Archive for December, 2011

McDonald’s Scalding Coffee Lawsuit: The Real Story

Thursday, December 29th, 2011

Almost everyone has heard the popular but inaccurate version of the McDonald’s scalding coffee lawsuit that became the rallying cry for big business and others that put profits above public safety.  The facts of the case were spun by media sources and big business lobbying groups to such a degree that what most people think they know is very different from the actual facts.

The first issue that has been misrepresented is that this was a “hot coffee case” because the coffee in the case was actually scalding.  McDonalds’ indicated that they had a policy in place that their coffee must be maintained at a temperature between 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit whereas coffee at home is typically maintained at temperature of 135-140 degrees Fahrenheit.  At the temperature that McDonalds’ admitted to keeping its coffee, an expert testified that a full thickness burn (third degree burn) would occur in less than seven seconds.

Many are under the misconception that the burn victim was driving a car and juggling coffee.  In fact, the burn victim was a passenger and the vehicle was stopped so that the victim could add cream and sugar to her coffee.  The cup that was between her legs tipped spilling the entire contents of the styrofoam cup into her lap.  Because the 79-year-old woman was wearing sweat pants, the material held the scalding coffee against the victim’s flesh.  She received third-degree burns over six percent of her body, including her genital, inner groins, thighs and buttock areas.  The burn victim was forced to stay in the hospital for eight days and received multiple skin grafts and debridement treatments.

During the discovery process in the case, it was revealed that McDonalds’ was aware of 700 other victims that had suffered similar serious burns during the ten preceding years but had refused to reduce the scalding temperature of its coffee.  A McDonalds’ representative also acknowledged that the coffee was not fit for human consumption at the temperature it was provided because it would severely burn the mouth and throat.  The same witness also indicated that McDonald’s had no intention of reducing the temperature of its coffee even after the injuries suffered by the victim in this lawsuit.

The burn victim had offered to settle the case for $20,000, but McDonald’s refused to settle the lawsuit.  Many media reports of the case shaped by advocates of big business misleadingly characterized this case as awarding “millions for hot coffee burns.”  These accounts not only drastically understated the serious nature of the victim’s burns but also overstated the actual financial compensation received by the burn victim.  The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury also assigned a percentage of fault to the burn victim.  The media also widely reported that the jury awarded $2.6 million in punitive damages (2 days of profits from McDonald’s coffee sales), but it generally was not widely reported that this punitive damage award was reduced to $480,000 by the trial judge.

The McDonalds’ case is notable for its prominence, but other similar cases are promoted by big business in the media as justifying tort reform.  The McDonalds’ case is an example of the misrepresentations often used to persuade the public that personal injury lawsuits should be more difficult to bring and result in less recovery.  The reality is that many times these limits, which often include damage caps, prevent victims from receiving the full compensation necessary to rebuild their lives after devastating injuries that permanently alter an injury victim’s life.  The experienced Mississippi personal injury attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to personal injury victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

New Year’s Fatalities Provide Reminder that Most Accidents Are the Product of Human Error

Wednesday, December 28th, 2011

While this New Year’s holiday period was marked by tragedy, the initial reports from the Highway Patrol are more positive than might be expected.  The Mississippi Highway Patrol has reported that there were only traffic related fatalities during the New Year’s weekend.  While this is encouraging news, it remains tragic news for the families of those who lost a loved one in a New Year’s accident and the many others who suffered serious injuries in such accidents.  The most dismaying aspect of these car accidents and other fatal collisions in Mississippi is that virtually all of these accidents are preventable.

The vast majority of Mississippi motor vehicle accidents are the product of human error in the form of inattentive or unsafe driving.  If all drivers obeyed Mississippi traffic regulations and rules of the road, Mississippi motor vehicle accidents could be reduced to a negligible level.  While some motor vehicle accidents are caused by other factors like dangerous roads and defective motor vehicle components, human error accounts for the majority of traffic related fatalities and life-altering injuries.

There are many variations of human error that contribute to serious Mississippi car accidents including the following:

  • Fatigued or drowsy driving
  • Distracted driving
  • Failure to observe right of way rules
  • Driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol (DUI/DWI)
  • Speeding
  • Aggressive driving
  • Weaving in and out of traffic
  • Tailgating

These are a few examples of the kind of avoidable driving conduct that account for needless loss of life and catastrophic injuries.  Drunk driving and distracted driving alone account for over half of all traffic related fatalities.  This means that sober drivers that devote their full attention to their driving can play a substantial role in making Mississippi roads safer.  If a driver engages in any of these unsafe driving behaviors, the driver may be liable for any injuries or loss of life caused by the unsafe or inattentive driver.

Some of these driving behaviors are particularly unacceptable and may also justify punitive damages against a driver who causes a Mississippi car accident.  Examples of such behavior might include intoxicated driving, reckless driving (e.g. street racing), aggressive driving and similar driving conduct that essentially demonstrate a conscious disregard for the safety of others.  A court may award punitive damages to provide an incentive to avoid similar conduct in the future and to punish particularly unsafe and objectionable conduct.  The experienced Mississippi car accident attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to victims of unsafe and inattentive drivers for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

Fatal Pit Bull Mauling Shows Dangers Associated with Dogs with History of Aggression

Tuesday, December 27th, 2011

A dog attack case in Texas that resulted in a jury verdict of $10 million demonstrates the key evidentiary issues that are critical in a dog bite case.  In this tragic case, a ten-year-old boy was viciously attacked and killed by a pit bull.  Critical evidence in dog mauling cases in Mississippi include past incidents of aggressive behavior by a dog or prior dog bites.  The boy in the fatal Texas dog attack was visiting family friends when he was fatally attacked and mauled by the pit bull.  Evidence was presented at trial that the dog had been involved in biting incidents on three prior occasions, including one involving the victim of the fatal pit bull attack.  The trial also included evidence that the family friends that owned the dog had told the victim not to report the prior bite incident to his parents.

While any fatal dog attack is tragic, this incident is particularly upsetting because the defendants in the case had plenty of notice that their pit bull posed a potential danger.  This constitutes the rationale for the traditional “one bite rule”, which is still the law in Mississippi.  The designation of the rule as a one bite rule is somewhat misleading because it does not mean that a dog owner gets “one free bite” as it is sometimes described.  The key to the one bite rule is that an owner should be on notice that one’s dog has a tendency to be aggressive or vicious.  The one bite rule imposes liability on a dog owner that knows or should know that their dog has vicious tendencies.  This means that if a dog has exhibited prior aggressive behavior, such as lunging, biting or similar behavior a dog owner can be liable for injuries caused in a subsequent dog attack incident.

A case like this one goes further and may even justify punitive damages.  The dog owners not only had sufficient evidence of the pit bull’s violent tendencies but were aware that the dog had even attacked the same victim on a prior occasion.  The act of persuading the young boy not to notify his parents of the prior dog biting incident may have directly led to the tragedy.  The parents of the boy may well have taken action to prevent the boy from being exposed to a future attack had the prior dog attack not been covered up.  The irresponsible conduct of covering up the prior dog attack is the type of reckless and unethical conduct that may be the basis for punitive damages.  Punitive damages are intended to discourage such egregious conduct and punish wrongful conduct.

If you or a close family member is injured in a dog attack in Mississippi, it is essential that an investigation be conducted to determine if the dog that attacked you has a prior propensity for viciousness.  Even if such evidence cannot be discovered, a dog owner may still be liable for injuries caused by a dog attack if actual negligence of the dog owner can be established or a violation of a leash law can be proven.   The experienced Mississippi dog attack attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to dog attack victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

 

Defective Tires May Cause Serious Mississippi Car Accidents

Monday, December 26th, 2011

China has surged in the production and exportation of manufactured products including tires, but tires like other products imported by China sometimes lack the quality control and workmanship to make them safe.  While defective products imported from China have routinely made recent news reports, the prospect of injury from defective tires may be more concerning than other reports of defective products manufactured in China.  Some manufacturers of motor vehicles in the U.S. have chosen to outsource the production of tire valve stems to a China company that has produced defective valve stems, which have been installed on millions of new cars manufactured in the U.S.  The defective tire valve stems have already prompted a Florida wrongful death lawsuit.

These defective tire valve stems were manufactured by Top Seal, which is a subsidiary of Shanghai based Baolong Industries.  The valve stems have become a major issue because the faulty tire valve stems have been used in tires by major tire retailers, such as Discount Tire Stores.  These defective valve stems increase the risk of a tire blowout, which may result in a loss of control, run off the road or roll over accident.  The defect has been determined to have been caused by erroneous mixing of the rubber during the fabrication process.

There are a number of factors that contribute to Mississippi car accidents caused by defective tires.  These defects include the following:

Tire Tread Separation: This defect is caused by inadequate bonding of the tire tread to the steel belt when the tire is manufactured.  Tread separation has been the cause of numerous tire recalls and may be the cause of a rollover accident.  The risk posed by tire tread separation is particularly dangerous when the vehicle involved is an SUV or 15-passenger van with a high center of gravity.  These types of vehicles are particularly susceptible to rollover accidents that are often caused by tire blowouts.

Old Tires: Tires undergo chemical changes over time so old tires are more prone to blowouts.  Sometimes a tire remains in the inventory of a tire company for an extended period; the manufacturer or retailer may be liable if the tire blows out because a tire was actually much older than represented when the tire was purchased.  If the tire is old, it does not matter if there is a lot of tread and the tire does not look worn.

Selling Used Tires as New: If you purchase tires that are marketed by the retailer as new but are really used tires, you may have a legal claim against the retailer and others if it causes a Mississippi car accident.

If you or a close family member has suffered severe injuries or you have lost a loved one in a Mississippi motor vehicle accident caused by a tire blowout, you may be entitled to damages for your injuries. The experienced Mississippi personal injury attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to Mississippi car accident victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

The Critical Role of Jury Instructions in Mississippi Personal Injury Lawsuits

Friday, December 23rd, 2011

Many that have served on jury duty or that have watched a crime drama on television are aware that before a jury deliberates they are given instructions by the judge.  These instructions often are written in legalese and difficult for the jury to understand when analyzing the facts in a Mississippi personal injury lawsuit.  The jury instructions often have a critical impact on the outcome of jury deliberations.  The exact set of instructions with which the jury will be charged is typically a point of contention because of the influence of jury instructions on the verdict in a Mississippi personal injury trial.

A recent case involving a court’s instruction to the jury on the issue of comparative negligence serves as an excellent example of the important role that jury instructions pay in the outcome of a personal injury lawsuit.  In Wansley vs. Brent (Miss. App., 2011), the plaintiff challenged the instruction given in a personal injury lawsuit involving a tractor-trailer accident because the judge instructed the jury that it could find either that the plaintiff was negligent or that the defendant was negligent.  The court was persuaded by the plaintiff’s argument that the “either-or” formulation for determining the negligence of the parties confused the jury regarding its ability to find both parties shared fault.

The court also noted that this either-or formulation when combined with the trial judge’s decision not to provide a comparative fault instruction confused the jury regarding its ability to apportion fault between the plaintiff and defendant.  The statute covering apportionment of fault when there is negligence by both the plaintiff and defendant in Mississippi is Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-7-15 (Rev. 2004) which provides in pertinent part that “In all actions hereafter brought for personal injuries, . . ., the fact that the person injured, . . . may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person injured . . . .”

This principal was clarified by the Mississippi Supreme Court which held that Mississippi is a “pure comparative fault state.”  This means that if a plaintiff shares fault for causing his or her own injuries fault is apportioned between the plaintiff and defendant.  Rather than barring a Mississippi personal injury victim from all recovery for one’s injuries, this doctrine results in a reduction in recovery to the plaintiff in proportion to the fault assigned to the plaintiff.  Even if the plaintiff is found to be 95 percent at fault for causing his or her own injuries, the plaintiff can still recover five percent of the amount of damages awarded by the jury.

The failure of the trial judge to provide the jury with instructions that explained the application of comparative fault, combined with the trial judge’s “either-or” formulation for determining liability by the plaintiff and defendant, resulted in the appellate court reversing the case.  This is an example of the impact of a misleading jury instruction that confuses the jury into thinking it is limited to a determination of negligence entirely by one party as opposed to the jury’s ability to reduce the amount of the recovery but still compensate a personal injury victim based on the degree of fault by the defendant.  This confusion was manifest in a jury question directed to the judge during deliberations inquiring as to whether the jury could award a lesser dollar amount.

If you are injured in a Mississippi motor vehicle accident or by any other form of negligent conduct by a third party, you may be entitled to compensation for your injuries even if you were partially at fault.  The experienced Mississippi car accident attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to car accident victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

Communication Technology in Operating Rooms: Useful Tool or Dangerous Distraction

Thursday, December 22nd, 2011

While there has been substantial media coverage regarding distracted driving, there is another dangerous activity that can result in serious injury when someone is not paying full attention that has received far less publicity.  The activity is distracted surgery.  Although you may find it hard to believe that a surgeon in a hospital operating room would permit oneself to be distracted while performing surgery, this is an increasing problem resulting in both serious injury and even wrongful death according to a growing number of studies and pending lawsuits.

One recent example involves a Colorado surgeon who settled a medical malpractice lawsuit that involved serious injuries caused by a distracted physician.  The lawsuit alleged that the neurosurgeon made ten personal and business cell phone calls during the surgical procedure.  The patient was partially paralyzed during the operation.  The lawsuit settled for an undisclosed amount.  There are an increasing number of medical professionals that are multi-tasking, such as emailing, texting and posting to social networks while performing medical examinations and procedures.  Some of the reports of this dangerous form of multi-tasking come from doctors and other medical staff.

Although portable electronic devices may serve legitimate functions during a medical procedure, including performing medical research like access to information about drugs or case studies, the presence of these devices creates a temptation to use them for illegitimate purposes that leads to doctors and support staff having their attention divided.  Fifty percent of all heart monitoring technicians engaged in monitoring heart bypass machines admitted to talking on cell phones during heart bypass surgery according to a study published in the heart surgery medical journal Perfusion.  The results are even more concerning because forty percent of those who engaged in this practice admit knowing it is wrong.

The problem is expected to get worse before it gets better.  Doctors are increasingly using communication technology, which can improve access to information and patient care that may also lead to distractions that can result in medical mistakes.  If a doctor fails to provide medical care that meets established professional standards for the medical specialty and geographic location, an injured patient may have the right to pursue a medical malpractice claim to obtain reasonable compensation.  While hospitals that employ doctors may also be liable for such injuries, the doctor may only have privileges in the hospital complicating attempts to obtain fair compensation for one’s injuries.

If you or someone close to you have been injured by medical malpractice by a distracted surgeon or other medical professional, our experienced Mississippi medical malpractice lawyers at Barrett Law may be able to represent you in a Mississippi medical malpractice lawsuit.  The experienced Mississippi medical malpractice attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to medical malpractice victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

Civil Lawsuit Can Provide Justice When Criminal System Fails

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011

While those who drive under the influence of alcohol (DUI) pose a serious risk to others with who they share Mississippi roadways, the criminal justice system is designed to help victims of intoxicated drivers obtain justice.  Unfortunately, the standard of proof in criminal court which is beyond a reasonable doubt can make it hard to obtain such justice.  When the criminal system fails to punish those who engage in the reckless practice of driving while intoxicated, a civil lawsuit can serve multiple functions including punishing the wrongdoer, discouraging similar reckless conduct in the future and obtaining compensation for Mississippi DUI accident victims.

A recent case illustrates the failings of the criminal law system in obtaining justice for accident victims.   A Jackson woman who was involved in a DUI accident that resulted in serious injury to a motorcyclist in 2009 may end up facing no punishment through the criminal justice system.  After two prior attempts to convict her of aggravated DUI (DUI with injury) resulted in a hung jury, the Hinds County District said he doubts the woman will be prosecuted again.  It is important to keep in mind that the burden of proof is extremely high in a criminal case whereas all that must be shown in a civil lawsuit is that it is “more likely than not.”

The accident occurred when the woman allegedly made a left hand turn in front of the motorcyclist.  Two witnesses at the trial indicated that the woman caused the accident when she turned in front of the motorcyclist.  There was also no dispute that the woman was intoxicated.  The woman’s blood alcohol level tested at .13 percent when tested following the accident.  The police officer that investigated the accident concluded from witness statements and investigation of the accident that the woman caused the collision with the motorcycle by failing to yield.

It is important to note that perhaps the woman was not convicted because there was simply insufficient evidence that she was at-fault.  However, the lower standard of proof in a civil case can make a significant difference in outcome.  If the district attorney decides not to retry the defendant, the injury victim who suffered serious injury may bring a civil lawsuit to seek financial compensation for his injuries.  There are many situations where there is not enough evidence to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, but there is enough evidence to meet the lower burden of proof in a personal injury civil lawsuit.

While “monetary justice” may not be as satisfying to the victim of a person who causes injury by engaging in unsafe conduct, a substantial verdict or settlement against a drunken driver may result in some form of punishment and deterrent to such behavior in the future.  It may also provide the vital financial compensation that an injury victim needs in the wake of suffering serious injuries.  The experienced Mississippi personal injury attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to DUI car accident victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

The High Risk of Overloaded Tractor-Trailers

Tuesday, December 20th, 2011

A fully loaded tractor-trailer may weigh as much as forty tons making it an extremely dangerous weapon in the hands of an inexperienced or careless driver.  The massive weight of a tractor-trailer makes it less responsive and much more likely to cause serious collisions that may result in permanent debilitating injuries.  Despite the inherent risk associated with these heavy vehicles, the pressure to increase profits sometimes entices trucking companies to overload tractor-trailers.  The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration promulgates regulations regarding safe loads and the maximum weight of tractor-trailers.  Tractor-trailers are subject to periodic inspection and are equipped with a data recorder that can be used to determine that a vehicle is overloaded.

There are a number of specific ways that overloading a tractor-trailer may contribute to a collision.  Many tractor-trailer accidents are caused by brake malfunction or failure.  When a tractor-trailer is overloaded it puts more stress on the brakes and creates a greater likelihood that brake will fail.  The increased weight also increases the distance that a tractor-trailer needs to stop to avoid a collision and makes it more difficult to maneuver to avoid an obstacle.  A tractor-trailer that is overloaded is also difficult to control when descending from an incline.  An overloaded truck also increases the probability of tire blowouts that play a factor in many commercial trucking accidents.

The enormous mass of an overloaded truck often causes fatal collisions or catastrophic injuries like spinal cord injuries, traumatic head injuries, broken bones, internal organ damage and amputation injuries.  The financial costs associated with medical treatment for severe injuries like these can financially cripple a family.  If the family member who is injured in a tractor-trailer collision with an overloaded truck is a primary wage earner, a personal injury recovery may be necessary for a family to maintain its standard of living.

If you or close family member is injured in a Mississippi tractor-trailer collision, the experienced trucking lawyers at Barrett Law have the experience and knowledge of trucking industry regulations and customs.  We understand the tactics used by trucking companies to avoid liability and work diligently to obtain the compensation that our trucking accident injury clients need to move past their accident.  The experienced Mississippi tractor-trailer attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to trucking accident victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

Dental Negligence More Serious Problem than Many Think

Monday, December 19th, 2011

People throughout Mississippi make regular visits to the dentist, and many young adults are told that they need to have their wisdom teeth extracted.  When parents take their teenagers to an oral surgeon, they typically do not view this type of dental procedure as having the same types of risk that are generally associated with surgical procedures on other parts of the body.  However, the reality is that the dangers and risks are much more similar than many people realize.  The single biggest danger when many surgical procedures are conducted is the safe administration of anesthesia.  This common line between oral surgical procedures and other surgeries means that the risk of serious injury or even wrongful death is present.

The family of high school teenager Jenny Olenick learned of these dangers first hand when their daughter tragically died following oral surgery to remove her wisdom teeth.  Jenny’s parents have filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the dentist and the anesthesiologist negligence.  General anesthetic is dangerous because a patient’s breathing functions may be suppressed so a patient receiving general anesthetic typically is intubated, which means providing oxygen artificially.  When this process is not done correctly or the patient is not properly monitored, the patient can suffer hypoxia, which is an interruption of oxygen to a particular part of the body like the brain.

Jenny’s parents have filed a lawsuit based on the failure of the dentist or anesthesiologist to properly administer resuscitation when her oxygen and heart rate levels declined dramatically.  The lawsuit further alleges that had prompt efforts been made to resuscitate the teen she would not have suffered severe hypoxia to the brain, which ultimately resulted in her tragic death.

This case is receiving national attention and has drawn criticism toward the dental and oral surgery profession because some argue that most wisdom teeth extractions constitute surgeries that are not necessary.  These critics point out that the risk associated with the oral surgical procedure outweigh any therapeutic benefit.  Most wisdom teeth extractions are performed as a type of preventative measure.  The purpose of preventative dental extraction of wisdom teeth is to prevent damage to other teeth and nerves or to cause infection that may spread.  However, this occurs in less than 15 percent of all cases according to one expert and former California dentist.  This same expert estimates that as many as two-thirds of all wisdom tooth extractions are not necessary.

Dental negligence can cause serious injury including nerve damage, brain infections, damaged teeth, hypoxia and potentially fatal bleeding.  If you or someone you love has been injured because of dental negligence, our experienced Mississippi negligence lawyers at Barrett Law are committed to seeking compensation for victims of dental malpractice.  The experienced Mississippi dental malpractice attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to dental malpractice victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.

Liability of an Employer for an Employee’s Car Accident

Friday, December 16th, 2011

Many people are involved in collisions with people that are driving company vehicles.  These may be either employees of private companies or public employees.  While a driver may be liable for injuries even if the driver is engaged in employment and driving a company car, there are many situations where the company that employs the driver is a more feasible defendant.  An employee may not have insurance and may have limited assets to pay a personal injury judgment.  While you may be able to successfully pursue a claim against the driver’s employer in such situations, this is not always the case.  This issue is particularly relevant with the growing trend of cell phone use for calling and texting while employees are working.

Texting or talking on a cell phone when driving is a visual, mental and physical distraction that creates a significant risk of being involved in a collision.  An employee generally is liable for injuries caused to third parties in an auto accident if the injuries occurred in the “scope of employment.”  This essentially means that the employee is doing something that is beneficial to one’s employer.  The trip does not have to have been specifically requested nor does it even need to occur during business hours.  If an employee decides to pick up blueprints on the way home from the office to save one’s employer a trip, this may be sufficient to be within the scope of employment.  If an employee is in an accident while on the way to the grocery store after getting fast food for oneself while driving home from work, this generally is not within the scope of employment.  There is lots of grey area between these two scenarios so it is a good idea to seek legal advice from an experienced Mississippi personal injury lawyer in either situation.

If any employer encourages their employee to use their phone while on the road or tacitly approves such conduct, this may serve as a basis for finding an employer liable if the employee is conducting some form of company business.  However, even if an employer does not specifically instruct an employee to use a cell phone or provide a company phone, this does not necessarily mean that an employer is not liable for an auto accident involving an employee.  In such situations, our experienced Mississippi car accident lawyers will carefully investigate to determine the employer’s policies regarding cell phone use when driving, enforcement of such policies and the purpose of the driving excursion.  Because the factual scenarios can be extremely complex, these cases often turn on their individual facts.

If you are involved in a Mississippi car accident with an employee of a company, the experienced personal injury attorneys at Barrett Law can evaluate the circumstances of your Mississippi car accident so that we can advise you of your rights and options. The experienced Mississippi car accident attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to car accident victims for over 75 years.  We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.