Legal News

Published on: January 23, 2011

Jefferson County Kentucky Prosecutors Appealing Ruling In DUI Case: DUIs Cause Serious Injures & Deaths Everyday Across Our Country.

At 5:00 a.m. in January 2010 in Louisville, Kentucky, police were called to the scene of a parking lot where a man was passed out asleep in his truck. The keys were in the ignition, the truck was running, the man’s foot was on the accelerator, one hand was on the steering wheel, the other hand was on the gear shift, and the man was unconscious. The police officers reported hearing the engine running loudly from more than a block away, due to the truck being in park but having the gas pedal stepped on by the unconscious man. At the scene, the police had to break out the window because the man would not wake up and respond to the officers, and officers were afraid the vehicle would either caught on fire or jump into gear and propel itself through the parking lot.

The man admitted to police that he had been drinking at 4th Street Live and the breathalyzer given at the scene showed the man was nearly 3 times the legal limit of impairment. He was dangerous and could have injured or killed someone in the state he was in and driving a car.

However, in October 2010, the Jefferson District Court Judge ruled that the man should not have been charged with DUI, because he was asleep and did not have physical control of the vehicle.

Judges in Kentucky have relied upon a 1986 Kentucky Court of Appeals Case when dealing with DUIs and facts similar to this case. In that Court ruling, the Appeals Court stated that there are four factors to consider when the intoxicated person is asleep in the vehicle, as to where a DUI has been committed. The factors to consider if the person should be charged with DUI are:
(1) Whether the suspect in the vehicle was awake or asleep;
(2) Whether the engine of the suspects vehicle was running;
(3) The vehicle’s location and all circumstances explaining how the vehicle got there; and (4) The intent of the person behind the wheel.
Continue reading →

Published on: January 19, 2011

Kentucky Religious Discrimination Case Settles for $125,000.00

By Ackerson Law Offices

A Kentucky federal lawsuit claiming religious discrimination against the University of Kentucky by a former professor has been settled prior to reaching a jury trial. The case was in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and the judge had ruled there was enough evidence for the case to go to a jury trial.

The allegations of the case were that Professor Martin Gaskell was considered to be the top candidate for UK’s director of it new observatory, until the University became concerned about Gaskell’s religious beliefs and how he coupled such with scientific beliefs.

UK has agreed to pay Gaskell $125,000.00 to settle the case. This is the equivalent of nearly two years salary for Gaskell, who has since found other employment.

In Kentucky, people who believe that they have been discriminated against in the workplace can file suit under federal anti-discrimination laws or under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KRS 344.010 et seq.) There claims are viewed under a multi-prong test which establishes the evidence and shifts burdens of proof. Discrimination cases can be very difficult and hard fought because in most cases they boil down to conflicting testimonies of what really happened and why it happened. Many times, employers will try to mask their discriminatory conduct by coming up with other reasons why they did what they did with regards to the employee. Because of such, these type of cases require a tremendous amount of time combing through documents, emails, and deposing witnesses.
Continue reading →

Published on: January 17, 2011

$2 Million Dollar Settlement Reached In Police Shooting

By Ackerson Law Offices

Fairfax County, Maryland has agreed to a $2 million dollar settlement from an unarmed man being shot and killed by police. In 2006, a Fairfax County police officer shot an unarmed man in front of his townhouse. The man was being arrested by a SWAT team for betting on football games when the officer claimed his gun accidently discharged and killed the man. The police officer was never charged with a crime, and the prosecutor’s office deemed it an accidental shooting.

This type of case here in Kentucky would be a civil right violation and negligence action. Such a case in Kentucky where a person was wrongfully shot and killed by a police officer would be a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the Estate of the deceased, where the Estate would be able to claim damages from the medical bills related to the shooting and the lost lifetime earning capacity of the deceased. Additionally, if the decedent had a wife or children, then there would be a claim for loss of consortium by such family members.

In Kentucky, in wrongful death suits, the damages that can be sought will likely reach over a million dollars due to the claim for a lifetime of lost wages.

Published on: January 14, 2011

Doctor Gets Caught Lying Under Oath

By Ackerson Law Offices

The Courier Journal has reported that a Jefferson County Kentucky Circuit Court Judge has found a Louisville, Kentucky doctor in contempt of court for lying under oath in a deposition. The ruling was issued last week by Judge Frederic Cowan against Dr. Kenneth Smith. Smith has been fined $7,500.00 by the court and the doctor’s false testimony will be allowed to be brought out at the trial.

The doctor’s false statements are reportedly involving whether or not he anonymously sent two newspaper articles about the dangers of frivolous lawsuits to a man who was in the preliminary stages of suing the doctor. The presumption being that he was trying to discourage the man from filing the lawsuit against him. The CJ reports that it has been alleged that the doctor lied over 20 times about having any knowledge of the anonymous letters.

Too often attorneys in lawsuit experience witnesses who lie under oath. It is a flaw within our system, as justice should be about judgment based upon true facts and not skewed by lies. The problem really is that the punishments for lying under oath are not stiff enough. The above case is one of the few where the courts really cracked down on the lies.
Continue reading →