Injuryboard Commentary - alcohol

18-Year-Old St. Augustine Woman Killed in Crash

Eddie Farah — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:09:00 GMT

Condolences are pouring into the MySpace and Facebook pages of an 18-year-old young woman from St. Augustine, Florida who died earlier this week in a car crash.

Megan Elizabeth Bunn and another teenager were killed Sunday night when the truck they were riding in collided with an ambulance. It all happened on U.S. 1 near The Avenues Mall at about 8:20 p.m. Sunday evening.

Bunn was riding in the middle of the front seat in a friend’s Chevy Silverado, one of five people in the vehicle, none of whom wore seat belts. Suddenly their truck collided with an ambulance when it either pulled in front of the truck or the truck driver ran a red light. The Florida Highway Patrol is unsure at this time, but the ambulance driver says he did not have his lights on and was not speeding because had had dropped off the patient.

Bunn was pronounced dead at Shands Jacksonville. The driver of the truck, Michael Jason Linder, 19, was also pronounced dead at the hospital Monday night. The other front seat passenger, Shyenne Morgan, 17, of Jacksonville was in critical condition at Shands. The two passengers in the rear were in serious condition.

Our prayers go out to the families of the two young people killed. Bunn had left high school in 2006 and was in school to become a nurse. Linder had been arrested for car burglaries in St. Johns County, but hopefully was turning his life around. People say they felt blessed to know her.

Unfortunately, the Florida Highway Patrol responding to the scene said that beer was found in the Silverado. A toxicology test will determine if Linder was drinking.

While we have no idea of the alcohol level involved in this accident, traffic crashes occur every 12 seconds in the U.S. and are the number one cause of death among young adults. If you are 15 to 19, you are more likely to be killed in a car crash than any other way.

Alcohol, distraction and speeding all play a part.

If only the point didn't have to be driven home by the death of these irreplacable young people, but unfortunately, that is more likely to make an impact on survivors and their driving habits than any law or statistic.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Eddie Farah

Beach Attorney Recognized for DUI Prosecution Efforts

Rick Shapiro — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:20:00 GMT

Local prosecutor Charisse Black last week received a national award for keeping alcohol- and drug-addled divers off the streets of Virginia Beach.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving tapped Black as one of 15 recipients of its 2009 President's Criminal Justice Award for "her thorough gathering of facts, complete knowledge of current Virginia DUI laws and her ability to convict the majority of the cases she presents." Black's supervisor, Commonwealth's Attorney for Virginia Beach Harvey Bryant also praised Black for "seeing that those who drive drunk are convicted and punished without delay.' Bryant also said that "Charisse embodies the ‘get tough’ attitude that this office has toward drunk drivers."

I am happy to add my congratulations to Black and to express my appreciation for her work. Drunk and drugged drivers cause untold tragedy in our area and across the United States. While statistics on fatalities, injuries and monetary damages caused by drivers impaired by drugs and alcohol are kept, those numbers do not come close to telling the story of how DUIs can ruin and end lives.

Prosecuting drunk and drugged drivers is only part of the solution, of cpursse. Drivers need to take responsibility and stay out their cars if they have been drinking or doing drugs. Also, as we kickoff the holiday party season, hosts and guests need to watch their friends and head off potential drunk drivers by ensuring safe rides homes for those who need them.

Until people do assume their full responsibilities, however, it is good to know that prosecutors like Black are protecting us.

About the Editors: The Shapiro, Cooper, Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm, whose attorneys work out of 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.

EJL

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Shapiro

Alcoholic Energy Drinks Come Under FDA Scrutiny

David Mittleman — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:02:36 GMT

Alcoholic energy drinks have gained in popularity, particularly among younger drinkers. But now, the drinks, marketed under flashy names like Evil Eye or Max Fury, are coming under the Food and Drug Administration’s scrutiny. The FDA has never approved of the addition of caffeine to alcoholic drinks, but the producers of these beverages claim that their products are safe. Nevertheless, the FDA is concerned that the addition of caffeine can mask the effects of alcohol, potentially leading to more instances of drunk driving, sexual assaults or other destructive behaviors.

The burden of proving that the caffeine-laden alcoholic beverages are safe falls squarely on the shoulders of the manufacturers. In a September 25^th letter to the FDA, a task force, consisting of the attorney generals of several states as well as several other state, city, and territorial law enforcement officials, stated that “there is a strong emerging consensus of scientific opinion that the combination of caffeine and alcohol…poses a serious public health risk”. Ultimately, the goal is to remove the caffeinated alcoholic beverages from the market. Since the FDA received the letter from the task force, they also issued a letter to the manufacturers of caffeinated alcoholic beverages. Manufacturers have 30 days to respond to the FDA.

So far, larger corporations such as Anheuser-Busch have already removed caffeine from their alcoholic energy drinks. However, other smaller companies such as Los-Angeles based Joose Beverage and Portland, Oregon-based Charge Beverages continue to sell alcoholic energy drinks infused with caffeine. The companies could still challenge the FDA’s request by arguing that their products have already been approved by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

MSU Student Killed in Grand Rapids-Area Car Crash

Devon Glass — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:36:57 GMT

Jeremy Sobczak-Obetts was, by all accounts, a hard-working and humorous individual with a bright future. A senior at Michigan State University, he had hoped to graduate with a degree in food service management. According to friends and family, Jeremy had a wealth of natural talent and exhibited a knack for succeeding in everything he tried.

Tragically, a car crash in Ada Township this weekend cut Jeremy's young life short. The single-vehicle accident, which occurred early Saturday morning, was caused when the SUV in which Jeremy was traveling slid off the road and struck a tree at high speed. The vehicle suffered catastrophic damage, although the driver sustained only minor injuries. Authorities believe alcohol and high speed were factors in the crash.

Jeremy's life may have ended Saturday morning, but his story is far from over. His grieving family members have spoken out to the media about the perils of drunk driving. Andrew Tittle, the driver of the SUV and a friend and neighbor of the Sobczak-Obetts family, has been formally charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated, causing death. Reports indicate that Tittle's blood-alcohol level was .22, nearly three times Michigan's legal limit of .08.

Jeremy's story is another horrific example of the consequences of drunk driving. Never drink and drive, and do not accept a ride from anyone you suspect to be drinking. Be smart, play it safe, and arrive alive.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Devon Glass

Virginia Drivers Getting an Education in the Dangers of Driving Drunk

Jim Lewis — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:31:48 GMT

Tuesday afternoon saw the launch of a coordinated, and much-needed, public education campaign to drive home the message that drinking and driving puts everyone on Virginia's roads at risk for injury and death.

The Virginia State police, the state's chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Virginia's secretary of public safety announced the Help Eliminate Alcohol Related Tragedies, or HEART, initiative at the state police station in Chesapeake. During HEART education sessions, instructors will invite participants to wear specially designed goggles that give wearers the sensation that they are legally drunk.

HEART joins ongoing programs such as MADD's Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving and the state police's Highway Safety Challenge. But every effort to discourage people from drinking and driving--as well as to discourage drugged or distracted driving--is welcome. This weekend saw a brief police pursuit of speeding drunk driver on Lynnhaven parkway in Virginia end in the death of the impaired driver. Across the country, nearly 13,000 traffic deaths involved a drunk driver in 2007. Three hundred thirty-two of those deaths occurred in Virginia.

Accidents happen. Having practiced personal injury law for three decades, I know that maybe better than anyone. I also know that accidents are more likely to happen when people drink then drive. I am glad to see each new effort such as HEART to reduce drunk driving and wish it great success.

About the Editors: Shapiro, Cooper Lewis & Appleton is a law firm which focuses on injury and accident law, and our attorneys have handled thousands of car and truck accident cases. Check out our case results to see for yourself. In addition, check out our FREE special reports on distracted driving and The Best Guide to Car Accident injuries in Virginia. Our primary office is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia (VA), although our lawyers hold licenses in NC, SC, WV, KY and DC. We are ready to talk to you by phone right now, and we provide free initial confidential injury case consultations. Call us toll free at 1-800-752-0042. Our injury attorneys also host an extensive injury law video library on Youtube. Further, our lawyers proudly edit the Virginia Beach Injuryboard and Norfolk Injuryboard as pro bono public information services.

EJL

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jim Lewis

Bicyclist Critical After Hit By Five Time DUI Offender

Eddie Farah — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:57:03 GMT

This is a tragic story.

A 77-year-old man, riding his bicycle 10 a.m. Saturday morning on Seminole Road in Atlantic Beach, was hit by the driver of an SUV.

Charges have now been filed against the driver, 41-year-old William Adams.

He was driving his SUV, towing a trailer when the right fender well of the trailer hit the man. The unidentified man was taken by helicopter to Shands Medical Center in Jacksonville and is listed in critical condition.

Our prayers go out to this bicycle rider for a full recovery. Riding a bicycle should never been hazardous if you are following the rules and riding on a road through a residential area with a slow speed limit.

Adams has been charged with driving under the influence and driving without a license. Police report he had four prior DUI convictions.

All states have DUI laws that deem anyone intoxicated with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above 0.08 percent. No additional proof of driving impairment is necessary.

In Florida, for a first, second, or third offense, suspension or revocation of a license is an option. Repeat DUI offenders incur a harsher fine and generally receive a number of days in jail. And Florida law requires the ignition interlock be put on a vehicle for second and third DUI convictions.

As of October 1, 2008, it was required for all offenders with a BAC at .15 or higher.

Why this man’s vehicle was not confiscated before this time or an ignition interlock breath-testing device, that measures the BAC, installed on his vehicle, I don’t know. He may have already been forced to enroll in a mandatory alcohol education program, but a DUI at 10 a.m., obviously that program didn't work.

The definition of a hardcore drunk driver is three offenses within 10 years or a fourth offense in a lifetime.

In 2007, nearly 13,000 people in the U.S. died in crashes where the driver or motorcycle rider was legally impaired, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.

There are approximately 14 million licensed drivers in Florida. In 2008, the state reports there were more than 22,200 alcohol related crashes and more than 1,100 alcohol related fatalities in the state.

Injuring someone, while DUI and driving without a license will finally bring this driver some much deserved jail time. Obviously nothing else has worked. #

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Eddie Farah

Dram Shop Laws - Effective Elements for Reponsible Alcohol Retailing

Mark Willingham — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:08:37 GMT

A foreseeable and preventable tragedy unfolds several times a day somewhere in the United States. Over fifteen thousand people are killed and thousands more are seriously injured in impaired driving crashes in the United Sates each year. Even more shocking is that half of these deaths and injuries can be attributed to drivers who were coming directly from a beverage license premises where they were over-served or allowed to over-consume alcohol.

Beverage alcohol is the only universally available consumer product that has the capacity to cause changes in the consumer’s emotional state, his or her cognitive ability, gross and fine motor skills, and can diminish the drinker’s ability to make rational decisions. Beverage alcohol is widely sold and consumed in businesses that are primarily accessible through the use of personally operated vehicles creating a reasonable expectation that many customers will also drive those vehicles away from the bar or restaurant. Many will be under the influence of the intoxicating effect of the product and unable to safely operate those vehicles. At least 80 million trips are made annually in the United Sates by drivers with a BAC over .08.

The business model under which the alcoholic beverage industry operates can be antithetical to the elements of responsible retailing. In many cases tips; a significant part of servers’ income, come from “good service” which often equates to heavy pours of alcohol, frequent replenishment, and a wink and a nod at increasing intoxication levels. Beverage retailers often utilize questionable promotions, two for one or all you can drink specials, for example, to gain a competitive advantage or to maintain marketing parity with other retailers. The choices bar owners and bartenders make in over-serving their guests often eliminate the choices their guests might have in moderating their drinking behavior.

The decision to have the first, second or perhaps the third drink rests solely with the drinker. At a certain point, however, the drinker loses his or her ability to make rational decisions about further alcohol consumption. The drinker’s ability to engage in appropriate behavior and make rational decisions is diminished. It is a truism worthy of a scientific designation; the more alcohol one consumes, the lower one’s ability to assess their own intoxication and assess their own ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. This most certainly creates a “Catch 22” logic model in which the person the retailer often believes responsible for determining whether their faculties are impaired becomes more and more impaired with each drink the retailer serves.

A beverage license is a privilege issued by the government. Its issue and retention is conditioned on the licensee’s agreement to act in the public’s interest. Responsible retailers provide an inviting and enjoyable hospitality experience with alcohol service as an adjunct to that experience. A responsible retailer’s obligation under that mantle is to prevent patron intoxication. Unfortunately, not all beverage retailers act in a responsible manner. Not all beverage retailers serve alcoholic beverages with the goal of providing hospitality while preventing patron intoxication.

Laws exist in every state except Florida and Nevada that place criminal and/or administrative responsibility on the bar or the bartender/server to monitor the behavior of the drinker and their consumption of alcohol. Once a drinker reaches the point where he or she reaches various levels of intoxication, and therefore, loses the ability to make rational decisions, responsibility for insuring the drinker’s safety and those the drinker may harm, shifts to the retailer through criminal and/or administrative prohibitions.

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have determined that their public policy interests are better served by placing some responsibility for over-service or over-consumption on the alcohol server or the licensee through the civil justice system. These dram shop laws provide a plaintiff legal standing to bring an action against a tort feasor for an alcohol related injury or death. Most instances that bring rise to a civil dram shop lawsuit stem from a traffic crash. Other causes of action, however, relate to homicide, sexual assault, and other incidents where the intoxicated patron loses the ability of self-regulation.

Standards for dram shop lawsuits vary widely among states. Those standards include prohibitions of service to intoxicated, visibly intoxicated or obviously intoxicated patrons or when it should have been known that the patron was intoxicated. One state prohibits service to a drunken person in a criminally negligent manner. Another allows a civil action when the service was to a person clearly intoxicated. Several states require proof that the alcohol service was done in a reckless manner or that the alcohol was provided with reckless disregard to the rights of others. Other states require proof that the patron was intoxicated to the extent he or she presented a clear and present danger to self or other. Florida allows a dram shop action only when the alcohol service was to someone habitually addicted to alcohol. This standard is particularly difficult because alcoholics do not carry or present identification cards identifying them as such and rarely make self-admissions to bartenders.

The phase dram shop is based on a unit of measure popular in Victorian times; approximately 1/8^th of an ounce in our vernacular, and has become synonymous with a prohibition on the over-service of beverage alcohol to a patron or guest. The principal purpose of dram shop laws is to protect the public; and even the drinker himself, from the over-service or over-consumption of beverage alcohol and from the service of alcohol to persons under 21 years of age. This law calls upon beverage licensees and their employees to play a significant role in the enforcement of this important public policy. No other business type comes to mind where the holder of a government license; by acceptance of that license, is required to act as an agent of the state in taking affirmative action to monitor and intercede in the behavior of a citizen/business invitee.

Responsible retailing involves the development and implementation of effective alcohol service policies, practices, employee training and management systems. These elements are the keys to responsible retailing and the prevention of acts and situations leading to a dram shop lawsuit. Conversely, irresponsible beverage retailers do not employ these elements or they have developed ineffective policies, practices, training and management systems that fall below a reasonable standard of care.

Dram shop cases involve an examination of two elements; the fact situation involving the alleged service to an intoxicated patron or service to a minor and an examination of the premise’s alcohol service practices, polices, training and management systems, which allowed the beverage service to occur. In fact, findings related to the insufficiency of practices, policies, training and management also serve as the basis for punitive damages in many states. Beverage retailers simply cannot ignore the dangerous nature of these products and sell them as those the danger did not exist.

Examination of the fact situation can demonstrate that the retailer served an intoxicated patron. The drinker’s self-admission and/or witnesses describing the condition of the patron at the time of alcohol service can be illustrative. Over-service of alcoholic beverages can also be determined through receipts, credit card charge slips and extrapolation of the drinker’s BAC based on his or her personal characteristics such as gender, weight, and the elapsed time. Elapsed time can be determined through witnesses, charge slips, crash reports, and even triangulation of the drinker's cell phone position.

Examination of the business policies, practices, employee training and management systems can support the testimony of the fact witnesses. It can also illustrate the businesses’ alcohol service pattern and practice serving to support a finding of benign neglect or intent. This examination can be done through an assessment of written policies and training curriculum, through depositions of current and past employees, and through observations of current business practices.

Beverage retailers should have written policies that address, at a minimum, the prevention of the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21, including an apparent age that triggers an ID request, acceptable forms of identification, and how to properly examine and verify an ID; and policies to prevent over-service and service to an intoxicated patron including identification of an intoxicated patron, identification of a patron habitually addicted to alcohol, discontinuance of alcohol service and the provision of alternate transportation. When a beverage retailer does not have written policies, application of responsible retailing practices will be inconsistent and will be subject to the interpretation of the individual employees. Servers and bartenders will have no point of consistent reference guiding their actions and behavior. In fact, their interpretation may even vary from day to day without the consistency provided by a written policy. The lack of written policies also limits the licensee's ability to provide effective and consistent oversight and employee training.

The business practices of bars and restaurants should be designed to mitigate the risks presented by the business model, clientele, location, and environment. Beverage licensees have an obligation to prevent law violations regardless of the size of their establishment or their success. For example, happy hour and other gender, price, time, or quantity based drink specials and promotions are legal, however, they contribute significantly to the probability of patron over-service and service to minors. The court will look at these practices to determine if the beverage retailer appropriately scaled their intervention and prevention practices in response to the risks at their business. While many beverage retailers will seek to explain that they were unable to adequately control consumption by minors or over-consumption in their establishment because they had 1000 patrons going to 5 internal bars, dram shop liability does not diminish simply because the business is financially successful. Responsible retailing practices are scalable to meet the risks, if the retailer chooses to utilize them.

A responsible retailer will provide appropriate training to his or her employees and will ensure that the employees understand what is being taught and can apply the information. Training is not a one-time practice. It is unreasonable for a beverage retailer to believe that an hour or two of instruction on responsible retailing practices on the employee’s first day will serve that employee well for the next 5 or 10 years. Training must be ongoing. At the very least, beverage retailers should provide a structured training program to employees two or three times a year and provide mini-courses or shift reminders on a daily basis.

It is critical that bartenders and servers be trained using objective standards to determine if a patron exhibiting signs of intoxication. Beverage retailers will instruct their bartenders and servers not to serve alcohol to an intoxicated patron and then provide the server with outrageous examples of behavior to use as a guide, behaviors that would only emerge when a person’s BAC was already twice the legal limit. Even when the retailer tells the server to watch what they serve the patrons, the licensee will not provide the employees with BAC calculators or BAC charts or even information about standard drink units to help the bartender or server determine the maximum amount of alcohol that could be safely served to that employee in a given period.

Training should include role-play exercises so that servers and bartenders become accustomed to interacting with patrons and asking questions to help them determine whether the patron is of legal age or becoming intoxicated. Unfortunately, many bars and restaurants, including national casual dining chains, invest extensive resources and time in training their employees about menu items and the alcoholic beverages available for purchase and almost no time training a bartender or server to be a responsible alcohol server. Many retailers operate under the false economy that “telling” is easier and less expensive than training.

Management systems, may in fact be the most important aspect of responsible retailing. Without active and knowledgeable management, a beverage premises may be nothing more than a collection of independent contractors serving alcoholic beverages. Servers and bartenders stress those things they perceive to be important to management. If management believes that responsible retailing is important and continually stresses compliance with the law prohibiting service to a minor or service to an intoxicated patron, the servers will stress this as well through their actions. Conversely, if this is not important to management, it will not be important to the servers, regardless of potential criminal penalties.

How can the jury determine if a beverage licensee acted in good faith and exercised the appropriate standards of care to ensure safe service and consumption of alcohol? The jury will look at many issues concerning the operation of the business in making their determination. Did the business utilize appropriate policies, practices and training? Did the manager overrule a server’s assessment of intoxication and subsequently require the server to provide alcohol to intoxicated patrons? Did the manager downplay the importance of appropriate service standards? Did the business value repeat customer visits and high alcohol sales over responsible alcohol service?

The jury will look to see if the business attempted to comply with the law. Did the beverage licensee simply tell his or her employees not to violate the law or did they provide encouragement, knowledge, and tools to empower compliance? Did the beverage licensee provide BAC calculators to assist the bartenders and servers do their job? Did the beverage licensee or manager remind his or her employees what to look for to determine the subtle signs of intoxication before the person was a risk to themselves or others? Did the licensee employ mystery-shopping programs and video surveillance systems to ensure the bartenders and servers were not over-pouring alcohol, and were not ignoring signs of obvious and visible intoxication? These, and many more practices are indicative of responsible alcoholic beverage service.

Dram shop laws provide greater benefits than simply being the basis for civil lawsuits. Dram shop laws contribute to responsible retailing in a way that criminal and administrative penalties prohibiting over-serve and service to minors often cannot. It is an unfortunate fact that many beverage retailers look at misdemeanor criminal charges brought against their servers and administrative action brought against their alcoholic beverage license as a cost of doing business. To many, it is a cost benefit-risk analysis. In fact, these penalties are generally quite modest when they are actually imposed. Criminal and administrative laws against over-serving, when they even exist, are among the most disregarded laws in the country. Even though the bars and restaurants that over-serve and usher their intoxicated patrons out the door and into vehicles represent fewer than 10% of the beverage premises in any community, law enforcement and regulatory agencies either do not have the resources to adequately investigate and prevent these occurrences or do not give over-serving sufficient priority.

At least one large national beverage retailer has determined that their bottom line is better served by settling several wrongful death lawsuits per year rather than implementing effective alcohol policies and employee training which may offend some patrons and cause those patrons not to return. This bean-counter approach to the sale and service of alcoholic beverages is reminiscent of Ford Motor Co.'s decision to weigh the cost of correcting deficient fuel tanks in Ford Pintos against the cost of wrongful death lawsuits. Ford valued each potential death at $200,000 and determined that wrongful death settlements would cost less than investing $11 to correct the deficiency in each fuel tank. It is unfortunate that some members of the hospitality industry have the same perspective and value repeat and happy customers over responsible service practices.

Civil judgments can be significant and can cause change in the way in which alcoholic beverages are served both by the beverage retailer against whom the suit was filed and against other beverage retailers in the community. Their appreciation of the financial risk they face from engaging in irresponsible alcoholic beverage service, in many cases, will have an affect on the policies and practices they employ. The utilization of a civil dram shop law can significantly affect impaired driving crash deaths and injuries.

The use of dram shop laws and the civil justice system increases awareness of the negative consequences of over-service and over-consumption of alcohol because of the publicity that is generated about dram shop cases and their verdicts. Dram shop laws decrease excessive and illegal alcohol consumption by both adults and underage persons by reducing the incidence of lower-price drink promotions (like “happy hours”) which encourage excessive consumption in a limited amount of time and are attractive to underage drinkers. States with dram shop liability have more thorough checks of identification reducing the number of underage drinkers who are able to drink illegally in beverage-licensed premises.

Finally, dram shop laws do not decrease personal responsibility as more responsibility is shifted to beverage retailers. Creating a cause of action against an establishment that engages in over-service of alcohol does not mean that the individual is not also held responsible. Rather, punitive damages for both drinking drivers and serving establishments serve similar purposes – to show that penalties come with these actions and to cause the retailer and server to rethink their practices leading to over-service and over-consumption of alcohol.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark Willingham

University of Tennessee and NFL Player Jesse Mahelona Dies In Kailua-Kona Crash

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:10:35 GMT

Jesse Mahelona

Football season has just started and Hawaii is football paradise. I'm a football fan and follow the talented local athletes who play in College and the Pros. Today we all are sad to learn that one of the great ones is gone, long before his time. Jesse Mahelona early Saturday morning heading west on Kealakehe Parkway when his 1996 Honda Sedan crashed into a cement barrier and some construction equipment. He was ejected from the car.

Jesse Mahelona was 26-years-old and one of the greatest athletes to come out of Hawaii. No words can express our sadness to his wife and family for this loss. Jesse is survived by a daughter, Karter, and his wife, Brandee Kukita-Mahelona, who is pregnant with their second child. The entire State of Hawaii, and indeed the nation hangs its head in sadness this Labor Day Weekend.

The touching comments from his High School Principal Will Murakami, and football coach Danny Garcia at Kealakehe High School were reported by KGMB News:

"What I will always remember Jesse for is his great smile and his big heart," said Will Murakami, Kealakehe High School Principal. "Here again, this is another example of one of our young shining citizens, a great example to the community being lost too early."

"He was just a joy and a great contributor to both schools and the community, and that's why it's a tragic loss, because he truly was a community leader," Mahelona's High School Football Coach Danny Garcia said. "I still got a picture of him right now in my office."

National news stories spread the sad news of Jesse's death throughout the football world. The Associated Press reports:

Agent Chad Speck said Mahelona died Friday night after being involved in a car accident about a mile from his home in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Speck said Saturday he didn't know any more circumstances of the accident.

Mahelona was drafted in the fifth round of the 2006 NFL draft by the Titans, where he played in 10 games as a rookie. He also spent time with the Miami Dolphins before playing his last NFL game with the Atlanta Falcons in 2007.

In two seasons at the University of Tennessee, Mahelona had 77 tackles and seven sacks.

Mahelona's wife, Brandi, is pregnant with the couple's second child. Speck said there were plans for a fund to support Mahelona's family.

Titans linebacker Stephen Tulloch, who was drafted the same year as Mahelona mourned his former teammate's death on his Twitter account, saying he "lost a great friend."

Jesse's sister died 3 months ago and his comments on MySpace reported in the Honolulu Advertiser are touching:

On a MySpace site dedicated to his sister, Natasha, who died on June 17, Mahelona posted a message that read in part:

"I love you and (cannot) wait to see you waiting at da gates with my baby bradah or sistah and every loved one we once (k)new. (S)ee you in heaven, GOD'S WILL BE DONE."

As the Labor Day Weekend winds down I hope that all Hawaii drivers remember the high risks associated with driving after drinking.

Nationwide Crackdown on Drunk Drivers Targets Women

Drunk Drivers Caused 40% of Traffic Fatalities In Hawaii In 2006 by Wayne Parsons | August 31, 2009 12:16 AM

DUI Arrests Continue Eight Year Trend in Honolulu by Wayne Parsons | February 11, 2009 7:29 AM

States Increase Efforts to Combat Drunk Driving - KHNL NBC 8 News.

Alcohol related fatalities are preventable if only each one of us does the right thing and refrains from diving if any alcohol has been consumed. In Jesse Mahelona's memory let each of us heed the warnings of the police and MADD and others who know the sadness that follows a fatal traffic accident. I read the Comments to the Honolulu Advertiser story and some people are pretty harsh about there being a lot of drunk drivers on Kealakehe Parkway. Regardless of who is at fault, there can be no doubt that we have lost a great man and I for one say let his life, and tragic death _ if alcohol was a factor _ serve as an inspiration and reminder not to drive after drinking.

At Injury Board we are committed to prevention and safety. Jesse Mahelona will not be forgotten.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Officers On The Job To Make Our Holiday Safer

Pierce Egerton — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:40:07 GMT

This Labor Day weekend marks the 15th anniversary of the “Booze It & Lose It” mobilization to crack down on impaired drivers in North Carolina. The Labor Day “Booze It & Lose It” campaign began on Aug. 21 and runs until Sept. 7.

My friend and colleague from Hawaii, Wayne Parsons, recently posted some truly sobering statistics on drunk driving. The read is worth your time, check it out here.

In North Carolina in 2008, there were 11,968 alcohol-related crashes resulting in 433 fatalities and 9,263 injuries. Combating the drunk driving scourge is a daunting task. While it can’t stop every drunk driver, the “Booze It & Lose It” campaign is an effective tool.

“Booze It & Lose It” began in 1994 and was created to zero in on impaired drivers with innovative and extensive anti-DWI enforcement and education. Since 1994, law enforcement agencies have conducted more than 194,000 checkpoints and patrols during “Booze It & Lose It” campaigns resulting in more than 103,000 driving while impaired citations.

For those of us that may be out on the roads this holiday weekend its comforting to know that law enforcement officers are on the job trying to keep drunk drivers off our roads. Thanks guys!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pierce Egerton

Lawsuit Over Hazing Death

Greg Jones — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:55:43 GMT

This week the family of a Utah State University student filed a lawsuit alleging USU officials tolerated "a culture of drug and alcohol abuse" at a fraternity house where their son, a teenage freshman pledge, died of alcohol poisoning after an alleged hazing last fall. According to the suit, the Sigma Nu fraternity chapter had a long documented history of misconduct, including an alcohol-related suicide by hanging, underage drinking, arson, thefts, vandalism, false fire alarms and assaults. The suit not only accuses the Sigma Nu chapter of straying from its chartering principles, but argues that University has a legal obligation to bring student organizations into line.

It is sad that in this day and age, parents have to worry about potential injuries from illegal hazing even after many successful lawsuits from injury and death. The USU case shows that not only the indiviuals casing the harm but othe organizations such as the college, the local fraternity chapter as well as its national parent fraternity may be sued for alleged injuries. In the above case, the national fraternity has already reached an out of court settlement with the family.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Jones