaken in a safe and conscientious manner. Lifejackets are a must and should be worn whenever possible. Each state has its own laws and regulations about life jacket availability and use, especially for children, and you should always check those out before heading out on the water to be sure you will be in compliance. Additionally, even though it can be fun to have a nice cold beer while out on the water, it is important to remain alert and aware while participating in water sports. Make sure to have a designated driver of any boat and stay on drive land if you feel the effects of alcohol, which can alter your judgment, reaction time, and muscle movement, all of which are important to remain on the water. Similarly, taking photos is a fun way to document your good times, but be conscious not to become so distracted with taking videos or selfies that you put yourself at risk of losing control of a kayak, boat, or yourself. Enjoy fireworks safely and legally. Fireworks are one of the things that makes summer special, but every year they contribute to injuries, deaths, or close calls. States have specific laws for purchase, possession, and use of consumer fireworks, and there may be various levels of regulations depending on the area where you may want to set off fireworks. Laws may also be seasonal or by date. You should take a look into any regulations that apply to your area before purchasing or attempting to set off fireworks on your own. A better option may be to check where fireworks will be set off in your area by professionals, as shows are usually free, pretty spectacular, and can be enjoyed from a safe distance!

I recently published two blog entries which reviewed the various factors that go into determining the settlement value of a client’s claim. Each of those previously-discussed factors play an important part in determining what an insurance company will be willing to pay in order to settle your case. There is, however, one final consideration that we need to discuss. This factor is often overlooked by injured parties, but I assure you that it is a critical consideration for insurance carriers. The “final factor” in determining the value of your case is the firm that is representing you. When I say this, I’m not simply talking about the firm’s reputation for competence. In order to get the maximum value for your claim, an insurance carrier has to be convinced that if they do not offer you full and fair compensation for your injuries and damages, the law firm representing you will not hesitate to take your case to trial. Believe me, if you don’t think this is an important consideration to the insurance company defending against your case, you don’t truly understand how those companies operate. For the first ten years of my career, I worked as an insurance defense attorney. If a person caused an automobile accident and later got sued, I was the person the insurance company hired to defend the case. My firm worked for Nationwide, Allstate, Liberty Mutual, and dozens of other insurance companies too numerous to recall or list here. Each and every one of the companies we worked for was driven by one prime directive: they wanted to hang onto as much of their money as possible, and they want to hang onto it for as long as possible. So, how does the law firm you choose factor into the settlement value equation? It’s simple, really. The insurance company needs to know for an absolute fact that if they don’t pay the amount you and your attorney are demanding in settlement negotiations, they are going to end up in trial. Insurance companies don’t like going to trial. Why? Because going to trial costs them money. Lots and lots of money. Insurance defense lawyers charge as much as $400 per hour or more to prepare and try cases. When you factor preparation time on top of actual time in the courtroom, defense trial costs can add up to a very big number. Insurance companies don’t like big numbers. They want to hang onto that money. Back in my days as an insurance defense attorney, adjusters frequently asked me about the reputation of the lawyer representing the injured party. “Is this a guy who will take us to trial?” If my response was in the affirmative, the company was almost always willing to pay more. The carriers knew, and they still know, which lawyers will fold, and which ones will take them to trial. I can truthfully tell you that anytime I was handling a case where Jim Bordas was on the other side, the settlement value went up, simply because the carrier knew Jim was not afraid to try cases. He has instilled the importance of that reputation into every attorney here at Bordas & Bordas. Each year, the attorneys in our firm take multiple cases to trial in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Already this year our firm has taken several cases to trial, obtaining, for instance, a multi-million-dollar verdict in a Pennsylvania medical malpractice case. Those are the types of verdicts that cause insurance companies to sit up and take notice, and those success stories translate into higher settlement values for our cases. There’s a story I enjoy telling about a case Jim Bordas tried thirty years ago. I was a partner at the insurance defense firm mentioned earlier, and I was sitting in court with a less-experienced attorney from our firm who was in trial for the first time. Jim had made a settlement demand prior to trial, and the insurance company had rejected it. Without going into a lot of detail, let’s just say that things didn’t go well for us at the outset of the trial. I asked the judge for a break and approached Jim about settlement again. I asked him if the demand he had made before trial was still on the table. He told me it was not, and that the plaintiffs’ demand had increased. I talked to the insurance company, and we paid the increased demand. Raising the price was Jim’s way of telling the insurance company that if you forced him to trial, you would pay a price for doing so. That is the attitude Jim demands of every attorney at Bordas & Bordas. It truly makes a difference.

One of the most common reasons an individual may hire an attorney is after they are involved in a car accident. When that person meets with an attorney one of the first questions that they may ask surrounds what the insurance claim process is like, how long will it take for their automobile claim to be resolved, how will they pay for their medical treatment, etc. Although these questions from injured individuals come up time and time again, the main confusion people experience in regard to the letters and calls they get from insurance companies after any type of accident is – why are they asking me that specific information? What are they evaluating? What do they take into consideration in determining if they are going to pay anything on my claim? Although each accident and insurance claim is unique and fact specific to that accident and the type of insurance coverage that applies, there are some general considerations that insurance companies may take into consideration when evaluating your claim. Among these are some of the following: 1.      The circumstances surrounding the accident: Who was at fault? Was anyone cited for their actions? Were there environmental factors leading to the accident? How many people were involved? What was the impact of the collision like? 2.       Your injuries: Were you taken to the hospital via ambulance? When did you begin to treat for your injuries? How serious are your injuries? Are your injuries of a permanent nature? What course of treatment must you take part in? How much in medical bills have you accumulated because of your treatment? 3.       The effect of the accident on your daily life: Did you miss any work? If you did not miss any work, were any of your work activities limited? Have you been able to return to work? Have you been required to take a different type of job? 4.       The effect of the accident on your relationship with your family: Were you unable to complete any household responsibilities because of your injuries? Did your spouse have to take on more responsibilities while you recovered from the accident? Were you able to continue to fully care for your children or were alternate arrangements required to be made? As you can tell, there are a number of factors that go into an insurance company’s evaluation of what your claim is worth after an automobile accident, these are just a few examples of the type of evaluation that an insurance company may make when handling an automobile accident claim.

Nothing like starting off your workday with one of these! Really gets your heart pumping! I caught a glimpse of a shadow in the early morning light. When I investigated the direction of the shadow, I saw it, lying peacefully on the floor of the bedroom. After the initial shock and panic, I grabbed a towel and threw it over the intruder. In my panic, I grabbed a boot from the closet and started pounding on the towel. To my horror, the bat crawled out from under the towel and slid under the bed. With superhuman strength, I dragged the bed out from the wall and there it came, soaring like an eagle. Wings outstretched, not making a sound. It was really impressive. After some early morning screaming, it landed, and I grabbed another towel and covered it. This time, I tucked in the towel as to prevent another escape. I knew all I had to do was gather up the towel and take it outside, but I just couldn’t. So yet again, I called my wonderful neighbors – at 6:30 in the morning. Without delay, Scott, my hero, came to my aid. He gathered the creature in the towel and took it outside, across the street, and freed it. Again, up it soared. Reluctantly happy to say – it wasn’t injured. Ok, so last month I had a wood spider the size of my hand – which Scott again captured. This month – a bat. What will it be next month?? I shudder to think. Here’s some interesting information I found on the Internet. Bats may be legally protected in certain states, so it is important to understand that anything beyond releasing the bats can be a violation of state law. (Again, glad I didn’t injure the bat). Local jurisdictions may also have rules about wildlife and they may specifically address bats. If a bat comes into the house, it is usually accidental. Perhaps the bat has come from the attic and wandered into the living space by squeezing under a door to the attic. In warmer weather, bats may be attracted to homes after dark as the light attracts the bats, knowing that their food source – insects –  will be attracted to light as well. Bats can be encouraged to leave a structure by turning off lights, turning on outside lights and providing a way for the bat to escape, such as by opening a door or window. This is very effective. If a few strays are found in an area, the professional can pick them up with heavy gloves and relocate them. Bats should not be killed by the homeowner or the professional. There are no products available for bat control. Most bats in buildings in West Virginia are either big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) or little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). Although less common, northern long-eared bats (M. septentrionalis) and Indiana bats (M. sodalis) have also been documented in West Virginia. What Not to Do – No lethal means can be used for bat control. If big-eared bats are encountered, consult with the WVDNR, Wildlife Diversity Unit. Big-eared bats are easily identified by the large ears (greater than one inch) and lumps on their noses. No glue boards or fly paper may be used in areas where bats are likely to encounter these items. Do not exclude bats when flightless young are present even if it is within the official safe dates.

On June 14, 2018, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, the United States Supreme Court struck down Minnesota’s ban on political apparel in polling places. A 7-2 majority, led by chief Justice John Roberts, held that Minnesota’s law prohibiting voters from wearing a political badge, political button, or anything bearing a political insignia inside a polling place on election day, violated the First Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion was joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsberg, Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Justices Sotomayor and Breyer dissented. The Supreme Court held that although a state may prohibit certain apparel because of the message it conveys so that voters can focus upon their voting decisions, any state with such restrictions must draw a “reasonable” line. In addition, the Court noted that the state “must be able to articulate some sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out. Here, the unmoored use of the term ‘political’ in the Minnesota law, combined with haphazard interpretations” provided by the state in official guidance statements and in representations to the Court, caused the Minnesota restriction to fail. The Minnesota law aligned two important interests against each other: the right to vote in a safe environment and the right to say (and to wear) what you want. Although the Court struck down this particular state law, it recognized prior Supreme Court cases that permit the government to limit speech in and around polling places in order to prevent voters from being intimidated, confused, or defrauded. In so doing, the Court implied that Minnesota’s problem was that it drafted a law that was overly broad, not that it was trying to protect voters at polling places by limiting speech. This is how the dispute arose. In 2010, Andrew Cilek went to his local polling place to vote wearing a T-shirt bearing the Tea Party logo and message, “Don’t Tread on Me,” as well as a button with the message, “Please I.D. Me.” When an election worker told him that he would have to take off or cover up the t-shirt and button, Cilek refused. Eventually, he was allowed to vote, and an election worker recorded his name and address. Cilek and the Minnesota Voters Alliance went to court to challenge the law as a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8 th Circuit upheld the law, but the Supreme Court reversed that holding. The Supreme Court recognized that polling places, at least on election day, are government-controlled property set aside for the sole purpose of voting. Restrictions on speech there, according to the Supreme Court, are subject to a relatively low bar: the restrictions merely have to be reasonable. Even considering this low bar, however, the Court found that Minnesota’s restrictions banning “political” apparel were too vague, lacking guidance as to the meaning of “political.” Minnesota failed to provide the kind of “objective, workable standards” needed to pass muster under the First Amendment in order to restrict speech. At least 10 states impose political apparel bans, and all fifty states restrict political speech to some extent at polling places. Although a political t-shirt is unlikely to destroy democracy, in today’s political climate, it may keep the peace. Perhaps recognizing this, the Supreme Court’s decision acknowledged that a polling place, as Minnesota argued, should be “an island of calm in which voters can peacefully contemplate their choices.”

Trial is under way for a 46-year-old Californian father of two, Dewayne Johnson, who is dying of cancer and suing U.S. agrochemical giant Monsanto, in the first lawsuit of its kind claiming Monsanto’s popular herbicide 'Roundup' causes cancer. Mr. Johnson alleges he developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a type of blood cancer, from his contact with and exposure to Roundup, which he used for two years from 2012 as a groundskeeper for the Benicia school district near San Francisco. Mr. Johnson alleges that Monsanto hid the product’s dangers from him and the public-at-large. His case could have sweeping ramifications for Monsanto and the hundreds of other people throughout the country making similar claims. If Mr. Johnson is successful in his suit, Monsanto could face massive losses should it have to pay out damages over its Roundup products, whose main ingredient is glyphosate, a substance which some say is dangerously carcinogenic. Thousands of lawsuits targeting Monsanto are currently proceeding through the US court system. Mr. Johnson’s case was expedited because he currently has only a few months to live. The carcinogenic nature of Roundup has been the source of seemingly endless debate among government regulators, health experts and lawyers. The International Agency for Research on Cancer—a World Health Organization body—has classified glyphosate, widely used throughout the world, as "probably carcinogenic." The European food safety and chemicals agencies have so far not followed suit. A US Department of Health study has suggested its toxicity is limited. Monsanto, of course, remains steadfast in its denial of any link between disease and glyphosate, claiming that "ore than 800 scientific studies, the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), the National Institutes of Health and regulators around the world have concluded that glyphosate is safe for use and does not cause cancer.” However, Monsanto was also caught ghostwriting scientific studies to show that Roundup does not cause cancer. So now the issue heads to the American public. Mr. Johnson’s case is one to keep an eye on and could have significant ramifications on the Monsanto and the pesticide industry as a whole. If you or a loved one have developed cancer you believe may be caused by exposure to Roundup, you should contact an experienced attorney right away to discuss your options.

In Berg v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (NMIC), a Pennsylvania Superior Court panel that agreed to reconsider its decision to vacate a high-profile $21 million verdict has largely reinstated the result in a new, only slightly revised, opinion. On September 4, 1996, Plaintiff, Sheryl Berg was driving her “leased” 1996 Jeep Grand Cherokee when she was hit by another vehicle. NMIC’s first damage estimate concluded that Berg’s vehicle should be “totaled” at a value of $25,000. NMIC sought a second estimate, which concluded that the vehicle could be repaired with a cost saving of half the expense. The repair process took four months to complete. Berg drove the vehicle under protest for almost two years claiming that it was not crashworthy. When Berg satisfied her lease payments, NMIC determined that the vehicle was “totaled” and paid the bank $18,000.00 to settle the claim and obtain ownership of the vehicle. Berg sued NMIC and the dealership (Lindgren) for violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), and insurance bad faith. The jury awarded Berg $1,925.00 in compensatory damages from Lindgren and $295.00 from appellant for the UTPCPL violation. The second phase, a bench trial on UTPCPL treble damages and bad faith, resulted no treble damage award, and a directed verdict in favor of NMIC on the bad faith claim. Berg appealed, the Superior Court then dismissed the appeal on a procedural issue, but the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision and remanded the case back to the Superior Court for disposition. After remand, the Superior Court concluded that the trial court erred in directing a verdict on plaintiffs’ bad faith claim. Berg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 44 A.3d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“Berg II”) and remanded the case for a new trial on the bad faith claim. During the second trial, Berg argued, and the trial court found, that NMIC acted in bad faith by repairing the Jeep rather than declaring the Jeep a total loss and compensating Berg for its value at the time of the loss. While the parties agreed that Lindgren did poor repair work, they disputed NMIC’s role in and knowledge of the faulty repair job. In summary, the parties disputed (1) whether NMIC overrode Lindgren’s initial total loss appraisal in order to save money; (2) whether NMIC forced Lindgren to repair the Jeep knowing the Jeep could not be restored to its pre-accident condition; (3) whether NMIC allowed Lindgren to return the Jeep to Berg knowing the Jeep was not crashworthy and therefore not safe to drive; and (4) whether NMIC’s subsequent conduct—including its conduct of this litigation—was an elaborate cover-up of its prior bad faith conduct. Ultimately, the court ordered NMIC to pay $18 million in punitive damages and $3 million in attorney’s fees. Relative to the first issue, the Superior court concluded that the evidence did not support the trial court’s finding that NMIC vetoed the total loss appraisal. Industry standards provided for second opinions following total loss estimates. Addressing the second issue, the Superior Court determined that the record, viewed in a light most favorable to Berg did not support a finding by clear and convincing evidence, that the Jeep was beyond repair. In fact, the majority of the evidence showed that the Jeep was repairable. With respect to the third issue, while the Superior Court determined that the record supported the trial court’s finding that the vehicle was not crashworthy, it did not support the finding that NMIC knew this fact and acted with reckless disregard of its obligations to its insured in permitting Lindgren to return the Jeep to Plaintiffs. More specifically, the Court found that the record contained no evidence that the extent of the faulty repairs would have been evident during a visual inspection when the repairs were nearly complete, much less that NMIC knew or should have known about the faulty repairs. Finally, the Court concluded that the record did not support a finding that NMIC failed to attempt to resolve the dispute in the early stages of litigation, or that it refused to have the Jeep repaired or purchased. The facts were that NMIC offered to repair the Jeep to make it crashworthy, or they would purchase it. In addition to reversing the trial court, the Superior Court took exception to the trial court’s dissertation, which provides: hat laintiff, and more importantly, what lawyer in his right mind will compete with a conglomerate insurance company if the insurance company can drag the case out 18 years and is willing to spend $3 million in defense expenses to keep the policyholder from getting just compensation under the contract. Its message is 1) that it is a defense minded carrier, 2) do not mess with us if you know what is good for you, 3) you cannot run with the big dogs, 4) there is no level playing field to be had in your case, 5) you cannot afford it and what client will pay thousands of dollars to fight the battle, 6) so we can get away with anything we want to, and 7) you cannot stop us. The Superior Court reaffirmed that the question before the trial court was whether Berg proved, by clear and convincing evidence that NMIC acted in bad faith in this case. Cost containment measures employed by the insurance industry in general have no bearing on whether NMIC committed bad faith in this case. The dissent highlighted that the Superior Court is required to affirm the trial court as the finder of fact if there is sufficient evidence in the record to support its findings. The dissent determined that the trial court provided citation to ample evidence from the record to support its verdict and damage award in favor of the Bergs. Thus, the dissent declined to vacate the verdict because it believed the majority usurped the fact-finding power of the trial court by its own interpretation of the factual and testimonial evidence.

As most of you know, we are facing an ongoing drug epidemic in the United States today. Although prevalent in our communities, there are those trying to do their part to combat this epidemic. On a national level, the DEA has attempted to take control of this epidemic by various measures, one being the implementation of “National Prescription Drug Take Back Day.” What is "National Prescription Drug Take Back Day" you may ask? According to the DEA, it is a day where Americans all across the country can drop off any unused, unwanted or expired prescription medications at which time local, state and federal partners of the DEA collect these prescriptions and destroy them. The purpose of Take Back Day is to prevent individuals from either stealing these unused prescriptions from family or friends and/or from abusing these medications personally. According to the DEA’s website, this year’s Take Back Day brought in record numbers of prescription pills being dropped off and led to the destruction of close to one million pounds of drugs. Because of this success, the DEA plans to continue with Take Back Day and has set an October 27, 2018 date for the next planned event. If you are interested in finding your local authorized collector to drop off any unused or expired prescription medications, the DEA’s website will allow you to search within your area to find a location. On a more local level, this past March, the Wheeling community participated in Drug Take Back Day which was sponsored by Cardinal Health, the Ohio County Sheriff’s Department and Elm Grove Pharmacy and was garnered as a success by those who organized the event. It will be interesting to see if Drug Take Back Day becomes more prevalent as the battle against the prescription drug epidemic wages on.

As I get older I have been trying to be more cautious about my health, including diet, skin care and removing toxins. This means performing what seems to be never-ending research on products my family and I use every day. A few weeks ago, I was looking for a night light and came across “pink Himalayan Sea Salt” lamps at a local shop. As I was buying groceries, I come across pink Himalayan Sea Salt in the organic spice section. So, of course, I begin to wonder what the big hype is about this salt. What makes it so special? Here is what I found out: Regular table salt (the kind most of us consume) is stripped of very important minerals during the refining process. Basically, salt is not really unhealthy until it becomes processed and refined. However, Himalayan sea salt is mined from ancient sea beds which is untainted by toxins and provides a rich source of 60+ trace minerals. Detoxifies the body by balancing systemic pH Improves hydration by providing trace minerals Improves mineral status of the body Reduces muscle cramps by improving minerals and hydration Helps balance blood sugar Supports hormone balance for everyone, no matter what hormonal issues you face Helps balance blood pressure because it provides unrefined, mineral-rich salt in an ionic solution Improves sleep by supporting blood sugar and hormone balance Acts as a powerful antihistamine Supports weight loss by balancing hormones and improving energy Supports thyroid and adrenal function. I have read many variations of using Himalayan Sea Salt from consumption to pouring some into your bath water for a detox bath. Of course, the simplest way to enjoy the health benefits of Himalayan salt? Just swap Himalayan salt for the refined stuff in your salt shaker!

An employer has a responsibility to maintain a workplace that is free of sexual harassment. It’s not only a legal obligation, but it makes good business sense as well. If an employer allows sexual harassment to flourish in the workplace, that employer pays a high price in employee morale, productivity, and even lawsuits. Prevention is the most effective weapon against sexual harassment. Today, there is finally momentum for significant change in the United States regarding workplace sexual harassment and paving a way for victims to come forward. Allegations against powerful or high-ranking individuals are increasing, causing employers to examine their own practices in an effort to address the prevalence of sexual harassment. So, what is sexual harassment? It is any unwelcome sexual advance or conduct on the job that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Basically, any conduct of a sexual nature that makes an employee uncomfortable has the potential to be sexual harassment. To state is simply, it comes in many forms. The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, manager, or co-worker. An employer may even be liable for harassment by a non-employee (for example, a customer or vendor), depending on the circumstances. It is an equal opportunity offense. Sexual harassment is gender-neutral, and women also can sexually harass, and sexual harassment may also be same-sex harassment. Employers who have anti-harassment policies, clear policies, and make their employees aware of a zero-tolerance approach, may protect themselves from claims and lawsuits. It is also important to have a strong internal complaint mechanism and process in place, so that employees can come forward without fear of retaliation. In fact, one of the most significant things that an employer can do is to create a harassment reporting procedure that makes employees fall safe coming forward. Education is another weapon to prevent sexual harassment. Training employees on an annual basis explaining what sexual harassment is and explaining that employees have a right to a workplace free of sexual harassment can go a long way to prevention. Similarly, making clear that management will not tolerate retaliation against anyone who complaints about sexual harassment—which is also illegal. Without doubt, sexual harassment can be eliminated in the workplace. It’s time.

Black boxes are known as "electronic control modules" (ECMs) or "event data recorders" (EDRs). Most commercial trucks are equipped with an ECM or EDR, and many national or regional carriers also use satellite tracking equipment or trip recorders to monitor their fleet. It is critical to a personal injury case that all electronic data available is preserved. If you are involved in a commercial motor vehicle collision, it is imperative you immediately hire an attorney experienced in handling commercial trucking cases. That attorney will ensure the preservation of electronic data from any of the available sources. Such information is the most reliable and objective source of information about the events that occurred just prior to a crash. What is an EDR or ECM? An EDR is a device that stores data about the physical properties of a vehicle that is involved in an event, which can include an accident or near accident. Information that can be stored and downloaded from EDRs in most commercial trucks includes speed history, excessive RPM, heavy breaking, speed exceptions, hours driven, movement summary, fast accelerations, accident reports, driver identification, idle time, fuel consumption and seating driving time limits. In commercial vehicles that are equipped with global positioning satellite systems, much of the above information can be transferred immediately via satellite to a "home" base. Currently, federal regulations do not require that trucks have EDRs; however, almost all truck engines today have an ECM that functions as an EDR. An ECM is standard equipment on all diesel fuel injection systems. ECMs allow companies to monitor and analyze trip times, speeds, total idle time and the existence and number of hard stops, all of which can help a company save fuel and engine wear and tear by better managing its fleet. An experienced trucking attorney ensures all electronic information is preserved before the trucking company loses and/or destroys it. In many instances, EDR and ECM evidence can corroborate a person’s version of events and bolster their personal injury case. For example, imagine a situation in which an eyewitness claims that the truck driver was speeding. The driver insists that he was below the posted speed limit. EDR and ECM evidence can prove the driver was operating his commercial motor vehicle over the speed limit prior to the crash. Accident reconstruction, particularly in multi-vehicle or severe injury cases, will be an important aspect of proving your case. Information on an EDR/ECM will be used by an accident reconstructionist, in addition to other evidence from the scene, to effectively demonstrate what occurred and who was at fault. This is yet another reason to immediately retain an experienced trucking attorney, who will retain a reconstructionist to go out to the scene and investigate. Physical evidence does not last forever and must be documented. In accident reconstruction, analyzing all available data, including EDR data from other vehicles involved in the crash, is of tantamount importance. Preservation of this evidence must be done as soon as possible. Do not trust that a trucking company will do it. EDR/ECM data can be overwritten if the vehicle is moved or operated after an accident. Critical data, whether it is facts that will assist you in pursuing your personal injury case or help you to assess the potential liability of the trucking company/driver, can be lost if you do not act quickly, and the potential consequences are significant. Bordas and Bordas has the necessary experience to handle your case against any trucking company and their drivers. Please call us with any questions.

A federal court in California is considering whether San Francisco and Oakland can maintain their case in court against oil and gas producers like ExxonMobil for knowingly selling a product that has already caused costly damages to their communities. The case and the others like it filed by nine more communities across the United States have drawn comparisons to those brought against the tobacco industry in the ’90s. Like big tobacco before it, big oil is reeling from an explosive set of internal documents detailing what and when the industry knew about the dangers of its product. Some have questioned whether those documents amount to “smoking guns” similar to big tobacco’s infamous, “ Doubt is our product” internal memo. As a former lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice who led the prosecution of the tobacco industry for misleading the public about the deadly nature of its product, I believe they do. First, consider the timeline which is an important element in any evidentiary hearing. 1960s In 1968, the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry’s largest lobbying organization, received a report it commissioned from the Stanford Research Institute that stated in no uncertain terms that burning fossil fuels was increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This now 50-year-old industry report showed that higher CO2 would result in rising temperatures that could melt the polar ice caps and lead to sea level rise. 1970s In the years that followed, scientists at major oil and gas producers sent similar warnings to their bosses. For example, in 1977, James F. Black, a scientist in Exxon’s Research & Engineering division, delivered a presentation at the company’s headquarters on the impacts of burning fossil fuels which said, “ there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.” 1980s By the early-80s, the industry was investing in research programs intended to explore it’s CO2 problem. Time and time again, their forays into climate science confirmed Black’s initial findings. As Roger Cohen, a scientist at Exxon put it in a 1981 memo, “ it is distinctly possible” that climate change would “produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth’s population).” Soon thereafter, Exxon’s internal memos reveal that its own scientists had once again reached the same conclusion: “ the results of our research are in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on climate.” Exxon wasn’t alone. Reporters recently uncovered a memo marked “confidential” produced by Shell in 1988 cautioned that, “ by the time the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilize the situation.” When Dr. James Hansen testified before Congress in 1988, about science and the future of climate change, however, the industry’s tone and stance on man-made climate change quickly shifted from one of certainty in private to “uncertainty” in public. 1990s We don’t have to guess what their objectives were: Another document from 1998 contains a detailed outline of goals under the heading “ Victory Will Be Achieved When” all of which centered around fomenting uncertainty about climate science. Nor do we have to guess at their motives: One internal Royal Dutch Shell memo warned of a “ class-action lawsuit against the US government and fossil-fuel companies on the grounds of neglecting what scientists (including their own) have been saying for years. . ." One would be hard-pressed to interpret that as anything but a tacit admission of guilt, or in this case, liability -- which brings us to today. Oil and gas - like cigarettes or asbestos or lead - are products. And like any other products, the companies that produce, market, and sell them are liable for the damages they cause, especially if they mislead the public about their products’ dangers. We now have the evidence to show that oil companies like Exxon and Shell did exactly that. It’s time we hold them accountable and make them pay for the damages.