The Injury Board Commentary - Mass Transit (Airline, Cruise Ship, Train, Bus)

Captain Schettino of Costa Concordia Remains Under House Arrest

Brett Rivkind — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:07:10 GMT

An Italian Court ruled on Tuesday that Captain Schettino must remain under house arrest. He was the captain of Costa Concordia that killed at least 17 people because the captain sailed too close to island. Schettino has been under house arrest since January 17. The Florence Court rejected both sides of the argument in determining the outcome for the captain. According to Fox news “Prosecutors had argued that Schettino -- who is accused of manslaughter and abandoning his ship ahead of his passengers -- is a flight risk and that he should be incarcerated rather than continue to be held under house arrest at his home in Meta di Sorrento, near Naples. On the other hand, Schettino's lawyers argued he should be freed on bail and that he posed no immediate threat of re-offending, as he was suspended from his job as ship captain.”

The captain faces 2500 years in prison if convicted. Schettino could receive an 8-year sentence for each and every one of the 300 passengers left on the ship after he selfishly abandoned. The investigation ended last week leaving 15 people still unaccounted for in this tragic disaster.

Our firm is currently assisting crewmembers and passengers who were onboard the Costa Concordia. We remind everyone that the 30 day time deadline is on Sunday, February 12, 2012, to claims for property loss. We have been helping passengers get this filed.

I have been a Miami maritime and cruise ship attorney for 30 years. This disaster is the worst disaster I have seen during this time. I previously testified in Congress about cruise ship safety, and I am hopeful I will do so again as there definitely needs to be changes made for the safety of all passengers and crew on cruise ships.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Rivkind

Cruise Line Ticket Fine Print Could Block Costa Concordia Passengers From Pursuing Damages

Emily Mapp Brannon — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:02:48 GMT

After the Costa Concordia disaster, news broke about some injured and severely traumatized cruise ship passengers trying to organize and take legal action against the Italian liner's owner Costa Crociere and its U.S. parent company Carnival Cruises lines. Considering how reckless the cruise ship captain was in operating the vessel and the magnitude of damage, pursuing damages through the civil justice system makes sense.

Many Costa Concordia passengers, however, are discovering that pursuing justice through the courts will be an uphill battle. Many legal experts predict that a successful Costa Concordia suit could not be litigated in the United States even if Miami, FL-based Carnival is named as a defendant. Observers predict that a successful lawsuit will have to be filed in Genoa, Italy. Why? Because of the fine print on the cruise line tickets.

Numerous cruise lines include what’s called “choice of forum” language in ticket contracts. This provision stipulates where any legal dispute must be heard. When you agree to purchase and sign on the dotted line, the cruise company takes that as you accepting all of the provisions in the ticket contract, including provisions blatantly worded in ways that allow the company to reduce or deny liability or which require lawsuits to be filed in areas where the chances of successfully bringing a claim for damages are minimal.

These onerous contractual provisions should not deter injured passengers or family members of passengers who lost their lives in the cruise ship disaster from speaking with a personal injury attorney about their legal options. Just because bringing a case may prove difficult, achieving some semblance of justice is not impossible.

In fact, firm attorney Emily Mapp Brannon is representing two passengers who were on board the Costa Concordia and suffered serious traumas. To learn more, read this Virginia Lawyers Weekly article cruise ship injury lawyer Emily Brannon and her clients

About the Editors: The Shapiro, Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm, which has offices in Virginia (VA) and North Carolina (NC), edits the injury law blogs Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as pro bono services.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Emily Mapp Brannon

The Increasing Deaths on Cruise Ships

Brett Rivkind — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:22:02 GMT

With the recent Costa Concordia disaster, resulting in 17 known deaths, the spotlight has again been placed on the cruise ship industry regarding safety issues. Over the years, our firm has been reporting on the increased number of disappearances of passengers or crewmembers, or situations involving passengers or crewmembers going overboard. The spotlight was placed on the cruise ship industry following the disappearance of George Smith who is suspected to have been a victim of foul play onboard a passenger cruise ship.

As a cruise ship attorney for almost 30 years, I have seen an increased number of criminal activities occurring aboard cruise ships, along with an increase in the number of serious accidents.

In the wake of the Costa Concordia disaster, there have been two more deaths occur aboard a cruise ship within the span of a few days.

On Friday, it was reported that a 26-year-old man fell and died aboard the Carnival Cruise Lines passenger cruise ship, the Fantasy. He was reported to have fallen from an upper level of the ship to the lobby level.

On Monday, a 47-year-old female passenger on the Royal Caribbean cruise ship Liberty of the Seas died when she fell down a flight of stairs on the ship. Although an initial characterization is made that she missed a step and fell, there are questions arising as to the responses by the medical personnel to her injuries. It will need to be determined whether there was an appropriate emergency response to the medical situation, and whether the failure to receive appropriate medical attention played any part in the death. It will also need to be determined whether the passenger slipped and fell due to any design defects of the stairs, including whether the stairs were unreasonably slippery for a public staircase frequently trafficked by the passengers. Often times, slip and fall accidents aboard the cruise ships are related to some type of design defect in the stairs. The types of design defects that potentially make the stairs unsafe are numerous. This will require an evaluation by an appropriate expert to determine the safety of the stairs. More facts and circumstances will need to be developed to determine the cause of this tragic accident.

As in all of the passenger cases, especially in the wake of the Costa Concordia disaster, anyone bringing a claim for an injury or death to passenger will soon learn about the passenger tickets that are issued which contain significant limitations on the right to bring a lawsuit. These limitations include the location where a lawsuit must be filed. The passenger ticket also contains a time limitation to give notice to the cruise ship company of the claim, and a time limitation in which to file the lawsuit. Many attorneys who are not cruise ship attorneys have mistakenly believed that cases arising from the Costa Concordia must be filed in Broward County, Florida against Costa Cruise Lines. However, the passenger tickets that apply to the Costa Concordia are different than the passenger tickets that are issued to passengers cruising onboard a Costa Cruise Lines cruise ship which sails to or from a United States port. In the case of the Costa Concordia, which never touched a United States port, the passenger ticket has what is called a forum selection clause, which requires lawsuits to be filed in Geneva, Italy.

The courts have routinely enforced the forum selection clauses dictating where the lawsuits must be filed against a cruise ship company. In the case of Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and Carnival Cruise Lines, the passenger tickets require the lawsuits to be filed in Miami, Florida, and the lawsuit must be filed in the Southern District here in Miami, Florida.

Although the Carnival Cruise Lines passenger ticket requires a lawsuit to be brought in Miami, this requirement does not apply to cruises aboard the cruise ships operated by Costa Cruise Lines. This is despite the fact that Carnival Cruise Lines own Costa Cruise Lines. Costa is a subsidiary of Carnival Cruise Lines. However, the law is clear that parent companies can only be liable for the acts of the subsidiary if you are able to legally “pierce the corporate veil,” which is very difficult to do.

In addition, the passenger tickets issued by the cruise lines contain clauses which prevent the institution of class action lawsuits.

The recent deaths that occurred over the weekend on the cruise ships owned and operated by Carnival and Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, as well as the recent disaster with the Costa Concordia, again emphasizes the need for increased investigation into the safety onboard cruise ships, and the need for increased regulations of the cruise ship industry.

Our firm continues to serve as safety advocates for those injured or harmed at sea.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Rivkind

Keeping Yourself Safe on the Cruise

Michael Roberts — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:21:32 GMT

With the unnecessary tragic loss of life in the Costa Concordia disaster near Italy, much attention is now being focused on safety issues for cruise ship passengers. Below are some useful points to keep in mind when deciding to take a cruise.

Before Taking a Cruise

Book your cruise through a trusted travel counselor. Should there be an emergency, the travel counselor can be a trusted ally and provide valuable assistance.

Registering all international travel with the U.S. Department of State’s free Smart Traveler Enrolment Program (STEP) will enable the State Department to provide assistance in an emergency.

Illness can be a big problem aboard cruise ships. If you’ve ever had a Norwalk-like virus you won’t ever want to have it again. Check the cruise ship report card prior to booking a cruise. The Vessel Sanitation Program by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regularly inspects ships for cleanliness, repair, water quality and more.

Before traveling, scan a copy of your passport and save it in your email so you can access a copy from anywhere. A Gmail account comes in handy for this. Also give a copy to a friend or relative. This will also make it easier to get a replacement should you need too.

Check travel warnings so you are aware of unsafe conditions.

Travel insurance can come in handy should you incur medical expenses, baggage loss/delay. If you do decide to get insurance, make sure you understand exactly what it does and doesn’t cover.

On a Cruise

First and foremost, pay attention to safety instructions and safety drills at the start of the drill and during activities. Ships are required to hold safety drills within 24 hours of boarding new passengers. Knowing what to do in an emergency is important to your safety.

If you have prescription medications you take daily, always have them on you should you get sick or need them.

When booking a tour, consider going through your cruise line. If you do book an independent tour, research it careful in advance. Scalpers are standing by waiting to take advantage.

Before leaving the ship for a tour or excursion, ask the cruise director if there are any areas that you should avoid. They are legally obligated to disclose this information to you.

Which leads to the next point- travel in groups or at the very least with another person, when it is possible to do so.

Discretion is important- don’t carry large sums of cash or wear expensive jewelry. Leave the jewelry at home or in the safe in your cabin. Place money and credit cards in your front pant pockets. If you are using a purse, try to avoid using one with a strap. Remaining low key is the safest bet.

Finally and most important- trust your gut. If something doesn’t feel right, it most likely isn’t. Safety always comes first.

Do have a safe and fun voyage!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Roberts

Railroads Pushing to Repeal Safety Laws

Mark Bello — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:28:55 GMT

Four years ago, 25 people died and 135 injured in the Metrolink head-on train accident in Chatsworth resulting from an engineer who was texting and failed to see a red signal after pulling away from Chatsworth Station. This fatal accident spurred the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which mandated a $13 billion project; nearly the entire cost to be covered by the railroad companies. The law requires installation of a technology known as “Positive Train Control” (PTC) on all passenger trains and those carrying extremely hazardous materials. The PTC system includes GPS and wireless communications technology and central control centers that would monitor trains and automatically apply the brakes on trains about to run a red light, collide, or derail. It would prevent train accidents resulting from human error; most often the cause of railroad accidents.

Railroads are required to install PTC by the end of 2015, but the railroads are arguing that the project is unaffordable and still needs to be refined, even though Amtrak already operates a similar system and they are proposing other cheaper, less effective safety measures. Republicans are supporting the resistance by the railroad companies. Rep. John Mica (R) of Florida is pushing to extend the PTC deadline by three years and allowing trains to use non-technological safety systems, which are much cheaper and not as effective especially in cases of human error. His goal: "protect against overly-burdensome regulations and red tape.” According to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Mica is one of the biggest recipients of railroad industry campaign contributions since 2008.

Rep. Bill Shuster, R (PA) advocates extending the deadline beyond 2015 and reducing the amount of track covered, calling the existing requirements "regulatory overreach." Safety advocates argue that PTC could have saved those killed near Chatsworth, as well as another 28 people who died in train accidents over the past eleven years. According to The Center for Responsive Politics, railroads were the top-contributing industry to Shuster’s 2008 and 2010 election campaigns.

Unfortunately, strong supporters of the PTC have fallen out of the political spotlight. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) was pivotal in obtaining passage of the Rail Safety Improvement Act, but is no longer a leader on the issue or a member of the committee with jurisdiction over railroads. Former Rep. James L. Oberstar, D (MN) was voted out of office in 2010.

The railroads concede that PTC increases safety, but officials say that it only saves four or five lives a year; according to industry officials, that is not enough to justify the cost of compliance under the Act. Am I the only one that finds that appalling? How many deaths, exactly, does it take for strong safety action? My bet is “one”, but it would have to be a close friend or loved on of one of those close to a railroad executive or a legislator voting on a safety measure that would have prevented the death of that loved one. If it was their child, their spouse, their parent, would they act? Would they trade places with Frank Kohler, one of those injured in the Chatsworth disaster? Mr. Kohler suffered a traumatic brain injury after his head was, literally, split open during the collision. “It’s hard for me to believe that anyone can go to Congress and say with a straight face that seven years after the bill passed is ‘not enough time for us to do this,’’’ said James Stem, legislative director of the United Transportation Union.

Once again, big business is attempting to place profits over safety, profits over people. Do I need to tell you that money talks in politics, especially Republican politics? This is another example of large corporations using their power and significant campaign contributions to delay costly safety measures that have been proven to save lives. Although we can’t rely on corporate America to keep us safe, shouldn’t we be able to rely on the integrity of our elected officials? The objective should be to ensure transportation safety whether it automobiles, airplanes, or trains. We need to focus on protecting our citizens against wrongdoers, not on government handouts to safety violators, regardless of their money and power.

Corporate immunity (another form of government bailouts to large corporations) is not the solution; we must hold big business accountable for its own negligence. If this law is deferred, it may very well be on hold indefinitely. Don't let politicians who accept campaign contributions from corporate wrongdoers limit our safety in exchange for huge campaign checks.

You can prevent the erosion of your civil rights, the erosion of the concept of holding one party fully responsible for his/her negligent or deliberate conduct toward another, and the increasing political concept of making the taxpayer pay the cost of negligence on behalf of the guilty, bailed-out, corporations. You can do so by becoming and informed voter and by voting in the public interest rather than the corporate interest. Find out where all of your elected officials, local, state and federal, stand on issues of safety vs. corporate profit at the expense of that safety. Find out where your congressmen and senators stand. Do they stand for the safety of their constituents or do they stand with and accept money from corporate wrongdoers and safety violators? If the bulk of their campaign dollars come from corporate interests or the US Chamber of Commerce, then they will, most likely, vote against safety and for corporate wrongdoers and safety violators. Follow the money, my fellow citizens and if your elected officials oppose safety legislation; if they support restrictions on the right of a citizen to sue for damages done to that citizen or a precious family member, I urge you to vote for their opponents. Our collective vote in support of the rights of people, over the rights of corporate safety violators, is the only way to stop these “profits over people” bailouts. Exercise your constitutional rights and vote!

Ma rk Bello has thirty-five years experience as a trial lawyer and thirteen years as an underwriter and situational analyst in the lawsuit funding industry. He is the owner and founder of Lawsuit Financial Corporation which helps provide legal finance cash flow solutions and consulting when necessities of life litigation funding is needed by a plaintiff involved in pending, personal injury, litigation. Bello is a Justice Pac member of the American Association for Justice, Sustaining and Justice Pac member of the Michigan Association for Justice, Business Associate of the Florida, Mississippi, Connecticut, Texas, and Tennessee Associations for Justice, and Consumers Attorneys of California, member of the American Bar Association, the State Bar of Michigan and the Injury Board.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark Bello

Two Adults, One Baby Killed in Train Crash Accident

David Mittleman — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:23:00 GMT

In a tragic accident on Saturday, an 18-month-old boy and two adults were killed in their SUV when the driver of the vehicle attempted to swerve around a crossing arm and flashing warning lights at a lightrail train crossing. The other passenger in the vehicle, a woman in her 30s, was taken to the hospital with serious injuries. Six of the approximately fifty passengers on the light rail sustained minor injuries.

The collision occurred shortly before 4 p.m. The train pushed the Pathfinder SUV about 30 yards beyond the point of impact. Authorities are reviewing the footage of the accident but say that the video clearly shows the SUV swerving around the crossing arm and then getting struck by the light rail train. The light rail train followed two Union Pacific freight trains, but the crossing arm remained down the entire time. The light rail train was going about 55 mph, a common speed for a train of that type.

Authorities have not released the identities of those killed in the accident. The baby boy was pronounced dead at the hospital, while the two adults were pronounced dead at the scene. Firefighters said that one of the adult passengers was ejected from the vehicle.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Did You Know... Railroad Companies Are Fighting Safety Improvements?

Brett Emison — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:27:53 GMT

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, some 40% of railroad accidents are caused by human error. Starting in 1990, to mitigate these human error accidents, the NTSB put a new system called “Positive Train Control” or PTC on its Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements. Positive Train Control is a system that will automatically apply the brakes on trains that are about to collide or enter the wrong track, and includes train separation or collision avoidance; line speed enforcement; temporary speed restrictions; and rail worker wayside safety. The system was designed to reduce the number of human errors that lead to train collisions and derailments that cause injuries, deaths and hazmat spills.

After the September 2008 California accident in which a Metrolink train ran a red light and collided head-on with a Union Pacific freight train, Congress passed the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. This bill set a deadline of 2015 for implementation of PTC across some 70,000 miles of America’s rail network. The bill was signed by into law by President Bush in October 2008.

Now, less than four-years later, railroads are fighting back to prevent, scale back or delay the implementation of the law. PTC opponents are citing the $13 billion price-tag, which is to be paid almost exclusively by the railroad companies, as “a regulation that imposes a staggering and unjustified burden” on the railroads.

The railroad companies have won over key Republicans including U.S. Rep. John Mica of Florida, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the railroads subcommittee. Rep. Mica, who, since 2008, has received campaign contributions of $182,298 from railroad lobbyists, is drafting a surface transportation bill which is expected to incorporate the breaks sought by the railroad companies. He also supports “non-technological” safety solutions which would not automatically prevent human errors. Rep. Shuster, who has received $165,800 in campaign contributions from railroad interests since 2008 supports extending the deadline for implementation of PTC by three years and also supports reducing the amount of track to be covered.

Furthermore, to settle a lawsuit filed by the American Association of Railroads, the U.S. Department of Transportation offered to reduce the amount of track that would be required to incorporate PTC by 7,000-14,000 miles, or 10-20%. President Obama’s Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, claimed that the reduction was in line with the President’s goal of streamlining regulation.

A consistent theme in my blog posts is that companies must not be allowed to value money over safety. This is yet another example of highly profitable railroad companies refusing to put the necessary safeguards in place to reduce the likelihood of accidents, unless we the taxpayers subsidize them.

Follow @BrettEmison on Twitter.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison

Is it really a Rush to the Courthouse for the Costa Concordia Disaster?

Brett Rivkind — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:30:49 GMT

As a maritime attorney for almost 30 years, I have been watching many attorneys speak out about the Costa Concordia sinking, discussing the rights of the passengers for any claims to compensation, as well as announcements that class action lawsuits are being immediately filed.

The question becomes is it really a rush to get to the courthouse for all of these passengers who were a victim of this disaster? Is it necessary to get to the courthouse before all of the bodies have been found and accounted for? Are the passengers being given accurate information about what the best course of action is for them to take following this particular disaster?

The passenger ticket, called the Contract of Passage, is obviously the starting point for anyone considering legal claims against the cruise line company. This contract will define who the “carrier” is that the passenger has a contract with for the particular cruise. This entity will be Costa Cruise Line, not Carnival Cruise Line. There have been many reports in the papers that this case is against Carnival Cruise Lines, and therefore Miami would be the appropriate place to file a lawsuit. Although it is true Carnival Cruise Line owns Costa, Costa is a subsidiary corporation. It has a separate identity, and maintains a separate day to day base of operations in Italy. The passenger contract states clearly that Costa is the entity operating the cruise ship, and the responsible party for any incidents arising during the cruise.

The passenger ticket also contains important time deadlines, including 30 days to file a claim for any property loss. There are deadlines for providing notice of claims for personal injury and wrongful death, as well as the one year time limitation to file a lawsuit.

The most important provision in the passenger ticket with Costa is the provision that requires the lawsuit to be filed in Italy since this was a cruise that did not touch a United States port. Many attorneys have been mistakenly referring to the requirement that Costa be sued in Broward County, Florida. This is true if the cruise originates from a United States port. It does not apply to the Costa Concordia. A separate passenger contract/ticket is issued for cruises that do not originate in the United States, such as the cruise involving the Costa Concordia.

The question becomes to what extent is the forum selection clause requiring a lawsuit to be filed in Italy enforceable? I think some legal commentators have rushed to judgment that there is absolutely no chance to overcome this provision. Although I do believe it is a long shot to convince a United States court to ignore the provision in the passenger ticket requiring lawsuits to be filed in Italy, there are arguments that can be asserted. It would be a mistake commentators to conclude that there is absolutely no basis to file a lawsuit in the United States on behalf of United States passengers. There is a decision of the Eleventh Court of Appeals in a passenger case enforcing a passenger contract that required lawsuits to be brought in France. A United States passenger challenged that provision, arguing it was unreasonable and burdensome to require the lawsuit to be brought in France. This single passenger lost this argument at the lower court level, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit filed in the United States, and required the passenger to file her lawsuit in France. However this is an opinion that is listed as a “non-published” opinion. Although it reflects the reasoning of the judges at that time in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, it is not considered binding precedent.

The law that governs the enforceability of forum selection clauses in passenger contract provides for an analysis to be made by the courts, considering the unreasonableness of the selected forum. This may require an analysis of the particular facts of the Costa Concordia, and the legal rights that the United States passengers will be given if the case is required to be filed in Italy. This disaster may result in a United States court taking a closer look at these forum selection clauses, as well as the relationship between the parent company, Carnival, and its subsidiary, Costa.

Legal commentators rejecting the possibility of any action in the United States have not considered whether Carnival can be held responsible for the failure to have implemented appropriate policies and procedures for all of their fleet, including the fleet of their subsidiaries.

In addition, the prohibition against contingency fees in Italy has changed over the years, and there are Italian lawyers who will work with the United States attorneys on a contingency fee basis.

My question is why rush to the courthouse at this time before all the bodies have even been located onboard the ship? I do not personally see the necessity of that. In addition, important and critical facts are being revealed each day. There are criminal investigations taking place, as well as investigations by maritime authorities that will develop critical evidence that will benefit any lawyer who is representing any of the passengers in this case. Of course, there are short time deadlines applicable in these type of cases, but the necessity of rushing to the courthouse within a week or two of the disaster, in my opinion, needs to be questioned.

It is clear Costa will be held accountable in this case. The question is to what extent. It is a complex journey through a maze of complex maritime legal issues.

Our firm continues to act as safety advocates for passengers and crewmembers harmed at sea. We are currently representing passengers from the Costa Concordia. We are available for legal consultation regarding the Costa Concordia matter.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Rivkind

Maritime Attorney Brett Rivkind Speaks to Australian Newspaper About Costa Concordia Disaster

Leslie Azzam — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:23:54 GMT

Brett Rivkind was quoted in the Australian press about the Costa Concordia incident, which has raised many concerns about cruise ship safety. There were more than 25 passengers aboard the Costa Concordia that are from Australia.

The article discusses the increased safety worries due to the increased size of cruise ships. In the case of the Costa Concordia, over 4000 individuals were relying on Captain Francesco Schettino for their safety. What they got was obviously a captain not knowledgeable and experienced enough to have been put in that position of responsibility.

The reports of how the captain handled the situation after he stupidly drove this mega cruise ship into the rocks is shocking. The cruise ship company is saying the captain did not rely accurate information to them. He delayed evacuation of the ship. He hid the truth is what the cruise ship company is saying about their own captain. How can such a captain be competent to handle this huge cruise ship with over 4000 lives being his responsibility?

Carnival cruise line and Costa cruise lines have announced they are reevaluating the procedures of the cruise ships. They obviously need to be examined and actions taken to improve them. The question is why does it take a disaster like this which costs lives for a cruise ship company to come out and admit they need to look at procedures for dealing with emergencies on cruise ships. When the cruise ship industry was deciding to build the mega cruise ships, because they are profitable, that was the time to scrutinize their policies and procedures so that a disaster like the Costa Concordia would not happen.

Brett Rivkind is a maritime attorney helping those harmed at sea for almost 30 years. He has been an invited speaker during congressional hearings addressing cruise ship safety. He was the attorney for the George Smith family, as well as the Dipiero family, the O’Brien family, all cases involving passengers who went overboard during a cruise and were never found.

He was active in helping with the formation of the International Cruise Victims Association, a major victim’s organization comprised of members victimized at sea.

He continues to be a safety advocate for those harmed at sea. He is presently representing passengers who were on the Costa Concordia.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Leslie Azzam

Six Crew Members Sent to Hospital After American Airlines Plane Hit Turbulence

David Mittleman — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:00:00 GMT

Passengers flying on an American Airlines plane traveling from Brazil to Miami experienced a tremendous scare when they hit severe turbulence on Sunday. However, it was the crew members who took the brunt of the turbulence, with five admitted to the hospital due to injuries they sustained during the ordeal.

According to reports, the plane began to experience severe turbulence two hours into the eight hour flight. Some passengers described the unstable plane ride as worse than a rollercoaster, as passengers were lifted out of their seats and some hit their heads on the ceiling of the plane. One flight attendant was hurt when a food cart flew into the air, hit the ceiling and created a giant hole, and then landed on her.

Miami-Dade firefighters met with the plane at the airport and transported five of the crew members to the hospital and treated a sixth at the scene. No information has been released on the severity of the crew members’ injuries, but an ER doctor was also on board and helped to treat the injured crew members while the plane was still in the air. Passengers report that the experience was horribly chaotic and frightening, with screaming and crying heard throughout the cabin.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman