Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer

Woman Injured In Hit-and-Run; State Patrol Seeks Info

Chrissie Cole — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:25:00 GMT

A Kent woman, 22, was seriously injured in a hit-and-run accident and now State Patrol is look for people that may have witnessed the accident.

Officers responded to a car vs. pedestrian report at 5:00 a.m. on Highway 515. When they arrived, the victim was found in the middle of the northbound lanes. They believe she was crossing the five-lane highway when she was struck, possibly several times, State Patrol said.

She suffered serious injuries and was taken to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Detectives are asking any witnesses who have knowledge of the incident or who may have hit some debris near the 22400 block of Highway 515 around 5 a.m. to call Detective Stacy Moate at 425-401-7746.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Cruise Ships--The H2 of the Sea

Michael Myers — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:08:11 GMT

There's a close relationship between boats and the environment. Marketing materials--particularly for cruise ships--show vessels in pristine blue waters with fish whales and dolphins in close proximity.

The New York Times ran an article this weekend regarding the damage cruise ships do to our oceans and coasts.

Cruise ships emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide as airplanes. They pollute far more--per passenger, per mile--than airplanes.

According to environmentalists, carbon dioxide emissions are just a drop in the ocean when it comes to eco problems on luxury liners. Most ships run on so-called bunker fuel, the cheapest and dirtiest fuel oil, which not only powers the vessel, but also all the amenities on board: restaurants, swimming pools and nightclubs among them.

The Article indicates one-week voyage on a large ship is estimated to produce 210,000 gallons of sewage, a million gallons of gray water (runoff from sinks, baths, showers, laundry and galleys), 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water, 11,550 gallons of sewage sludge and more than 130 gallons of hazardous wastes.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day. It read: Your Hummer Looks Stupid. The cruise lines need to clean up their acts. If they don't I hope the weight of social pressure makes cruising as unacceptable as rolling in a big black H2 through the middle of Fremont.

On a one to one basis, cruise ships are going to pollute more than jet skis or Zodiacs. But the same concerns apply. We should make sure that we're smart about fuel consumption and waste when we're on the water. Boating safety means more than preventing personal injury or drowning. It also means not injuring the environment.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Holland America's Medical Personnel--Health Care Providers or Investigators?

Michael Myers — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:46:00 GMT

I’ve blogged about Holland America’s responsibility for the health care provided on board its ships. This blog is a little bit different.

I think everyone would agree that curative treatment should be a health care providers’ top priority. But review of the records in numerous Holland America cases suggests that health care providers on board Holland American vessels place equal emphasis on documenting facts that give Holland America a leg up on the passenger should the passenger file a claim.

Holland America providers also appear to be the first-line of the carrier’s risk management program. Not only are medical records peppered with comments designed to assist Holland America in subsequent litigation, but they also include assessments of whether the customer’s pain, disappointment of being injured, etc. will turn into an actual claim or lawsuit. For instance, it’s not uncommon to find in either medical records produced by the ship’s doctor or one of its nurses indicating that the patient has not mentioned “claim” or “suit” yet but that follow up with the passenger might be appropriate.

It seems only fair if Holland America is going to treat its medical personnel as independent contractors and disclaim liability for their negligence that they should in fact be true independent contractors and that medical records developed on board the vessel should not be available to Holland America except through discovery.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Slip and Falls: Not Just in the Produce Aisle

Michael Myers — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:51:47 GMT

Slip and fall accidents are among the most common causes of injuries on boats. Decks are made of fiberglass, wood, or steel. All can be slippery. Water, grease, scales and fish oil are just some of the factors that contribute to the equation.

Oftentimes variations of fiberglass, wood, or steel are used on walking surfaces in an apparent effort to make slip and falls less likely. However, appearances can be deceptive.

For instance, a material generically referred to as diamond plate is used in many maritime applications. Diamond plate gives the appearance of providing traction, but it typically does not (though there are certain kinds of diamond plates that do actually provide adequate traction even in marine environments).

Traction is technically referred to as the coefficient of friction. Coefficient of friction should be over .5 to ensure user safety. Measuring the coefficient of friction in a marine environment requires special testing with a device called a Tribometer. Care should be taken to test the coefficient of friction and actual conditions. For instance, to be tested on a fishing vessel should be tested with water and/or fish oil on the walking surface since those are ingredients that will most likely be present when the boat is being used.

Boating safety involves not only keeping the vessel afloat and avoiding collisions with other boats but also ensuring user safety when it comes to issues like slip and falls as well.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Boating Safety and Life Jackets

Michael Myers — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:45:40 GMT

Boating safety is an important topic in the Pacific Northwest. There are more boats per capita here than any other part of the country. And with opening day having come and gone and unexpectedly great weather this June virtually everyone - whether they have a boat or not - wants to be on the water. That's why I’m focusing on boating safety this month.

Boating safety a number of forms. It can be organized by type of vessel (personal watercraft, commercial fishing vessel, pleasure boat, cruise ship, etc.) or organized by type of hazards (drowning, injury by machinery, collision between vessels, etc.).

But I’m not going to be too systematic. Instead I’m going to blog about what’s in the news and happening in our practice.

The first topic this month involves lifejackets. All vessel owners should carry enough lifejackets so that everyone on the boat has one. Not only should they carry lifejackets but they should make sure that they're properly sized for the occupants of the vessel and that everyone knows both where they're located and how to properly put them on.

This is not only a good idea, it's also prescribed by law.

All vessels must be equipped with U.S. Coast Guard–approved life jackets called personal flotation devices (PFDs). The quantity and type depends on the length of your vessel and the number of people on board and/or being towed. Each PFD must be in good condition, be the proper size for the intended wearer, and very importantly, be readily accessible! Readily accessible means you must be able to put the PFD on in a reasonable amount of time in an emergency (vessel sinking, on fire, etc.). PFDs should not be stowed in plastic bags or in locked or closed compartments, and they should not have other gear stowed on top of them.

Not only can a vessel owner be fined for not carrying the proper number of lifejackets, the vessel owner can also be sued for either personal injury or wrongful death if one of his or her passengers suffers injuries or dies because they didn't have a lifejacket or didn't know where the lifejackets were on the boat. Carrying the proper number of lifejackets and going through a basic orientation procedure with passengers is not only common sense it's the only real way to comply both with boating safety laws and limiting exposure for personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

The Recession and Client Cost Advances

Michael Myers — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:09:46 GMT

People are becoming increasingly cost conscious. It is a natural reaction to the recession. This level of cost consciousness has already started to affect the way personal injury cases are handled and the dialog between injured clients and their attorneys.

It's our practice to provide billing statements approximately once per month. However, we have had a number of new clients that request that statements be issued biweekly so that they can keep closer track of costs expended.

In Washington, attorneys are allowed to advance the costs associated with litigation. However, the Rules of Professional Conduct mandate that the client ultimately be responsible for these costs and is obligated to repay the attorney regardless of the outcome in his or her case. This shared responsibility (the attorney on the front end and the attorney and the client on the back end) coupled with the nature of the contingent relationship works to put the client in lockstep with the attorney (unless, of course, the client lacks the ability or intention to repay the costs in the event of an adverse result).

The Washington State Bar Association and Supreme Court of Washington toyed with the idea of changing the Rules of Professional Conduct to allow attorneys to enter into relationships with clients where the client is not obligated to reimburse costs advanced if there is a negative outcome and essentially allow attorneys to make (circumscribed) nonrecourse loans to clients.

This is viewed in Washington as a major step but in other states, such as Louisiana, attorneys are not only allowed to make nonrecourse loans for litigation expenses but also personal expenses.

It's our understanding that in states like Louisiana this results in clients choosing not necessarily the attorneys who are most competent and are capable of handling the cases, but those who offered to loan them money. This obviously creates a perversion and something that we don't want to see in Washington.

Do you think clients should be responsible for costs advanced by attorneys in their cases regardless of outcome? Do you think attorneys should be able to advance expenses to clients that are not necessarily related to prosecution of the case (for instance, by paying for medical treatment as opposed to just medical diagnosis)? This is a complicated issue. We're interested to hear your thoughts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Subrogation Shouldn't Affect Settlement Decision

Michael Myers — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:25:55 GMT

Washington law allows persons who have been hurt to recover their medical expenses even if they didn’t pay for them. But in most cases it wouldn’t be fair to allow injured persons to keep that recovery related to medical expenses if they didn’t pay for them. So the Courts created a doctrine called subrogation.

Subrogation basically means that someone who pays an expense associated with the medical care necessitated by an accident has a right to be reimbursed if the injured person recovers that expense from the person who caused the accident. But the rule is not absolute and there are some situations where the payor (usually an insurer) doesn’t have to be repaid.

Subrogation is an issue that is likely to come up at the conclusion of a case. It shouldn’t affect the decision whether to settle the case or take it to arbitration or trial. I say that because the issue's going going to be there regardless what decision is made.

The decision whether to settle a case depends on one primary factor: will the plaintiff net more money by settling than taking the case to trial? Subrogation has no effect on that decision. The subrogation issue is the same either way. It's just like taxation. The fact that personal injury awards are not taxed should not affect the decision whether to settle the case or take it to trial.

It concerns me when injured people fret about subrogation. It suggest that they fall into that group that values their claims based on how much they owe on their truck or how much it would take to pay off the mortgage. When those issues are discussed I know that clients are focusing on the wrong issues and are not comparing settlement to the likely range of outcomes at trial.

How much weight do you think should be given to the amount the insurer has to be paid back when making the decision whether to settle?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Civil Rule No. 3--Super Bowl Sunday--Kickoff

Michael Myers — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:37:34 GMT

I started writing this during the long run-up to the Super Bowl on Sunday. It seemed timely. Civil Rule 3 deals with the commencements of actions. It reads:

(a) Methods. Except as provided in rule 4.1, a civil action is
commenced by service of a copy of a summons together with a copy of a
complaint, as provided in rule 4 or by filing a complaint. Upon written
demand by any other party, the plaintiff instituting the action shall pay
the filing fee and file the summons and complaint within 14 days after
service of the demand or the service shall be void. An action shall not be
deemed commenced for the purpose of tolling any statute of limitations
except as provided in RCW 4.16.170.
(b) Tolling Statute. (Reserved. See RCW 4.16.170.)
(c) Obtaining Jurisdiction. (Reserved. See RCW 4.28.020.)
(d) Lis Pendens. (Reserved. See RCW 4.28.320 and 4.28.160.)

The rule distinguishes between service and filing. Service is (typically) handling a copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant. Filing refers to dropping the summons and complaint off with the Clerk of the Court and paying the filing fee (which changes periodically).

A lot of people ask if there cases will "go to court". In a sense, when suit is filed or served, the case has "gone to court".

Filing suit is significant because it demonstrates that the plaintiff is willing to litigate his/her claims. It's significant for plaintiff's counsel because there has to be a level of commitment--in terms of both time and resources--to go to trial in every case that's filed. That's why many contingent fee agreements jump from 33 and 1/3 percent to 40 percent when suit is filed.

Do you think that's fair for contingent fees to increase when suit is filed in a case? Or do you think the contingent fee should only increase if the case actually goes to trial?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Civil Rule No. 2 (Boring)/Civil Rule 2A (At the Center of Numerous Conflicts)

Michael Myers — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:23:29 GMT

Civil Rule 2 is probably the least interesting out of the 86 Civil Rules. It reads:

There shall be one form of action to be known as "civil action."

Wow.

Fortunately there is also Civil Rule 2A. It's more exciting...and is frequently in the middle of headed conflicts in personal injury cases.

Rule 2A reads:

No agreement or consent between parties or attorneys in respect to the proceedings in a cause, the purport of which is disputed, will be regarded by the court unless the same shall have been made and assented to in open court on the record, or entered in the minutes, or unless the evidence thereof shall be in writing and subscribed by the attorneys denying the same.

Rule 2A rears its head with alarming frequency in the context of settlement negotiations/agreements. In Washington it's effectively impossible to make enforce a verbal settlement agreement. That's why it's so important (for instance, at a mediation) to make sure that settlement agreements are reduced to writing and signed by the parties.

Do you think that verbal settlement agreement should be binding? Most verbal contracts (other than settlement agreements) are binding. So why not agreements between parties in litigation? Do you think there are some policy reasons (related to the charged atmosphere) that makes agreements made during a lawsuit different than agreements in the regular course of business?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Civil Rules

Michael Myers — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:45:02 GMT

Cases filed in superior court are governed by the Civil Rules. There are 86 civil rules. Although some are more relevant to personal injury actions than others, all or almost all of them eventually come into play.

This is the first entry in a series that discusses each of the Civil Rules and its effect on personal injury litigation.

Being somewhat linear, it made sense to start with Civil Rule 1.

The text of Civil Rule 1 follows:

These rules govern the procedure in the superior court in all suits of a
civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity with the exceptions
stated in rule 81. They shall be construed and administered to secure the just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.

Civil Rule 1 is rarely used by itself. More frequently, it is used in conjunction with other rules or sources of authority to “fill in the gaps”. CR 1 is a springboard for “common sense” arguments and it is frequently used in that regard. Where the Civil Rules or other authority do not provide specific guidance, attorneys cite to CR 1 and argue to the court that it justifies the relief they want because it encourages the just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of disputes.

Tomorrow, on to CR 2.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers