Mobile Personal Injury Lawyer - Automobile Accidents - Most Commented

Automobile Collisions: Should Evidence Of Seatbelt Use Be Allowed At Trial?

Pete Mackey — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:24:50 GMT

According to the Daily Report, the Georgia Senate is considering a bill that would allow jurors to hear evidence at trial of whether or not a claimant was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash. The Chamber of Commerce supports the bill and many trial attorneys oppose it. What do you think? As for whether seat belts save lives, prevent injuries or reduce their severity - the debate is over.

I should be able to introduce evidence that a driver's cell phone use or intoxication, for example, caused the collision. If the law requires drivers to be belted, why shouldn't the other driver be able to try and prove that my client would not have been injured if belted? It would be awfully unfair, on the other hand, for a drunk driver to escape liability because my client was not wearing a seat belt. What about situations where there is no clear expert proof, one way or the other, that the claimant would have escaped injury if belted in? Would it unnecessarily complicate otherwise straightforward cases? Would this mean that experts would be required in every case where the claimant is not belted? Let me hear from you.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey

Super Bowl Sunday, not just a game....

Troy Schwant — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:01:04 GMT

With Super Bowl Sunday just a little over a week away millions across the country are making preparations to travel to their Super Bowl Party of choice. Some may go to the local sports bar, some may watch the game at a friend's house, but what is certain is that almost everyone will get to and from their Super Bowl party in an automobile, and unfortunately a high percentage of those people will have consumed at least two alcholic beverages before getting behind the wheel.

With the Super Bowl lasting over four (4) hours, the chances that the party goers will have more than two drinks, is quite high, and in fact, according to this article, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, stated that 39 percent of all traffic fatalities last year occurred on Super Bowl Sunday.

www.whsv.com/news/headlines/15148601.html

The article give five simple steps to make sure you have a fun but safe Super Bowl Sunday:

- Designate a sober driver for your guests.

- Serve a lot of food, as well as non-alcoholic beverages.

- Stop serving alcohol after the third quarter of the game.

- Keep local cab numbers handy for guests after the game.

- Take the car keys away from guests who drink alcohol.

No matter who you are cheering for in this year's game please be sure that you follow these steps if you are hosting or attending a Super Bowl party.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Troy Schwant

Are Insurance Companies failing to recognize that pain and suffering should be compensated?

Troy Schwant — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:30:15 GMT

It is becoming more and more evident that Insurance companies are taking the position that your medical bills are the only matter they are going to take into consideration when evaluating your claim. This hard and fast rule is elminating compensation for genuine pain and suffering that people experience from car wrecks or other accidents. They are using a broad brush by not considering the pain and suffering some accident victims go through after being involved in an accident. So the question is why are they doing this and how did it get to this point?

The answer of course is money, both in the why and the how. The why is easy, they don't want to pay money on a claim for someone who claims to have suffered every day for two months in recovering from an auto accident, yet only has 3,000.00 in medical bills. They take the position that this case is only worth a little more than the medical bills, and if you don't take their offer, then sue them. Anyone that has recovered from an auto accident knows that the days, weeks, and months that follow an auto accident can be very difficult, you can miss work, be unable to enjoy your family, and essentially be in pain every day. To argue that a person shouldn't be compensated for suffering through this pain, that was caused by someone else, is simply repugnant.

Now, lets get to the how. How have insurance companies been able to take this position with people that have been hurt? The answer again is money, but it is not as easy you think. Insurance companies have spent millions, not on claims, but in election campaigns, and advertisements that talk about rising insurance costs, and bogus lawsuits and have convinced the American public that if someone has filed a lawsuit, that person is just a money grubbing liar, who wasn't even hurt in the first place. Unfortunately this perception has taken hold of far too many Americans. The perception is that people that file lawsuits, want to file lawsuits, when the reality is that 99% of the people that file lawsuits do not want to file a lawsuit, but have no other choice based on the insurance company failing to negotiate with them fairly.

The next time you hear a comment about sue happy Plaintiffs, just remember that the person making this comment, has probably never been in an accident and made a claim to be compensated. If they had, they would be singing a different tune.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Troy Schwant

The Adjuster Says We Can Work It Out - Part 2

Pete Mackey — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:19:52 GMT

In the second part of this series, I want to discuss health insurance and how it plays into the settlement of your injury claim in a car collision. The overwhelming majority of Americans who have health insurance get it through their employment. Most of these policies are covered by a Federal law known as ERISA. Suffice it to say that ERISA is generally not good for the consumer. Let's say that your health insurance provider has paid $15,000 in medical expenses. Your carrier has sent you a letter telling you that they want to get their money back if you make a recovery from the driver who ran the red light. You are concerned because you have found out that this driver only has $25,000 in insurance limits.

The first issue is whether ERISA even covers this claim. If you work for a state or Federal government (or one of its subdivisions) or a church, it is not. If you own your own company, it may not be. ERISA may or may not apply based on how the plan is funded and who pays the premiums. In short, this is a minefield for the unwary.

Next, whether the plan is covered by ERISA or not, you need to determine how much your health insurance carrier may recover. In many instances, they will have to pay your attorney the same rate that you are paying for the recovery. Using our example, if you had hired your lawyer on a 1/3 contingency fee contract, you would only have to repay the carrier $10,000 of the $15,000. In some cases, the "make whole" doctrine will apply and your repayment to the carrier will be diminished, or even erased. Again, using our example, the fact that the at fault driver only has $25,000 in liability limits may bring this doctrine into play. The basic idea is that the Judge on your case can limit the carrier's recovery if it is found that you won't be made whole otherwise.

Whether the "made whole" doctrine applies is another question that only an attorney experienced in personal injury cases can determine and negotiate. In the next, and last, installment in this series, I will wrap things up and give you a few tips on what to do if you decide to represent yourself.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey

The Adjuster Says We Can Work It Out - Part 1

Pete Mackey — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:14:03 GMT

The other driver ran the red light. There were three witnesses to the collision. You broke both arms (the ones you use to handle the machine at work) and will be out of work for six weeks. The other driver's insurance carrier calls you the next day. "We are here to help," says the adjuster from the Big Hands company, "don't hire a lawyer - that will just get you a third less in your settlement."

What do you do? Why pay a lawyer when the Big Hands guy has a fist full of cash for you? If you can get him to pay you the same amount that he would pay if you were represented, you shouldn't. The problem is, in the overwhelming number of cases, his final offer will be far less than what he would put on the table to your attorney. But you are anxious. You don't have much money saved up and the bills won't stop while you are out of work.

We give the same advice that we would give to anyone who is thinking of foregoing professional help - do so at your own risk. The Big Hands guy is not trying to help you out. He is trying to close out the file by paying the least that he can. That is his job, and he wants to do it as quickly as he can. If he doesn't want you to hire a lawyer or to wait until you recover to settle your claim - isn't that a red flag?

Even the relatively simple example presented here has a lot of issues that a lay person has never dealt with. First, there is settling the property damage claim. If your vehicle is not a total loss, you are entitled to recover the amount that would put you in the same position you were in before the wreck. That will include an amount for the diminution in value of your vehicle after it is repaired. How do you figure that out?

What about medpay? That is the amount of money that the other driver's carrier will pay without regard to fault. Generally, that is worth $1,000, but some policies pay more. If you have health insurance, how are they to be paid back? Some health insurance companies will negotiate. If you do not have medical insurance, how will you get the doctor to keep providing service? What other damages are you entitled to? How much insurance does the other driver have? If it is not enough to cover your loss, will your own insurance come into play?

As you can see, there are lots of things to consider. In this series of posts, I will go into greater detail about all of these issues. I will even include a post that tells you the best way that you can represent yourself, if that is what you choose to do. Just remember the wise old adage, "people who represent themselves have fools for lawyers."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey

Are eighteen wheelers drivers becoming the new dominos delivery drivers?

Troy Schwant — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:13:57 GMT

We all remember in the late 80's the famous "30 minutes or its free" pizza guarantee that Dominos advertised. Well it was a very successful, but dangerous ad campaign. Domino drivers started driving recklessly and unfortunately innocent bystanders were the casualties of this ad campaign.

Well almost twenty years later, it appears Fed Ex Freight may be the next company to offer these delivery guarantees.

www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS157567+13-Jan-2009+BW20090113

Please be extra cautious while traveling the roads, because you may be traveling with drivers who are under deadline to get their packages to their destination and in this economy, truck drivers are not going to run the risk of losing their job because they failed to miss a deadline.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Troy Schwant

Investigate car wrecks promptly

Pete Burns — Tue, 12 May 2009 18:14:42 GMT

Prompt investigation of a car wreck involving serious injury or wrongful death is a must. Frequently alcohol is involved in car wrecks and bars are often the source of the alcohol. Dram shop laws are a way of holding bar owners who serve alcohol to minors or intoxicated persons responsible for the injuries caused by their drunken patrons. The sooner you launch an investigation the more likely you are to determine where and when the driver got drunk. Witnesses interviewed promptly after the wreck are frequently more willing to talk than after having days – and perhaps discouragement – to think about getting involved.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Burns

Another Death From Texting?

Billy Cunningham — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:35:30 GMT

This past week a legal secretary I knew died in an automobile wreck when she crossed over the center line and struck an oncoming car. Apparently, she was texting when she veered over and could not have been paying attention to the job of safe driving. She left behind a 5 year old.

The National Safety Council reports that 80% of all wrecks are caused by inattention. http://www.nsc.org/resources/issues/distracted_driving.aspxCar Wrecks are the number cause of accidental death in the US. Outlawing texting has become the subject of laws in several states. On April 10, 2009, Gov. Barbour of Mississippi signed a bill effective July 1 banning young drivers from texting. The fine under this act can be as high as $500 and if an accident is involved the fine can be $1,000. Mississippi joins 9 other states banning novice drives from texting (Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and West Virginia) Why ban just young drivers? 10 states ban texting for all drivers (Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, Utah, Virginia, and Washington and the District of Columbia)

In researching this, I read articles and blogs opposing a ban on texting. The reasons seem inane to me. Like- “Why not ban drinking water-it is distracting, too” “Laws are made to be broken” If you follow that logic then we should do away with laws prohibiting running stops signs.

I have started a little nonscientific research project- counting the number of drivers I see talking on the cell phone. Right now, in city type driving the average is about 4 in 10. To combat cell phone distraction, some states and local governments have passed various laws to control cell phone usage. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 6 states (Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) specifically authorize a locality to ban cellphone use. Localities that have enacted restrictions on cellphone use include: Chicago, IL; Brookline, MA; Detroit, MI; Santa Fe, NM; Brooklyn, North Olmstead and Walton Hills, OH; Conshohocken, Lebanon and West Conshohocken, PA; and Waupaca County, WI. Interestingly, localities are prohibited from banning cellphone use in 8 states (Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah). The use of all cellular phones while driving a school bus is prohibited in 17 states and the District of Columbia. ( I cannot imagine any reason other than an emergency for a school bus driver to be talking on the pohone while driving!) The use of all cellular phones by novice drivers is restricted in 20 states and the District of Columbia.

The National Safety Council offers a Distracted Driver CD to help businesses inform and educate employees about the risks of using hand-held and hands-free communication devices while driving. It also assists organizations in creating and implementing a distracted driving policy as well as in gaining employee buy-in. It also includes tools to help reinforce the policy company-wide. On the CD is the NSC Motor Vehicle Safety Policy. This document, with its comprehensive section on distracted driving, is designed to serve as a model for any company. It includes a Statement of Acknowledgement, which employees must sign and return to their supervisors. A similar acknowledgement statement is part of the sample Generic Cell Phone Policy. Your business and family may find this CD and its tools helpful in protecting your co-workers and loved ones.

The bottom line to all this is that we all need to be more attentive when driving to protect ourselves and others.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Billy Cunningham

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage Part 2: Stacking Coverage

Pete Mackey — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:00:00 GMT

If you have more than one vehicle insured under the same insurance policy and you are involved in a collision where the at fault driver is uninsured or underinsured, you can "stack" the uninsured/underinsured (um/uim) coverages of up to two more insured vehicles on top of the vehicle involved in the collision. For instance, let's say that you have four vehicles covered under one policy and the um/uim limits for each is $100,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. In that instance, you would "stack" the coverages of two more of your vehicles, raising the total amount of um/uim coverage available to $300,000 per person and $900,000 per incident.

Let's work through an example. To make it simple, I will not consider the at fault driver's "per incident" limits of liability coverage. Using the coverages above, father, son and daughter are driving to the store in dad's car when another driver runs the red light and collides with dad's vehicle. That driver has liability insurance with a $50,000 limit. At the trial of that case, the jury awards father damages of $60,000, son damages of $200,000 and daughter $400,000. Who gets what? As to father, the at fault driver's liability coverage pays it's $50,000 limit and dad's um/uim carrier pays the remaining $10,000 of the judgment. Son would get the full $200,000 ($50,000 from at fault driver and $150,000 from um/uim). Daughter, however, would have her damage award capped at $350,000 ($50,000 from at fault driver and $300,000 from um/uim) because she got the limits from each.

There is one twist to "stacking." If the four vehicles owned by dad were insured by the same insurance carrier under four separate policies, the coverages for each policy would be available to dad and his kids. Tomorrow, we will talk about damages.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey

Auto accidents leading cause of death for teens

Staff Writer — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:02:17 GMT

The Insurance Information Institute reports that motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death among teens ages 15 to 20. An article posted on TheTimes.com details the alarming statistics about teen traffic deaths.

The national numbers for 2005 include 3,467 fatalities for drivers ages 15 to 20, and 281,000 injuries for kids in this age group due to motor vehicle crashes. In Alabama alone there were 137 teen traffic deaths in 2005.

Officials blame a number of reasons for these sad numbers. Inexperience, poor judgment and distractions top the list. Failure to yield is the top cause of traffic accidents for teens.

"I would say inexperience is one of the major factors, but not the only factor,'' said Eddie Russell, coordinator with the North Alabama Traffic Safety Office in Tuscumbia. "More times than not, young drivers run up on a situation that they don't know how to handle and the way they react can mean the difference between life and death.''
"They have cell phones, iPods, MP3 players and stereos. All of those can cause someone, experienced or inexperienced to lose their concentration,'' Russell said. "And when you're driving

, you need to have total concentration on driving, nothing else.''

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer