Allowing Police to Draw Blood At Roadside on Suspected DWI Cases is a Horrible Idea

     The recent article in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle  proposing to allow police officers at traffic stops to use a syringe to draw blood from a suspected drunk driver should be placed in the category of "worst ideas EVER".
     While drunk drivers are a menace and a hazard, there is no reason, at least in New York state, to authorize police officers to perform what is essentially a medical procedure.  I don't care how much training officers might get, the prospect of cops taking blood samples at the side of the road is a horrible idea under any measure of common sense.  Aside from the hazard of injury to the motorist by an ill-performed procedure, which could include transmission of AIDS or HIV, the risks alone to the officer drawing the blood outweigh any perceived advantage to the prosecutors or the public.  If you were the police, would you want to take blood from a potentially intoxicated and/or potentially violent individual in the confines of the back seat of a police car?

     In New York, police authorities may take a person suspected of drunk driving to appropriate medical professionals who can draw the blood under proper conditions.  The law also provides for the blood to be drawn under authority of the court in certain situations.  The law also allows police to arrest individuals for drunk driving without proof of the individuals blood alcohol content.  Why put the health of police officers and motorists at risk  when there is no reason to do so?
     As a lawyer having represented many, many people injured in accidents caused by drunk drivers and the families of those killed by drunk drivers, I can tell you that I can't think of a single instance when I have been prosecuting a personal injury case against a drunk driver where a difference would have been made in the case of the cop on the scene drew blood.  Such a procedure isn't needed in New York and is not worth the risks to all invovled.

Livingston County Man Dies After Being Struck by Car at Demolition Derby

     David Connors, age 64, of Hemlock, Livingston County, died after being hit by a van which was participating in a demolition derby in Batavia on July 25th.    Mr. Connors was part of a safety crew known as the "Derby Dogs" at the time of the accident, standing outside the perimeter of the derby.  Connors had apparently been involved with demolition derby and the Derby Dogs for many years.
     His experience with demolition derby is important as several people have criticized his participation, suggesting that his getting injured was a highly likely event.  Others have suggested that perhaps his estate will sue the event organizers for his injuries and death.  The problem with the foregoing is that if Mr. Connors did indeed put himself in an unreasonably dangerous position at the event, it would likely bar him from a successful claim against anyone, as he arguably would have assumed the risk of injury and eath by his voluntary participation in the event and proximity to the danger.  This is a factual question, however, and we don't have the facts to make this call or criticize the man.
     As for the money aspect of any suit against the responsible partyies (if there are any), in New York, those persons legally responsible for causing his death would be obligated to pay his estate what boils down to the present value of the wages he would have lost by virtue of his death.  This means, if he was working and not retired, all his estate would be able to recover for his wrongful death would be the total of all he would have earned over the remainder of his expected working life, which, probably wouldn't be much due to his age (64 year old men have a very short work life before they retire.)
     It is unfortunate that the loss of a loved one is often reduced to a mathematical calculation, but lawyers don't necessarily make the laws, but we do have to follow them.