Los Angeles Medical Marijuana Laws

There is still no limit or laws governing Los Angeles medicinal marijuana laws, and so the long-awaited ordinance is convening soon. They are currently proposing laws on the matter and may send them straight to the council just to speed things along.

This will all happen next week, according to to Council President Eric Garcetti’s office.

“I am very disappointed that the judge won't let us do our job,” Smith, the chairman of the Public Safety Committee, said earlier this week, adding that it would force the council to move quickly.

The council’s planning committee has spent years debating how to control dispensaries and just recently sent the proposed ordinance to Smith’s committee.

The measure, drafted by City Atty. Carmen Trutanich’s office, would prohibit sales of medical marijuana. In Smith's view, that means most dispensaries would be forced to close, including the 186 that the city allowed to operate despite adopting a moratorium on dispensaries in 2007.

“I would prefer to stop all sales of medical marijuana in the city, but the ordinance proposed by City Atty. Trutanich comes as close as the law will allow,” he said. Most dispensaries in the city sell marijuana and pay state sales taxes, though operators say the transactions are donations and they are just recouping their operating costs.

The proposed ordinance would require all the dispensaries that opened after the moratorium to close immediately, and bar them from reopening for six months. The original 186 dispensaries would be allowed to remain open for six months to give them time to comply with the rules.

Photo: Medical marijuana. Credit: Los Angeles Times archives.

Law blocks Iowa school's call for jamming device

By MICHAEL J. CRUMB | Associated Press Writer
12:23 PM CDT, July 31, 2009

DES MOINES, Iowa - A small northern Iowa school district has hung up on a plan to block students from using their cell phones in class.

The St. Ansgar school board proposed buying a jamming device to keep students in the combined middle and high school from calling and texting during class, but the idea died because of a federal law that outlaws use of such equipment.

"As far as we are concerned it's a moot point right now and we're not going to pursue it at all," Jim Woodward, the superintendent of the St. Ansgar school district, said Friday.

St. Ansgar, which already has banned cell phones, is not the first district to weigh using a jamming device to keep students from using them in class.

The Penn Hills district in Pittsburgh considered jamming cell phones last spring but dropped the idea after learning of the Federal Communications Commission law. The Mead school district near Spokane, Wash., bought a jammer for less than $100 and conducted a three-day test before learning it was illegal. In Canada, the Port Hardy Secondary School on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, also conducted a test that was abandoned because of legal concerns.

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has suggested jamming wireless signals to keep students from using their cell phones during class.

But under current law, the FCC can only grant federal agencies -- not state or local authorities -- permission to jam cell phone signals. The jamming devices prevent cell tower transmissions from reaching phones.

Correctional leaders from more than two dozen states recently signed a petition asking permission to jam cell phone signals inside state penitentiaries and thwart inmates' forbidden phone calls.

In the case of the schools, officials said they were frustrated that students kept using phones in class despite the ban.

"I don't think they have a place in the educational environment," said Ed Kleinwort, a member of the St. Ansgar school board. "The educational environment is supposed to be about students learning and teachers teaching and teachers can't teach over a cell phone. If a student is busy on the cell phone they aren't learning."

He likened it to a student chewing gum or wearing an offensive T-shirt in class.

"It's a distraction ... and we need to minimize the distraction," Kleinwort said.

Donnie Thorson, whose son graduated last spring from St. Ansgar, said school officials took away his son's cell phone after he was caught using it in class.

"Somehow they have got to keep those kids from texting during class," he said.

James Hendrickson, a physical education teacher at St. Ansgar, said cell phones are a huge problem, with some classes being interrupted almost every other hour. Even his class is not immune from interruptions.

"When I have activities and they don't change and have their backpacks with them or their pants on, once in a while it happens," Hendrickson said.

Woodward, the superintendent, said cell phones will continue to be a problem as long as students bring them to school.

"It's an addiction for some kids," he said.

He also raised concerns with continuing advancements in technology, suggesting they could make it easier for students to cheat.

"You never know with the capability that cell phones have today," Woodward said. "That means the playing field isn't level anymore."

Woodward believes jamming cell phones would be an effective way to deal with the problem but said the school won't do anything different.

"I guess we'll just go back to the honor system," he said.

------

Associated Press writer Amy Lorentzen contributed to this report.

Sunday Shopping in France?

Conservative supporters hail the law as a reformist boost for France's recession-stalled economy. But detractors on both the left and right just as energetically decry it as a vulgar consumerist assault on tradition, families and even French democracy. "We've got better things to propose to our fellow citizens than a life of commuting, sleeping and buying," lamented André Lardeux, one of many senators from the ruling Union for a Popular Majority party who defied President Nicolas Sarkozy by voting against his pet law to liberalize Sunday commerce.

Indeed, resistance to the bill was so high among conservatives that leftist opponents seemed surprised when they weren't joined by enough rightist defectors to defeat it. "The Senate has been transformed into a kind of chamber of followers with only one liberty: the one to say yes," said Leftist Radical party Senator François Fortassin after the legislation eked through with a 165 to 159 score.

Tiny though it may be, that victory promises to throw countless shop doors open every Sunday around France from here on out. The law - which supporters hope will go into effect later this year - designates about 500 spots with "tourism interests" that may start doing business on Sundays to exploit the presence of vacationing visitors. It similarly liberalizes trading in border regions where, in some areas, French stores that close one day a week lose out to rivals across the frontier who are allowed to stay open les dimanches.

Finally, the law also legalizes what, in fact, is an already common (albeit illicit) practice in shops and malls clustered around Paris, Lille and Marseille - though limits it to those areas. The text calls for Sunday work to be left optional for employees and paid higher than other days, but opponents say those stipulations will be ignored once bosses start ordering employees fearful of losing their jobs to take on dominical work behind closed doors, and on management's terms.

Mais non!, conservative backers retort. Theirs is a pragmatic, optional reform for a finite set of businesses interested in embracing it, they promise - not at all a mercantile free-for-all à l'américaine in which any shop or company owner can treat Sunday like any other day of the week. "This is only putting a bit of order in a confused situation, and is in no manner a change to [our] model of civilization," the bill's sponsor, Labor Minister Xavier Darcos, promised senators going into their vote in the wee hours of July 23. "If the goal of this text were to generalize work on Sundays, I'd never have backed it." (See pictures of President Obama in France.)

Sunday shopping a threat to French civilization? If Darcos' assurances sound excessive, they only reflect the resistance his Sarkozy-mandated bill has provoked. Leftists continue to assail its move to undermine a 1907 law prohibiting Sunday trading as only the first step toward the very generalization of travail dominical that Darcos denies. They also vow to challenge the law before France's Constitutional Council on the somewhat ironic grounds that by allowing only some shops to operate Sundays, it violates the rights of employees who may want to work on Sunday but whose shops are not covered by the reform.

Dissenting conservatives, meanwhile, denounce the law as a threat to an array of social and cultural traditions rooted in the seventh day being one of rest. They warn that family gatherings, leisure activities and even church attendance will suffer greatly as people are forced to don the dominical yoke of labor. Where will the next Renoir get his inspiration for another Bal du Moulin de la Galette? What would Seurat's Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte be without the Sunday bit? And how to defend the colors against the neighborhood rival if your goalkeeper and best center forward are down at the mall selling garden furniture?

France - or at least parts of it - will soon find out. And how will a society famous for being rabidly protective of its leisure time, long vacations and nominal 35-hour workweek respond? Probably with a Gallic shrug. Polls show 55% of French people oppose the law and 42% support it. Still, 40% of respondents say they'd heed a boss's call to work Sunday if it meant making more money, while another 30% say they'd welcome the chance to shop on Sundays. (See pictures of Bastille Day celebrations.)

That's the good news for Team Sarkozy. The bad is that polls also show the public already suspects what economists are warning about the change: that in contrast to the government's promises, Sunday trading will neither significantly increase economic activity nor create new jobs.

~ From Time.com

New York Man Admits to Stuffing Mom In Freezer to Cash Social Security Checks

COLCHESTER, N.Y. An upstate New York man has admitted that he put his 98-year-old dead mother in his freezer so he could keep cashing her Social Security checks.

State police discovered Herta Auslander's body in her son's freezer in October after receiving a tip that she'd died more than a year earlier. An autopsy concluded that she died of only natural causes.

Prosecutors say 69-year-old Rosland Auslander kept his mother in the freezer for 18 months at his home in Cooks Falls, about 100 miles northwest of New York City. After eluding capture for months, he was arrested at his home in March.

Auslander pleaded guilty to grand larceny and forgery charges in Sullivan County court Friday. He faces up to seven years in prison.

New York Man Admits to Stuffing Mom In Freezer to Cash Social Security Checks

COLCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) -- An upstate New York man has admitted he stuffed his 98-year-old dead mother in a freezer so he could keep cashing her Social Security checks.

State police discovered Herta Auslander's body in a freezer in October after receiving a tip she'd died more than a year earlier. An autopsy concluded she died of natural causes.

Prosecutors say 69-year-old Rosland Auslander kept his mother in the freezer for at least 18 months at his home in the hamlet of Cooks Falls, about 100 miles northwest of New York City. After eluding capture for months, he was arrested at his home in March.

Auslander pleaded guilty to grand larceny and forgery charges in Sullivan County court Friday. He could face up to seven years in prison at his October sentencing.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

AP Source: AIG consults administration on bonuses

by Stephen Bernard

NEW YORK (AP) — American International Group Inc. is consulting with the federal government about its plans to pay millions of dollars in retention incentives and bonuses, a person familiar with the situation said.

AIG is working with the Obama administration's compensation czar, Kenneth R. Feinberg, to ensure the government and the insurer are on the same page before it pays out remaining bonuses due to employees tied to 2008 contracts, according to the person, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the talks.

New York-based AIG faced intense public and Congressional criticism in March when it paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in retention bonuses to employees months after receiving a bailout from the government.

The latest round of bonus payments has brought fresh anger from some on Capitol Hill.

"The reason that company collapsed and needed to be bailed out was because of the recklessness and irresponsibility of their top management" who took bonuses, said Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. "At a time when millions of Americans are losing their jobs and seeing declines in their incomes, I think it is an outrage that anyone on the AIG leadership team is receiving (even) 5 cents in bonuses."

Some of the bonuses AIG is planning to pay out were promised to employees in 2008, before the government stepped in to ensure AIG would not collapse. Additional retention payments were awarded in an effort to keep executives from leaving the company after the government's initial bailout.

In September, the government provided AIG with an $85 billion rescue package amid the mushrooming credit crisis. In return, the government took about an 80 percent stake in the New York-based insurance giant. Since then, the government has provided additional rounds of support. AIG's available loan package now totals $182.5 billion, though it has not tapped all of the funds.

The latest round of bonus payments will include about $235 million for employees at AIG's financial products unit, according to a Wall Street Journal report. AIG's near collapse was not due to its traditional insurance operations, but instead risky derivatives contracts written by the financial products division. AIG is in the processing of winding down that unit.

AIG is also scheduled to pay out another portion of a much smaller set of bonuses to 40 high-ranking AIG executives. The 40 executives were awarded about a combined $9 million in bonuses for 2008. The insurer paid out half of the bonuses in March and is supposed to pay out the remainder in two installments, the first of which is scheduled for next week.

AIG is among the companies whose pay practices the government now oversees. But while AIG is discussing the outstanding bonuses with Feinberg, he cannot ultimately veto the upcoming payments.

Feinberg does have the power to reject pay plans he deems excessive at companies that benefited from large infusions from the government's $700 billion bank bailout fund. However, those powers only begin with pay packages for 2009 and can't be retroactively applied to 2008 compensation.

Feinberg also now has authority to review compensation for the top 100 salaried employees at those firms.

While not commenting specifically on the AIG bonus discussions, a Treasury Department administration official said Feinberg will help to ensure companies balance the need to retain talent, reward performance and protect taxpayers' investments.

"That process is just beginning now, and Mr. Feinberg has begun consulting with those firms about their compensation plans," the official said. "We are not going to provide a running commentary on that process, but it's clear that Mr. Feinberg has broad authority to make sure that compensation at those firms strikes an appropriate balance."

Hundreds of financial firms received money as part of the government's $700 billion program. Many of the largest banks have been repaying those funds quickly, in part, to enable avoiding scrutiny and restrictions on how they pay top executives.

AIG has been selling assets to raise cash in an effort to repay the government loans. It is also planning to spin off three of its major insurance subsidiaries into separate companies to raise capital necessary to pay back the government.

AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger and AP Business Writer Marcy Gordon in Washington contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Judge orders golfer John Daly to pay legal fees

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) — Professional golfer John Daly has been ordered to pay almost $272,000 in legal fees for his unsuccessful libel lawsuit against The Florida Times-Union.

Duval County Circuit Judge Hugh Carithers ordered Daly to pay $263,088 in attorney's fees, plus costs of $8,675.99 and 8 percent interest rate per year until it is paid.

Carithers dismissed the lawsuit in March. He ruled that former columnist Mike Freeman's statements in a 2005 column were either true or constitutionally protected opinion.

Calls to Daly's attorney, Lydia A. Jones, and Daly's agent, Bud Martin, and Times-Union publisher Lucy Talley were not immediately returned.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

State court again strikes down Philly gun law

City wants to bar assault weapons, 'straw purchases.' NRA challenged the measures.

By Patrick Walters | OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
June 19, 2009

-- A state appeals court ruled Wednesday that the city cannot enforce an assault weapons ban and a law prohibiting guns bought by one person and given to another, measures passed by City Council in an effort to combat persistent gun violence.

The 6-1 ruling marked the latest setback for Philadelphia officials, who have fought for years for the right to pass their own gun legislation. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has previously upheld the state's exclusive right to enact gun laws.

The National Rifle Association challenged a series of measures that were passed by City Council in April 2008 and signed by Mayor Michael Nutter. Both sides expect the case to end up before the state's highest court again.

''The bottom line is, we won,'' NRA attorney C. Scott Shields said of the ruling. ''Now, the Supreme Court is going to have to weigh in on it.''

In Thursday's ruling, the Commonwealth Court said the city could not ban assault weapons or pass the law prohibiting straw purchases, in which one person fills out forms and buys a gun for someone else -- often convicted felons who can't legally own guns.

In a dissenting opinion, Commonwealth Judge Doris A. Smith-Ribner asserted the city does have the right to pass its own gun laws, citing the hundreds of residents killed by gun violence every year.

The whole court also ruled that the NRA lacked standing in challenges to three other measures, saying the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered ''injury.''

Those three laws require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns within 48 hours; allow police to confiscate guns from people who are considered a danger; and prohibit anyone subject to a protection-from-abuse order from possessing a gun. Only the lost-or-stolen gun ordinance is currently being enforced.

Shields said those laws had already been invalidated by a ruling in a separate lawsuit. But Richard Feder, an attorney for the city, said he disagreed with that assessment; he said the city had not yet had a chance to defend those laws in court.

''The Supreme Court will sort this all out, eventually,'' Feder said.

In September, the Commonwealth Court threw out a separate lawsuit about Philadelphia's ability to pass its own gun laws. That suit, filed by two City Council members, sought to have a court declare that the city could pass its own firearms laws.

A 1974 state law says that only the General Assembly can regulate gun.

''The bottom line is, we won. Now, the Supreme Court is going to have to weigh in on it.''

--C. Scott Shields, NRA attorney

The following is a reprint from "THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL" CLAIMANT SNEEZES WAY TO WORKERS' COMP BENEFITS

CLAIMANT SNEEZES WAY TO WORKERS' COMP BENEFITS
(Injury Happened While Holding Back Sneeze During Meeting)

By Danielle N. Rodier

An employee was engaged in furthering his employer's business interests when he tried to hold back a sneeze during a business meeting, tearing his retina, the Commonwealth Court has ruled.

Giving a broad interpretation to what kind of injury can get an employee workers' compensation benefits, the three-judge panel in Carroll v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board said because claimant Russell Carroll was on his employer's premises doing his job when he was injuries, he could be compensated for losing vision in his left eye when his retina tore.

This incident that led to Carroll's loss of vision occurred on July 10, 1995. On that day, Carroll, director of administrative computer center for the University of Pennsylvania was attending a meeting with his boss, Carl Abrahamson, and five other directors, Commonwealth Court Judge Jess Jiuliante said in the court opinion.

About half an hour through the meeting, Carroll, who was sitting at a table with five or six other people, felt a sneeze coming on. Not wanting to spread germs, Carroll tried unsuccessfully to hold the sneeze back. Jiuliante said that "after the sneeze took place, [Carroll] felt pressure in his head and within 30 seconds to a minute, felt a pain like a rubber band had struck his left eye."

The next morning at work, Carroll covered his right eye to look at someone but could only see that person from the waist down.

Everything in the upper portion was black. Carroll told Abrahamson about the injury and then sought medical attention.

Carroll filed a claim petition for specific loss benefits for the loss of his left eye as a result of a work injury in January 1996. The injury was described as a detached left retina. Penn Filed an answer stating that the injury was not work-related.

A workers' compensation judge heard evidence from Carroll's treating physician, Dr. Michael Maizel, who testified that he observed nothing wrong with Carroll's eyes during an exam three days prior to the incident. The day after the meeting, Maizel said, Carroll had two retinal tears in the interior portion of his left eye.

Another doctor testified on Carroll's behalf that his visual acuity for his left eye had been only at light-perception level and that the condition was a direct result of the sneeze suppression.

The WCJ granted Carroll's petition, awarding him 275 weeks of specific loss benefits for the loss of his left eye.

However, the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board reversed, finding that although Carroll was on Penn's premises when the accident occurred, there was no evidence that the suppression of the sneeze was caused by a condition of those premises.

On appeal, the Commonwealth Court found that the WCAB made a mistake in its ruling.

The WCAB cited the Superior Court's 1995 decision Gertz v. Temple University and Section 301(c)(1) of the Workers' Compensation Act in ruling that a compensable injury occurs when an employee is on employer's premises, is required to be there by the nature of his or her employment and sustains an injury caused by the premises.

Jiuliante said the relevant factor in the Gertz court's decision was that the claimant was not in the furtherance of her employer's business when she was injured. But the Commonwealth Court believed Carroll was furthering Penn's business interests when he sustained his injury.

Part of Carroll's job was to attend meetings regarding the installation of computer hardware and software. It was at such a meeting that he suppressed the sneeze.

Jiuliante then looked to the way previous Commonwealth Court and Supreme Court decisions have defined the term "injury" in the workers' compensation context.

The high court said in Kohler v. McCrory Stores that an injury is considered work-related when it occurs on the employer's premises. And in City of New Castle v. WCAB (Salie), the Commonwealth Court recognized that an employee may be doing something other than assigned work and yet the continuity of employment is not broken unless he or she is doing something completely foreign to the job.

In that case, an employer contracted fatal meningitis by kissing a coworker on the cheek before she left on maternity leave. The court decided that the decedent's good-bye kiss "was neither foreign to his employment not did it constitute an abandonment thereof."

Carroll's sneeze suppression was a comparable situation, Jiuliante said.

"This court believes that the circumstances in the case at bar clearly, it not unquestionably, indicate that [Carroll] was in the furtherance of [Penn's] affairs at the time of the injury. [Carroll] was involved in a meeting with his boss and his peers at the time of the injury," Jiuliante wrote.

"His attempt to suppress a sneeze during that meeting in order to avoid spreading germs to his CO-employees cannot be considered either an action foreign to his employment or an action in abandonment thereof. As a result, this court concludes that [Carroll's] injury occurred while he was in the course of his employment."

Ticket markups capped as NY scalping law expires

By MICHAEL GORMLEY

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Want to score a ticket to the sold-out Beyonce concert at Madison Square Garden this month? It'll cost you only two extra bucks — for now.

Thanks to a missed deadline in Albany, reselling tickets to concerts, sports events and other attractions at large markups is now illegal because state lawmakers haven't agreed to extend a ticket resale law that expired Monday.

The law had allowed unlimited markups on tickets since 2007. Proposed by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, the aim was to let the free market rule. But some distributors have charged dramatically more than the original price for the hottest tickets.

For now, the previous law rules. Among its stricter provisions: Markups are capped at $2 over the face value of a ticket.

Lawmakers and Gov. David Paterson are negotiating now.

"For better or worse, ticket scalping is illegal again, thank goodness," said Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat who had to sought to limit resale prices at no more than 25 percent of the face value.

In the bill that Paterson and legislative leaders are negotiating, that cap is gone and an agreement could make unrestricted markups retroactive to Monday. But the leaders are trying to end a price-inflating practice in which ticket sellers redirect customers to companies and Web sites that they own — but that resell tickets at big markups.

The bill describes the practice as "wholesale off-loading of tickets ... without any chance for the public to purchase tickets at first sale." The bill passed by the Legislature would also require the venue operator or promoter to determine and disclose if the ticket is for a seat that may have an obstructed view.

"This is an opportunity for the governor to stand up for fans across New York," said Russ Haven of the New York Public Interest Research Group. "He can make sure they can afford seats for events at arenas like Yankee Stadium and Citi Field that New York taxpayers paid to build."

He was referring to government-backed finances and tax breaks granted for the development of the new homes for the Yankees and Mets.

This year, ticket distributor Ticketmaster was criticized for redirecting customers trying to buy Bruce Springsteen tickets to its own ticket reselling Web site, which charged dramatically more than the original price. Fans and musicians were outraged.

A week ago, New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram sued several companies who offered tickets to Springsteen shows this fall before they were available to the public.

In Albany, negotiations continue.

"The governor's office is working with the Legislature on this bill and will review the final legislation once it has been delivered to his desk," said Paterson spokesman Morgan Hook.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Area of Practice Focus - Workers Compensation

Using Philadelphia Workers Comp Act (Act), you can be provided with wage-loss compensation benefits and medical expenses. Wage loss benefits can last until you return to the workplace. Death benefits for work-related deaths can be also covered and are usually paid to the person's dependent survivors.

The Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act covers almost all Pennsylvanian employees.

Employers must provide workers' compensation coverage to all of their employees this would include part-time and seasonal staff. Nonprofit corporations, not incorporated businesses, and even employers with only one employee, must comply with the Act's requirements.

The law also covers you regardless of where the you were hired and in some cases injury outside of the sate can be covered.

Philadelphia Workers Compensation claims can require depositions, cross examinations by defending attorneys, sworn testimony, more than one court appearance and a vast knowledge of the governing laws that protect you as an employee in the state of Pennsylvania.

Area of Practice Focus - Personal Injury in Philadelphia, PA

Some people have heard the term "Personal Injury", but do not fully understand what it means. "Personal Injury" is all claims resulting in bodily injury, including psychological problems.

There are three types of personal injury:

NEGLIGENCE


The failure to use reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to a person, place or thing. People are liable if their unreasonable act or failure to act causes an injury, even if the harm is not intended.

INTENTIONAL HARM


The "malicious" or "intentional" infliction of harm that results in injury. As an example, if a person involved in a heated argument with you purposely hits you with the intention of bodily harm, that person is liable for your injuries.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY


This occurs when a person is responsible for injuring another person regardless of negligence or intent. Some instances in which the law might apply absolute liability are with regard to product liability, dangerous or hazardous activities and pet owner's liability. For instance, a person may be entitled to compensation after a defective product injures him or her regardless of whether the manufacturer was actually negligent. In other words, the person only has to prove that a product is defective or dangerous and that the defect caused personal injury. It is not necessary to show that the manufacturer was intentionally careless or negligent.

This can also tie in to workers compensation claims. In Philadelphia, PA go about filing a philadelphia workers compensation claim with a philadelphia workers comp attorney as soon as possible.

Drivers Nininger, Dupree sued again in crash

The driver of a tractor involved in the fatal wreck has filed a lawsuit against Tracie Nininger and Jeffrey Dupree for $1.7 million.

By Mike Allen
981-3236

Two people convicted of causing the death of a construction worker in a 2008 drunken driving crash face a new lawsuit stemming from the wreck.

The driver of a tractor involved in the Feb. 20, 2008, chain-reaction crash that killed Richard Slone has sued former real estate agents Tracie Dowell Nininger and Jeffrey Scott Dupree for $1.7 million.

The wreck happened just after midnight. James Harmon was operating a tractor in a construction zone along Electric Road near Tanglewood Mall when Nininger's Hummer H3 struck a blade mounted on the rear of the tractor. Almost simultaneously, Dupree's Chevrolet Avalanche struck the rear of the Hummer.

Harmon's lawsuit, filed last week in Roanoke County Circuit Court, says he sustained serious injuries from the impact, including brain damage.

The Hummer and the tractor blade struck a nearby dump truck, killing Slone, who was standing beside the truck.

A Roanoke County judge found Nininger and Dupree guilty of aggravated involuntary manslaughter and driving under the influence in the fatal wreck and sentenced each to serve two and a half years in prison. Both have filed notices of appeal.

Slone's family filed a $10 million lawsuit against the pair in March. Nininger and Dupree have both requested that the trial be moved because of the intense media attention the case received.

During the criminal trial in October, roanoke criminal defense lawyers claimed that failure on the part of the construction crew to follow regulations caused the accident. Dupree's attorney at the time, Richard Lawrence, even stated in court that Harmon should have faced a criminal charge. The defense claimed that Harmon backed his tractor into the traffic lane in front of Nininger, giving her no time to react.

In that lawsuit, Nininger has filed a response calling the wreck "the result of a sudden emergency and an unavoidable accident." In documents filed by her new attorney, Tennessee lawyer Christopher Owens, she assigns blame for the accident to Harmon and other personnel and companies associated with the construction site and with how the site was set up.

Owens has not yet seen Harmon's lawsuit but said he expects Nininger's response to it would be similar.

Dupree's attorney, Sean Workowski, also said he had not yet seen the suit.

Harmon's attorney, Brent Brown, said Dupree and Nininger have played the blame game. "They don't seem to get it. They don't appear to accept responsibility for their actions. It appears it's not enough that a circuit judge has found them criminally culpable," he said.

Police said Nininger had a blood-alcohol content of 0.19 percent that night. Dupree refused to take a breath test but failed a field sobriety check, according to testimony.

Harmon's lawsuit describes them both as "stumbling drunk" and repeatedly refers to a video from Cornerstone Bar & Grill shown during their trial in which they embraced and fell to the floor.

"We just look forward to bringing some true accountability before a jury of Roanoke citizens," Brown said.