Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous - 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

QFC - Claims It's Kosher...But It's Not

Mike Myers — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:44:25 GMT

I blogged recently about the wave of food-labeling related suits. In it I mentioned that "kosher" labeling would be one of the next battlegrounds. Well, it appears that the issue is not only ripe but ready to be litigated here in our own back yard.

I received information that QFC is selling yogurt it claims to be kosher (but that really isn't). Here are the specifics:

Blended (Rasberry, Grade A low fat)
Product No. 1111045597.

It is QFC's store brand with QFC's logo on it. It's available at QFC's Broadway location. It is distributed by Inter-American Products. It has a blue letter "K" on the front of the container at the area between the percentage of milkfat and the weight.

Gelatin is listed as one of the ingredients. The gelatin is derived from beef. According to Inter-American's own records, the yogurt is not kosher.

I would be very interested to speak with people who purchased the yogurt because it was supposedly kosher.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Myers

Service Of Process – Out Of Place In A Modern World

Michael Myers — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:22:16 GMT

There are two parts to commencing a lawsuit in the State of Washington:

1. Filing a summons and complaint with the Clerk of the Court; and

2. Serving process on the defendant.

Service of process dates back hundreds of years and is a remnant of the English common law. No doubt rules regarding service of process were forged and refined during the Middle Ages when people lived in thatched cottages accessible only by dirt paths.

In Washington, service of process must be effectuated by the end of the statute of limitations or within 90 days of the date the lawsuit is filed. Individuals are served by being handed a copy of the summons and complaint or by having another adult resident living in the same home accept the documents. There are frequent disputes about whether defendants actually lived in the home where the complaint was served.

The existing service of process rules lead to a significant amount of unnecessary litigation. We live in a digital age where virtually every other form of notice is transmitted electronically. Even for persons without email addresses, the United States Mail is deemed sufficiently reliable to provide notice of virtually everything ranging from tax debts to lottery winnings.

While the rest of the law advances into the electronic age, service of process remains (frustratingly) mired in the past. It’s time for advancements that will save time, save money and add certainty for all parties through the legal process. Parties need to be able to litigate based on the substantive aspects of the case rather than procedures that were first memorialized with a quill.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Farming Injuries - Part 1

Kevin Coluccio — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:23:54 GMT

I spent my summers growing up and many of my weekends during the school year on this farm. It is still owed and operated by my Uncle, who is one of the most wonderful persons in the world. He bought this farm with his mother after his father passed away. He was a young man at the time. He not only worked this farm, but, he also worked graveyard at the Boeing Company. He taught me how to work hard and the importance of loyalty, trust, honor and truthfulness. I don't recall ever hearing him complain, even though he worked two jobs and had little time to sleep.

I learned many lessons on the farm, including how to drive, how to fix things, how to milk a cow and the importance of following instructions. I can also share that there were many "close" calls with accidents. I think about some of the unsafe conditions that we encountered and the fact that many of the tasks I undertook were learned by "trial & error". Now, I came out of the experience without any lasting injuries and view my time of the farm as one of the most valuable experiences of my life. My farm experiences shaped many of the important characteristics that drew me to the law. Over the next several blogs, I plan to share information and thoughts about the important topic of farm injuries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Kevin Coluccio

But They Fixed It After I Fell!

Mike Myers — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:20:04 GMT

A lot of clients provide us with "before" and "after" photographs. The story goes something like this:

The first photo shows what the _________________ looked like before a I fell. My husband went back the next day and they'd fixed _______________. That shows they were negligent!

Unfortunately "after" photos aren't admissible to prove that someone was negligent.

Rule 407 deals with what are called "Subsequent Remedial Measures". It reads:

When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.

Here's the explanation of thinking behind Rule 407:

The rule incorporates conventional doctrine which excludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures as proof of an admission of fault. The rule rests on two grounds. (1) The conduct is not in fact an admission, since the conduct is equally consistent with injury by mere accident or through contributory negligence. Or, as Baron Bramwell put it, the rule rejects the notion that "because the world gets wiser as it gets older, therefore it was foolish before." Under a liberal theory of relevancy this ground alone would not support exclusion as the inference is still a possible one. (2) The other, and more impressive, ground for exclusion rests on a social policy of encouraging people to take, or at least not discouraging them from taking, steps in furtherance of added safety. The courts have applied this principle to exclude evidence of subsequent repairs, installation of safety devices, changes in company rules, and discharge of employees, and the language of the present rules is broad enough to encompass all of them.

The second sentence of the rule directs attention to the limitations of the rule. Exclusion is called for only when the evidence of subsequent remedial measures is offered as proof of negligence or culpable conduct. In effect it rejects the suggested inference that fault is admitted. Other purposes are, however, allowable, including ownership or control, existence of duty, and feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, and impeachment. Two recent federal cases are illustrative. Boeing Airplane Co. v. Brown, 291 F.2d 310 (9th Cir. 1961), an action against an airplane manufacturer for using an allegedly defectively designed alternator shaft which cuased a plane crash, upheld the admission of evidence of subsequent design modification for the purpose of showing that design changes and safeguards were feasible. And Powers v. J. B. Michael & Co., 329 F.2d 674 (6th Cir. 1964), an action against a road contractor for negligent failure to put out warning signs, sustained the admission of evidence that defendant subsequently put out signs to show that the portion of the road in question was under defendant's control. The requirement that the other purpose be controverted calls for automatic exclusion unless a genuine issue be present and allows the opposing party to lay the groundwork for exclusion by making an admission. Otherwise the factors of undue prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, and waste of time remain for consideration under Rule 403.

In every case we have "after" photos we seek to introduce them for the purposes allowed under Rule 407. But they--by themselves--do not prove that the defendant was negligent.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Myers

Footprints in the Snow - Circumstantial Evidence and Personal Injury

Mike Myers — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:32:05 GMT

You hear a lot about circumstantial evidence on television, radio and in the newspapers. Circumstantial evidence is sometimes used to convict people in criminal cases.

The term "circumstantial" refers to evidence that doesn’t directly, but rather indirectly, proves something. For instance, a footprint in the snow indirectly proves that someone walked there. However, it’s not as good as eye witness testimony that there was someone walking in the snow.

The difference between circumstantial and direct evidence comes up a lot in personal injury cases. Oftentimes accidents are not witnessed and the injured person doesn’t remember specifically what happened. In these cases it’s important to put together circumstantial evidence so that the injured person can prove their case.

For instance, we’re handling a case right now where a semi truck made an unsafe lane change and struck our client’s car. Our client suffered serious brain injuries and cannot remember what happened.

The truck driver alleges that our client attempted to make a lane change and collided with the semi. However, to do so she would have had to move from Lane 1 into Lane 2. It is improbable that she would have made a lane change from Lane 1 to Lane 2 because she was almost home. Our client was only a couple of exits away from where she would turn off Interstate 5. The fact that she was in Lane 1 and so close to her exit provides circumstantial evidence that she would not have been moving into Lane 2 and instead it was the truck that collided with her vehicle.

Sometimes circumstantial evidence lasts a long time. But in most cases (like with the footprint in the snow) it’s fleeting. That’s why it’s important to fully investigate accidents as soon as possible after they happen.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Myers

UIM Insurance - Here's Why You Need It

Mike Myers — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:50:09 GMT

Local papers are filled with stories about hit-and-run accidents. Drivers leave accident scenes for a variety of reasons. Usually, it’s because they’re high on drugs, drunk or don’t have insurance.

Every time I see a story about a hit-and-run accident, I wonder if the injured driver carried UIM insurance. Here's an example:

Police in Seattle are making headway on identifying a mystery car that hit a young woman in the early hours of New Year's Day.

"The Seattle Times" reports officials believe the hit-and-run vehicle to be a light-colored Honda or Toyota Coupe. The public is being asked to keep a look out for the car which police say will have obvious damage to the front.

The driver of the vehicle allegedly fled the scene at about 1:45 a.m. Saturday after hitting the woman on a crosswalk. The 24-year-old is recovering at Seattle's Harborview.

UIM refers to uninsured and underinsured motorists. UIM insurance provides coverage if the person who hits you either doesn’t have insurance or doesn’t have enough insurance.

A lot of people have UIM coverage and don’t even know it. By law in Washington insurance companies have to provide UIM coverage even if they don’t collect a premium for it unless they have a signed waiver from their insured.

If you get hit by an uninsured or undersinsured motorist, the first thing you should do is to check with your insurance company to see if you have UIM coverage. If it says that you don’t, demand that it provide a copy of a signed waiver.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Myers

Filing Suit: When is the “Right” Time to Pull the Trigger?

Michael Myers — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:09:55 GMT

Clients have two basic and related questions: One, “Will my case settle?” And two, “Will my case go to court?"

Some cases settle without having to file suit. But the majority don’t.

In Washington, a case “goes to court” when suit is filed. Trial is the final act (short of appeal) in a lawsuit.

That doesn’t mean most cases go to trial; quite the opposite. In fact, more than 95 percent of cases resolve without going to trial.

But how do you know when it is the right time to file suit?

Putting aside emergency situations, such as when the statute of limitations is about to run, suit should be filed when the defendant doesn’t make a reasonable settlement offer. If the injured person will receive--or is likely to receive--more by filing suit and going to trial than has been offered in settlement, suit should be filed.

There is a lot of discussion about vindication, making the defendant suffer, public safety, etc. But the real decision-maker in personal injury cases, especially personal injury cases handled on a contingent basis, is money. The real question is, “How can the attorney put the most money possible in the client’s pocket?”

High-minded goals like public safety are fueled and driven by money changing hands. Anyone who thinks that litigation by itself is a legitimate means to champion social goals is naive, uninformed or duplicitous. It’s the result that counts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Children Don't Deserve Personal Choice When it Comes to Helmets

Michael Myers — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:43:23 GMT

Everyone should ski with a helmet. They're safe. They keep your goggles in place. And you look like a hippy or gaper if you ski without one.

In the motorcycle community there's a lot of discussion about personal choice and personal freedom. Most of this nonsense comes from aging hippies. The connection is becoming clear.

There might be some validity to the personal choice argument for adults who have the financial means to ensure that their head injury treatment won't be subsidized with my tax money. But there is absolutely no place for "personal choice" when it comes to kids.

California Senator Leland Yee shares the same view. He introduced a bill that would have imposed a $25 fine on parents of kids caught skiing or snowboarding without a helmet. The language of the bill mirrored bicycle helmet laws already in place. Unfortunately Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the legislation. The legislation was opposed by Republicans who said it amounts to "nanny government" and infringes on parents' rights.

What right does a parent have to knowingly expose children to increased risks of traumatic brain injury and death? There is no risk-reward calculation that justifies skiing or snowboarding without a helmet. It's ironic that aging hippies and Republicans make such cozy bedfellows on this issue.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Details Kill

Michael Myers — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:59:09 GMT

In the 1970s there was a slogan: Speed Kills. It carried a strong and plain anti-amphetamine message.

A similar message applies to personal injury litigation: Details Kill. Especially unnecessary details.

This is particularly true in premises liability cases. Injured persons frequently speculate about factors immaterial to their accidents. For instance, they insist on describing the color of the carpet when it has nothing to do with their fall.

Or, they add that a piano was playing softly in the background when they slipped. When any of these minor and irrelevant details are shown to be false, the injured person's entire story is discredited.

There's no need to provide details other than those related to how the accident happened and what injuries were sustained. Irrelevant details dilute the important facts and only invite impeachment.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers