Boston Personal Injury Lawyer - Motor Vehicle Accidents

Teen Cell Phone Ban

Ken Margolin — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:35:00 GMT

California has banned cell phone use by drivers ages 16 & 17. The ban will include text messaging. Older drivers will be allowed to use hands free phones, but the ban for the teenagers will be total. While the legislation is positive and regrettably, too rare, it is insufficient. A number of studies have shown that even during conversations on hands free cell phones, drivers' reactions times were significantly reduced, and automobile accident levels increased. Multi-tasking makes for mediocre performance of many tasks, and can be deadly on the road.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

Cell Phone Driving Fatalities

Ken Margolin — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:10:00 GMT

If the sight of the driver to your right on the interstate, chatting away on his cell phone gets you angry, you've got a right to be. Various studies have shown that driving while talking on a cell phone can be as dangerous as driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. Estimates of the number of U.S. traffic fatalities caused by cell phone talking while driving are generally in the 2,000 - 3,000 range with one hundred times as many injuries. The best remedy for the menace of cell phone traffic accidents, would be common sense by most drivers and a realization that the common practice is anti-social and dangerous. Failing a sudden epidemic of common sense, legislation and tough enforcement need to be implemented. Enacting legislation will be tough given the lobbying power of the cell phone industry. The effort, though, coupled with public education, can save thousands of lives each year.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

A Victory Against Trucking Fatalities

Ken Margolin — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:45:00 GMT

The federal Appeals Court of the D.C. Circuit, struck down new rules of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, that would have allowed big rig truckers to drive many more consecutive hours. The case was brought by Public Citizen, a public safety advocacy group, and other groups formed to protect the public against tired truckers. The Appeals Court held that the federal agency had not justified the change in rules, in light of data that showed the trucking industry to be amongst the most dangerous, and fatalities in accidents involving large trucks to be far more likely than those involving cars alone. Naturally, the rules change was pressed by the trucking industry, which consistently ignores the data regarding trucking fatalities, and places profits ahead of quality of life and safety on our roadways.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

More Insurance Company Fraud

Ken Margolin — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:05:00 GMT

Several days ago, I posted a blog on bad faith denial of claims by insurance companies. I don't usually write blogs on the same topic within several days of each other, but I must comment on the superb reporting on insurance company bad faith, in this month's issue of Trial magazine. Trial is the journal of the American Association for Justice, the plaintiffs' trial lawyers association. The issue highlights intentional campaigns by the insurance industry to raise profits by denying valid claims and delaying payment to pressure policy holders to accept low ball offers.

Amongst the most shocking incidents of insurance company fraud reported are claiming poverty and threatening to leave states, amidst record profits, forging signatures on earthquake waiver forms after a major California earthquake in 1994, deceptively obtaining statements by Hurricane Katrina homeowners that their homes had been damaged by "flood" (as opposed to the hurricane), because wind and rain damage were covered, while flood damages were not, using catastrophes to raise rates and dramatically increase profits, independent of actual increased risk of loss. The greed is astounding. Legislatures appear too weak to stop the insurance industry cabal. Once again, it is left to the maligned plaintiffs' trial bar to right the balance.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

The Serious Car Accident Case

Ken Margolin — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 12:45:00 GMT

For many years, small car accident cases resulting in modest injury, were the bread and butter of a portion of the Massachusetts plaintiffs' personal injury bar. Some firms had hundreds of these cases, which were prepared in cookie cutter fashion, and settled with adjustors with little or no discovery done, or even before suit was filed. Reputable lawyers handling the small car accident case, provided an important service. Unfortunately, some less than reputable lawyers worked with unscrupulous doctors and chiropractors to inflate the medical expenses. Some disbarments occurred, along with a huge hit to the reputation of personal injury attorneys generally.

Serious car accident cases, resulting in death or disabling injury, bear no relation to the simple accident case. They must be handled with the care and thoroughness of any catastrophic personal injury case. Time can be the attorney's friend or enemy, depending on how soon after the accident, he is contacted. Witnesses should be located and interviewed as soon as possible, while memories are still fresh. Statements can preserve their observations, protect against changed memory or be used to refresh memory, at a deposition or trial two years later. Photographs of the site should be taken promptly as well. If too much time goes by, the scene may change drastically due to development or roadway changes. Sometimes, retention of an accident reconstruction expert will be advisable. If the plaintiff's injuries are life-altering, a vocational expert, economist, life care planner, day-in-the life videographer, may all be brought into the case. Sound preparation and aggressive movement of the case through the justice system, gives the plaintiff the best chance of a good result.

For more information on this subject matter, please see our section detailing Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

Bad Faith Denial of Insurance Claims

Ken Margolin — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:15:00 GMT

There is only one reason to buy insurance - to have the peace of mind of knowing that the financial needs of you or your family will be covered in the event of death, catastrophic injury, or long-term disability or illness. When an insurance company denies payment of a valid claim in bad faith, it is practicing the corporate greed version of "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine." You pay the premiums when you don't need coverage, and we'll keep your money and ours when you do.

Bad faith denial of insurance claims must be countered with immediate and aggressive action. Your insurance policy may have a time limit within which an internal appeal of a claims denial must be taken. Every state has statutes of limitations. Sooner or later if you are wrongfully denied and fail to pursue your rights, you will lose them. The good news in Massachusetts is that insurance companies that engage in bad faith settlement practices are subject to the Consumer Protection Act ("chapter 93A") and a bad faith law that applies especially to insurance companies.

If an insurance company is found to have engaged in bad faith practices, it can be subject to multiple damages and attorneys fee. Bad faith can include denial of coverage when the plain language of the insurance policy requires coverage. It can also include such favorite insurance company practices as offering less than a claim is worth in order to pressure a financially strapped claimant to accept less than he is entitled to, or to deny an obviously valid claim, forcing litigation to obtain payment that should have been prompt and voluntary. Aggressive action when faced with bad faith insurance practices helps every insurance policy holder to obtain the value of his or her insurance purchase.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

The Video Settlement Brochure

Ken Margolin — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:20:00 GMT

In a previous blog, I wrote about day-in-the-life videos. These are videos that film a severely injured plaintiff and capture vignettes of a typical day, in a 20 - 30 minute movie. If done properly, they can be shown to a jury at trial. Another tool that any lawyer representing a client with catastrophic injuries may consider, is a video settlement brochure. In the video settlement brochure, the company producing the video interviews the client, and key people in the client's life, to gain an understanding of the client's life before and after his injuries.

The video settlement brochure may interweave pictures of the client before his injuries, with interviews of loved ones, and day-in-the-life type vignettes of the client's struggles to perform simple, daily tasks, as a result of the injury. Some attorneys may worry that the video settlement brochure gives the defense too realistic a view of what the plaintiff's case at trial would be like if the video brochure does not result in a settlement. That shouldn't be a major concern if the witnesses to be interviewed have already been deposed. The video settlement brochure may convince the insurance company adjustor assigned to the case, that allowing the case to go before a jury is too risky, and that a reasonable settlement is the company's, as well as the plaintiff's, interest.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

Disastrous Distractions

Ken Margolin — Mon, 07 May 2007 07:00:00 GMT

Driving while chowing down a donut, alternating the snack with a cup of hot coffee, is a time-honored example of dangerous, distracted driving. Even though driving safety researchers preached that drinking a beverage while driving, could lead to car crashes due to distraction, human nature dictated that eating and drinking while driving, was never going to stop. The ante was raised with the invention of the cell phone. It is simply impossible to maintain complete road awareness while talking on a cell phone. Dialing the phone while driving, is practically begging for a serious car crash to happen.

Cell phone technology is still in its infancy, and the devices have more road perils in store. The latest, a serious menace, is text messaging. Roadway accidents have already occurred while drivers have been looking down at their cell phones, typing a text message on the tiny keyboards. Virginia Beach Injury Board partner, Rick Shapiro, tells of a study that found that cell phone use while driving can be more dangerous than driving while intoxicated. There is no easy solution to the dangers posed by distracted drivers. New legislation will not create the manpower necessary for enforcement. It is more difficult for law enforcement officials, to spot a driver talking on a cell phone, or tapping out a text message, than it is to spot a car driving 90 miles per hour. I fear that it may take a spectacular and well-publicized crash caused by cell phone use while driving, involving death or paralysis, before people remember that driving, without more, requires 100% of the driver's attention.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

Pedestrian Accidents

Ken Margolin — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:00:00 GMT

A few years ago, the National Safety Council ran a television ad showing a deadly car crash, with the superimposed message, "he was right - dead right." I don't know if the ad stopped any accidents, but its message was undeniably true - when on the roads, drivers have to put safety over pride. Sometimes, the best course is to give the right of way to the car, that by rights, shouldn't have it. That advice is doubly true for pedestrians. In any collision with a car, the pedestrian loses.

The Federal Highway Administration reported that in 2005, the last year for which complete data is available, there were 4,881 pedestrian fatalities, from pedestrians struck by motor vehicles. Fellow Massachusetts lawyer, Christopher Early, writes a blog about pedestrian accidents in the city of Boston. In every location, impatience, speed, road rage, and plain old carelessness, account for the carnage. Even though the laws are generous to pedestrians, no one walking amongst cars and trucks can rely on their legal rights for safety. For example, in Massachusetts, chapter 89, Â§11 of the General Laws, provides that the driver of a motor vehicle may not proceed when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk ahead of him, even if the driver has a green light. I would not advise any pedestrian to presume that every driver will comply with that salutory law. A pedestrian must be wary even when a driver extends a courtesy on the roads. There have been many tragic accidents, some involving children, when an impatient driver behind a car that has stopped to let a pedestrian pass, and not knowing why the car has stopped, swerves around the good samaritan, striking the pedestrian.

Laws already in place to protect pedestrians, are probably sufficient, though I would not be surprised to hear a different point of view. What is needed on the driver side to reduce pedestrian injuries, more than anything else, including education as to the laws, is courtesy and patience. What is needed from pedestrians, is constant vigilance.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

Don't Let your Rights Slip Away

Ken Margolin — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:40:00 GMT

Most people have heard the term "statute of limitations," and have a vague idea that it creates some kind of time limit for legal action. Many people do not realize, however, how devastating a statute of limitations can be when it expires and extinguishes the right to pursue a valid lawsuit. Victims of a serious injury, or their family members, often suffer a type of emotional numbness when it comes to considering whether negligence caused the death or injury, and whether an attorney should be retained to investigate, and if appropriate, file litigation. Delay in pursuing a serious personal injury case, can harm the case even if the statute of limitations has not expired. Witnesses may forget details, die, or move away. Key evidence may be lost, through inadvertence or intentional destruction. Once the statute of limitations expires, though, the right to pursue the case, regardless of how valid the case may be, is forever lost.

Every state has statutes of limitations, that vary according to the type of case. Atlanta InjuryBoard partner, Richard R. Schleuter, writes an informative blog on the Georgia statute of limitations. In Massachusetts, the statute of limitations for medical malpractice and general personal injury cases, is three years from the date of the incident or malpractice that caused injury. There are different rules for minors and people under disabilities. In some cases, the three years may be extended by what is known as the "discovery rule." This rule suspends the start of the three year period until the injured party knew or reasonably should have known of the negligent act. While the discovery rule can sometimes be employed to save a case that seemed extinguished by the statute of limitations, assertion of the principle is a poor substitute for filing a case on time. No one should be skeptical when they hear an attorney say that the best time to seek counsel after a serious injury due to another party's negligence, is as soon as possible. That sound advice is in the best interest of the client. And by all means, be aware of statutes of limitations in your state. Don't let the time to file a legitimate lawsuit, expire.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin