Doesn’t this sentence describe our collective attachment and sentiment today toward these devices?  It’s hard to deny that The Cell Phone has become so weaved into our daily—even hourly or “by the minute”–existence that an increasingly overwhelming majority of us have difficulty remembering how we functioned without it.

And it’s hard to deny that increasing numbers of us are using this device while we’re driving.

And up to now, different states, regions and municipalities have adopted different regulations ranging from restrictions on cell phone texting to outright bans on hand-held cell phone use.

But now, a federal agency is calling for the game to change nationwide. The Associated Press reports in a recent article that The National Transportation Safety Board has recently recommended that all states impose total bans on all cell phone use while driving, including the use of hands-free cell phones. This recommendation is prompted by recent deadly crashes attributable in whole or part to cell phone use, and increasingly alarming statistics from surveys about such use in cars nationwide.

A recent survey conducted by The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that at any given moment last year on America’s streets and highways, nearly one in every 100 car drivers was texting, emailing, surfing the Web or otherwise using a hand-held electronic device—and those activities were up 50 percent over the previous year.

 This survey also shows that about two out of 10 American drivers overall – and half of drivers between 21 and 24 – say they’ve texted messages or emailed from the driver’s seat.

However, the survey found that many drivers don’t think it’s dangerous when they do it – only when others do.

Does the game need changing? Is the increased convenience and productivity that cell phone use gives us behind the wheel worth the increased risk of potential calamity we could cause? Should all cell phone use while driving be against the law? Should just hand-held cell phone use be illegal? Or should the law only prohibit cell-phone texting by drivers? What are your thoughts? It may very well be that either you or your elected representatives will be asked to vote on these questions in the not too distant future.

A recent article in USA Today points to statistics indicating that one in seven drivers is now uninsured, and that number is growing. And the ratio of uninsured drivers  is frighteningly higher in a number of states.  For example, it is estimated in Mississippi that the percentage of uninsured drivers in the state has already reached 28%!

This page has in past posts referenced the growing problem of uninsured drivers, as well as the tremendous benefit, particularly relative to the low additional cost, of uninsured/underinsured motorists coverage. If you have any doubt in your mind as to whether you are carrying this coverage, or any questions about the coverage  and amounts you do have, today might be a good time to contact your insurance agent–it appears that tomorrow the need for this coverage will be even greater.

Question: Can I get sued if I hit somebody or something with my shot? How about if I yell ‘fore’? Am I excused then?

Answer: it depends. Specifically, it depends on the status of the “somebody or something” that you hit.

Generally, if you hit and injure somebody on a golf course who is playing or watching golf, you can‘t be held responsible for their injury. The Ohio Supreme Court decided in the case of Thompson v. McNeill, 53 Ohio St. 3d 102 (1990) that fellow golfers and spectators on the course assume the risk that comes with your errant golf shots. However, the Thompson court stated there’s an exception for people directly in front of you: “If, for example, a golfer knows another is within the line of flight of his shot and fails to offer the customary warning of “fore,” liability might accrue. Such conduct could amount to reckless indifference to the rights of others.” And the court ruled that you can be held responsible for injuries flowing from such “recklessness” on a golf course.

But how about if you’re next to a road, and your shot flies out onto the road and hits a car? Can you be held responsible for the damage to the car? Yes. Why? Again, the answer lies in the status of what you hit. The Thompson court explained by analogy the difference in the duty owed by you to someone/something off the course: “For instance, a golfer who hits practice balls in his backyard and inadvertently hits a neighbor who is gardening or mowing the lawn next door must be held to a different standard than a golfer whose drive hits another golfer on a golf course. A principal difference is the golfer’s duty to the one he hit. The neighbor, unlike the other golfer or spectator on the course, has not agreed to participate or watch and cannot be expected to foresee or accept the attendant risk of injury.”

Last question: What kind of protection do I have if someone wants to hold me responsible for such injury/damage?

Answer: a typical homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy will cover and protect you against any such claims. And  if you golf, you know that getting this kind of protection is probably a much safer bet than relying on your skill in hitting the ball straight and true every time.

More than 50 years ago the “charitable immunity” doctrine, which had immunized non-profit hospitals from lawsuits for injuries caused by their negligence, was eliminated by the Ohio Supreme Court because of the widespread availability of liability insurance to protect hospitals’ nonprofit assets. Today, “nonprofit” physician groups do not staff emergency rooms across the state. All physicians can readily avail themselves of liability insurance to protect themselves and their patients. And the expense of obtaining such insurance is far offset by the gain to Ohio citizens who receive protection when they are injured because of something that their physician did wrong. It also eliminates the anomaly of a select and financially prosperous group being absolved of responsibility for their wrongdoing, while all others must be held legally accountable for injuries when they do wrong. 

Call your state senator or representative and urge them to vote against this bill. It would give emergency room physicians a free pass at the expense of Ohio citizens and taxpayers.

CPSC has warned consumers to stop using these recalled products immediately.

But from the standpoint of a consumer, by far the most important decision they will make involves the Michigan Supreme Court.

For the past two years the court has issued a series of consumer-friendly decisions. Leading the way is the case of McCormick v. Carrier, which relaxed a legal standard for auto injury claims that had been considered a draconian pro-insurance industry standard by many consumer groups.

McCormick and other pro-consumer decisions had been written by a four person majority which included Justice Elizabeth Weaver, who has recently retired from the Court and has been replaced by Michigan appellate judge Alton ‘Tom’ Davis, appointed to the Court  in September.  Justice Davis had issued numerous appellate decisions at odds with the former perceived anti-consumer Supreme Court faction.  He is now running for election to the Court for his own seat  against Mary Beth Kelly, a Wayne county judge. The other Supreme Court seat up for grabs pits Michigan appeals Judge Denise Langford-Morris against Justice Robert Young, Jr.  Both Judge Kelly and Justice Young are considered by Democrats as pro-business judges who decide cases regularly against consumers.

Will Justice Davis and Judge Langford-Morris be elected to Michigan’s Supreme Court, continuing it on the same consumer-oriented tack?  Or will Justice Young and Judge Kelly be elected and reverse course to make decisions which consistently fall in favor of the insurance industry? Stay tuned.

The CPSC reports that, on average, one child dies every two weeks due to “tipover” incidents in the home, with more than 16,000 injuries  suffered by children under 8 years of age since 2006. 

For more information about this hazard and the CPSC’s recommended  quick and easy safety tips , check out this CPSC article.

They’re both the subjects of outright fabricated stories otherwise known as “urban legends”.

Claim: Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States.  The facts are that Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate has been proven to be legitimate, and that a purported Kenyan birth certificate produced by “birther” Orly Taitz has been proven to be a forgery. But why let facts get in the way of a good story?

Claim: A lady got 6 million dollars when a runaway jury made McDonald’s pay her that amount because she spilled their hot coffee on herself while she was driving. The facts are that she got $160,000 dollars in compensatory damages, she wasn’t driving, the car was parked, the coffee was 40-50 degrees hotter than the temperature at which liquid burns human skin, McDonald’s had received more than 700 complaints from consumers and hospital burn units about their coffee temperature before this incident occurred but refused to turn down the temperature, she received third degree burns to her buttocks, genital and groin areas for which she was hospitalized, and the adjusted punitive damage award was less than $500,000. But why let facts get in the way of a good story?

 For a good source to fact-check these and other stories that smack of  Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness”, check out snopes.com.

This recall involves only BlackBerry®-branded batteries provided with refurbished Blackberry®-branded devices. The refurbished devices were sent to consumers by Asurion through a handset protection program. The batteries were used across virtually all models of refurbished BlackBerry devices distributed by Asurion prior to November 1, 2009. Genuine Blackberry-branded batteries are not included in this recall. No other Asurion or BlackBerry products are involved in this recall.