The same injury lawyer can usually represent two (or more) people were injured in the same accident, unless the lawyer may have a conflict of interest in representing both of them, which means there could have ethical problems involved. Let us look at the conflict of interest in connection with such dual representation in a personal injury case.
If a lawyer representing or two people injured in the accident as well, a conflict of interest may arise if one of these people may be considered wrongful, even partially, for the underlying accident.
What is a conflict of interest?
In the practice of law, one of the most common ways that may occur a “conflict of interest” is when a lawyer by agreeing to represent a client, may damage the interests of another client. If a lawyer representing or two people injured in the accident as well, a conflict of interest may arise if one of these people may be considered wrongful, even partially, for the underlying accident (think of a crash car title example of where possible). A second type of conflict of interest may arise if there is a limited quantity of product available to pay the claims of two guests (or more) who were in the accident.
Let’s delve a little deeper into these two types of conflicts of interest.
When a client may be at fault
Let’s say you and your friend(s) are the passengers in a car that was hit by someone else. It is an easy matter. The two of you have potential claims against the driver of the car that you were in and against the driver of the other car and none of you can be considered at fault. There is no question of having the same lawyer represent both of you.
Now let’s say you are driving and your friend is a passenger in the vehicle, who is affected by someone else. If, for example, your car is stationary at a red light and you are rear ended, it is still problematic for counsel from an ethical point of view. The accident almost certainly fault of the other car, so you can have the same lawyer.
But what happens if you collide at an intersection? Now, the crash may be your fault. In this case, you would have a claim only against the other driver, but your friend would have a claim not only against the other driver, but also potentially against you, depending on what the evidence shows the cause of the accident . So it would probably be considered unethical for a lawyer to represent both you and your friend. Theoretically, your friend could sign a waiver of any recourse against you and you two could sign the waiver of any conflict of interest, but that’s probably pushing it. (More personal injury claim and do not do.) Most lawyers would say the two friends should get separate lawyers.
When there is limited restitution available
Often this situation arises when the defendant, which is clearly wrong, has a limited amount of insurance. Let’s say you are driving and two of your friends are passengers. You wait at a red light when you get hit pretty hard. This is obviously fault of the other driver. All three of you suffer major injuries, such that each of your case may be worth $ 50,000, but the defendant has only $ 50,000 in car insurance coverage. What is happening in this situation?
Here the conflict of interest is that each of wounded people want as much as he or she can get the limited insurance policy to cover the damage. Theoretically, each of the plaintiffs could just distribute the policy of $ 50,000 equal shares or in other agreed in the way. And if the plaintiffs agree on how the policy should be split, there is probably no conflict of interest.
But what happens if they do not want distributed equally to insurance proceeds? In this situation, it would be impossible for the same lawyer to continue representing all three of those injured. The lawyer would have to withdraw from the case, and all three will have to find new lawyers.
The World Health Organization recently removed coffee from the status of a carcinogen
The World Health Organization recently removed coffee from the status of a carcinogen. This move comes after twenty five years after WHO declared that coffee could be a reason for bladder cancer. Coffee drinkers finally have got news to celebrate. The Cancer Research Team of WHO recently concluded that coffee is no longer classified as a possible carcinogen. The organization further stated that coffee does not act as a trigger for other types of cancers including prostate as well as pancreatic cancers.
The WHO with this declaration joins other major studies that eliminated the risks of coffee. Several studies have been conducted to claim that there is no quantifiable link between coffee and cancer. This dramatic announcement was made by the cancer research wing of WHO after analyzing data from over thousands of studies. The IARC official who was responsible for leading the study was Dr.Dana Loomis. In a press statement, he stated that the evidence that coffee is not a carcinogen had increased significantly, since WHO was involved in the study in 1991. It is not the first time that WHO has taken an about turn when it comes to particular substances. But, it is not an event that happens often.
It is to be noted that Americans drink around three cups of coffee per day on an average. The National Coffee Association claims that coffee is the most drunk beverage in the whole United States even preceding tap water. It is becoming increasingly popular in several parts of the world not only limited to the traditional regions of Europe and the U.S. The rate of global consumption of coffee is increasing steadily since 2011.
A study led by the Dana-Farber Cancer institute stated that coffee can prevent the relapse of a few types of cancer including colon cancer. It helped to improve the rate of quick cure. So, brew a fresh cup and enjoy!
There are very few issues that have divided Americans like abortion. The debate on abortion is one that has been raging for several years. Everything right from deep philosophical issues to legal, religious issues has been discussed. However, all these were put aside in the Texas legislature drafted in 2011 and 2013. The simple issue of how complicated and dangerous abortion could be for a woman’s health was the main issue discussed in this legislation.
Those in favor of the anti-abortion law stated that the procedure had to be done under strict medical supervision. They argued that this law protected women from falling prey to unsafe and scrupulous abortion centers that weren’t regulated. Those who were against this law, stated that the law was made with the sole notion of preventing abortions. They also argued that the law didn’t address the issues of protecting the mental and physical health of the women who undertook that procedure.
As a result of this law, several women who wished to have an abortion were forced to travel long distances to have the procedure. Also they ended up waiting for weeks and had to pay huge amount for the procedure.
The case has been going on for than a quarter of century. In the historic ruling given by the Supreme Court the restrictions put forth by Texas on abortions was reduced from five to three. As the case dragged in the courts for several years, there have been several myths surrounding abortions. The most important factor to remember that abortions are now carried out under strict medical supervision and the health of the woman is give prime importance. Studies reveal that all the myths surrounding abortions like that it leads to cancer, results in depression and reduces fertility are totally false and baseless. Studies also claim that woman who wished for and got abortions felt a profound sense of relief.