Chemicals

Renosol Seating Whistleblower Denied Federal Protection From Lawsuit

/by

An employee of Renosol Seating in Selma was trying to protect the health of her fellow workers and herself when, in March, she delivered a letter to the company’s customer, Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, alleging that a chemical used in the car seat production process at Renosol was making workers sick. What happened next was that Lear Corporation, which owns Renosol, fired the employee and sued her for defamation in Alabama State Court. The case of Kim King, the Renosol Seating whistleblower, then attracted national attention, and the U.S. Department of Labor filed a separate suit against Lear Corporation in federal court, where a judge issued a restraining order against the corporation for taking further action against King or other employees for speaking out on the issue of the dangerous chemicals. Although that ruling still stands, the state court hearing Lear’s case against King, however, ruled recently that federal law does not protect King’s actions in trying to deliver the letter to Hyundai.

King contends that chemicals used in the seat-making process at Renosol have led to health problems for her and her co-workers, including isocyanate asthma. Studies of workers at the plant done by a Yale University medical clinic confirmed that a number of the workers had tested positive for isocyanate asthma or other respiratory illnesses. Lear Corporation dismisses the allegations of unsafe working conditions at the plant and blames King’s actions and the actions of other people who have spoken out on the UAW, which is attempting to unionize the plant’s workers. Due to the failure of the plant’s management to respond to their complaints, King attempted to contact Hyundai with her concerns, but she was fired by Lear when she refused to sign a document indicating that she had lied in drafting the letter, which was followed by the defamation suit against her.

This case demonstrates the complex intersection of federal and state law (not to mention both federal and state courts) that comes into play with many employment and/or whistleblower law issues. Speaking out about violations at your place of employment, especially when management is unresponsive or hostile, can be a lonely and intimidating act of courage. By law, employers are not permitted to retaliate against a whistleblower, but it can be difficult for the employee – who is usually simply trying to follow their conscience and protect victims from wrongdoing – to understand how to properly raise the issues of wrongdoing while protecting their livelihood.

The good news is that federal law may provide compensation for whistleblowers who do provide evidence of wrongdoing, and an experienced employment lawyer can guide the employee through this process. If you have witnessed wrongdoing at your place of employment and/or have been the victim of retaliation or threatened retaliation for trying to speak up, contact the skilled Montgomery, Alabama employment law attorneys at McPhillips Shinbaum at 334-262-1911 today to discuss your options.

Boat Accident

Two Boat Passengers Die in Florence Pontoon Boat Accident

/by

A pontoon boat collided with a barge on a Saturday evening in August on Wilson Lake near Florence, sending all eight passengers of the pontoon boat overboard. While crewmembers of the barge were able to rescue six of the pontoon boat passengers from the water, 62-year-old Sid Elliot and 79-year-old Catherine Ekholm did not survive the aftermath of the crash, and their bodies were found in the days following the accident. All six of the other passengers were taken to hospitals to be treated for injuries.

Reports indicated that the eight passengers were members of two families who had taken the boat, which was owned by the Ekholm family, for a tour of the lake. The boat, which had recently undergone maintenance, was turned off mid-journey to facilitate star-gazing, but when the operators attempted to start the boat back up, it failed to do so. The boat passengers saw the barge headed their way, and the barge honked and flashed its lights at the boat, but it was too late to avoid a collision between the barge and the boat.

Unfortunately, these types of boating accidents are all too common in Alabama and across the country, and boating accidents are in fact the second leading type of transportation accidents behind car and truck accidents. The US Coast Guard has reported that, in 2014 alone, there were 4,064 boating accidents involving 610 deaths, 2,670 injuries, and tens of millions of dollars of property damage. Where the cause of death was known, 78% of deaths attributable to boating accidents were due to drowning, and of those victims that died, 84% were not wearing a life jacket. The leading types of boating accidents were: 1) collision with a recreational vessel (937 accidents); 2) flooding/swamping (463 accidents); 3) collision with a fixed object (452 accidents); 4) grounding (359 accidents); and 5) skier mishap (292 accidents).

When a boating accident occurs, resulting in death and/or injury, certain parties may be liable for those losses. An operator who negligently or recklessly operates a boat, either due to inexperience, alcohol, or some other factor, can be liable for failing to meet a standard of care in operating the boat. If the operator is an employee working on behalf of a tour or rental company, the employer may be liable as well under a vicarious liability theory or for negligently hiring or negligently supervising the operator. A rental company or maintenance company may also be liable for negligently maintaining the boat, which could result in a situation like the one in Florence where a boat is unable to maneuver out of harm’s way. Finally, the seller or manufacturer of a boat may liable for all parties’ injuries if there were defects present in the boat when it was sold to the owner of the boat.

If you or a loved one has been in injured in a boating accident, contact the skilled Montgomery, Alabama personal injury attorneys at McPhillips Shinbaum for a free consultation at 334-262-1911.

Man with gun

Lawrence County Sheriff Seeks Dismissal of Suit Related to Shooting of Mentally Ill Man

/by

In March 2015, a Lawrence County deputy shot and killed 39-year-old Shane Nathaniel Watkins after responding to a domestic call at the home where Watkins was residing with his mother. Watkins suffered from schizophrenia, and family members believed he was not a threat to police. Watkins was reportedly off his medication at the time of the shooting and was carrying a box cutter in one hand. The Decatur Daily newspaper sought records from the Lawrence County sheriff’s department regarding the circumstances of the shooting, but was repeatedly denied access. The newspaper then filed an action against Sheriff Gene Mitchell in Lawrence County Circuit Court seeking the information, including names and basic information of personnel involved in the shooting as well as dash-cam footage and 911 call recordings. The judge ordered the sheriff to release records related to the shooting, and the sheriff did release certain records, but the newspaper continues to argue that the sheriff is failing to comply with requirements of Alabama’s Open Records Act, which provides citizens with access to government records. Sheriff Mitchell now argues that the entire suit should be dismissed, asserting that he is not legally required to respond to any more of the newspaper’s demands regarding records related to the shooting of Watkins.

While the newspaper’s suit revolves around the legal ramifications of the public’s rights to access records related to government actions, the case also shines a light on the issue of excessive police force used against private citizens. Headlines in the past year have focused on potential racial implications involved in use of police force, but it is important to remember that excessive force and police brutality can show up in all kinds of situations and with all kinds of motives and involve all kinds of victims. Police officers are given quite a bit of authority in carrying out their difficult and dangerous jobs of enforcing our laws and protecting our people, but they do not have free reign to conduct themselves in whatever manner they see fit, and are constrained by the protections of the US Constitution and Alabama state law in their interactions with the public.

The primary protection citizens have against law enforcement overreaching is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights, which makes searches and seizures of individuals or their belongings illegal unless the search or seizure comports with constitutional mandates. Where government officials, including police officers, violate a person’s constitutional rights, that person can pursue a federal claim against the government official. Alabama state tort and criminal law also protect people from being harassed or physically harmed by a police officer where the police action is not warranted for the purposes of law enforcement, and provides a cause of action in some cases for the plaintiff to pursue a civil claim against the officer and/or police or sheriff’s department for injuries or for the loss of a loved one who died due to law enforcement action.

If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of excessive police action in Alabama, contact McPhillips Shinbaum in Montgomery at 334-262-1911.

Dangers of Distracted Driving

Tragic Death of Teen Highlights Dangers of Distracted Driving

/by

A tragic accident earlier this year serves as a reminder of how hard it can be to avoid the distraction of a phone while driving, and the dangers those distractions can pose. In May of this year, a local 17-year-old in a Mazda 6 was leaving a friend’s house at around 2:15 in the afternoon, heading toward Highway 45 in Citronelle. According to Citronelle Police, the teen, whose name was not released due to her age, was briefly distracted by her phone while driving, and unfortunately pulled out onto the highway at the wrong moment. An oncoming tractor-trailer already traveling at highway speeds was unable to avoid the Mazda, and the girl was killed in the crash. The driver of the tractor-trailer did not experience any injuries.

Distracted driving remains a major problem on US roads. Texting while driving is often cited as a major problem, but there are many ways that drivers can become distracted to a dangerous degree. There are three forms of driver distraction: 1) Visual, where the driver takes their eyes off the road; 2) Cognitive, where the driver takes their mind off the road, and; 3) Manual, where the driver takes their hands off the wheel. An activity like eating while driving would likely be both a manual and visual distraction. Looking at a GPS device for directions, a visual distraction. However, texting while driving is a cognitive, visual, and manual distraction. Texting while driving can make a crash up to 23 times more likely to occur. Texting takes the driver’s eyes off the road for a prolonged period of time, as compared to many other activities. Researchers estimate that a driver will spend at least five seconds with her eyes off the road if texting while driving. When traveling at 55 mph, this would mean that the car would travel the length of a football field before the driver looked up. The US Department of Transportation has found that teens make up the largest proportion of drivers who were distracted at the time of a fatal crash.

Hopefully, this tragedy can help others to be more aware of the dangers not just of sending a text while driving but reading one as well. As this incident illustrates, distracted driving can be as dangerous to the distracted driver as it is to others on the road. If you’ve been injured by a distracted driver, contact the skilled attorneys at McPhillips Shinbaum for a free consultation on your car accident and personal injury claims, at 866-224-8664.

Montgomery Home Damaged By Flame and Smoke

Montgomery Home Damaged by Flame and Smoke

/by

A family home on Clay Street in Montgomery has been damaged after a fire broke out on a recent early morning. All occupants were able to escape without injury. Firefighters were able to extinguish the fire quickly, but not prior to the home experiencing significant damage from smoke and flame. Investigations are ongoing into the cause of the fire.

Damage from fire to your home can leave you feeling devastated and at a loss as to how to move forward to get life back to normal. Filing a claim and taking steps immediately after the fire can help you prevent additional loss and ensure you’re compensated for your claim as quickly as possible. The following are some guidelines to follow after a house fire.

  1. Secure the house as best you can

The fire may have damaged your home, and firefighters may have been required to break windows or doors in order to control the blaze. In order to keep away vandals or thieves, and to protect as much as possible the valuable items left in your home, board up any holes or broken windows, and use tarps to cover holes in the roof to protect against the elements.

  1. Hire an experienced cleaning and restoration company

If damage in your home from the fire isn’t extensive, you may only need the help of a company experienced in cleaning smoke and water damage for it to be habitable. Ask your insurance company for suggestions of reliable local companies to use for these services.

  1. File a claim as soon as possible

Your insurer will need you to file a claim as soon as you can after the fire. Doing so quickly will also ensure that your claim is paid out as soon as possible. Additionally, if you have “replacement” coverage for personal items in your home under your policy and need to replace personal items such as toiletries and clothing while you wait for your claim to be paid out, you may be able to get an advance on the payment of your claim from your insurer to buy such items. Save these receipts to later send to your insurer.

  1. Begin sorting your possessions and create an inventory

While many of your possessions may have been destroyed in the fire or by smoke damage, some may have survived. Sorting through your possessions will allow you an opportunity to catalog the items that were damaged to report to your carrier later, and will also offer you a chance to remove your undamaged possessions and possibly put them in storage to keep them safe while you’re not staying in the home.

  1. If your insurance company refuses to pay your entire claim, consider retaining legal assistance

Ideally, your insurer pays your entire claim as reported by you, and you don’t feel shorted by the eventual payout. However, insurance companies do benefit from paying you less, and they may fight the valuation of the items you lost in the fire. If you believe that you’re entitled to greater recovery under your policy, it may be necessary to find an attorney who can help you recover fully.

If you have experienced a fire in your home and need assistance in being fully compensated by your insurer, contact the skilled Montgomery accident attorneys at McPhillips Shinbaum for a free consultation on your claim, at 334-262-1911.

Single Vehicle Accident Kills Prattville Man

Prattville Man Killed in Single-Vehicle Accident on I-85; Cause Unknown

/by

Last week, a Prattville man was killed when his car left the road and crashed into a ravine off Interstate 85. The accident occurred around 8:20 in the morning on Tuesday, April 28th, near the Chantilly Parkway between Taylor Road and Atlanta Highway. Ryan Smith, 26, was driving his 1997 Mercury Gran Marquis, when the vehicle left the road and crashed into a ravine. Smith was pronounced dead at the scene. Both the northbound and southbound lanes of I-85 were shut down for two hours as police conducted an investigation and road crews worked to clean up the accident.

No other cars appear to have been involved in the accident, and the cause of the crash is unknown at this time. A single-vehicle accident where the car leaves the road may be the result of driver fatigue or an emergency medical condition that causes the driver to lose control. There are also other factors which can cause such an accident through no fault of the driver, such as:

  • Mechanical failure of the automobile due to a defect in the car or a component part, such as a stuck accelerator or steering or brake failure, or from a negligent repair at an auto service center
  • Reckless driving of another vehicle in the area, whose speeding, distracted driving or sudden stop or lane change can cause another driver to run off the road
  • Road hazards and roadway defects, including debris blown on the road from a construction zone, potholes and roads which are designed or built in an unsafe manner regarding blind curves and steep inclines

The cause of this particular tragedy is still under investigation and may never be known. If it can be proven that the negligence or misconduct of another is to blame, the family of Ryan Smith may be able to recover money damages for his wrongful death to hold the responsible party accountable for their wrongdoing and help with funeral and burial expenses and other aspects of this tragic loss.

Truck Repair

Negligent Tractor Trailer Repairs Results in $18 Million Jury Verdict to Injured Driver

/by

Colin Lacy, a 31-year-old truck driver now confined to a wheelchair as a result of negligent repairs to his tractor trailer, was recently awarded $18.79 million by a Mobile County Circuit Court jury for his expenses and pain and suffering. Defendant Empire Truck Sales, LLC, was found to be liable to Mr. Lacy for its failure to properly repair the antilock braking system on Mr. Lacy’s 2004 Freightliner truck. Mr. Lacy, a resident of Mobile, AL, hauled used oil for FFC Environmental until the accident.

Mr. Lacy was instructed by his employer to bring his truck to Empire for preventive maintenance in June of 2014. However, Empire failed to reattach a lateral control rod and, while unknown to the parties at the time, damaged the braking system while working on the truck. Mr. Lacy noticed vibration in the steering column, and took the truck back to Empire later that month for repairs. He was picking up the truck from said repairs on July 14, 2011, the day of the crash, and noticed shortly after driving away that the Antilock Braking System light had come back on. When Lacy called Empire to report this, Empire told him that the light would soon turn off on its own, and that he shouldn’t worry about it. As Mr. Lacy continued his drive to Florida, rain began to fall, and when the truck’s steering column began to vibrate on the wet roads, Mr. Lacy applied the brakes to stop the vibration. Since the Automatic Braking System was not functioning, the brakes locked, sending the truck into the center median, and causing the truck to roll. Mr. Lacy’s seatbelt had also failed to latch, causing him to experience additional injuries. Lacy spent over two months in the hospital after the accident, and doctors do not believe that he will ever regain use of his legs. Prior to the award, Mr. Lacy had not yet been able to afford to modify his home to accommodate a wheelchair, with his attorney noting that he has been unable to shower at home since 2011.

Ultimately, Mr. Lacy’s attorneys brought a suit for against Empire Truck Sales for their negligent repairs and Indiana Mills and Manufacturing, Inc., the manufacturer of the defective seatbelt, for product liability. A mechanic has a duty to a customer to exercise care in ensuring that repairs to a customer’s vehicle are complete and safe. The duty is higher where the mechanic is repairing parts of the vehicle with a greater role in the vehicle’s safety, such as the vehicle’s braking system. Heightened duties of care also apply to the repair of large commercial vehicles under federal regulations, since accidents involving tractor trailers, and ones carrying potentially harmful liquids, can be so destructive. Here, Empire was on notice after the first set of negligent repairs that Lacy’s truck was not in proper working order. Empire was again notified that something appeared to be wrong with the vehicle when Lacy called to report that the ABS light had turned on again. Empire failed to uphold its duty of care, and is now being required to compensate Lacy for the consequences of its negligence.

Since the accident occurred in Florida, the court applied that state’s laws, but since both the defendant and plaintiff were residents of Mobile, Alabama, the trial occurred there. Under Alabama state law, if a jury determines that multiple defendants are liable to a plaintiff for damages, both defendants are equally liable to the plaintiff, regardless of the degree of responsibility each had for the harm the plaintiff experienced. However, in Florida, liability is apportioned according to the size of each defendant’s role in causing the plaintiff’s harm. The jury determined that Empire was 80% responsible for Mr. Lacy’s injuries, and that Indiana Mills was 20% responsible. Indiana Mills settled out of court prior to trial, and will make no additional payments to Lacy.

During jury deliberations, the attorneys for the parties reached what is called a “high/low” settlement. If the jury returned a verdict that Empire was not liable for Mr. Lacy’s damages, the parties agreed that he would still receive a $2 million award. The parties also agreed that, if the jury returned a verdict of liability, the most that Mr. Lacy could receive would be $14 million, to be paid within 30 days, and that the parties would not appeal the award. And so, even though the jury returned an $18.79 million verdict, Mr. Lacy will receive $14 million.