Colorado Law Blog

Those little vehicles that buzz around golf courses as well as parks, sports fields and public recreational areas might be a cost-saving alternative to larger vehicles, but a pair of studies released this week suggests they do have their risks. The numbers of injuries have been increasing as more people rely on golf carts for transportation off golf courses. While there were about 5,772 injuries in 1990, the number more than doubled to 13,411 in 2006. Over the period studied, the researchers counted injuries in almost 150,000 people ages 2 months to 96 years.

The research found that over a four-year period, nearly 50,000 people were hurt in accidents involving golf carts. One of the studies, by the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said about 1,000 Americans are hurt on golf carts every month. Males aged 10 to 19 and people over 80 had the highest injury rates. About half of the injuries occur on golf courses or in other sports venues, such as football stadiums. The rest are typically on streets or residential property.

Part of the problem is that the carts are faster than they used to be. But they are also being used in ways they were not necessarily intended for and are carrying people — like children — they should not, the study said.

Many of the injuries were caused by falls, which can occur at speeds as low as 11 miles per hour when the cart turns, the study said. And newer carts can hit 25 m.p.h. They often lack safety equipment, the majority of the carts in use do not have seat belts. Furthermore, the lack of front brakes makes the vehicles prone to fishtail, the study said.

The most frequent accidents result in injury when passengers fall out or when riders are hurt when the carts tip over.

Posted by Linda Chalat at 05:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overseeing a case exploring the extreme fringe of pornography, suspended the obscenity trial after a newspaper reported the judge had posted sexually explicit photos and videos on his own Web site.

Judge Alex Kozinski granted a highly-unusual joint prosecution and defense motion to suspend a trial this week. The case involves charges of obscenity against Ira Isaacs for films he markets.

As the jury listened to opening statements in a Los Angeles courtroom, the Los Angeles Times reported on its Web site that Kozinski had posted sexual material on his Web site and then blocked access after being interviewed about it Tuesday evening. The suspension of the trial came after jurors spent hours at the Pasadena offices of the 9th Circuit watching videos of bestiality and extreme fetishes that are evidence in the trial. Isaacs, a 57 year old Los Angeles businessman, is charged with four counts, including importation or transportation of obscene material for sale. He faces a maximum of 20 years in prison. Prosecutors also are seeking forfeiture of assets obtained through his video sales.

Jurors in the obscenity case are being asked to decide whether the films Isaacs distributed are obscene under federal law. They must decide if the films appeal to a loathsome or degrading type of sexual intercourse and whether the sexual conduct is "patently offensive," judging by the community's standards.

Judge Kozinski, also 57, was assigned to oversee the trial in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles under a program in which appellate judges occasionally handle criminal trials at the district court level. Kozinski became the youngest federal appeals court judge in the nation when he was appointed at age 35 to the bench by former President Ronald Reagan in 1985. Not surprisingly, he is known as a strong defender of free speech and First Amendment rights.

Before the judge’s personal site was blocked, visitors to http://alex.kozinski.com saw a message: "Ain't nothin' here. Y'all best be movin' on, compadre." Visitors who knew about a subdirectory could see the sexually explicit materials, as well as some of Kozinski's legal writings and personal photos, the Times said. The images included a video of a "half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal" and a picture of nude women on all fours painted to look like cows. The Times also described a wide range of other types of sexual imagery.

Kozinski told the Times he thought the material on his Web site couldn't be seen by the public. He said he didn't believe the images were obscene.

"Is it prurient? I don't know what to tell you," he told the Times. "I think it's odd and interesting. It's part of life."
Kozinski indicated to the attorneys involved in the Isaacs trial that he would be willing to recuse himself - but Judge Kozinski may find himself more than just recused from this trial.

"If this is true, this is unacceptable behavior for a federal court judge," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, reportedly said through a spokesman. Amen, sister – naked women painted like cows are a part of whose life???

Posted by Linda Chalat at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A new study published in the Columbia Business Law Review suggests that “there are strong advantages to a system in which businesses facing personal injury lawsuits could promptly pay injured parties for out-of-pocket medical expenses and lost wages while avoiding long court battles, high legal fees and "pain and suffering" damages.” The study of court settlements in personal injury lawsuits against businesses estimated companies could save an average total of $114,000 per claim or $670,000 for severe injuries by promptly settling cases instead of fighting them in court.

What proponents of the proposed system are not emphasizing is that the “early offer” system would prohibit injured victims from seeking compensation in the courts – essentially replacing your right to a jury trial with a compensation schedule much like worker’s compensation programs – unless “gross misconduct” could be proved. Even the law professors who authored the study admit this is a rarely proved in lawsuits.

The study, which was published this month in the Columbia Business Law Review, also projected $32,000 in savings from lower legal expenses, or about $211,000 for cases involving severe injuries. Law School Professor Jeffrey O’Connell and colleague Patricia Born of California State University-Northridge, analyzed court settlements of businesses facing personal injury cases between 1988 and 2004 in Texas and Florida, including those for defective products.

The study based the projections on how much it would cost businesses to make "early offers" to pay out-of-pocket medical expenses and wage losses of injured claimants. The quick settlements would reduce legal fees for both sides, but more importantly to those injured, eliminate "pain and suffering" damages. In most states, “pain and suffering” damages are the non-economic damages which include loss of quality of life, permanent disfigurement and in many case, permanent disability.

O’Connell considers himself a co-founder of no-fault automobile insurance laws, a system of insurance used in Colorado for many years but replaced with the “tort system” in 2003. O’Connell argues that tort lawsuits are “fraught with uncertainty for both sides, which causes long delays and large legal fees.” However, Colorado state law was changed back to a pure tort system. In contrast to the old "no-fault" system, the new "fault" or "tort-based" system requires the insurance company of the driver who is at fault for the accident to pay the damages arising out of the accident, including paying the victim's medical expenses, loss of wages, and pain and suffering.

Now O’Connell is advocating a similar “no fault” arrangement for victims of accidents caused by the negligence of corporations or businesses.

“Offers could be turned down by claimants, but only in cases where the defendant’s injurious acts were the result of gross misconduct provable beyond a reasonable doubt,” O’Connell said. “Thus a crucial element of the tort system’s deterrence mechanism is retained: Injured parties could still win suitably large monetary awards under the early offers model for both economic and non-economic damages in clear cases of aggravated error. But our study finds that in today’s business liability cases, only 4 percent are even allegedly the result of any gross misconduct."

It should be noted that in traditional tort law, the party only must prove a claim with a preponderance of the evidence – the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is used in criminal cases, and has no place in tort law.

The report not only assessed the likely impacts of early offers reform by type of injury (fatality or severe injury, for example), but examined the effects of including a minimum early offer either of $100,000, $250,000 or $500,000 in cases of death or severe injury. The study ultimately argues against such minimums because a minimum of $250,000 would, for example, reduce the number of early offers to severely injured claimants by 40 percent, leaving the rest of the cases to “the uncertainties and expense of the tort system for both sides.” That is, businesses would be more likely to subject the victim to a long court battle rather than agree to pay at least a minimum settlement amount for “severely injured” victims.

Posted by Linda Chalat at 03:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)