According to recent reports, the Labor Department is racing to complete and implement a new rule that was opposed by President-elect Barack Obama regarding benzene emissions. The new rule would supposedly make it harder for the government to regulate toxic substances to which employees are exposed to while on the job.

The rule is reportedly being strongly supported by business groups and states that in assessing how risky certain substances are to the workplace, federal agencies should gather and analyze evidence of the employees’ exposure during their working lives. In many cases, the proposal would add a step to the process of developing higher standards in regards to protecting the health of workers.

Benzene Rule Details

Public health officials worry that the rule will only delay much needed protections for workers across the country, which could ultimately result in more deaths and illnesses.  The Labor Department proposal is reportedly one of 20 highly debatable rules that the Bush Administration is trying to pass during his last weeks in office. The other rules cover a wide array of topics from abortion, to auto safety and the environment.
The one regarding benzene emissions at workplaces across the country is of importance due to the harm that benzene can cause to anyone exposed over an extended duration of time. Benzene is a toxic chemical that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers. It is typically used in gasoline, dyes, synthetic rubbers, and cigarettes. If this rule is passed and workers across the country aren’t protected from benzene and other toxic chemicals, more and more people could die and become ill from diseases linked to these substances.

I’ve written about this several times.  Mostly over at the NHLaw Blog.  Driving Will Texting I read today that Washington began enforcing it’s no talking or texting while driving law back in July 2008.  It is illegal for drivers to talk, text, read or type a message while driving.  My understanding is that a hands free conversation is ok.

In 2002 Rachelle Jackson, a trained nurse, heard the sound of an auto crash while out walking. When she got there a police car had been hit when another car ran a stop sign. The driver of the police car was unconscious and the other officer was dazed. She pulled the passenger, Officer Kelly Brogan, from the car and helped her to a nearby stoop.

Police at the scene told Rachelle that the driver’s weapon had been stolen and asked her to go to the police station for questioning. Instead of being asked about the accident, she was accused of stealing the gun. She was held for two days with little to drink or eat until she agreed to sign a statement the police had prepared. She was charged and held in jail for ten months waiting for her trial. Her case was thrown out by a circuit court judge and in 2003 she sued the city of Chicago, Officer Brogan and the two officers who interrogated her.

In June, a federal jury found against the city and several officers. They awarded Rachelle 7.7 million dollars for false arrest, malicious prosecution, coercive questioning and intentional affliction of emotional distress.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that a woman who saw her mother die in a car crash can sue the other driver for negligently inflicting emotional distress.

In many states you cannot claim emotional distress as your only injury.  In some states you also have to prove in a car accident lawsuit that  you witnessed the accident or were within some “zone of danger” in order to claim emotional distress.  This decision appears to expand the types of damages that you can claim in a New Jersey Auto Accident case.

The 4-3 decision released Tuesday said such a claim can be made despite the state’s so-called “verbal threshold” for auto insurance, which generally allows victims to only sue for physical injuries.

The insurance industry criticized the ruling, charging it threatens efforts at reducing insurance rates.

The daughter was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression after the car she and her mother were in was rear-ended in 2000. The daughter got more than $500,000 for wrongful death and survivorship claims, but a judge dismissed the emotional distress claim.

The Supreme Court decision reinstates that claim.