Wade B. Coye, Attorney at Law

Wade Coye, Accident & Injury Attorney

The regulatory oversight of various areas of our life and consumer products is critical to ensure safe food, highways, motor vehicles and other aspects of social living that we enjoy. When this oversight is conducted by independent agencies without vested interests in the outcome of the regulation, it is much more beneficial to the individual consumer and the whole society than when regulation occurs by companies which can be affected by the outcome of it.

The ideal situation would be that regulatory agencies involved in the oversight are free of ethical considerations. Industry appointments may impair the independence of the decisions made by the regulators, and can cause unexpected ethical conflicts. It is difficult to expect independent agencies to conduct regulatory oversight, since on one hand government regulation can stifle economic growth by restricting companies’ abilities to function lucratively in a free market. On the other hand, regulation that occurs essentially by the companies that are regulated amounts to basically no regulation at all.

The NY Times and the LA Times have reported this month on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) being back in hot water regarding the regulatory oversight of their decision about unexplained vehicle acceleration which occurred in 2009 and 2010 with various models of Toyota vehicles. In those cases, the NHTSA investigation found that faulty gas pedals and floor mats, or driver error, were responsible for the numerous crashes and deaths that ultimately caused Toyota to issue a recall on affected models. Currently, the firm Safety Research Strategies is bringing a freedom-of-information lawsuit against the NHTSA to force them to release documents and videos which support that faulty electronic equipment may instead be to blame.

The situation is that the NHTSA may have vested interests, both in respects of finances and public image, which may keep them being entirely forthcoming about the cause of the unexplained vehicle acceleration. Highway and motor vehicle safety is a function of well designed and well manufactured vehicles, well designed and well maintained highways, and safe drivers. Without all three, the results can be severely injured or killed people, millions of dollars in damages for medical expenses and lost wages, higher insurance costs, and ultimately poor public faith in companies such as Toyota or institutions such as the NHTSA. Government agencies staffed by industry insiders is a bit of the case of the fox guarding the hen house. Who is watching the regulators who are supposed to be watching out for us?

Wade Coye, Accident & Injury Attorney

Some doctors, or medical offices, may exclusively treat patients who were injured in auto accidents and are processing claims through insurance. Having this type of doctor manage your medical care has its strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes, doctors whose practices have a bit more balance – in other words a medical practice that handles a variety of trauma cases not necessarily all of which are involved in legal matters – may be beneficial for an injured client. Doctors who deal exclusively in auto accident claims may appear at first glance to be positive to an injured person’s case, however this can actually be “too much of a good thing.”

I also find that if the person’s injury requires services of an orthopedic surgeon, neurosurgeon, neurologist, psychiatrist, chiropractor or other specialist, there are a multitude of medical offices that will be efficient in treating patients quickly, ordering any needed tests early in the treatment process, and accept a variety of health insurances. These specialists typically do not specialize in treating patients whose injuries come from one source, and their experience dealing with the legal system and insurance claims processing can vary widely.

While it is true that doctors who do specialize in auto accident claims are obviously aware of the legal process and have experience testifying in court; yet, sometimes insurance companies attempt to label and vilify these medical professionals as “plaintiff’s’ doctors.” This insinuates that the doctor only offers favorable opinions to injured patients, and therefore that their opinions are insubstantial as medical evidence. If you’ve been injured in an auto accident you don’t want any prejudice – even perceived – against the medical professional who is testifying about your injuries and necessary treatment.

Wade Coye, Accident & Injury Attorney

A medical professional does have the right to refuse to testify in court regarding a patient’s medical records. However, the patient has the right to subpoena the medical professional to appear. While this is an option, it is not always the best solution. A doctor who feels that they’ve been “forced” or “pressured” into appearing in court by a subpoena may be uncooperative and not an ideal witness. Recently, we were faced with a situation where one of our clients had actually been presented with a document to sign that released the treating doctor from providing testimony in a court case under any circumstances. Certainly, this doctor may have outstanding credentials and may provide excellent care to patients, but there can be grave consequences to a personal injury case if an injured person receives medical care from a doctor with this mentality.

It can hurt your claim if your doctor won’t testify in court on the specifics of your injuries. The opinions about the care a client who is suffering from a personal injury needs during their case, opinions about that person’s future care, and specifics of the costs and expenses associated with that care are all details that typically are decided by the treating doctor.  You can imagine the problems that can arise if you have been treated for several years while paying the medical bills or your health insurance costs and expecting to need care in the future, and then the doctor who has been managing your care during that time refuses to participate in the legal process.

If there is a need for immediate care but not emergency room care and the only available resource to pay the expense of the medical care is a person’s personal injury protection or no fault insurance benefits, then an Urgent Care Clinic is a solid option from both a medical and legal standpoint. Typically, urgent care clinics cost less than a hospital emergency room, a person can be treated very quickly and efficiently, and it can save an injured person money in both the short and long-run. In this case, most Urgent Care Clinics will not ask patients to waive the doctors’ professional testimony, and if they do, it may be worthwhile to subpoena the medical professional based on the fact that the patient had limited choices and sought care so that they did not have to suffer further with their injury.

Wade Coye, Accident & Injury Attorney

In a word, yes.  But not in the way you might think, or that the insurance industry might have you believe. It’s not necessarily about shopping for the doctor who is most likely to support your case, but instead, some doctors just plain do not – or will not – testify in court. Alternatively, some doctors are in court testifying far too frequently, and typically, it’s apparent whose side they’re on.

In representing people injured in car and truck accidents, our office staff has become very familiar with the local medical providers who care for our clients. All medical doctors, osteopaths, and chiropractors can testify in court (in most circumstances) about the injuries and resulting difficulties an injured client is having. It is important to have some appreciation of the doctor’s point of view, and perhaps the overall inclination concerning lawsuits and the doctor’s involvement in them. For instance, there are some doctors who absolutely will not agree to provide expert testimony in a personal injury case, and while a doctor can be subpoenaed to court, it may not necessarily be helpful to your case to do so. An unwilling witness – even if truthful – rarely contributes to a positive outcome.

So what type of doctor is the best for your care?  Well, I am an advocate of reviewing all available resources for medical care at the earliest possible opportunity during the claim process.  Each personal injury case is different, but combining an understanding of the workings of the legal system with a review of a person’s medical needs and their available insurance resources in order to allow them to obtain the treatment they need is a critical step that must be done early in a personal injury claim process.

Wade Coye, Accident & Injury Attorney

Friends and family are sometimes surprised at the extent to which we are involved in the details of assisting our clients who were in auto accidents. To many people, the most important question is how to handle property damage and often their biggest concern is the use of their vehicle. While we are assisting clients in navigating the insurance claim process for the damage to their vehicle, and aiding them in getting their vehicle repaired or replaced, we are also busy assisting those clients with options to obtain timely, effective medical treatment.

Early in our car accident cases which result in injuries we establish the possible insurance coverage options to pay for our clients’ medical care. We evaluate options of health insurance, such as group or individual coverage, Medicaid, or Medicare, in addition to the required personal injury protection (PIP) and optional medical coverage of our clients’ auto insurance policies. Additionally, we help clients establish what medical problems they may face, and consider what medical providers are appropriate given the limitations and exclusions of their insurance coverage.

For example, when a person has no health insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare, and their insurance is limited to PIP their potential medical needs can quickly surpass the limits of their coverage. We have to help these clients diligently watch these limits and keep their expenses below those costs. This is because PIP is limited to $10,000 and is available to compensate a policy holder for both wage loss and medical bills. Often, a trip to the emergency room just to get checked out can cost upwards of $2,000 for minimal evaluation and tests. We know that it is critical that their dollars be used wisely during their case to properly address problems in a way so that their benefits aren’t exhausted immediately.

If a person has health insurance then we begin to look at allowed providers and make suggestions regarding which doctors will provide the client the appropriate treatment for their situation. Clients can be surprised to find out that some doctors and medical providers do not want to become involved in claims legalities, and are not willing to testify in court regarding personal injury cases. This can be devastating to an injured person’s case in court. On the other hand, some local doctors may specialize in only personal injury or auto accident patients, and this can be equally as detrimental to an injured person’s claim; especially if that person requires specialized treatment and has to seek additional treatment from another provider.

To help clients in as many ways possible, we often process mileage reports for clients to ensure they receive reimbursement for their costs of traveling to and from medical appointments, and can aid clients in processing prescription claims as well. If the medical treatment required is complicated and involves several offices, we can help coordinate between medical providers to ensure that clients are receiving the right care.

Processing a claim after a car accident can be frightening and overwhelming, and our staff recognizes that it is a difficult process for our clients. We take pride in going above and beyond the customer service expected, and have committed to making the process of insurance claims as painless as possible for all our clients. I’ve seen the difference it makes, and encourage my staff to set an example in the industry and continue these helpful habits with every injured person.

Wade Coye, Accident & Injury Attorney

Friends and family sometimes ask me for tips and tricks on processing insurance claims if they are involved in an auto accident. Typically, people are most concerned with getting their vehicle repaired, and so I remind them that if they’ve been hit by someone, the other person’s insurance isn’t just responsible for covering the cost of damage to the vehicle, but also potentially the vehicle value lost, and the loss of use while the car is being repaired.

It is your right as the consumer to take your car to any repair shop you prefer, rather than one the other person’s insurance company recommends. The at-fault driver’s insurance company should pay for repairs as long as the cost at the shop you choose is reasonable. Since the insurance company is also responsible to compensate you for the loss of use of your vehicle, this is sometimes handled by offering to rent you a car. This doesn’t mean that you can rent an expensive sportscar with the insurance company’s money, but it does mean you are entitled to rent something comparable to your damaged vehicle. For example, my pick-up truck was totaled when I was struck at an intersection and the other party’s insurance offered to provide me with a compact car rental. However, I needed a pick-up, and reminded the insurance company that they were required to provide me with a comparable vehicle, similar to the one that was damaged. (Needless to say, after discussing the situation with a supervisor the company provided a comparable rental vehicle.)

Unfortunately, renting a car can be a devilish detail if the driver of the car being repaired is under 25 years of age. Most rental companies will charge an insurance premium for an under-25 driver, but it does happen that young adults are involved in accidents and find themselves needing access to a vehicle until theirs is repaired. When my daughter was attending the University of Florida, she was the victim of an auto accident when she was struck by another driver. Luckily, there was only property damage, but the insurance company was hesitant to compensate her at a rate that took into account the fact that she was an under-25 driver. Depending on the car and the company, the rate to rent a car can be twice as much for a driver under 25. The bottom line is that she needed a car for transportation to work and school, and the insurance company was required to compensate her for being unable to use her car.

Typically, it is more convenient to process a claim for the loss of use of your vehicle through the insurance directly, rather than renting a car on your own and requesting a reimbursement. Knowing your rights during an accident claim can help you receive all the benefits to which you are entitled, including compensation for property damage, loss of use, and diminished value of the vehicle.

Wade Coye, Accident & Injury Attorney

On June 27 HBO aired a special documentary called Hot Coffee, which explored the popular lawsuit known as the “McDonald’s hot coffee case” from 1994. As many people know, Stella Liebeck, 79, spilled a hot cup of McDonald’s coffee in her lap, which resulted in permanent scarring and a scandal. She sued McDonald’s and was awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The HBO special is designed to remind the public of her story and the bigger thematic issues of her unfortunate example.

Her Story

Ms. Liebeck was in the passenger seat of her car when she ordered a cup of coffee from the McDonald’s drive-thru window. When she proceeded to remove its lid while holding the cup between her legs, the entire cup spilled onto her thighs and was immediately absorbed through her jogging suit, as if she was immersed in scalding liquid. The beverage was found to be held at a temperature between 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit, about 70 degrees hotter than the average cup of coffee. This extreme temperature resulted in Ms. Liebeck suffering third-degree burns, spending over a week in the hospital, and undergoing two reconstructive (not cosmetic) skin grafts. From that moment on, Ms. Liebeck was never able to bend or use her legs to the same extent as previously, and the overall quality of her life was severely affected.

Even in consideration of this personal tragedy, Ms Liebeck filed suit only seeking compensation for the cost of her medical bills – $20,000. McDonald’s refused to settle out of court and insisted on a trial.

The Trial

During discovery, it was revealed that in the decade before Ms Liebeck’s case, McDonald’s had more than 700 reports of customers being burnt by their coffee. This repetitive complaint was no fluke: it was McDonald’s policy to keep their coffee at temperatures which were unsafe for consumption.

In their marketing research, McDonald’s had discovered that by keeping the beverage at such an excessive temperature it was possible to:

a) convince people the coffee was appetizing, because it couldn’t really be tasted and

b) increase the coffee’s shelf life, which then decreased the expense of coffee waste.

Under all, it was a cut-and-dry monetary business decision.

The nonchalance with which McDonald’s approached this prior knowledge of injury and their awareness of potential dangers shocked and enraged the jury. These facts showed jurors that McDonald’s simply ignored the best interests of their customers, and that their negligence resulted in Ms Liebeck’s life-altering injuries. The judge instructed the jury that, given the facts of the case, they could consider punitive damages and act as the conscience of the community, and jurors unanimously decided Ms. Liebeck’s case be awarded the cost of both her medical care and her resulting pain and suffering – to the tune of a total of $3 million.

The Impact

All punitive damages are designed to send a message and draw awareness to the results of liability negligence, and that goal was spectacularly achieved in this case. Although the kind of attention the case ended up receiving may not necessarily be what the jurors had in mind.

Theoretically, punitive damages are the result of juror’s being empowered by the judicial system – the juror has the chance to take a stand and make a call in the name of fairness and the greater good. The story of this case could have been one of responsible jury members serving their country, and awarding justice for Ms. Liebeck and for the benefit of all consumer safety by causing McDonald’s to get a little egg on their face. However, the corporate media spin which resulted belittled and degraded the immensity of the case’s importance to civil justice, and turned it instead into a commentary on “frivolous litigation” and fodder for comedy sketches and talk show hosts. Ms. Liebeck was painted as reckless, her injuries were retold to the public as being minor, and the case has essentially been seen as a laughingstock of greedy American culture ever since. You may remember newspaper and magazine headlines such as “hot steaming nonsense” and “justice gets burned” as the media made light of an aging woman who was the victim of codified corporate negligence.

The Politics

In the HBO documentary, Hot Coffee, director and lawyer Susan Saladoff rightly looks at the framework around the case in public media portrayal. Corporate power has only grown since this 1994 decision, and with the 2010 Supreme Court decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, corporations are now allowed to fund an unlimited amount of money to political campaigns. Because of First Amendment speech rights, corporations are granted enough power to use multi-billion dollar media campaigns to influence, direct, and modify public opinion through a vigorous and well-funded system of spin.

Some corporations want to vilify cases like Liebeck’s and use them as evidence of a “jury out of control.” Sometimes the argument goes so far as to propose limiting, or even removing, the rights of the jury, but that’s not the democratic system of justice. The American jury system is so unique at its core because the jury is one of the most powerful entities in the lawmaking process. What Hot Coffee reminds me is that before a jury, individuals and corporations, the relative powerless and powerful, become equals and are subject to be held liable to a communal standard set by their peers. It is refreshing in its vigilance to remember the true message in this kind of case, the reason why punitive damages exist, and the power that each juror holds in the potential to affect history.

Wade Coye, Accident & Injury Attorney

Governmental regulation is something we encounter every day, pervading all aspects of life as American citizens; from the food we eat to the cars we drive, the way we communicate with one another, and even what we consider basic and fundamental rights of personal choice and liberty. Governmental regulation may be completely unconscious, but it persists to affect daily life regardless of our awareness of it.

In the news over the last year regarding the FDA’s regulatory responsibility over low grade antibiotic usage in livestock the reports have highlighted an escalating importance of public attention to overall governmental regulation, or lack thereof, and potential consequences on individuals and families. As a consumer, an attorney, and a father, the potential neglect in question brings up several key and interesting points of concern.

Briefly, the history of the issue is this: over the last 35 years (since 1977) the FDA has attempted to limit the use of antibiotics in agriculture, but efforts have been thwarted. The major opposition keeping this practice common has come from farming interests – meat agencies and their lobbying representatives in the industry. “Across the pond,” Denmark has led the European example since the 90’s; banning the use of antibiotics in all swine since 1999. In 2006 antibiotic usage was banned across the entire European Union for all livestock intended for human consumption. Still, the US failed to consider this example for public health even with outbreaks of disease such as the Avian flu (2003-2004) and swine flu (2009-2010).

Finally, last month the Natural Resource Defense Council, joined by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Food Animal Concerns Trust, Public Citizen, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, have collectively filed suit against the FDA for failing to meet its legal responsibility to protect public health. They are using medical and scientific research from the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, The American Academy of Pediatrics, the USDA, and the National Academy of Science (amongst others) as evidence to support the basis for the suit. Allegedly, the research supports the public concern that bacteria becomes resistant to low-dose antibiotics while in the animals, and these resilient bacteria are passed to consumers. With bacteria increasingly resistant to the effects of medicines intended to eradicate them, consumers have a higher likeliness of becoming ill due to bacterial infection, and a lower chance of recovery from their illnesses because of a lack of medicine efficient to destroying the bacteria.

In upstate New York, my family have been dairy farmers providing for their local community and national distributors for four generations. Because of this personal history, I am familiar with the realities of government regulations, subsidies, and practices in the farming and food production industry. Farmers are and should be concerned about both about production of a quality product as well as their profit margin, whereas it seems at times that distributors, retailers, and government lobbyists are concerned only with the latter.

The agricultural industry is constantly changing and it is change which is necessary for progress. I have witnessed changes in the
industry during my own lifetime, such as stricter and more beneficial regulations against harmful pesticides such as DDT. Even less harmful pesticides were previously used more freely and are now under stricter regulations because of concerns for consumer protection and the public welfare. Unfortunately, the truth about the harmful effects of chemical compounds – even if they are not directly harmful to human consumption – can only be revealed after the fact. In the case of consistent presence of antibiotics in our food supply, if the effects are beginning to be recorded by the research findings of the prestigious agencies listed above, then it is absolutely time for the regulatory agencies with the power to affect the public well-being take action to have the effects for which they were created.

A more personal question about effects becomes that of individual and collective public retribution for these potentially negligent governmental actions. A highly publicized example of the last decade, Anderson vs PG&E – or more commonly known as the case of the Hollywood film Erin Brokovich –  was concerned with regulatory lapse in regulations of water contamination linked to health concerns. Only earlier this week, the US Supreme Court released a decision regarding an air quality suit. They stated that because a regulatory agency – in this instance the EPA – hasn’t yet acted to a public welfare concern does not mean that their authority is invalidated, and environmental concerns may not be matters to be settled judiciously if there is federal agency assigned to regulate the affair. The decision continued that states and private parties may petition the EPA for a rulemaking on regulations of specific pollutants, and the EPA’s response will be reviewed in federal court at that time. Interestingly, these three cases deal with the most precious and basic of human needs: air, water, and food.

Depending on the level of importance the media assigns to this suit against the FDA, the litigation could either become high profile and hotly debated publically, or could be decided completely under the public radar. Obviously, there are advocates who will attempt to promote and put the issue in the spotlight, and it is my belief that at least individuals should be educated in the potential effects on their lives and the lives of their children, even if they are not further concerned about the workings of government and regulatory agencies. Will individuals be allowed to bring individual or collective suit against the FDA or other agencies for a lack of protection in these circumstances? Only time will tell.

Wade Coye, Accident & Injury Attorney

Two weeks ago I was privileged to speak at the Memorial Day Service at the Cpl Larry E Smedley National Vietnam War Museum in Orlando, Florida. Being a veteran myself, I was honored to speak for a crowd which included active duty and reserve service members, their families and loved ones, and retired and veteran soldiers. There can be no greater show of duty and service than to fight for one’s country.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a constant presence in all our minds over the last decade, and with the events occurring in the last 6 months – both the “official” withdraw of the last brigade of combat troops from Iraq and the death of Osama Bin Laden last month – the focus in the media and public forums is again shifting toward military spending. The economy and the budget deficit are enormous issues and not to be underemphasized in importance, but as a passionate veteran’s rights attorney I have difficulty supporting the current political rhetoric I am hearing in discussions of budgeting and expense.

There is nothing more disheartening than to meet with a veteran who served his country honorably and who returns home unable to find a job or with other issues and struggles. According to a September 2010 report released by the Congressional Research Service the numbers of our service personnel returning home and being analyzed for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is higher than ever before. Having served in the Army, I am highly concerned that Army members represent 67% of new PTSD cases. Unemployment among veterans ages 18-24 is over 25% and new disability claims for veterans wounded in the line of duty is rising every day. What politicians don’t seem to understand is that these service members are returning home with the intention of working, and are unable to for one reason or another.

For those that do go back to work, I have even seen denials by insurance companies for worker’s compensation claims on the basis that the source of the injury is actually military service rather than an accident on the job. It seems to me that these companies are shirking their responsibility to soldiers. While PTSD or disabilities received from military service may complicate a soldier’s life after returning home, these brave Americans in uniform do not deserve to have their injuries overlooked or their claims falsely denied. They are still subject to accidents on the job, regardless of veteran experience or its impact.

Whether the reasons are physical – due to a loss of limb, eye, or another physical incapacity – or psychological, the men and women who serve our country and fight for American freedom are deserving of society’s highest levels of support and praise. In January the ArmyTimes reported that, at least in regards to Florida, Guard members are being preemptively treated to better job opportunities than most. The Army has recognized that if these service members return home to Florida from anywhere else in the world and subsequently can’t find employment, they may choose to move where the jobs are, and Florida will lose them as valuable assets to our economy and our Florida Guard. These soldiers are being taught how to write resumes, how to interview and adjust to civilian employment, and the particulars of applying the skills they learned while serving their country in order to serve a Florida business upon their return. I hope that the other branches of the military can realize that this struggle is a national one. All our men and women in uniform deserve every edge when they return from combat.

As Washington focuses on the rising federal debt they attempt to plug holes in our federal vessel while the ship is sinking. As Politics Daily has reported, for the last year a large part of that focus has been to discuss the options of cutting military pay, benefits, commissaries, housing waivers, and health insurance. This is an outright disgrace to those young people who choose to put their lives on the line for the freedoms that we all enjoy. Perhaps it is time to demand politicians demonstrate through their votes rather than talk of their commitment to troops coming home. One of the greatest lessons of which I was reminded last week, standing in front of my fellow service members and veterans, is this: Memorial Day is a day of remembrance and reckoning for those who would send young men and women to war, but forget them upon return.

I encourage anyone who is a business owner to consider a member of the Florida Guard, the Reserves, or a veteran for your next available job position. I believe you’ll find military personnel are some of the most respectful, dedicated, and trustworthy employees. I encourage all veterans to keep your heads up and seek treatment if you are suffering from PTSD or having difficulty in an employment search. There are a variety of websites and VA services available which can help connect you with job opportunities and make your transition home easier. (I have listed three below for your easy reference.) I encourage all voters to pay special attention when the media covers the issues of cutting benefits to our service members. Overall, I encourage each and every American to remember a simple fact on which our country has been built in blood, sweat, and tears through the annals of history: Freedom is costly.

Resources:

Military Hire: The leading job and resume site for veterans

Recruit Military: US Veterans, Former, and Transitioning Military Jobs

Purple Heart Service Foundation: Disabled Veterans Job Training, Employment and Job Placement

Wade Coye, Accident & Injury Attorney

There are some powerful people in this world whose names you may not hear until they make a major public mistake. Case in point: Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Up until May 14th 2011, you may not have heard the name of the man who directed the International Monetary Fund. But once a hotel employee accused Mr. Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault during his stay at the Sofitel hotel in Manhattan, his name, career, and reputation were all over the news for the next week. Sure, he’s an influential and wealthy person, so there is speculation about how he will be treated in the American legal system. He is innocent until proven guilty, just like anyone else charged with a crime in the United States. Those interested in the case may also wonder how his status as a French citizen and former leader of the IMF could affect the punishment for such an egregious crime.

As of today, May 24th, Strauss-Kahn is being held on house arrest in a Manhattan apartment. He’s spent time in Rikers Island jail with a $1,000,000 bail in order to prevent any chance of his fleeing to his native France, which he nearly did immediately after the alleged attack. Although Strauss-Kahn is not directly tied to France’s government (he was rumored to run for president soon), this issue led me to consider the impact of the contentious idea that heads of state, ambassadors, and other high-ranking government officials are not necessarily expected to follow the laws in the country they are visiting. If they break one of those laws, they may have “diplomatic immunity” from prosecution. In DSK’s case, the International Monetary Fund says he cannot claim diplomatic immunity because his visit to New York was on personal business and he was paying for his own accommodations. Additionally, he’s now resigned, so immunity may not be a valid argument. Still, the issue of international visitors and the American legal system got me thinking.

Laws and legal systems vary from country to country. Is it reasonable to expect that each government official understand the complex laws of every country they visit? Not in this day and age, according to Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The United Nations website states that this section “establishes [the diplomat's] immunity from civil and criminal jurisdiction, [and that]…immunity from jurisdiction…may be waived by the sending State.” Essentially, a government official can violate laws in a destination country, and depending on their own country’s laws or stance, they may or may not face prosecution at home.

Although it’s very unlikely that any of us will ever interact with such powerful people, it happens in some of the most unfortunate circumstances. For example, in 1997, a diplomat from the republic of Georgia was responsible for a fatal car accident that killed at 16-year-old girl. The diplomat, Gueorgui Makharadze, was driving drunk and speeding when he slammed into a car in the Dupont Circle section of Washington D.C.. The car he hit was thrown into another vehicle, in which the 16 year old was a passenger. As described in the article from the New York Times, the United States sought to request a waiver of diplomatic immunity because the diplomat’s actions were so negligent and caused an unnecessary death. The girl’s family, along with some of our own heads of state, wanted to hold this man accountable for his actions. Ultimately, the immunity was waived an Mr. Makharadze served jail time in America and his home country for his crime.

Diplomatic immunity is strongly tied to international relations, but it also has a very real effect on the ordinary citizens of every country. When a visitor is unfamiliar with laws in the area they are visiting, does that excuse such extreme actions? I can understand someone making a cultural faux pas, but these usually do nothing more than embarrass or offend, a feeling which fades after a minute or two. In Mr. Makharadze’s case, he killed an innocent young girl because he chose to ignore tenants of human decency–the fact that driving drunk presents extreme dangers to everyone within the driver’s path.

The issue of diplomatic immunity can teach every driver in America a valuable lesson: protect yourself with insurance if you can. Different laws in other countries are not confined to criminal issues; insurance and licensing laws can also be much different. Additionally, foreign drivers who rent a car in America may be required to furnish nothing more than a valid driver’s license and a credit card. They may be able to drive in heavily populated areas without any insurance coverage to protect the people around them. This is when Uninsured Motorist coverage can help prevent serious financial losses. Consider buying this additional coverage if you can, because it may be nearly impossible to track down a defendant in a car accident and hold them accountable if they are from a foreign country.

So could Dominique Strauss-Kahn walk free? Well, it depends on whether or not he is found guilty. The fact of the matter is that this most recent issue of misconduct on the part of high-ranking foreign officials serves as a reminder of the irresponsible behavior that anyone can exhibit. You don’t have to be the head of a major international organization to screw up, hurt someone, and cause serious repercussions with your actions.