"I got into an accident and was nervous about finding a personal injury attorney after hearing so many awful stories, but from the start, I felt confident with my choice in Kaplan Law, LLC." Read More - Ben
"Matt and Gillian took great care of me during a stressful time of my life. Very caring and knowledgeable group. I would definitely recommend Kaplan Law!" Read More - Kayleigh
"Incredible service and results! Matthew Kaplan and his paralegal Gillian did an amazing job for me. Not only did they resolve my case beyond my satisfaction, they also were very caring and supportive thru my recovery. I couldn't ask for a better attorney." Read More - Jamal
Matthew D. Kaplan

Late last week The Oregonian carried a report about an industrial accident in Canby that raises serious Oregon employer liability law questions. According to the newspaper a 55-year old Silverton man died “after a 1,600-pound steel plate fell from a clamp” and landed on him.

Colleagues rushed to help the stricken man, lifting the plate and administering CPR, according to the newspaper. First responders initially called for an air ambulance “just minutes later, however, firefighters cancelled the helicopter and called for a medical examiner.” The state’s Occupational Safety and Health Division has opened an investigation into the incident, but one of its most worrisome aspects, based on what we currently know, is the fact that the steel-fabrication plant in question had been cited “for three ‘serious’ violations in the last few years. This trend is particularly troubling because it is relatively new. The plant in question has operated since the 1960s, but all three of its safety citations have come in the last five years.

This raises a number of potential Oregon employer liability law issues. Oregon Revised Statutes, section 654.010, requires employers to “furnish employment and a place of employment which are safe and healthful for employees.” To achieve this employers are required to “adopt and use such practices, means, methods, operations and processes as are reasonably necessary to render such employment and place of employment safe and healthful.” Simply put, this requires employers to do everything they reasonably can to keep a workplace safe, even for workers in potentially high-risk jobs.

A report this week in The Oregonian is a welcome example of our legal system at work. The account of the conviction of a reckless Oregon hit and run driver who caused a two-vehicle crash in Tualatin is a reminder that the justice system can and does work for victims and our broader society alike.

According to the newspaper the 24-year-old man was arrested for causing the crash in a parking lot adjacent to Martinazzi Avenue in Tualatin last January. “Witnesses told police a man in a pick-up was driving erratically and struck another vehicle,” The Oregonian writes. “The suspect’s vehicle then hopped a curb near the roundabout at Southwest Avery Avenue and 86th Street and struck a road sign. Witnesses also said the driver didn’t stop for a red light” and that while doing all of this he narrowly missed a pedestrian.

Once arrested the suspect was charged with DUII, hit-and-run and reckless driving. Now, five and a half months later, he has been convicted, and will serve time in jail, pay a fine and lose his driving license for three years. The man was initially eligible for a diversion program but lost that status, according to the newspaper, when he was arrested again in February.

An Associated Press report republished by the Salem Statesman-Journal this month is distressing. According to the news agency, a 3-year-old girl was critically injured in Oregon City when the child “fell into a crawl space.”

This was not, however, an at-home accident. The crawl space was in a house that the girl’s mother was viewing along with a real estate agent. In fact, there is some evidence that the accident could have been worse. “Clackamas County fire officials say the girl was playing with her brother beneath stairs near the hatch to the crawl space” at the time of the accident, according to the news agency.

While controlling one’s children is ultimately a parent’s responsibility, the details of this Oregon child injury accident raise a number of unsettling questions related to Oregon premises liability. A homeowner who places a house on the market for sale has a responsibility to ensure that it is safe – or that potential buyers are warned well in advance that they are visiting an unsafe property. Responsibility for conveying this information to buyers and other potential visitors, in turn, passes to a real estate agent when that agent brings someone onto a property to view it. Parents viewing a potential family home should not be confronted with a safety problem of this seriousness when they are merely visiting the property for a look.

A recent Oregon car crash story in The Oregonian is relatively straightforward, and it is because of that tragic simplicity that it holds such stark lessons.

According to the newspaper four people including a child were injured last week when a driver who was allegedly following too closely behind another vehicle “slammed on the brakes of his Jeep to avoid a rear-end collision, swerved into the opposite lane of traffic and crashed into an RV towing a minivan. The jeep then struck a tree off the highway and rolled, and the RV came to a stop on top of it.”

It is worth adding that all of this took place in broad daylight – at 2:30 pm on Highway 47 near Forest Grove.

A recent article in The Oregonian offered details of an Oregon bicycle accident on North Interstate Avenue that appears to be a hit-and-run. The newspaper, citing the Portland police, reports that a 59-year-old North Portland man “was rushed to a local hospital after he was struck by a vehicle in the northbound lanes, just north of Greeley Avenue.”

The newspaper goes on to note that: “a witness described seeing a white Ford pick-up, possibly late 1970s model, driving erratically before the crash. The car did not stop after the crash… (the victim) remains in critical condition at a Portland hospital, police said.”

Incidents like this are a reminder for all of us who care about cycling that Portland’s reputation as one of the most bike-friendly cities in America is no guarantee against the irresponsibility and negligence of others. The reports that the vehicle that struck the cyclist was driving “erratically” add an additional element to this story, hinting at the possibility that this Portland bike and car accident may also be a Portland drunk driving accident. None of us can control what others do, so it is especially important that we be careful when behind the wheel and alert when on our bikes.

We all know that lobbyists carry a lot of weight in Washington, Salem and other state capitals nationwide, but the lack of political will currently on display in Salem is especially hard to watch.

At issue is House Bill 3160. According to a recent article in The Oregonian, this modification to Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act would allow “Oregonians to sue companies for not paying claims promptly, denying coverage for losses or medical bills, and other reasons.” It would, in short, end the inexcusable exemption the insurance industry has long enjoyed from public accountability for its worst excesses.

The newspaper notes that “unlike similar laws in other states, House Bill 3160 would also allow third-party defendants to sue. For instance, an auto body shop would be able to sue a customer’s car insurance company even if it wasn’t the policyholder.” Put another way: by allowing third parties who have been wronged by insurers to sue the legislation would make it harder for large insurance companies to push ordinary Oregonians around. Protections like these are absolutely necessary after the many, many excesses of the insurance industry. The Oregonian notes that similar legislation was passed at the federal level in 2007, though that law specifically exempts health insurance companies.

Perhaps we should have seen this coming. Even as consumer groups and public awareness campaigns have worked to raise awareness of distracted driving here in Oregon and elsewhere, the distractions in our cars have evolved.

That conclusion comes from a study released today by researchers at the University of Utah and reported in the Salt Lake City Tribune. As the newspaper reports, the study concludes that “these latest ‘infotainment’ features may be more fun than safe… (and) talking to your car while driving may be more distracting than chatting on a cellphone.”

According to the Tribune, the study involved monitoring the brainwaves of volunteers as they attempted a series of tasks “ranging from listening to the radio to solving a math problem to operating a speech-to-text device while staring at a cross on a blank computer screen.” Later stages of the study involved asking the same volunteers to perform the same tasks in both an auto simulator and while driving a real car. The results challenge the idea that in-car distractions are not a big problem so long as the driver can keep his or her hands on the steering wheel.

Last week I wrote about the shocking and indefensible position of some car companies and car dealers that rental vehicles should be allowed to remain on the road, and even resold, while they are subject to recall notices but not yet repaired. This week has brought more surprising and disappointing auto recall news for all of us who care about consumer safety.

According to Bloomberg News, Chrysler has taken the highly “unusual decision to buck what would be one of the largest US auto recalls.” The company rejected a request by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) “to recall 2.7 million Jeep Grand Cherokee and Liberty sport-utility vehicles made over 15 model years.” NHSTA has linked the vehicles, reported by Autoweek as the 1993-2004 Grand Cherokee and the 2002-07 Liberty, to “51 deaths in fires after rear-end collisions,” according to Bloomberg.

Chrysler’s move is an unsettling reminder of something that is often forgotten when recalls are discussed: while the government does have the authority to order product recalls in the name of consumer safety is almost never uses it. Virtually all recalls, whether of vehicles through the NHSTA or of consumer products via the Consumer Product Safety Commission, are, legally speaking, voluntary in nature and are negotiated by the government with manufacturers.

It would be fair to say that when renting a car most of us assume the car is safe. Car rental companies make you sign a document acknowledging any visible damage to the vehicle and are known to check returned vehicles carefully before sending them back out with new renters.

Did you know, however, that if the car or truck you’re renting is subject to a recall notice no law prevents a rental company from sending you out on the road in that vehicle? As a basic measure of consumer protection it sounds amazing, but, according to a recent article in the trade publication Automotive News, it is true.

Not only that, but major figures in the industry are fighting to retain their right to send customers out in unsafe vehicles. Automotive News reports that earlier this month “major automakers and auto dealers told a Senate panel… that they remain opposed to legislation that would prohibit rental car companies from renting or selling vehicles that are subject to a federal safety recall.” (car rental companies generally sell their vehicles after a year or two of use)

Here in Oregon the Memorial Day holiday weekend began with an incident that is a sad reminder of one of summer’s perils: Oregon injuries to children resulting from window falls. According to The Oregonian “a four-year-old Oregon City girl was transported to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries on Saturday after falling out of a third story window.”

Citing Clackamas fire district officials the newspaper reports that the girl is in good condition, but with the weather warming up this is a sad reminder of the danger window falls can pose to children during the summer months. Regular readers will recall that the Portland area experienced a spate of window falls last year during late June and early July. Hopefully this summer will not see a repeat of these easily preventable accidents.

As a Portland child injury attorney I have long supported, and used this blog to help publicize, SafeKids Oregon’s “Stop at 4” campaign (see link below or this post from last April). As SafeKids Oregon notes, nationwide approximately 3300 children under the age of six fall from windows every year. Many of these falls are from the second or third floor and while we can all be relieved that the Oregon City girl is now described as being in good condition it is also useful to take a moment to remember some of the key facts connected to window falls.

50 SW Pine St 3rd Floor Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 226-3844 Fax: (503) 943-6670 Email: matthew@mdkaplanlaw.com
map image