In addition to hosting the event, Attorney Miron has donated three copies of the award- winning documentary to the Stratford Library.

“Hot Coffee” examines several cases where injuries resulted due to negligence, such as the famous McDonald’s coffee case, and asks the question: “Is justice being served?” The film was an Official Selection at the Sundance Festival in 2011 and won the Grand Jury Prize for Best Documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival. “There are a lot of preconceived, and often faulty, perceptions of the civil justice system that society should look at more carefully,” Attorney Miron said. “Hopefully this screening, along with the addition of this documentary to the Stratford Library, will help to better educate our citizens about our civil justice system.”

Jim Miron is the former mayor of the Town of Stratford and Chairman of the Personal Injury Department at Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. a Bridgeport law firm representing injured people statewide.

Connecticut law states that under certain circumstances a landowner can be liable to a person on his property for a dangerous accumulation of ice and snow. The rule of law is that an owner may await the end of a freezing rain or sleet storm and a reasonable time thereafter before removing ice and snow from its outside entrance walks, platforms, and steps. Then, an owner may, without violating its duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of business invitees, await the end of a freezing rain, sleet or snow storm or a reasonable time thereafter before removing sleet and snow from its outside walk and steps since removal would be ineffective, generally, during the continuation of a snowstorm in progress.

Most municipalities have a local ordinance (law) that governs how long after a snow storm ice/snow removal must take place and it varies from place to place so check your local ordinances. Remember, property owners are also responsible for cleaning the sidewalks to the front and/or side of their property too.

Generally speaking, what is a “reasonable time” to begin snow removal is fact driven and based on when a storm stops but I recommend property owners remove snow, salt and sand as soon as possible after the storm, and almost always no longer than 3 – 6  hours, just to be safe. Remember, ice melts and refreezes so property owners should inspect and replace salt and/or sand as needed and regularly.

The law also requires people walking on another’s property to exercise responsibility too. A person walking outside in ice and/or snow has to exercise reasonable care. Always wear sensible and weather appropriate footwear, look where you are walking and use handrails when available and take other reasonable precautions when walking outside.

If you fall and are hurt on someone else’s property report the matter immediately if you are able and seek immediate medical attention.

If you think your injuries were caused by the property owner failing to exercise reasonable care I recommend that you also contact an experienced premises liability attorney. Property owners and their insurance companies almost always fight these claims vigorously and you will need an advocate that is experienced in these types of cases.

For more information on how to deal with ice and snow the Connecticut DOT has provided information. To learn more click here.

Jim Miron is the former mayor of the Town of Stratford and Chairman of the Personal Injury Department at Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. a Bridgeport law firm representing injured people statewide.

Motorcyclists are involved in fatal crashes at higher rates than drivers of other types of vehicles, and are 30 times more likely to die in a traffic crash than passenger car occupants, according to the Government Accountability Office report.

In 2010, 82,000 motorcyclists were injured and 4,502 were killed in crashes, the report said. The average cost for a fatal crash was estimated at $1.2 million, while the cost for injuries ranged from $2,500 to $1.4 million depending upon the severity.

It’s difficult to determine the full costs with accuracy because some types of costs are difficult to measure, the report said. For example, treating serious injuries can be long and expensive, but follow-up analyses of costs are conducted only for a few years. Also, other consequences of long-term injuries such as changes in employment and living status can’t be fully measured, the report said.

Laws requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets are the only strategy proven effective in reducing fatalities and injuries, the report said. Several studies have estimated helmets reduce the risk of death by as much as 39 percent, the report said. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated helmets saved the lives of 1,550 motorcyclists in 2010.

However, there has been strong opposition from motorcycle groups to “universal” helmet laws, and only 19 states have them. Another 28 states have “partial” helmet laws that require only some motorcyclists to wear helmets, usually riders under age 21 or under age 18.

Three states have no helmet laws: Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire.

Earlier this year, Michigan legislators repealed that state’s helmet requirement for motorcyclists over 21. Other proposals to repeal mandatory helmet laws were considered in California, Maryland, Missouri and Tennessee.

While many motorcycle groups endorse the use of helmets, they also oppose mandatory helmet laws as infringements on personal liberties and their right to assume the risk of riding without a helmet, the report said.

“We are 100 percent pro-helmet, and 100 percent anti-helmet law,” Jeff Hennie, vice president of the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, said. “Putting a helmet law in place does not reduce motorcycle fatalities.”

Educating other motorists to look out for motorcyclists, and teaching motorcyclists how to ride safely,  “is the ultimate solution for saving lives,” he said.

But Jackie Gillan, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, which supports mandatory helmet laws, said: “Education is not a substitute for wearing a helmet.”

“It’s like saying if you take a driver’s ed class, you don’t have to wear your seat belt,” she said. “Now how silly is that?”

Partial helmet laws are also difficult to enforce because it’s hard for police to tell the age of motorcyclists as they go whizzing by, she said.

The National Transportation Safety Board dropped mandatory helmet laws from their list of ten “most wanted” safety improvements earlier this month, angering some safety advocates.

Jim Miron is the former mayor of the Town of Stratford and Chairman of the Personal Injury Department at Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. a Bridgeport law firm representing injured people statewide.

In fact, Veterans Day is largely intended to thank LIVING veterans for their service, to acknowledge that their contributions to our national security are appreciated, and to underscore the fact that all those who served – not only those who died – have sacrificed and done their duty.

According the U.S. Census there are currently over 314.7 million Americans in the U.S. and of them over 21.8 million are military veterans. In other words, about 7% of our nation consists of a special breed of citizen that is a United States military veteran.

Poet Maya Angelou once said “[h]ow important it is for us to recognize and celebrate our heroes and she-roes!”

Indeed!

This year, on November 11, 2012 (official “observance” on Monday, November 12^th) we honor the millions of Americans who wore the uniform of our country’s armed forces domestically and abroad. The contributions of each and every man and woman that served in the military honorably, regardless of military branch or time of service, has contributed immeasurably to the cause of peace and freedom in this great nation and around the world.

We live in a great democracy where free speech, the right to elect our political leaders peacefully and pursue life, liberty and happiness has been protected by that special minority of citizen that is a military veteran.

Happy Veterans Day, American Veterans and thank you!

We face the fiscal cliff in January.

Our economy is still fragile.

Unemployment is still too high.

Our infrastructure is way too old.

Our energy way too dirty and unsustainable.

Our troops are still in harms way.

Notice the use of “our” and “we”? These issues and concerns are not democratic or republican issues and concerns. They are our issues and concerns.

So, in the spirit that made our country great all the people on the “left” and the “right” need to come together and work together to find the middle ground if they want a true UNITED States of America.

No one party has all the answers but, working together, as Americans have and can do, we can find a way to a more perfect union.

“A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.

As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client’s legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications.

As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system. As negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements of honest dealing with others. As evaluator, a lawyer examines a client’s legal affairs and reports about them to the client or to others on the client’s behalf…

… In all professional functions a lawyer should be competent, prompt and diligent. A lawyer should maintain communication with a client concerning the representation…”

At my law firm we take our obligations seriously and accomplish this by ensuring proper communication with our clients. Modern technology has made enhanced communication possible and we work hard across many communication platforms to ensure varied and quality communication.

For example, current or prospective clients may obtain general information on our website, blog and Facebook page. From those platforms we can be e-mailed and you will be e-mailed in response.

In office appointment to meet with an attorney or phone conferences can be easily made to accommodate your schedule.

We can be reached 24-7 and a person will always answer our phone. During regular business hours you will be able to talk to an attorney or staff member. After hours, if your call is an emergency, you will receive a call back promptly from one of our on call attorneys.

Once a client you can always count on being:

1. consulted with about the means to achieve your objectives;

2. kept reasonably informed about the status of your matter;

3. promptly responded to with reasonable requests for information;

4. informed so you can make informed decisions regarding the representation.

Of course, communication is a two way street so we encourage our clients to take an active role in their matter. Sharing information with one’s attorney – candidly and without withholding – is vitally important and helps us do our job better.

For almost 20 years I have earned a reputation of providing quality representation and establishing long lasting professional relationships with our clients and we accomplish that, in large part, with quality attorney-client communication.

Jim Miron is the former mayor of the Town of Stratford and Chairman of the Personal Injury Department at Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. a Bridgeport law firm representing injured people statewide.

However, in addition to the economic considerations pertaining to the claim itself there are other economic considerations that derive from the lawsuit process. For example, if a lawsuit goes to trial and the plaintiff wins they are entitled to recover certain costs and (and sometimes fees) allowed by Connecticut law. These costs and fees are an additional economic driver that should have an impact on the defendant when they decide whether to settle a case or take the case to trial, especially when the plaintiff prepares the case properly.

Another economic incentive for the parties to consider is the Offer of Compromise. The Offer of Compromise can be a useful tool to encourage settlement as not accepting an offer has consequences.

Either party may file an Offer of Compromise. In the plaintiff’s case, depending on the type of claim, there are time frames when the offer may be filed. All offers must be filed with the clerk of the court offering to settle the lawsuit for specific dollar amount. The defendant has thirty days to accept the offer. If the offer is not accepted it is considered rejected. After trial the judge will examine the court records to determine whether the plaintiff made an Offer of Compromise that the defendant failed to accept. If the plaintiff did and it has recovered in an amount equal to or greater than the dollar amount specified in the offer 8 percent annual interest on the amount recovered is added to the recovery. Additionally, the judge may also award partial attorney’s fees up to $350. Therefore, if an offer is filed properly and rejected it could add up to big money in a case that could take years to get to trial.

As for the defendant, they too file their offer with the clerk of the court. The plaintiff has 60 days to accept the offer or it is deemed rejected. If accepted the case will be over once settlement proceeds are received. As indicated earlier, plaintiffs that prevail at trial always recover their costs and certain fees unless a defendant files an Offer of Compromise which the verdict does not exceed. Therefore, if a plaintiff rejects an Offer of Compromise made by the defendant and recovers less than the amount the defendant offered the plaintiff cannot recover any costs or fees AND the plaintiff will be obligated to pay the defendant’s costs and certain fees accruing after they filed their offer. This is something every plaintiff must seriously consider when being presented with an Offer of Compromise.

Used properly, an Offer of Compromise can be a powerful tool to encourage settlement or reward the reasonable party that tried to settle the case for a fair and reasonable amount. However, when and for how much to file an Offer of Compromise for or whether to accept an Offer of Compromise involves several technical legal and important economic considerations.

Parties representing themselves might want to consider seeking the advice of an experienced trial attorney.

Jim Miron is the former mayor of the Town of Stratford and Chairman of the Personal Injury Department at Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. a Bridgeport law firm representing injured people statewide.

The proposal is 9 pages long but can be boiled down to this: attorneys licensed to practice law in Connecticut will need to complete 36 hours of accredited legal education in a three year period. The MCLE subject matter must directly relate to legal subjects or the legal profession, including professional responsibility, legal ethics, or law office management.

Sounds good, right? After all, attorneys represent people in important matters that can profoundly affect the life of the client and others. Who wouldn’t want an attorney “up to speed” on the law and related matters?

Well, apparently, a lot of lawyers don’t. The opposition to this proposed rule is strong from a large segment of the Connecticut legal profession.

Connecticut is one of five states in the entire country that does not have MCLE. For the other 45 states MCLE is a “no brainer”.

Prior to the recent proposal by the CBA the last time MCLE was even formally reviewed by the judges that must approve these types of matters was almost twenty years ago. However, that proposal was rejected because the judges were concerned about the effect on small firms and solo practitioners pressed for both time and money.

Give me a break! The argument that attorneys are too busy or too poor for MCLE falls flat, especially since much of the MCLE can be done online. Connecticut lawyers are not any busier or more financially pressed than their colleagues in the 45 states that have mandatory continuing legal education.

No attorney in this Connecticut should be opposed to a well thought out and meaningful mandatory CLE program.

At the firm where I work our attorneys voluntarily seek out continuing legal education and the firm helps contribute to the cost of the CLE because we all want to stay on top of developing legal trends and issues. In addition to good old fashioned experience gained through the “practice of law” one develops over time, continuing legal education makes us all better and in turn we are able to better represent our clients.

Who could argue with that?

TAXES

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

PUBLIC SAFETY

ENVIRONMENT

SHAKESPEARE THEATRE

TAKING ON RACISM

IN ACTION!

WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN…

I have always maintained that those employee’s separation payments were proper and in accordance with their contracts and not dissimilar to how other town employees benefits were calculated when they separated from town service.

My position was upheld last year after the trial against my former assistant, Eric Castater, was concluded and he won on all accounts. After his legal victory, Stratford’s current mayor, John Harkins, and his political crony town attorney decided to spend more taxpayer dollars and appeal – despite a well reasoned opinion by one of Connecticut’s most prominent judges, Today, I received news from the Connecticut Appellate Court that the trial court decision in Eric Castater’s favor was unanimously upheld by the Connecticut Appellate Court.

I have attached the link to the decision: http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP136/136AP428.pdf

You would think this would end it all but the town still has other tax payer fund actions against former HR director, Ned Winterbottom and Mayoral Assistant, Devron Wilson pending in the court for the identical issues in the Castater case. Frankly, it would be galling if they persist on taking those cases to trial.

Mayor Harkins and his town attorney need to stop wasting tax payer dollars on these frivolous and politically motivated lawsuits, withdraw the remaining cases and apologize to those wrongfully accused by them of wrong doing.