Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Commented

Pet Food Recall--Cat and Dog Food Causes Kidney Failure and Death

Michael Myers — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:18:48 GMT

Menu Foods--with plants in the United States and Canada--has announced an extremely broad recall of cat and dog food (specifically, the "cuts and gravy" variety which dcomes in cans and small foil pouches).

The recall covers over 60 million containers of wet pet food. The recall was announced after reports of kidney failure and at least 10 deaths.

The pet food was sold by stores operated by the Kroger Company, Safeway Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and PetSmart Inc. More information can be obtained at the Menu Foods Pet Food Recall site. Menu Foods manufacturers for 85 percent of the leading North American retailers including Iams.

If you have a pet that has been sick and/or died as a result of eating contaminated pet food please contact one of our attorneys now to see how we could help you out during this tragic situation. With mounting vets bills and other expenses, you should not be held responsible for someone else's negligence in placing contaminated pet food into the market place. Contact us today by clicking the link above or filling out the form at right to see how we can help.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Vanessa Taylor Dies in One Car Accident

Michael Myers — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:00:06 GMT

A 21-year-old Oregon woman died at the scene of an early morning car crash Saturday in the 3800 block of Seabeck Highway near Calamity Lane Northwest.

Vanessa Taylor, of Milwaukie, Ore., was riding in the passenger seat of a 1989 BMW 325 just after 2 a.m. when the driver, 21-year-old Joshua Demers of Silverdale, failed to make the curve near Camp Wesley Harris and drove off the edge of the road, according to the Kitsap County Sheriff's Office.

This is a tragic situation. It would be made even more tragic if Ms. Taylor's family did not initiate a probate so that her wrongful death claim can be pursued.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Don't Overplay Your Hand: Plaintiffs Frequently Make the Wrong Choice

Michael Myers — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:34:43 GMT

This summer the New York Times published an article about the choices made by individuals whether to settle their personal injury lawsuits and the typical outcome at trial following these decisions. The article indicated that typically individuals overestimated their likelihood of success at trial and end up doing worse financially as a result of trying the case than they would had they settled it.

The article goes on to discuss choices made by insurance companies and large corporations. Unlike the decision made by most individuals, entities with significant litigation experience typically make better choices and end up doing better at trial than they would have had they settled their cases.

The contrast between the decisions made by individuals and major corporate entities comes as little surprise. The choices made by individuals are more likely to be emotional and are almost uniformly based on information that is inferior (based on both on quantity and quality) to their adversary’s.

The reasons for this information gap between litigants are both simple and complex. It’s apparent that insurance companies, for example, are able to make actuarial decisions based on the outcomes hundreds of thousands of cases whereas even experienced counsel for individuals ends up making anecdotal assessments based on their handling of hundreds or thousands of cases as opposed to hundreds of thousands of cases on the part of the opposing insurance company. But beyond this quantity of reasons, there is also a qualitative heuristic that comes into play.

Individuals underestimate the likelihood of the probable happening (for example, smokers underestimate their likelihood of contracting lung cancer) and overestimate the possibility of the improbable happening (winning the lottery or being killed in a train accident).

In the context of personal injury cases injured people (oftentimes with the help of neighbors, relatives or sensationalistic news stories) overestimate the likelihood of not just winning but also winning a significant verdict and underestimate the odds that the opposing insurance company has accurately assessed the case.

There are obviously situations where too little money is offered and the case should be tried. We’ve blogged numerous times about recovering judgments that are 10, 20 and even 30 times the best offer made by the insurance company. But these are exceptions rather than the rule.

There are definitely times where it makes sense to go to trial. But in most cases it doesn’t make sense to go to trial and it does make sense to accurately assesses both the odds of prevailing at trial and the likely outcome at trial. In addition, the cost of going to trial must be factored into the calculus in order to determine what the injured person is likely to net.

These are my thoughts about the article and analysis of whether the majority of cases should go to trial or not. I would be interested to hear your input as I know quite a few people have views different from mine (particularly the “true believers” in the plaintiffs' bar that think every case should go to trial).

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Legal Malpractice Claims Expected to Rise in 2009. One Big Factor: Attorneys Practicing Outside their Core Areas

Michael Myers — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:22:52 GMT

Experts predict that the current economic downturn will give rise to an increasing number of legal malpractice lawsuits. Historically, claims against lawyers escalate during economic downturns.

There are several different reasons for the increase in malpractice claims: (1) assets lose value; (2) deals go sideways; and (3) attorneys start practicing outside of their core competence. This last reason is perhaps the most interesting.

Lawyers feeling economic pressure are more likely to retain work they would otherwise refer out to someone with more specific knowledge. We see this with increasing frequency when it comes to personal injury claims.

Instead of referring personal injury claims to personal injury attorneys, business and real estate and family law attorneys are starting to handle these claims to prop up their own sagging practices. This leads to a host of problems.

While personal injury claims can see simple on their faces, they are laced with complexities and really only can be competently handled by experienced practioners. There are just too many "hidden" traps for the occassional practitioner.

The bottom line for clients and attorneys is very much the same: make sure that personal injury cases are handled by personal injury attorneys. It's the best thing for the client and, in the long run, the best thing for the business or real estate or family law attorney who first speaks with the client.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Allstate Will Not Settle Low Impact Cases for Fair Market Value

Michael Myers — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:39:45 GMT

We represented a smart, articulate accountant earlier this year. She was involved in a low-impact accident. Allstate insured the at-fault driver. It offered the accountant less than $1,500 despite the fact she underwent three months of physical therapy, massage and acupuncture treatments.

Before filing suit we provided Allstate evidence corroborating the accountant’s medical expenses and wage loss. Allstate refused to budge and went so far to claim that the accountant's back and neck pain was the result of a long-resolved divorce. This cynical defense—that physical pain is the result of pre-existing emotional issues—is used in many if not most cases by Allstate. Allstate also argued that it’s client, who clearly violated the right of way, was not responsible for the accident.
We arbitrated the case under King County's Mandatory Arbitration Rules. The arbitrator awarded over 30 times Allstate’s highest offer. This case reinforced our long-standing impression: Allstate is not going to offer fair market value on personal injury claims—particularly low impact claims. These cases must be litigated to conclusion.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Motorcycle Deaths Linked with Rising Gas Prices

Michael Myers — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:30:11 GMT

Local media sources have linked motorcycle deaths and accidents to rising gas prices. King 5 television provides the following information:

So far, there have been 49 motorcycle related deaths - 10 of them in the last three months.

"We're seeing a high number of motorcycle collisions due to the price of gas, due to the time of year, the weather and they're cheaper than buying a car, and you don't have to have insurance," said Trooper Keith Leary.

Hopefully these statistics represent a temporary spike. It's reasonable to assume that as drivers become more accustomed to sharing the road with motorcyclists (and bicyclists) that accidents, injuries and fatalities will decrease.

Besides heightened awareness, we also hope that the increased use of fuel-efficient motorcycles starts to change public perception and that motorcyclists are viewed as citizens who are working to decrease traffic and minimize our use of oil. If this change takes place personal injury cases involving injured motorcyclists will be much better received by juries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Centralia Crash Leaves Two Dead

Mark McLean — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:17:13 GMT

Two people died following a car crash near Centralia last week. Apparently, the driver was speeding, left the roadway and hit a tree, killing both himself and a passenger.

The driver of a 1990 Honda Civic, Gabriel S. Escamilla, 35, of Centralia, and passenger Candace M. Leyva, 21, were headed eastbound on Seminary Hill Road about 9:50 p.m. when the car left the roadway at Grimes Road and hit a tree. Both died at the scene.

When a passenger is injured or dies in an accident that was caused by the driver, the passenger (or her family) can pursue a claim against the driver. The claim will probably be covered under both the driver's liability insurance policy as well as the passenger's own "UIM" (under-insured motorist) insurance policy (if the driver's policy is not sufficient to cover the damages). Even if the driver has limited personal assets, the claim is still very much worth pursuing due to coverage under multiple insurance policies.

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

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark McLean

7 Year Old Boy Dies Off Cruise Ship

Mark McLean — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:28:23 GMT

A seven year old boy was killed in a jet ski accident during a cruise vacation in the Bahamas recently. Interestingly, Royal Caribbean claims that it holds no responsibility since the accident occurred while the boy was on an excursion from the ship.

Most excursion tickets from cruise lines contain disclaimers that the cruise line is not liable for injuries that happen ashore. However, in most instances, the cruise lines are working hand-in-hand with the vendors (like the company that rented the boy the jet ski in this case). However, experienced attorneys can challenge (and overcome) these disclaimers in most situations.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section under Airline, Cruise, Bus and Other Mass Transit Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark McLean

It is Important to Consult an Attorney After Suffering a Traumatic Brain Injury

Michael Myers — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:39:10 GMT

Consultation with an attorney following any traumatic brain injuries it is important to remember reason. The first and most obvious is where there will inevitably be - legal action. Common examples where this is done is a motor vehicle accident.

In addition to circumstances where there will be a legal action there are many other reasons why it is important to consult with an attorney after suffering a brain injury. For instance, an attorney can maximize public benefits such as Social Security disability benefits. Further, they can assist with benefits available through Medicare and private health insurance, disability insurance and PIP (personal injury protection) coverage.

Like with any other profession, not all attorneys are qualified to provide this type of assistance. It is important that you make sure the attorney with whom you consult has experience handling personal injury actions involving brain injuries and also maximizing the benefits available to persons who suffered brain injuries.

Clearly, money is a concern after suffering a traumatic brain injury. However, the majority of experienced personal injury attorneys who assist people with brain injuries will not only consult with persons, but will also handle their cases on a contingent basis. The term contingency - when applied in this context - means that the attorney will represent the injured person (and their family) for a fee that is payable only when there is a recovery from the at-fault party - this means that the injured person or their family does not have to pay any money up front and in the unlikely event there is no recovery, does not have to pay any fee to the attorney.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our subject on Head and Brain Injuries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Talking to Juries

Michael Myers — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:25:50 GMT

Jury service has been described as one of the most valuable civic functions. In fact, many people think it second only to serving one's country on the battlefield.

These types of statements are made in almost every closing argument. However, they are often cloaked in archaic formality.

It's not a great strategy to Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln or other historic figures who do not necessarily have relevance to today's jurors. The better practice seems to be simply to express gratitude that six or eight or twelve or fourteen busy people have taken the time to actually sit on the jury and not manufactured excuses to avoid service.

It is also important to keep in mind that people tend to meet your expectations for them. If you let the jury know that it is your expectation that they make a decision based on the court's instructions regarding the law and the evidence they have seen rather than on the insurance company's hyperbole, it is more likely than not they will meet these expectations.

It's important to deliver these and other messages to the jury in a direct and conversational manner consistent with everyday life. Fancy speeches and foreign words are not the best tools of persuasion and usually indicate that the speaker does not really understand or believe in the subject matter.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers