Central New York Injury Lawyer Blog

This Central New York accident lawyer is "on tour" again, traveling across New York State teaching other New York personal injury lawyers about New York "municipal liability law". I addressed a very welcoming and attentive room of New York personal injury and medical malpractice lawyers in Manhattan this Friday, and will be hitting Albany, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo over the next 6 weeks.

What's "municipal liability law"? It's a maze of byzantine rules New York injury lawyers have to follow for suing New York State and its counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts and other governmental entities. The State and all these "subdivisions" of the State have special defenses they can raise to beat back accident and injury claims against them. I try to steer other lawyers around these blockades, and away from mistakes that might harm their injured clients' cases

The rules are really quite complicated, and most years the courts "tweak" the rules at least a little bit in some of the cases they publish. And I read all the cases, hundreds of them, each year. I then try to distill from all this the most important changes in law, and convey that to my fellow personal injury lawyers.

Example? There is a rule that generally you can't sue a City (or State, County, etc.) for its police officers' failing to provide you with police protection. The City has "governmental immunity" from such a suit. But there used to be an exception by which you could sue them if a police officer had promised you some police protection, then failed provide it, you relied on that promise to your detriment, and were injured as a result.

For example, there were lots of cases with this fact scenario: Ex-boyfriend threatens to kill ex-girlfriend, girlfriend calls police for protection, police promise they will arrest him, she believes them and goes home without a worry in the world, and ex-boy friend, who was NOT arrested, is waiting at her doorstep and kills or injures her. Under the old rule, she could sue the City for negligence in withholding police protection. Now it seems the State's highest court has changed that rule so that is impossible, or nearly impossible, for you to sue even when the police officer promises you protection and then fails to deliver it. This is because the decision of whether to provide police protection is deemed "discretionary", and the Court is now saying, for the first time, that you can NEVER sue the government for its "discretionary" decisions.

If you are really interested in this (and unless you are a New York personal injury lawyer, you probably are not!) you can take a look at this recent Court of Appeals case.

Anyway, I am proud to be selected year after year by the New York State Academy of Trial Lawyers to deliver the New York "municipal liability update". If they choose me to teach other lawyers, they must think I am pretty good!

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

The Syracuse Megabus accident case is keeping this Syracuse New York bus accident lawyer busy and thinking. I have handled complex personal injury cases before, but this one has lots of interesting twists, as can be seen by reading my prior blogs about it, entitled:

"Syracuse Bus Crash Was Caused by Distracted Driving - Another Tragic Central New York Distracted Driving Automobile Accident Case"

"Syracuse Megabus Overpass Collision --- Was It the County's Fault?"

"Syracuse Bus Accident Lawer with Update on Syracuse Megabus Collision with Overpass"

"Syracuse Auto Accident Lawyer Discusses Syracuse Bus Crash Liability"

"New York State's Defense to Syracuse Megabus Accident: "A Safer Design Was Too Expensive, Impractical and Nearly Impossible". Will This Defense Work in Court?"

This case is strewn with complex legal issues. It requires adept navigation through several areas of law.

For example, all the injured passengers have an automatic right to "no-fault" benefits from the bus company. No-fault benefits are, generally speaking, up to $50,000 in medical expenses and lost wages for each passenger. Passengers must, however, apply for these benefits within 30 days of the date of the accident. Otherwise, their no-fault claims may be denied because of the lateness of the application. Passengers also need to check their own auto insurance policies and those of relatives they live with, to see if any additional benefits beyond the $50,000 limit are promised in those policies.

Beyond no-fault benefits, though, the injured passengers can bring a claim against the bus company for "pain and suffering" compensation, as well as any for economic loss beyond the no-fault $50,000 limit. But only those who have a "serious injury" under New York Insurance law will qualify for "pain and suffering" compensation against the bus company. On the other hand, the injured bus passengers are not barred from suing others who might be partially responsible for the accident, such as the State of New York, or the County of Onondaga, for pain and suffering compensation, even if their injury is not deemed "serious" under the no-fault law. Legal documents, though, ought to be filed within 90 days of the accident against New York State or other governmental entities such as Onondaga County (though, if you are late on this deadline, you can ask the court to let you file it late -- but why risk it?).

Why can you sue the State, the County or others for less-than-serious injuries, but not the bus company? That's a long story, and I don't have the space to explain it (well) in this blog post. But the main point I want to drive home is that there are complicated issues here, and all the victims of this tragic accident ought to consider hiring a Syracuse bus accident lawyer experienced in navigating through these laws.

By the way, a "serious injury" under New York motor vehicle accident law (no-fault law) is not what you think it is. Under New York no-fault law, the term "serious injury" is defined to include not only obviously serious injuries such as, for example, death, or a permanent and significant loss of use of a body part, but also any fracture of any bone, no matter how minute, and it also includes any injury that prevents you from doing your ordinary daily activities (such as going to work) for 90 out of the first 180 days after the accident. There are other ways to qualify an injury as "serious", too. You can read about this in a prior blog post of mine. As a New York car and bus accident lawyer, I can recite all these rules by heart, but I won't bore you with that here . . .

Your Central New York Injury Lawyer

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

Hate to tell you, but I told you so! I previously blogged about the dangers of Facebook and similar social media for injured plaintiffs in New York personal injury lawsuits. I explained that, as a Central New York personal injury lawyer, I advise my clients to be very careful about what they post on Facebook and other social media sites. Why? Because insurance companies can, and will, search plaintiff's Facebook page for evidence that he or she is not as disabled or in as much pain as claimed. They will look for Facebook comments, posts and photos depicting plaintiff as a happy, healthy normal person with no injuries. Never mind that the injured person is trying to put on her best face to the public, and never mind that some of those photos might be from before she was injured. I also advised that no one should think that the privacy settings on Facebook will prevent a determined insurance company from getting into his or her private posts and photos.

Now a New York Court has made a ruling ordering a personal injury plaintiff to give to defendant (more precisely, the lawyer hired by defendant's insurance company) access even to her private postings (i.e., ones that plaintiff only allowed to be viewed by her Facebook "friends") from Facebook and MySpace that could contradict her personal injury action claims. The same Court has ordered Facebook itself to disclose the entire history of plaintiff's Facebook postings.

The judge found that the private pages were likely to lead to relevant information that might contradict plaintiff's claims because some of the information on her public pages already displayed material that seemed to contradict her claims and deposition testimony with regard to her activities and enjoyment of life. In ordering the disclosure, the Court held that the private Facebook pages must be disclosed so as not to "condone Plaintiff's attempt to hide relevant information behind self-regulated privacy settings"

Facebook itself, which had been subpoenaed to produce the entire history of plaintiff's Facebook pages, tried to quash the subpoena, arguing that releasing plaintiff's profile without her consent would violate the federal Stored Communications Act, which bars Facebook from "producing a non-consenting subscriber's communications even when those communications are sought pursuant to a court order or subpoena." But the argument fell on deaf ears. The Court ordered that plaintiff had placed her physical condition in controversy by bringing the lawsuit and could not "shield from disclosure material which is necessary to the defense of the action."

Moral of the story? Always listen to my advice! Second, and more to the point, be careful about what you post!

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
michaels-smolak.com
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

Watch this video of a doctor's lecture on "Medpage". He tells his fellow medical doctors how to avoid getting sued for medical malpractice. Some of his points are well taken. For example, "Care deeply about your patients", and "communicate" well and often with them. (It's harder to sue someone you like!).

We at Michaels & Smolak, as Syracuse New York medical malpractice lawyers, have some trouble with his last point: "At the end of the day, recognize that the American system of dealing with medical professional liability, so called malpractice, sucks, that stuff (so to speak) happens, and that many trial lawyers are the scum of sub-humankind."

Actually, what really sucks is the medical establishment's way of dealing with medical malpractice --- ignore it, downplay it, and, of course, blame the lawyers -- as this doctor does here. That's been their modus operandi for many years now. Oh yeah, and I forgot - they also spend more time and money lobbying for malpractice reform than they spend trying to devise systems to prevent malpractice.

This attitude keeps the medical community from mending its ways. As explained in this New York Times article, medical liability has increased patient safety. Because of medical malpractice suits, safer practices are being followed than only a few years ago. For example, hospitals now hire risk managers, and do a much better job preventing infections, and anesthesiologists have developed improved safety standards, just to name a few.

Doctors must begin to see medical malpractice suits as a symptom, not the disease. A long term cure will not come from removing the medical malpractice suits, but rather the root cause of them --- medical malpractice.

In an article entitled "NY DOT chief nixes big fixes for Onondaga Lake Parkway railroad bridge", the Syracuse Post Standard quotes a top New York Department of Transportation official as saying that structural design changes to keep trucks, buses and other tall vehicles from crashing against the railroad bridge above the Onondaga Lake Parkway are too expensive and impractical. According to this official, while other less costly, minor improvements might be possible (including tinkering with the warning signs' height), major structural changes aimed at eliminating the low clearance of the bridge are all but impossible.

How does a Syracuse bus accident attorney go about investigating this defense? Well, first, he or she would have to recognize that this "we couldn't do it" defense is not new. It was probably invented about the same time as roads were! Therefore, there is a whole body New York roadway design liability case law that defines the parameters of this defense.

Here's what that law says in a nutshell: While a governmental entity (such as the State of New York or Onondaga County) has a duty to plan, design, construct and maintain reasonably safe roads, highways, streets, bridges, intersection and traffic control devices, they have what's known as "qualified immunity" from liability. Under this "qualified immunity", the governmental body may be held liable only when its roadway design was "plainly inadequate or there was no reasonable basis for its plan or design". The State or County can't be held liable just because there might have been a better, safer design. The actual design has to be, in light of all the circumstances, "plainly inadequate" or "unreasonable". Further, once the State is made aware that something about the road is dangerous (for example, tall trucks keep crashing against the bridge!), it must then undertake new studies to see if the danger can be reduced.

In this case, in order to hold the State liable with respect to the planning and design of the road going under the railroad bridge, the injured plaintiffs, through their Syracuse bus accident lawyer, must show that the roadway area, including the signage warning of the low clearance, evolved "without adequate study" or "lacked a reasonable basis", or that, after the State became aware of the problem of tall trucks repeatedly striking the bridge, it failed to conduct another study to see if they could, within reason, improve safety there.

But what if a better design that eliminated the low clearance would have been too expensive, as the State is claiming here? Can the State claim it considered making structural changes but just didn't have the money to make them? Maybe. New York roadway design law does recognize what is known as a "budgetary defense", that is, that the State can order priorities with other projects based on the availability of funding. And, of course, a structural design that would be unreasonably expensive when weighed against the safety benefits could be deemed "unreasonable" altogether, and thus could protect the State or County from liability.

After all the facts are uncovered and put before the Court, the judge will decide whether the State's defense is valid. A Syracuse personal injury lawyer's job is to methodically unearth every fact in the long history of this roadway, and, with the help of a good roadway engineer, present them to the Court in such a way as to maximize plaintiffs' chances of prevailing.

Keep safe!

Mike Bersani

Email me at: bersani@michaels-smolak.com I'd love to hear from you!

michaels-smolak.com
Michael G. Bersani, Esq.
Central NY Personal Injury Lawyer
Michaels & Smolak, P.C.

1-315-253-3293 Toll Free 1-866-698-8169

Here we go again --- another fatal Central New York motor vehcile accident caused by distracted driving. Cell phones, smart phones, texting devices, gps navigators --- what will they think of next to tempt drivers into distraction?

The latest victims of distracted driving? News sources report that the bus driver who crashed into the Onondaga Lake Parkway railroad overpass near Syracuse has admitted he was distracted by his personal global positioning system (gps) device.

A spokesman for his employer, Coach USA, had previously said that Use of any GPS device while driving was against company policy. The driver had resorted to his GPS after he missed the turn to the bus terminal, and ended up off track. I have previously blogged about this Syracuse bus crash here, here and here.

I have blogged about the upsurge in motor vehicle crashes caused by distracted driving several times (read them here, here and here). In my job as a Central New York automobile accident lawyer , I have represented, and am representing, victims of distracted driving, including a client who was rear-ended by a driver who was reading a map, and another who was struck head-on in a cross-over accident by a teenage driver who was texting while driving.

Fiddling with a personal GPS navigator is no different than texting, phoning or looking at a map while driving. These activities should just not be done without first pulling over and stopping.

Let's all take a valuable lesson from this unfortunate, and totally avoidable, tragedy. Let's put our cell phones, GPS's and other devices down and just look where we are going!

The Syracuse Post Standard just published another online article about the recent fatal Megabus accident near Syracuse, in Salina, New York. The top of the double-decker bus collided with a CSX railroad bridge over Onondaga Lake Parkway. The Post Standard pointed out that this 10-foot-9-inch clearance "is notorious for getting hit by tall vehicles" despite the "warning signs and flashing lights". At about 13 feet tall, the bus did not fit under the railroad bridge.

What follows all comes from some good investigative journalism by the Syracuse Post Standard: Back in the mid 1990s, then-Onondaga County Legislature chairman Bill Sanford had concerns about the overpass. Today he is quoted as saying, "this [accident] could possibly have been avoided [with] some kind of [better] warning system." He noted that other communities with similar low overpasses had hung chains across the roadway, at the same height as the bridge, about a half mile or so before the bridge. This created a visible and audible hard-to-ignore "warning" of the oncoming peril. The metal chains clanging against the bus or truck, while causing minimal damage to the vehicle, would serve as a hard-to-ignore warning! Sandford was quoted as saying that "this wasn't done" and "I don't know why".

Good question. Why not? It sounds like an inexpensive way to avoid very expensive, life-destroying accidents. In representing the victims of this tragic bus accident, a Syracuse bus accident attorney would want to investigate the feasibility of implementing such a warning system.

While the bridge is marked by flashing lights and signs, including one that specifies the clearance height, the questions are, "was this enough" and "could the County reasonably have done better?"

Sure, as I stated in a previous blog post, it seems like the bus driver, and by vicarious liability, the bus company, are primarily responsible for ignoring the warnings. But a Syracuse New York bus accident lawyer would be remiss if he or she did not investigate a possible claim against Onondaga County for failure to implement an inexpensive, life-saving warning system.

Earlier today I posted a lengthy blog about the tragic Syracuse Megabus crash. To summarize, four people were killed today, and several others seriously injured, when a double-decker "Megabus" slammed into a railroad overpass in Salina, which is just outside of Syracuse, New York.

Update: I just read on a CNN news post the following description of the Megabus: "The bus, part of a fleet of low-cost express buses . . ." . As a Syracuse bus accident lawyer,and commercial truck accident lawyer, the words "low-cost" hit me like a ton of bricks. I have seen this story time and time again. I have handled many, many cases that repeat the same theme: Avoidable accidents caused by corporate cost cutting that short-changes safety. And all to make an extra buck! Did Coach U.S.A, the corporate owner of this bus operation, cut corners on safety to save a buck and make an extra profit? Did they hire an inexperienced, undertrained driver who got lost on his way to Toronto, deviated from the designated route, and hit the bridge he never should have been driving under? Stay tuned. Investigation continues.

So, yes, the words "greed" and "profits at the expense of safety" crossed my mind. And this brought me down. But then I read another article in the Syracuse Post Standard online that made my heart soar. The passengers' response was so "9/11", as is appropriate on this anniversary of the tumbling of the Towers! In the mayhem that followed the bus crash, the less-injured passengers checked the less fortunate to see who was conscious, and attended to those who were moaning for help. And Red Cross (one of the principle responders at the original 9/11) again rose to the occasion, by making mental health counselors available to the distraught passengers, and by providing prescription medication to passengers who had lost theirs in the mayhem.

This tragedy perhaps demonstrates the good, the bad and the ugly about human beings. Yes, perhaps corporate greed played a part in this tragedy. But the power of regular folks' altruism and caring can never, ever, be underestimated.

At about 2:30 a.m. this morning, the top of a double-decker bus smashed into an overpass railroad bridge spanning the Onondaga Lake Parkway. The impact threw the entire bus on its side. The bus had left from Allentown, Pennsylvania, and was making its way to Toronto with scheduled stops in Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo. There were apparently about 25 passengers on board, of which four are now dead, and several suffer serious injuries. A bus company spokesperson said that the driver had not made his scheduled stop in Syracuse, and that the bus was not on its scheduled bus route.

Our hearts go out to the families of the dead, and to the injured. Even those who are not seriously injured are undoubtedly experiencing severe emotional distress and post traumatic shock at this time.

As a Syracuse New York vehicular accident lawyer, I can tell you that this kind of accident cannot happen without some negligence or carelessness on the part of someone.

Here are the most obvious apparent culprits: The bus driver apparently mistakenly deviated from his scheduled route, and with a bus that tall, you can't do that without first verifying that your bus can fit under any overpasses along the way. Further, there are warnings before you pass under that railroad bridge setting forth the height of the bridge. The driver apparently failed to heed those warnings, or else failed to know the height of his bus.

If the bus driver was negligent in causing this collision, then the owner of the bus, and his employer, are vicariously liable for his negligence under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law 388. The owner/employer is apparently Coach USA, a holding company for various U.S. transportation service providers who provide scheduled bus services as well as sightseeing tours, yellow school buses, and charter bus services. Coach USA is owned by a Scottish company called "Stagecoach Group".

The victims of this tragic accident and their families should have no trouble, with the help of a New York bus accident lawyer, in obtaining full compensation, from this large family of corporations, for their injuries, lost wages, lost income, medical expenses and pain and suffering.

But the bus company and its driver might not be the only ones liable. This is not the first time that a bus or truck has struck the low-clearance railroad bridge that passes over this Parkway. A New York negligent roadway design or failure to warn case against Onondaga County should be investigated. The warnings as one approaches the railroad overpass may be deemed insufficient.

Quite frankly, though, a case against the County based on negligent roadway design or failure to adequately warn is likely to be much ado about nothing here. Why? Because under New York auto accident law, even if the County's negligence in failing to properly warn or in failing to properly design the roadway contributed to the accident, if the bus driver is also partly responsible (and it sure looks like he is!), then the bus company will be 100% liable to the injured and the families of the deceased victims. In fact, even if the bus driver is only 1% responsible for the accident and the County is 99% responsible, the bus company is still 100% liable to the victims. This rule is known as "joint and several liability", and it applies to all New York motor vehicle accidents pursuant to CPLR 1601.

Given the "joint and several" liability law in New York, it might not be worth bringing a negligent roadway design claim against the County. Those claims usually require hiring roadway experts and engineers, and they are expensive. The expense might not be warranted given the "deep pocket" bus company's clear "joint and several" liability. This bus company should have plenty of insurance and assets to completely compensate the victims.

All this, of course, needs to be fully and thoroughly investigated by a New York personal injury lawyer experienced in car, truck and bus accident cases as well as in negligent roadway design cases. And the investigation should start soon; although the victims have two (for death cases) and three (for injury cases) years to file suit against the bus company, they have to serve a "notice of claim" against the County within 90 days.

I hate reeling off statistics to make a point, but I couldn't resist these: Children 15 and younger account for 22% of all pedestrians injured in traffic crashes. And 38% of child pedestrian fatalities occur in crashes between 3 and 7 p.m (after school gets out).

So what's my point? School's back in session. When you are out driving, watch out for kids, especially in the hours before school (7:00 to 8:00 a.m. or so) and after school (3:00 to 7:00 p.m. or so).

Unfortunately, since I handle New York pedestrian injury and death cases, I know too well, up close, the devastation that car-on-child collisions cause. This past year I had to represent the family of a 4-year old killed by a car. No amount of money could ever replace that loss, of course. It is indescribably tough on the family of the dead child, but it isn't a cakewalk for the at-fault motorist either. Imagine the life-long guilt, shame, and remorse!

If I never handle another dead pedestrian child case, I will still have handled one too many. Don't let car-on-pedestrian-child accidents happen to you or your child. As a driver, watch out for kids, especially in the pre- and after school hours. And if you are a parent, go over safe crossing rules with your child as part of your new school year routine.

Finally, for a great review of school bus safety rules, review the recent blog post by fellow New York pedestrian injury lawyer Adam Gee.

In a blog post earlier this week, I talked about last Saturday's Seneca Lake boat accident that killed the owner of the Glen Harbor Marina and injured the Marina's head mechanic. More recent news reports now indicate that the accident may have been caused by a defective steering system in the high-speed boat.

If in fact the steering system was at fault, the family of the deceased boating accident victim, along with the injured survivor, may both have a New York products liability (defective products) case against the manufacturer of the boat for marketing and selling a boat with a defectively designed or manufactured steering system.

The two men were test driving the high-speed boat when, according to the survivor (the Marina's mechanic), the steering, on its own, started malfunctioning, causing a sharp turn that threw the two into the water.

In order to determine whether a valid New York products liability case against the boat's manufacturer can be brought, an engineer would have to be hired to carefully examine the steering system for defects in either its design or manufacture. Products liability cases by necessity require careful expert evalutation. Anyone considering a defective products case should be carfeful not to alter, destroy or sell the thing that malfunctioned or failed and caused the injury or death. The defective product itself, well preserved, is the best evidence, and without it, the case is bound to fail.

If you or a loved one is ever injured by a product you consider defective, dangerous, or that malfunctioned, be sure to carefully preserve the product, without opening it, taking it apart, or otherwise altering it. Instead, call a qualified New York products liability lawyer. He or she will then have the product preserved and examined at the appropriate time with all the appropriate experts and liable parties present.

Tragedy struck Seneca Lake this Labor Day weekend. A fatal boating accident happened near Juniper Point in Yates County near the town of Starkey. Two men, one the owner of nearby Glen Harbor Marina, took a high-speed "cigar" style boat owned by the Marina out for a test drive. As the boat was traveling at about 80 miles per hour, the driver apparently took a sharp turn that sent both men flying overboard into the rough water. The boat continued to circle at a high rate of speed with no men on board. One of the men, apparently the driver, who was wearing a life jacket, was rescued by witnesses and suffered a broken sternum, but the body of the other, the owner of the marina, was not found until Sunday by using remote control vehicles. He was not wearing a life jacket.

In another accident, a canoe capsized in the middle of Seneca Lake where it is three- miles wide. One of the canoists was wearing a life jacket. albeit somewhat small for him, and was able to float by the canoe and await help, but the other, who had no life jacket, was forced to swim all the way to the shore in the rough water. Fortunately, he made it and avoided tragedy.

New York State boating law does not require boaters to actually wear their life jackets --- it only requires there to be a life jacket in the boat for all boaters. But as a Finger Lakes boating accident lawyer , I can tell you from experience that actually wearing your life jacket is a very good idea. As these two accidents demonstrate, it is an especially good idea to put your life jacket on under obviously more dangerous circumstances, such as when traveling at night or at high speeds, when taking sharp turns, when an inexperienced boat operator is driving, on rough water, or in a small unstable vessel. Remember that even if you are an excellent swimmer, you may be rendered unconscious if you are ejected by a sharp turn, or by a collision with debris, other objects or other boats.

As a Syracuse motorcycle accident lawyer, I can't help but notice all the recent Central New York motorcycle accidents reported in our local press. There's been about one every other day for the past two weeks. And the same pattern keeps repeating itself; the driver of a car or truck strikes or cuts off a bike because he just doesn't "see" it.

In a recent blog I talked about how motorcycles are invisible to other motorists, and how bikers need to adjust their driving accordingly.

Here's the facts about the latest Central New York motorcycle / motor vehicle collision: This morning a couple was injured on Route 298 (Collamer Road) at about 10:00 a.m. in the Town of DeWitt when their motorcycle was struck by a Ryder truck that pulled out of a cemetery driveway and crossed the motorcycle's lane of travel. The driver of the Ryder truck admitted to police that he "did not see the motorcycle".

For a New York motorcycle accident lawyer, that statement is precious; it proves the case. And the case is a "slam dunk" not only against the driver/renter of the Ryder truck, but also against Ryder System, Inc., the Florida corporation that owns Ryder trucks.

Why is Ryder liable? Because under New York motor vehicle accident law, the owner of a motor vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver. They are both equally liable!

This is good news for our injured bikers because their injuries will be covered by a "deep pocket" defendant; Ryder System, Inc. Even if the Ryder truck driver has a very small auto insurance policy, the motorcyclists should be fully compensated for their lost wages, medical expenses and pain and suffering from Ryder System, inc. or its insurer. There will be plenty of money to bring full justice to these innocent, but "invisible", bikers.

The Syracuse Post Standard reports today that the "central line" blood stream infection rate at the surgical intensive care unit of Upstate University Hospital fell to zero last year only a year after it had one of the highest infection rates in the State (8.3%). A "central line" is a tube or catheter inserted in a vein to draw blood or deliver fluids and medications to a patient. Infection can occur when bacteria travel down the tube or catheter and enter the blood stream.

The cause of the decline in the infections? The Hospital initiated an infection prevention program. The new program consisted of a checklist of steps aimed at avoiding infections, ultrasound machines to help place catheters more accurately, and a computer software program that reported daily on infections and their sources.

What spurred Upstate into initiating the aggressive infection prevention program? Its embarrassingly high infection rate in 2008, one of the worst in the State!

Shame is a great motivator. And before 2005 there was no shame. That was the year New York State implemented a new law requiring the Health Department to publicly disclose all New York hospitals' infection rates. Since then, infection rates around the State have dropped dramatically. No one wants to be the "worst in the State" for infection rates!

This shame factor makes me wonder whether Syracuse New York hospital malpractice cases would decline if their medical error rates were calculated and widely published year after year, and the hospitals were "ranked" with hospitals from around the State, from best to worst, for medical mistakes. Would the worst offenders be shamed into reducing their malpractice rates? Would all hospitals reduce their medical errors if they knew their rates were to be published in local newspapers? I think so. Hey Albany, if you are reading this, let's try it and see!