Taking the Chill Out of Winter Repairs

Unfortunately with the winter weather come incidents and accidents. If your vehicle is damaged in a wreck suddenly you may be in the market for vehicle repair. When handling your vehicle repairs educate yourself. North Carolina has a Motor Vehicle Repair Act which provides rights to consumers and imposes certain obligations on repair facilities. Here are a few of your valuable rights:

  • to receive a written repair estimate for estimates of repair over $350.00
  • to inspect and retain any parts removed from your vehicle [provided you make the request at the time you authorize repairs]
  • to receive an itemized written invoice for parts and labor provided to repair/service your vehicle

And note your rights as a consumer apply all year round; long after winter is gone or before it arrives. Take some time to learn a bit more about your rights when your vehicle is in need of repair. If you have significant problems in obtaining the needed repairs and are in need of assistance you should contact an attorney for a consultation. In the end, be smart, be well, be safe, and enjoy the snow while you can. Spring is not too far away….

John T. O’Neal is a practicing attorney with the O’Neal Law Office in Greensboro, NC who focuses his practice in Personal Injury/Wrongful Death, Consumer Law (includes Auto Dealer Fraud/Vehicle Issues and Debt Defense Lemon Law), and various types of Civil Litigation handling cases across North Carolina. A long-time NCAJ member, he is a former Chair of the NCAJ Consumer Areas of Practice Section and a two-time Ebby Award winner.

Act Fast To Help Raise Trucking Insurance Minimums

Do you ride on our nation’s highway where there are tractor trailers, commercial buses and commercial trucks? Do you have a truck driver in your family who is daily traveling these roads?  Did you know that those who are injured in a trucking or bus accident, including drivers of these vehicles, almost never get a full recovery?

The minimum insurance requirements for interstate motor carriers have remained unchanged for over three decades. Congress set the minimum level of liability insurance coverage for tractor trailers in 1984 at $750,000.  In 29 years, the minimum policy limits have never been increased. Yes, this minimum policy requirement has not been increased since the Reagan Administration. Medical bills and the costs associated with catastrophic injuries have risen dramatically. Today, in a catastrophic case, the minimum limits are paid and quickly spent.  If adjusted for medical inflation (to keep up with rising medical costs), the minimum policy limits should be over $4 million!  With many companies maintaining only the required minimum, seriously injured victims often receive recovery that does not cover their medical bills, much less lost wages and other non-economic damages.

The minimum insurance requirements for interstate motor carriers have remained unchanged for over three decades.  Clearly it is time that the minimum limits be raised!  This is important for you and your family.  What can you do?

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has a pending rulemaking to adjust the interstate truck and bus minimum insurance requirements now for inflation, and then update it every four years thereafter.  Send a comment to the FMCSA by clicking http://saferhighways-oneclickpolitics.nationbuilder.com/everyone.  Tell the FMCSA that you want to feel safe when driving on our highways.   Tell the FMCSA it is time to make a change and that the increase to the trucking insurance policy minimums is long overdue.  When liability policy minimums are inadequate, ultimately the burden of payment for injuries shifts away from the party at fault and to victims, their families, Medicare – and ultimately to taxpayers.

The deadline is February 26th – so act NOW!

Written by Jean Sutton Martin of the Law Office of Jean Sutton Martin PLLC.

They Didn’t Read My Miranda Rights

“Can I get the case dismissed?” is a common question posed by people facing criminal charges. . .which necessarily include allegations of Impaired Driving, DWI or DUI.

You, a friend or a family member may have been charged with “Driving While Impaired” or DWI. In the past, this was known as DUI or “Driving Under the Influence.”

There is no practical distinction between the two. A driver can be impaired by substances other than alcohol, like drugs such as cocaine, marijuana or even prescription medications.

The term DWI was established to encompass substances that might “impair” your ability to operate a motor vehicle, whereas DUI tended to relate more to alcohol. The definition under North Carolina General Statute 20-138.1 is entitled “Impaired driving.” Within subsection (a)(1) of the statute it also reads “if he drives any vehicle. . .(1) While under the influence of an impairing substance.” So, both DWI and DUI are technically proper.

For the purposes of this post the terms are synonymous. People charged with Impaired Driving seem to prefer the DUI abbreviation; frankly, the vast majority people arrested for impaired driving are suspected of violating the law due to alcohol consumption.

Although “Miranda Rights” are a consideration in many criminal cases, it requires careful analysis and/or explanation of a common misunderstanding of a complicated area of law. The most honest response to legal question involving Miranda Rights and DUI in North Carolina is, “It depends. Let’s talk more about the case.”

The purpose of this article by Attorney Bill Powers of PowersMcCartan is to provide background information on the law of Miranda and DWI in North Carolina, the legal rationale for the protection against self-incrimination and authority under North Carolina caselaw. If you have additional questions, please feel free to call Bill directly at: 704-342-4357.

Top 10 Most Dangerous Children’s Toys of the Holiday Season

With the spirit of giving in the air, the December rush to find the latest and greatest holiday toys for children’s gifts is in full swing, but do you know whether that product you’re eyeing has been deemed unsafe?

The U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) has published its 29th annual survey of the most dangerous toys for children in the current year. Dubbed “Trouble in Toyland,” the report covers what constitutes risky items and provides examples of toys that run the gamut from classics to new releases. US PIRG notes that items can present physical hazards, like choking, cutting, or pinching, or they can cause so much noise that the child’s hearing could be impaired.

These reasons, and many others, helped the group to compile a list of example toys that present hazards to children this year.

Keeping children safe during the holidays can be a tricky task. We’ve reviewed this list and now offer 10 of some of the most dangerous toys of the holiday season, backed by the US PIRG’s research.

10. Badge Playset
Manufactured by Greenbriar International, this item contains lead above maximum recommended levels of 90 ppm.

9. Jake and the Neverland Pirates Tambourine
This toy is also made by Greenbriar International and contains a shocking 580 ppm of toxic chromium, where the legal limit reaches only 60 ppm.

8. Hello Kitty Bracelet and Hair Accessories
This toy contains phthalates, compounds which are toxic to humans are banned at levels above 1,000 ppm. The Hello Kitty kit contains 5,100 ppm of the phthalate DEHP; it is manufactured by H.E.R. Accessories/ Joann Stores.

7. Leopard-patterned Rubber Duck
This toy was not labeled with any kind of product number but was found at a Walmart store. The duck also exceeded safe limits of phthalates, reaching 1,400 ppm in a small item sure to find its way inside a toddler’s mouth during bath time.

6. Dora the Explorer Backpack
This backpack may not be considered a toy, and therefore may have been overlooked for standards relating to phthalate levels. Regardless, the plastic portion of the backpack contains dangerously high levels of phthalate, 200,00 ppm. The Dora backpack is made by FAB Starpoint.

5. Edushape 80-Piece Textured Blocks
Labeled for children 2+, this classic toy presents a serious choking hazard with small parts that can easily be swallowed. The blocks are manufactured by Edushape.

4. Disney Junior Doc McStuffins Figurine Playset
The figurines from this well-known children’s show can be snapped off of their bases, creating a choking hazard. The product is labeled with a non-standard choke hazard warning for children ages 3+.

3. Rhinestone Rosette Bow Headband
Another toy with a choking hazard, this headband features small beads that can pop off and block a child’s airway if swallowed. Manufactured by Mix & Co. this headband does not have a label to suggest an appropriate user age.

2. Shopping Cart Play set
Made by Just Kidz, the play set features a shopping cart with various lose items that appear to be canned goods, fruit, and other grocery goods. Approved for use in children ages 3+, some of the accompanying items are small enough to fit into a mouth and choke the child.

1. Sonic Sound Sizzlers Noise Magnets
Placed on this list for its potential to be ingested, the noise magnets are small and conically shaped, making them an easy fit down the throat if they are accidentally swallowed. This toy is made by Ja-Ru, Inc. and approved for ages 8+.

Getting Legal Help for a Toy that has Injured Your Child
It is a terrible scenario to imagine, but the possibility of any child being harmed by a defective toy or one with a flawed design is very real. If this happens to you, don’t hesitate to obtain legal help from an experienced personal injury lawyer to help explain your options.

Being aware of the legal issues that may arise following a personal injury is important for victims and their families and a trusted law firm can certainly help to protect your interests.

Have a safe, happy and healthy holiday season this year and every year!

~ For more than 25 years, the team of highly trained personal injury attorneys at the law offices of Riddle & Brantley have been helping to represent individuals that have been injured due to the negligence of another person or as a result of the malfunction of a dangerous or defective item. The North Carolina firm has offices in Raleigh, Goldsboro, Jacksonville, and Kinston. http://www.justicecounts.com/

He Who Complaineth Shall Go Without

You purchase a product or service and are not satisfied so you decide to complain. Isn’t this your right especially if you are paying your hard-earned money? If you complain you would hope the company would acknowledge your complaint, discuss it with you, and arrive at a resolution to keep your business and keep you satisfied. Well, one company decided they had enough of one consumer’s complaints and cut off his accrued benefits. Don’t believe me? Read on…

In Northwest Inc. v. Ginsburg (12-462) the consumer is a rabbi who frequently traveled on Delta Airlines (which has since been gobbled up by Northwest Airlines) thereby racking up thousands of frequent flyer miles. Unfortunately, he had several not-so-friendly experiences while flying the friendly skies including multiple incidents of his baggage showing up late at the baggage carousel. Having been victimized at the baggage carousel myself (although in my case the missing bag was due to a mixup by another passenger and not the airline’s fault; the airline I flew did an outstanding job to locate and recover my bag and deliver it to my hotel room before my return flight to North Carolina) I can understand the feeling of not seeing one’s bag(s). After receiving what it believed to be too many complaints from one customer, Northwest terminated the rabbi’s membership in the WorldPerks Platinum Elite program. The rabbi sued in federal court in San Diego in 2009 and the case has now arrived at the United States Supreme Court where the nine Justices will have to determine if federal law (i.e., deregulation of airlines) prevents a consumer from suing an airline for common law contract claims such as breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of fair dealing.

Last month attorneys for the parties argued the case before the nine Justices and a ruling is expecting in Spring 2014. The result could greatly impact the airline industry and is worth watching. In recent years the Court has decided several cases of significance to consumers and the companies with whom they do business. Let’s hope this one results in a win for the consumer and, for lack of a better term at the moment, the right to complain and obtain relief.

John T. O’Neal is a practicing attorney in Greensboro, NC who focuses his practice in Personal Injury/Wrongful Death, Consumer Law (includes Auto Dealer Fraud/Vehicle Issues and Debt Defense Lemon Law), and various types of Civil Litigation. A long-time NCAJ member, he is a former Chair of the NCAJ Consumer Areas of Practice Section and a two-time Ebby Award winner.

NCAJ Members’ Food Bank Drive A Success: Almost 12,000 pounds of food donated!

Over one million North Carolinians live in poverty and 1 in 4 children in this state are food insecure*.

Food banks play a vital role in serving the community and NCAJ members have been honored to help by supporting the NCAJ New Lawyers Division’s Food Bank Drive.

NCAJ members donated 11,651 pounds of food and $8,279 to support 11 food banks across the state this holiday season!!

The receiving food banks included the Food Bank of Eastern & Central North Carolina; Manna Food Bank of Northwest North Carolina in Asheville; Second Harvest Food Bank of Metrolina and Northwest North Carolina; Community Soup Kitchen in Goldsboro; Hope Mission in Morehead City; Martha’s Mission in Morehead City; Hope Station in Wilson; Operation Inasmuch in Fayetteville; Christian United Outreach Center in Sanford; and Food Pantry at Millbrook United Methodist Church in Raleigh.

Several of the participating law firms have extended their drive through the end of December, which will increase our tally even more!!! See below for a list of law firms that made this drive a great success:

Food Drive Coordinator: Jessica Leaven, Grimes Teich Anderson, 535 College Street
Host Law Firm: Fisher Stark Cash Attorneys, 35 North Market Street
Host Law Firm: John Hensley Law, 366 Merrimon Avenue
Host Law Firm: Devereaux and Banzhoff, 22 S. Pack Square Suite 1100
Host Law Firm: Rhonda Moorefield, 1 Oak Plaza Suite 301
Host Law Firm: Grimes Teich Anderson LLP, 535 College Street
Host Law Firm: James Minick,107 Merrimon Avenue Suite 110
Other: Buncombe County Courthouse

Food Drive Coordinator: Touissant Romain, 700 East 4th Street, Suite 400
Host Law Firm: Mike Daisley, 2412 Arty Avenue
Host Law Firm: Bill Powers, 2412 Arty Avenue
Host Law Firm: George Piemonte, 2828 Queen City Drive Suite E
Host Law Firm: Rawls Scheer Foster Mingo & Culp 1011 E. Moorehead St. Suite 300
Host Law Firm: Law Offices of Michael A. DeMayo 1211 E. Moorehead St.
Host Law Firm: The Sumwalt Law Firm 1114 E. Boulevard
Host Law Firm: The Odom Firm 1109 Greenwood Cliff
Host Law Firm: Tin Fulton Walker & Owen 301 East Park Avenue
Host Law Firm: Marcari Russotto Spencer Balaban 15800 John J. Delaney Drive Suite 350

Host Law Firm: Baker, Billick, P.A., 135 Union Street South

Host Law Firm: Graham-Davis Law Firm 4015 University Drive Suite 203
Host Law Firm: Frasier & Griffin The Chancellor Building 100 East Parrish Street Suite 350
Host Law Firm: Judith Romanowski. Lynn Fontana, Faith Herndon 115 E. Main St.
Host Law Firm: Host Law Firm: Marcari Russotto Spencer Balaban 5003 Southpark Drive Suite 200

Host Law Firm: Law Offices of Wade Byrd 232 Person St.
Host Law Firm: Marcari Russotto Spencer Balaban 225 Ray Avenue Suite 165

Host Law Firm: James Minick, Attorney at Law 355 S. new Hope Road Suite D

Host Law Firm: Barber Law, 102-B South William Street
Host Law Firm: Everett Womble Lawrence 507-B N. Spence Avenue

Host Law Firm: Oxner, Thomas & Permar, PLLC 1155 Revolution Mill Drive, Studio 4
Host Law Firm: Clifford Clendenin & O’Hale 415 Friendly Avenue

Food Drive Coordinator: Shannon Penland Pitt County Public Defenders Office
Host Law Firm: Ricci Law Firm 2839 Charles Blvd
Host Law Firm: The Leon Law Firm 704 Cromwell Drive Ste. E
Host Law Firm: Lawyers East 110 East Arlington Blvd
Host Law Firm: Dawson & Albritton 1516 Freenville Blvd SE
Host Law Firm: The Law Offices of Ghita Harris 321 Evans Street Suite 105

Host Law Firm: Law Offices of Jason E. Taylor, PC, 120 3rd Street Northeast

Host Law Firm: Steffan & Associates, 2411 Old NC 86, Hillsborough

Host Law Firm: Law Offices of J. Calvin Cunningham 18 S. Main Street

Host Law Firm: Taylor & Taylor 610 Arendell Street

Food Drive Coordinator: Laura Jenkins Law Offices 178 Mine Lake Court Suite 100
Food Drive Coordinator: Leone Noble & Seate 7100 Six Forks Road Suite 201
Host Law Firm: Henson Fuerst, P.A., 2501 Blue Ridge Road
Host Law Firm: Abrams & Abrams, 1526 Glenwood
Host Law Firm: Whitley Law Firm 2424 Glenwood Avenue Suite 201
Host Law Firm: Leone Noble & Seate 7100 Six Forks Road Suite 201
Host Law Firm: Everett Gaskins Hancock 220 Fayetteville Street Suite 300
Host Law Firm: Joe Knott, Sanford Thompson, Berger & Miller 4800 Six Forks Road Suite 100
Host Law Firm: Martin & Jones 410 Glenwood Avenue Suite 200
Other Donation Location: NCAJ HQ, 1312 Annapolis Drive

Host Law Firm: Whitaker Law Office 1600 S. Elm Street

Host Law Firm: Daggett Shuler Attorneys At Law, 2140 Country Club Road
Host Law Firm: Kevin Morton 1604 W. First Street (Corner of 1st and Cloverdale)
Other: Legal Aid of North Carolina Inc. 102 W. 3rd Street Suite 460

Host Law Firm: Narron & Holdford, 204 N. Tarboro Street Wilson

Food Drive Coordinator: Stewart Poisson, Poisson, Poisson & Bower
Food Drive Coordinator: Esther Sanchez Martin and Jones
Host Law Firm: Poisson, Poisson & Bower PLLC, 107A North 2nd Street
Host Law Firm: Law Offices of James Gillespie 415 Chestnut Street
Host Law Firm: Law Offices of Michael Davenport 2505 College Road
Host Law Firm: Shipman and Wright 575 Military Cut Off Road Suite 106
Host Law Firm: Rountree Losee 2419 Market Street
Other: Financial Protection Law Center, 272 North Front Street, Suite 342
Other: New Hannover Public Defender Office, 414 Chestnut Street

*Food Hardship in America 2012 report from the Food Research and Action Center.

Finishing Up your Holiday Shopping? Avoid Unsafe Children’s Toys!!

The U.S. PIRG Education Fund, which conducts research on behalf of consumers and the public interest, has published its 28th annual survey of toy safety, Trouble in Toyland, which is a must-read for those finishing up their holiday shopping for the little ones in their lives. In this report, U.S. PIRG provides safety guidelines when purchasing toys for small children and provides examples of toys currently on store shelves that may pose potential safety hazards.

For example, magnet toys made with neodymium iron boron magnets, such as the Buckyball magnets, make the list of potentially dangerous gifts because they can be accidentally swallowed. The magnets are so strong that if more than one is swallowed, they do not pass through a child’s digestive system. Instead, the balls can pull the intestines into loops, punch holes in the intestinal wall, and cause abscesses and infections in internal organs, according to Dr. Bryan Rudolph, an assistant professor of pediatric gastroenterology at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, part of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City.

Read this report before going to the mall this holiday season.