• Experienced | Successful | Since 1971

Close
Enter your
text here
Monthly Archives :

March 2019

Car Accident
How Do You Prove Intoxication in a Personal Injury Case?
 How Do You Prove Intoxication in a Personal Injury Case? 1024 613 CMZ Law Lufkin/Houston

How Do You Prove Intoxication in a Personal Injury Case?

Driving is by no means inherently safe. With human beings operating cars and trucks, there leaves much room for error. But when an individual drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs – both illegal and prescription – their intoxication can have very serious effects on the safety of themselves and others.

Driving While Intoxicated

In Texas, anyone who drives while intoxicated is committing the offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI). If an intoxicated driver causes injury to another individual, the evidence of their intoxication can be used as evidence against them in a personal injury case.

Plaintiff Still Has Burden of Proof

It is important to remember that just because someone intoxicated gets into an accident with another person, he or she is not automatically guilty in civil court. When it comes to a case of negligence, the plaintiff who is suing still carries the burden of proving four elements (duty; breach; causation; damages).

When it comes to proving causation, the plaintiff must still prove that the crash occurred because of the defendant’s conduct, and that conduct caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant can still argue that they were not at fault for the crash, and that the plaintiff either caused the crash, their injuries were not a direct result of the accident, or they contributed to the damages.

NTSB Investigates Crash of Impaired Driver

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recently released its findings in an investigation of a crash, which occurred in Texas that resulted in 13 fatalities because of a driver under the influence of marijuana and prescription drugs.

The NTSB found that the driver was responsible for the crash due to the fact that he could not safely operate his truck because he was impaired. He was said to be driving erratically before crashing into a church bus that was transporting seniors from a three-day church retreat. The crash killed the bus driver as well as 12 of its 13 passengers.

The Aftermath of the Crash

According to the NTSB there were marijuana cigarettes, over-the-counter, and prescription medication as well as other drug paraphernalia in the truck. The driver also tested positive for marijuana and the sedative, clonazepam, of which he admitted that he had taken twice the prescribed dose. The twenty-year-old driver was then charged with multiple counts of intoxication manslaughter. He is currently awaiting sentencing after pleading no contest.

What To Do if You’ve Been the Victim of a Car Crash with a Drunk Driver

If you have been the victim of a car crash that involved a drunk driver, it is so important that you are compensated for any damages that you sustained from it and that the impaired driver is held accountable. That is why you should contact a knowledgeable and experienced personal injury attorney who can help you to navigate your situation and get you what you deserve.

Lawyer
Will the U.S. Supreme Court find Merck liable for failing to provide adequate warnings about Fosamax?
 Will the U.S. Supreme Court find Merck liable for failing to provide adequate warnings about Fosamax? 1024 683 CMZ Law Lufkin/Houston

Will the U.S. Supreme Court find Merck liable for failing to provide adequate warnings about Fosamax?

Fosamax is a prescription drug manufactured by mega-company Merck.  It was created to help treat osteoporosis and other diseases that cause bone loss.  Given that one in three women worldwide and one in five men over 50 will suffer from osteoporotic related fractures, Fosamax and other drugs like it are big business.  Fosamax claims that it will slow bone loss and improve bone density, but alarming evidence of the potential link between the drug and fractures has emerged. Now, thousands of Fosamax users have filed suit against Merck, claiming that the dangerous drug led them to suffer thigh bone fractures and the company failed to warn them of the risks.

As other claimants joined in the action against Merck, Merck sought dismissal of the claims.  Merck submitted evidence that it had notified the FDA back in 2008of a potential link between the drug and some bone fractures.  However, the FDA rejected its proposal to a warning label to the drug. It wasn’t until 2010 when the FDA ordered a revision of the labels to include a warning, which Merck did.

In federal court in New Jersey, Merck urged that the claims against it should be dismissed because the FDA rejected its proposed warning label, which it believes should exclude liability.  However, the 3rd Circuit ruled the case should proceed because the jury could find that the FDA would have accepted a properly worded warning concerning fracture risks.

The Supreme Court Takes Up the Case

Now, at the urging of President Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court has elected to hear the case. At issue will be the crucial question as to whether a pharmaceutical company can be liable for failing to warn drug users as to known risks when the FDA rejects its proposed warnings.  The issue is a crucial one that could have wide spread implications.

If the Supreme Court finds that Merck is relieved of liability, it could leave consumers crucially unprotected against potentially dangerous or defective drugs.  Individuals harmed by dangerous drugs that did not come with adequate warnings could be left without legal avenues, and product makers may further lose financial incentive to create comprehensive, up-to-date warnings.  On the other hand, most would agree that the FDA needs to be more proactive in issuing potentially lifesaving warnings when made aware of this need by drug makers. All of us should closely watch this case, which may have an impact on anyone who will ever take a prescription drug.

Practice Areas of Attorney Houston Tx Legal Practice Areas $27.8 Million Victories Liquid Natural Gas Storage Victories