Personal Injury Law Journal

I recently had a personal injury case of mine proceed to a jury trial. The trial judge, like many others throughout the state and country, warned the jurors throughout the trial not to conduct their own research on the case or look up information on the parties or the lawyers involved. Based on my recollection, no specific instructions were given to the jury concerning the usage of social media during the trial. In courtrooms across the country, however, jurors’ usage of social media has become a hot topic for debate. In previous blog posts, I have discussed some of the potential problems that can arise from a juror’s use of social media during a trial. In past years, before the development of social media, jurors’ communication with the outside world during a trial was not hard to curtail. Now with the boom in popularity of various forms of social media, this has all changed.  

The New Jersey Law Journal recently covered this problem, and its possible solutions, at length.  With an estimated 845 million active users on Facebook posting 2.7 billion comments and likes daily and Twitter posting 175 million tweets a day, it is no surprise that judges have become even more concerned recently about “the incursion of social media into the courtroom and its impact on the fairness of trials.”  Judges typically have broad discretion in determining how to handle the problem when a juror is found to have used social media to discuss some aspect of the trial.   Below are some of the ways that judges have dealt with jurors who have used social media during trials.  

In many cases, a judge may remove a juror from a trial if it is determined that the juror used social media such as Facebook or Twitter to discuss the case during the actual trial. In some cases, though, a judge may allow the juror to remain on the case after a warning. Some judges have actually gone so far as to declare a mistrial whereas others have held the specific juror in contempt of court. In other cases, judges have conducted hearings to determine what information was inappropriately shared by the juror through his or her usage of social media. Judges have also been to known to confiscate phones and other electronic devices during jury deliberations and some even went so far as to take them away from jurors at the start of every trial day. A few judges have been reported to require jurors to sign pledges to refrain from using social media while serving on the jury panel. Along those lines, some other judges had jurors swear a separate oath while others required that reminders be posted in jury rooms. One of the more popular measures is to explain to jurors the reasons why social media is banned from the courtroom, followed by various instructions to jurors throughout the trial concerning the ban on social media.  

Still, perhaps the issue is being overblown. A recent survey of jurors found that of 140 jurors who participated in the survey, only 6 said they were tempted to communicate about the case through social media. All 6 respondents said that they resisted the urge to use social media in the trial due to the judge’s instructions and their duties as jurors. The survey found that judges’ cautionary instructions concerning the ban on social media in the courtroom seems to be working.  

The social media issue has played out in 2 recent trials, with opposite outcomes. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of former Pennsylvania State Senator Vincent Fumo on 137 counts of fraud, tax evasion, and obstruction of justice despite Fumo’s claim that a juror’s tweets and Facebook postings about the case during deliberations denied him a fair trial.  The court affirmed Fumo’s conviction and found that there was no substantial prejudice to Fumo because the juror’s comments on Facebook and Twitter were vague and innocuous.

On the other hand, the Arkansas Supreme Court overturned a capital conviction on December 8, 2011 because of a tweeting juror who was being “followed” by a reporter covering the case.  

And lastly, a Florida state court judge in an automobile negligence case last month sentenced a juror to 3 days in jail for contempt of court because he sent a Facebook message to the defendant.

So if you are a juror serving on a trial, be sure to listen to the judge’s instructions concerning the usage of social media.  Otherwise, as you can see, your actions can have far-reaching consequences.  What might seem to be an innocent tweet or post on Facebook can have major ramifications on the integrity of the jury trial process where life, liberty, and property could be at stake.  At best, you might be admonished by the judge and embarrassed in front of everyone else on the jury, and, at worst, you could wreck the whole trial and be sent to jail for contempt of court.           

Stephen Di Stefano is an attorney in Stark & Stark’s Marlton, New Jersey office, specializing in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Mr. Di Stefano.

Just bought a new car?  Congratulations!  

Just keep one thing in mind: make absolutely certain that you put auto insurance on the car BEFORE you drive the car off of the dealer’s lot. Many people forget to do this and simply call their insurance agent after they get home with the car. This is a mistake that has far-reaching consequences.

Once you have purchased the car, it is yours, even if you have not yet driven it off the dealer’s lot. Make sure that you place a policy of automobile insurance on the car as soon as you have purchased it. New Jersey law mandates that every owner or registered owner of an automobile in New Jersey is obliged to maintain insurance on that automobile. If you’re injured in an accident while you’re driving a car that you own and it is not insured, you are barred from bringing a claim against the responsible driver for your injuries. So even if you’re minding your own business and driving safely and someone else is not paying attention, you are barred from bringing a claim against the responsible driver if you’re driving your own car and it’s uninsured.   

On the other hand, if you cause an accident while driving an uninsured car, you will not have coverage if the person you injured wants to sue you. Your assets, your home, and your wages are all at risk if you injure someone while driving an uninsured car.
 
Remember, if you just bought a car, you have to cover it with automobile insurance as soon as possible. Do not drive it home first. Put auto insurance on the car before you even step foot into it. Protect yourself and your livelihood, and make sure your automobile is covered by a policy of insurance that meets or exceeds the requirements of the state’s law.

If you have questions about the types of coverage available to you, please call me. I am happy to discuss with you the insurance policy that will best meet your needs. I do this all of the time, and I am always happy to do so free of charge. I am not an insurance agent, and I have no financial interest in the insurance you select. I simply want to make sure your needs are met as quickly and easily as possible.

Stephen Di Stefano is an attorney in Stark & Stark’s Marlton, New Jersey office, specializing in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Mr. Di Stefano.

One of the hallmarks of professional conduct is effective communication with your client. My practice as an attorney involves representing people who have been injured and who have had their lives disrupted by the negligence of others. One of the things these clients need and expect is an advocate for their issues and ear for their concerns. As a result I and my staff communicate daily with our clients. We are constantly on the phone, meeting with clients in the office, or speaking with others to help coordinate issues with insurance companies and doctors.

Because communication is so important, the Rules of Professional Conduct have a specific section on this issue. RPC 1.4 entitled “Communication” states as follows:

1. A lawyer shall fully inform a prospective client of how, when, and where the client may communicate with the lawyer.
2. A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
3. A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
4. When a lawyer knows that a client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; the lawyer shall advise the client of the relevant limitations on the lawyers conduct.

I abide by the above principles every day in my practice. In fact, I believe it is so important to go above and beyond what the Rule requires. It is a must to be truthful and honest with clients at all times. You must discuss the good and the bad and always ensure your client understands everything. Sometimes the most difficult conversations are the most important. By following these standards of ethical conduct and effective communication the client and the attorney will both be served well.

Mike Foster is a Shareholder in Stark & Stark’s Marlton, New Jersey office, specializing in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Mr. Foster.

It is common for individuals who own a business to include their personal vehicles as assets of the business which are covered under the business insurance. It is not unusual for us to find that our client has a spouse who owns and operates a business, and the client’s personal vehicle is owned and insured by that business, even though the client does not work for the business.

A classic example is a wife who drives an SUV that is owned and insured by her husband’s construction business, although the wife does not work for the business. This makes sense for a couple of reasons.

1. It shifts the cost of vehicle acquisition, maintenance, and insurance coverage from the personal accounts to a business account, conferring obvious financial benefits to the vehicle user; and
2. it makes the higher liability limits often found in business policies available, affording greater protection to the family drivers.

When the children of the marriage become old enough to drive, the parents will often times purchase a separate policy for the young drivers, because of the negative impact of insuring them under the business policy. Typically, one or both of the parents are the owners of the young drivers’ vehicle(s), and are the named insured of the insurance policy obtained for the vehicle. Unfortunately, there is a pitfall associated with this approach to vehicle ownership and insurance, which is not appreciated by many people until it has reared its ugly head. The genesis of the problem is called a “step down clause”.

The New Jersey Supreme Court approved the use of a step down clause in an important decision known as Pinto v. New Jersey Mfgrs. Ins. Co. in 2005. A stepdown clause is a device that limits the exposure of an insurance policy by reducing the benefits available thereunder to the levels of another policy.

Here is how it works: John works for ABC Construction Company, and often drives an ABC truck which is insured by Alpha Insurance Company under a business vehicle policy with $500,000CSL liability and UM/UIM limits. John also owns his own vehicle, which is insured by Beta Insurance Company with    $25,000/$50,000 liability and UM/UIM limits. John is seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving the ABC truck and the offending driver has minimum insurance coverage of $15,000, which is insufficient to satisfy John’s claim. John makes a claim with Alpha Insurance Company as well as Beta insurance company for UIM benefits. There is a step down clause in the Alpha policy, which states that Alpha’s exposure to John’s claim is limited to the amount of coverage available to John under his own insurance policy, or a pro rata share of the difference between $25,000 and $15,000, or $10,000. Despite the fact that the Alpha policy contained $500,000 in UIM benefits, John is not eligible to make a claim against these larger limits because of the step down clause.

Let’s return to the example of the wife of the small business owner, and assume that she is injured in an accident while driving her SUV, which is owned and insured by her husband’s business. She has serious injuries, and the wrongdoer has minimum coverage, and she seeks UIM benefits under the business policy. A step down clause in the business policy limits its exposure to the limit of coverage available to her under the personal policy on her children’s vehicle, and she is unable to take advantage of the more substantial coverage available under the business policy.

The moral of this story is twofold: first, you should maintain high liability and UIM benefits on all policies which provide coverage to your family; second, you should make sure that you are actually entitled to the benefits you believe you are purchasing, either by reading the policy yourself, or obtaining an expert opinion on the coverage it offers. We have seen too many situations where seriously injured claimants are denied benefits that would more appropriately compensate them for their loss, due to step down clauses that the injured person did not know were present in the insurance policy.

John Sakson is a Shareholder and Co-Managing Direcotr of  Stark & Stark’s in the firm's Lawrenceville, New Jersey office, specializing in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Mr. Sakson.

Did you know that New Jersey has a law on its books requiring you to make sure that snow and ice has been removed from your entire car before you hit the road?  In fact, police have issued over 3,200 tickets since the law took effect in October 2010.
 
Most people assume that so long as their windows are clear, they are safe.  However, this is not the case. Hard snow and ice accumulations routinely fly off while driving, creating dangerous conditions for other drivers whose cars are struck by the flying object itself, or who get spooked while trying to avoid these dangers.  
 
The law states that each driver of a motor vehicle (including commercial trucks, cabs and trailers) in this State shall have an affirmative duty to make all reasonable efforts to remove accumulated ice or snow from exposed surfaces of the motor vehicle prior to operation. These surfaces include the hood, trunk, windshield, windows, and roof of the motor vehicle.
 
The law does NOT apply to any driver who is operating during a snow or ice storm that began and continued for the duration of the motor vehicle's operation, or to any operator of a motor vehicle while it is parked.

Fines for violating the new law range from $25 to $75 if no injury or property damage occurs. If failure to remove ice and snow results in injury or property damage, motorists can face fines ranging from $200 to $1,000, while commercial motor vehicle drivers face fines ranging from $500 to $1,500, for each offense.

Perhaps the thought of having to spend the extra time in your pjs or work clothes, coupled with the non-point, relatively low fine, makes you say, "no thanks - I'll just get the windows."  
But the thought of causing damage to someone else' car, or worse yet, causing serious injury to others, will hopefully give you pause to remember and follow this law.

Andrew Salmon is a member of Stark & Stark’s Lawrenceville, New Jersey office, specializing in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Mr. Salmon.