New Jersey Injury Lawyers Blog

Contract Releases High Bridge from Liability in Fall Lawsuit

February 12, 2012 | The Victor Rotolo Law Firm

The Borough of High Bridge recently was released from liability in a pending lawsuit over a fall on the grounds of the Solitude House Museum thanks, at least in part, to terms of a leasing contract between the Borough and the Union Forge Heritage Association (UFHA). The Association, however, may still be liable for injuries suffered in that fall. (1) If, after reading the following, you need assistance seeking damages for injuries resulting from an accidental fall, particularly in Hunterdon County, contact the personal injury attorneys at Ragland Law Firm located in Lebanon, NJ.

In September 2009, Steven and Pamela Jones were visiting the Solitude House Museum when Steven slipped on a step hidden by fallen leaves. The couple was on their way to the Annex, a separate building on the property, when the accident occurred. In the fall, Mr. Jones fractured both wrists and suffered cuts to his face. (1)

The couple, who claims Mr. Jones continues to have limited movement and pain in his wrists, filed a lawsuit in January 2010, against the Borough of High Bridge as owner of the property, UFHA and several individuals. (1)

Court: County Not Responsible for Pothole That Caused Death of Cyclist

January 29, 2012 | The Victor Rotolo Law Firm

A few months back we posted an article addressing the question to what extent are local governments liable for damages or injuries resulting from damaged roadways. (1) The State Supreme Court recently settled that question when it issued its ruling on Polzo v. County of Essex. If after reading the following you need assistance recovering damages from pothole-related accidents, contact the personal injury lawyers at Ragland Law Firm in Lebanon, N.J.

Back in August of 2001, Mathi Kahn-Polzo was biking along the shoulder of the roadway with friends when she hit a pothole and fell from her bike striking her head. Even though she was wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, she died a few weeks later from head injuries suffered in the fall. In 2002, Ms. Kahn-Polzo’s husband filed suit against Essex County seeking wrongful death damages and survivor benefits. (2)

In the suit, Mr. Polzo claimed Essex County was responsible for his wife’s death since it had failed to repair the pothole, which was on a county-owned road. The Torts Claims Act restricts liability of local governments but does require them to repair damages for which they have been given “constructive notice.” The question the Court grappled with was whether or not that responsibility extended to include the establishment of an inspection program to detect such damages. (1)

Court: Alcotest Reliable But Not Necessary for Drunk Driving Conviction

January 15, 2012 | The Victor Rotolo Law Firm

The State Appellate Division recently confirmed that the high-tech Alcotest to determine a person’s blood alcohol level is not necessary to proving a drunk driving case. In fact, a person suspected of driving under the influence can be convicted solely on the results of field testing, according to the court. (1) If after reading the following, you need a Hunterdon County lawyer that can assist you with a similar situation regarding drunk driving laws in New Jersey, contact DWI attorneys Ragland Law Firm located in Lebanon, New Jersey, on Route 22 in the westbound lane.

The case dates back to October 2008 and involves a woman who was stopped in Manchester Township for driving erratically. The woman admitted to having two glasses of wine but said her swerving was caused by reaching down to retrieve something she had dropped. Roadside sobriety tests were administered and the woman failed. She was then brought to the police station where she agreed to take an Alcotest, which showed her blood alcohol level to be 0.15. (1) The legal limit in New Jersey is 0.08. (2)

The woman blamed her poor performance on the sobriety tests, which included walking a straight line heel-to-toe and maintaining balance with feet together and while standing on one foot as directed, on her Graves disease, an autoimmune disorder, and the fact she was wearing high heels at the time. Her lawyers questioned the validity of the Alcotest since the officer who administered it had not observed her for the required 20 minutes prior to testing. As a result, they said the test results should not be considered.(1) The 20-minute observation period is intended to ensure the suspect does nothing that could alter the results of the test. (3)

Despite YouTube Campaign, Controversy Surrounding Red Light Cameras Grows

December 29, 2011 | The Victor Rotolo Law Firm

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;

Proposed Changes to Driving Laws Would Affect Drivers of All Ages

December 19, 2011 | The Victor Rotolo Law Firm

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)

More Efforts Underway to Curtail Cell Phone Use While Driving

December 3, 2011 | The Victor Rotolo Law Firm

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)

Prior DUI Convictions in Jurisdictions with Similar Laws Can Be Considered by NJ Courts

November 20, 2011 | The Victor Rotolo Law Firm

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)

Deer Pose Additional Hazard for NJ Drivers

November 5, 2011 | The Victor Rotolo Law Firm

Traffic accidents are on the rise across the state – a fact that a quick glance at the local news confirms.

• Mount Arlington, NJ Police Officer Killed in Car Crash (October 18, 2011)

• Highland Park. NJ Man Is Struck by Two Vehicles (October 21, 2011)

The High Cost of Driving Under the Influence

October 23, 2011 | The Victor Rotolo Law Firm

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)

Courts Grapple with Pothole Repair Liability Questions

October 8, 2011 | The Victor Rotolo Law Firm

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)