Jul 31, 2012 | Child Accidents, Uncategorized
A teenage boy, aged 14-15 years old was flown to Tampa General yesterday morning after a game with a friend and fire erupted into serious burns for the boy. The teenager was known in the neighborhood for his love of basketball, and was spotted by witnesses playing from the wee mornings til the late of the night. Monday morning, around 10:45, a neighbor arrived home after a workout to hear screams coming from the usual place he had heard dribbles many times before.
The neighbor immediately called 911, only to find that the child and his friend had allegedly poured gasoline onto the dining room table, and set the table aflame. It was this alleged act that is proposed as the cause of the injuries to the teenager, although the Police have not yet officially released the cause of the fire.
The boy’s friend, however, remained unscathed by the flames as the teenager took the brunt of the burns. The boy’s status has just been released to be that of critical condition.
In North Carolina, children are held to different standards than adults when dealing with injuries, unless of course the child in engaging in adult-like behavior, such as driving a motor vehicle. Moreover, North Carolina is one of only 5 states that follows the common law theory of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence will completely bar recovery is the plaintiff is even 1% negligent. However, in the case of children, the courts follow the colloquial ” rule of sevens.” This rule states that any child under the age of 7 is presumed to be incapable of negligence. Children aged 7-14 will also be presumed to be incapable of negligence; however there is a rebuttal presumption that the defendant may use. Lastly, if the child is over the age of 14, there is a presumption that the child is in fact capable of negligence, however, that presumption too may be rebutted.
Thus, injury cases involving children in North Carolina can often be tricky, especially by following the archaic theory of contributory negligence. In the event that the case becomes chaotic, obtaining counsel to sift through the weeds my alleviate both yours and your child’s stress.
The North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you or someone you know have been injured or killed in any type of accident, call the North Carolina personal injury attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower at 877-374-5999, or use this form, for a free consultation with an attorney to help you evaluate your claim and to get the recovery you deserve.
Jul 31, 2012 | Personal Injury, Uncategorized
The South Carolina Court of Appeals on Wednesday affirmed a trial court’s decision denying recovery for a woman injured at a stop sign controlled railroad crossing. Her lawsuit, brought by a guardian ad litem, as she is in a coma, is against both CSX, the train operator, and the South Carolina Department of Transportation, responsible for maintaining the signage at the crossing. Apparently, the train hit her car as she was crossing the tracks after the train blew its horn too late, the train tracks were improperly obscured by trees and vegetation, and the stop sign and stop line were too close the crossing.
In South Carolina, trains must start blowing their horns no shorter than 1,500 feet from a crossing. Equipment on board the train revealed that the horn only began blowing at 1,161 feet from the crossing. CSX is responsible for this failing. CSX is also responsible for maintaining sight of the rails from the crossing by clearing trees and vegetation. The plaintiff argued that CSX had failed to sufficiently clear the sight lines.
The plaintiff’s theory against the South Carolina Department of Transportation is that they negligently placed the stop sign and stop line and negligently inspected the crossing in such a way that allowed the plaintiff to be injured.
All three occupants of the car were injured. The most seriously injured passenger was placed in a one-month, medically induced coma, while doctors drilled a hole in her skull to relieve pressure on her brain. She still suffers severe intellectual, behavioral and physical impairments, four years later according to the facts assumed by the court.
Judge Short dissented and would have granted a new trial. Plaintiff is appealing to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
The South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you or someone you know have been injured or killed in any type of accident, call the South Carolina personal injury attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower at 877-374-5999, or use this form, for a free consultation with an attorney to help you evaluate your claim and to get the recovery you deserve.
The entire opinion is appended below the fold.
(more…)
Jul 31, 2012 | DUI & DWI, News, Uncategorized
On Tuesday, July 24, a 19 year old man from York, James Kyle Rose, has been charged with one count of felony DUI resulting in a death, two counts of felony DUI resulting in great bodily injury and driving under suspension. These charges come just three weeks after Rose was arrested for DUI on July 8.
According to Police, Rose swerved off the right side of the road, hit a tree and flipped over. All four passengers in the car were ejected, and 18-year-old Clover girl, Clarissa Disbrow, was killed. Paramedics took Rose and another passenger to Piedmont Medical Center with non-life threatening injuries.
Another frightening reminder that you don’t have to hit someone else to be charged with Felony DUI. If you are driving under the Influence and one of your passengers are hurt or killed, you could be facing charges such as these. Felony DUI resulting in Death carries up to 25 years in prison. If you find yourself or someone you know charged with Felony DUI, you need to seek the advice of serious professionals trained to represent you.
The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you or someone you know has been charged with any crime, call the experienced South Carolina criminal defense attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower at 877-374-5999, for a free consultation with an attorney. We’ll help you evaluate your options and develop your best defense to get you the best results possible.
Jul 31, 2012 | Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
The South Carolina Court of Appeals revisited a three common criminal issues in the recent case State v. Mitchell. In this interesting case involving charges of first-degree burglary, possession of burglary tools, and petit larcency, Mitchell allegedly broke into a house. There were no eye-witnesses, and the only evidence linking Mitchell to the scene was (oddly) footage from a deer camera (you know, like you put by deer corn, for hunting) that the victim homeowner had installed on top of the refrigerator out of fear of burglars, showing the face and body of the person who broke into the house. Before trial Mitchell argued that:
- The photos from the deer camera was inadmissible under rules 1001, 1002, and 1003 SCRE. The photos were not original, and the photos had a shady chain of custody, couldn’t be read by police computers, and came not directly from the camera, but from a disk on to which it was copied by victim homeowner’s computer.
- The police officer’s lay testimony identifying the person in the photos as the defendant, Mitchell, should be inadmissible under rules 403 and 701 SCRE.
The trial court did not allow either of these motions in limine or during the trial. Mitchell moved for a post-trial motion for a new trial. The trial court denied. Mitchell appealed on all issues, but abandoned, perhaps accidentally, the chain of custody issue.
Police Officer’s Testimony Identifying Defendant in the Photos
The part of this ruling that may most affect future defendants is the court’s endorsement of allowing police officers to give lay testimony identifying a defendant in photos. The relevant rules:
Rule 701, SCRE: If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’ testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which (a) are rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) are helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) do not require special knowledge, skill, experience or training.
Rule 704, SCRE: Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
Rule 403, SCRE: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
The ruling is not altogether surprising, but when photos are grainy and unclear, a police officer’s relatively uninformed, and often biased, opinion as to who is in the photos could mean the difference between a guilty and not guilty verdict. Generally, allowing witnesses to identify individuals in photos and videos is justified by the increased knowledge of a person’s appearance, but no such justification is available for this case. For this reason, one expects that a judge concerned about the lack of identifying evidence (given that the video is of poor quality, that the police officer has no special knowledge of the appearance of the defendant, and the jury should be as capable of identifying the person in the video as the police officer) might rule that the evidence is excludable under Rule 403, since the police officer’s authority may prejudice the issue more than actually prove the issue.
Authentication of the Disk Containing the Photos from the Deer Camera
Since the court did not really examine the chain of custody problem, and the standard of review (abuse of discretion), the court’s position on the issue boils down to a straightforward reading and application of the rule: “If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an ‘original’.” The originals were admitted because they were merely print-outs of computer data that was copied from the victim’s camera to the victim’s computer to the victim’s disk given to the police. Since the proper foundation was laid as to the disk, they were admissible under this standard of review.
Motion for New Trial
Mitchell contended that since the jury found him not guilty of petit larcency an element of first-degree burglary, intent to steal, was not met.
The court recites that the standard for granting a new trial relies on an abuse of discretion, which the South Carolina Supreme Court has held to mean that no new trial will be granted by an appellate court unless no competent evidence supports the conviction.
Mitchell’s contention that the petit larceny verdict was inconsistent with the first-degree burglary verdict was bound to fail because the South Carolina Supreme Court abandoned the inconsistent verdict theory in State v. Alexander, 303 S.C. 377, 383, 401 S.E.2d 146, 150 (1991).
The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you or someone you know has been charged with any crime, call the experienced South Carolina criminal defense attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower at 877-374-5999, or use this form, for a free consultation with an attorney. We’ll help you evaluate your options and develop your best defense to get you the best results possible.
Jul 30, 2012 | Bicycling Accidents, Personal Injury, Uncategorized
Friday night was a tragic one when a bicyclist was involved in a fatal “hit and run.” The cyclist was riding along side Heckle Boulevard in Rock Hill, SC, when a man hit the cyclist with his motor vehicle, and then continued on his path. He was shortly after apprehended by the police after a witness described the vehicle to the officers. The defendant is currently under arrest and charged with a Felony DUI and Leaving the Scene of an accident.
Pursuant to South Carolina Statute 56-5-3420, “a person riding a bicycle upon a roadway must be granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter.” Thus, when a ” hit and run” occurs, the cyclist is afforded the same rights as that of another driver in a motor vehicle.
To help prevent possible future accidents, The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles has provided 9 tips to “share the road” with others:
1. When attempting to pass a bicyclist, you must treat the bicycle as any other vehicle you would pass.
2. Allow for the bicyclist to make mistakes. Watch for swerving cycles and sudden turns.
3. The horn should be used to attract the bike rider’s attention and not as a threat to get out of your way.
4. Drivers must be careful when driving close to cyclists and should maintain a safe operating distance between the motor vehicle and the cyclist.
5. Before passing a cyclist in a narrow traffic lane, wait until the traffic is clear in the opposite lane and then change lanes to pass the cyclist. Do not attempt to squeeze past the cyclist.
6. Leave ample room when turning right after passing a cyclist so the cyclist is not cut off when you slow for the turn.
7. Even with a proper headlight and rear reflector, a bike is still difficult to see. Use extra caution after dark, especially in poorly lighted areas.
8. Automobile drivers should anticipate cyclists at parks, playgrounds, near schools and especially in residential areas. Night is a very difficult time for the bicycle rider and the automobile driver; alertness is required from both.
9. After parking on streets and before getting out of a motor vehicle, the driver and passengers should be careful not to strike a bicyclist when opening car doors.
The South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you or someone you know have been injured or killed in any type of accident, call the South Carolina personal injury attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower at 877-374-5999, or use this form, for a free consultation with an attorney to help you evaluate your claim and to get the recovery you deserve.
Jul 30, 2012 | Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation
Saturday another accident befell the new Charleston Boeing plant as parts fell out of a 787 engine onto a Charleston, SC runway, starting a fire and shutting down the Charleston airport temporarily. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating the problem, along with Boeing and GE (the engine’s manufacturer).
The Charleston area Boeing plant (actually in North Charleston) opened last year and is adjacent to the Charleston Airport. The company employs 3800 workers in the area.
The Workers’ Compensation Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you or someone you know has been injured or killed on the job, you need the help of a serious workers’ compensation attorney like those at Reeves, Aiken & Hightower. Call us at 877-374-5999, or contact us at this link, to schedule a free, private consultation. We can help you evaluate your claim and get you the recovery you deserve.
