Los Angeles Attorney on fighting misconceptions in Auto Accidents lawsuits

Just recently, last Monday Los Angeles Memorial worst accidents happened in Los Angeles which ends with 7 deaths and 27 people injured in auto accidents, including a fiery six-car pileup along Crenshaw Boulevard.

The first auto crash occurs in South Los Angeles at about 6 p.m. at Crenshaw and Florence Avenue, leaving several cars ablaze and strewing wreckage about streets. Instantly, three people, including two children, ages 7 and 12 died at the scene. Sixteen others were severely injured.

The second unlikely accident happened earlier that same day shortly before 8 a.m., a sport-utility vehicle (SUV) drove off a narrow canyon road in the Hollywood Hills, rolled down a steep hill and crashed against a carport. The said accident resulted in the death of two people and injuries of three others people.

Third auto accident that day injured eight people, including a child, in a four-vehicle crash about 4:20 p.m. on the southbound Hollywood Freeway south of Highland Avenue. Two of the vehicles overturned and lanes were briefly blocked.

What can you say about the incidents? Was it something new? Is it something to care or worry about?

The incident is something that we should take concern of. Despite our busy lives as people living in Los Angeles, we should take this matter of paramount importance especially when we can be a potent victim of this dismal event.

Time and again we hear stories like this one from people in our state, or from anywhere else where they related their gloomy experience and their aspiration to get properly compensated for their injuries. We hear them crying for help and witnessed how their respective lives turn after the resentful experience.

To make the story even worst, many of the victims of auto accident have not fully recovered physically, morally and financially after their accident encounter. Several of these victims were not compensated for their injuries, or even if they were compensated, it is not even enough or has gotten less of it.

One fact of all of these, was because, many victims have not utilized their right in court battle. Victims are afraid to wage lawsuit for an unknown fear. One reason, as I see it, was that there are growing bad perceptions about personal injury suits including lawyer representations and fees.

As I constantly counseled many of my clients, I usually relayed to them that there is no reason to be afraid of in pursuing their personal injury claims and cases. I continue by saying, that lawsuits are designed to give people remedial rights in all their predicaments. It is not constituted without any purpose.

As for the travails in lawsuits, all of these is but part of the whole considerations that a lawyer, not them should take concern about. Technical aspects of the case are fully the expertise of a lawyer.

As for the fee, which is more likely the deterring factor for their refusal to act, I oblige them not to think about it as of the moment. That they should focus more on their physical recovery rather than minding on the fees, which I say, is not at all too important. Attorney’s fees can be arranged permissibly, with no harm caused to the clients. Fees should not be an overriding factor that prevents a victim from ventilating their right to claim compensation or damages in the courts of law.

Through this LawBlog, I have shared my long-standing fight against misconceptions in personal injury lawsuits (including auto accidents).

Neurolaw legal realities in Spinal Cord Injury case

Neurolaw is a specific field brought about by jurisprudence dedicated to brain injury and spinal cord injury cases. This concept is a combination of medical, rehabilitation and law. This was devised for giving particular attention to the special needs that accompany brain injury and spinal cord injury.

The introduction of Neurolaw in our current legal system has brought tremendous controversy. Diverse opinions from known legal professionals have come out, attacking or defending the introduction of the unfamiliar world of neuroscience in the legal sphere. To note, this move made a radical change to the legal system and standards.

An article in the New York Times entitled “The Brain on the Stand” relates that there are perplexing questions that involved with the entry of this law in the legal realms. As to this date, the law has gray features. By then, the author suggested, “We must instead look to our own powers of reasoning and intuition, relatively primitive as they may be”.

Setting aside the various views of the Neurolaw, I am of the opinion that we should let the innovation stay and mixed with our current system. This is a good development to our system of laws.

The idea that it is all too broad, too sweeping, all encompassing was all but premature notions with no verifiable vestige of truth. It was all speculative and imaginary.

Neurolaw was introduced for a definite purpose. It caters the delicate subject of the spinal cord injury and brain injury victims in relation to their claims and rehabilitation. This law must be given a place for its observance and a chance to proliferate.

Older Adults, Common Victims of Escalator Accidents

A new study finds that older adults are more prone to accident related with riding of escalators. In like manner, news has reported, dated March 21, with the heading, “More Seniors Falling Victim to Escalator Injuries” that older Americans is being injured during slips and falls on escalators at increasing rates.

The same item relates that the rate of injuries to older adults riding escalators more than doubled from 1991 to 2005. In figures, the study has found that during that year that nearly 40,000 adults age 65 and older were injured on escalators.

The item also related the common reasons of the trend of increasing escalator accidents of older adults. Specifically, shifts in lifestyle of older adults, poor equilibrium, decreased visual acuity, coordination problems, changes in muscle strength and balance, and lack of agility.

Escalators have brought so many benefits to people especially the older ones. Escalators are the convenient way of transporting people, things or goods up and down short vertical distances. As described, it is the safest means of getting from one floor to another especially while in malls, department stores, airports, transit systems, hotels, convention centers.

Safety is also major concern in escalator design. However, ironically speaking, despite its perfect utility and design, several cases of injuries and accidents, especially with older adults, related with escalator riding have happened. Why is that? Practically, there are number of reasons that caused these eventualities. Enumerating them could be a worthless endeavor.
What is paramount then is to know some safety precautions to minimize, or if not to eliminate these accidents.Thus, here are the safe riding points that everyone, especially the adult one, to consider in riding escalators: To prevent from falling, step out at the end of the stairs.

• Always check for loose garments especially when you are wearing long dresses, scarves or trench coats. In addition, be mindful for loose shoelaces. They are often notorious for being caught in escalator machinery.
• Do not ride barefoot.
• Do not use the escalator when you are with a walker or on crutches.
• If the escalator is motionless, do not use the same. The risk of tripping and falling is greatly increased.
• Always face forward.
• Always take hold of the handrail.
• Keep away footwear from the side panels.
• To prevent accumulation, keep walking after exiting the escalator.
• Stand to one side of the escalator to give way to others who may want to pass you.

These were all the practical tips for safe riding.
Nevertheless, when things go wrong and when you have been involved in an escalator accident, it is always necessary to seek timely medical attention. More so, you may want to confer with an attorney for possible recovery of compensation or damages against the operator of the escalator.

The fabric of Premise liability

Condensed statement of Premise Liability

In general, the term premise liability refers to the legal responsibility of property owners or possessors for injuries and accidents that occurred in their premises because of their negligence. It is a part of the broad area of personal injury that governs slip and fall accidents and determines who is at fault for their happening. Actually, they can be filed for variety of reasons, and slip and falls is a common type of this kind.

States and different jurisdictions have their own varied sets of premise liability laws.

Related factual events

On this score, I come to learn in a relevant news that happened somewhere in New York City, where a Brooklyn Judge sues the City for $1M over Courthouse Slip and falls. The event happened when a certain Supreme Court Justice Jack Battaglia slipped on a wet, soapy floor in the courthouse and fell. It was claimed that he sustained a fractured knee due to the fall.

Further, the news relates that the woman who cleaned the floor created a hazardous condition when she negligently used the mop, mop bucket, and wringer in her janitorial duties.

This event is a classic example of premise liability.

Personal views

Premise liability can become an inevitable one when one does not took much care of their concerns. A simple mistake in maintaining one’s premises can cause so many blunders and crippling injuries to people who may be a visitor, a guest, or an innocent passerby of your property.

It is incumbent for property owner or legal possessor to take all precautions to make the area safe for everyone. Otherwise, wanton disregard of this bounden duty would entail responsibility and legal liability.

For the victims of premise liability, proving a case of this kind can be tedious and sometimes taxing. That is where the representation of premise liability lawyers is needed.

Bottom of Form

Only a qualified personal injury lawyer who specializes in premises liability can truly help you with this concern.

To end with, the fabric of premise liability are broad enough to comprehend that needs the facilitation of a lawyer. In different light, it must be taught to people that they should take care of their respective premises in order to avoid liability from injuries that can potentially occur in their respective premises.

Sale of Motorcycles to Unlicensed Consumers: A Clear Case of General Negligence?

Introductory Resolution 1690, authored by Representative Jack Eddington, prohibits the selling of motorcycles to unlicensed motorcyclists in any state. The question in place is “Whether or not the motorcycle salesman can be held for negligence for selling the vehicle even though he knew that the prospective buyer was unlicensed.

This question was raised as a reaction to the wrongful death of Christopher Brandon Freeman who died three days after purchasing a 2002 Yamaha YZF600R sport motorcycle from Laurel Yamaha.

The Freemans filed a negligent case against the seller citing four points:

1) the seller was not able to check whether Brandon had a license and was competent

2) they negligently entrusted the motorcycle to Brandon

3) the company exercised negligence in training and supervising its staff

4) Laurel Yamaha did not sell Brandon an appropriately sized helmet.

After filing a motion for Summary Judgment, the Mississippi Supreme Court denied the motion. Laurel Yamaha filed an appeal, which was granted, by the court. The Justice ruled that under the laws of Mississippi, once a vehicle has been sold to a customer, the seller no longer has jurisdiction over the product sold.

In proving negligence, the plaintiff should prove four elements namely duty, breach, causation, and damage. In this case, the Freemans were not able to prove that Laurel and Yamaha had a hand in choosing the helmet used by Brandon. The fact that their son had a valid license with no “E” endorsement was already a violation of state laws.

This is a clear example of the plaintiff losing to the defendant simply because all the elements required for a successful negligence claim was not present in their case.