In the wake of the multiple deaths in recent road traffic accidents new regulations

are to be introduced to make compulsory training for learner drivers a fact of life.

Recent car crashes, fatal accidents and serious injuries have featured in our newspaper headlines

In response the RSA (road safety authority) stated that a new gradation driver licensing system would shortly be introduced.

It is believed that the scheme will require new drivers to maintain a log book of hours spent practising.

In media comments following the fatal car accident in Donegal some commentators went so far as to suggest a curfew for young drivers to cut down on injuries and accidents.

It seems that that might infringe upon civil liberties but in the light of the recent tragic loss of life the topic was raised again.

New requirements may include a beefed up theory test and a mandatory requirement of hours of training with an approved driving instructor at a cost of up to €700.

Paul Tracey

27/07/2010

-

Failing to attend alcohol education classes landed actress Lindsay Lohan in jail for 90days.

The actress had apparently missed 7 or her scheduled classes as instructed by the Court in an  earlier hearing.

Her film appearances include Freaky Friday, Mean Girls and The Parent Trap set her up as a promising star until drug & alcohol abuse landed her in hot water.

An unusual aspect of an earlier court ruling was the requirement for the actress to wear an ankle alcohol monitor, which apparently issued an alert after she attended an MTV movie award event.

Once such devise is know as the SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor) ankle bracelet.

This device is similar to the ankle bracelet law enforcement currently uses to monitor sex offenders and other persons that are under “house-arrest”.

Except that it does not keep people at home: it is worn 24 hours a day and can be monitored via the Internet at a 900MHz radio frequency, and allows the convicted person to move about normally in their daily lives.

The big difference is that it constantly monitors their blood alcohol level and can be set up to take as many as 48 tests per day without the wearer’s knowledge!

The SCRAM transdermal ankle bracelet is attached to the offender’s ankle and is not removed until their sentence has been completed. It is tamper-resistant and sends reports around the clock to the probation officer and the SCRAM headquarters with a bar chart result.

There is a modem that is placed in the offender’s home and when the wearer is within range of the modem, all reports are relayed immediately to the monitor.

This bracelet helps authorities determine the alcohol use of offenders and is rapidly becoming commonplace in drunk driving conviction sentences. It measures the molecules of ethanol coming off the body; 5% of everything you drink comes off the body in the form of perspiration.

The tool is an important part of the defense arsenal against alcohol abusers. Some people may argue that this is a case of “big brother” invasion on personal privacy, but you must consider the fact that they would not be “invaded” if they had used alcohol responsibly or avoided it altogether.

The manufacturers say that ‘It’s better to stop drunks between the bar and the car’, also known as “intervention at the point of consumption” than to deal with the drunk driver after the fact.

It would be interesting to see the reaction to their introduction in Ireland!

Comments please

Paul Tracey Blog

08/07/2010

A cyclist who broke a red light and seriously injured himself when colliding with a car a car has been banned from driving a car for a year.

This unusual case highlights the obligations of cyclist as road users.

The case which was heard in a Dublin District Court has surprised many commentators as convictions of this nature & bans are somewhat rare.

The law allows convictions to be endorsed on licenses & and driving bans imposed.

If an ‘offender’ does not have a current driving license the conviction may be endorsed on a subsequent license if one is applied for.

So it is cause for reflection for any cyclist ‘runs a light’ or ignores any other rule of the road as they could face a driving ban!

Cycle safely

Paul Tracey

Solicitor & Cyclist!

Following our recent newsletter I was told of a great song performed by Francis Black called ‘Legal Illegal’ Legal  written by Ewan McColl

See what you think

Every time you pick up a newspaper,
Every time you switch on the T.V.,
You can bet your old boots that at some point you’ll see,
A high ranking Garda or else a T.P.
Calling on all who are meant to be free,
To stand up and defend law and order.

It’s illegal to rip off a payroll,
It’s illegal to hold up a train,
But it’s legal to rip off a million or two,
That comes from the labour that other folk do,
To plunder the many on behalf of the few,
Is a thing that is perfectly legal.

It’s illegal to kill off your landlord
Or to trespass upon his estate
But to charge a high rent for a slum is O.K.
To condemn two adults and three children to stay
In a hovel that’s rotten with damp and decay
It’s a thing that is perfectly legal.

If your job turns you into a zombie
Then it’s legal to feel some despair
But don’t get aggressive and don’t get too smart
For Christ’s sake don’t upset the old applecart
Remember you boss has your interest at heart
And it grieves him to see you unhappy.

If you fashion a bomb in your kitchen,
You’re guilty of breaking the law,
But a bloody great nuclear plant is O.K.,
And plutonium processing hastens the day,
This tight little isle will be blasted away,
Nonetheless it is perfectly legal.

It’s illegal if you are a traveller,
To camp by the side of the road,
But it’s proper and right for the rich and the great,
To live in a mansion or own an estate,
That was got from the people by pillage and rape,
That is what they call a tradition.

It’s illegal to kill off your missus,
Or put poison in your old man’s tea,
But poison the river’s the seas or the skies,
And poison the minds of a nation with lies,
It’s all in the interest of free enterprise,
Nonetheless it’s perfectly legal.

Well it’s legal to sing on the telly,
But make bloody sure that you don’t,
To sing about racists and fascists and creeps,
And those in high places who live off the weak,
And hose who are selling us right up the creek,
The twisters, the takers, the conmen, the fakers,
The whole bloody gang of exploiters.

Check out the song at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkHwkRfsqBQ

Another blogger preferred ‘Divorce’ performed by Dolly Parton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54uYQVaeAcM 

Keep sending your favourites & we’ll compile a top ten! 

Paul Tracey Solicitors 18/03/2010

What does the Authorisation mean?

If you have processed an injuries board application, the injuries board may issue an authorisation in 3 sets of circumstances;

1)      The Respondent has declined to have the claim assessed; in these circumstances the respondent named on the injuries board authorisation has declined to permit to allow the injuries board assess your case. 

2)      The injuries board have reviewed your application and have deemed that due to the nature of your injuries the injuries board will not be able to assess your case within the time frame permitted under law.

3)      An assessment may have been made by the injuries board but either you or the Respondent has declined the assessment, this could arise in circumstances where you are of the view that the amount of the assessment is in inadequate or the respondent is of the view that the amount of the assessment is excessive.

What Should I do?

Instructing a solicitor with expertise in this area like ourselves is the first step to secure your position

We can offer advice to you in regard to issuing Court Proceedings.

We always liaise with Senior and junior counsel when assessing such matters and we have over 20 successful years in specialising in personal injury litigation much to our very satisfied client base.

Please be aware that certain time frames exist under Irish law in order to permit you to commence court proceedings, it is therefore important that you contact our office in order to get initial advice in regard to these timeframes in order to avoid your case becoming statute barred under law.

What is the Cost?

Our initial advises are on a no obligation basis.

Contact us at law@traceysolicitors.ie or by phoning 00 1 8475656

One suspects that this significant rise in the number of claims against uninsured drivers being processed by the MIBI is due to the economic downturn.

“It appears that the recession may have had an impact on the number of uninsured drivers on the road. It is a very worrying trend and an extremely serious issue. Driving uninsured is a criminal offence’’ commented a spokesperson for the MIBI

The MIBI is responsible for compensating victims of accidents caused by uninsured and unidentified vehicles. It also compensates victims or untraced motorists who cause accidents or who leave the scene of accidents.

Recent figures show that in 2008 the MIBI settled over 2,000 claims with uninsured drivers who were involved in accidents, most of which involved bodily injury.

Mr. Casey the chief executive of the Bureau estimated that the figure for 2009 will be approximately 10 per cent higher than in 2008.

Although the cost of motor insurance has been declining in recent years this problem has not gone away! “In real terms the cost of motor insurance is the same as 10 years ago. Premiums have been coming down and there is a lot more competition in the market place. Price is simply is not an excuse.”

He also rejected the claim that a lack of concern among drivers about Garda surveillance has led to an increase in the number of motorists driving without insurance. “There has been an increase in the traffic corps in recent years, and there are more and more roadside checks,” he said.

If you have had an accident caused by an uninsured driver or where a driver has left the scene or failed to stop at the scene it is important that you act promptly and comply with the requirements of the MIBI.

We at Paul Tracey Solicitors have extensive experience in this are of injury work and will be happy to assist you with any questions you have on this topic.

Tips if involved in an accident

-Call the Garda at the scene

-Take the names & addresses of any witnesses

-Seek medical assistance promptly if required

-Take prompt legal advice to ensure your rights are protected

Paul Tracey Solicitor 08/03/2010

(Paul Tracey is a lawyer based in Dublin specializing in personal injury litigation in particular road traffic cases where insurance issues arise.)

In an effort to simplify matters Paul W Tracey solicitors have prepared a short chart setting out the updated penalties.

The amendments are part of the drive to reduce road deaths where alcohol  is a factor.

Paul Tracey Solicitors provide legal defence to drunk driving charges in the greater Dublin area and can be contacted at 01 8745656
or visit our website for further information www.traceysolicitors.ie

Updated periods of disqualification under the 2006 Act:Section 49 (2, 3, 4) Drunk Driving and Section 50 (2, 3, 4) Drunk in Charge:

The Supreme Court has ruled a young man who travelled in a car driven by another man whom he knew had several alcoholic drinks is 35 per cent liable for serious injuries suffered in a subsequent accident, not 15 per cent as found by a judge in the original High Court hearing.

On that basis, the three judge court today reduced to a €1.3 million damages award by High Court Judge Ray Moran to €890,000 arising from the accident in Co Tipperary 10 years ago.

The court dismissed arguments by the car driver’s legal team that the High Court should have dismissed Mr Moran’s entire case against the driver after it found as a fact Mr Moran got into a car with a driver whom he knew had been drinking.

The case arose from an accident on the night of April 23rd/24th 1999 when Mr Moran, Ashbrook Heights, Nenagh, Co Tipperary, was travelling as a front seat passenger in a car driven by Mr Fogarty, Sapwell, Ballingarry, Co Tipperary. Both men were drinking earlier in a bar in Nenagh and they and a woman friend all left the bar at closing time and travelled together in the car driven by Mr Fogarty.

On their homeward journey, the car collided with a wall and Mr Moran suffered head and other injuries as a result of which, it was claimed, he was physically unable to continue his apprenticeship as a block layer. It was also claimed he would have difficulty looking after himself into the future arising from his injuries.

Mr Moran later took High Court proceedings against Mr Fogarty and was awarded € 1.3 million damages, reduced to €1.1 million as a result of that court’s finding of 15 per cent contributory negligence by Mr Moran in getting into a car with a driver whom he knew had been drinking.

Mr Fogarty appealed against the award on several grounds, including that Mr Moran was not entitled to damages as the cause of his injuries was the accident and he would not have suffered those had he refused to travel with a driver whom he knew was intoxicated.

In a reserved judgment today, Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan, with whom the Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray and Ms Justice Susan Denham agreed, ruled the greater blameworthiness in the case must lie with the driver..

It was Mr Fogarty’s decision to drive to the bar in Nenagh and to drive home, notwithstanding the consumption of alcohol, the judge said. It was Mr Fogarty who had control of the car and its driving and it was he who represented a danger not just to

Mr Moran but other road users and the public in general. The accident was entitely attributable to Mr Fogarty’s driving.

consumed alcohol. They had also spent from about 8.30pm to at least 1am in the bar together and, in each other’s presence, drank between six and nine alcoholic drinks over that time.

Mr Moran knew, or certainly ought to have known, Mr Fogarty’s ability to drive was impaired by drink and, quite clearly, he ought not to have driven, the judge said.

Given all the circumstances, the judge said the aportionment of 15 per cent fault to Mr Moran represented “a significant disroportion” between the respective blameworthiness of the two. The court would set aside the 15 per cent finding and replace it with one of 35 per cent for Mr Moran and 65 per cent for Mr Fogarty.

The case shows the balancing a court must take into account when dealing with drunk driving cases. Clearly people who are injured at the hands of drunk drivers are entitled to compensation for their injuries. Those however who consent to travel with drivers whom they know to be drunk have to have regard for the risk they are undertaking when they do so.

The case does not set a precedent for all such cases as clearly the circumstances of each case must be taken into account.

Paul Tracey

21/07/2009