A recent post on YouTube highlights what can happen when drivers try to run red lights; the post shows footage of crashes and near misses in New Jersey intersections. But do the red light cameras being installed at various locations throughout the State help or add to the dangers? If, after reading the following, you have issues with traffic violations in Hunterdon County, consider contacting the municipal court attorneys at Ragland Law Firm in Lebanon, NJ.

The YouTube video shows ten actual accidents that occurred on our roadways as drivers try to beat the light, including:

• A Hudson County driver being t-boned after running a red light;

Legislators have been presented with several recommendations, which are intended to make our roadways safer and, if adopted, would affect drivers of all ages. If you have been involved in a situation involving injuries because of allegedly unsafe driving, contact the personal injury lawyers at Ragland Law Firm, located in Hunterdon County, NJ.

The NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) recently recommended prohibiting all use of cell phones, as well as other electronic devices, while driving. The NTSB is encouraging all states in the nation to adopt this ban, claiming that even the use of hands-free devices poses potentially dangerous distractions to drivers. (1) The NTSB wants the ban to apply to all non-emergency use of electronic devices. (2)

The American Automobile Association has stated that one-third of U.S. drivers use their cell phones regularly or fairly often while driving. The Department of Transportation claims that the simple fact of a phone conversation causes drivers to miss both audio and visual cues that could have helped them avoid an accident. (1)

New Jersey experienced an 18% increase in fatal car accidents during the first quarter of 2011. Officials attribute this rise, at least in part, to distracted driving.(1) High on the list of distractions for motorists is the use of cell phones and State officials are taking steps to change this behavior. If, after reading the following, you need a car accident lawyer in Hunterdon County or the surrounding areas to assist you in a similar situation regarding traffic violations, contact the Ragland Law Firm in Lebanon, N.J.

Since March of 2008, talking on a hand-held cell phone and/or texting has been a primary offense in New Jersey, meaning police may stop and ticket a driver solely for the reason of witnessing that driver using a hand-held device. Today such an offense carries a $100 fine and no points on the driver’s license.(2) But that may soon change. There are five bills before the Legislature which, if passed, would give New Jersey the distinction of having the toughest cell phone use laws on the books.(1)

Among the major consequences of the pending legislation would be a graduated increase in the amount of fines associated with distracted driving and the possible suspension of a driver’s license. According to reports, fines under the new law would start at $200 for the first offense and climb to $600 for the third and subsequent offenses. Drivers would also be subject to suspension of their driver’s license for 90 days for third and subsequent offenses.(1)

Driving under the influence (DUI) is a serious offense in New Jersey. While first-timers may be treated a little more leniently, repeat offenders face harsh penalties. Anyone tempted to drive under the influence should know that not all DUI convictions need to occur in this State in order to be considered a repeated offense. If, after reading this, you have questions regarding the DUI laws in New Jersey, in Hunterdon County or another county within New Jersey, contact the lawyers at Ragland Law Firm.

A New Jersey Appeals Court earlier this month ruled that a lower court in Bedminster was right when it treated Jeffrey Zeikel as a repeat offender after a December 2009 DUI arrest. Mr. Zeikel pleaded guilty to the charge – his fourth – in June 2010, but argued that he should be considered a first-time offender due to a provision in the State’s DUI law. That provision allows that if more than 10 years pass between a first and second offense, the second incident be treated as a first-time offense. Mr. Zeikel’s last offense before the Bedminster charge occurred in Chatham 16 years earlier. Before that, however, he was convicted twice in New York State, once in 1981 and again only 3 years later in 1984. (1)

At the original hearing in Bedminster Municipal Court, Mr. Zeikel was sentenced to 180 days in prison, received a fine of $1,006 and lost his license for 10 years. (1) Usually first-time offenders would receive jail time of up to 30 days, fines of between $300 and $500, and a license suspension of between 7 and 12 months under New Jersey law. (2)

It has been calculated that driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol can cost a driver up to $10,000 in fines, insurance surcharges and related expenses. (1) That cost can skyrocket depending on the severity of a resulting accident.

Last week, a New Jersey jury awarded $3,375,000 to Ernesto Sta Maria’s estate; Mr. Sta Maria was killed in an automobile accident in Middletown, NJ, in 2007. Mr. Sta Maria died from injuries suffered after his car was struck by another car driven by Christopher M. Brozyna, an off-duty state trooper whose blood alcohol level registered more than two times the legal limit at the time. (2)

The lawsuit, heard by Superior Court Judge Joseph Rea in New Brunswick, was first filed in April, 2008, and included several bars that presumably served Mr. Brozyna. The jury found Mr. Brozyna responsible for 57% of the amount awarded and split the remaining judgment between two Red Bank businesses – the Dublin House, 33%, and Ashes Cigar Club, 10%. (2)

Severe storms, fluctuating temperatures and flooding all wreak havoc on our roadways, creating minefields of potholes for motorists and cyclists to navigate. Damages from these road hazards can range from blown tires, pricey alignment adjustments, physical injuries and, in some cases, even death. How far does the responsibility of local governments to repair these damaged roadways go? That’s a question recently addressed by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Just this past week, the Supreme Court was considering the extent of local governments’ liability to repair potholes as it reviewed the case of Polzo v. County of Essex. The family of Mathi Kahn-Polzo brought suit against Essex County after she died from head injuries suffered when she hit a pothole while cycling with friends on a county road. (1)

The question the Court is struggling with is whether local governments are responsible only for repairing damages they have “constructive notice” of, which meets the Tort Claims Act requirement, or if their responsibilities extend further to include establishment of an inspection program to detect road damage. (1)

For the dog lovers among us, our pets are family. We pamper them, we love them and, when they die, we grieve them. But with dog ownership comes responsibility and there are laws to assure those responsibilities are met.

Most states, including New Jersey, hold dog owners responsible for damages caused if their dogs bite a person. The N.J.S.A. 4:19-16 statute addresses no other injury except dog bites and holds true even if the dog is in the possession of someone other than its owner – a dog walker, for example – when the attack occurs. There are exceptions to this law including instances when the victim is on the dog owner’s property illegally. (1)

What happens, though, when one dog attacks and kills another? That’s a question the New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to consider. (2)

New Jersey will soon have to design a new test for screening candidates for municipal and county police sergeant positions according to a settlement reached between the U.S. Justice Department and the State. (1)

In January 2010, the Justice Department filed suit in U.S. District Court in Newark alleging that the civil service test used by the State’s local and county police departments discriminated against African American and Hispanic applicants. The test, according to the Justice Department, did not help to find the best candidates for the position, but rather disqualified an unequal number of blacks and Hispanics. (2)

The current test has been used since 2000. (3) During the period from 2000 and 2008, the Justice Department claimed, 89% of Caucasian candidates passed the test, which was administered by about 120 county and municipal law enforcement departments, compared with 77% of Hispanic and 73% of African American candidates. (2)

When the job market is as tight as it is now, few workers are willing to make waves and risk losing their employment. But should workers risk their health and safety or that of their co-workers or the public just to keep a job? There are a number of laws, both on the state and federal level, intended to keep New Jersey workers safe in the workplace and free from reprisal should they refuse to perform an unsafe job.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) are some of the laws that protect workers on the federal level. In New Jersey, workers also have the protection of the New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) and the Public Employees’ Occupational Safety and Health Act. In additional, there are a number of industry-specific statutes that also aim to protect workers under certain circumstances. (1)

Perhaps the most recognized of these laws is OSHA. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (also called OSHA) protects the employee’s right to a safe workplace by hearing complaints, performing inspections of workplaces and imposing fines on businesses found to be in violation of safety standards. (1) For example this past spring, OSHA found a West Trenton ball-bearings manufacturer guilty of 21 safety violations and fined the company $88,200. (2) Separately a New Jersey general contractor and five subcontractors were fined a total of $95,470 for 20 health and safety violations. OSHA does not, however, grant rights to employees to overtly refuse an unsafe work assignment. (3)

Contact Information