Some find it easy to blame complicated economic and societal problems on "greedy trial lawyers".  I admit, some product warning labels I have encountered seem pretty silly.  However, when I consider that many warning labels result from dead children and inconsolable parents, it doesn't seem as bad.  The fact is, many of the safety enhancements we rely upon to protect us from needless death or serious injury came about because of lawsuits filed by lawyers.  Without lawsuits, we may be left to rely upon manufacturers to do the right thing, or upon "the government" to uncover the problem and protect us.  I don't feel comfortable with either scenario.

Many of us remember the example of Ford Motor Company and their "exploding" Pintos.  Ford reportedly decided that there was an acceptable number of people who could burn to death in its vehicles.  Retrofitting a design
alteration would have prevented gasoline from saturating Ford's customers during rear-end collisions.    

Prior to a month ago, we were probably thinking such a thing could never happen in modern America.  Then we find that GM has over the last 9 years been hiding an ignition defect at the expense of its customers' lives.
 (Two weeks ago Toyota was ordered to pay the biggest fine ever levied for its "sudden acceleration" antics.)  What is not widely know or appreciated, however, is that a trial lawyer, one Lance Cooper of Georgia, is almost single-handedly responsible for uncovering GM's deception.  NHSTA, the governmental entity we rely upon to discover and protect us from such defects, never connected the dots.  It took a trial lawyer, presumably one trying to get money, to bring this atrocity to light.  Watch this video to learn more. 

I am not apologizing for all trial lawyers, and I have a GM in my parking stall.  However, when it comes to the role of trial lawyers in our society, I don't see things so nearly black and white.   Money is a great motivator, and if that helps save lives, so be it. 

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will not be reviewing the disappointing October 23, 2013 decision of the Supreme Court of Minnesota in State v. Brooks.  The order denying certiorari was issued this morning, April 7, 2014, thus ending Mr. Brooks' near 5-year battle to avoid conviction for three separate DWI cases.   

SCOTUS remanded Brooks case back to Minnesota in April of 2013 as a part of its decision and order in
Missouri v. McNeely.  McNeely reiterated that, absent consent, police must obtain a warrant before obtaining blood evidence for use in impaired driving convictions.  The ruling obviated dozens of state appellate court decisions that held police could force a chemical test without a warrant in all cases where there existed probable cause for arrest. 

Brooks still stands for the proposition that urine and breath testing, and not just blood draws, fall under the ruling of McNeely.   Brooks also solidifies a defendant's right to a case-by-case analysis of whether his/her purported consent to provide a sample for testing was coerced.  You can read more about Brooks in an earlier article on this site.