Sabatini and Associates, LLC

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article addressing safety questions with commuter airlines in this country.  Commuter airlines carried 25% of all domestic passengers in 2008 and made 5 million flights.  Yet, recently hired pilots of these aircraft have as little as 250 to 500 hours of flying time before taking the job.  This is compared to the 5,000 to 7,000 hours of flying time that the major airlines seek when hiring new pilots.  There are also issues with the training being received at flight schools.  For example, students often train on slow propeller planes but once hired, start flying high performance turbo props or jets.  Unfortunately deficiencies in training and experience lead to real life tragedies including the Colgan plane crash in Buffalo in February 2008 that took 50 lives. 

The Connecticut personal injury lawyers at Sabatini and Associates are honored to announce that over the past month people injured in the State of Connecticut have retained our law firm to represent them in their personal injury lawsuits.  Our new personal injury clients include: a woman injured at Bradley International Airport, a woman victimized by a drunk driver, a teenager struck by a car while walking in a cross-walk, a woman suffering from nerve damage as a result of dental malpractice, a man injured in a rear end car collision, a man injured in a car collision caused by a drunk driver, a man and woman injured in a t-bone car collision, and others.

If you or a loved one have suffered injuries as a result of negligence, feel free to contact our attorneys today. There is no cost or fee unless the firm’s is successful in reocevring compensation in your case.

To understand what informed consent means in a medical context and how to prove a failure to obtain informed consent, the following information is provided.  This information is taken directly from Connecticut court’s jury instructions in cases involving a failure to obtain informed consent cause of action.
The theory of informed consent imposes a duty upon a physician that is completely separate and distinct from (his/her) responsibility to skillfully diagnose and treat the patient’s ills.  A physician has a duty to disclose all known material risks of the proposed procedure.  A material risk is risk that a reasonably prudent person in the patient’s position would have found significant in deciding whether or not to submit to the proposed procedure.  The physician has a duty to give a patient whose situation permits it all information material to the decision to undergo the proposed procedure.  This duty includes a responsibility to advise the patient of feasible alternatives.  The duty to warn of alternatives exists only when there are feasible alternatives available.
The plaintiff must prove both that there was a failure to disclose a known material risk of a proposed procedure and that such failure was a proximate cause of (his/her) injury.  In order to find proximate cause in this context, you must find that a disclosure of the material risks of the proposed procedure would have resulted in a decision by a reasonably prudent person in the patient’s position not to submit to the proposed procedure.  The particular patient’s reaction, had (he/she) received the information as to the risks involved, is not the governing one with respect to the duty to inform.  The standard is what a reasonably prudent person in the patient’s position would have decided if suitably informed of all material risks.

According to the Human Factors quarterly journal, “Cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year” (2005). The same study reported that motorists who are engaged in cell phone conversations while driving are less capable than drunk drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding .08. With a greater awareness of the potential cell phones have to distract drivers, many states including Connecticut have adopted laws restricting the use of cell phones while driving.  Even in states and cities where there are no restrictions on cell phone use by motorists, using a cell phone that plays a factor in causing a car accident will be considered an act of negligence thereby holding the cell phone user liable for damages caused by the accident.