Virginia Personal Injury Blog - All Topics - Most Commented

Midwives in Virginia: A Bad Idea

Dan Frith — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:57:29 GMT

Virginia is seeing an explosion in the number of midwives....and this is a bad trend!

I see many complicated deliveries where a fetus becomes entangled in the umbilical cord or caught in the birth canal due to the large size of the fetus or the smallness of the mother's pelvis. Both of these situations are medical emergencies and require the immediate attention of well-trained obstetrician or maternal-fetal specialist in a hospital setting. These life or death situations do not, in my opinion, call for delivery by a midwife in the patient's home...where there is often inadequate time to transfer a patient to the hospital after a delivery becomes complicated.

Is the increase due to lack of health insurance? Maybe. Is the increase due to outrageous hospital and physician bills for deliveries? Probably. Is the American system for the provision of health care the best in the world? Absolutely not!

I just reviewed the National Association of Certified Professional Midwives (NACPM) website which states as follows about how the state of Virginia is approaching the issue of midwives, "Midwives, consumers and supporters in the legislature had the amazing foresight to include an explicit reference to the NACPM Standards of Practice in the legislation to license CPMs in Virginia." The NACPM website goes on to state that Virginia did a good thing by making specific reference to NACPM standards, because otherwise the Virginia Board of Medicine would not know what standards are applicable.

What a bunch of hooey! Want to know what the NACPM's first identified "Philosophy and Priciples of Practice is? How about, "NACPM members respect the mystery, sanctity and potential for growth inherent in the experience of pregnancy and birth."

My Take: Virginians deserve better medical care...it's not a mystery people....its medicine!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Dan Frith

FDA Study Identifies Toxins in Electronic Cigarettes

Greg Webb — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:42:28 GMT

According to a preliminary analysis by the FDA, electronic cigarettes contain traces of carcinogens and toxins. These findings contradict electronic cigarette manufacturers’ statements that their products are a safe alternative to tobacco. Manufacturers claim that the battery-powered cigarettes contain nothing more than water vapor, nicotine, and propylene glycol, which is used to create artificial smoke. When heated, the liquid produces a vapor that users inhale.

The FDA analyzed 19 varieties of the cartridges that hold the liquid and two types of cigarettes made by NJoy and Smoking Everywhere. It found that several cartridges contained nitrosamines, tobacco-specific compounds known to cause cancer, and one cartridge from Smoking Everywhere contained diethlyene glycol, a common ingredient in antifreeze. Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the FDA’s principal commissioner, reports concerns because, while the FDA knows what’s in the cigarettes, it doesn’t know how those ingredients affect the body when inhaled through electronic cigarettes.

The Electronic Cigarette Association said in a statement that the FDA’s testing was too narrow to be reliable and that its members only sell and market their product to adults. CEO of NJoy Jack Ledbetter said a third party had tested its products and pronounced them an appropriate alternative to cigarettes, but he did not release those findings. He said experts would review both NJoy’s tests and the FDA’s.

Dr. Sharfstein said that electronic cigarettes are manufactured in China and subject to little quality control, adding that the study found nicotine levels to vary in cartridges who claimed to have a standard amount and found the drug in cartridges who claimed to be nicotine-free.

The FDA has called the cigarettes electronic drug delivery devices, turning away approximately 50 shipments of them at the border. It would not comment on whether it planned to ban electronic cigarettes, but public health officials are worried that the cherry and bubblegum flavors are enticing to children and may be easy for minors to obtain. Smoking Everywhere filed a lawsuit against the FDA in April, claiming that it did not have jurisdiction to bar electronic cigarettes from entering the U.S.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

“Hot Coffee” spills the beans on frivolous lawsuit charges

Doug Landau — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:53:55 GMT

Who has forgotten the 2.9 million dollar case where a woman spilled hot coffee on herself, got 3^rd degree burns on her legs, and sued McDonald’s for serving her coffee at 190 degrees? The facts of the case may be a little foggy, but everyone THINKS they know the facts of this case. The truth is, most people do not.

I recently attended a screening of the movie, "Hot Coffee" in which the family, doctor, lawyer and witnesses are interviewed to bring the truth about what McDonalds did to light, and how the press and insurance companies distorted the truth in order to portray this as a "frivolous lawsuit." The ABRAMS LANDAU, Ltd. personal injury trial team is against frivolous lawsuits. As a Herndon/Reston area trial lawyer I talk people OUT of bringing unnecessary claims.

But soon a unique production crew of editors, photographers and interestingly, a lawyer, will bring the details of the story to the big screen. “Hot Coffee”, presents Stella Liebeck's story in a documentary format. The makers hope that it will receive positive feedback at a future Sundance film festival and will outline the facts of the case that made headlines, and discuss why it has lead to so much discussion regarding law suit abuse and frivolous litigation. The film will expose the details by interviewing doctors, lawyers, jurors, and even Stella’s grandson.

The car was parked. There was no cup holder in the car. And McDonalds KNEW that their coffee was so hot that it would scald and cause permanent injury. McDonalds had almost 200 prior scalding accidents. The plaintiff burned through her flesh in her pelvic area and has permanent scars from the scalding and graft sites.

McDonalds admitted in the 1994 hearing that they were aware that they were serving extremely hot coffee but they tried to excuse their actions. The McDonalds representatives explained that most customers did not immediately drink their coffee, but instead drove away from the drive-thru window, and took the first sip 5-10 minutes later. But some customers want their caffeine fix right away, accounting for the hundreds of claims of burning coffee McDonalds had ignored prior to the famous Liebeck case.

So who was in the wrong? Did the elderly woman spill the coffee and throw an exaggerated fit? Or did McDonalds get what they deserved from an impartial jury when someone finally stepped forward to accuse them of their ignorance? “Hot Coffee” will reveal to audiences the true story that set the country ablaze.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Midwives in Virginia: Part Two

Dan Frith — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:45:22 GMT

Yesterday I wrote a blog on midwives in Virginia...and boy did I raise some eyebrows! I do appreciate my readers' comments and, although I cannot respond to everyone, I do want to follow up on my post with the following comments:

1. I spend a great deal of my professional time representing pregnant mothers and other consumers of medical care in medical malpractice cases. As a result, I have seen (specifically, in-depth review of medical records) more deliveries than any of my critics, except for those in the health care profession who delivery babies on a regular basis.
 

2. I am not a proponent or supporter of the Medical - Industrial Complex. America's system of providing medical care is too expensive and makes too many mistakes, costing billions of dollars and the loss of thousands of lives.

3. I am an advocate for personal choice and if a woman wants to deliver at home it should be her decision. However, it is because I believe in personal choice, it is important for the consumer to fully understand the consequences of making this important decision.

4. I've heard from many people about their wonderful experience delivering their child at home. Those responses do not surprise me. If there are no complications experienced during a home delivery, I am sure everyone is pleased with the outcome...its less expensive...more personal...and more intimate and special than delivery at the local hospital.

5. My concern, and the purpose behind my post, is to make sure all pregnant mothers think about what happens if there is an unanticipated medical emergency or crisis which occurs at the time of delivery at home. What happens when the umbilical cord becomes wrapped around the fetuses' neck and her heart rate plummets? What happens when the fetus' shoulder cannot pass the pelvis resulting in a brachial plexus injury? What happens when the mother experiences DIC (disseminated intravascular coagulopathy) and risks bleeding to death? I have seen and litigated cases with these very facts. All occurred in the hospital setting and I can tell you that either the mother or infant (or both) run the risk of death unless prompt surgical intervention (often with the involvement of multiple medical specialists) is provided. This type of care cannot be provided in mother's home.

For example, the standard of care in Virginia for the speed at which an emergency Cesarean section is performed is 30 minutes from "decision to incision." Do you think a mother who encounters a life-threatening unanticipated complication can be transferred from her home to the local hospital and for an emergency c-section in 30 minutes? I doubt it!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Dan Frith

Federal Court Determines Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives Are Not "Outside Salesmen"

Zev Antell — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:33:32 GMT

On March 30^th, a Connecticut Federal court found that the FLSA’s “Outside Salesman” exemption did not apply to Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives. In issuing its ruling the court resisted the temptation to concede to legal fictions created by other courts in order to justify withholding overtime compensation. Without getting too technical, at the core of the ruling is the fact that Pharmaceutical Sale Representatives do not actually sell anything. In fact, federal and state law precludes them from making the very sales that would make them exempt. Rather, their role is to inform health care providers about the benefits of a given drug and to attempt to convince those professionals to write prescriptions. In order to be exempt under the FLSA as an outside salesman, you first have to actually sell something. This decision means that thousands of Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives (sometimes referred to as “Drug Reps” or “Drug Representatives”) may be entitled to countless hours of previously unpaid overtime compensation. Overtime compensation is calculated as one and a half times your regular rate of pay for those hours beyond forty worked in a single week. Typically, Drug Reps make a good living, but the work requires long hours, often well beyond forty in a single week. Thus, it is not a stretch to think individual Drug Reps might be able to recover tens of thousands dollars for unpaid overtime accrued over just a couple of years.

For those readers interested in reading the court’s 3/30/09 opinion in Kuzinski v. Schering Corp., it is currently available at 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25702.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Zev Antell

Federal Concerns About Electronic Cigarettes Are Growing

Greg Webb — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:17:06 GMT

Because so little is known regarding what is in electronic cigarettes, regulators are growing more and more concerned due to the increase in popularity of the product over the past several years. Preliminary tests carried out by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) show e-cigarettes, which are battery operated tubes that deliver a nicotine vapor instead of burned tobacco smoke, contain some of the dangerous carcinogens that traditional cigarettes do, but at lower levels. The samples also revealed quality-control issues with some of the products, which are marketed the exact same, having wildly variable amounts of nicotine and one of the products even having poison (diethylene glycol) in it; this indicates that regulators do not know enough about how the product is being produced. Due to the study’s findings, the FDA Commissioner has warned consumers to beware.

Since e-cigarettes, or "e-cigs", are being subject to FDA approval as a drug or medical device, they are illegal until they are cleared. Smoking Everywhere, one of the two major importers of e-cigarettes, has since sued the FDA, claiming it should not be regulated like a drug but as a tobacco product. While the company engages in this legal battle, however, its sales representatives at one point claimed the product had been approved and deemed safe by the FDA. An attorney for the company claims this misinformation has since been corrected.

Michael Siegel, a Boston University School of Public Health Professor, says the FDA’s newest consumer warning is misleading because the agency found very low levels of carcinogens in e-cigarettes. Siegel claims these levels were comparable to what is present in nicotine-replacement products, which are currently on the market. He also states the levels of carcinogens in the e-cigarettes are about 1,400 times lower than in Marlboros. The FDA deputy commissioner, however, says it is premature to claim e-cigarettes are safe until regulators know what is in them. If the product is meant to help some Americans stop smoking, it is the manufacturers obligation to present that data to the FDA.

Many anti-smoking advocates are putting pressure on the FDA to officially ban e-cigarettes from the U.S. They claim these and similar products should be taken off the market because the lack of testing to determine the hazardous ingredients in the product would lead to smokers becoming guinea pigs. The public health community is also split over the issue regarding whether to advocate smokers switch to a less harmful product even if they are not completely safe. Though the government has blocked the product from the border, it has not shut down domestic retailers. This means consumers can find the $40 to $100 e-cigarette starter kit in mall kiosks, travel centers and online. So far, the e-cigarettes have also been banned in Canada, Australia, Mexico and Israel.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Critic Raises Questions over Crash and Death Rates of Cirrus Aircraft In “Dead Pilots Don’t Lie”--Surprising Fatality Safety Analysis of Cirrus “Parachute” Planes vs. Cessna Small Planes

Rick Shapiro — Wed, 06 May 2009 08:00:17 GMT

I just returned from the Buffalo, NY funeral of my good friend, Michael Doran, a successful personal injury lawyer from Buffalo, New York, who last week died in a Cirrus SR20 plane he was piloting, that crashed just after take-off near Cleveland. Michael, age 51, of Doran & Murphy law firm was an avid pilot and had recently purchased a Cirrus aircraft, the new breed of small plane which features safety parachute technology. Michael and a young promising attorney named Mathew J. Shnirel who had recently joined his law firm had just taken off from a small airport near Cleveland when (apparent) engine trouble forced him to immediately circle back toward the airport, before the plane crashed just outside a residential area according to news reports-it appears Mike purposefully and heroically barely cleared a residential area, crashing beside a church.

Was it mechanical failure? Why couldn't Michael have deployed the parachute-was the altitude and speed too low or did an engine failure prevent parachute deployment? Even my law partner, Jim Lewis, himself a pilot of small planes who blogs on aircraft accidents, did not have any answers though we all suspect engine failure. Following the emotional funeral and moving eulogies by family and friends, I still was looking for answers to difficult questions on my return home. Also, I recalled Michael telling me (we snow skied together) that he bought the Cirrus aircraft partly because of the safety parachute feature and I knew he was a safe pilot just from him explaining how very careful he was with weather conditions before ever flying his small plane. As of the drafting of this article, there has been no NTSB preliminary accident report, but this article deals with safety issues of the Cirrus and its main competitor, the Cessna aircraft, two of the most commonly piloted small planes. Note: I am not a pilot, but this article mainly deals with safety statistics surrounding popular small aircraft.

Cirrus aircraft are equipped with proprietary technology which can employ a special parachute and Cirrus planes also have an anti--spin feature incorporated in the wing design that is marketed as a feature that can prevent the plane from going into a deadly spin potentially saving the life of those on a Cirrus plane. As a prolific U.S. inventor myself, there is no question that Cirrus should be applauded for bringing the parachute safety feature to the small aircraft market. No other small aircraft has this safety feature. However, there are very troubling statistics relating to the Cirrus aircraft crash and death rates for the just 10 years since the Cirrus have been in use.

It’s been over a decade now since Cessna resumed small airplane production in 1997 and Cirrus delivered the first SR20 composite body plane in 1999. Together by year-end 2008, both companies delivered nearly 13,000 new aircraft, accumulating over 12 million hours flown.

Cessna aircraft are one of the most popular competitors to Cirrus planes, especially since the late 1990s. Cirrus planes go faster and feature proprietary parachute and anti-spin technology, Cessna’s metal body aircraft cost less generally. If one compares the government statistics relating to safety of the Cessna versus the Cirrus since the late 1990s, the rates show that the Cirrus aircraft has been in 2.8 times more crash deaths than the Cessna, per aircraft, per hour flown, according a long analysis called “Dead Pilots Don’t Lie” by Stephen Wilson on his aircraft/piloting blog.

Wilson is a mechanic, pilot, and operates a Cessna aircraft sales business and it is no a secret that he favors the Cessna aircraft and the Cessna safety record over the Cirrus's safety record hands down-and essentially backs up his claims on his aviation blog that he has authored since at least 2002. He is an aircraft mechanic, aircraft owner, and flight instructor; a full-time aircraft professional in the single engine aircraft business for 23 years and also was an NTSB-trained Air Safety Investigator, who represented the Cessna Aircraft Company in field accident investigations. NO question he comes to the discussion with a bias, but he may have good reason to be biased. According to his analysis of NTSB records, although always equipped with an emergency parachute, Cirrus occupants were killed three times more frequently than those in Cessna planes with no parachutes to save them. The data contained in one hundred forty-one NTSB reports to date confirm what Wilson shows in tables on his website blog, and some are shown below.

A look at some of the key statistics according to Wilson from a review of the pertinent NTSB records:

Cessna (Single Engines Mfg 1997 and Newer vs. Cirrus)

The Serious Accident Tally

1997-2009	Total Serious Accidents	Fatalities
Cirrus	59	97
New-Production Cessna (Skylanes and Stationairs Only)	36	53

1997-2009	Total fleet hours	Hours Flown per Serious Accident	Hours Flown per Death
Cirrus	2,650,000	44,900	27,300
New-Production Cessna (Skylanes and Stationairs Only)	3,590,000	99,700	67,700

Wilson's charts indicate that serious accidents occurred 2.2 times more frequently in Cirrus aircraft than in Cessna’s. 2.5 times as many people were killed in Cirrus’s than in Cessna’s given the same number of hours flown-basically an apples to apples comparison.

He also took a look back from the date of accident in either aircraft in that timeframe to analyze safety statistics in a different way as follows:

Comparing Total Hours on Aircraft at the Accident Site
Consider how many hours (total aircraft time) accident aircraft accumulated from date of manufacture until the day they crashed. The NTSB recorded aircraft total time on 41 Cirrus and 72 Cessna accident investigations where there was serious injury or death in the last 10 years.

Hours on Accident Aircraft before the Serious Accident Occurred

1997-2009	Number Reports That NTSB Reported Total Time	Hours Flown	Number of Fatalities	Average Aircraft Total Time at the Accident	Number of Aircraft Hours per Fatality
Cirrus	41 reports	17,835	61	435	292
Cessna	72 reports	76,680	95	1,065	807

Cirrus serious accidents were 2.8 times more fatal than Cessna in the same number of fateful hours flown, Wilson says, based on the NTSB statistics. To see the underlying statistics, click here:

Cirrus NTSB Serious Accident Reports
Cessna (Single Engines Mfg 1997 and Newer) NTSB Serious Accident Reports

As an injury lawyer representing victims of injury, I don't have any personal bias between Cirrus and Cessna airplanes, but I have a strong interest in personal injury/wrongful death safety in the United States, whether it be in the workplace or in airplanes-and my good friend died piloting a Cirrus. It is striking that the aircraft with the most advanced safety features (parachute and anti-spin technology), has a clearly higher rate of serious accidents or death per hour flown, compared to a more standard aircraft such as the Cessna. What is causing this as it seems counter-intuitive? Could Cirrus argue that “inexperienced” pilots fly the Cirrus vs. the Cessna? Doubtful this would skew the statistics so violently.

As of March 2009, there were 18 reported deployments of a Cirrus parachutes with at least 30 survivors. BRS, the parachute manufacturer for the Cirrus, has been installing parachutes on small ultralight and experimental planes since 1983. To date, the company claims 228 “lives saved” (assuming the plane’s occupants would have suffered death in the event). A three-year-old report from BRS shows that nearly half the “lives saved” in the most recent 50 incidents were Cirrus occupants. Obviously, there is merit to the safety feature of the parachute, but something is going on with the overall control issues on the Cirrus to make the fatality statistics so skewed in favor of the Cessna aircraft record over the last ten years.

More comparison details from Wilson: in a Cirrus, the passenger must shut off power to the engine, and follow the instructions on the emergency placard to activate the parachute. A passenger in a Cessna can also shut off power by pulling a big red knob, then turning the elevator trim wheel full up to attain best glide speed. With a Cessna, there's remains an opportunity to steer the plane to avoid injury to people on the ground as much as possible. With over 20 knots greater stalling speed, greater landing distance required and other factors, the Cirrus may be less crashworthy than the Cessna, according to pilot Wilson (not covered in this analysis). All of this is food for thought if you are pilot ready to either purchase one of these aircraft, or planning to just fly one regularly. Sometimes a safety improvement must be considered with all other available safety data. In the Cirrus crash that killed my comrade, I do not know the answers yet. And, unfortunately, none of this analysis will bring my friend and pilot Mike Doran back. God bless him, his family and the Schnirel family.

Note: If you have an important safety comment or thought on these issues, please write a comment on my blog!

May 10, 2009 Update Alert: National News Desk Reporter Jane Akre, with Lisa Brown did a national followup story on the Cirrus safety debate. Click here to read "Cirrus Fatalities Have Critics Questioning Safety."

About the Editors: Shapiro, Cooper, Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm (VA-NC law offices ) edits the injury law blogs Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard, as well as the Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as a pro bono service to consumers. Lawyers licensed in: VA, NC, SC, WV, DC, KY, who handle car, truck, railroad, aviation and medical negligence cases and more.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Shapiro

Aluminum Bat Manufacturer Found Liable For Player’s Death

Greg Webb — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:58:24 GMT

After twelve hours of deliberation, a jury in Lewis and Clark County, Montana recently sided with the parents of former Miles City American Legion baseball pitcher Brandon Patch, who died after being struck in the temple by a batted ball in a 2003 baseball game against the Helena Senators. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., an aluminum bat manufacturer best known for their Louisville Slugger bats, was found liable for Patch’s death because it failed to provide adequate warning as to the dangers of the bat used by a Helena Senators batter. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.’s attorneys argued any other bat would not have hit the ball any differently; in fact, they claimed most bats on the market would have stuck the ball even harder and that Patch’s death was a tragic accident. The Patch family’s attorneys, however, argued Brandon only had 378 milliseconds to respond to the batted ball, whereas most bats on average give 400 milliseconds to respond. The bat manufacturer was ordered to pay $792,000 to Patch’s estate. The funds were allocated to cover the earnings Patch would have made had he lived, and the pain he suffered for four hours after the injury before ultimately dying. Another $58,000 was awarded to Patch’s parents for funeral expenses and their mental grief.

Aluminum bats have faced a lot of scrutiny due to their internal wall structure and because their weight is more evenly distributed than wooden ones, making them easier to swing harder and faster. A third decision made in the suit was that the bat was not defective, therefore making it more dangerous like the Patch family attorneys claimed. The Patch family said the suit was never about the money but was to get adequate warning about the dangers of these bats so something like this will not happen again. They have also started to advocate for the use of wooden bats. Brandon Patch’s baseball team reverted to wooden bats after his death.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Remain Aware of Swine Flu Symptoms and Take Necessary Precautions

Jim Lewis — Sat, 16 May 2009 12:35:00 GMT

The hysteria surrounding the H1N1 virus, commonly referred to as Swine Flu, has somewhat dissipated, but that does not mean the threat is gone. CNN reported on five new cases of the H1N1 virus in New York City schools on May 14, 2009 prompting Mayor Michael Bloomberg to close the schools.

As the proud father of two daughters, it’s heart breaking to hear about a child being stricken with an illness. The decision for Mayor Bloomberg to close down the schools in New York was prudent considering the potential for further spread of the virus. Also, speaking as an injury lawyer, it’s best to contain a potential volatile situation involving people’s health.

The threat of swine flu isn’t relegated to New York. WAVY.com reported three cases of Swine Flu in Hampton Roads. One of the cases involved a child in Norfolk, Virginia (VA). This brings the total number of Swine Flu cases in the state of Virginia (VA) up to 19.

In response to the concern over Swine Flu, the city of Virginia Beach created a special web page with general information regarding the outbreak of the virus and its existence in Virginia.

This isn’t the first time I’ve written about Swine Flu. Earlier this month I wrote about nine cases of Swine Flu in North Carolina (NC).

Here is some general information about Swine Flu that you need to know, including symptoms, according to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

Swine flu symptoms in humans are similar to the symptoms of regular human seasonal influenza.

These symptoms include fever, lethargy, lack of appetite and coughing.

Other potential symptoms include runny nose, sore throat, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.

Here’s what you can do to avoid catching Swine Flu, according to the CDC:

Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when coughing or sneezing

Wash your hands regularly

If you feel ill, do not go into work or school and consult your doctor.

About the Editors: Shapiro, Cooper Lewis & Appleton personal injury law firm is based in Virginia (VA), near the NE North Carolina (NC) border and handles car,truck,railroad, and medical negligence cases and more. Our lawyers proudly edit the Virginia Beach Injuryboard, Norfolk Injuryboard, and Northeast North Carolina Injuryboard as a pro bono public information service. Lawyers licensed in: VA, NC, SC, WV, DC, KY.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jim Lewis

Owners Accountable for Dangerous Dogs

Staff Writer — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:23:36 GMT

This past weekend, a casual stroll through many of the parks in the Richmond, Virginia area would you have made you think it was "pitbull weekend". Strangely enough, there were dozens of owners walking their dogs with make shift leashes. In many instances, it appeared that the dogs were actually walking their owners.

On Sunday, one pitbull got loose in Monroe Park and attacked at least five people, causing puncture wounds from the dog's teeth. Witnesses at the scene told police that the dog was not provoked and just went "wild". The owner admitted to one reporter that this dog had been known to attack. Notwithstanding, he decided to take this dog for a walk without a muzzle or any special chain.

The Virginia General Assembly has approved legislation that would hold dog owners accountable and even become a felony conviction, if their dog attacks an individual. Under Senate Bill 200, a dog will be declared dangerous if it injures a person, cat, or other dog that was not on it's owner's property. Once that dog is then declared dangerous, the owner could face a maximum of a 5 year prison sentence as well as a $2,500 fine, if the dog again leaves the owner's property and attack a person. If the dangerous dog attacked another dog or cat, the owner could face a misdemeanor charge that would be punishable up to six months in jail and $1,000 fine.

It seems that the news regularly features stories of animals attacking neighbors and the unsuspecting. In fact, Senate Bill 200 was introduced a little over a year after three pitbulls attacked an 82 year old woman in Spotsylvania County, killing her and her dog.

Now, individuals will not only face the possibility of civil accountability for creating these dangerous conditions, but they will also now face a real criminal accountability as a result of allowing their dangerous animal to attack. The criticism of Senate Bill 200 is that it does not do enough. At the Joel Bieber Firm, we will work to hold these owners civilly accountable. Now at the least, there is some viable criminal punishment for this kind of conduct, once this bill receives signature and advances to law.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer