This post is part of JGL’s continuing series of blog posts regarding the use of social media evidence in litigation. Here are some tips for using do-it-yourself tools to in order to develop social media and smartphone evidence:
Joseph Greenwald & Laake, PA Blog - Personal Injury
This post is part of JGL’s continuing series of blog posts regarding the use of social media evidence in litigation. Here are some tips for using standard discovery tools to develop social media and smartphone evidence:
1. What made you become a lawyer?
The damages sustained by a seriously injured child do not just relate to the child himself. They also affect the altered lifestyles of siblings and parents and encompass a whole host of experts who are necessary to explain, prognosticate, and portray what the child and the family’s life will become. This paper will concentrate on the psychological and emotional damages and not on the economic loss. Obviously in fully presenting damages a life care plan and economist are essential.
On its web site, the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) provides a very brief summary of what to do if you, as a driver, are involved in an automobile accident. While the three tips given on the MVA website have some merit, there is much more that can and should be done after an automobile accident involving physical injury. Previously, we have discussed on the JGL Blog whether you should move your vehicle from the scene of an accident and whether you should talk with the other driver’s insurance company after an accident. Here are some additional tips that will help you present the strongest possible auto accident injury claim:
Maryland and the District of Columbia, along with Virginia, North Carolina, and Alabama, continue to adhere to the minority rule of tort causation known as “contributory negligence.” “Contributory negligence, if proved, is a complete defense that bars a plaintiff’s recovery in a negligence action.” Warsham v. Muscatello, Inc., 985 A.2d 156, 167 n. 10 (Md. App. 2009). Contributory negligence has been defined traditionally as the failure on the part of the plaintiff to observe ordinary care for [his or her] own safety. Kasten Construction Co. v. Evans, 273 A.2d 90, 92 (Md. 1971); Menish v. Polinger Co., 356 A.2d 233, 236 (Md. 1976). At its heart, contributory negligence is “the doing of something that a person of ordinary prudence would not do, or the failure to do something that a person of ordinary prudence would do under the circumstances.” Potts v. Armour & Co., 39 A.2d 552, 556 (Md. 1944). “Contributory negligence, if present, defeats recovery because it is a proximate cause of the accident; otherwise, the negligence is not contributory.” Batten v. Michel, 292 A.2d 707, 711-12 (Md. App. 1972). In other words, if the plaintiff contributes even slightly (even by so little as 1%) to the happening of his or her injury, he or she is absolutely barred from recovery.
“The burden of proving contributory negligence is on the defendant.” Reiser v. Abramson, 286 A.2d 91, 93 (Md. 1972). It is important to stress that “[i]t is not every action on the part of a litigant which an opponent by way of ‘second guessing’ or hindsight may successfully label as contributory negligence.” Rogers v. Frush, 262 A.2d 549, 552 (1970). “[I]n measuring contributory negligence, the standard of care to be used as the criterion is that of an ordinarily prudent person under the same or similar circumstances, not that of a very cautious person.” Menish, 356 A.2d at 236.
In a recent case out of the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield, a personal injury plaintiff argued that the fact that he “is an undocumented immigrant, resident or worker, does not bar him from recovering lost earnings, whether past or future; nor is it relevant to establishing an appropriate amount of damages.” In ruling on a motion in limine on the issue, the Court found that:
the defendant may use the terms [“undocumented worker,” “undocumented alien,” and “illegal alien”] when referring to the plaintiff in the event the plaintiff pursues an award for back pay or future lost wages, [subject to certain limitations], and may use these terms to describe witnesses who testify in the plaintiff’s behalf regarding the subject of the plaintiff’s rate of wages, hourly work week and methods of the payment of any such wages[.] If such undocumented workers testify only to the facts surrounding the issue of liability and injuries, their undocumented status may not be the subject of any inquiry by the defendant. If the plaintiff determines he will not be seeking lost wages, both past and future, his undocumented status is not relevant and may not be the subject of inquiry by the defendant.
The Court in Guamamtario went on to hold that the defense would be not be barred from introducing any “evidence, argument, suggestion or inquiry regarding the plaintiff’s immigrant or residency status and that the plaintiff may be deported or may have a desire or intentions, if any to return to Equador. However, should the defendant present no evidence the plaintiff’s deportation is imminent or probable, or that the plaintiff intends to return to Equador, the defendant is barred from presenting argument, suggestion or inquiry regarding possible deportation or the possibility that the plaintiff could return to Equador.”
Snapchat, the popular social networking application, is unique in that the messages sent over the app “self-destruct” seconds after being opened. Snapchat also provides its users with a series of “filters,” one of which superimposes the speed at which a user was travelling over a photograph or video. In other words, if you take a selfie as a passenger in a car travelling 35 miles per hour, and the “miles per hour” filter is engaged, the app will use the camera to recognize how fast your vehicle is travelling and “35 miles per hour” will be superimposed over your picture. This filter was pushed to users in a 2013 product update. Snapchat users can win virtual “trophies” by sending photographs using filters. As one lawyer described it, “Snapchat has embedded [incentives] into its interface. It’s become more of a game.”
A study published in the British Journal of Medicine published on May 3, 2016 found that the third leading cause of death in the United States is medical error resulting in 251,000 deaths annually. Medical error is just behind Heart disease (611,000 deaths annually) and cancer (585,000 deaths annually). After medical error, the next largest cause of death in the United States is chronic respiratory disease (149,000 deaths annually).
In the early evening of Nov. 18, at the beginning of rush hour, a Freightliner truck tractor carrying containers full of hazmat suits overturned on Interstate 81. Because of the nature of the cargo, first responders to the scene had to take extra precautions to ensure there were no risks of contamination to themselves or the community. While some radioactivity was detected, experts agreed that the amount of possible exposure was too small to cause a serious threat and – after nearly four hours of diverting traffic – reopened the highway.