Super Bowl Sunday is one of the most beloved days for sports fans around the nation. Consequently, it is also one of the most popular nights for driving under the influence of alcohol. Like many national holidays or major sporting events, police agencies across the country know that fans will be consuming alcohol at Super Bowl parties and are taking action to crack down on those who choose to operate motor vehicles while intoxicated.
Statistics for drunk driving arrests on Super Bowl Sunday speak for themselves. Police officers across the state of Delaware arrested 21 drivers for driving under the influence of alcohol on Super Bowl Sunday last year. In 2006, the California Highway Patrol reported 481 DUI arrests, 242 wrecks involving alcohol and seven deaths relate to DUI accidents. And in the same year, the Southern Arizona DUI Task Force stopped over 540 cars on Super Bowl Sunday alone in efforts to crack down on drunk driving.
Officers everywhere urge people to “choose a sober designated driver,” before consuming alcohol at a Super Bowl party to ensure everyone’s safety. These actions can help you avoid spending money on a criminal lawyer and costly court expenses.
A person’s brain is one of his or her most vital organs. The brain controls all mental and physical functions of the body, so any injury to the brain could result in significant physical or mental debilitation. Unfortunately, brain injuries are relatively common in the U.S., and are most often caused through serious accidents that could have been prevented. In many cases, people behave recklessly, such as when they are driving, and cause accidents that result in brain injuries. Sadly, those victims of brain injuries are able to do little in their defense, and are often left with the costs and other consequences of their injury.
There are many different things that can cause a brain injury to occur. Some of the common causes of serious brain injuries involve:
* Memory Loss
* Brain Hemorrhage
* Brain Damage
* Cerebral Palsy
Each one of these causes could result in the serious deterioration of a person’s brain functioning, making him or her lose the ability to think for himself or herself, and therefore, have to depend on others for physical care. While such situations often seem hopeless to many people, there are actions that a brain injury victim can take. If an irresponsible or dangerous person is the reason that a brain injury occurred in the first place, then a victim or his or her family might be able to take legal action against that dangerous person. In many cases, this action leads to financial compensation, which can help pay for the financial obligations that you now face in light of your loved one’s injury.
If you or someone you know has financial obligations to take care of a loved one because of a brain injury, and that brain injury was caused by another person, you could be due financial compensation. Contact an experienced brain injury lawyer today to discuss your options.
A daycare operator in Austin is currently on trial for the murder of four children at the daycare operation she ran out of her home. Jessica Tata was cooking a pan of oil on the stove, according to the prosecution’s case against her, when she left the children at her daycare unsupervised to go to the store to pick up groceries. While she was gone, the oil caught on fire, killing four children and injuring several others. Her defense attorneys argue that it was a mechanical defect that caused the fire to occur.
I don’t know the details of this case well enough to provide a fully informed assessment of where I stand on this, but at least a cursory examination of the situation gives me a lot of reason to think that the verdict shouldn’t be too hard for the jury to make. Anyone who leaves a pan of oil burning on a stove in a house where any children are unattended, let alone as many as were in her care, is at the very least grossly negligent, and if a criminal prosecutor can’t secure a guilty verdict against her, an Austin employment attorney should be able to prove negligence in a civil case. When that negligence causes the loss of innocent lives, that person needs to be held accountable for their actions.
A recent decision relating to Wisconsin’s controversial law restricting the collective-bargaining rights of public sector unions in the state raises an important question that I constantly come up against when it comes to discussing Constitutional rights with people who don’t have a background in the law. According to a Madison lawyer, a federal district judge determined that the law restricts the free speech rights of those in public sector unions. Now, for most people, if this was the case, that would mean that the law would be illegitimate. But that’s not why the judge made his decision as he did; instead, his argument is that the government failed to demonstrate a compelling state interest in restricting these rights.
When it comes to the Constitution, most people tend to think that its provisions, especially those contained in the Bill of Rights, are absolute, even if they know that you’re not allowed to shout “fire!” in a crowded theater. But that’s exactly what judges mean when they say compelling state interests: Constitutional rights are absolute, unless there’s something more important at stake. So the next time you think, “They can’t do that, it’s in the Constitution!” remember – maybe they can.
A Massachusetts judge recently ordered that a man imprisoned for killing his wife in 1990 be provided by the state with the expenses necessary to undergo a sex change operation. The decision was based on the man’s supposed “serious medical need” to undergo this procedure in order to prevent suicidal tendencies. For the past 20 years, Michelle Lynne Kosilek, formerly Robert Kosilek, has suffered from gender identity disorder, believing himself to be a woman trapped in a man’s body.
I don’t dispute that Kosilek may be suffering from a real medical condition which may, in fact, place his own life in danger. What I do take issue with is the idea that it is the state’s responsibility to provide this person, who strangled his own wife to death, with a costly, medically unnecessary procedure in order to reduce his suicidal tendencies. It is neither cruel nor unusual to refuse to place taxpayer dollars in the service of a deranged lunatic, and to act as though it is represents an unnecessary case of judicial overreach. It’s very possible that this case may develop into a wrongful death lawsuit.