Man who bought alcohol for a minor gets 90 days in jail

(BONHAM, TEXAS) -- A Texoma mother who lost her son in a drunk driving accident wants the adults who buy alcohol for minors to face harsher punishments after she says the man who bought alcohol for her son that day got off way too easy.

Thomas Calame Robinson and his friend Jesse Runyon were killed in December of last year when Robinson took the wheel after a night of drinking. The alcohol was purchased by 24-year-old Jeremy Horton who was sentenced Wednesday to 90 days in jail.

Tamberly Robinson says her son was the love of her life.

All she has left of her 18-year-old son Thomas are pictures and memories.

Tamberly Robinson said that her son was "full of joy and happiness, he lived every day as if it were his last, he was a good kid, but like most kids he made a mistake and he paid dearly for his mistake and so did his friend."

On December 7th last year Thomas took the wheel with passenger 17-year-old Jesse Runyon after drinking alcohol that 24-year-old Jeramie Horton bought for the group of minors - two 30-packs of beer and a handle of vodka. Police say Thomas was driving at a high speed and lost control of the car, killing both of the boys. Tamberly said a text message confirmed Horton had supplied the boys with alcohol.

Tamberly Robinson " I saw it on his phone when I got it back from DPS that said here I go playing the hero again and now the hero got 90 days in jail and 2 boys are dead my son and his friend."

Robinson says the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Tamberly Robinson said, "The laws aren't tough enough for the people that are buying alcohol for our children because our children are dying."

But Fannin County District Attorney Richard Glaser told Alexandra Carter this is the first time he's put someone in jail for providing alcohol to a minor.

Richard Glaser, " We insisted upon it in this case because of the serious consequences. We wanted to send a message to the young people in Fannin County that they need to stop and think before they either purchase it from friend or buy it from a friend because terrible things can happen."

Tamberly says she's writing lawmakers and starting a movement for harsher penalties for those who provide alcohol to minors.

Robinson, " and that's just a pain I wouldn't want anyone else to go through, but if and when it happens I would like them to have a greater sense of justice than what we got.

______________________________________
Source: KXII (Carter, 8/23)

Swimming Pool Accidents

It’s that time of year when the 6 o’clock news leads far too often with the most tragic stories about childhood drowning deaths, near deaths, and injuries. Just this week, there was the news about the son of singer Usher nearly drowning in the family’s pool. The statistics are sobering.

According to the Centers for Disease Control: Every day, about ten people die from unintentional drowning. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. Drowning ranks fifth among the leading causes of unintentional injury death in the United States.

To help parents better understand the complexities of these cases, the Texas swimming pool accident lawyers offer these answers to five common swimming pool liability questions.

1. Who is liable for injuries in a swimming pool?

It depends on who gets injured, how they were hurt, and who owns the pool. In Usher’s case, had his son died or sustained permanent brain damage due to lack of oxygen, the pool manufacturer (and the drain manufacturer) might be liable if they knowingly built a drain without enough safeguards to protect children from getting stuck in it. Because these types of products liability cases are so difficult and are unique to each case, it really depends on what happens and why. If, on the other hand, a kid is running around the pool area irresponsibly, slips and falls and gets injured, then absent some argument that the pool surface area lacked proper friction, then the kid is likely out of luck. Additionally, if you drown in your own pool because you fall in as a result of a fainting spell, you’re also out of luck, since there is no causal link between the pool construction and your fainting.

2. What should a homeowner do to limit their liability for injuries in their pool?

The single biggest thing you can do is to provide reasonable care to secure the pool. In this case, reasonable care means complying with local laws and ordinances regarding security. This way, if a child sneaks into your backyard and into your screened back pool enclosure, then drowns in the pool, your liability will be limited or nonexistent if you can establish that you complied with all laws, got your pool inspected, etc. On the other hand, if you know that a child sneaks in, and more importantly know how they do it, you could be liable if you fail to take what the law says are reasonable steps to stop the child. For example, say you learn that a child learns the code to your backyard electronic access gate, you need to change the password. Alternatively, if the kid climbs or crawls through a hole in your screen to access your pool, then you need to get the hole fixed, otherwise you may be liable even if you follow other standard procedures, because the law will say you knew, or should have known, that the child could access your pool a number of different ways.

3. What if the injury was caused by the negligence of the swimmer?

Most likely you are off the hook. However, if you know the person swimming doesn’t know how to swim, and you leave them alone, you may be liable for their injuries because you had advance knowledge that they lacked meaningful swimming ability. On the other hand, a homeowners association can be liable for injuries to a swimmer if the swimmer was part of an organized activity occurring on association property. Here’s an example: One day I saw a van full of kids on summer camp pull into our community, head to the pool, and proceed to swim for a few hours. I was outraged because a homeowner gave the camp permission to swim in our pool as part of an organized activity. Our association wasn’t insured for injuries that occurred as a result of an organized activity, and I immediately had the association inform the homeowner not to allow this activity anymore because we weren’t insured for it. As a result, if a kid got injured during this organized activity, the association would have had to pay the injured family directly, resulting in a special assessment against every homeowner.

4. Are the laws different for public swimming pools?

Absolutely. Community pools are held to a different standard because they are designed for public use, and as such, they need to have different safety precautions in place to accommodate a large number of swimmers, as opposed to your backyard swimming pool that is used by just a few people.

5. What about if there’s a lifeguard or a “swim at your own risk” sign?

Merely posting a sign saying you are swimming at your own risk wouldn’t eliminate the risk to the pool/drain designer in Usher’s case, because the liability arises from the design of the drain, not from the swimming. But, in some cases, this kind of disclosure (a “swim at your own risk” sign) may relieve the pool owner of some liability.

____________________
source: abc15.com (Fischer, 08/13)

State to Feds: We Won't Enforce Insurance Reforms

Though Texas will join 26 other states in defaulting to a federal marketplace for purchasing health insurance — a major component of the Affordable Care Act — it is one of only six that will not enforce new health insurance reforms prescribed by the law. It's a decision some say could lead to confusion over who's responsible for protecting Texas insurance consumers.

Because Texas did not create its own state-based marketplace, known as a health insurance exchange, under the Affordable Care Act, it must use a federally facilitated one instead. By federal law, the state must enforce provisions and regulations related to the insurance exchange and market reforms unless it notifies the federal government that it cannot or will not. If a state does not enforce those reforms, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will step in to do it.

Texas, Arizona, Alabama, Missouri, Oklahoma and Wyoming have all notified the federal government that they will not be policing the health law. John Greeley, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Insurance, said his agency cannot enforce regulations tied to the federal insurance exchange or market reforms because it is not authorized to do so.

"We can't act on anything that doesn't exist in state law," he said.

Officials with CMS, who sent a letter to TDI acknowledging the state's decision, declined to comment for this story.

Stacey Pogue, a health policy analyst with the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities, said she doesn't believe TDI's hands are tied. In the past, she said, the agency has responded to federal laws by "taking actions that ensure that they do have oversight."

The practical effects of the state's decision are not entirely clear yet. In the first show of autonomy, Texas was not required to comply with a federal request for information about its insurance plans. Most states defaulting to the federal health insurance exchange had to submit that information by July 31.

In the states that will not enforce the exchange and market reforms, the federal government will have to review insurance forms and respond to consumer complaints about health insurance, said Kevin Lucia, an assistant research professor with the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. Those duties, he added, are “typically reserved for state insurance departments.”

Pogue said the state's decision could create an “administrative burden” for insurance plans and could result in confusion for Texans who purchase health insurance under the federal exchange. For instance, she said, if people worry their insurance providers are discriminating against them based on their gender — a practice banned by the federal reforms — they may not know whether to report a complaint to CMS or to TDI.

“There’s all this opportunity to be bounced back and forth, which is a burden for consumers,” she said. If consumers have to report insurance violations to the federal government, that could prevent TDI from having a complete picture of consumers’ experience with insurance providers, she added.

“Consumers can be experiencing a lot of problems on the market that the state regulator doesn’t know about,” Pogue said.

Greeley said TDI has worked to make sure “insurers understand what their responsibilities are” under the ACA. And he said even if the state does not enforce federal regulations, TDI will still work to protect insurance consumers.

“Anybody that buys an insurance policy in Texas — no matter what line or how they got to it — can come to the Texas Department of Insurance for their questions,” he said.

David Gonzales, executive director of the Texas Association of Health Plans, said it’s unclear what impact the state's decision could have on insurance companies.

“I suspect it will be more of a burden for some plans than for others,” he said.

Pogue said inefficiencies could stem from the state’s refusal to enforce insurance reforms. TDI is the agency best equipped to regulate insurance plans in Texas, she said.

“Without a doubt they are the appropriate body,” she said.

_____________________________________
Source: Texas Tribune (Luthra, 8/07)

Warrant issued for bar patron in fatal DWI

Montgomery County officials issued an arrest warrant for a man who allegedly gave drinks to an already intoxicated 24-year-old Nicole Baukus before she drove away from a bar and caused a fatal accident.

Baukus, who pleaded guilty Thursday to two counts of intoxication manslaughter and one count of intoxication assault in the July 29, 2012, accident, was sentenced Friday to 38 years in prison.

After a night of drinking at a bar then called On the Rox, Baukus drove her pickup the wrong way on Interstate 45, colliding head-on around 2:50 a.m. with a Chevrolet Aveo near FM 242. The crash killed Nicole Adams, 19, and Travis Saunders, 18, and injured David Porras, now 23.

As an outgrowth of the trial, a warrant was issued Friday for Kambiz Michael Duran, 29, who is in the Harris County Jail after pleading guilty last month to possession of marijuana. On July 10, he was sentenced to 180 days in a state jail.

Harris County online records show that a hold from Montgomery County was placed on the Spring resident Friday, meaning that before Duran is freed, Montgomery County will have the opportunity to detain him.

Duran, a fellow bar patron, was seen on surveillance video giving Baukus a few drinks toward the end of the night, but authorities didn't know his identity, said Assistant District Attorney Warren Diepraam, co-prosecutor for the case.

"We could see him giving her drinks in the video but nobody would identify him," Diepraam said. "It was only during the trial when witnesses started testifying (that we learned his name)."

The same statute that makes it illegal to sell drinks to an intoxicated person also prohibits giving alcohol to someone who has already consumed too much, Diepraam explained.

On the Rox was cited for over-serving a customer and had its license suspended from Feb. 27 to March 28, according to the TABC. Since then, the bar's insurance company has agreed to a $1 million settlement for over-serving a patron.

The money is to be divided among Porras and the estates of Adams and Saunders.

Oscar Williams, a Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission agent based in Conroe, testified during the trial that Baukus drank 17 shots and four beers. Most of the shots were a mix of bourbon, Red Bull and either peach schnapps or watermelon schnapps, William said.

Baukus and Duran apparently ran into each other at the bar, rather than arriving together, Diepraam said. He said he didn't know if the two were acquainted previously.

The bar is now known as the Flying Pug Sports Pub, according to the alcoholic beverage commission.

_______________________________________
Source: Chron (Christian, 8/03)