WE RESPOND TO YOUR NEEDS 414-271-1440
Recent Blog Posts
New Study Indicates Children with ADHD May be at Higher Risk for Injury at Intersections
Because they are still learning the rules of the road, and because their judgement skills are still developing, all children riding bicycles have an elevated risk of injury at intersections. However, a new study suggests that, because they are typically more impulsive and have trouble paying attention, children with ADHD may be at an even higher risk of being involved in an accident. Knowing this, parents may wish to refresh their children on the basics of street safety and, in some cases, continue to monitor them as needed.
About the Study
Published in the December 2015 issue of the Journal of Child Psychology, the study analyzed the response time and decision making abilities of 27 children with ADHD and 36 children without ADHD as they “crossed” a simulated intersection on stationary bicycles. Researchers found that, while all children crossed the street with similar-sized gaps between cars, children with ADHD tended to stall and typically had less time to get across safely. Moreover, children with ADHD seemed to struggle more when it came to readjusting after being exposed to heavier traffic. Rather than wait for wider gaps, they continued to cross when gaps between cars were smaller, which increased their risk of an accident.
Improving Traffic Safety for All Children
Each year, nearly 400,000 children are treated in emergency rooms for bicycle-related injuries. Children also account for approximately 5% to 10% of all road traffic deaths in the United States each year. To help keep them safe, parents should monitor children and regularly discuss the basics of proper bike and traffic safety.
Basic Traffic and Bicycle Safety for Young Children:
- Do not play in or near the road;
Injured Person's Duty to Mitigate Damages
If you have sustained serious injuries in a car accident, it may take weeks, months, or even years to fully recover. During the course of your recovery, your doctors and physical therapists will likely give you instructions to follow and things to work on at home. Did you know skipping these exercises or failing to follow your doctor’s advice could cost you money on your accident claim?
When the Other Side Asks about Your Recovery
While many car accident cases are settled long before going to trial, others end up in different parts of the justice system. This happens when an insurance company refuses to offer a reasonable settlement, or when the statute of limitations is close and a lawsuit must be filed to preserve your rights.
After a lawsuit is filed, the lawyers for the other side will want to start the discovery process. This includes requesting copies of any of your medical records they do not already have, and requesting you to undergo a deposition.
During the deposition, you will be sworn to tell the truth. The lawyer for the other side will ask you questions. One of the areas they will ask about is your recovery. You may be asked about what exercises or stretches you were instructed to do. You may be asked if you did those stretches.
Your Responsibility to Mitigate Damages
Under the law, you have the right to be compensated for your injuries when they were caused by the negligence of someone else, but you also have a duty to mitigate those damages. This means you have to make the effort to keep things from getting worse than they are.
Lawyers for the other side in a personal injury lawsuit may be able to successfully argue that if you failed to listen to your doctor and do your exercises or stretches at home, you failed to mitigate your damages. If a judge or jury believes this argument, then the amount of damages you recover can be reduced.
If you or someone you love has been hurt in a car accident, you need to talk with a knowledgeable Milwaukee personal injury lawyer. You only have so much time to bring a claim. Call the law firm of Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown, LLP at 414-271-1440 today to setup your consultation.
Source:
New Tort Reform Bill Proposed on Collateral Source Payments Hurts Responsible People
Recently, the Republicans in the State House and Senate have proposed yet another radical change to the landscape of Wisconsin law. This proposal, AB-539/SB-405, risks the benefits of every Wisconsin citizen across the state who pays for insurance. What does “collateral source” mean and why is it important?
If you are injured in an accident by another party, whether it be a person or a business, you are entitled to be compensated for your medical bills that were incurred due to the accident. Now, if you have insurance through your job or have paid out of pocket for health or car insurance, those premiums you have paid require the insurance companies to pay some or all of your medical bills in accordance with your policy agreement. Your insurance companies often have negotiated agreements or other deals with healthcare providers to provide discounts in exchange for their payments (and presumably network approval of their facility). That is a benefit the consumer reaps by fulfilling their personal responsibility in obtaining and maintaining insurance.
Safety Factors in Wisconsin Snowmobile Accidents
Wisconsin has one of the highest national averages for snowfall and accumulation, which makes it a prime location for snow sports and recreational activities, like snowmobiling. Unfortunately, these activities are not without risk, including the potential for a fatal accident. Proper gear, safety knowledge, and proper equipment maintenance can help reduce those risks, but there are still fatalities each year. Information from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) indicates that alcohol consumption and/or excessive speed are often a factor.
Sources:
Study Finds Falls the Number One Cause for Ocular Trauma
A recent study reveals that falls are the number one cause of serious eye injuries. Fighting came in as the number two reason why eye injuries occur. The study results were recently presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO). Statistics show that over the past decade, eye injuries caused by falls were responsible for almost 8,500 hospitalizations.
The study was conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University, who analyzed data collected from almost 47,000 patients who had been diagnosed with ocular trauma. The types of ocular trauma included the eye being pierced by some type of object and orbital fractures. The research team looked at the type of injury, cause of the injury, how long the patient remained in the hospital, and what the total cost of that hospital stay was. They also separated patients by age.
Do You Need a Personal Injury Attorney?
Sustaining an injury due to an accident can be traumatic. As a victim, you may be entitled to compensation for the damage and injuries you sustained, but knowing how to access this compensation can be difficult. In many cases, insurance companies will only offer to pay the minimum amount possible, and in reality, insurance companies have little incentive to pay any more than that. Your insurance company may be difficult to work with and may only offer you a minimal settlement. Do not let the trauma of your accident follow you during your recovery. If you are entitled to compensation, you need the help of a qualified personal injury attorney. Here is how we can help.
What Can I Be Compensated for?
So, you have recently been in an accident. You know you are entitled to compensation, but how much? You reach out to your insurance agency, and they try to justify only offering you a minimal amount of compensation. Where do you turn next? A personal injury attorney can help you hold your insurance company accountable for the full amount of compensation you deserve to receive. If your accident was caused by someone else, you may be entitled to compensation for a number of different purposes. These include:
New Wisconsin Bill Gives Retailers and Bar Owners Power to Crack Down on Fake ID Usage
The use of fake Identification to purchase alcoholic beverages is not a new problem in the State of Wisconsin; however it is one in which a new law may change the outlook of Wisconsin bar and liquor store owners. Some Wisconsin law enforcement officials have found that retailers have a low compliance rate with regard to underage drinkers who present fake IDs.
With this problem in mind a Wisconsin Assembly committee recently introduced and passed a bill that would give bar or liquor store owners the ability to sue minor who present fake identification in their establishments with the intent of purchasing alcohol.
The legislation, which will be taken up by the full assembly sometime in May, states that bar or liquor store owners could take individuals cited for underage drinking who purchased alcohol in their establishment to small claims court. Under the law, anyone found guilty of purchasing alcohol with a fake ID is subject to a potential claim of $1,000.
Ask Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown, LLP: Felony vs. Misdemeanor
Question: What is the difference between a felony and misdemeanor charge?
A crime is a violation of the law that could result in a period of incarceration as a possible punishment. Crimes are considered either misdemeanors or felonies, and of the two, felonies are the most serious that can carry a possible prison sentence. In Wisconsin felonies are classified by a lettering system ranging from a Class A, which is the most serious felony charge and can carry a sentence of life imprisonment, to Class I which is the least serious eighteen months of prison.
In addition to carrying the potential for long prison sentences, felony convictions result in the loss of certain privileges and rights, including the right to vote (until the completion of the sentence) and the right to possess a firearm (lifetime ban). Additionally, felonies typically have to be disclosed to potential employers and other authorities.
Don't Convicted Felons Deserve Second Chances, Too?
Earlier this summer, a GRGB attorney was asked to be an alumni blogger for the MU Law School Faculty Blog. Here is what she had to say in her second blog:
A group of friends and I email each other links to news articles on a regular basis. Sometimes the articles are about interesting, funny, or odd developments. The articles that come to mind recently include the Georgetown law student convicted of running a methamphetamine ring; cat-hoarding;rabid beaver attacks; or this article on therapy llamas. (We have a fun group.) Occasionally we have in-depth back-and-forth discussions about more serious legal topics. By now, two years removed from law school, we have moved to different cities and states and we all practice in different areas of law, which tends to give us very different perspectives on the various topics that pop up.
When Discipline Crosses the Line into Child Abuse
Recent issues within the National Football League have brought the problem of domestic violence to the forefront of the national conversation. While many of the NFL's incidents have related to spousal abuse, at least one player has been implicated in a child abuse scandal. The player argues that he was merely physically disciplining his child, and that brings up a good question: When does corporal punishment cross over into child abuse in the eyes of Wisconsin law? Unfortunately, there is no clear legal distinction, meaning much will depend on the facts of the individual case.
What Wisconsin Law Says
Wisconsin law makes it a felony to intentionally or recklessly harm a child. The exact penalties for this depend upon the severity of the harm and the intent of the person who caused the harm, but they can be severe. In fact, intentionally causing great bodily harm is a Class C felony, which can involve a fine of up to $100,000 and a prison sentence of up to 40 years. However, Wisconsin Statute 939.45(5)(b), contains an exception to this rule. The law allows “a person responsible for the child's welfare” to use force for the purpose of “reasonable discipline,” which the law does not define more clearly. The only qualifier that the statute places on the idea of reasonable discipline is that it cannot be intended to cause “great bodily harm,” nor can it create an unreasonable risk of great bodily harm to the child.
