18 WHEELER BURNS FRISCO FATHER AND KILLS HIS FAMILY | Dallas, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Blog
18 WHEELER BURNS FRISCO FATHER AND KILLS HIS FAMILY
By Rachel E. Montes posted in 18 wheeler Accidents on Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Wendell Greene of Frisco, Texas is recovering from his personal injuries, including third-degree burns over 50 percent of his body when he was struck by an 18 wheeler on Interstate 20 in Kaufman County over the Memorial Day Holiday. Wendell Greene, his wife, Lakeysha Greene and their daughter, Wesleigh Greene; and son, Kyle Greene (3); were on their way to Louisiana to celebrate Kyle Greene’s birthday with family when a tractor-trailer rear-ended the family’s sport utility vehicle on Interstate 20 in Kaufman County. Mr. Greene’s family were killed at the scene of the crash. Mr. Greene is expected to spend at least two months in the hospital recovering from his burns and trying to deal with the loss of his wife and children. Wendell Greene is hospitalized and is in and out of consciousness. He will not be able to attend any services for his family which are being planned to be held at the Friendship Baptist Church of The Colony, where the Greenes were members. Grief counselors were also assigned to Wesleigh’s kindergarten classmates at Gunstream Elementary School in Frisco.
Friends say Green was smitten with his wife since first meeting her as a graduate student at the University of Arkansas. One of Lakeysha Greene’s longtime friends and sorority sisters, Robin Guinn, remembered her as a person of deep faith, often regarding death as simply another milestone of life, not unlike birthdays, weddings or anniversaries. She always said, ‘God is in control. What can you do about it?” Guinn said.
Police have not released details on the specific cause of the collision. Following any collision with an 18 wheeler, the 18 wheeler driver is required to immediately have a blood test to check for drugs and alcohol. In many cases, even when the driver is not driving under the influence often times the driver is fatigued or has been driving for too many hours. As a result, police will also routinely inspect the driver’s log books and the 18 wheeler to determine if the driver and the vehicle were in compliance with all DOT requirements.
People often ask should I contact an attorney contact attorney. People often believe that the facts are so compelling that the insurance company will treat them fairly and will pay the claim quickly because it is so clear that the company owes the claim. There are many reasons to hire an attorney even in cases like this where it appears that the insurance company is likely to try to settle the case.
1. Very few non-lawyers are familiar with what a fair settlement is for this type of case. As a result, the insurance company may offer what appears to be a substantial settlement offer, when in reality, the case has a much larger value.
2. We also believe that in cases such as this, there is often much more than just money at stake. It is about justice. There is the need to try to change the way companies do business to try to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future. In our practice, we try to obtain not just monetary settlements for our clients, but we also try to get companies to change the way they do business. Seeing that these companies change the way they do business can often help our clients recover in ways that a financial settlement does not accomplish. This change is hard to accomplish without an attorney.
3. Even in serious cases such as this, the investigation the police conduct tends to be much more limited in scope than the investigation that a competent and thorough attorney will do. The reason for this easy to understand when you understand the distinction between the criminal justice system and the civil justice system. The police conduct an investigation to determine if there is a crime that needs to be prosecuted not to help you pursue a civil case. The police focus on looking for evidence of specific crimes. In contrast, in a civil case, the law takes everything into consideration, and so the investigation into the causes of the wreck are much more broad in scope than the police may consider.
A. A classic example of this difference between a criminal case and a civil case involves the use of cell phones by 18 wheeler drivers. Read our blog for more information on this new law. We all know that talking on a cell phone or texting while driving is incredibly distracting to any driver and is an extremely dangerous practice. However, until this year, it was not illegal for truck drivers to drive while texting. As a result, even though it might have cause the driver to be distracted, the police did not usually investigate those issues. However, attorneys would search for evidence and find that the driver was busy talking on a cell phone rather than paying attention to his driving.
B. Because the police can only take certain action or because they have a limited budget to investigate these cases, the police may decide not seize control over the 18 wheeler or they may release the vehicle back to the driver or 18 wheeler company without securing and recording all of the available evidence that may have led to or contributed to the cause of the wreck. In a civil case, attorneys will often take action to either have an expert inspect the truck or to take action to require that evidence be preserved. As a result, lawyers will often subpoena cell phone records and company radio and other electronic transmissions and even computer data that monitors the speed, braking and other systems of the 18 wheeler so that the as much information as possible can be obtained about the cause of the wreck. When this action is not taken, an 18 wheeler company may destroy evidence or lose evidence that would have been critical to show that the company or driver is responsible for causing the wreck.
4. Even the 18 wheeler companies know how important it is to hire an attorney. When accidents like this occur, you can bet that the 18 wheeler company will immediately contact their attorneys and insurance company to protect their interests. The insurance company and the attorneys are trained in ways that are designed to protect the 18 wheeler company and the 18 wheeler driver, not the rights of the victims. They will take action to minimize the claim or possibly even prevent their clients from being held responsible. They will try to secure recorded statements that benefit the 18 wheeler company. If you or your family members are involved in this type of wreck, you need a legal team that will immediately take action to protect your rights.
5. Often times, we see instances where people believe because the insurance company appears to be acting friendly and maybe even paying for some expenses, people think that they will not need to hire an attorney. Eventually, enough time passes, and the victims’ family does not even realize that the company has taken advantage of the situation to destroy critical evidence.
6. Any time you or a loved one is involved in a serious collision whether it is with an 18 wheeler or some other type of serious accident, you should immediately contact an attorney to at least learn what your rights are. Usually, time is of the essence. After all, when it comes to preserving and locating evidence, the longer you wait to take action, the more likely the evidence will be lost or destroyed.
In the meantime, we hope you will join us and his circle of friends and family that are keeping Mr. Greene and his family in their prayers. God bless this family and help to see themthrough this.
SEVERAL DEATHS ON AREA LAKES OVER MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY SHOW THE IMPORTANCE OF WATER SAFETY | Dallas, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Blog
Each year, the Memorial Day Weekend marks that beginning of summer and a substantial increase in lake activities in the area. Sadly, this year, like many previous years, the holiday has been marked with several deaths on local lakes.
Sunday night, two personal watercrafts collided on Eagle Mountain Lake and killed two people. The crash occurred about 8:30 p.m. on the southwest portion of the lake near Azle. Two men on a personal watercraft collided with another personal watercraft operated by a man who had a female passenger. The man and woman on the same watercraft were killed. The man was identified as Richard Minnaar, 22, of Keller, according to the Tarrant County medical examiner’s office. The woman’s identity had not been released Monday afternoon. “The investigation into the cause is still pending,” Lorance said.
Anyone who has ridden a personal watercraft knows how much fun these machines can be to operate, but they still require a level of skill and control that some people fail to appreciate. Because these machines have the ability to rapidly accelerate, and despite the fact that they look like a motorcycle, they do not brake or steer like a motorcycle. Therefore, stopping quickly or trying to make an emergency maneuver on a personal watercraft or jet ski can be very difficult for inexperienced riders. As a result, many lakes control not only the areas where personal watercraft can be operated, how those personal watercraft can be operated, and how much distance operators are required to keep between themselves and other watercraft, swimmers and the shore.
Although the reports on this incident have not given any indication if alcohol is suspected to have played a part in this collision, it is not uncommon for boating accidents to be an alcohol-related event as many people see going to the lake as an excuse to drink. However, Texas law makes boating while intoxicated just as illegal as driving while intoxicated, and being at the lake does not shield someone from being charged with public intoxication. Read our blog on Boating While Intoxicated for a brief review of some of the laws affecting alcohol consumption.
Sadly, there were two other deaths on area lakes these weekend.
Ricky Frazier (22) of Irving is believed to have drowned in Lake Grapevine after jumping into the lake from a boat 100 yards off show and never re-surfacing. Investigators do not know what caused Frazier to disappear but said alcohol does not appear to be a factor. Divers were also checking conditions at the site where he jumped in.
Balint Gash (24) of The Colony also died Sunday at Lake Lewisville after jumped off a boat and never surfaced. Game Warden Neal Bieler, captain for the Fort Worth district, stressed how important it is for all people at the lake to wear a life jacket whether people think they need them or not.” And for children, the law requires children 13 and under to wear a life jacket on any watercraft at all times, and each water craft must have at least one life jacket for each person on board. Likewise, any person riding a personal watercraft without a life jacket can be charged with a Class C misdemeanor.
Rachel Montes and Tom Herald are the attorneys at Montes Law Group, PC. We are located in the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex at 1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100, Irving, Texas 75063. Telephone (214) 522-9401. Visit our website at www.Monteslawgroup.com and our Facebook at Montes Law Group, PC. to learn more about current events and issues that may affect you.
SUPREME COURT SAYS SPEAK UP TO INVOKE YOUR RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT | Dallas, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Blog
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled in the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins that criminal suspects must explicitly and unambiguously tell police they want to invoke their right to remain silent. We have all heard the Miranda warning on police shows and movies. It is the first warning that is given to a suspect once the suspect is placed in custody.
In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and and questioning in connection with charges of rape and kidnapping. Interestingly, Miranda was subsequently retried, found guilty and sentenced to 20-30 years even with the Court having thrown out his statements that were obtained during the questioning by police.
The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to use when informing a suspect of their rights. However, a basic Miranda warning has become standardized so that police know that the suspect has been properly advised of his or her rights. The typical Miranda warning is as follows:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?
The right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first part of the Miranda rights warnings, and are considered to be the most fundamental parts of the rights persons have under our Constitution against self-incrimination. But the 9 Supreme Court Justices ruled in this 5-4 split decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent and must tell the police to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins was arrested for murder, and remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.
During a three hour interrogation of Thompkins, officers acknowledged that Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering “yes,” “no,” “I don’t know,” nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for “shooting that boy down,” Thompkins said, “Yes.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote that Thompkins’ decision to remain silent through most of the interrogation was not enough to invoke his right to remain silent. “Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police,” Kennedy said. “Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his ‘right to cut off questioning.’ Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying the majority’s decision “turns Miranda upside down.” “Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent – which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak,” she said. More interestingly, Justice Sotomayor pointed out that unlike most constitutional rights which are strictly protected absent a clear and affirmative waiver of the right, as a result of this decision, the law will presume that all suspects have chosen to waive his or constitutional rights in the absence of a clear and unambiguous statement of an intent not to waive that right. Justice Sotomayor commented, “…suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded.”
Obviously, we hope that no one ever finds themselves in a situation where they are being wrongful accused of committing a crime and being interrogated by the police, and being forced to consider whether or not to invoke the right to remain silent. However, this case has much broader implications than just the constitutional rights of a single American to remain silent when being questioned by police. For example, last month, President Obama indicated that he has asked the Department of Justice to research ways to try to peal back some of the constitutional protections given to individuals (both American citizens and international suspects) during police interrogations to better enable law enforcement agencies to investigate and to prevent terrorism. In particular, the administration is considering ways to avoid the requirement of giving Miranda warnings to terrorism suspects. However, our constitution does not currently currently make distinctions in the constitutional rights of suspects have depending upon the nature of the charges being investigated or pursued.
LAWSUIT CLAIMS PAMPERS DIAPERS ARE CAUSING CHEMICAL BURNS ON BABIES | Dallas, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Blog
Procter & Gamble Co is being sued by parents claiming that Pampers newly designed diapers have caused severe rashes and other skin conditions on their children. Proctor & Gamble has responded to the claims saying that they are “completely false.”
The lawsuit, Clark et al v. The Procter & Gamble Company, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on May 11, 2010 and tracks complaints on Facebook that the new Pampers Swaddlers and Cruisers diapers with Proctor & Gamble’s new Dry Max technology appear to have caused rashes and burns on their children. In March, Procter & Gamble launched new versions of its Swaddlers and Cruisers diapers in the U.S. These diapers are thinner and use the company’s Dry Max technology to replace the paper pulp previously used.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission started an investigation this week following complaints of babies and toddlers suffering severe and persistent diaper rashes and blisters that resemble chemical burns. CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson encouraged parents to report any problems to the agency, which he said has received only a handful of reports so far. Wolfson said the investigation is in its early stages and the agency is seeking as much information as possible. “We would like parents and caregivers to report to CPSC if they feel that their baby has been affected by this issue,” he said. “It’s so important for it to come directly to us.”
Montes Law Group, LLP
1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100
Irving, Texas 75063
Telephone (214) 522-9401
Facebook @ Montes Law Group, P.C.
CELL PHONES & NIGHT-TIME DRIVING KILLING TEENAGERS | Dallas, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Blog
The percentage of teens dying in nighttime crashes is rising along with a rapid increase of cell phone use among young drivers, according to a new Texas Transportation Institute study released today. Researchers at the Texas A&M University-based institute analyzed Fatality Analysis Reporting System data collected by by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from 1999 through 2008, the most recent 10-year period available. Looking only at the fatal crashes where light conditions were either “dark” or “dark, but lighted,” the researchers found that the percentage of nighttime fatal crashes involving drivers 20 and older rose nearly 8 percent over the previous decade but more than 10 percent for teen drivers ages 16 to 19. This trend is happening despite the fact that the number of teen drivers involved in all and nighttime fatal crashes dropped.
Drinking while driving also fell among teens, leading researchers in College Station to conclude that teens’ unfamiliarity with nighttime driving was one of the chief contributors. “Driving at night is a common risk factor for all drivers, but it is particularly dangerous for young drivers,” the study found. “Distractions, speeding, low seat belt use and alcohol are also among the most frequently-faced dangers, but it is the nighttime risk that ranks at the top of the list for the youngest motorists on the road, primarily due to a combination of the visibility challenges caused by dark conditions, slower response time brought about by fatigue, and a lack of experience driving under such conditions.”
Cell phone use, while documented more recently as a troubling driving distraction is not always collected uniformly as a factor in police reports, the basis of the federal data examined for the study. “There is, however, substantial evidence demonstrating that cell phone use is growing rapidly (far more quickly for teenagers than it is for individuals age 20 and older) and that much of that use takes place behind the wheel,” the study’s authors wrote. “Clearly, the use of a cell phone complicates the driving task substantially for all drivers. The effects of this risk factor are compounded by the compromised vision and fatigue that characterize the nighttime driving environment, and for teenagers, the problem is further exacerbated by a lack of driving experience.”
ARLINGTON WOMAN CHARGED WITH FELONY AFTER PIT BULL ATTACK | Dallas, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Blog
ARLINGTON WOMAN CHARGED WITH FELONY AFTER PIT BULL ATTACK
By Rachel E. Montes on Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Nancy Hayes, (30), of Arlington, Texas, is the owner of two pit bulls, one of which was previously declared as “dangerous” was charged with a crime for her dogs’ recent attack on a neighbor. The victim, Robert Wallis, (66) said Hayes’ two pit bulls flew out an unlocked gate as he walked outside to his mailbox. Mr. Wallis reported that, “(There was) no warning, and every time I got halfway back up, I was pulled back down again.” The dog bit Mr. Wallis on his hand, arm, ankle and face. “All I could think of was (to) get up and keep them off of me,” Mr. Wallis was rescued by a postal service employee. Wallis says his neighbor hasn’t apologized for the attack or said anything to him since it happened April 22. As is typical for these types of incidents, the city euthanized both of the animals after this attack.
One of the same dogs had been declared dangerous last summer after it attacked another man. Following that incident, Hayes had promised to keep the animal restrained. Like most cities, Arlington has a number of local ordinances that are fairly strict about the requirements to keep dogs fenced in and on a leash.
Arlington’s City Ordinances state:
Section 4.11 Animal At Large
A. A person commits an offense if he fails to keep an animal he owns from being at large.
Section 8.05 Requirements for Owners of Dangerous Animals
A. … the owner of a dangerous animal, the owner shall:
1. Register the dangerous animal with the Animal Services Manager and maintain current registration at all times;
2. Restrain the animal in a secure enclosure inspected and approved by the Animal Services Manager;
4. Microchip and register the dangerous animal for its life with a national registry, and present proof to the Animal Services Manager…..
Section 8.06 Registration
A. The Animal Services Manager shall annually register a dangerous animal if the owner is in compliance with the owner’s requirements of Section 8.05. ….
Section 8.10 Muzzle and Restraint of Dangerous Animals
An owner of a dangerous animal shall not permit a dangerous animal to be outside the secure enclosure unless the animal is muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash, no longer than six (6) feet in length, and a capable person is in immediate physical control of the leash. Such animal shall not be leashed to any inanimate object such as a tree, post, building, or other object. The muzzle shall be made in a manner that will not cause injury to the animal or interfere with its vision or respiration but shall prevent it from biting any person or animal.
Section 8.08 Offenses
A. A person commits an offense if the person is the owner of a dangerous animal and the animal makes an unprovoked attack on another person outside the animal’s enclosure, and the attack causes bodily injury to the other person.
B. A person commits an offense if the person is the owner of a dangerous dog and the dog makes an unprovoked attack on a domestic animal or domestic fowl while said dog is at large, and the attack causes bodily injury or death to the domestic animal or domestic fowl.
C. A person commits an offense if the person is the owner of a dangerous animal or the new owner of a dangerous animal and performs an act prohibited or fails to perform an act required by this Article.
In this case, the criminal charges, however, are not based upon the city ordinances, but rather violations of Texas law. Specifically, police are charging Nancy Hayes with a third degree felony of “attack by dog resulting in serious injury.” The charge is punishable by up two to 10 years in prison. In 2007, the Texas legislature enacted “Lillian’s Law,” after Lillian Stiles, a central Texas woman who was mauled by several dogs in 2005 to hold dog owners accountable for these attacks.
While there is no doubt that even pit bulls and rotweillers can be very good and loving pets, dog owners have a responsibility to make sure that they do not let their dogs roam free and attack other people. This is particularly true when the dog has previously been declared a dangerous dog because of its vicious propensities. In Arlington, if the dog is declared “dangerous” then the dog owner must carry homeowner’s insurance in the amount of at least $100,000 to cover the damages the dog may cause if another attack occurs. However, even if the dog has not been declared dangerous, most homeowner’s policies will cover the damages these dogs cause when an attack occurs that is shown to be caused in part by the negligence of the dog’s owner.
Montes Law Group, LLP
Attorneys: Rachel Montes
1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100
Irving, Texas 75063
Telephone (214) 522-9401
Facebook @ Montes Law Group, P.C.