Just this past week, another young student was injured in Stamford, Connecticut, simply due to the jostling he endured while the bus traversed a road under construction. A seat-belt would likely have helped. Is the cost of the seat-belt goinig to be more than the cost of the claim that could be filed by the student's family? How about the cost in the claim for the student who was killed? It can hardly be argued that there is any other consideration in play here apart from the costs of retrofitting the buses. How about an ounce of prevention? If your child has suffered a personal injury, make sure to protect their rights of recovery, and to hold the carrier accountable, by contacting an experienced personal injury attorney.

This legislative session will include proposed laws that will require seat-belts. Support them by contacting your local representtive. Find yours at: ">http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CGAFindLeg.asp ">Connecticut Representative Locator. This is a step in the right direction, but a small one. Connecticut has an enhanced driver and owner liability requirement for a certain class and use of vehicles. The requirement applies to all "common carrierrs" which are transport vehicles carrying passengers for hire, such as taxis, city and school buses, as well as limousines and car services. Because they are deemed professionals who have undertaken responsibility for safely delivering people, rather than products, they must adhere to higherr standards of care while driving, as detailed in Connecticut case law (go to Justia.com to view relevant cases-there are lots!)

Legal responsibility has yet to be determined for the cause of the crash. However, it is clear that seat-belts did not play a role in the accident because, as is the casee with almost all Connecticut school buses, they were not installed on that bus. Connecticut law does not currently require seat-belts. Why not? Economics is obviously the key component, as safety considerations must be weighed against the costs of implementation. There are studies and general concerns that simple lap belts could be more harmful than helpful, causing whipping type injuries. Combination restraints that incluude lap and shoulder belts may not only be too costly, they may be impossible to install in buses currently on the road. Is this the best we can do? Buses and other vehicles that transport people for money are already subject to stricter legal standards of care as "Common Carriers" under Connecticut Law. This means that operators of regular buses, taxis, trolleys and similar road vehicles are required to follow higher safety rules than ordinary driverrs.

School bus drivers have the added responsibility of driving our children, who cannot look out for themselves. Even a teacher's presence cannot add any measure of security where seat-belts are lacking. What to do?

Unfortunately, when a child is injured in a Connecticut pool, it is often a very serious injury, or even, as was the case with a six year old from Greenwich, Connecticut, a fatality. It is especially sad, and frustrating, when such injuries can, or should have been prevented. In the Greenwich, Connecticut pool tragedy, the owner of the pool company responsible for the installation was arrested for failing to comply with swimming pool design and construction regulations, in omitting a protective valve cover. Because that valve cover was not in place, the six year old boy became trapped, under water, due to the valve's strong suction. Had the cover been in place, as required by code, he could not have become trapped by that valve, it is claimed by his family's attorneys. Just this year, Congress passed the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act. This act requires valves and drains to be properly covered, which will prevent many entrapments, and eviscerations.

Connecticut's swimming pool laws are designed to protect swimmers from serious injury and even death, which can be caused by drowning, entrapment in a drain or valve, or due to misplaced diving boards in an area that is too shallow. There are a number of Connecticut swimming pool rules relating to safety, but a few are exceptionally noteworthy, and well worth mentioning, since many pool owners may not even be aware of them.

Whenever my kids visit a friend whose house has a pool, we ask safety questions in the same manner as if they child were going to a house where guns might be present: what safety measures are in place to protect my kids from harm? Will you be present at all times if the kids are in the pool? If not, then who will be watching them? Do you have fencing around the pool, and an alarm in place, as required? Most times, unless the house is one whose owners are close friends, and we are comfortable with how they handle their pool safety, we will simply ask that our child not be allowed in or even near the pool at all absent our presence. We have had no complaints from those parents, thankfully, as they have been both accommodating of our concerns, and genuinely pleased that we take such an interest in safety.

My own kids have been begging for two things for several years. First is a dog. We are 4-1 on this one, with the one "no" vote being my wife, who insists she will be the one soley in charge of all dog care (she is quite right, and therefore, she wins this one). Second is a trampoline. We are 3-2 on this one, where both my wife and I agree that we will not have one (we even rejected a neighbor's offer of a free one last year-his kids no longer used it). We have both seen firsthand the serious injuries that children can suffer while on a trampoline.

Injuries to children from jumping on a trampoline are not only common, they are quite often serious enough to change a child's life forever, without warning, and without the child doing something wrong, without there being a defect in the manufacture of the trampoline and can even happen when there is proper parental supervision.

This situation begs the question: Are trampolines so dangerous that they should be banned altogether

As the parent of a near teenager, I make sure to monitor my son's whereabouts at all times. As he approaches the age when he may be in someone else's car, potentially a newly licensed teen driver, I anticipate many discussions about what is permitted, and what must be avoided at all costs. As he, and later, his younger siblings, reach driving age, I hope that these early warnings will stay with him, and them, in their driving habits.

Parents: Be sure to have proper and adequate automobile insurance in place on your vehicles. A review of your policy with your agent or insurance representative is essential when you have a new driver of your cars. If you are unclear about what these coverages mean, or have a claim that you need to discuss, speak to an experienced personal injury attorney for answers to liability questions, and what you should expect from your insurance agent or representative. Specifically, ensure that your liability coverage is high enough to protect your own assets if your car is involved in an accident that is deemed your child's fault (or anyone else driving your car). Imagine facing a claim or being sued for such an accident and learning, too late, that your coverage is not enough because your child struck a school bus full of children, and each was injured, and looking to you and your policy for coverage. If that coverage is insufficient, they can also look to your personal assets for compensation. It may be a bit more expensive, but having piece of mind where automobile liability is involved is worth the price. This is especially so because of the high number of accidents involving teen drivers.

The driver, age 16, was not supposed to be carrying any passengers at all, because she was so new to the road, and was thus in violation of Connecticut's newly enacted teen driver laws (see C.G.S. section 14-36, multiple sub-sections) which, among other changes after 8-1-08, prohibits new drivers from having passengers for the first 6 months of having a license, other than a driving instructor, licensed parent or guardian). This teen driver had three passengers in her car.

You may recall from an earlier post I wrote, under Injury Prevention that a key recommendation of the World Health Organization in reducing child accidental death was to restrict teen drivers from having passengers until they gain sufficient experience behind the wheel. Connecticut passed this teen driver law just this past August, 2008, in response to numerous serious teen car accidents, and even fatalities, and in an effort to reduce the chances that more would occur.

However, while it needs no pesticides or other chemicals to stay green all year long, the make-up of this synthetic turf field may, some claim, be harmful in other ways. The risk that children playing on these types of fields might be injured, or exposed to harmful chemicals from the pellets, is the subject of many local, and national, opinions, both for and against the continued use of artificial turf instead of natural grass.

Connecticut is using money from a prior environmental contamination settlement to determine if the ground-up tires is the equivalent of a defective product when it is used for fields or in gardens as mulch. While I am not aware of any fields having been closed during this investigation, apparently, no new fields will be approved until the safety issue is resolved.

In a prior article, Injury Prevention Bulletin, I wrote about the World Health Organization report on the number of accidental deaths of children. One of their top suggestions for reducing that shocking number of serious injuries to and death of children was to regularly use bicycle helmets.

In an effort to reduce the severity of accidents when they do occur, Connecticut, has a strict (Bicycle Helmet law: CGS section 14-286b) which requires all riders under age 15 to wear an approved helmet. This Connecticut helmet law (one of only 22 states that have one at all), appropriately holds parents accountable for ensuring compliance. To determine if a helmet is "approved," look for a label referencing either American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or the Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling/ and click on "certified helmets" under "Find Out."

Having three young children, all of whom ride, I, too wear a helmet at all times, even when just cruising in our driveway. This consistent use of a helmet is not only an example for my kids, but has, on at least one occasion, saved me, a former triathlete and bicycle racer, form a potentially serious injury. While exiting my own driveway, I had a mechanical malfunction, which caused my bike to come to an unexpected stop, pitching me over the handlebars so suddenly I had no chance to make any mid-flight adjustment to protect myself. I landed squarely on my head, which was fortunately covered by a good helmet. While I was certainly surprised, and embarrassed, I was also relieved not to have been hurt, at all, despite cracking the top of the helmet.

Boards of Education, and each school under its purview, are required to have safety protocols in place with regard to how teachers and others supervise students both inside the classroom, and everywhere else on school property and during school sponsored activities. Having those protocols is not, however, enough. There must be affirmative steps taken at all times to ensure those protocols are followed, every day. Unfortunately, even a small lapse in procedure can result in a serious compromise of student safety.

In this Easton, Connecticut school playground injury incident, one of the key elements of the claim is that there were too few recess monitors, a seemingly easy problem to have prevented. The girl's injuries are alleged to have been a broken arm requiring surgery, which has left her both mentally and physically scarred. In negligent supervision claims such as this one, it is the injured party's burden to prove that the school's negligence (not having adequate protocols, too few recess monitors) caused her injuries. If it is clear to the students that certain behavior will not be tolerated, and that there are teachers and staff diligently watching them, the risk that students will fight, or be bullied, is dramatically reduced. At the very least, we can be more comfortable that those to whom we entrust our children for most of the day are as safe as they can be.

It is unclear as to why school officials or security did not remove the two white girls, who were making the verbal assaults, from the show, or otherwise intervene to avoid a physical confrontation. The white girls were apparently told to stop, but nothing further was done, according to news reports (Connecticut Post, Thursday February 12, 2009), until the verbal confrontation turned physical. All involved were arrested on a variety of charges.

It is highly likely that, given the nature of the verbal assaults, and the claims of a racially motivated component, that this Stratford, Connecticut bullying incident will require further investigation. The question for this writer is why the school representatives and others officiating at the show did not take much earlier steps to avoid the escalation to violence, especially in light of their obligations under Connecticut's newly enacted anti-bullying statutes .

As a result of the efforts of the two parents, and one grandparent/care-giver, Connecticut enacted legislation carefully spelling out the rules for teachers, healthcare administrators and others involved in the non-custodial (outside the home) care of children with disabilities with respect to seclusion and restraint as a method for controlling unacceptable behavior. The legislation is designed to protect these children with special circumstances or needs from suffering serious personal injuries at school and other facilities when in the care of those other than their primary care-givers. Serious injuries to these children can include extreme fear, anxiety, confusion, and can lead to physical injuries when the child attempts to escape or make their pleas heard. The legislation also includes mandatory reporting requirements for those care-givers when restraint or seclusion is used, under many circumstances, and especially where there is a longer term of restraint or seclusion.

When we place any child in the hands of another care-giver, whether that child has or does not have special needs or circumstances, we are making a great leap of faith. When the rules are not clear, the laws not strictly followed, we cannot feel secure. However, when we monitor our schools and others involved in the daily lives of our children, and call for action when there is problem, we take control of our children's safety. In this instance, the fuzzy line has now been made a bright line rule.

1-13-09 Connecticut Post

The single most challenging aspect of this report’s conclusion is what to do about it. Ilean Arias of the U.S. CDC has the following suggestions to best reduce the U.S. contribution to that enormous number: 1) use a graduated drivers’ license; 2) limit the times during which young drivers can operate a car; 3) limit the number of occupants in a car driven by a new driver, and 3) require all children under the age of 8 to use a booster seat. Connecticut already has laws that specifically address each of these methods of reducing the risk to our children. Connecticut has a six/sixty rule requiring boosters until the age of six AND reaching sixty pounds; Connecticut also already restricts the times during which new drivers can drive: daylight hours at first, then later times progressively. The laws severely restrict the times during which any passenger can be in the car, especially during the first few months having a license . For new drivers, they can have no passengers other than someone over eighteen, and only during the day. That restriction eases as the driver gains experience and where there is a legitimate reason for a young driver to be on the road, such as for work.

Bicycle helmet requirements, no-checking by young hockey players, and careful design, construction and maintenance of playgrounds round out the list for the U.S. and Canada. For the full details, see the report at World Health Organization’s website

Connecticut's Bicycle Helmet Law:
Connecticut General Statute Section 14-286d (b) No child FIFTEEN years of age OR UNDER shall operate a bicycle on the traveled portion of any highway unless such child is wearing protective headgear which conforms to the minimum specifications established by the American National Standards Institute or the Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling. Failure to comply with this section shall not be a violation or an offense. Failure to wear protective headgear as required by this subsection shall not be considered to be contributory negligence on the part of the parent or the child nor shall such failure be admissible in any civil action.

According to the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, children’s ears are at risk of serious injury, including hearing loss, from the loud, in the ear sounds produced by today’s iPods, MP3 players, and other personal audio devices. While these products may not have been deemed defective, it’s the fact that they work so well that makes them dangerous. These electronic music players are some of the most requested holiday and special occasion items on our kids’ wish lists. They are also marketed to and purchased directly by kids who are good savers, or who have a successful paper route, internet business, or if they were lucky enough to have a valuable trading card to sell.

These devices are small, powerful and have battery lives that allow the user to listen for longer than the old Sony Walkman-esque music players. Most include “ear buds” or “in-the-ear”-type earphones, creating direct paths to the eardrum. Many players are capable of producing sound up to 120 decibels. That’s the equivalent of a jumbo jet taking off, or a rock concert near the speakers (see Wiikepdia under “120 decibels”). At levels above about 85 decibels, children are exposed to a serious risk of early hearing impairment, especially when used for prolonged periods of time, according to experts in child hearing loss. iPods, and some other brands have a volume limiting setting that parents can control, and can make permanent by also using a security code to lock it in place. Because the user may not always be in a place where parental monitoring is possible, these types of protections can make a difference.

Another method of reducing the risk of serious injury to the ears of children, and adults, too, is to use noise-cancelling ear-buds or headphones, which are usually only available as an aftermarket item, but which allow for listening at lower volumes by reducing outside noise.

However, all must acknowledge the risk of serious injury to children’s ears and hearing if they are allowed to listen without limiting the time and volume. The harm might be unseen on the outside, but it is certainly going to leave a mark on the inside. If you, your child, friends or relatives have suffered an injury to the ear, of have suffered hearing loss from excessive noise exposure, know your rights by contacting a personal injury attorney experienced in handling claims for serious personal injuries.

iPod Use Now Can Mean Deafness Later
12-22-08 McClatchy-Tribune, by Jodi Mailander Farrell

Sports are risky enough. Defective sporting equipment and other defective products used in sports enhance those risks, especially when used by children. Serious personal injuries occur every day on the sports fields. I have been coaching for six years, and make it a priority to check the fields, equipment, courts and players' personal equipment prior to the start of practice or a game. Most towns encourage feedback on the condition of their athletic facilities. Parents and coaches must be on the lookout for problems with defective equipment, and notify officials and those responsible for the equipment of concerns with the safety, design and set-up of sports equipment and facilities. If you or your child were injured while participating in a sports event, you should contact an experienced personal injury lawyer who has handled these types of claims, and can explain your rights.

More information on product safety, recalls and warnings can be found at the Consumer Product Safety Commission website, or at the State of Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection

Whenever a student suffers serious personal injuries, or is otherwise exposed to a wrong at school, or when a student claims his rights were violated, both the town and the board of education, which operates as an independent entity in Connecticut, can be held responsible. However, state and federal laws have notice requirements whenever a claim is to be made against a town, municipality or board of education, which can be as short as 180 days from the date of the occurrence. The notice must be in strict compliance with the requirements, or all bets are off, and the claim will be barred.

If you suspect that your child suffered serious personal injuries, or was the victim of inappropriate conduct while at school, or under school supervision and authority, you should consult a qualified Connecticut personal injury attorney to ensure your rights are protected.

Strip searches probed; principal on leave, Connecticut Post, On-line edition, Melvin Mason Staff Writer 12-11-08