Can we protect teenage drivers from motor vehicle accidents & death?

Few rules set by parents and teens' access to their own cars might increase the risk for a car accident.
Many parents fear the day that their teenagers drive for the first time. Investigators examined the relation between access to a car and parenting style and risk for car crashes in a nationally representative survey of about 5000 students in the 9th, 10th, and 11th grades. General parenting style was determined based on adolescent reports and was categorized as authoritative (high support and high control), authoritarian (low support and high control), permissive (high support and low control), and uninvolved (low support and low control).
Teenagers who reported that they were the main drivers of a vehicle (primary access) were twice as likely to report that they had been involved in a crash during the past 12 months as teenage drivers who reported shared access to a car. Teenagers whose parents were categorized as authoritative were significantly less likely to report involvement in crashes as the driver or passenger during the past 12 months than teenagers of parents who were categorized as uninvolved, (odds ratio, 0.47 and 0.73, respectively). Teenagers with authoritarian or authoritative parents were significantly more likely than those with uninvolved parents to use seat belts as drivers and passengers.
Comment: As a father of two teenage boys who began driving during the past 3 years, I read these reports with great interest. The results suggest that parents who set few rules and give their children ready access to a car might increase the likelihood that their teenagers will have a car accident and reduce the likelihood that they will use a seat belt. My wife has been telling me that for years! Raising adolescents is fraught with challenges, some of which are to establish rules, be consistent, and not acquiesce to all requests despite protests.
— Howard Bauchner, MD
Published in Journal Watch Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine October 28, 2009

Exhibits & Admissibility: When in Doubt, Hire a Pro

Debunking the Myths of Litigation Exhibits & Presentations

I recently attended a legal conference where I discussed the services of our company – Med Art & Legal Graphics – with attorneys from across the country. It was good to see many old friends who have used our demonstrative evidence exhibits & trial presentations with much success. Still, I ran into a fair number who said, “I don’t use that kind of stuff.”

Granted, not all cases require exhibits. However, I feel I should address some…um…myths (for lack of a better term) I have heard from attorneys regarding the use of “that kind of stuff.”

This is the third in a 5-part series of the most common myths regarding the use of demonstrative exhibits and litigation presentation tools.

MYTH 3: Graphic exhibits won’t be admissible.

When exhibits are prepared by Certified Medical Illustrators, then reviewed and approved by the treating physician or other expert to be true, fair and accurate, they are always accepted into evidence.

A skilled attorney will have her/his exhibits prepared by a professional – like Med Art & Legal Graphics -- who works with experts to get the necessary approval every step of the way. This applies equally to crime scene exhibits, accident orientation depictions and all other illustrative mediums.

For those of you DIY folks, take note of what Ed Josiah of GREYHAWK North America has to say in his treatise, “Demonstrative Evidence Evidentiary Issues & Laying a Proper Foundation:”

“When casually measured and hastily prepared diagrams are used to pinpoint specific placement of crucial evidence, or to verify eyewitness visibility, they step over the boundary of their original intent and may create a false picture of the evidence.”

Don’t risk exhibit inadmissibility: Contact the professionals at Med Art & Legal Graphics Company – 888-715-0784. Or, visit our website at www.med-art.com.

Note: For statutory guidelines, see Federal Rules of Evidence 901, 902, and 1001-1004.evidence.

Day 2: Exhibits That Don't Cost an Arm & a Leg

Debunking the Myths of Litigation Exhibits & Presentations

I recently attended a legal conference in sunny Arizona where I discussed the services of our company – Med Art & Legal Graphics – with attorneys from across the country. It was good to see many old friends who have used our demonstrative evidence exhibits & trial presentations with much success. Still, I ran into a few who told me, “I don’t use that kind of stuff.”

Granted, not all cases require exhibits. However, I feel I should address these misconceptions I have heard from attorneys regarding the use of “that kind of stuff.”

This week, I will debunk the 5 most common myths. I will also provide hints to help you to clarify the facts & fortify your case through the use of demonstrative exhibits and litigation presentation tools…for all budgets.

MYTH 2: My case doesn’t warrant the expense.

Winning is the object, right? But if the jury (or settlement panel) can’t visualize the damages, why bother?

A picture’s worth a thousand words. The complexities of human anatomy escape most people – jurors & judges alike – unless they have a visual aid to guide them. A medically accurate drawing created by a Certified Medical Illustrator (CMI) and placed within the jury’s view throughout trial will have a dramatic impact… and generally for less than $1,000.

To see examples of exhibits depicting all types on anatomy, visit the “Gallery” section of our website – www.med-art.com.

Who Needs Litigation Exhibits? YOU do!!!

Debunking the Myths of Litigation Exhibits & Presentations

I recently attended a legal conference in sunny Arizona where I discussed the services of our company – Med Art & Legal Graphics – with attorneys from across the country. It was good to see many old friends who have used our demonstrative evidence exhibits & trial presentations with much success. Still, I ran into a few who told me, “I don’t use that kind of stuff.”

Granted, not all cases require exhibits. However, I feel I should address some…um…myths (for lack of a better term) I have heard from attorneys regarding the use of “that kind of stuff.”

Over the next 5 days, I will debunk the 5 most common myths. I will also provide hints to help you to clarify the facts & fortify your case through the use of demonstrative exhibits and litigation presentation tools…for all budgets.

MYTH 1: We don’t go to trial, so we don’t need big, splashy graphics.

Splashy graphics? Probably not. However, you still need to present your case in a concise & compelling manner. Fumbling around with boxes of documents and MRI films in a manila folder is a red flag to opposing counsel: You might as well go to Kinkos & buy a banner saying “I am sooo not ready to go to trial!”

We offer many options that communicate the facts of the case in mediation/settlement while sending the clear message, “We’re ready, bring it on!” Briefly, in order of expense…

o Illustration (or “board”): We can take stock art and make minimal modifications, or enhance xrays/MRI films, to present a clear picture of the injury(s) in your case at a very modest price.

o Interactive PDF Presentation: These incorporate all case facts – depo clips, accident scene photos, before/after pix, photos, enhanced films, EFM strips, comprehensive depiction of injuries – in easy-to-use file that you can email, burn to disc or simply pull up with no special software. The PDFs are so easy to work with, they make TrialDirector look like quantum physics! And they’re surprisingly affordable.

o Day-In-the-Life/Wrongful Death Video: We take photos, video footage, family interviews, depo clips, medical records and all other relevant information… and put it together into a well-scripted, compelling presentation for display via video screen or laptop. And the price would surprise you: The benefits far outweigh the cost.

Many other options exist that fall in between these there basic levels of communication in terms of simplicity and cost. Med Art & Legal Graphics provides free, no-obligation quotes to determine the appropriate medium given your case facts and budget.

To see an example of an Interactive PDF Presentation, email me at lauraquine@med-art.com.

Photos & Admissability in the Courtroom

The following article, courtesy of Caught.net, discusses the use of photos in the courtroom and issues surrounding admissibility.

Med Art & Legal Graphics Co. are experts in the preparation of demonstrative evidence exhibits and creation of compelling presentations for trial, mediation and settlement. With more than 20 years in the legal arena, producing everything from basic boards & medical illustrations to state-of-the-art interactive trial presentations, we know what works!

For a free consultation on your next case, contact us at 888-715-0784 or visit us on the web at www.med-art.com.

Photographs

A trial attorney holding a photograph in his hand and approaching a witness with it will undoubtedly catch the attention of the jury, opposing counsel, and the judge. All present will tend to lean forward as the lawyer shows the photograph to the witness. Photographs tend to be extremely powerful pieces of evidence. After all, "one photograph is worth a thousand words." Before a photograph may be used at trial, it must first be admitted in evidence.

Photographs are admissible in civil trials if they are relevant. For a photograph to be deemed relevant, a trial attorney must argue that the photograph tends to prove or disprove a material fact in the case. See, Fla.R.Civ.Pro. Rule 90.401 and Fla.R.Evid. §90.401. Nevertheless, before a photograph is admitted into evidence, it must first be authenticated; thus, the proper foundation must be established.

Contrary to the belief of many practicing attorneys, the photographer does not need to be called as a witness before a photograph may be allowed into evidence. All that is necessary, is that a witness with knowledge, testify that the photograph fairly and accurately represents the condition, product, person or scene that it depicts. City of Miami v. McKorkle, 199 So.2d 575 (Fla. 1940). Once the witness authenticating the photograph establishes that the photograph correctly and accurately depicts what the witness has previously seen, then the photograph is admissible. If more than one photograph is shown to the witness for purposes of authentication, the lawyer must ask the witness to identify and authenticate each photograph before showing the photographs to the jury.

If the photograph was taken long after the incident in question, this does not mean that the photograph is inadmissible; however, the witness must establish that the conditions depicted in the photograph did not change from how they appeared at the time at issue. If the conditions in the photograph depict something different than what appeared at the time in question, then the photograph may be declared inadmissible if it lacks probative value as a result of the changes, or if the probative value is out-weighed by prejudice to the jury. Pensacola Inn, Ltd. v. Tuthill, 404 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).Questions regarding who took the photograph, how it was taken, from what angle it was shot, what the lighting was like, the film quality and other matters do not go towards the admissibility of the photograph. Those matters are directed towards the weight and credibility of the evidence offered. Those types of questions are proper subjects for cross-examination. Channewacker v. City of Jacksonville Beach, et al., 419 So.2d 308 (Fla. 1982).

Gruesome photographs showing grotesque scenes, severely injured and bloody people, and other potentially offensive depictions are generally admissible on the same grounds as photographs depicting other matters if they are relevant. See Wilson v. State, 436 So.2d 908 (Fla. 1983). Gruesome photographs are admissible if they truly and accurately depict a material fact in question at the trial. Id. For example, the cause of death, the type of injury, the location of injury, the extent of injury, and the intent of the defendant among other related things. See Lewis v. State, 566 So.2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Nevertheless, pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.Pro. Rule 90.403 and Fla.R.Evid. 403, a defendant may move to exclude a gruesome photograph on the basis that its probative value is greatly out- weighed by prejudice to the defendant. If it appears that the only reason the photograph is being used is to inflame, shock, or excite the jury, then the photograph should be excluded as more prejudicial than probative. Lewis, 566 So.2d at 272; Also See, Gore v. State, 475 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 1985).

Evidentiary photographs are extremely effective tools that will greatly assist the trial attorney in presenting his case. In order to ensure the admission of the desired photographs in evidence, the lawyer should decide early in the legal proceedings what photographs he intends to use during the trial, what order he intends on introducing them, and what witnesses will authenticate the photographs. The trial practitioner should also review all photographs that may be introduced at trial against him and, if possible, prepare a written motion in limine on the basis of prejudice to prevent the damaging photographs from being introduced at trial.