|
|
Wrongful Death Case Takes Twist As Victim Liable For Personal Injuries Caused By His Flying Body Parts
In an unusual personal injury case arising from a train accident, the estate of man who was dismembered by a train is liable for the injuries to another person who was struck by a part of his body that had been knocked to bits by a speeding train. The legal issues of this case are so bizare they seem more appropriate to a law school exam question than a court lawsuit.
In an LA Times story written by Steve Schmader which appeared in the December 29, 2011 edition, the writer stated that in 2008 Hiroyiki Joho, age 18, was running in the rain trying to catch a Metro train in Chicago. He was struck by an Amtrak train traveling at more than 70 mile per hour as he was crossing the tracks. A large portion of his body flew over 100 feet and struck Gayanne Zokhrabov, 58. She suffered a broken leg and wrist as well as injuries to her shoulder.
The trial court in Chicago dismissed the case holding that Joho could not have foreseen that the negligent act of stepping in front of a train and causing his own death by dismemberment would result in an injury to a third party. The appellate court disagreed. It ruled that “it was reasonably foreseeable” that the stepping into the path of the high speed train would cause Joho to explode and that parts of his body would then strike passengers on a nearby platform. Zokhrabov’s lawyer, Leslie Rosen, said that it was a straight forward case–”If you do something as stupid as this guy did, you have to be responsible for what comes of it.”
Wow, harsh Leslie! But, she may make a good legal point. In law school one of the first cases you learn concerns a ship that becomes loose and floats down a waterway and strikes and damages a bridge. The legal issue was whether it was reasonably foreseeable that negligently tying down the ship could result in damage to a bridge a good distance away. The court held it was foreseeable and a key principle of negligence law was laid down. That principle has been upheld in this case although I imagine it’s a hollow victory. Joho was 18 when he died and likely had nothing in his “estate” to compensate Zokhrabov for her injuries.
Top Rated Personal Injury Lawyer representing accident victims and medical malpractice victims in Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, Pasadena, Orange County and Ventura County. Call 800 486 6814 for a free consultation. Main Office: 1875 Century Park East Suite 1770 Los Angeles, CA 90067
 Most lawyers,even experienced ones, are terrible trial lawyers. Terrible. With a capital T that rhymes with LOSE. Here is list of common problems.
1. Using big words–any legal terminology,scientific mumbo-jumbo,or multi-syllabic jargon–is never a good idea. One can and should use clear,concise language to express even complicated ideas.
2. Making the same point over and over. Jurors hate to have their time wasted. Make your point. Move on.
3. Talking down to the jury. Collectively the jury is smart. The attorney’s questions should be clear and direct but not simplistic.
4. Talking without using visual aids. Take a cue from television news. The newscasters talk for about 30 seconds and then there is a change in the screen shot or the introduction of a graphic or a video. If your lawyer stands at podium tediously yammering,you are making enemies of the jury. Utilize diagrams, photos, and computer compilations so that you convey your message orally and visually.
5. Objections–Lots of Objections. Your lawyer may think constant objections are proof he knows the laws of evidence but the jury views the objections as proof you, the client, want the truth kept from them. This is suicide. Your lawyer must be seen by the jury as the truth teller. If the jury doesn’t trust him or her, they won’t trust you. The lawyer should address important evidentiary issues about which he wants to raise objections with the judge, and without the jury present. This is usually done with motions in limine before the start of trial.
Top Rated Personal Injury Lawyer representing accident victims and medical malpractice victims in Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, Pasadena, Orange County and Ventura County. Call 800 486 6814 for a free consultation. Main Office: 1875 Century Park East Suite 1770 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Conrad Murray ordered to pay $100 Million in restitution and serve 4 years in prison
Conrad Murray, the doctor convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson, was sentenced to four years imprisonment, the maximum punishment the judge could deliver.
“Some may feel that this was a medical malpractice case. It wasn’t. And this jury found that Conrad Murray, with criminal negligence, caused the death of Michael Jackson,” Judge Michael Pastor said before revealing the sentence. “The fact is, Michael Jackson died because of the actions of, and the failures to perform legal duties on the part of, Conrad Murray.”
In addition to the jail time the Court ordered Murray to pay an astonishing $100 Million in resitution–an amount Murray will never be able to pay. The doctor will inevitably have his medical license universally revoked, ensuring that he never treats another patient again and also crippling his financial means.
Beverly Hills Business Attorney Galen Gentry can help you with your wrongful death lawsuit. With 21 years of experience and the highest rating for legal skills and ethical conduct from avvo.com and martindale.com Galen can work with you to receive compensation for the loss of a loved one due to the fault of another. Call 800 486 6814 for a free, no obligation consultation. Serving clients in Southern California including Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Hollywood, The San Fernando Valley, Ventura County, Orange County and Long Beach
Government Failed To Warn Campers Even After Receiving Reports of Aggressive Bear In Area
The family of a boy killed by a bear has been awarded $1.95M for wrongful death against the U.S. Forest Service. On June 17, 2007, the boy Samuel Ives, 11, was camping with his mother, brother and stepfather at a remote camping site in American Fork Canyon in the Uinta National Forest.
Prior to the arrival of Samuel’s family, a man and his friends were camping at the dispersed camping area, approximately 1.2 miles above the Timpooneke Campground. (A dispersed camping area is outside of a designated campground and has no water or bathroom facilities.) Although it was a dispersed area, it had a fire pit, log bench, a flat area for tents and room for a car to pull off the road.
Early in the morning of June 17, the man was attacked by a bear while he was sleeping in his tent. He yelled to his friends in other tents to get a gun and they were able to scare the bear away with pistol shots and by throwing rocks at it. The man subsequently reported the bear attack to Utah County Dispatch at 9:25 am. The dispatcher who took the call told the man that she would notify the Forest Service and told him to also call highway patrol, which he did. As a result, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources was notified about the incident.
The Division of Wildlife Resources has a three-level classification system for bears that constitute a threat to the public. At approximately 10 am, it classified the bear that made the attack as Level III, which requires bears that have displayed aggressive behavior toward humans and show no fear be destroyed because of their risk to public safety.
The Division of Wildlife Resources searched for the bear until approximately 5 pm that day with the intention of returning the next morning. However, that evening, after the search ended for the day, Samuel’s family arrived at the same campsite as the bear attack. They had originally planned to camp at Timpooneke Campground, but they didn’t have the $13 fee and asked if they could camp up the road. They were told it was okay.
After the family went to bed at around 9 pm. Samuel slept in the smaller compartment of the tent and his brother, mother and stepfather stayed in the larger section. That night, a black bear pulled Samuel from the family tent and killed him. His body was found approximately 400 yards away from the campsite.
Samuel’s biological parents, Kevin Francis and Rebecca Ives, acting individually and as the natural parents of Samuel, sued the United States of America under the Federal Torts Claims Act. They alleged that their son’s death was caused by the negligence of the employees of the United States Forest Service since it was responsible for managing Timpooneke Road 056 and the campsites along that road.
The plaintiffs claimed that the Forest Service employees were aware of the presence of a dangerous bear in the area and were negligent in failing to close the remote camping site. They also claimed that the employees were negligent in failing to warn of the presence of a dangerous bear. The family testified that had there been a warning, they would not have camped at the site of the prior bear attack, or anywhere near it.
Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that earlier in the day, a bear had aggressively opened coolers, found food, slashed through a camper’s tent and struck a camper in the head before being chased off. They also contended that Samuel’s family was not informed of this incident.
Plaintiffs’ counsel presented evidence that after the dispatcher was contacted about the prior bear attack, she reported the incident to United States Forest Service law enforcement officer Carolyn Gosse. Gosse then told the dispatcher that she would let her district know, but that she was not on duty and it would be impossible for her to find someone to watch her children that day. Gosse ultimately failed to contact anyone or take any action in response to the reported bear attack on the morning of June 17. As a result, no other Forest Service employee knew about the incident and no action was taken to warn potential campers. Gosse was subsequently terminated from her job based in part on her conduct in this incident. Employee regulation states she should have returned to duty due to a compelling reason.
Gosse’s supervisor testified that had Gosse told him about the bear attack, he would have warned potential campers about the danger. A Forest Service District Ranger for the area also testified that a warning could easily have been placed on the gate at the head of Timpooneke Road 056 or the area been closed off.
The court ruled that based on testimony, the plaintiffs convincingly demonstrated that the bear that killed Samuel was the same bear that had attacked the other campers earlier in the day.
The United States denied its employees were negligent in the manner alleged by plaintiffs or that any act of omission of its employees caused Samuel’s death.
Defense counsel argued that there were already notifications posted in the area warning of bears in the area. They also contended that there were postings warning campers to store food in cars or high in a tree away from sleeping areas, but that Samuel’s family was negligent for leaving food out. Defense counsel further contended that Samuel’s drank some beer and that government officials testified she smelled of alcohol. However, the court found that the mother’s alcohol consumption was irrelevant.
In addition, defense counsel contended that the United States is immune from suit under the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claim Act.
Women injured in boat accident awarded $30 Million
Negligent Boaters Likely Cause of TBI Accident But Jury Blames Boat Manufacturer
On June 7, 2011 a jury in Butte County California awarded $31 million to two women who were swept off a boat and injured by its propeller. The women were riding in a MasterCraft X-45 wakeboarding craft.
There were 12 passengers sitting on the bow (that is the front of the boat) when it was suddenly submerged as the driver, Jerry Montz, went to retrieve a fallen wakeboarder. The force of water carried the women off the boat, and the propeller struck one on the head causing a traumatic brain injury; she lost an eye and has permanent brain damage. The other lady was cut on the elbow and lower back.
The women’s lawyer alleged the boat was defectively designed. They also sued Montz for negligent operation. The jury found MasterCraft 80 percent at fault and Montz 20 percent at fault. Of the award, $30.9 million went to the TBI victim and $530,688 to the other plaintiff.
This is the kind of case that makes people hate lawyers. (People never seem to remember that a jury of non-lawyers rendered the verdict) I am a lawyer and I think the result stinks, too. First, a disclaimer I don’t know all the facts about the case , the name of which is Bell v. MasterCraft Boat Co.
I speculate that the plaintiffs’ argument went something like this—Mastercraft defectively designed the boat because its design allowed twelve people to sit in the bow. If only Mastercraft had designed the boat to prevent more than “X” amount of people to sit in the bow this tragic accident wouldn’t have happened. Also, Mastercraft did not do enough product testing prior to marketing the boat.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer probably argued that the hull design that may have made it easier to swamp. I am confident that the lawyer argued MasterCraft had not performed adequate testing or design of the craft prior to marketing the boat. That’s crap. And results like this cost all consumers, not just consumers of watercraft, money.
In cases of catastrophic injury like this one many juries strain to find liability against the wealthiest defendant.
They learn in the trial the unbelievable expenses that are associated with caring for a young adult who has suffered a serious traumatic brain injury. She will need around the clock care, therapy, and perhaps further medical procedures.
Mr. Montz might have been well off enough to own a ski boat and may have had insurance, but caring for a traumatic brain injury in her twenties or teens victim for the term of her natural life—60 to 70 more years—will cost millions.
The problem is that based on the facts above defective design seems like the least likely cause of this tragedy. There were too many people on the front of the boat and the driver likely turned too sharply causing the bow to dip. Who’s fault is it that there were twelve people on the bow? Mastercraft? I don’t see it.
Years ago an American car maker learned of a potential fire problem with the fuel tanks of a new vehicle during pre-marketing testing. The company marketed it anyway and when people were immolated in rear end accident, the jury and then the public was rightfully enraged. Ever since that has been a common argument for the plaintiff’s lawyers to make.
I represent plaintiffs. I have only disdain for insurance companies who are the usual adversaries auto accident, premises liability and medical malpractice cases. My personal experience with insurance companies and my experience as a lawyer has been uniformly poor. Insurance companies do their best to weasel out of their obligations and to pay as little as possible on all claims.
Manufacturers make a profit based on sales. Subtract the costs of design, testing, marketing, etc. from the income and there you have it. The boat at issue is relatively large apparently, it seats 18 persons. Mastercraft likely did not breach its obligations to consumers and this case was wrongly decided.
If you are in need of a Los Angeles Accident Attorney please call toll free at 800.486.6814 today.
Our Los Angeles Accident Attorneys are top rated and serve clients throughout Southern California including but not limited to Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Hollywood, The San Fernando Valley, Orange County and Long Beach
“ The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already, but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” These lines were written by Leo Tolstoy and I saw them in an email from Harry Plotkin, who is a jury consultant in Monrovia California.
Tolstoy’s words are applicable to all, but what’s important to us is how does his thinking influence our jury selection? How can we attempt to gain advantage during jury selecton?
In his email Mr. Plotkin makes following pretty remarkable statement:
I have consistently found that a juror’s level of education, intelligence level, and understanding of the case (measured by objective comprehension of the facts) has no significant impact on individual verdicts. I have never once found educational attainment to be a statistically significant factor in predicting verdict.
What all jurors have in common is that they consistently impose their own values and ideas about right and wrong or fair and unfair on your case. In order to have the best chance at success you need to try to understand each potential juror. What are their values and whether they have life experience that makes them think (rightly or wrongly) that they understand your case.
Why must you understand the jurors? Obviously, you want to remove jurors who are hostile to your client or case theme from the begining. But more importantly, you must understand each juror because you need totailor your message–the theme of your case– to these individuals. And you must find a way to convince the jurors that you, the attorney, are the truth teller. The person they can depend upon to explain the case in a way that fits with the convictions and feelings they bring to the jury.
In October of 2010 the author obtained a $3 Million jury award after a thirty day jury trial. Experienced trial counsel can make the difference between success and failure in the courtroom.
Call 800 486-6814 for a free consultation with Galen Gentry
There are many types of brain injuries; however, the injuries which are most commonly the focus of negligence lawsuits are the following:
1) A penetrating brain injury — a tearing of the brain from a skull fracture for example, or a gun shot wound. These injuries cause ruptures of large blood vessels with bleeding into the brain and the subarachnoid space. Penetrating brain injuries also allow bacteria to enter into the brain and can result in infections such as encphalitis and meningitis.
2) Contusion — a visible bruising of the brain due to trauma or blood leaking from blood vessels.
3) H ematoma – brain damage resulting from leaking blood collecting in a confined area of the skull. Hematoma can be subderal or epidural, or intracerebral.
4) Concussion — a mild blow that can cause shearing of brain cells at a level undetectable by CT scans or MRIs. Concussions are much in the news because soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as football players, often suffer from concussions. The military and sports medicine professionals have made great strides in diagnosing concussions as well as acknowledging the need for treatment of concussion injuries.
5) Anoxia/Hypoxia — brain cell death resulting from brain cells receiving no oxygen (anoxia), or not enough oxygen (hypoxia). The brain requires a constant flow of oxygen to function normally. A hypoxic/anoxic injury also known as HAI essentially starves the brain of the oxygen and prevents it from performing vital biomechanical processes. The diminished oxygen supply can cause serious impairments in cognitive skills, as well as in physical, psychological, and other functions. Anesthesia accidents and cardiovascular disease each account for just under 1/3 of cardiac arrests according to a 1999 study. The most frequent cause of hypoxicischemic injury is cardiac arrest.
6) Diffuse Axonal Injury — a shearing of cell connections due to rapid acceleration/deceleration motion of the brain during trauma. This often results in global damage. Diffused axonal injury is one of the most common and devastating types of traumatic brain injury. The damage occurs over a more widespread area than over a more focal injury. DAI which refers to extensive lesions in white matter tracts is one of the major causes of unconsciousness and persistent vegatative states after head trauma. It occurs in about half of all cases of severe head trauma and can also occur in moderate and mild brian injury. Vehicle accidents are the most frequent cause of DAI; it can also occur as the result of child abuse such as Shaken Baby Syndrome.
7) Coup-contrecoup Injuries — at least 2 injury sites from one blow caused by the brain bouncing back and forth against the skull is the definition of a coup-contrecoup injury. A coup injury occurs under the sight of impact with an object. A contrecoup injury occurs on the side opposite the area that was impacted. Coup and contrecoup injuries are associated with cerebral contusion, a type of trauamtic injury in which the brain is bruised. Coup and contrecoup injuries can occur individually or together. When a moving object impacts stationary head coup injuries are typical. While a contrecoup injury is often produced when the moving head strikes a stationary object.
If you or a loved one has been injured through the negligence of another whether in an accident or medical malpractice setting contact the injury specialists at the Law Offices of Galen Gentry for a free, no obligation consultation. Call 800-486-6814. We will explain your rights, and why we are the right firm for you. (Want to know how we differ from our competition? Click here)
 According to Daniel Zweirdling and Christian Miller of NPR a bipartisan group of 74 lawmakers issued a letter Friday demanding that the Pentagon’s health plan cover a treatment for brain injured soldiers known as cognitive rehabilitation therapy.
.Rep. Bill Pascrell, (D-NJ), and Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA), the leaders of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force, cited an investigation by ProPublica and NPR, which found that Tricare, an insurance-style plan covering soldiers and many veterans, had relied on a controversial study to avoid paying for the intensive and often expensive treatment.
“We hope that you share our concern that service members returning from the battlefield cannot wait to receive treatment for their injuries,” the letter said. “It is our hope that there exists some contingency plan to provide cognitive rehabilitation for service members who are returning home today.”
Official Pentagon figures show that nearly 200,000 troops have suffered traumatic brain injuries since 2001, though our investigation found evidence suggesting the true toll is far higher. Although the majority of soldiers recover from the most common form of head trauma, known as mild traumatic brain injury or concussion, some suffer lifelong mental difficulties, with trouble remembering words or following directions.
Pascrell and Platts first wrote a letter demanding that Tricare provide cognitive rehabilitation more than two years ago. In response, Tricare contracted a study which found insufficient evidence to justify providing the treatment.
In confidential reviews obtained by ProPublica and NPR, however, leading brain specialists blasted the study for ignoring evidence that the therapy helped, calling it “deeply flawed.” Top Pentagon health officials have also expressed concern about the high cost of the treatment, our reporting found.
Cognitative influences can be caused by traumatic brain injuries to civilians as well. These injuries are serious and if they are the result of the negligence of another, for example in car accident cases, medical malpractice cases and the like you need experienced personal injury counsel to ensure your rights are protected.
Call us for a free, no obligation consultation. 800 486 6814
 There was an interesing article in the LA Times on January 23, 2011 concerning a lawsuit against UCLA Hospital arising out of the tragic death of a young girl. The girl, Olivia Cull, 17, died while undergoing a procedure related to a faulty heart valve. Her problem was congenital. She had had similar procedures to the one she underwent on the date she was injured. She was a bright, kind young woman; by all accounts full of promise.
The article’s point was that it was too hard to sue for medical malpractice in California. The article noted here there is a cap on pain and suffering damages of $250,000 in the state which makes it hard to find lawyers willing to take the cases.
All true. I agree that it is too hard to bring medical malpractice cases in California. I agree that the cap of pain and suffering damages of $250,000 is too low (the law was enacted in the 1970s when, presumably, $250,000 was more money than today). Want to read more about the medical malpractice cap? Click here.
But there is a big problem with the article. It never states what the health care providers did that was negligent or wrong. The basis of every med mal lawsuit (and every injury suit) is the breach of a duty of care. If there is no breach of a duty of care, one has no basis for a suit. Sometimes people die while in the hospital. This fact is horrible and tragic especially when it’s a young person. But the hospital doesn’t have to pay because the patient dies; the hospital has to pay when it or its agents such as nurses and doctors do something negligently that causes injury or death.
There is irony here. Many people’s emotional reaction to the untimely death of a child while in the care of a hospital is that the hospital is responsible, no matter what. Not true, because that is not justice. Because a hospital has money and treated a patient who suffered an injury or died, does not mean the hospital has breached its responsibilities. The plaintiff must show the standard of care of the hospital in treating the patient was below that which was the norm in the area.
And yet at least according to popular media many people believe that there are too many “frivilous” lawsuits and caps on pain and suffering and other rules that limit malpractice claims keep costs down, for everyone. Really? There is no evidence that malpractice caps weed out frivolous lawsuits. Juries and judges are not dumb. They don’t award big verdicts to frivolous lawsuits. A cap is much more likely to influence a legitimate case, a case where a large award is justified.
The media in the U.S. seems to be left leaning. With more journalists and pundits in favor of Democratic positions than in favor of Republican ones. But one area of journalism seems to be out of sync–the reporting on “tort reform.” Lawsuits and judgments are often the only way to bring the large companies and government entities to account for their misdeeds. It seems that the media is generally hostile to trial lawyers and lawsuits. This is a decidedly Republican position as it is the party who favors big business, champions tort reform and the minimization or exclusion of juries from the injury law system.
In their paper entitled “Faulty Data and False Concusions the Myth of Skyrocketing Malpractice Verdicts” academics Lewis L. Laska, J.D., Ph.D. and Katherine Forrest, M.D., M.P.H. report, “The premise that medical malpractice awards have been rising dramatically in the United States in recent years, driving up the cost of healthcare and forcing physicians out of practice, is not supported by relevant evidence.”
In light of the public relations campaign waged by big business against accident and malpractice cases, fighting for the rights of accident and malpractice victims is getting harder and harder. Victims need aggressive attorneys who can make sure the jury or judge sees the whole picture and accurately values the damages.
If you have been injured in a medical setting or an accident setting, contact the law offices of Galen Gentry for a free, no obligation consultation. Top rated, trial experienced, exceptionally good.
Telephone: 800 486-6814 or email galen@galengentry.com
 On January 1, 2011 the Expedited Jury Trials Act goes into effect. It is an attempt by the legislature to shorten the trial process in cases with modest values and it’s really directed at limited jurisdiction personal injury cases that make up a large percentage of civil trials. The act establishes procedures for conducting expedited jury trials, including provisions for a jury of 8 or fewer members, with no alternates, a limit of 3 peremptory challenges for each side, and a limit of 3 hours for each side to present its case.
The act also provides that all parties waive all rights to appeal and the right to move for a directed verdict or to make any post-trial motions, except as provided. The act provides that the verdict in an expedited jury trial is binding, subject to any written high/low agreement.
It sounds great. Our court system is woefully underfunded. The average case takes more than a year from the date the complaint is filed to the date of trial. The delay is a real problem for consumers and a benefit to corporate defendants, particularly insurance companies. (Want to know why the over burdened court system is bad for consumers? Read this article).
Unfortunately, the impact of Expedited Jury Trial Act will be negligible because insurance companies won’t agree to Expedited Jury Trials in most cases. The Act is aimed at limited jurisdiction cases. The reason the act won’t have the desired effect is that insurance companies love limited jurisdiction cases, and don’t want to change a thing. In limited jurisdiction cases the jury cannot award any more than $25,000 (the limit of its jurisdiction). Even a modest insurance policy exceeds the most that can be lost by the insurance companies.
Traditionally, limited jurisdiction cases were straight forward and fast. But over the past decade insurance companies have adopted a hardline position–they will pay tens of thousands of dollars to defend a case rather than settle it. Even meritorious cases are dragged out in an attempt to wear down the victim and make the litigation so expensive that a jury verdict can be a pryhhic victory. In other words the costs to win the trial gobble up the verdict amount.
Insurance companies regularly use accident reconstructionists and “biomechanical experts” in limited jurisdiction cases to attempt to prove the injury could not have been caused by the car wreck or the fall or whatever the facts are. The industry uses the same “experts” over and over and so they obtain bargain rates.
Experts can be persuasive (even if their facts are wrong and their opinions are based on junk science); therefore, Plaintiff’s lawyers believe they must employ their own experts. This means more costs and less recovery for you, the victim.
In a recent limited jurisdiction case undertaken by our firm our expert witness (accident reconstructionist) demanded $7,000.00 to testify. Wow. The treating physician charged $1000 an hour to testify. Oof! With medical bills of $5700 even if the jury awarded the plaintiff the jurisdictional maximum of $25,000 the amount the plaintiff would ultimately receive made the case one in which even a jury verdict wasn’t much of a victory.
What can be done to protect you, the consumer? Instead, of expedited trials limited jurisdiction cases should preclude accident reconstructionists and similar experts. This would decrease the cost and complexity of the cases and result in the desired judicial economy–trials would be shorter and less expensive. But that simple solution will never happen because the insurance companies are too politically powerful for such a law to be passed.
Okay, so the insurance companies have serious political power, what else can be done? Well, the only other thing to do is to bravely try the case without an accident reconstructionist.
But, to do that you need a skilled attorney who can expose the junk science that accident reconstructionists use in modest speed cases. Also, think outside the box. Instead of using an accident reconstructionist the plaintiff’s counsel can employ a driving teacher to opine about the rules of the road and the thousands of serious injuries which occur every year in relatively low speed impacts.
The game is fixed. Insurance companies have the upper hand. But don’t lose hope. If you have suffered a modest injury in a low speed impact make sure your lawyer has a plan to win and is willing to take the case to trial. Ask him or her about the expenses. Ask him about experts. If he can’t explain what a “Delta V” is you’re talking to the wrong lawyer.
Call 800 486 6814 for a free consultation
|
|
