Oct
26
2009
The New Jersey Supreme Court approved the publication of Judge Osterer’s opinion requiring that the State proved that the police conducted a 20 minute observation period prior to administering the Alcotest. Although the Appellate Division has not addressed the issue, Judge Osterer’s opinion now stands for the rule of law. Judge Osterer noted that the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed this issue in its holding in State v. Chunn, et al.:
“Operators must wait twenty minutes before collecting a sample to avoid overestimated readings due to residual effects of mouth alcohol. The software is programmed to prohibit operation of the device before the passage of twenty minutes from the time entered as the time of the arrest. Moreover, the operator must observe the test subject for the required twenty-minute period of time to ensure that no alcohol has entered the person’s mouth while he or she is awaiting the start of the testing sequence. In addition, if the arrestee swallows anything or regurgitates, or if the operator notices chewing gum or tobacco in the person’s mouth, the operator is required to begin counting the twenty-minute period anew.”
The opinion also suggest that the police must give an additional 20 minute observation period in between breath test. Interestingly, this may stretch out the time fram in which a valid test may be obtained and can provide some time for a driver’s blood alcohol level to secrease while in custody.
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/NJInjuryLawyer
Personal Injury- Workers Compensation
- Criminal Matters
- Traffic Matters
- DWI/DUI
- Municipal Court
- Family Law, Divorce, Custody and DYFS Cases.
Our office also handles Real Estate, Contract and Immigration Matters.
Call for a free consultation! (609) 259-7600
37 Robbinsville-Allentown Road, Robbinsville, NJ 08691
Tel. (609) 259-7600 Fax (609) 259-7303
heyburn@heyburnlaw.com
Share on Facebook
Oct
25
2009
Law Offices of Edward Harrington Heyburn, PC
Share on Facebook
Oct
24
2009
Law Offices of Edward Harrington Heyburn, PC
Share on Facebook
Oct
21
2009
If you ask most people who work, “Who’s the boss?” you will get an immediate answer. If you ask a construction worker the same question, it may be difficult to answer. Often there are layers of bosses including owners, general contractors, subcontractors and engineers. Each of these parties may have a responsibility to make sure the construction site is safe. Lawyers deal with this issue every day when their clients are injured after being exposed to hazardous conditions on construction sites. Although an employee generally must pursue a workers compensation claim against his or her employer in lieu of a civil law suit; the employee is not precluded from suing the other culpable parties.
Federal Regulations such as those promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration give the construction industry and lawyers guidance on who is the boss and what their responsibilities are. For example a general or prime contractor has a non-delegable duty to make sure that construction workers have a safe place to work. O.S.H.A. also regulates when a “boss” has to make sure that workers are using safety equipment such as “fall protection.” Unfortunately, many of the “bosses” on a construction site put pressure on the construction worker to get the job done and abandon safe work practices. This often ends up in a catastrophic loss to the worker, the family or the public at large. The law says that the “bosses” are responsible and that may not just be the company signing the construction worker’s pay check. We investigate construction site accidents and determine who is responsible for the worker’s injuries. In doing so, we protect our client’s rights, get them compensated for their losses and put the legal responsibility where is should be, with the “boss.”
Share on Facebook
Oct
20
2009
You're Fired!
The New Jersey Supreme Court just released its opinion in Thomas Best v. C & M Control Doors, Inc. which held that a Defendant/Employer cannot shift the burden of paying his attorney fees in a Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) case even if the Plaintiff/Employee loses that portion of the case. CEPA is New Jersey’s version of the Whistleblower Law. The Act permits employees who are fired after complaining that their employer was breaking the law, to sue and have the employer pay them their damages. The law also allows the court to require the employer to pay the employees attorneys fees. In Best, the employee was able to prove that the employer did not pay him the prevailing wage under the Prevailing Wage Act law but failed to show that he was fired because he complained about his wages. The employer tried to make the employee pay its attorneys fee under CEPA. The New Jersey Supreme Court said that a CEPA plaintiff does not have to pay attorneys fees when they lose. Clearly, the law was designed to protect the employee and encourage the employee to complain about illegal behavior. The Court’s decision furthers the intent of the statute.
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/NJInjuryLawyer
- Personal Injury
- Workers Compensation
- Criminal Matters
- Traffic Matters
- DWI/DUI
- Municipal Court
- Family Law, Divorce, Custody and DYFS Cases.
Our office also handles Real Estate, Contract and Immigration Matters.
Call for a free consultation! (609) 259-7600
37 Robbinsville-Allentown Road, Robbinsville, NJ 08691
Tel. (609) 259-7600 Fax (609) 259-7303
heyburn@heyburnlaw.com
Share on Facebook
Oct
19
2009
New Jersey’s collateral-source statute, N.J.S.A. provides in relevant part: 2A:15-97,
In any civil action brought for personal injury or death, if a plaintiff receives or is entitled to receive benefits for the injuries allegedly incurred from any other source other than a joint tortfeasor, the benefits, other than workers’ compensation benefits or the proceeds from a life insurance policy, shall be disclosed to the court and the amount thereof which duplicates any benefit contained in the award shall be deducted from any award recovered by the plaintiff.
Under New Jersey law, defendants get the benefit of the Plaintiff’s disability and pension policies. Not every state dive the benefit to the defendant. It is odd that money is deducted from the Plaintiff’s award because he or she planned ahead and purchased insurance coverage in the event that they were injured and out of work.
Share on Facebook
Oct
16
2009
This year we have seen an onslaught of ethics cases targeting municipal court judges. Hon. James Newman was admonished because he advised the defendant that he had a conflict and another judge would have to hear the matter. Then Judge Newman arraigned the defendant (which is a ministerial procedure which if often waived by an attorney). Despite the fact that Judge Newman recused himself and nothing he did in the arraignment was improper, he was targeted. The hunt continues and now the New Jersey Supreme Court will hear oral argument in State v. Terence McCabe. The issue is whether the municipal judge was required to recuse himself in this DWI matter because he and defendant’s counsel represented adverse parties in an unrelated matter in the Superior Court, Chancery Division? Municipal Court Judgeships are part-time positions. If part-time judges truly present ethical dilemmas because their private practice interferes with their role as a judge, then require the judges to be full time. If the Court is going to burn these judges at the stake, they may find that there is a short supply of willing candidates!
Share on Facebook
Oct
14
2009
Whiplash is the physical explanation of what happens to your head and neck when you are involved in a car accident. While the term is thrown around lightly, the impact on injured motorist can have a devastating life long impact. Some victims are left with brain injuries and/or neck injuries.
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/NJInjuryLawyer
- Personal Injury
- Workers Compensation
- Criminal Matters
- Traffic Matters
- DWI/DUI
- Municipal Court
- Family Law, Divorce, Custody and DYFS Cases.
Our office also handles Real Estate, Contract and Immigration Matters.
Call for a free consultation! (609) 259-7600
37 Robbinsville-Allentown Road, Robbinsville, NJ 08691
Tel. (609) 259-7600 Fax (609) 259-7303
heyburn@heyburnlaw.com
Share on Facebook
Oct
10
2009
The “dog bite” statute states:
The owner of any dog which shall bite a person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place including the property of the owner of the dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness.
N.J.S.A. 4:19-16
Share on Facebook
Oct
09
2009
On January 10, 2006 the Supreme Court of New Jersey said police need a warrant to search a vehicle unless they obtain the driver’s consent or demonstrate exigent circumstances. State v. Eckel, 185 NJ 523 (2006). Two and one half (2 1/2) years later the United States Supreme Court extended this legal principle to the rest of the United States pursuant to the United States Constitution. Arizona v.. Rodney Joseph Gant, 556 U. S. ____ (2009). Despite the law, it is common practice for the New Jersey State Police and local police departments to violate the law and search vehicles without a warrant. So if you are asked if you will let police search your car, just say NO!
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/NJInjuryLawyer
- Personal Injury
- Workers Compensation
- Criminal Matters
- Traffic Matters
- DWI/DUI
- Municipal Court
- Family Law, Divorce, Custody and DYFS Cases.
Our office also handles Real Estate, Contract and Immigration Matters.
Call for a free consultation! (609) 259-7600
37 Robbinsville-Allentown Road, Robbinsville, NJ 08691
Tel. (609) 259-7600 Fax (609) 259-7303
heyburn@heyburnlaw.com
Share on Facebook
