Monday, November 25, 2013
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: Ho. Co.,MARYLAND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE FOR DUMMIES,w...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: Ho. Co.,MARYLAND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE FOR DUMMIES,w...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . " Here to make a difference. We fight, you win. " In Maryland medical malpractice, also known as med...
Ho. Co.,MARYLAND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE FOR DUMMIES,www.charlesjeromeware.com
www.charlesjeromeware.com. " Here to make a difference. We fight, you win. "
In Maryland medical malpractice, also known as medical negligence, occurs as an act or omission of an act by a healthcare provider who is professionally negligent, and the care that was provided is not
of accepted standards in the medical community, and causes injury or death to a patient.
Medical malpractice is a form of tort law, and has been established to provide economic remedies to patients who have suffered at the hands of a healthcare provider, such as a doctor, nurse, dentist, pharmacist, aide, or even a hospital or other healthcare institution.
The "statute of limitations period" ( the time limit on how long you have to file a medical
malpractice civil lawsuit in Maryland) is 3 or 5 years, depending on when the injury is "discovered"). Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code, Sec. 5-109. In other words , medical malpractice cases in Maryland must be brought within 5 years from the date of the act or omission giving rise to the injury, or within 3 years of its discovery, whichever period is shorter.
Medical malpractice law is a highly technical field of law, and these lawsuits tend to be strongly
defended by well-financed defense lawyers. These case can be exceptionally expensive to pursue.
Each year in the United States, about 200,000 people die as a result of medical malpractice. Several
hundred thousands of others are seriously injured because of errors made by surgeons, other doctors, nurses, chiropractors, podiatrists, and other healthcare providers in nursing homes, hospitals, assisted
living facilities, and other medical and residential care facilities.
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counselors, has successfully
represented individuals against doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and other medical and healthcare
providers since 1988. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at www.charlesjeromeware.com,
(410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
In Maryland medical malpractice, also known as medical negligence, occurs as an act or omission of an act by a healthcare provider who is professionally negligent, and the care that was provided is not
of accepted standards in the medical community, and causes injury or death to a patient.
Medical malpractice is a form of tort law, and has been established to provide economic remedies to patients who have suffered at the hands of a healthcare provider, such as a doctor, nurse, dentist, pharmacist, aide, or even a hospital or other healthcare institution.
The "statute of limitations period" ( the time limit on how long you have to file a medical
malpractice civil lawsuit in Maryland) is 3 or 5 years, depending on when the injury is "discovered"). Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code, Sec. 5-109. In other words , medical malpractice cases in Maryland must be brought within 5 years from the date of the act or omission giving rise to the injury, or within 3 years of its discovery, whichever period is shorter.
Medical malpractice law is a highly technical field of law, and these lawsuits tend to be strongly
defended by well-financed defense lawyers. These case can be exceptionally expensive to pursue.
Each year in the United States, about 200,000 people die as a result of medical malpractice. Several
hundred thousands of others are seriously injured because of errors made by surgeons, other doctors, nurses, chiropractors, podiatrists, and other healthcare providers in nursing homes, hospitals, assisted
living facilities, and other medical and residential care facilities.
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counselors, has successfully
represented individuals against doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and other medical and healthcare
providers since 1988. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at www.charlesjeromeware.com,
(410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: ATTY. CHARLES WARE'S "MULTI-BRAND FRANCHISING" TIP...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: ATTY. CHARLES WARE'S "MULTI-BRAND FRANCHISING" TIP...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . " Here to make a difference." Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is former special legal and microeconomi...
ATTY. CHARLES WARE'S "MULTI-BRAND FRANCHISING" TIPS, www.charlesjeromeware.com
www.charlesjeromeware.com. " Here to make a difference."
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is former special legal and microeconomic counsel to the chairman of the United States Federal Trade Commission. He is currently the best-selling author of five nonfiction books as well as founder and managing partner of the highly-regarded national law firm: Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counselors, headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. This blog is for information purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship with the reader or anyone else.
Multiple-brand franchising is not a new business concept, but its time has certainly come.
Diversification is the key word now in the thinking and strategy behind the rapid growth in multiple-brand franchising. No matter how good the Return On Investment ( ROI) may be
from a single brand, savvy franchise investors know it's not wise to put all their eggs in one basket. As multi-unit franchisees seek new avenues for growth, increasing numbers of them are adding 2nd, 3rd, and 4th concepts, and more to their franchise brand portfolios.
Their are many reasons, taken alone or together, that inspire multi-unit franchisees to become multi-brand operators:
1. Territory build-out. That is, to continue growth in their current geographic region.
2. To balance economic cycles.
3. To balance geographic or seasonal cycles.
4. To balance cash flow.
5. To balance " day section' business : for example, breakfast - lunch - dinner, etc.
6. To hedge against surprises.
7. For co-branding ; for efficiencies of scale and profit-boosting.
8. For infrastructure efficiencies.
9. For hiring and retention efficiencies.
10. For compatible corporate cultures.
11. For increased entrepreneurial spirit.
12. For synergistic reasons.
The reader must remember that new brands generally cannot be in competition with the franchisee's
existing brand. The franchisee should always check with his or her current franchisor(s), the franchise agreement(s), and a franchise attorney before pursuing new brands.
[See,www.franchising.com/howtofranchiseguide/multipleconcept_franchising_the_growing_allure_of_
_operating_several_brands.html; Chapter 14: " Franchising-Opportunities And Scams", Legal Consumer Tips And Secrets : Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States, by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse Press (2011), http://amzn.com/1462051847 ]
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is former special legal and microeconomic counsel to the chairman of the United States Federal Trade Commission. He is currently the best-selling author of five nonfiction books as well as founder and managing partner of the highly-regarded national law firm: Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counselors, headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. This blog is for information purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship with the reader or anyone else.
Multiple-brand franchising is not a new business concept, but its time has certainly come.
Diversification is the key word now in the thinking and strategy behind the rapid growth in multiple-brand franchising. No matter how good the Return On Investment ( ROI) may be
from a single brand, savvy franchise investors know it's not wise to put all their eggs in one basket. As multi-unit franchisees seek new avenues for growth, increasing numbers of them are adding 2nd, 3rd, and 4th concepts, and more to their franchise brand portfolios.
Their are many reasons, taken alone or together, that inspire multi-unit franchisees to become multi-brand operators:
1. Territory build-out. That is, to continue growth in their current geographic region.
2. To balance economic cycles.
3. To balance geographic or seasonal cycles.
4. To balance cash flow.
5. To balance " day section' business : for example, breakfast - lunch - dinner, etc.
6. To hedge against surprises.
7. For co-branding ; for efficiencies of scale and profit-boosting.
8. For infrastructure efficiencies.
9. For hiring and retention efficiencies.
10. For compatible corporate cultures.
11. For increased entrepreneurial spirit.
12. For synergistic reasons.
The reader must remember that new brands generally cannot be in competition with the franchisee's
existing brand. The franchisee should always check with his or her current franchisor(s), the franchise agreement(s), and a franchise attorney before pursuing new brands.
[See,www.franchising.com/howtofranchiseguide/multipleconcept_franchising_the_growing_allure_of_
_operating_several_brands.html; Chapter 14: " Franchising-Opportunities And Scams", Legal Consumer Tips And Secrets : Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States, by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware, iUniverse Press (2011), http://amzn.com/1462051847 ]
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: UNION "NEUTRALITY AGREEMENTS" vs. BRIBERY : Unite ...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: UNION "NEUTRALITY AGREEMENTS" vs. BRIBERY : Unite ...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . " Here to make a difference." On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United Stat...
UNION "NEUTRALITY AGREEMENTS" vs. BRIBERY : Unite Here Local 355 vs. Mulhall, [SCOTUS]
www.charlesjeromeware.com. " Here to make a difference."
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) con-
sidered whether so-called "neutrality agreements" between labor unions and employers violate
federal labor laws.
The key issue in the case [ Unite Here Local 355 vs. Mulhall, SCOTUS Docket No. 12-312,
11th Circuit] , then, is: Whether intangible things can be "deliver[ed]" under Section 302(a) (2) of the Labor Management Relations Act, which makes it unlawful for employers "to pay, lend, or deliver, any money or thing of value ... to any labor organization." 29 U.S.C. Section 186(a)(2).
Operationally, under the " neutrality agreements" businesses help labor unions in organization efforts in exchange for labor peace. For example: An employer might grant access to employee lists or agree to remain neutral in exchange for union concessions, such as giving up the right to organize workers.
In the instant case before the Court, a Florida greyhound track and casino agreed to allow labor union access to worker information as well as casino grounds, and to allow a unionization vote by cards collected from workers, rather than a secret ballot. The union, in exchange, agreed to spend $ 100,000 in support of a gambling referendum and to refrain from picketing during the union drive.
The case is particularly relevant to the hospitality industry, where these types of arrangements are common.
On Wednesday, November 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) con-
sidered whether so-called "neutrality agreements" between labor unions and employers violate
federal labor laws.
The key issue in the case [ Unite Here Local 355 vs. Mulhall, SCOTUS Docket No. 12-312,
11th Circuit] , then, is: Whether intangible things can be "deliver[ed]" under Section 302(a) (2) of the Labor Management Relations Act, which makes it unlawful for employers "to pay, lend, or deliver, any money or thing of value ... to any labor organization." 29 U.S.C. Section 186(a)(2).
Operationally, under the " neutrality agreements" businesses help labor unions in organization efforts in exchange for labor peace. For example: An employer might grant access to employee lists or agree to remain neutral in exchange for union concessions, such as giving up the right to organize workers.
In the instant case before the Court, a Florida greyhound track and casino agreed to allow labor union access to worker information as well as casino grounds, and to allow a unionization vote by cards collected from workers, rather than a secret ballot. The union, in exchange, agreed to spend $ 100,000 in support of a gambling referendum and to refrain from picketing during the union drive.
The case is particularly relevant to the hospitality industry, where these types of arrangements are common.
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: CHARLES WARE'S SCOTUS UPDATE: FAIR HOUSING CASE SE...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: CHARLES WARE'S SCOTUS UPDATE: FAIR HOUSING CASE SE...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . We are " here to make a difference." Less than a month before its scheduled December 4th, 2013 heari...
CHARLES WARE'S SCOTUS UPDATE: FAIR HOUSING CASE SETTLES
www.charlesjeromeware.com. We are " here to make a difference."
Less than a month before its scheduled December 4th, 2013 hearing in the Supreme Court of the United States ( SCOTUS ), the Fair Housing Act of 1968 New Jersey case of Mount Holly vs. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action has settled. This is the second time in recent months that SCOTUS will miss an opportunity to decide a significant issue of civil rights law. In this case --- the scope of the federal law against racial discrimination in home sales and rentals. Under the terms of the New Jersey settlement the two sides will withdraw their case in the Supreme Court --- an automatic result when a case settles [SCOTUS Docket no. 11-1507, 3d Circuit, October Term 2013].
At issue in the case, granted review by the Court in June 2013, is whether the Fair Housing Act of 1968 outlaws official housing policies that are not the result of intentional racial or other bias, but rather have a negative impact on minorities or others protected by the law. SCOTUS had agreed two years ago, for
the first time, to decide that issue in a case from St, Paul, Minnesota but that case ended in a settlement, as well.
[Credit to http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/11/13/new-fair-housing-case-settled ]
Less than a month before its scheduled December 4th, 2013 hearing in the Supreme Court of the United States ( SCOTUS ), the Fair Housing Act of 1968 New Jersey case of Mount Holly vs. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action has settled. This is the second time in recent months that SCOTUS will miss an opportunity to decide a significant issue of civil rights law. In this case --- the scope of the federal law against racial discrimination in home sales and rentals. Under the terms of the New Jersey settlement the two sides will withdraw their case in the Supreme Court --- an automatic result when a case settles [SCOTUS Docket no. 11-1507, 3d Circuit, October Term 2013].
At issue in the case, granted review by the Court in June 2013, is whether the Fair Housing Act of 1968 outlaws official housing policies that are not the result of intentional racial or other bias, but rather have a negative impact on minorities or others protected by the law. SCOTUS had agreed two years ago, for
the first time, to decide that issue in a case from St, Paul, Minnesota but that case ended in a settlement, as well.
[Credit to http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/11/13/new-fair-housing-case-settled ]
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: "BRINGING HOME THE BACON--LEGAL SETTLEMENTS IN HOW...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: "BRINGING HOME THE BACON--LEGAL SETTLEMENTS IN HOW...: This brief excerpt from a very popular article written by renowned attorney and author Charles Jerome Ware is taken from the 1990s Archive...
"BRINGING HOME THE BACON--LEGAL SETTLEMENTS IN HOWARD COUNTY (MARYLAND)
This brief excerpt from a very popular article written by renowned attorney and author Charles Jerome Ware is taken from the 1990s Archives of THE (MARYLAND)BUSINESS MONTHLY :
The Business Newspaper Of Howard County, Columbia & Laurel (Maryland). The original article was titled " BRINGING HOME THE BACON -- LEGAL SETTLEMENTS IN HOWARD", and its focus was to highlight some of the Howard County attorneys in the 1990s who had, up to that point, won large ( six or seven figures) civil verdicts and/or acquired large money settlements in civil
cases. The list was impressive for what was at that time in the history (1990s) of the Howard County
Bar a relatively very small group of lawyers.
At the time of writing and publishing the article in The (Maryland) Business Monthly, author and attorney Charles Ware had identified through various sources in Howard County the following attorneys who had won and/or settled six or seven-figure civil cases: Joel Marc Abramson, Neil
Edward Axel (who later became a local District Court judge), Daniel Clements, James K Eagan,III,
Alan L. Fishbein, Richard Kinlein, Timothy McCrone ( who later became the local State's Attorney, and is now a Circuit Court judge), Thomas M. Meachum, Gary Peklo, Bruce Plaxen Jason Shapiro, Jonathan Scott Smith, and Charles Jerome Ware.
The article includes some interesting and entertaining background stories about the various cases.
[ Charles Jerome Ware is a nationally renowned and celebrated attorney and author who maintains
a private practice of law which is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. He and
his colleagues in the " boutique" practice--- Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counselors---
successfully prosecute wrongful death , medical malpractice, and other personal injury cases, provide civil defense in lead paint poisoning cases, provide criminal defense representation as well as legal representation in discrimination, employment, divorce and other family law issues, immigration, estates and trusts, elder law, intellectual property, general civil litigation, and entertainment law. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact Charles Ware at www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, or (410) 720-6129.
The Business Newspaper Of Howard County, Columbia & Laurel (Maryland). The original article was titled " BRINGING HOME THE BACON -- LEGAL SETTLEMENTS IN HOWARD", and its focus was to highlight some of the Howard County attorneys in the 1990s who had, up to that point, won large ( six or seven figures) civil verdicts and/or acquired large money settlements in civil
cases. The list was impressive for what was at that time in the history (1990s) of the Howard County
Bar a relatively very small group of lawyers.
At the time of writing and publishing the article in The (Maryland) Business Monthly, author and attorney Charles Ware had identified through various sources in Howard County the following attorneys who had won and/or settled six or seven-figure civil cases: Joel Marc Abramson, Neil
Edward Axel (who later became a local District Court judge), Daniel Clements, James K Eagan,III,
Alan L. Fishbein, Richard Kinlein, Timothy McCrone ( who later became the local State's Attorney, and is now a Circuit Court judge), Thomas M. Meachum, Gary Peklo, Bruce Plaxen Jason Shapiro, Jonathan Scott Smith, and Charles Jerome Ware.
The article includes some interesting and entertaining background stories about the various cases.
[ Charles Jerome Ware is a nationally renowned and celebrated attorney and author who maintains
a private practice of law which is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. He and
his colleagues in the " boutique" practice--- Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counselors---
successfully prosecute wrongful death , medical malpractice, and other personal injury cases, provide civil defense in lead paint poisoning cases, provide criminal defense representation as well as legal representation in discrimination, employment, divorce and other family law issues, immigration, estates and trusts, elder law, intellectual property, general civil litigation, and entertainment law. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact Charles Ware at www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, or (410) 720-6129.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Attorney Charles Ware's CHURCH LAW UPDATE: 12 CHURCH LEGAL RISKS
Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counselors, is a nationally renowned and highly respected " boutique" law firm which specializes in certain areas of law that include CHURCH LAW. The firm is conveniently headquartered in the Baltimore - Washington metropolitan area.
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129.
12 LEGAL RISKS FACING CHURCHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS :
1. Protect the children. Do more to watch and protect children than simply colloquially putting them in " God's Hands." Know well the people who work with them.
2. Protect the money. This is generally the biggest secular problem in religious institutions.
Be sure to engage a transparent financial accounting system.
3. Negligent Selection of Church Workers. Use similar or the same proven hiring practices for church workers as you would for secular institutional workers.
4. Negligent Training and Retention of Church Staff. Competent training and retention of workers is critical for the success, viability and longevity of the institution. As in any other business.
5. Negligent Supervision of Church Staff and Activities. Most lawsuits against churches originate from mistakes made in this area of negligent supervision.
6. Negligent Counseling. A very sensitive area. And quite subjective. But full of pitfalls and mine fields for the unwary. Extreme attention should be brought here to proper training of all counselors.
7. Child Abuse Reporting. The Catholic Church is still reeling from its incompetence and negligence in this important area. So is Penn State University. The answer : Report all child abuse through the proper channels.
8.Securities Laws Violations. Securities law violations represent the second highest source of damages in civil litigation involving churches. Church leaders should not consider securities as a means of raising funds without the counsel of a securities attorney.
9. Employment Law. Despite the " ministerial" waivers and exemptions provided in the law
to protect religious institutions from certain employee grievances, churches and other religious insti-
tutions can still face exposure from various employment practices such as wrongful termination and discrimination. Churches should consult competent counsel regarding employment dismissal issues.
10. Undue Influence. Church leaders should always be cognizant of the fact that a sizeable gift or donation to a church may be challenged by the donor's family or other relatives if they believe the church or other religious institution has exerted undue influence on the donor.
11. Personal Liability of Church Board Members. Always remember, and never forget, that churches and other religious institutions, and their board members, can be sued . Therefore, it is important that religious institutions and their board members carry liability insurance ( frequently called " errors and omissions " insurance.
12. Punitive Damages. Church leaders must be cognizant of and understand that reckless inattention to risks can lead to punitive damages (punishment damages), and that such damages are generally not covered by the church's liability insurance policy.
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129.
12 LEGAL RISKS FACING CHURCHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS :
1. Protect the children. Do more to watch and protect children than simply colloquially putting them in " God's Hands." Know well the people who work with them.
2. Protect the money. This is generally the biggest secular problem in religious institutions.
Be sure to engage a transparent financial accounting system.
3. Negligent Selection of Church Workers. Use similar or the same proven hiring practices for church workers as you would for secular institutional workers.
4. Negligent Training and Retention of Church Staff. Competent training and retention of workers is critical for the success, viability and longevity of the institution. As in any other business.
5. Negligent Supervision of Church Staff and Activities. Most lawsuits against churches originate from mistakes made in this area of negligent supervision.
6. Negligent Counseling. A very sensitive area. And quite subjective. But full of pitfalls and mine fields for the unwary. Extreme attention should be brought here to proper training of all counselors.
7. Child Abuse Reporting. The Catholic Church is still reeling from its incompetence and negligence in this important area. So is Penn State University. The answer : Report all child abuse through the proper channels.
8.Securities Laws Violations. Securities law violations represent the second highest source of damages in civil litigation involving churches. Church leaders should not consider securities as a means of raising funds without the counsel of a securities attorney.
9. Employment Law. Despite the " ministerial" waivers and exemptions provided in the law
to protect religious institutions from certain employee grievances, churches and other religious insti-
tutions can still face exposure from various employment practices such as wrongful termination and discrimination. Churches should consult competent counsel regarding employment dismissal issues.
10. Undue Influence. Church leaders should always be cognizant of the fact that a sizeable gift or donation to a church may be challenged by the donor's family or other relatives if they believe the church or other religious institution has exerted undue influence on the donor.
11. Personal Liability of Church Board Members. Always remember, and never forget, that churches and other religious institutions, and their board members, can be sued . Therefore, it is important that religious institutions and their board members carry liability insurance ( frequently called " errors and omissions " insurance.
12. Punitive Damages. Church leaders must be cognizant of and understand that reckless inattention to risks can lead to punitive damages (punishment damages), and that such damages are generally not covered by the church's liability insurance policy.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: ALPHA(AGGRESSIVE) DRIVERS KILL : MARYLAND CAR DEAT...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: ALPHA(AGGRESSIVE) DRIVERS KILL : MARYLAND CAR DEAT...: Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counselors, is a premiere wrongful death law firm with an enviably successful record in pursuing ...
ALPHA(AGGRESSIVE) DRIVERS KILL : MARYLAND CAR DEATH ATTORNEYS, www.charlesjeromeware.com
Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counselors, is a premiere wrongful death law firm
with an enviably successful record in pursuing wrongful car death cases in Maryland and Washington, D. C. This nationally renowned and respected firm is conveniently headquartered
in the Baltimore and D. C. metropolitan area. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at www.charlesjeromeware.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129.
The biggest problem with aggressive driving is that it kills.
Car crashes are the leading cause of accidental death and injury in the Maryland, the District of Columbia, and indeed the United States; and the leading cause of all deaths among young people.
Alpha(Aggressive) driving is responsible for a significant proportion of all car crashes. In fact, aggressive drivers kill two to four times more people than drunken drivers. Alpha(Aggressive)
driving creates an atmosphere of incivility on the roads,, heightening driving anxiety and triggering more driving anger.
Two-thirds of traffic fatalities involve behaviors commonly associated with alpha(aggressive) driving --- such as speeding, running red lights, and improperly changing lanes. One-third of all traffic injuries result from alpha(aggressive) driving. Speeding, a common element in aggressive
driving, contributes to about one-third of fatal crashes.
Several studies have shown that between 20% and 35% of drivers have honked their horns, yelled or screamed, obscenely gestured, and cursed at other drivers. Estimates indicate that from 6 % to 28% of drivers have tailgated or blocked other drivers' vehicles. All of these behaviors can be considered part of a pattern or practice of acts that constitute alpha(aggressive) driving. Further, these behaviors can also provoke anger that could lead to alpha(aggressive) driving in others.
[http://www.popcenter.org/problems/aggressive_driving]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)