Our area has seen its share of salmonella cases.  Since May, 15 Houston residents and 30 other Harris County residents have fallen ill with salmonella.  Early in June the first salmonella-linked death happened when a Houston cancer patient was sickened with salmonella.  In all, the Texas Department of State Health Services has reported that so far 342 Texans have become ill.

The CDC has stated that this is one of the largest salmonella outbreaks in the country that has been linked to fresh produce.  Like the FDA, the CDC believes that tomatoes are the most likely source but aren?t sold on the idea that they?re the only possible source.

If eating a common fruit can cause serious illness, we have to wonder ? how safe is our food supply, really?  It is hard to think that the food we eat every day could potentially be considered a dangerous product.

It?s rare for two medical helicopters to try and land at a hospital at the same time, as helicopter transports don?t happen that often.  This was certainly a unique situation, and investigators are sure to ask how it could have been prevented.

Most hospitals go without flight controllers, the people who at a normal landing sight ensure that two aircraft don?t collide on or near the runway while trying to land or take-off.  The small volume of flights at most hospitals equipped with helicopter pads means that it?s up to the helicopter pilots to judge for themselves if it?s safe to land or take-off.

It remains to be seen what will be found to be the cause of this accident.  Hopefully some good will come from this awful tragedy and any similar future collisions avoided.

It seemed like a good idea when it was first introduced ? adding fire protection to items that could be involved in fire-related accidents.  For example, manufacturers believed that children in a car seat could be protected from severe burns if the seats they were in were treated with a fire retardant chemical.  So for decades now, Americans have counted on these chemicals to protect them from fire

However now officials are raising serious questions about the safety of all the products coated with these chemicals.  In fact, flame retardants have been banned already in two states have already banned them, and six other states are considering similar bans.

Scientists are claiming that the most commonly used brominated flame retardants, called PBDE's, have a toxic effect on developing brain and reproductive systems in children.  These chemicals are particularly dangerous because they don?t break down in the body; instead they persist in our fatty tissue and right now there is no known way to get rid of them.

The EPA has joined the fray and is finishing up an evaluation of the safety of flame retardants.  It looks like flame retardants are about to join the long list of dangerous chemicals that were once championed as safe by manufacturers, but later found to be toxic to human beings.

Here are some of the things to watch out for:

1. Not wanting to be a ?trouble maker? you listen to the negligent driver when he or she encourages you not to call the police, claiming that there is no need because they admit liability.
2. Again, trying to be reasonable you agree with the negligent driver who encourages you not to get the names and contact information for witnesses.
3. Your life is so busy that you delay receiving timely medical care after your accident.
4. To be helpful, you give a "recorded statement" to the insurance company.
5. Not wanting to appear greedy, you accept a quick settlement in a serious injury or death case.

The above traps that many injured motorists fall into are the most common ways that negligent drivers and their insurance companies take advantage of most people?s good will and desire to help.  To find out more about why these traps are so dangerous to your case, please see our law library article entitled ?5 things that can wreck your car or truck accident case?.

U-Haul responded by claiming that the $84 million award was ?particularly outrageous? and ?another example of abuse of the legal system?.  These statements were made despite the fact that six previous renters had experienced parking brake problems with the same truck.  That?s right, this ?outrageous? verdict was awarded to a man whose life was ruined when a company rented him a truck that it knew had problems ? problems that it never bothered to fix.

Corporations who want to cry foul over large jury awards need to take a look at their own business practices first.  If companies like U-Haul want to time and again put profits ahead of consumer safety, they are going to be made to pay the only way our justice system seems to be able to get their attention ? with verdicts like this.

What do you think of the $84 award against U-Haul ? is this an example of abuse in our legal system, or did the company get what they deserve?  Leave us a comment and let us know.

Critics claim that this business-friendly ruling ? unanimously made by an all-Republican Texas Supreme Court ? gives refineries and other industrial plants a way to sidestep liability claims from contract workers injured on the job.  The rarity with which the Supreme Court reviews its decisions is proof that the court has heard the criticism of this stunning ruling loud and clear.

Not only have families of the BP victims spoken out against the ruling, but plaintiffs' lawyers, labor unions, lobbyists and even some legislators ? including one Republican legislator ? rose up to protest what is being seen as an outrageously biased ruling.  It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will correct the mistake it made in last year?s ruling, or if they are merely allowing dissenters to air their grievances before they simply reaffirm their original ruling.

Let us know what you think of the Texas Supreme Court?s ruling that effectively expands refinery and plant owner?s ability to shield themselves from workplace injury claims.  Do you think they?ll reverse their ruling, or ?stay the course??

This child was lucky, as the accident could have been far more tragic.  Amusement parks in the United States are largely unregulated, and accidents like this ? and worse ? are not uncommon.  The CPSC estimates that in 2006 alone, 17,767 people were injured on amusement park rides ? the highest number of injuries in 9 years.

Right now efforts to regulate amusement park safety are hampered because there is no central agency that coordinates ride safety public policy, and regulation varies from state to state.  In addition, there is no coordinated effort to ensure that problems experienced at one amusement park are prevented from happening at another.

Without effective regulations and without federal authority over amusement park safety, visitors have no idea what to expect when they head out for a day of fun at one of these parks.  Please see our library article, ?Is The All-American Amusement Park Safe?? for more information about this subject.

The therapy works like this:  a patient's temperature is reduced to about 92 degrees Fahrenheit in an attempt to give the brain a chance to heal itself.  The theory is that hypothermia causes a decrease in the metabolic rate, allowing the body to get by with less oxygen and control swelling, which can make a brain injury worse.  Hypothermia also slows the production of chemicals released by the body after a traumatic event, which can also be harmful to the brain.

So far the results have not been great.  Earlier studies carried in the 1990s found that patients treated with hypothermia fared no better than those who weren?t.  Mr. Navaria is part of a new, better designed study that is about one-third complete ? a study that researchers expect will answer the question of whether or not hypothermia treatment is beneficial for treating brain injuries once and for all.

It will be a while before the results of this study are in, but we hope that it proves fruitful.  When you consider that about 1.4 million people a year suffer from traumatic brain injuries and 50,000 die, 235,000 are hospitalized, and 80,000 are left with serious disabilities ? any new treatment would be a blessing for those suffering the devastating effects of TBI.

You can read more about traumatic brain injuries in our library articles, ?Making Sense of a Traumatic Brain Injury? and ?New Dangers from Brain Injuries?

There have been dozens of other cases in the Houston area where airbags have failed to deploy in a crash.  This has prompted lawsuits and investigations into why airbags fail to deploy in some accidents.

A review of recall statistics at Safecar.gov reveals that since airbags were first implemented in passenger vehicles, there have been over 700 recalls due to airbag or airbag component failures.  What is causing all these recalls?

Manufactures claim that airbags are governed by complicated, highly scientific sensors that are programmed to determine exactly when an airbag should and should not deploy.  According to vehicle manufacturers, it may seem as though an airbag should have deployed, but if the accident was a side-impact crash instead of a full head-on crash, the airbag would have been prevented from deploying in order to protect the driver from being injured by the bag.

Of course this is little consolation to the gentleman who was left with permanent brain damage after his head-on collision, and countless others like him.  If you suspect that your airbag should have deployed but did not, the NHTSA wants to hear from you.  You can contact them at 1-888-327-4236 or go to www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ivoq to file a complaint.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska covered 3,000 square miles and is still affecting Alaskan fisheries today ? 19 years later.  One of the challenges from Exxon in this case is the finding that Exxon can be held liable for the ship captain?s actions.  According to Exxon?s lead attorney, this ruiling goes against 200 years of maritime law, where an owner can be liable only for actions that it directed, ratified or participated in.

However, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagrees, and has argued that Exxon is partially to blame for the accident, as company officials allowed the captain to work despite having been informed that he was an alcoholic and had been drinking.  Other justices have sided with Exxon, including Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

While the punitive damages awarded in this case are unusual for a maritime law case, the justices are limiting their review to questions of maritime law, and will not consider the constitutionality of the award.

What do you think?  Should Exxon pay the additional $2.5 billion in punitive damages, or have they already paid enough?  Leave us a comment and let us know.

Ford led the pack with over 5.5 million recalls last year, 3.8 million of which were due to a faulty cruise control switch.  Next in line was DaimlerChrysler with 1.47 million recalls, and Volkswagen clocked in with 1.4 million.

If you?re concerned about the safety of the vehicle that you?re driving, then do yourself a favor and check out these websites.  Safecar.gov is maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and allows you to search for recall information, view current complaints against manufacturers, or file a complaint yourself.

You can also check the Recalls.gov website, an online portal that provides access to six federal agencies that maintain recall information.  From this site you can access the NHTSA recall data.

Were you affected by the record recalls last year?  What do you think that manufacturers can do about it?  Leave us a comment, and then check out our articles about the 2007 auto recalls and about product recalls in general.  Don?t hesitate to contact us if you?ve been involved in an auto or truck accident.

BP contends that a former chief executive should not be hassled with a deposition when he has no direct knowledge that is pertinent to the investigation, a stance that is supported by other oil and industry groups.  BP also disagrees that budget cuts sanctioned by Browne had anything to do with the fatal blast; the plaintiffs? lawyers disagree.

This courtroom battle has been unfolding even as three additional workers were killed at the Texas City refinery.  The latest death is being investigated by BP, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the U.S. Chemical Safety and the Hazard Investigation Board.

What will it take for BP to stand up and take responsibility for its dismal safety record?  How many more workers will die unnecessarily while the oil giant quibbles about who will give a deposition and how?  It?s time to change the perception in big business that if safety isn?t profitable, then it isn?t necessary.  Texas workers deserve better.  If you?ve been the victim of a workplace injury, please contact us for a free review and evaluation of your case.

Mr. Guzman's lawsuit claims more than $50,000 in damages.  Mr. Guzman sought out medical treatment shortly after the incident and continues to receive medical treatment from doctors and medical service providers.  According to Mr. Guzman, the defendants failed to provide a safe place to work, failed to provide safe tools and equipment, and failed to provide adequate supervision, among other things.

Back injuries are a common occurrence in the offshore industry.  Far too often, maritime workers are required to manually lift pieces of equipment that should not be lifted manually.  Faced with a choice of complying with the orders of the boss or losing a well-paying jobs, maritime workers often have no realistic choice.

Have you suffered a back injury or other serious injury offshore?