Practice Areas

Connecticut Defective Product Lawyers

Connecticut Personal Injury Lawyers

Connecticut Dog Bites, Animal Bites and Attacks

Connecticut Cell Phone Accident Lawyers

Connecticut DUI and Drunk Driving Accident Lawyers

Connecticut Teen Car Accidents

Connecticut Car Accident Lawyers

Slips, Falls, and Other Premises Liability Claims

Connecticut Attorneys for Snow and Ice Falls

Connecticut Wrongful Death Lawyers

Connecticut Car Accident Statute of Limitations and other Connecticut Statutes of Limitation

Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys

Frequently Asked Questions about Personal Injury Law

Personal Injury Information Center

Connecticut Bus Accidents

Personal Injuries from Dangerous or Defective Products

The attorneys at Jackson O'Keefe, in Hartford, represent men and women throughout Connecticut who have been injured because of someone else's negligence. Contact the firm for a confidential consultation to discuss your personal injury claim.

When someone is injured while using a product that was manufactured or marketed in a defective or dangerous way, he or she may be able to recover the resulting damages from the responsible party in a products liability-based personal injury suit. Products liability law is based on the responsibility of a manufacturer or other provider of goods to compensate users of the goods for injuries caused by defective or dangerous products that it placed into the stream of commerce. The basic idea underlying products liability law is that the companies providing the products are usually in the best position to prevent defective products from entering the marketplace, so if they fail to do so, they should be held accountable. An experienced and knowledgeable personal injury lawyer at Jackson O'Keefe in Hartford, Connecticut, can advise injured persons on whether they may have a claim against a product manufacturer or seller and can help them recover the damages to which they are legally entitled.

The Plaintiff’s Burden in a Dangerous or Defective Product Personal Injury Case

The personal injury plaintiff still has a challenge although products liability law has evolved over the years. At one time “caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware) was the standard to which manufacturers were held. Today “strict liability” is imposed in appropriate cases. Under this standard manufacturers are responsible for injuries caused by their defective or unreasonably dangerous products even if they were not negligent. In a products liability action, the injured person, or plaintiff, must prove, for instance, that there was a design or manufacturing defect in the product or that the manufacturer did not adequately warn consumers about the product’s possible dangers. In addition, he or she must establish, through relevant and credible evidence, that the product caused the injuries and that he or she was using the product in the way it was intended to be used or even that the manufacturer should have anticipated that the product would be “misused” in the way that it was.

Manufacturing defects are usually easier to prove than design defects. If a particular consumer’s gas fireplace explodes when first lit, for example, it is evidence that the fireplace was not manufactured as the designer intended it to be. A design-defect case, on the other hand, could arise if many or all fireplaces of a manufacturer’s particular model posed a threat of explosion. Proving a design defect involves passing judgment on technical choices and usually requires expert testimony. In a design defect case, the product may have been manufactured as it was intended to be, but the design was inadequately planned in such a way as to pose unreasonable hazards to consumers.

Proving causation in a products liability case can be tricky. The plaintiff must establish that the product was defective when it left the hands of the defendant manufacturer, distributor, or seller, and that the defect was the cause of the accident that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. If the injuries could have arisen from several potential causes, the plaintiff usually must establish that the product defect had a substantial role in bringing about the injuries.

Bases of Recovery in a Dangerous or Defective Product Personal Injury Case

The following are some possible legal theories that can be argued in a products liability case.

Negligence. Negligence is a lack of reasonable care in the manufacture or sale of the product or in warning about the product
Breach of warranty. Breach of warranty is failure to fulfill the terms of a promise regarding the product’s performance
Misrepresentation. Giving consumers a false sense of security about a product’s safety is a type of misrepresentation.
Strict liability. Where the product’s defect, although not the fault of the defendant, rendered the product unreasonably dangerous, the defendant is therefore, responsible under the theory of strict liability

Although there is no limit to the list of products that could form the basis of a products liability suit, some of the more common product categories include apparel, asbestos, chemicals, cosmetics, firearms, food, machinery and tools, medical products and devices, motor vehicles, pharmaceutical products, recreational products, and tobacco.

Conclusion

Persons injured by dangerous or defective products need the counsel of skilled veterans of personal injury and products liability law to advise them on the complexities of their case and guide them through the legal system toward the most favorable outcome. If you or someone you know has suffered injuries as a result of using a dangerous or defective product, the experienced and knowledgeable personal injury lawyer at Jackson O'Keefe in Hartford, Connecticut, can advise you on whether you may have a claim against the product manufacturer or seller and can help you recover the maximum damages recoverable under the applicable law.

DISCLAIMER: This site and any information contained herein are intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek competent legal counsel for advice on any legal matter.

Jackson O’Keefe handles defective products matters throughout the State of Connecticut, including clients in West Hartford, Farmington, Avon, Simsbury, Old Lyme, Ellington, Tolland, North Haven, Wallingford, Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Cromwell, Bethlehem, Moodus, East Haddam, Hadlyme, Madison, Middletown, Hartford, Southington, Plantsville, Hartford County, New Haven County, Middlesex County, New London County and Litchfield County.

Reasons to Hire a Personal Injury Attorney

When you are injured, you need all the help you can get, and you need it as soon as possible. Unfortunately, that means that some injury victims pick the first attorney they find rather than making an informed choice. Before you hire a personal injury attorney, it is important to educate yourself and find the right fit for you and your case. Jackson O'Keefe in Hartford is ready to get to work on your behalf. From settlement negotiations to the Connecticut court system, we will be there for you.

Experience Assessing Claims. Personal injury attorneys are experienced with cases like yours and can tell you at the outset if it is worth your while to pursue legal action. If you are unlikely to prevail, you will not need to incur the time and expense of preparing for litigation.

No Fees If You Do Not Recover. Most personal injury attorneys work for a contingent fee, which means that if you do not win your case or reach a settlement, you will pay no attorneys' fees. However, you may be responsible for other expenses associated with your case. Your attorney will explain any costs you may be responsible for when you meet with him or her.

Red Tape. An experienced attorney can work through the maze of paperwork necessary to resolve your claim so that you can get on with your life.

Investigative Team. Experienced attorneys work with a team of investigators who have experience in specialized areas and will skillfully investigate the technical aspects of your case.

Objectivity. A personal injury attorney can be more objective about your case than you can and will not make a rash decision. Whereas you may be tempted, for instance, to go for a quick payout, your attorney may counsel you that it is in your best interests to wait for a more appropriate offer.

Alternative Dispute Resolution. An experienced attorney will know if your dispute may be best resolved through mediation, thereby saving you time, money, and emotional energy.

Experience Working With Other Lawyers. An experienced personal injury lawyer can often deal most effectively and expediently with opposing counsel.

Experience With Insurance Companies. Lawyers are also used to working with insurance companies and will not be confused by their tactics or feel pressured to settle for an unsatisfactory amount.

Settlements. Personal injury attorneys work hard to reach settlements that meet their clients' needs as early as possible in the litigation process.

Jury Verdicts. If a trial becomes necessary, a personal injury lawyer can zealously represent you in court and work toward achieving a jury verdict in your favor.

Lawyers for Connecticut Dog Bites, Animal Bites and Attacks

Although animal-attack claims most commonly involve dog bites, many other types of domesticated animals, such as ferrets, cats, and even birds, can also bite humans. Even nondomesticated animals, such as large cats ordinarily found in the wild, but owned by some people as pets have been known to attack children and adults. An owner's liability for injuries caused by his or her pet, if any, will vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A lawyer from Jackson O'Keefe in Hartford, Connecticut, who is experienced in dog bite and personal injury law is an excellent source for accurate advice and information in animal attack cases. When under certain circumstances, strict liability may apply for injuries caused by animals in Connecticut.

Proving Owners' Liability in Animal Attack Cases

To succeed in most animal attack cases, the injured person must prove that the animal that caused the injury was owned and kept by the defendant. In the past, the injured person was also required to show that the owner knew or should have known that his or her animal was dangerous, mischievous, vicious, or prone to such threatening behaviors. Under current law, however, when it is proven that an owner was somehow negligent, such as by not properly restraining or containing the animal, the injured person may often recover damages without proving the animal’s viciousness.

An owner of an animal may be found liable under any circumstances in which he or she had knowledge of the animal’s viciousness but failed to act in order to prevent injuries to others. Accordingly, if an animal exhibits vicious or uncontrollable behavior, the owner should take steps to shield the public from the animal. For example, if an individual owns a pit bull with a propensity to attack and bite without provocation, the owner should probably keep the dog indoors and, while outside, in a yard from which it cannot escape. If he or she does not adhere to these common-sense guidelines and the animal attacks, the injured party may be able to recover his or her damages.

In some states, it is not always necessary for the animal to actually bite or attack the victim to hold the owner liable for an injury. For example, a pedestrian who breaks his or ankle in a frightened attempt to get away from a fenced in dog's snapping, barking, or other aggressive behavior, may nonetheless be able to sue the dog’s owner successfully if he or she can show that the actions of the dog led to the injury.

Those who keep animals generally considered wild, such as lions, bears, and monkeys, are typically liable for injuries caused by such animals regardless of whether the particular animal is known to be dangerous. Because wild animals are generally presumed to have a natural tendency to revert to their wild mannerisms no matter how well trained or domesticated, owners of such animals are often said to be "strictly liable" for any injuries caused by their wild animals. However, strict liability may not apply if the animal injures someone while it is confined or restrained on its owner’s property, but this is a factually dependent argument that will not apply in every case.

Defenses to Liability in Animal Attack Cases

People who are injured in animal attacks are not always entitled to recover damages. If the injured person provoked the animal, for instance, recovery may be denied. Similarly, if a pet owner informs his or her neighbor that his or her pet parrot is not friendly and should not be touched, but the neighbor does not heed this warning and is thereafter pecked or bitten, recovery may be denied. If the owner merely stated that the parrot was not always friendly, on the other hand, but still encouraged the neighbor to pet it, the owner could likely be liable.

People who are injured by an animal while on the owner's property are generally unable to recover if they are trespassing at the time of the attack. In many states, in order to successfully bring suit under a dog bite statute, the injured person must show that he or she was lawfully in the place where the injury occurred. If injured person was a trespasser at the time of the attack, the animal's owner may not be liability for injuries caused by his or her animal. If, for example, someone jumps over a fence into an enclosed junkyard with “Beware of Dog” warnings posted and taunts the German shepherd guard dog with a stick, the junkyard owner may not be liable if the dog bites the trespasser.

Conclusion

Jackson O’Keefe handles Connecticut dog bites and Connecticut animal attack matters throughout the State of Connecticut, including clients in West Hartford, Farmington, Avon, Simsbury, Old Lyme, Ellington, Tolland, North Haven, Wallingford, Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Cromwell, Bethlehem, Moodus, East Haddam, Hadlyme, Madison, Middletown, Hartford, Southington, Plantsville, Hartford County, New Haven County, Middlesex County, New London County and Litchfield County.

Distracted Driving, Cell Phones and Texting in Connecticut Motor Vehicle Accidents

Almost 6,000 people died in 2008 in crashes involving distracted drivers, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That is approximately 16% of all road deaths, up from 12% in 2007. Of fatal accidents connected to distracted driving during 2008, nearly 40% of the distracted drivers were under age 30, the biggest users of high-tech devices that take a motorist's eyes and mind off the road. A Pew Research Center study indicated that 47 percent of adult drivers text or read text messages while driving. A similar study in 2009 found that 34 percent of 16- and 17-year-olds text or read text messages while driving. Consider this claim from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Using a cell phone while driving, whether hand-held or hands free, delays a driver's reaction as much as having a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent. For more information, see the Department of Transportation website.

The Connecticut car accident lawyers at Jackson O'Keefe have the years of experience and knowledge necessary to provide you with the skilled representation you need when dealing with insurance companies following any type of motor vehicle accident. Car crashes and those involving motorcycles or commercial trucks all have specific laws and issues unique to them. Quick assessment of those issues, determining the cause of the crash and assessing the severity of your injury and your medical needs are the services you can expect when you retain our Wethersfield Connecticut car accident attorneys. The Connecticut car accident lawyers at Jackson O'Keefe are adept at assessing the physical principles of the accident, the medical evidence used to evaluate injuries, and the economic and accounting principles required to evaluate losses. We provide the strongest possible representation to maximize your recovery. We will investigate the car accident scene, research the accident and your car, along with any other evidence that came into play at the time of your accident. We will stand up for you against any wrongdoer, trucking company or anyone else who has caused you harm. It is our responsibility to make sure your rights are upheld and defended. Because of our experience in taking cases to trial, we can often obtain favorable settlements even without a trial. With over 50 years of representing Connecticut car accident litigants, the law firm of Jackson O'Keefe understands how the unique circumstances of your collision require careful and compassionate representation. We are also familiar with the very recent legal changes regarding distracted driving in this emerging, troubling area of injuries and death on the roads.

The culture of information "now" is creating an environment that could lead to an epidemic of Connecticut texting and distracted driving accidents as teens carry these habits into the car. A survey released in August 2010 found nine in 10 teenage drivers engaged in distracted-driving behaviors such as texting or talking on a cell phone, despite most of them knowing their actions increase the risk of crashing. Another study in September 2010 found despite plenty of research demonstrating that texting while driving can be just as dangerous as drinking and driving, most teens do not think that is the case. According to news reports, cell phones are "yet another thing that's distracting people," but a "flood of new distractions are being built into vehicles," says Flaura Winston, scientific director at the Center for Injury Research and Prevention at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

According to news reports, at least eight state legislatures will consider laws this session to ban texting and driving. Eight states will also take up bans on using handheld cell phones while driving. Prodded by the federal government, 29 states passed no-texting laws since 2008.

Recent Statistics -- Connecticut Texting, Cell Phone and Distracted Driving Accident Lawyers

According to a November 2010 survey from the Insurance Research Council (IRC), almost one-in-five drivers in the United States (18 percent) reported texting while driving in the last 30 days. Younger drivers were much more likely than older drivers to say that they were texting while driving. Forty-one percent of drivers age 25 to 39, compared to only 5 percent of drivers 55 and older, reported texting while driving. Thirty-one percent of drivers age 16 to 24 said they had texted while driving in the last 30 days. The report, Public Attitude Monitor 2010: Texting While Driving, is based on an online survey of more than 1,400 licensed drivers conducted on behalf of the IRC by Harris Interactive, a market research firm. The survey was conducted between August 20 and September 7, 2010. "These findings confirm that a large number of drivers are engaging in very dangerous behavior," said Elizabeth Sprinkel, Senior Vice President of the IRC. "The need to find an effective response to this behavior is becoming increasingly clear." For more distracted driving statistics see our Connecticut Distracted Driving Statistics page.

Tougher Connecticut Distracted Driving Laws Possible

According to a local television news report, "Connecticut lawmakers are considering increasing the penalties for violating distracted driving laws, including the possibility of taking away violators phones and suspending licenses. … One proposal is an immediate 24-hour suspension of a driver's license for drivers who have been issued a summons for two or more incidents of talking or texting. Connecticut lawmakers are considering increasing the penalties for violating distracted driving laws, including the possibility of taking away violators phones and suspending licenses. Another bill under consideration would give police officers the authority to seize the phone or electronic device the driver was using and impound it for 48 hours. Another proposal is to increase fines to as much as $500 or three months in prison for repeat offenders. If the proposals are passed, the new laws would go into effect in October [2011]."

Connecticut's Statutes Prohibiting Distracted Driving

In Connecticut, the legislature has enacted several Public Acts to address distracted driving. Most recently, Public Act 10-109 went into effect on October 1, 2010, adding texting to the specifically prohibited elements of distracted driving.

Summary of Connecticut's Distracted Driving Statute

The Connecticut statute as a whole prohibits the operation of a vehicle while using a hand-held mobile telephone to engage in a call; while using a mobile electronic device; or while typing, sending or reading a text message with a hand-held mobile telephone or mobile electronic device. It will be presumed that you are making a call if you have the cell phone near your ear. Exceptions to the rule exist for emergency calls and calls made while using a hands-free device.

Under subsections (b) and (g), adults who violate the distracted driving statute are subject to fines as follows: $100 for the first offense, $150 for a second offense and $200 for subsequent offenses. Under subsection (i), anyone who commits a moving violation while violating the prohibition is subject to the fine for the moving violation plus a $100 fine for violating the distracted driving statute.

Under subsection (d), persons under 18 years of age are prohibited from using cell phones even with hands-free devices, except with regard to emergency calls. Under subsection (h) a $100 fine applies to each such violation. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, under a separate statute, §14-111, for a first violation of section 14-296aa, person under 18 are subject to a license suspension for a period of thirty days for a first violation and, for a second violation a suspension of ninety days and, for a third or subsequent violation a six month suspension. Additionally, the Department of Motor Vehicles will charge a license restoration fee following each such suspension.

Excerpt of Connecticut's Distracted Driving Statute

The text of the statute is as follows:
§ 14-296aa. Use of hand-held mobile telephones and mobile electronic devices by motor vehicle operators and school bus drivers, prohibited or restricted, when. Penalties

* * * [definitions omitted]

(b) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection and subsections (c) and (d) of this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle upon a highway, as defined in section 14-1, while using a hand-held mobile telephone to engage in a call or while using a mobile electronic device while such vehicle is in motion. An operator of a motor vehicle who types, sends or reads a text message with a hand-held mobile telephone or mobile electronic device while such vehicle is in motion shall be in violation of this section. (2) An operator of a motor vehicle who holds a hand-held mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, his or her ear while such vehicle is in motion is presumed to be engaging in a call within the meaning of this section. The presumption established by this subdivision is rebuttable by evidence tending to show that the operator was not engaged in a call. (3) The provisions of this subsection shall not be construed as authorizing the seizure or forfeiture of a hand-held mobile telephone or a mobile electronic device, unless otherwise provided by law. (4) Subdivision (1) of this subsection does not apply to: (A) The use of a hand-held mobile telephone for the sole purpose of communicating with any of the following regarding an emergency situation: An emergency response operator; a hospital, physician's office or health clinic; an ambulance company; a fire department; or a police department, or (B) any of the following persons while in the performance of their official duties and within the scope of their employment: A peace officer, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 53a-3, a firefighter or an operator of an ambulance or authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in section 14-1, or a member of the armed forces of the United States, as defined in section 27-103, while operating a military vehicle, or (C) the use of a hands-free mobile telephone.

(c) No person shall use a hand-held mobile telephone or other electronic device, including those with hands-free accessories, or a mobile electronic device while operating a moving school bus that is carrying passengers, except that this subsection does not apply to (1) a school bus driver who places an emergency call to school officials, or (2) the use of a hand-held mobile telephone as provided in subparagraph (A) of subdivision (4) of subsection (b) of this section.

(d) No person under eighteen years of age shall use any hand-held mobile telephone, including one with a hands-free accessory, or a mobile electronic device while operating a moving motor vehicle on a public highway, except as provided in subparagraph (A) of subdivision (4) of subsection (b) of this section.

(e) Except as provided in subsections (b) to (d), inclusive, of this section, no person shall engage in any activity not related to the actual operation of a motor vehicle in a manner that interferes with the safe operation of such vehicle on any highway, as defined in section 14-1.

* * *

(g) Any person who violates subsection (b) of this section shall be fined one hundred dollars for a first violation, one hundred fifty dollars for a second violation and two hundred dollars for a third or subsequent violation. (h) Any person who violates subsection (c) or (d) of this section shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars.

(i) An operator of a motor vehicle who commits a moving violation, as defined in subsection (a) of section 14-111g, while engaged in any activity prohibited under subsection (e) of this section shall be fined one hundred dollars in addition to any penalty or fine imposed for the moving violation.

(j) An operator of a motor vehicle who commits a moving violation, as defined in subsection (a) of section 14-111g, while engaged in any activity (1) that is prohibited under subsection (e) of this section, and (2) that results in an accident, shall be fined five hundred dollars in addition to any penalty or fine imposed for the moving violation.

Federal Efforts to Coordinate a Reduction in Distracted Driving

Federal Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has recently stated on his blog: "You have to have good laws, you have to have good enforcement, and you have to have people take personal responsibility. That's the bottom line." "When you get behind the wheel of a 5,000 pound automobile, you have a personal responsibility to drive that vehicle safely. That means, put away cell phones and other devices that take your focus off of the road."

Federal and state governments have taken a variety of steps to reduce the number of people who drive while talking or texting, increasingly blamed for traffic accidents. In June the Senate Commerce Committee approved a bipartisan bill that would reward states for banning drivers from talking on cell phones or sending and receiving text messages. In August the Transportation Department kicked off pilot programs in Hartford, Connecticut and Syracuse, New York to test whether increased law enforcement efforts can get distracted drivers to put down their cell phones and focus on the road. The pilot programs, which are similar to previous efforts to curb drunken driving and increase seat belt use among drivers, were the first federally funded efforts in the country to specifically focus on the effects of increased enforcement and public advertising on reducing distracted driving. Drivers caught texting or talking on a hand-held cell phone will be pulled over and ticketed.

Federal Rules Against Commercial Distracted Driving

In Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's campaign against distracted driving, his agency proposed on December 18, 2010 prohibiting commercial truck and bus drivers from using cell phones behind the wheel. The rule would effect approximately 4 million drivers, who are already banned by the federal government from texting while driving.

"Every time a commercial truck or bus driver takes his or her eyes off the road to use a cell phone, even for a few seconds, the driver places everyone around them at risk," LaHood said in a statement. Inattention was a factor in 9% of crashes involving large trucks, and between 6% and 13% of those involving busses. There were 38 fatal bus crashes in 2009, up from 20 previously. Large transport outfits such as UPS and Wal-Mart already prohibit drivers from using cell phones while driving, and many state and local governments have bans in place. The proposal must go through a 60-day comment period before being finalized. Nearly 5,500 people died and half a million were injured in crashes involving a distracted driver in 2009.

"Faces of Distracted Driving" is a series of videos exploring the tragic consequences of texting and cell phone use while driving established by the Department of Transportation. They feature people from across the country who have been injured or lost loved ones in distracted driving crashes. In 2009, nearly 5,500 people died and half a million were injured in accidents involving a distracted driver. The videos can be seen here. The video series is part of Secretary LaHood's effort to raise public awareness about the dangers of distracted driving and to support victims. In January, Secretary LaHood joined anti-distracted driving advocate Jennifer Smith when she announced the creation of FocusDriven, the first national nonprofit organization dedicated to ending distracted driving. The U.S. Department of Transportation is also encouraging others who would like to share their distracted driving experiences to post videos on YouTube and the links.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a rule prohibiting rail employees from using cell phones or other electronic devices on the job following a September 2008 Metrolink crash in Chatsworth, California that killed 25 people. After a Northwest flight crew distracted by a laptop overshot their destination by 150 miles, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) advised air carriers to create and enforce policies that limit distractions in the cockpit and keep pilots focused on transporting passengers safely. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announced a ban on text messaging while operating a commercial motor vehicle in January 2010. A rulemaking proposed by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) in September 2010 to work in conjunction with the FMCSA ban would restrict the use of electronic devices by drivers during the operation of a motor vehicle containing hazardous materials.

Research Study Quantifies Impact of Distracted Driving

Researchers from Texas A&M's Transportation Institute have quantified how distracting cell phone use can be, and the results are shocking. TTI tested reaction times for focused drivers and then for those using cell phones by monitoring how long drivers took to react to a flashing light (which could symbolize an actual yellow or red light as well as a pedestrian unexpectedly crossing the street).

Normal reaction times were "a second or two," but doubled when a cell phone was put in the driver's hand. Texting drivers were eleven times more likely to miss the flashing warning lights all together.

The test was performed in a controlled setting, on flat ground with on a straight course. Variables that challenge even focused drivers were all but negated. As the researchers put it in the 43-page report "it is frightening to think of how much more poorly our participants may have performed if the driving conditions were more consistent with everyday, routine driving."

Forty-two drivers, from 16- to 54-years old, were placed behind the wheel of a car and drove around a closed track of just about 11 miles in length. The researchers monitored how long it took drivers to react to a flashing light while driving normally and while attempting to text and read a message on a mobile phone.

The researchers say the average, normal reaction times were about a second or two. But put a cell phone in the driver's hand and reaction times jump to three or four seconds. What's more, texting drivers in TTI's small study were 11 times more likely to miss the flashing warning lights completely. Researchers also note the distracted drivers had much more difficulty staying in the straight driving lane as well as maintaining consistent speeds.

For information on the study see: http://tti.tamu.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Distracted-Driving-Research-One-Pager.pdf

CT Distracted Driving Law Update: Research study reveals an 11% increase in deaths of 16 and 17 year old drivers in 2011

A report released on February 16, 2012 by the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) reveals that the number of 16- and 17-year-old driver deaths in passenger vehicles increased slightly for the first six months of 2011, based on preliminary data supplied by all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Overall, 16- and 17-year-old driver deaths increased from 190 to 211 - an 11 percent increase. If the trend continued for the second half of 2011, it will mark the end of eight straight years of cumulative declines in deaths for this age group. The new report - the first state-by-state look at teen fatalities in 2011 - was completed by Dr. Allan Williams, a researcher who formerly served as chief scientist at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Dr. Williams surveyed GHSA members, who reported fatality numbers for every state and D.C. The report comes as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has released a statistical projection suggesting that total motor vehicle deaths for the first six months of 2011 declined 0.9 percent.

Deaths of 16-year-old drivers increased from 80 to 93 (16 percent) while the number for 17-year-olds went from 110 to 118 (7 percent), a cumulative increase of 11 percent. Twenty-three states reported increases, 19 had decreases, and eight states and the District of Columbia reported no change. While the changes in state-by-state fatality numbers generally are small, states such as Florida, Texas and North Carolina reported significant increases. Dr. Williams attributes much of the increase to the fact that the benefit of state Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) laws may be leveling off, as most of these laws have been in place for some time. Additionally, Dr. Williams speculates that improving economic conditions are contributing to an increase in teen driving, thus increasing their exposure to risk. Dr. Williams notes, "While it is not a surprise that these numbers are stabilizing or slightly increasing, states should not accept these deaths as something that cannot be prevented. More work can and should be done to save teen lives."

Troy E. Costales, Chairman of GHSA, said, "While it is good news that overall deaths appear to have declined during the first six months of 2011, we are concerned that the trend with teens is going in the opposite direction," He continued, "As the report notes, a widespread strengthening of laws is still possible and finding effective tools outside of GDL is an important goal. These include improving driver education and involving parents in proactively establishing safe driving habits for their teens." Chairman Costales added, "As the parent of a young driver and a soon-to-be-driver, I know firsthand the pressures parents face in allowing their teens behind the wheel. As parents, we must set and enforce strict rules for our new drivers, making sure risks are minimized. This includes limiting other teens in the car, limiting nighttime driving and absolutely prohibiting any type of cell phone or electronic device use while driving."

Barbara Harsha, Executive Director of GHSA, said states could use federal support to save more teen lives. "As part of the upcoming highway reauthorization bill, Congress should provide financial incentives to states that have strengthened or will strengthen teen driving laws. Additionally, Congress should provide adequate funding so that NHTSA can research and support demonstration projects to determine the most effective ways to increase teen seat belt use and compliance with GDL laws. Congress also should fund NHTSA and the states to carry out distracted driving campaigns aimed at teen drivers," Harsha added, "Research also needs to be done to determine the impact of changing school start times so that teens are less likely to be driving fatigued."

The full report, including state-by-state data, is available online at www.ghsa.org. The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) is a nonprofit association representing the highway safety offices of states, territories, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. GHSA provides leadership and representation for the states and territories to improve traffic safety, influence national policy, enhance program management and promote best practices. Its members are appointed by their Governors to administer federal and state highway safety funds and implement state highway safety plans.

Jackson O'Keefe handles Connecticut motor vehicle accident cases and Connecticut distracted driving, cell phone and texting car accident cases throughout the State of Connecticut, including clients in West Hartford, Farmington, Avon, Simsbury, Old Lyme, Ellington, Tolland, North Haven, Wallingford, Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Cromwell, Bethlehem, Moodus, East Haddam, Hadlyme, Madison, Middletown, Hartford, Southington, Plantsville, Hartford County, New Haven County, Middlesex County, New London County and Litchfield County.

"She texts u r totaled"

New 2012 Administrative Penalties

Beginning on January 1, 2012, drivers convicted for their first drunk driving offense in Connecticut are required by law to install an ignition interlock device on their vehicle for a year in order to drive their cars. Such a device requires the driver of a vehicle to blow into it, like a breathalyzer, before the car will start. A conviction also carries with it 45 days of a suspended license, down from the year a driver's license would have been suspended under the prior law.

Connecticut joins 15 other states which require installation of the device after a first conviction of drunk driving with a blood alcohol content of over .08, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. There are 13 states which require installation of the device for drivers convicted with BACs over .15.

A driver's second drunk driving conviction requires he or she have the interlock device installed on his or her vehicle for three years. That driver's license would also be suspended for 45 days. Prior to January 1, 2012 those convicted for their second drunk driving offense would have their license suspended for a year and would be required to have an interlock device installed on their vehicle for two years.

Recent Studies on Drunk Driving and Drugged Driving Show Significant Ongoing Problems

The attorneys at Jackson O'Keefe, in Hartford, represent men and women throughout Connecticut who have been injured because of drunk driving accidents. Contact the firm for a confidential consultation to discuss your personal injury claim.

Despite longstanding efforts to reduce drunk driving, according to a federal report released on December 9, 2010 last year 30 million Americans drove drunk and another 10 million drove under the influence of illegal drugs. In some states the number of drunk and drugged drivers tops 20 percent, according to the report released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and available for review here.

According to the study, an average of 13.2 percent of people aged 16 and older drove drunk and 4.3 percent drove under the influence of an illegal drug in the past year. The survey's state-by-state breakdown of drunk and drugged driving levels shows significant differences among the states. Some of the states with the highest levels of past year drunk driving were Wisconsin (23.7 percent) and North Dakota (22.4 percent). The highest rates of past year drugged driving were found in Rhode Island (7.8 percent) and Vermont (6.6 percent). States with the lowest rates of past year drunk driving included Utah (7.4 percent) and Mississippi (8.7 percent). Iowa and New Jersey had the lowest levels of past year drugged driving (2.9 percent and 3.2 percent respectively).

Levels of self-reported drunk and drugged driving differed dramatically among age groups. Younger drivers aged 16 to 25 had a much higher rate of drunk driving than those aged 26 or older (19.5 percent versus 11.8 percent). Similarly people aged 16 to 25 had a much higher rate of driving under the influence of illicit drugs than those aged 26 or older (11.4 percent versus 2.8 percent).

Additionally, a report released on November 30, 2010 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) showed post-mortem testing results indicating an increase in the level of drug involvement among fatally injured drivers over a five-year period from 2005 to 2009. According to data compiled by NHTSA, 63 percent of the 21,798 drivers who were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2009 were tested for drugs. Of these, 3,952 tested positive for drug involvement, representing 18 percent of the total for that year. The report also showed drug use reported by the states among fatally injured drivers increasing from 13 percent in 2005, to 15 percent in 2006, 16 percent in 2007, and 18 percent in 2008. The report can be viewed here.

According to the NHTSA 33,808 people died in traffic crashes in 2009 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,839 people who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Drunk driving fatalities accounted for 32% of all traffic deaths that year, that is, on average someone is killed in an alcohol-impaired driving crash about every 50 minutes in the U.S. More than 3 people under the age of 21 die each day in alcohol-impaired driving crashes.

Connecticut Drunk Driving and Impaired Driving -- The Problem Continues

Driving under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs can pose a significant threat to public safety because these substances can impair perception, cognition, attention, balance, coordination, and other brain functions necessary for safe driving. In the literature , driving while impaired has been linked to reckless driving, car crashes, and fatal accidents. A review of several studies found that between 5 and 25 percent of drivers involved in motor vehicle accidents tested positive for drugs, and 18 percent of motor vehicle driver deaths involved drugs. (Kelly, E., Darke, S., & Ross, J. (2004). A review of drug use and driving: Epidemiology, impairment, risk factors and risk perceptions. Drug and Alcohol Review, 23, 319-344) Furthermore, in 2008, 32 percent of all traffic-related deaths—nearly 12,000 deaths—were the result of alcohol-related crashes. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2009). Traffic safety facts, 2008 data: Alcohol-impaired driving (DOT HS 811 155). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. Available as a PDF here.

In Connecticut, available statistics show that the number of prosecutions for drunk driving or impaired driving rose from 11843 in 2000 to 13,169 in 2009. Click here for DUI Statistics. According to the NHTSA, there were 99 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities (including 14 minors) in Connecticut during 2009. While this a 14.5 percent decrease compared to 1999, Connecticut remains among the highest drunk driving problem states. Specifically, Connecticut is one of ten states with the highest rates of drunk driving, in the 17.0% to 23.7% range according to the December 2010 SAMHSA study. Connecticut is in the second tier of states when it comes to drugged driving, with a range of 4.8% to 5.2%.

Percentages of Persons Aged 16 or Older Driving under the Influence of Alcohol in the Past Year, by State: 2006 to 2009

Percentages of Persons

17.0% to 23.7%	14.7% to 16.9%	12.6% to 14.5%	10.5% to 12.5%	7.4% to 10.4%
Connecticut	Colorado	California	Alaska	Alabama
Massachusetts	Hawaii	Delaware	Arizona	Idaho
Minnesota	Illinois	District of Columbia	Arkansas	Kentucky
Montana	Iowa	Indiana	Florida	Mississippi
Nebraska	Kansas	Louisiana	Georgia	New Jersey
North Dakota	Michigan	Nevada	Maine	New Mexico
Rhode Island	Missouri	Oregon	Maryland	New York
South Dakota	New Hampshire	South Carolina	North Carolina	Utah
Wisconsin	Ohio	Texas	Pennsylvania	West Virginia
Wyoming	Oklahoma	Virginia	Tennessee
	Vermont		Washington

Percentages of Persons Aged 16 or Older Driving under the Influence of Illicit Drugs in the Past Year, by State: 2006 to 2009

Percentages of Persons

5.4% to 7.8%	4.8% to 5.2%	4.3% to 4.7%	3.8% to 4.2%	2.9% to 3.7%
Arkansas	Connecticut	Alaska	Arizona	Alabama
Colorado	District of Columbia	California	Florida	Iowa
Delaware	Maine	Idaho	Georgia	Maryland
Massachusetts	Michigan	Illiniois	Hawaii	Mississippi
Montana	Minnesota	Indiana	Kansas	New Jersey
New Hampshire	Nevada	Louisiana	Kentucky	New York
Oklahoma	New Mexico	Missouri	Nebraska	Pennsylvania
Oregon	Washington	Ohio	North Carolina	South Dakota
Rhode Island	Wisconsin	South Carolina	North Dakota	Texas
Vermont	Wyoming	Tennessee	West Virginia	Utah
		Virginia

Connecticut's Drunk Driving Statutes

In summary, Connecticut's "drunk driving" or DUI law consists primarily of three statutes, C.G.S. §§ 14-227a, 14-227b and 14-227g. The first prohibits a person from driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or with an "elevated" blood alcohol content (BAC). A person is "under the influence" if his ability to drive is affected to an appreciable degree. He or she has an elevated BAC if it is found to be . 08% or more. Section 14-227g prohibits anyone under age 21 from driving with a BAC of . 02% or more. The laws specify evidence admissibility criteria for alcohol and drug tests. They establish criminal penalties and driver's license suspension penalties for violations.

Connecticut General Statutes § 14-227b provides that a person who drives a vehicle has implicitly given consent to submit to drug or alcohol testing. It establishes administrative license suspension procedures for drivers who refuse to submit to a test or whose test results indicate an elevated BAC. (These provisions are called "implied consent" and "administrative per se," respectively. ) An elevated BAC can be . 08% or more or . 02% or more if the driver is under age 21. A different procedure that allows for a more immediate suspension applies if the driver has a prior license suspension for a DUI conviction or has been involved in a fatal accident. The law provides for longer administrative suspension periods for someone whose BAC is . 16% or more. These administrative license suspension penalties are in addition to any suspension penalties imposed for conviction of any criminal DUI charge.

Someone arrested for certain alcohol related offenses can be ordered by the court to operate only motor vehicles equipped with ignition interlock devices as a condition of release on bail or of his or her application for participation in the Pretrial Alcohol Education System. Use of an ignition interlock device (1) may also be substituted for part of the three-year license suspension penalty for certain second DUI criminal offenders, (2) must be imposed as a condition for restoration of a revoked license after a third DUI criminal conviction, and (3) beginning October 1, 2008, must be imposed following the mandatory one-year license suspension following conviction for second-degree manslaughter with a motor vehicle or second-degree assault with a motor vehicle.

Connecticut law also provides for a Pretrial Alcohol Education Program under which certain eligible offenders charged with DUI may successfully complete an alcohol intervention or substance abuse treatment program, as appropriate, and have the DUI charges dismissed.

Anyone who is convicted of DUI, or who has had two or more administrative license suspensions for BAC test failures or refusals must successfully complete a Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV)-approved substance abuse treatment program before DMV may restore the person's suspended license.

Someone who holds a commercial driver's license faces disqualification from driving a commercial motor vehicle if he is found to have: (1) a BAC of . 04% or more while driving a commercial motor vehicle, (2) a BAC of . 08% or more while driving any other type of vehicle, or (3) refused a BAC test whether driving a commercial or noncommercial motor vehicle.

Connecticut imposes increased criminal penalties if someone is seriously injured or killed by a driver under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In addition, people found to be "persistent felony offenders" are subject to an increased criminal penalty and the motor vehicles of certain offenders must be impounded for 48 hours.

Connecticut Criminal Penalties for Drunk Driving

In addition to possible license suspension, a person convicted of DUI in Connecticut is subject to the penalties listed below.

Table 1: DUI Criminal Penalties

Conviction	Prison Sentence	Fine	License Suspension
First	Either (a) up to six months with a mandatory minimum of two days or (b) up to six months suspended with probation requiring 100 hours of community service	$ 500- $ 1,000	One year
Second	Up to two years, with a mandatory minimum of 120 consecutive days and probation with 100 hours community service	$ 1,000- $ 4,000	Three years (or until age 21 if longer)
Third and Subsequent	Up to three years, with mandatory minimum of one year and probation with 100 hours community service	$ 2,000- $ 8,000	Permanent Revocation

In addition, if the court sentences someone to a period of probation, it may require as a condition of probation that he or she participate in a victim impact panel program approved by the Court Support Services Division. The panel must provide a non-confrontational forum for victims of alcohol or drug related offenses and offenders to share experiences on the impact of alcohol or drug related incidents in their lives. The nonprofit organization that conducts the panel may charge a participation fee of up to $ 25 for any offender ordered to participate.

In assessing these penalties, the law considers as a subsequent conviction one that occurs within 10 years of a prior conviction for the same offense. Also, any conviction that occurs in another state for an offense that the court determines has "substantially the same" essential elements as Connecticut's criminal drunk driving offenses, manslaughter in the 2nd degree with a motor vehicle, or assault in the 2nd degree with a motor vehicle will constitute a prior conviction of the same offense for purposes of determining someone's prior criminal history. (2nd degree manslaughter or assault with a motor vehicle involves driving while under the influence of liquor or drugs.)

The law allows someone whose driver's license has been revoked following a third conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs to seek restoration of driving privileges after six years, provided the commissioner determines it does not endanger public safety, certain requirements are met, and the person submits to installation and use of a vehicle ignition interlock device (PA 07-167).

The license suspension under this law is stayed while a conviction is being appealed. For a driver under age 18, the suspension period is until he or she turns 18 or the period listed above, whichever is longer. For drivers driving under a work-only driving permit, suspension periods are doubled. In addition to these penalties, the court can order a driver to participate in an alcohol education and treatment program.

Connecticut Victims of Motor Vehicle Accidents Involving Drunk and Drugged Drivers

Drunk drivers can be held criminally responsible for their decision to drive drunk, and a personal injury or wrongful death claim against the drunk driver enables the victim or victim's family to hold the driver civilly responsible. Additionally, Connecticut law allows victims of alcohol-related accidents to pursue liability against commercial establishments in certain circumstances, so-called "dram shop" liability. Restaurants, bars, nightclubs and other establishments as well as social hosts that serve alcohol may have legal responsibility.

Jackson O'Keefe has the knowledge and experience to help if you or a loved one has been the victim of a motor vehicle accident involving a drunk or drugged driver. In addition to assessing and pursuing the legal responsibility of third parties for the loss, we know that sometimes an underinsured or uninsured claim may be necessary against your own insurance company and have the knowledge and experience to pursue such claims for full compensation as well.

The firm understands that the injuries suffered in a car accident can be financially and physically devastating. Jackson O'Keefe has the experience, knowledge and resources to help you recover full and fair compensation for all your losses. If you have suffered a personal injury because of the negligence or carelessness of another person, Jackson O'Keefe can take care of your legal concerns while you heal physically and emotionally. Contact the firm to schedule a confidential consultation to discuss your personal injury claim. Jackson O'Keefe handles catastrophic injury claims involving traumatic brain injury (TBI), spinal cord injury and paralysis, as well as claims for wrongful death.

Connecticut DWI DUI drunk driving statistics update

According to a report issued by the federal government, entitled "Vital Signs: Alcohol-Impaired Driving Among Adults --- United States, 2010":

Background: Alcohol-impaired driving crashes account for nearly 11,000 crash fatalities, or about one third of all crash fatalities in the United States.

Methods: CDC analyzed data from the 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey to obtain the prevalence, episodes, and rates of alcohol-impaired driving (defined as driving "when you've had perhaps too much to drink" in the past 30 days) among U.S. adults aged â‰¥18 years who responded to the survey by landline telephone.

Results: In 2010, an estimated 4 million U.S. adult respondents reported at least one episode of alcohol-impaired driving, for an estimated total of approximately 112 million alcohol-impaired driving episodes or 479 episodes per 1,000 adult population. From a peak in 2006, such episodes decreased 30% through 2010. Men accounted for 81% of all episodes with young men aged 21--34 years accounting for 32% of all episodes. Additionally, 85% of alcohol-impaired driving episodes were reported by persons who also reported binge drinking, and the 4.5% of the adult population who reported binge drinking at least four times per month accounted for 55% of all alcohol-impaired driving episodes. Episode rates were nearly four times higher among persons who reported not always wearing seatbelts compared with persons who reported always wearing seatbelts.

Conclusions: Rates of self-reported alcohol-impaired driving have declined substantially in recent years. However, rates remain disproportionally high among young men, binge drinkers, and those who do not always wear a seat belt.

Implications for Public Health: States and communities should continue current evidence-based strategies, such as sobriety checkpoints and enforcement of 0.08 g/dL blood alcohol concentration laws to deter the public from driving while impaired. Additionally, all states should consider requiring ignition interlocks on the vehicles of all persons convicted of alcohol-impaired driving. States without primary seatbelt laws should consider enacting them to reduce fatalities in alcohol-impaired driving crashes.

Key Points included: Alcohol-impaired driving accounts for about one third of U.S. motor vehicle fatalities, nearly 11,000 deaths per year.

In 2010, 1.8% of U.S. adults (4 million men and women) reported over 112 million episodes of alcohol impaired driving.

Men reported 81% of episodes of alcohol-impaired drivingAbout 5% of adults reported binge drinking at least four times per month, yet accounted for 55% of all alcohol-impaired driving episodes.

Although the prevalence of alcohol impaired driving has declined, it continues to cause thousands of deaths each year. Effective interventions such as sobriety checkpoints and ignition interlocks can reduce alcohol impaired driving.

For the full report, see http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a4.htm?s_cid=mm6039a4_w.

This year's statistics represent the lowest percentage of drinking drivers since 1993, the first year the estimates were available. Reasons for the decline might include tough economic times that have people driving less or folks drinking in places that don't require driving, such as home, the researchers said. But with one-third of driving fatalities still linked to alcohol-impaired driving, they wrote, the U.S. still needs better enforcement of laws and policies that cut back on drunk driving -- sobriety checkpoints, minimum-age laws and alcohol taxes, to name a few. "Reasons for the decline in alcohol-impaired driving are not well understood, but possible factors include less discretionary driving as a result of the current economic downturn ... and possible changes in drinking location to places where driving is not required such as at home," the center said in the conclusion of its survey, citing two sources of outside research.

In Connecticut, according to the CT Post, over Labor Day weekend this year, there were 49 arrests for driving while intoxicated -- a sharp decline over the 72 DWI arrests over the same period last year. On Memorial Day weekend in 2010, there were 76 arrests for drinking and driving. This Memorial Day weekend, there was 70 DWI arrests. However, drinking and driving arrests over Fourth of July weekend actually went up between 2010 and 2011, from 59 to 77.

Jackson O'Keefe handles Connecticut motor vehicle accidents involving DUI drunk drivers and drugged drivers cases throughout the State of Connecticut, including clients in West Hartford, Farmington, Avon, Simsbury, Old Lyme, Ellington, Tolland, North Haven, Wallingford, Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Cromwell, Bethlehem, Moodus, East Haddam, Hadlyme, Madison, Middletown, Hartford, Southington, Plantsville, Griswold, Hartford County, New Haven County, Middlesex County, New London County and Litchfield County.

Connecticut Teen Car Accidents – Part of a National Problem

p>According to the federal government: "Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for U.S. teens, accounting for more than one in three deaths in this age group. In 2009, eight teens ages 16 to 19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries. Per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are four times more likely than older drivers to crash." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) [Online]. (2010). National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (producer).

In 2008, there were a total of 36 Connecticut deaths as a result of teen motor vehicle accidents. For a state by state breakdown of the 2008 statistics click here. Nationally, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among 15- to 20-year-olds. Nationally, 16-year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age.

According to the CDC, in 2009, about 3,000 teens in the United States aged 15–19 were killed and more than 350,000 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor-vehicle crashes. Young people ages 15-24 represent only 14% of the U.S. population. However, they account for 30% ($19 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among males and 28% ($7 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among females.

Risk Factors for Connecticut Teenage Auto Accidents

The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among 16- to 19-year-olds than among any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are four times more likely than older drivers to crash. Among teen drivers, those at especially high risk for motor vehicle crashes are:

Males: In 2006, the motor vehicle death rate for male drivers and passengers ages 15 to 19 was almost two times that of their female counterparts.
Teens driving with teen passengers: The presence of teen passengers increases the crash risk of unsupervised teen drivers. This risk increases with the number of teen passengers.
Newly licensed teens: Crash risk is particularly high during the first year that teenagers are eligible to drive.

What factors put teen drivers at risk?

1. Teens are more likely than older drivers to underestimate dangerous situations or not be able to recognize hazardous situations. Jonah BA, Dawson NE. Youth and risk: age differences in risky driving, risk perception, and risk utility. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 1987;3:13–29. 2. Teens are more likely than older drivers to speed and allow shorter headways (the distance from the front of one vehicle to the front of the next). The presence of male teenage passengers increases the likelihood of this risky driving behavior. Simons-Morton B, Lerner N, Singer J. The observed effects of teenage passengers on the risky driving behavior of teenage drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention 3. Among male drivers between 15 and 20 years of age who were involved in fatal crashes in 2005, 37% were speeding at the time of the crash and 26% had been drinking. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Dept. of Transportation (US). Traffic safety facts 2008: Speeding . Washington (DC): NHTSA; 2000a [cited 2009 Nov 6]; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Dept. of Transportation (US). Traffic safety facts 2008: Young Drivers . Washington (DC): NHTSA; 2008b [cited 2009 Nov 6 ] 4. Compared with other age groups, teens have the lowest rate of seat belt use. In 2005, 10% of high school students reported they rarely or never wear seat belts when riding with someone else.10 5. Male high school students (12.5%) were more likely than female students (7.8%) to rarely or never wear seat belts. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2007 [Online]. (2009). National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (producer). [Cited 2009 Nov 6 ]. 6. Compared with other age groups, teens have the lowest rate of seat belt use. 7. African-American students (12%) and Hispanic students (13%) were more likely than white students (10.1%) to rarely or never wear seat belts. Id. 8. At all levels of blood alcohol concentration (BAC), the risk of involvement in a motor vehicle crash is greater for teens than for older drivers. Id. 9. In 2008, 25% of drivers ages 15 to 20 who died in motor vehicle crashes had a BAC of 0.08 g/dl or higher. Id. 10. In a national survey conducted in 2007, nearly three out of ten teens reported that, within the previous month, they had ridden with a driver who had been drinking alcohol. One in ten reported having driven after drinking alcohol within the same one-month period. Id. 11. In 2008, nearly three out of every four teen drivers killed in motor vehicle crashes after drinking and driving were not wearing a seat belt. Id. 12. In 2008, half of teen deaths from motor vehicle crashes occurred between 3 p.m. and midnight and 56% occurred on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. Id.

Connecticut Teen Motor Vehicle Accidents – The Legislative Response in 2007

After a rash of fatal teen auto accidents in Connecticut during the early 2000s, in 2007 Connecticut created a Teen Safe Driving Task Force to examine laws and raise awareness of this critical issue facing teenagers, parents and communities.

The Governor later signed into law the legislation that the task force recommended. It included rolling back curfew times for teen drivers, increasing on-the-road training requirements and implementing tougher penalties for driving under the influence and other motor vehicle violations related to teen driving. According to the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles, teen drivers 16 and 17 years-old in Connecticut had the fewest number of fatal crashes last year in more than a decade. Connecticut in 2009 saw a 62-percent reduction in fatal crashes involving this age group of drivers when examining a 12-year average since 1997. In the 2009 calendar year the number dropped to 6 for all of that year.

Connecticut had a 54 percent reduction in these fatal crashes from 2005 to 2009. In addition, the state saw a 16.5 percent reduction for all accidents in which a 16 or 17-year-old Connecticut driver was at fault for 2008 when the new laws were first adopted and currently the most recent set of complete numbers. (5,640 accidents in 2007 and 4,704 in 2008)

What can Connecticut parents of teen drivers do to help avoid teen car accidents?

2009 studies published in the journal Pediatrics involved more than 5,500 teenagers. The first study showed that teens who said their parents set clear rules, paid attention to where they were going and whom they were with, and did so in a supportive way were: half as likely to crash, twice as likely to wear seat belts, 71 percent less likely to drive while intoxicated and 30 percent less likely to use a cell phone while driving. These findings are compared to teens who said their parents were less involved.

The second study found that teens who reported being the main driver of a vehicle were twice as likely to be involved in a crash, compared with teens who said they shared a vehicle with other family members. Nearly 75 percent of the teens surveyed reported being the main driver of a car.

As a whole, these studies confirm fewer crashes among teens with supportive parents and clear rules.

A parent may avoid unrealistic expectation of their child's level of understanding of the dangers posed in the operation of a motor vehicle. Emphasizing what is not acceptable behavior with a teenager, enforcing consequences for violations of rules and vigilantly monitoring actions and location may result in less reckless and negligent behavior on their part.

Responding to Connecticut Teen Accidents

Jackson O'Keefe handles Connecticut motor vehicle accident cases and Connecticut teenager car accident cases throughout the State of Connecticut, including clients in West Hartford, Farmington, Avon, Simsbury, Old Lyme, Ellington, Tolland, North Haven, Wallingford, Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Cromwell, Bethlehem, Moodus, East Haddam, Hadlyme, Madison, Middletown, Hartford, Southington, Plantsville, Griswold, Hartford County, New Haven County, Middlesex County, New London County and Litchfield County.

Connecticut Car Accident Lawyers

The Connecticut car accident lawyers at Jackson O'Keefe have the years of experience and knowledge necessary to provide you with the skilled representation you need when dealing with insurance companies following any type of motor vehicle accident. Car crashes and those involving motorcycles or commercial trucks all have specific laws and issues unique to them. Quick assessment of those issues, determining the cause of the crash and assessing the severity of your injury and your medical needs are the services you can expect when you retain our Connecticut car accident attorneys. The Connecticut car accident lawyers at Jackson O'Keefe are adept at assessing the physical principles of the accident, the medical evidence used to evaluate injuries, and the economic and accounting principles required to evaluate losses. We provide the strongest possible representation to maximize your recovery. We will investigate the car accident scene, research the accident and your car, along with any other evidence that came into play at the time of your accident. We will stand up for you against any wrongdoer, trucking company or anyone else who has caused you harm. It is our responsibility to make sure your rights are upheld and defended. Because of our experience in taking cases to trial, we can often obtain favorable settlements even without a trial. With over 50 years of representing Connecticut car accident litigants, the law firm of Jackson O'Keefe understands how the unique circumstances of your collision require careful and compassionate representation.

If you have been seriously injured in a Connecticut car accident, you will need to prove that either a person negligently operated a vehicle which caused the accident or that some defect involving the vehicle or the roadway caused the accident. The car accident attorneys in Hartford at the law firm of Jackson O'Keefe can explain the rights of drivers and how the law works to protect these rights. Our attorneys handle every type of car accident resulting in serious injury or death: intersection collisions, highway accidents, SUV rollovers, fatal car crashes, pedestrian accidents, drunk driving injuries, among many others. Even a "routine" rear-end collision can have catastrophic results, including spinal cord injury or brain injury, permanent disability, or chronic pain. Recovery may take months or years, and Jackson O'Keefe is dedicated to securing full compensation for clients.

The facts are staggering. There are approximately 6 million car accidents in the United States every year. Of these 6 million car accidents, there are 3 million injuries--about 2 million of which are permanent, including paralysis, paraplegia and quadriplegia. Car accidents are responsible for killing over 40,000 people each year. Fatal car accidents serve as the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 34. Every day, approximately 115 people die from motor vehicle accidents. Damages from auto crashes total $150 billion annually. One of every 100 Americans will be in a car accident this year. Most of us will be in at least one car accident by the time we reach age 30. Many car accidents are minor, but many others are devastating. Physical injury is not the only cost. Economic loss from car accidents was $230.6 billion in 2000. This included time lost from work, property damage, medical expenses and traffic delays. Car accidents also leave emotional injuries. According to the American Psychological Association, car accidents are the most frequent cause of emotional trauma for men and the number two source of trauma for women.

The victim of a Connecticut car accident in may be able to collect financial compensation for his or her losses, including property damage, pain and suffering, medical bills, estimated future medical expenses, lost wages, and lost income potential. The car accident attorneys in Hartford at Jackson O'Keefe addresses the needs of people who are injured in Connecticut no matter how severe the injury. The law firm has years of experience, a record of success, and the resources to help you recover fair compensation. After an automobile accident it is essential for you and your family to regain the physical and emotional stability you lost due to an accident. Let the Jackson O'Keefe firm, and its team of lawyers, address your legal concerns while you focus on recovery. For more information, contact us to schedule a free consultation.

The Connecticut Road System

As of 2007, the Connecticut State Highway System had a total of 3,719 miles of roadway. The number of licensed drivers increased from 2. 1 million in 1979 to 2. 8 million in 2007. Total vehicle registrations increased from under 2. 3 million to just over 3 million in 2007. The total annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Connecticut increased from 19. 4 billion in 1979 to 32. 1 billion in 2007. This includes rural VMT of about 5 billion in 1979 and 4 billion in 2007, and urban VMT of 14. 4 billion in 1979 and 28 billion in 2007. The average annual VMT for a licensed driver was 9,222 in 1979 and 11,252 in 2007.

In Connecticut, auto accidents frequently happen on the Interstate and State Highways: I 84, I 91, Route 2, Route 6, Route 44, I 395, I 95, I 291, I 384, Route 85, Route 17, Route 14 and Route 12. The Connecticut Turnpike (Interstate 95) runs southwest to northeast along the coast, and Interstates 84, 91, and 395 further service the inbound and outbound traffic trying to reach New York, Boston, or points further south. Other major road systems include the Merritt Parkway and the Wilbur Cross Parkway, which combine to form Connecticut State Route 15, which begin from the Hutchinson River Parkway in New York but turn north to New Haven and ending as a surface street in Berlin. Interstate 95 is one of the most heavily traveled and congested highways in America because of the traffic to and from New York and increasing population density.

Connecticut Motor Vehicle Accidents – The Statistics

According to reports by the Connecticut legislature in 1985, there were 115,427 accidents reported in Connecticut. In 2006, there were 71,724 reported accidents. The law requires only certain accidents to be reported, but the definition of a reportable accident in 1985 was different than in 2006, which may account for some of the decrease in 2006. In 1985, motor vehicle operators were responsible by law to file an accident report in certain circumstances with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The law also required police authorities to file a copy of all police-investigated traffic accidents when the investigation was completed. The law defined a reportable accident as a motor vehicle accident in which someone was killed or injured or incurred over $ 600 in property damage. As of October 1, 1990, operators are no longer required to file accident reports.

Sixteen towns were among the 20 towns with the most reported accidents in both 1985 and 2006: Bridgeport, Bristol, Danbury, East Hartford, Fairfield, Greenwich, Manchester, Milford, New Haven, Norwalk, Norwich, Stamford, Stratford, Wallingford, Waterbury, and Westport. The top seven towns were the same in both years, although their ranking changed slightly: Bridgeport, Danbury, Hartford, New Haven, Norwalk, Stamford, and Waterbury.

The 20 towns with the most reported traffic accidents in 1985 accounted for 50% of all accidents reported in the state. In 2006, they accounted for 47% of all reported accidents. The top seven towns were the same in both years, although their ranking changed slightly: Bridgeport, Danbury, Hartford, New Haven, Norwalk, Stamford, and Waterbury. Table 1 ranks the 20 towns with the most reported accidents in 1985 and 2006 in descending order.

Table 1: The 20 Towns with the Most Reported Traffic Accidents, 1985 and 2006

1985

2006

Rank	Town	Accidents # (% of state)	Rank	Town	Accidents # (% of state)
1	Hartford	8,353 (7. 2%)	1	New Haven	3,425 (4. 9%)
2	Waterbury	5,870 (5. 1%)	2	Bridgeport	3,137 (4. 4%)
3	New Haven	4,090 (3. 5%)	3	Waterbury	2,672 (3. 7%)
4	Norwalk	4,065 (3. 5%)	4	Hartford	2,537 (3. 5%)
5	Bridgeport	3,457 (3. 0%)	5	Norwalk	2,224 (3. 1%)
6	Stamford	2,794 (2. 4%)	6	Stamford	2,186 (3. 1%)
7	Danbury	2,569 (2. 2%)	7	Danbury	2,216 (3. 0%)
8	East Hartford	2,519 (2. 2%)	8	Hamden	1,320 (1. 8%)
9	Manchester	2,448 (2. 1%)	9	Stratford	1,284 (1. 8%)
10	Bristol	2,291 (2. 0%)	10	Greenwich	1,259 (1. 8%)
11	West Hartford	2,204 (1. 9%)	11	West Haven	1,235 (1. 7%)
12	Milford	2,196 (1. 9%)	12	East Hartford	1,153 (1. 6%)
13	Greenwich	2,085 (1. 8%)	13	Meriden	1,124 (1. 6%)
14	New Britain	2,053 (1. 8%)	14	Wallingford	1,123 (1. 6%)
15	Stratford	1,913 (1. 7%)	15	Westport	1,121 (1. 6%)
16	Westport	1,750 (1. 5%)	16	Manchester	1,109 (1. 6%)
17	Groton	1,748 (1. 5%)	17	Milford	1,088 (1. 5%)
18	Fairfield	1,737 (1. 5%)	18	Fairfield	1,074 (1. 5%)
19	Norwich	1,619 1. 4%)	19	Norwich	1,071 (1. 5%)
20	Wallingford	1,605 (1. 4%)	20	Bristol	1,028 (1. 4%)

TOTAL (% of all in state)

57,366 (50%)

TOTAL (% of all in state)

33,386 (47%)

Traffic Accidents by Town – 1985 AND 2006

The following Table compares accidents that occurred on Connecticut's publicly maintained roadways by town for 1985 and 2006. For its 1985 report, the Connecticut DOT obtained data from the Connecticut DMV. For its 2006 report, the DOT obtained data solely from police accident reports.

1985

2006

Town

Total

% of Total

Total

% of Total

Andover	87	0. 1%	36	0. 05%
Ansonia	388	0. 3%	171	0. 24%
Ashford	96	0. 1%	58	0. 08%
Avon	528	0. 5%	295	0. 41%
Barkhamsted	125	0. 1%	72	0. 10%
Beacon Falls	90	0. 1%	70	0. 10%
Berlin	341	0. 3%	421	0. 59%
Bethany	116	0. 1%	75	0. 10%
Bethel	379	0. 3%	313	0. 44%
Bethlehem	45	0. 0%	20	0. 03%
Bloomfield	669	0. 6%	530	0. 74%
Bolton	154	0. 1%	116	0. 16%
Bozrah	62	0. 1%	45	0. 06%
Branford	1,038	0. 9%	697	0. 97%
Bridgeport	3,457	3. 0%	3,137	4. 37%
Bridgewater	31	0. 0%	29	0. 04%
Bristol	2,291	2. 0%	1,028	1. 43%
Brookfield	587	0. 5%	418	0. 58%
Brooklyn	161	0. 1%	109	0. 15%
Burlington	158	0. 1%	131	0. 18%
Canaan	25	0. 0%	18	0. 03%
Canterbury	57	0. 0%	50	0. 07%
Canton	393	0. 3%	244	0. 34%
Chaplin	58	0. 1%	36	0. 05%
Cheshire	837	0. 7%	592	0. 83%
Chester	118	0. 1%	57	0. 08%
Clinton	235	0. 2%	85	0. 12%
Colchester	250	0. 2%	219	0. 31%
Colebrook	36	0. 0%	17	0. 02%
Columbia	109	0. 1%	69	0. 10%
Cornwall	43	0. 0%	30	0. 04%
Coventry	206	0. 2%	194	0. 27%
Cromwell	509	0. 4%	403	0. 56%
Danbury	2,569	2. 2%	2,126	2. 96%
Darien	754	0. 7%	667	0. 93%
Deep River	110	0. 1%	30	0. 04%
Derby	871	0. 8%	512	0. 71%
Durham	157	0. 1%	119	0. 17%
Eastford	37	0. 0%	22	0. 03%
East Granby	152	0. 1%	73	0. 10%
East Haddam	135	0. 1%	67	0. 09%
East Hampton	275	0. 2%	155	0. 22%
East Hartford	2,519	2. 2%	1,153	1. 61%
East Haven	764	0. 7%	564	0. 79%
East Lyme	518	0. 4%	375	0. 52%
Easton	188	0. 2%	116	0. 16%
East Windsor	487	0. 4%	266	0. 37%
Ellington	252	0. 2%	139	0. 19%
Enfield	1,452	1. 3%	688	0. 96%
Essex	141	0. 1%	67	0. 09%
Fairfield	1,737	1. 5%	1,074	1. 50%
Farmington	990	0. 9%	823	1. 15%
Franklin	99	0. 1%	86	0. 12%
Glastonbury	946	0. 8%	400	0. 56%
Goshen	55	0. 0%	21	0. 03%
Granby	154	0. 1%	98	0. 14%
Greenwich	2,085	1. 8%	1,259	1. 76%
Griswold	221	0. 2%	181	0. 25%
Groton	1,748	1. 5%	688	0. 96%
Guilford	570	0. 5%	325	0. 45%
Haddam	212	0. 2%	124	0. 17%
Hamden	1,324	1. 1%	1,320	1. 84%
Hampton	30	0. 0%	14	0. 02%
Hartford	8,353	7. 2%	2,537	3. 54%
Hartland	18	0. 0%	13	0. 02%
Harwinton	182	0. 2%	101	0. 14%
Hebron	136	0. 1%	75	0. 10%
Kent	93	0. 1%	45	0. 06%
Killingly	469	0. 4%	318	0. 44%
Killingworth	81	0. 1%	63	0. 09%
Lebanon	125	0. 1%	51	0. 07%
Ledyard	405	0. 4%	223	0. 31%
Lisbon	168	0. 1%	131	0. 18%
Litchfield	289	0. 3%	208	0. 29%
Lyme	42	0. 0%	9	0. 01%
Madison	499	0. 4%	239	0. 33%
Manchester	2,448	2. 1%	1,109	1. 55%
Mansfield	598	0. 5%	363	0. 51%
Marlborough	141	0. 1%	122	0. 17%
Meriden	1,414	1. 2%	1,124	1. 57%
Middlebury	375	0. 3%	290	0. 40%
Middlefield	189	0. 2%	89	0. 12%
Middletown	1,170	1. 0%	584	0. 81%
Milford	2,196	1. 9%	1,088	1. 52%
Monroe	526	0. 5%	338	0. 47%
Montville	626	0. 5%	431	0. 60%
Morris	62	0. 1%	29	0. 04%
Naugatuck	828	0. 7%	381	0. 53%
New Britain	2,053	1. 8%	963	1. 34%
New Canaan	609	0. 5%	268	0. 37%
New Fairfield	207	0. 2%	123	0. 17%
New Hartford	169	0. 1%	77	0. 11%
New Haven	4090	3. 5%	3425	4. 78%
Newington	784	. 07%	642	0. 90%
New London	1,483	1. 3%	551	0. 77%
New Milford	668	0. 6%	577	0. 80%
Newtown	932	0. 8%	499	0. 70%
Norfolk	66	0. 1%	32	0. 04%
North Branford	298	0. 3%	256	0. 36%
North Canaan	113	0. 1%	56	0. 08%
North Haven	970	0. 8%	973	1. 36%
North Stonington	174	0. 2%	153	0. 21%
Norwalk	4,065	3. 5%	2,224	3. 10%
Norwich	1,619	1. 4%	1,071	1. 49%
Old Lyme	259	0. 2%	137	0. 19%
Old Saybrook	326	0. 3%	285	0. 40%
Orange	522	0. 5%	783	1. 09%
Oxford	202	0. 2%	139	0. 19%
Plainfield	445	0. 4%	289	0. 40%
Plainville	678	0. 6%	517	0. 72%
Plymouth	146	0. 1%	237	0. 33%
Pomfret	93	0. 1%	84	0. 12%
Portland	245	0. 2%	154	0. 21%
Preston	169	0. 1%	186	0. 26%
Prospect	184	0. 2%	163	0. 23%
Putnam	290	0. 3%	139	0. 19%
Redding	224	0. 2%	137	0. 19%
Ridgefield	788	0. 7%	427	0. 60%
Rocky Hill	431	0. 4%	456	0. 64%
Roxbury	50	0. 0%	37	0. 05%
Salem	73	0. 1%	81	0. 11%
Salisbury	109	0. 1%	71	0. 10%
Scotland	25	0. 0%	6	0. 01%
Seymour	556	0. 5%	501	0. 70%
Sharon	99	0. 1%	49	0. 07%
Shelton	1,142	1. 0%	670	0. 93%
Sherman	55	0. 0%	27	0. 04%
Simsbury	521	0. 5%	304	0. 42%
Somers	202	0. 2%	98	0. 14%
Southbury	506	0. 4%	283	0. 39%
Southington	1,274	1. 1%	790	1. 10%
South Windsor	539	0. 5%	307	0. 43%
Sprague	69	0. 1%	29	0. 04%
Stafford	264	0. 2%	157	0. 22%
Stamford	2,794	2. 4%	2,186	3. 05%
Sterling	40	0. 0%	26	0. 04%
Stonington	767	0. 7%	410	0. 57%
Stratford	1,913	1. 7%	1,284	1. 79%
Suffield	349	0. 3%	221	0. 31%
Thomaston	210	0. 2%	224	0. 31%
Thompson	224	0. 2%	109	0. 15%
Tolland	367	0. 3%	250	0. 35%
Torrington	896	0. 8%	685	0. 96%
Trumbull	725	0. 6%	891	1. 24%
Union	70	0. 1%	56	0. 08%
Vernon	1,052	0. 9%	705	0. 98%
Voluntown	38	0. 0%	34	0. 05%
Wallingford	1,605	1. 4%	1,123	1. 57%
Warren	21	0. 0%	11	0. 02%
Washington	88	0. 1%	68	0. 09%
Waterbury	5,870	5. 1%	2,672	3. 73%
Waterford	926	0. 8%	643	0. 90%
Watertown	683	0. 6%	452	0. 63%
Westbrook	275	0. 2%	96	0. 13%
West Hartford	2,204	1. 9%	916	1. 28%
West Haven	1,596	1. 4%	1,235	1. 72%
Weston	196	0. 2%	117	0. 16%
Westport	1,750	1. 5%	1,121	1. 56%
Wethersfield	905	0. 8%	592	0. 83%
Willington	176	0. 2%	107	0. 15%
Wilton	697	0. 6%	407	0. 57%
Winchester	231	0. 2%	283	0. 39%
Windham	835	0. 7%	467	0. 65%
Windsor	958	0. 8%	651	0. 91%
Windsor Locks	399	0. 3%	243	0. 34%
Wolcott	395	0. 3%	187	0. 26%
Woodbridge	350	0. 3%	294	0. 41%
Woodbury	231	0. 2%	135	0. 19%
Woodstock	139	0. 1%	92	0. 13%
Unknown	2	0	0	0
TOTAL	115,427	100%	71,724	100%

Source: Connecticut Department of Transportation, Bureau of Policy and Planning,

Jackson O'Keefe handles Connecticut car accident cases throughout the State of Connecticut, including clients in West Hartford, Farmington, Avon, Simsbury, Old Lyme, Ellington, Tolland, North Haven, Wallingford, Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Cromwell, Bethlehem, Moodus, East Haddam, Hadlyme, Madison, Middletown, Hartford, Southington, Plantsville, Hartford County, New Haven County, Middlesex County, New London County and Litchfield County.

Slips, Falls, and Other Premises Liability Claims

Premises liability law involves the legal responsibilities of property owners and occupiers to prevent injuries to persons on their property. One of the most common causes of such injuries is a trip or slip and fall, such as on an icy sidewalk, a loose or uneven stair tread, or a piece of debris or spilled liquid on the floor. Property owner liability varies depending on the rules and principles adopted in the jurisdiction where the injury occurred. An experienced personal injury lawyer at Jackson O'Keefe in Hartford, Connecticut, can evaluate the strength of your premises liability claim and help you recover damages for lost wages, medical bills, and pain and suffering.

Premises Liability: General Principles

Some states’ premises liability laws focus on the status of the visitor to the property. In such states, the injured person is generally defined as either an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser.

Invitee. An invitee is someone who is expressly or impliedly invited onto the property of another. The owner owes the invitee the highest duty of care, which includes taking every reasonable precaution to ensure the invitee’s safety.
Licensee. A licensee, by contrast, enters the property for his or her own purposes but is present at the consent of the owner. The owner is required to warn a licensee of hidden dangers, but is not necessarily required to fix them.
Trespasser. A trespasser enters the property without any right whatsoever to do so. In the case of adult trespassers, the owner generally has no duty of care and need not take reasonable care of his property or warn of hidden dangers. Even if a person was trespassing at the time of his or her injury, he or she may still be able to recover, however, if he or she can show that the owner knew it was likely that trespassers would enter the property.

Children are owed a higher duty of care, regardless of whether they are considered trespassers. A landowner’s duty to warn is also heightened with respect to children.

In states where consideration is given to the condition of the property and the activities of the owner and visitor, a uniform standard of care is applied to both invitees and licensees. This uniform standard requires the exercise of reasonable care for the safety of visitors other than trespassers. To satisfy the reasonableness standard owed to invitees and licensees, an owner has a continuing duty to inspect the property to identify dangerous conditions and either repair them or post warnings as appropriate.

Proving Owners' Liability in Premises Liability Cases

In proving a premises liability case, an injured person must show that the standard of reasonableness required by an owner has not been met. Perhaps the most difficult element an injured person must prove is the owner’s knowledge of the condition causing his or her injury. The injured person must prove that the owner knew or should have known the condition in order for liability to attach, which is often quite often difficult to establish.

Defenses to Liability in Premises Liability Cases

One of the commonly applied theories to limit an injured person’s recovery is comparative or contributory fault. A visitor has a duty, in most cases, to exercise reasonable care for his or her own safety, and when that degree of care is not exercised, then an injured person's recovery may be limited or reduced by an amount attributable to his or her own negligence.

In the cases where a person's injuries are the result of slipping on an icy sidewalk in front of a business or on a grape, lettuce leaf, or other food item that has fallen on a grocery store floor, the property owner may or may not be liable for the person’s injuries. Although property owners have a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain the premises in such a way to prevent injuries to lawful visitors, if a condition of the premises is noticed by a customer or other visitor or should be readily apparent, the property owner may avoid liability because the injured person has also a duty to protect himself or herself against the injury.

The property owner may also avoid liability by establishing that the debris had so recently fallen on the floor or that the ice had so recently accumulated that the responsible persons had no reasonable opportunity to correct the condition and avoid the hazard before the plaintiff fell. In other words, the plaintiff in a slip and fall case, whether it occurs in a grocery store or elsewhere, must show that the owner had a reasonable period of time in which to discover the dangerous condition and in which to remedy it. The determination of what constitutes a reasonable time will vary from case to case.

Conclusion

Even common accidents such as slips and falls can present complex legal issues and complicated questions of both fact and law. Accordingly, if you have been injured in a premises-related accident, an experienced and knowledgeable personal injury attorney at Jackson O'Keefe in Hartford, Connecticut, is in an excellent position to advise you on your rights and work with you to pursue a favorable outcome.

Jackson O’Keefe handles slips and falls matters throughout the State of Connecticut, including clients in West Hartford, Farmington, Avon, Simsbury, Old Lyme, Ellington, Tolland, North Haven, Wallingford, Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Cromwell, Bethlehem, Moodus, East Haddam, Hadlyme, Madison, Middletown, Hartford, Southington, Plantsville, Hartford County, New Haven County, Middlesex County, New London County and Litchfield County.

Connecticut Snow and Ice Falls – The Legal Duty Requirement and Standard of Reasonable Care

Under Connecticut law, to establish liability for any injury as a result of dangerous conditions on property, a claimant must establish that the person or entity sued was in possession and control of the property, and owed a duty to the particular claimant. Whether a duty was owed to the particular claimant will depend upon the person's status on the property – as a person not permitted to be present, as a person allowed, or as a person explicitly or implicitly invited to be present.

First, with regard to possession and control, under Connecticut law, "it is the possession of land that imposes liability for injuries rather than the ownership of land, ... because the person in possession is in a position of control and is best able to prevent harm." Hobart v. McDonald's Restaurant of Connecticut, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at Meriden, Docket No. 263193 (July 19, 1999, Beach, J.).

"Retention of control is essentially a matter of intention to be determined in the light of all the significant circumstances." Dinnan v. Jozwiakowski, 156 Conn. 432, 434, 242 A.2d 747 (1968). As has also been noted, "[t]he word 'control' has no legal or technical meaning distinct from that given in its popular acceptation ... and refers to the power or authority to manage, superintend, direct or oversee ... Unless it is definitely expressed in the lease, the circumstances of the particular case determine whether the lessor has reserved control of the premises or whether they were under the exclusive dominion of the tenant, and it becomes a question of fact and is a matter of intention in the light of all the significant and attendant facts which bear on the issue." In considering control of the premises, one can look to acts of maintenance, upkeep, inspection, restricting or allowing entry to the property, and the use of the premises. Panaroni v. Johnson, 158 Conn. 92, 98-100, 256 A.2d 246 (1969). Significantly, more than one entity can be in control of a premises at the same time, and thus responsibility for injuries upon the premises may be shared by more than one entity.

Second, with regard to whether a duty is owed and the level of duty, under Connecticut law, "in general, there is an ascending degree of duty owed by the possessor of land to persons on the land based on their entrant status, i.e., trespasser, licensee or invitee." Corcoran v. Jacovino, 161 Conn. 462, 465, 290 A.2d 225 (1971); see D. Wright, J. FitzGerald & W. Ankerman, Connecticut Law of Torts (3d Ed.) § 47, p. 109. A possessor of land has a duty to an invitee to reasonably inspect and maintain the premises in order to render them reasonably safe. Warren v. Stancliff, 157 Conn. 216, 218, 251 A.2d 74 (1968). "In addition, the possessor of land must warn an invitee of dangers that the invitee could not reasonably be expected to discover. Id.; see generally D. Wright, J. FitzGerald & W. Ankerman, supra, § at 49." Morin v. Bell Court Condominium Assn., Inc., 223 Conn. 323, 327, 612 A.2d 1197 (1992). The duties owed an invitee by a possessor of land, however, do not normally extend to a licensee because the licensee must take the property as he or she finds it. Id.

"Invitees fall into certain general categories. A public invitee is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land as a member of the public for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public.... A business invitee is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings with the possessor of the land.... [General Statutes § 52-557a], which provides that [t]he standard of care owed to a social invitee shall be the same as the standard of care owed to a business invitee, in effect recognizes a third kind of invitee, namely, the social invitee. The distinction between one who is an invitee and one who is merely a licensee turns largely on whether the visitor has received an invitation, as opposed to permission, from the possessor of land, to enter the land or remain on the land. Although an invitation itself does not establish the status of an invitee, it is essential to it. Mere permission, as distinguished from invitation, is sufficient to make the visitor a licensee but it does not make him an invitee." Kurti v. Becker, 54 Conn.App. 335, 338, 733 A.2d 916, cert. denied, 251 Conn. 909, 739 A.2d 1248 (1999).

Connecticut Law – Possessor's Duty in the Snow and Ice Context

In situations involving ice or snow removal, under Connecticut law "in the absence of unusual circumstances, a property owner, in fulfilling the duty owed to invitees upon his property to exercise reasonable diligence in removing dangerous accumulations of snow and ice, may await the end of a storm and a reasonable time thereafter before removing ice and snow from outside walks and steps. To require a landlord or other inviter to keep walks and steps clear of dangerous accumulations of ice, sleet or snow or to spread sand or ashes while a storm continues is inexpedient and impractical." Kraus v. Newton, 211 Conn. 191, 197-98, 558 A.2d 240 (1989). Thus, "a landowner's duty to remedy the effects of a storm does not arise until the end of a storm and a reasonable time thereafter." Sinert v. Olympia & York Development Co., 38 Conn.App. 844, 850, 664 A.2d 791, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 927, 667 A.2d 553 (1995). Thus, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that property owners are entitled to wait a reasonable time after a storm to remove ice unless there are "unusual circumstances". The only instances where "unusual circumstances" have been found to exist is where there has already been a changeover in precipitation and there are no alternative means of egress from premises. Cooks v. O'Brian Properties Inc., 48 Conn. App. 339, 346-47 (1998); see also Cafarelli v. First Nat'l Supermarkets, Inc., 46 Conn. Sup. 186, 187 (1999).

For the purposes of the ongoing storm doctrine, both ongoing freezing rain fall and ongoing snow fall may prevent the imposition of the defendant's duty of care. Kraus v. Newton, supra, 211 Conn. at 197, 558 A.2d 240 (laying out the ongoing storm doctrine in a situation involving an ongoing freezing rain storm); Cooks v. O'Brien Properties, Inc., 48 Conn.App. 339, 341, 710 A.2d 788 (1998) (applying the doctrine in a situation where a winter storm deposited snow and ice in the area where the plaintiff fell). The rule in Kraus, however, "does not foreclose submission to the jury, on a proper evidentiary foundation, of the factual determinations of whether a plaintiff's injury has resulted from new ice or old ice when the effects of separate storms begin to converge ." Kraus v. Newton, supra, 211 Conn. at 198, 558 A.2d 240.

To meet its burden of proving that the ongoing storm doctrine applies so as to preclude the imposition of the duty of care, a possessor may have to establish that any accumulation of snow or ice was not the result of a prior storm. See Kraus v. Newton, supra, 211 Conn. at 198, 558 A.2d 240.

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently held that the storm-in-progress rule applied to bar a claim for personal injuries when the temperature was around freezing and rain was falling both when the plaintiff arrived on the premises at 8 a.m. and as the plaintiff left the premises approximately two hours later. Leon v. DeJesus, 123 Conn. App. 574 (2010).

Connecticut Slip and Fall Snow and Ice Accident Attorneys

The lawyers at Jackson O'Keefe help people recover compensation after being seriously injured because of negligence or misconduct by an individual or organization. In these cases, there are no attorneys fees unless you recover. We provide the strongest possible representation to maximize your recovery. Because of our experience over 50 years in taking cases to trial, we can often obtain favorable settlements even without a trial. We have the knowledge of the applicable law to help you quickly recover compensation.

In Connecticut, many people believe that slipping on snow or ice is their fault. In some cases it is, but if it can be shown that a property owner failed to clear the snow or ice in a timely manner or is otherwise responsible, then you may have the basis for a successful case. The same applies to other obstructions or conditions that lead to a fall. When representing you, Jackson O'Keefe will thoroughly document the negligence of the property owner. We will also identify the full amount of your economic losses and place a value on your pain and suffering. We will aggressively pursue results for you.

We invite you to explore our website to learn more about Jackson O'Keefe and what we have to offer. For more information, contact us to schedule a free consultation.

The attorneys at Jackson O'Keefe handle cases arising from Connecticut falls on snow and ice matters throughout the State of Connecticut, including clients in Hartford, West Hartford, Farmington, Avon, Simsbury, Old Lyme, Ellington, Tolland, North Haven, Wallingford, Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Cromwell, Bethlehem, Moodus, East Haddam, Hadlyme, Madison, Middletown, Hartford, Southington, Plantsville, Hartford County, New Haven County, Middlesex County, New London County and Litchfield County.

When Personal Injuries Result in Death: Wrongful Death Cases

In general, a wrongful death claim is one in which it is alleged that a person died as a result of another's negligence. The deceased person’s surviving relatives, dependents, or beneficiaries may bring suit against the responsible party or parties, seeking monetary damages for their losses. Each state has its own wrongful death law and not every state follows the same guidelines, principles, or rules. A personal injury attorney from Jackson O'Keefe in Hartford, Connecticut, can advise you on whether you have a valid wrongful death claim and can help you pursue that claim against the responsible party or parties.

The individuals who are entitled to bring a wrongful death claim also depends on the jurisdiction. Generally, the primary beneficiaries of the person who has died (often the spouse and children) are able to bring a claim, and in some states the parents of the deceased person may be also designated as beneficiaries. In most states, if the deceased person did not leave behind a husband or wife, children, or parents, there may be no one who may bring a wrongful death claim. Sometimes, the recovery, if any, is simply doled out to the deceased’s “heirs at law” or as provided by law.

Wrongful Death Laws Vary from State to State

Some states have “true” wrongful death acts in which the deceased person’s survivors or next of kin are entitled to bring a cause of action for their damages resulting from their family member's death. Other states have acts that are more properly called “survival actions.” In general, survival actions are brought on behalf of the deceased person for the deceased person's pain, suffering, and other damages resulting from the injuries that caused his or her death.

In many jurisdictions, it is not necessary that the defendant’s conduct be the sole cause of death. Even when the defendant’s negligence contributes only in part or in tandem with other circumstances to a person's death, liability may still attach.

Connecticut's Wrongful Death Statute

Connecticut's Wrongful Death Statute, General Statutes § 52-555, provides for the recovery of "just damages," medical expenses and funeral expenses by the executor or administrator of an estate for injuries resulting in death. The statute also requires that the executor or administrator bring the suit within two years of the date of death and five years of the date of the injury. The statute states in part:"

"(a) In any action surviving to or brought by an executor or administrator for injuries resulting in death, whether instantaneous or otherwise, such executor or administrator may recover from the party legally at fault for such injuries just damages together with the cost of reasonably necessary medical, hospital and nursing services, and including funeral expenses, provided no action shall be brought to recover such damages and disbursements but within two years from the date of death, and except that no such action may be brought more than five years from the date of the act or omission complained of."

The Connecticut Survival of Civil Actions Statute, § 52-599, provides in part: "(a) A cause or right of action shall not be lost or destroyed by the death of any person, but shall survive in favor of or against the executor or administrator of the deceased person."

The Wrongful Death Statute permits recovery for the tortuously caused death of any person "whether instantaneous or otherwise." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-555 specifies damages recoverable for a wrongful death. This includes expenses the decedent and the estate suffered as a result of the wrongful act. The estate may recover the cost of reasonably necessary medical, hospital and nursing services, and funeral expenses. The statute additionally allows recovery of "just damages." These often are the greater part of the wrongful death recovery and include pain and suffering, the value of the lost life and the enjoyment of life's activities. The rule is that insofar as money can do it, the plaintiff may be awarded fair, just and reasonable compensation for the loss of life. As in the other categories of damages, there is no precise mathematical formula for a jury to apply.

Jackson O'Keefe has been handling wrongful death actions in Connecticut since the 1950s, and has tried many of these types of cases to successful jury verdicts. Jackson O'Keefe has the experience and knowledge to help your family successfully navigate these difficult issues.

Wrongful Death Damages

Types of damages. When a defendant is found legally liable for the death of another, the types of damages that may be recovered can also vary greatly. For example, the plaintiffs in a wrongful death case may be able to recover the deceased person's medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, lost earnings, and lost benefits (such as pension benefits or medical and health insurance coverage). Additionally, in a few states, the plaintiffs may be able to recover damages for pain and suffering or mental anguish that they experienced as a result of the death as well as punitive damages.

Calculating damages. The method and manner of calculating damages in a wrongful death action can be very complex. This potential complexity is especially true when trying to calculate the monetary loss to which the plaintiffs are entitled. Monetary loss, sometimes called pecuniary loss, generally includes the survivor’s lost support, contributions, and services of the deceased person. The computations for these damages are typically based on the deceased person's life expectancy and work life expectancy as well as the life expectancies of the beneficiaries and, where necessary, the remaining period of minority of any beneficiaries.

Multiple beneficiaries. In cases where there is more than one beneficiary, the damages will be distributed among those beneficiaries. Most states allocate the damages among the beneficiaries in accordance with their losses. However, in some states the recovery is divided as spelled out in its wrongful death or intestacy laws.

Defenses to Liability in Wrongful Death Cases

In general, a defendant is entitled to raise any defenses in a wrongful death action that could have been raised in an action brought directly by the decedent, had he or she not died. Therefore, if the decedent was contributorily negligent in causing his or her own death, the defendant may assert that defense in the wrongful death action. Also, in most states, if the decedent had already recovered damages, such as in a case where the death was not immediate and the decedent was able to bring his own successful personal injury claim, the survivors may not then successfully bring a wrongful death action and recover for the same injury. There are limitations to this prohibition, and in some situations the survivors may still be entitled to bring a wrongful death action in their names.

Conclusion

When a loved one dies, the complexities of a legal claim against the wrongdoer can be overwhelming. At this already stressful and emotion-laden time, the assistance of an experienced personal injury attorney at Jackson O'Keefe in Hartford, Connecticut, who can guide surviving family members through the complex legal maze and help secure compensation for their devastating losses can be invaluable.

A Connecticut "wrongful death" occurs when a person dies due to the negligent, careless, intentional, or reckless act of another person or entity. If someone close to you has died due to the wrongful act or neglect of another, it is important to find a reputable and well-established law firm with an exceptional reputation for handling wrongful death cases. Time is of the essence in many wrongful death actions. Preserving evidence and identifying defendants are key factors in many of the underlying accidents involving death cases. This requires retaining investigators and experts to commence investigations and evaluations as promptly as possible. Hiring an experienced Connecticut wrongful death attorney therefore should not be delayed. Under traditional "common law" wrongful death actions did not exist. It was thought that the claim of the victim of a wrongful death died with that person. State legislatures, including Connecticut, realized that this rule failed to compensate family members and others who suffered certain economic and non-economic losses due to a person's death and enacted wrongful death laws to correct this problem. Connecticut Wrongful Death Claimants: Connecticut's wrongful death laws permit only individuals with a certain relationship to the victim to file a wrongful death claim. A personal representative is a person appointed by the probate court to handle the wrongful death victim's assets, or estate. When proceeds are received from the wrongful death suit, they may be distributed by the personal representative according to the wrongful death statute. Connecticut Wrongful Death Lawyers: If someone close to you has died due to the negligent, reckless, or intentional behavior of another party, it is essential that you contact a well-established personal injury law firm. You should ensure that the law firm has extensive experience and expertise in prosecuting wrongful death cases and in particular the type of accident that caused the fatality. Exceptional preparation of a wrongful death case is a requirement to maximize the chances of success. Proving the potentially high worth of a wrongful death case requires a great deal of skill and experience.

Among the many responsibilities and tasks required of lawyers prosecuting a wrongful death include: Determining whether an estate should be created in a wrongful death case. When numerous claimants are entitled to recovery under the wrongful death statute, a thorough analysis may be required to determine whether a probate estate should be created and the claim brought in the name of the estate instead of the individual heirs.

Establishing life expectancy. This requires a sophisticated analysis of the victim's age, health, activities, lifestyle and occupation.

Determining the amount of lost financial support suffered by the heir in a wrongful death case. If the decedent was supporting the heirs financially at the time of death, an economic analysis of the victim's employment history, past wages, and expected future wages is required to ascertain the amount of economic damages to which the heirs are entitled.

Establishing a monetary value in a wrongful death claim for loss of companionship, society and comfort. By their very nature these are non-economic damages and therefore not quantifiable through formulas or expert testimony. The extent of compensation heirs can recover in these types of damages relies in significant part on the preparation and artfulness of the lawyers they hire. Convincing juries of the amount to which the heirs are entitled for these damages must be done skillfully through the lawyer's capacity for persuasion and advocacy.

Proving and explaining liability and damages in a wrongful death case to a jury: This requires not only talent and skill but the employment of at times numerous experts. As a result these cases are often expensive to prosecute properly.

Jackson O'Keefe handles Connecticut motor vehicle accidents involving DUI drunk drivers and drugged drivers cases throughout the State of Connecticut, including clients in West Hartford, Farmington, Avon, Simsbury, Old Lyme, Ellington, Tolland, North Haven, Wallingford, Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Cromwell, Bethlehem, Moodus, East Haddam, Hadlyme, Madison, Middletown, Hartford, Southington, Plantsville, Griswold, Hartford County, New Haven County, Middlesex County, New London County and Litchfield County.

Connecticut Car Accident Statute of Limitations and other Connecticut Statutes of Limitation

Statutes of limitation commonly provide for the time period in which a tort action may be brought. In some jurisdictions, there are specific statutes of limitation that apply to tort claims of professional negligence1 or malpractice. Only certain professions may be subject to such statutes of limitation, such as attorneys and physicians, and an action will not be governed by such a limitation period where the occupation is not one that is considered professional. Statutes of limitation for professional malpractice actions apply only if the alleged tortious conduct arose from the practice of a vocation that qualifies as a profession at the moment in time when that conduct caused the completed injury or loss under recognized tort-law principles.

Connecticut Car Accident Statute of Limitations

In Connecticut, the statute of limitation most commonly applicable to car accident claims is C.G.S. § 52-584 with regard to negligence. The tort statute of limitations, § 52-577 is also commonly applicable to car accident cases. This statute states:

§ 52-584. Limitation of action for injury to person or property caused by negligence, misconduct or malpractice

No action to recover damages for injury to the person, or to real or personal property, caused by negligence, or by reckless or wanton misconduct, or by malpractice of a physician, surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, chiropractor, hospital or sanatorium, shall be brought but within two years from the date when the injury is first sustained or discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered, and except that no such action may be brought more than three years from the date of the act or omission complained of, except that a counterclaim may be interposed in any such action any time before the pleadings in such action are finally closed.

Call a Connecticut Car Accident Lawyer about your Statute of Limitation issue now – do not delay

There are complex issues raised by the possible statute of limitations defense to your claim. You could lose the right to any compensation. It is imperative that claims be timely filed to avoid this issue. With over 50 years of representing Connecticut car accident litigants, the law firm of Jackson O'Keefe understands how the unique circumstances of your collision require careful and compassionate representation. Contact us now to discuss your situation.

Connecticut Statute of Limitations

In Connecticut, there are multiple statutes of limitation. Which one is applicable will depend upon how the claim is framed and the nature of your accident or damages. Some of these are as follows:

Agreements to Sell Real Estate		See C.G.S.A. § 47-33a
Enforce Recorded Restrictions	3 years	C.G.S.A. § 52-575a
Action on Account	6 years	C.G.S.A. § 52-576
Injury to Person or Property—Malpractice		See C.G.S.A. § 52-584
Actions Against Architects or Engineers		See C.G.S.A. § 52-584a
Adverse Possession (Ejectment)	15 years	C.G.S.A. § 52-575
Simple or Implied Contracts	6 years (except U.S. Court Judgment)	C.G.S.A. § 52-576
Tort (other than otherwise listed)	3 years	C.G.S.A. § 52-577
Product Liability		See C.G.S.A. § 52-577a
Wrongful Death		See C.G.S.A. § 52-555
Highway—change in grade of	6 years	C.G.S.A. § 52-578
Bond—Probate Suit on	6 years	C.G.S.A. § 52-579
Partnership or Joint Accounts	Since last settlement even though more than 6 years	C.G.S.A. § 52-580
Contract—Oral	3 years	C.G.S.A. § 52-581
New trial—Petition for	3 years	C.G.S.A. § 52-582
Sheriff or Constable, action against	2 years	C.G.S.A. § 52-583
Negligence, reckless or wanton misconduct, or malpractice	2 years	C.G.S.A. § 52-584
Counterclaim	Anytime before pleadings closed	C.G.S.A. § 52-584
Forfeiture on penal Statute	1 year	C.G.S.A. § 52-585
Scire facias against Garnishee	1 year	C.G.S.A. § 52-586
Bond or recognizance for costs—Suit on	1 year	C.G.S.A. § 52-587
Note obtained by fraud	1 year after notice or 6 months after due	C.G.S.A. § 52-587
Forcible entry and Detainer	6 months after entry	C.G.S.A. § 52-589
Time excluded while out of state	Shall not exceed 7 years	C.G.S.A. § 52-590
Executor, on action which survives	1 year from death	C.G.S.A. § 52-594
Fraudulent concealment of cause of action	Time commences to run when cause discovered	C.G.S.A. § 52-595
Remuneration for Employment	2 years, but may be tolled by filing complaint with labor commissioner	C.G.S.A. § 52-596
Defamation	2 years	C.G.S.A. § 52-597
Judgment for money damages		C.G.S.A. § 52-598
New Action, accidental failure	1 year	C.G.S.A. § 52-592
New Action, after reversal	1 year	C.G.S.A. § 52-591
New Action, wrong defendant	1 year	C.G.S.A. § 52-593
42 U.S.C.A. § 1983	3 years	See C.G.S.A. § 52-577 and Orticelli v. Powers, 197 Conn. 9, 495 A.2d 1023 (1985).
Asbestos-Related Injury		C.G.S.A. § 52-577a(e).
CUTPA	3 years	C.G.S.A. § 52-110g(f)
Indemnification		See C.G.S.A. §§ 52-576 and 52-598a

Tolling Negligence and Product Liability Claims Pending Identification of Tortfeasor

The court in Tarnowsky v. Socci, 75 Conn.App. 560, 570, 816 A.2d 728, 733 (2003) says that "Real life injury claims should not be governed by fictitious legal constructs." But the Tarnowsky court at least makes a gesture in the direction indicated by its platitude, holding that the statute of limitations for negligence (C.G.S.A. § 52-584) [and in dictum, for product liability (C.G.S.A. § 52-577a)] does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows or should have known the identity of the person who caused the injury. That is, of course, unless three years have passed since an injury governed by C.G.S.A. § 52-584, in which case those "fictitious legal constructs" seem to apply after all. (Id, at 569.)

The Supreme Court held in Tarnowsky v. Socci, 271 Conn. 284, 856 A.2d 408 (2004) that "the two year statute of limitations set forth in § 52-584 does not begin to run until a plaintiff knows, or reasonably should have known, the identity of the tortfeasor." However, the three-year statute of repose contained in that same section continues to bar actions brought more than three years after the act or omission complained of.

Expiration of Statute of Limitations Prior to Injury

C.G.S.A. § 52-584, the statute of limitations pertaining to medical malpractice, states that suit must be commenced within two years of the date when the injury was or should have been discovered. C.G.S.A. § 52-555, the statute of limitations in a wrongful death action, permits commencement of an action within two years of the date of death, but imposes an absolute limitation on commencement of a wrongful death action of within five years from the date of the act or omission complained of, whereas C.G.S.A. § 52-584 limits commencement of actions to within three years of the date or action complained of.

In McDonald v. Haynes Medical Laboratory, Inc., 192 Conn. 327, 471 A.2d 646 (1984), the defendant incorrectly diagnosed a woman's RH blood factor in 1960. In 1973, she gave birth to a baby boy who died shortly thereafter due to RH factor incompatibility. The administrator sued on behalf of the child. The issue was whether the court would exclude from the ambit of §§ 52-555 and 52-584 situations where injury was inherently undiscoverable. The supreme court adhered to a strict reading of the statutes and denied the plaintiff's claims. The constitutional problem posed in Chief Justice Speziale's dissent (with regard to a statute of limitations that begins to run before the occurrence of an injury) was disposed of in favor of the McDonald court majority in Stein v. Katz, 213 Conn. 282, 567 A.2d 1183 (1989).

In limited instances, it may be possible for a plaintiff to toll the statute of limitations under the doctrines of "continuous treatment" and "continuing course of conduct." See Blanchette v. Barrett, 229 Conn. 256, 640 A.2d 74 (1994); Starkweather v. Patel, 34 Conn.App. 395, 641 A.2d 809 (1994), cert. denied 230 Conn. 905, 644 A.2d 918 (1994); and Connell v. Colwell, 214 Conn. 242, 571 A.2d 116 (1990).

Call a Connecticut Car Accident Lawyer about your Statute of Limitation issue now – do not delay

There are complex issues raised by the possible statute of limitations defense to your claim. You could lose the right to any compensation. It is imperative that claims be timely filed to avoid this issue. The Connecticut car accident lawyers at Jackson O'Keefe have the years of experience and knowledge necessary to provide you with the skilled representation you need when dealing with insurance companies following any type of motor vehicle accident. Car crashes and those involving motorcycles or commercial trucks all have specific laws and issues unique to them. Quick assessment of those issues, determining the cause of the crash and assessing the severity of your injury and your medical needs are the services you can expect when you retain our Connecticut car accident attorneys. With over 50 years of representing Connecticut car accident litigants, the law firm of Jackson O'Keefe understands how the unique circumstances of your collision require careful and compassionate representation. Contact us now to discuss your situation.

Jackson O'Keefe handles Connecticut car accident cases throughout the State of Connecticut, including clients in West Hartford, Farmington, Avon, Simsbury, Old Lyme, Ellington, Tolland, North Haven, Wallingford, Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Cromwell, Bethlehem, Moodus, East Haddam, Hadlyme, Madison, Middletown, Hartford, Southington, Plantsville, Hartford County, New Haven County, Middlesex County, New London County and Litchfield County.

Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys

Contact the lawyers at Jackson O'Keefe, in Connecticut, to arrange a confidential consultation to discuss your personal injury case. The firm represents personal injury claimants throughout Connecticut.

Selecting a Personal Injury Attorney

If you’ve suffered an injury through the fault of another, you may be out of work, overwhelmed with piles of medical bills, or in constant pain and agony. Under any of these circumstances, researching, locating, and retaining a lawyer to handle your personal injury claim can seem like yet another insurmountable obstacle. There are, however, some guidelines that can help you to select a personal injury lawyer to handle your case. With a the personal injury lawyer from Jackson O'Keefe in Hartford, Connecticut, on your side, you can breathe a sigh of relief and focus on your recovery while our firm carries at least part of your burden.

Experience

An important factor to consider when selecting a personal injury lawyer is whether he or she has experience in and concentrates his or her legal practice on personal injury law. An attorney whose primary focus is personal injury law is often at an advantage in that he or she understands the complexities of personal injury lawsuits, can more easily keep abreast of the latest developments and ever-evolving laws, and is more likely to know the habits and tactics of opposing counsel.

Additionally, a lawyer who has demonstrated experience in personal injury litigation may have also gained credibility with insurance companies and their lawyers and thus have “less to prove” in order to achieve a favorable settlement on his or her client's behalf.

Record of Past Successes

Another factor worth considering is whether a particular personal injury lawyer has experience trying cases, winning favorable verdicts, and negotiating favorable settlements. Knowing that an attorney is a skilled litigator and negotiator can add to your overall sense of security.

Billing and Fee Structure

Personal injury lawyers typically work on a contingent-fee basis under which the client is responsible for costs but pays attorney's fees only if he or she obtains a favorable settlement or verdict. In a typical contingent fee arrangement, attorney's fees, sometimes called legal fees, are calculated as a percentage of the recovery. Although it may be tempting to choose a lawyer based on who will take the lowest percentage, fees alone should not be the determining factor.

Initial Consultations

Because many lawyers provide initial consultations free of charge in personal injury cases, you may be able to interview multiple lawyers before selecting one to handle your case. Care should be taken, however, to make your selection in a relatively short period of time to avoid the loss of key evidence and to ensure that your claim is not barred by the passing of time.

Conclusion

Once hired, your attorney should be responsive to your needs. He or she should answer your questions satisfactorily, return your phone calls promptly, and, most importantly, represent your interests zealously. If at any time you become dissatisfied with your attorney's legal representation, you may be able to change attorneys without penalty; however, because changing attorneys while your case is pending can result in substantial delays and additional expenses, taking the time to select the appropriate attorney in the beginning can save time and money in the future. To find out if a personal injury attorney at Jackson O'Keefe in Hartford, Connecticut, is right for you, contact us today to schedule a consultation.

Return to Main

FAQ

Q: How do I know if I have a personal injury case?

A: First, you must have suffered an injury to your person or property. Second, you should consider whether your injury was someone else's fault. It is not always necessary to have a physical injury to bring a personal injury lawsuit. Some personal injury claims could be based on a variety of nonphysical losses and harms. In the case of an assault, for example, you do not need to show that a person's action caused you actual physical harm, but only that you expected some harm to come to you. You also may have a case if someone has attacked your reputation, invaded your privacy, or inflicted emotional distress upon you.

Q: How soon after I am injured do I have to file a lawsuit?

A: Every state has certain time limits, called "statutes of limitations," which govern the amount of time you have to file a personal injury lawsuit. In some states, you may have as little as one year to file a lawsuit arising out of an automobile accident. If you miss the deadline for filing your case, you may lose your legal right to damages for your injury. Consequently, it is important to talk with a lawyer as soon as you suffer or discover an injury.

Q: What should I bring with me for my meeting with a lawyer?

A: You should provide a lawyer with any documents that might be relevant to your case. Police reports, for example, contain eyewitness information and details about the conditions surrounding auto accidents, fires, and assaults. Copies of medical reports and bills from doctors and hospitals will help demonstrate the extent and nature of your injuries. Information about the insurer of the person who caused your injury is extremely helpful, as are any photographs you have of the accident scene, your property damage, and your injury. The more information you are able to give your lawyer, the easier it will be for him or her to determine if your claim will be successful. If you haven't collected any documents at the time of your first meeting, however, don't worry; your lawyer will be able to obtain them in his investigation of your claim.

Q: What if a person dies before bringing a personal injury lawsuit?

A: It depends on whether the person died as a result of injuries from the accident or from unrelated causes. If a person injured in an accident subsequently dies because of those injuries, that person's heirs may recover money through a lawsuit known as a wrongful death action. Also, even if a person with a personal injury claim dies from unrelated causes, the personal injury claim survives in most cases and may be brought by the executor or personal representative of the deceased person's estate.

Q: What is “negligence?”

A: The critical issue in many personal injury cases is just how a “reasonable person" was expected to act in the particular situation that caused the injury. A person is negligent when he or she fails to act like an "ordinary reasonable person" would have acted. The determination of whether a given person has met the "ordinary reasonable person" standard is often a matter that is resolved by a jury after presentation of evidence and argument at trial.

Q: What if I can’t prove someone’s negligence caused my injury? Is there any other basis for personal injury liability besides negligence?

A: Yes. Some persons or companies may be held “strictly liable” for certain activities that harm others, even if they have not acted negligently or with wrongful intent. Under this theory, a person injured by a defective or unexpectedly dangerous product, for instance, may recover compensation from the maker or seller of the product without showing that the manufacturer or seller was actually negligent. Also, persons or companies engaged in using explosives, storing dangerous substances, or keeping dangerous animals can be strictly liable for harm caused to others as a result of such activities.

Q: Will the person who caused my injury be punished?

A: Not in the traditional sense of the word. Defendants in civil actions for personal injury do not receive jail terms or criminal fines as punishment. Those are criminal sentences, and personal injury cases are civil actions. However, in some cases, juries and courts can award what are called “punitive damages,” which are designed to punish defendants who have behaved recklessly or intentionally against the public's interest. The goal in ordering the payment of punitive damages is to discourage such defendants and others from engaging in the same kind of harmful behavior in the future.

Personal Injury, General Resource Links

Practical Law: Personal Injury Claims
This Web site, made available to the public by the ABA Division For Public Education contains useful information about personal injury claims.

US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
The CPSC is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of property damage, serious personal injury, or death from consumer products such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure children. The CPSC's Web site includes recalls and product safety news, information on reporting an unsafe product, and more.

Fact Sheet Library
National Safety Council (NSC) fact sheets are resource guides that provide statistics, tips, and suggestions to make life safer. This Web site contains over 80 topics in four categories: agricultural safety, healthy living, environment safety, and road safety.

Tort Law: An Overview
This Web site, maintained by the Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell University Law School, provides general information about tort law, including discussion of intentional torts, negligent torts, and strict liability torts.

Dog Bite Liability
This Web site contains an article from the Insurance Information Institute (III) about dog bite liability. The article discusses dog owners’ liability, recent developments in state legislation, important court decisions, and other related issues.

Products Liability: An Overview
This Web site, maintained by the Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell University Law School, provides general information about the law of products liability as well as links to federal and state judicial decisions and statutes concerning products liability.

Damages: An Overview
This Web site, maintained by the Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell University Law School, provides general information about the law of damages, including discussion of compensatory and punitive damages.

National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA)
One of NCSA's guiding principles is to provide easy public access to its data concerning the causes and injury outcomes of crashes. To that end, the NCSA makes available through its Web site crash research and investigation data, statistics, and analysis.

Motor Vehicle and Equipment Recalls
This Web site, provided by the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), allows users to search its database of motor vehicle, equipment, child safety seat, and tire recalls.

Connecticut Bus Accidents

When you step onto a city transit bus or put your child onto a school bus, you entrust the bus driver, the bus company and a host of others with your and your loved ones' safety and security. A bus accident is among the last things you expect. Yet, accidents happen.

When a bus accident occurs the consequences can be significant, both emotionally and financially, not only for the passengers on board but also for their dependents and loved ones. Our legal system has in place a mechanism to ensure that the costs of bus crashes are borne by those at fault, not by the innocent bus passengers and their families. An injury that occurs while an individual is using bus transportation may entitle that person and/or his dependents and family members to compensation. An effective personal injury attorney can help you determine if you have a valid claim for your bus accident injuries, and if so to maximize your recovery from the responsible parties.

Connecticut Law Applicable to Bus Accidents

“The duty owed by common carriers was the subject of Green v. H.N.S Management Company, Inc. The plaintiff, while walking in an aisle on the defendant's bus, slipped on some ice and slush as the bus began to move. The defendant appealed after a plaintiff's verdict, arguing that there was no evidence to establish that the slippery condition created by snow and ice had existed for a sufficient period of time to give rise to a duty to warn. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment stating that, although a common carrier has a duty to use the utmost care, such duty does not arise unless the dangerous condition existed for a sufficient period of time so that the driver exercising the high degree of care should have discovered it. The Court stated that the evidence of icy and snowy weather conditions, along with evidence that passengers on the bus could have tracked ice onto the aisle, did not permit an inference that the ice had been on the aisle for a particular length of time as it might have been caused by passengers immediately prior to the plaintiff boarding the bus.” Significant Tort Developments in 2005, 80 Conn. B.J. 139, 181-82 (2006).

In Green, The Appellate Court stated: “A common carrier, such as an operator of a motor bus, has a duty to use the utmost care consistent with the nature of its business to guard its passengers against all dangers which might reasonably and naturally be expected to occur, in view of all the circumstances. See also Belledeau v. Connecticut Co., 110 Conn. 625, 627-28, 149 A. 127 (1930) (common carrier has duty to exercise highest degree of care and skill that reasonably may be expected of intelligent, prudent persons engaged in business of carrying passengers for hire in view of instrumentalities employed and dangers reasonably to be apprehended). The high standard of care to which a common carrier is held, however, does not make it an insurer of the plaintiff's safety. A common carrier is not required to guard a passenger against all hazards.See also Krentzman v. Connecticut Co., 136 Conn. 239, 243-44, 70 A.2d 133 (1949) (common carrier did not breach duty of care where plaintiff passenger lost footing while on running board of trolley due to jostling by rowdy passengers because it had no opportunity or means to restrain other passengers). A common carrier has a duty to warn passengers of a danger when the circumstances are such that a passenger would not, in the exercise of reasonable care, be likely to observe and apprehend it. A common carrier fulfills its duty to passengers when it warns its passengers of dangerous conditions or when it remedies the dangerous conditions.” Green v. H.N.S. Mgmt. Co., Inc., 91 Conn. App. 751, 758-59, 881 A.2d 1072, 1078 (2005).

Contact us now to Address Your Bus Accident Case

The victim of a Connecticut bus accident in may be able to collect financial compensation for his or her losses, including pain and suffering, medical bills, estimated future medical expenses, lost wages, and lost income potential. The bus accident attorneys in Hartford at Jackson O'Keefe addresses the needs of people who are injured in Connecticut no matter how severe the injury. The law firm has years of experience, a record of success, and the resources to help you recover fair compensation. After a bus accident it is essential for you and your family to regain the physical and emotional stability you lost due to an accident. Let the Jackson O'Keefe firm, and its team of lawyers, address your legal concerns while you focus on recovery. For more information, contact us to schedule a free consultation.

Jackson O'Keefe handles Connecticut bus accident cases throughout the State of Connecticut, including clients in West Hartford, Farmington, Avon, Simsbury, Old Lyme, Ellington, Tolland, North Haven, Wallingford, Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Cromwell, Bethlehem, Moodus, East Haddam, Hadlyme, Madison, Middletown, Hartford, Southington, Plantsville, Hartford County, New Haven County, Middlesex County, New London County and Litchfield County.

Return to Main

General Practice

Personal Injury

Residential Real Estate

Divorce

Estate Planning

Car Accidents

Drunk Driving Accidents

Wrongful Death

Probate and Estate Administration Law

Commercial Real Estate

Motorcycle Accidents