Birmingham Personal Injury Lawyer - Automobile Accidents

Homicides Predict Traffic Deaths

Jon Lewis — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:42:37 GMT

Do State Homicide rates predict traffic fatalities? According to a University of Michigan study, they do. The study found that there was a parallel with the number of homicides and the number of traffic deaths. What seems to be the reason for this? Aggression.

The study looked at ten factors and "found that seven of them accounted for 71 percent of the variance in traffic fatality rates." Those seven are "homicide rates, proportion of male drivers, proportion of older drivers, number of alcohol-related liver failures (as a proxy for intoxicated driving), density of physicians, seat-belt use rate, and income." Apparently, the strongest predictor of these seven are homicides because homicides relate to aggression which relates to aggressive driving.

What does this teach us? We need to respect others on the roadways. We can't be in a hurry all of the time. We cannot drive while we are doing several other things: texting, playing with the radio, putting on makeup, using the telephone, changing CD's, and having too much noise and distractions in the car. We need to realize that we share the road with others, and we need to understand that different people have different driving styles just as different people have different psychological makeups.

During this holiday season, think before you act. Take a few miles per hour off your speedometer. Leave a little early for that appointment or meeting so you aren't in a rush. Be more passive on the roadways, and maybe you will save a life.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Loser Pays - A Bad Idea

Danny Feldman — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:53:15 GMT

When I was a law student at Vanderbilt, a contracts professor asked a question about whether the "loser" to a lawsuit should be required to pay the "foreseeable costs," ie. the winner's attorney fees. I argued "yes" given that the costs were foreseeable. I was wrong.

This argument, loser pays, really is nothing more than a way for business, insurance companies etc. to shut the doors to the courthouse to the vast majority of Americans who could never be able to afford to pay the tens or thousands of dollars that the other side may incur in attorney fees. Indeed, the reason why contingency fee contracts are regularly employed when representing injured persons is that those persons can't afford to pay their own lawyers an hourly rate. For example, a truck crashes into you, putting you in the hospital for months and causing you to lose your job and health insurance - how in the world will you be able to pay the other side's legal fees if you end up losing the case - and it must be remembered, that even when you are rear-ended, juries can still return a verdict for defendant.

In Alabama, the scale already is tipped very unfairly in favor of defendants. Under ARCP 68 a defendant may file an "Offer of Judgment" which plaintiff has 10 days to accept. If plaintiff does not accept the offer and if at trial, plaintiff does not receive a verdict in excess of the offered amount than plaintiff is on the hook for defendant's costs incurred after the Offer of Judgment was made. In other words, if defendant files an offer of judgment of $10,000 and the jury returns an award of $9,000 for plaintiff, the Court may tax costs (say $5,000) against plaintiff despite the fact that the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor. There is no similar provision in the law that allows plaintiff to make an offer of judgment whereby defendant is on the hook for plaintiff's costs incurred if the jury returns a verdict for plaintiff in excess of what plaintiff offered to settle for. Nor does the rule allow plaintiff to collect costs against defendant if a jury returns a verdict in excess of what defendant offered. How's that for fairness?

As a matter of practice, I would be very surprised if an Alabama judge would enforce Rule 68 as described above, although they could. In addition "costs" do not include attorney fees, but rather are limited to actual costs incurred, like deposition bills, mileage etc. Of course, even costs can run up into the thousands of dollars very quickly, and it is the client that is on the hook for costs. So, you've got to tell your client, not only can you lose, but you also can lose and owe the other side thousands of dollars.

There are several other reasons why "loser pays" is a bad idea - but shutting down the courthouses to the vast majority of Americans is enough.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

Males Die More Than Females

Jon Lewis — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:13:59 GMT

According to a study done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, more males have died in automobile crashes from 1975 through 2007. Why? Men typically drive more and take more chances such as speeding and driving drunk. The study can be viewed here.

The article has some very interesting facts regarding the statistics relating to males and females in car crashes. For example, "Almost one-third of all motor vehicle crash deaths in 2007 were females. Females accounted for 29 percent of passenger vehicle driver deaths, 47 percent of passenger vehicle passenger deaths, 30 percent of pedestrian deaths, 12 percent of bicyclist deaths, and 9 percent of motorcyclist deaths."

Check ou the study for more interesting statistics.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Money for a Wreck? Fast? Think again!

Jon Lewis — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:08:40 GMT

I was working out at the YMCA the other day, and another one of those attorney ads came on the television. The promise? We'll get you money fast for your wreck. Well, I don't know what process they are using, but I do know that our experience shows that proper compensation for your injuries does not come fast.

In this commercial, the firm implies that the process is quick, easy, and simple. That might be true if the case is settled for less than a fair value. Usually, the adjusters for the insurance companies make you prove your case and injuries before they properly evaluate the claim, and even then, they don't always evaluate it properly.

What if the case has to go to court? What does that entail? Well, we have to file a complaint with the court. Once the defendant is served with a copy of the complaint, they will have thirty (30) days to answer in Circuit Court. Once that process is concluded, paper discovery ensues, depositions are taken, a scheduling order is entered, and the case is typically set for trial within 12-18 months (For more information on the process, visit the Lewis, Feldman, Lehane & McAtee, LLC website). Is that fast? Is that quick and easy?

What about issues of subrogation? What is that? If your medical bills are paid by a health insurance company such as BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama, you have to pay them back and potentially negotiate a settlement with them. If Medicare paid your bills, you have to send them a letter and wait for a response. Do you know how long it takes to get a response from Medicare? Think about typical government action and how long that takes.

When attorneys start making promises of quick and easy cash for your injuries, question the process. How familiar are the attorneys with the court system? How many cases have they tried to verdict? How do they define proper compensation? This article is not to denigrate any firms or their attorneys, but to dispel the idea that these cases can be settled for quick and easy cash and provide you with adequate compensation. They CAN be settled for quick and easy cash, but the case will usually be settled for less than fair value.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Its no "accident" when you run over bicyclists after drinking all night

Danny Feldman — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:08:38 GMT

Three cyclists recently were hit and injured in Baldwin County by a 28 year old driver who apparently had been out drinking all night and had yet to go to bed. See article at http://blog.al.com/live/2009/08/two_baldwin_county_cyclists_hi.html. Interestingly, this 28 year old "child" still lived at home with his parents. After the incident, the father of the 28 year old driver issued a statement advising that thoughts and prayers went out to the bicyclists and their families for this terrible "accident." According to the article, the 28 year old driver had been out drinking all night and refused a breath test. A blood test was taken and although results have not yet been released, I believe that there is a very good chance that these tests will show that this young man was drunk when the wreck occurred at 8:30 in the morning.

Staying out all night drinking, then driving around drunk, losing control of your vehicle and then running over cyclists is no "accident." Rather, had one of the cyclists died, which easily could have happened, the case is one of vehicular homicide. Calling something an "accident" when it really is a deliberate action taken without regard for the health and well-being of the general public, cyclists included, really is an attempt to minimize the seriousness of the wrongdoing involved. While it may be true that this motorist did not mean to run over these cyclists, the fact of the matter is he did mean to get drunk; he did chose to stay up all night; after drinking and staying up all night, he did decide to drive his car - consequences be damned.

This case hits close to home in Baldwin County where another young man on two separate occassions separated by only a couple of years, got drunk and killed cyclists. Tragic, but hardly an "accident," especially the second time.

Here in Birmingham, I handled a case 5 years ago where a man, only a few years younger than the one here at issue, and like the one here, still living at home with his parents, went out, got drunk and ran over 3 cyclists on Lakeshore Drive. He fled the scene, dragging one of the cyclist's bikes under his car for more than a mile. His mother made him turn himself in and when he took a blood test a couple of hours later, we were able to determine through expert testimony from a toxicologist, that his blood alcohol level at 7:30 am on a Sunday morning was about twice the legal limit. Discovery revealed that this young man had had a serious of incidents, including arrests and convictions for public drunk, disturbing the peace, DUI's etc. However, each time, his penalty was quite minor, maybe attendance at an alcohol abuse class. Even in the incident described above, he spent only one night in jail because, fortunately, the cyclists involved did not die and they decided not to press assault charges.

I wonder about Mr. Maple, the 28 year old in Mobile. I would be very surprised, indeed, stunned, if he did not have a number of arrests and/or convictions, for DUI and the like. The article states that he was able to leave by posting a $1,000 bail. Has he learned a lesson? Will he quit going out and getting drunk and threatening not only himself, but every other motorist, cyclist or pedestrian that gets in his way? I bet not - and that's too bad for all of us.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

Noose that Hangs a Man Shows No Damage Either

Jon Lewis — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:30:07 GMT

The insurance industry has been promoting a fallacy since the early 1990's. That fallacy is that people in cars cannot be injured if the damage to the car is minor. This could not be further from the truth; however, jurors and society in general have bought into this concept. People think anyone who brings a claim for injury after minor damage to the vehicle is a crook.

As the title of this blog indicates, the rope used to hang a man will show little, if any, damage, but it will kill the man. With respect to vehicles, they are built better these days and built to withstand crashes of more significance than they could withstand years ago. Think about the materials which are now used in bumpers and other components of cars and SUV's. Simply because the car or SUV shows little damage does not mean the impact of the collision was insignificant or that the person inside the vehicle was not jolted one way or another to cause an injury.

Additionally, you have more towing packages and other components which resist damage but still receive the force of the impact. The seats in the vehicle have an effect on the collision and injury as well. See this report on It is not enough to say that the car or SUV suffered little damage. Shouldn't we focus on the individual who is injured and not the metal?

My grandfather used to always say, "Don't ever worry about what money can replace." Unfortunately, insurance companies want you to focus on the opposite. Since there is little damage to the vehicle, this person isn't hurt, and we shouldn't have to pay. This is horrible logic. We should focus on the person and the doctor and not assume the victim is lying. We should presume the person is telling the truth because if they are, they are the ones who lose in the end and are left with the injury.

If you want to read more about this issue, here is a very good article with supporting cites: Low Impact Injury Accidents: Are they Real?

Have you been in a low impact accident? Were you injured? Do you know someone who was? Can you dispel the myth? Let's talk about it. Let's get the public aware of this problem. Not everyone is injured in a collision. Some people are involved in significant collisions and rollover crashes, and they are not injured. Some people are in minor crashes, and they are injured. That is why we need to evaluate the person, not the car.

Let us know what you think.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Drive when you Drive!

Jon Lewis — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:38:36 GMT

Have you heard? People are texting while driving. Yes, really! They are talking about passing laws to prevent this, and Leonard Pitts, Jr. wrote a good editorial with a quote, "Common Sense Should End Texting and Driving." In other words, do we really need laws to make people stop this activity? Well, we need them for drinking and driving, so I guess so. Problem is, how do you enforce it?

Think about what you are doing when you are talking on the phone or dialing a number or texting. Your mind is taken off the road. You are no longer driving defensively which is what you are taught in drivers education in high school. In reality, you are driving recklessly. As Mr. Pitts points out in his article: Is that score that important? Could you wait to message a friend? Is the call urgent? Probably not.

10-15 years ago, we didn't have as many cell phones in cars, and even when we did, we couldn't e-mail and text and get on the internet from our phone. Did we survive? Could we wait for that message? Could we just use the phone when we got home? When did everything become so urgent in society? We have to have it now.

Next time you think about using the cell phone in your car, think about others. Is there a child in your car you are putting at risk? What about the other motorists on the roadway? It takes a split second for a vehicle to inflict irreparable damage. Just Think about it!!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Dogs not on a leash or in a Yard can be dangerous to cyclists, motorists and pedistrians

Danny Feldman — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:46:55 GMT

Dogs that are allowed to run wild often pose dangers to motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. Many municipalities in Alabama have leash laws which basically define a dog as "vicious" if its out of its yard or off a leash. An owner, or a person who exercises control of the dog, is responsible for whatever harm the dog may cause.

Why is this law? Why should dogs not be allowed to roam freely? Simple - because it’s not safe for the public. Forgetting for a moment dogs that are (at least in the eyes of the law) considered "inherently vicious," like Dobermans and Pit bulls etc., any dog that comes charging out into the road in front of a motorist or cyclist poses serious dangers. While this is especially true as regards cyclist, who can be very seriously injured if they are thrown from their bike, it also is true for motorists, who often instinctively swerve to avoid a dog. Obviously, this sudden swerving can lead to the motorist losing control of her vehicle and crashing, hitting another car or worse yet, hitting a pedestrian.

Given the technology available with invisible fences, its frankly irresponsible for dog owners to allow their dogs to put other people, who are doing absolutely nothing other than using the public roadways for their intended purpose, in danger. I presently am representing a cyclist who already has had 3 surgeries, and will need another, after she crashed when a dog chased her and got tangled up in her wheel. Incidents like this could be avoided if people would simply take some responsibility for their pets.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

Motorist reaching for cell phone hits and kills cyclist in Scottsboro

Danny Feldman — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:59:04 GMT

Recently, a tragic event occurred which ended a man's life when a young woman hit and killed him as, at least according to reports, see http://www.wkrg.com/raw_news/article/cyclist-killed-by-driver-reaching-for-cell-phone/224408/Jul-31-2009_8-18-am/ when she was distracted while reaching for a cell phone.

What this event points out is what all of us who drive while using the cell phone, texting, or while otherwise distracted know - and that is - that operating a motor vehicle takes concentration and that being distracted from concentrating while driving greatly increases the chances that we are going to crash and hurt or kill ourselves or others. Really, who among us hasn't missed a turn or run a stop sign while having our focus off the road and on our phone or radio or child in the back seat? While some distractions are unavoidable - a screaming child - many are not. For example, using a cell phone is a choice that we make. Given that we know, both from many recent studies and from the inescapable fact that we "live and breathe" and have personally experienced the level of distraction that a cell phone causes, the question that I have is WHY? Why do we use these devices that we know increase the risk of a tragedy like the one that recently occurred in Scottsboro?

A few reasons come to mind: (1) we don't think it will happen to us; (2) closely related to the first, we've done it before and not wrecked so it’s not going to happen; (3) we just don't carefully weigh the increased risks with the miniscule benefit of making the call. What it comes right down to is that we are selfish and we end up putting our own needs and convenience in front of societies’ well being.

I confess that I am as guilty as the next person - I have made calls, texted etc. while driving. Given that I am an avid cyclist, this story rings close because there, but for the grace of God, go me - I could have been the unfortunate cyclist who was killed. However, the fact of the matter is that although I cycle 6,000 miles a year, I drive 2-3 times that many miles. In other words, I also am an avid motorist, and there, but for the grace of God, go me - I easily could have wrecked and injured or killed someone while driving distracted.

We are human; accidents happen. We don't have to increase the chances of events like this occurring by talking or texting on the phone while driving. As for me, I am recommitted to turning off my cell phone in the car, and if I really need to make that call, it won't be the end of the world if I pull off the road to do it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

Does High Performance Driving Lead to Accidents?

Jon Lewis — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:36:30 GMT

In the last couple of weeks, the Birmingham News has run an article on the Porche Driving School along with several articles covering wrecks leading the the death of several drivers and passengers. This has led me to ponder the question, "Do our average drivers think they are on the NASCAR circuit?"

Now, I'm not suggesting that the Porche driving school leads to these types of wrecks, but I do wonder what many of these people are thinking. In the articles above which discuss the wrecks which killed three people, the writer describes the wrecks as follows: one vehicle struck a tree on Alabama 155 in Jemison; another wreck happened at the 31st Street exit off of Interstate 20/59 North; and the third vehicle driven by a 44 year old man drove off the road in northeast Jefferson County and partially ejected him. In today's Birmingham News, it was reported that a woman was killed in Pratt City when the driver lost control of the vehicle, and another man was charged with his brother's death when he ran off the road, overcorrected and flipped his Ford Explorer.

All five (5) of these collisions were single vehicle collisions. There was not one moving car or truck which caused the wrecks. Yet, five people are dead as a result of this senseless driving. When do adults mature and realize that driving can be exceptionally dangerous? When you are driving down the road at a relatively low rate of speed, say 20-30 mph, and you hit a stationary object such as a tree, you are going to get hurt. SERIOUSLY HURT!!

You have to pay attention to the road. You cannot be drunk. You cannot text. You cannot be fiddling with the radio or air conditioner. You have to watch where you are going. One small move in the wrong direction can mean death. Pay attention. Be careful. Realize that you are not in NASCAR. Which, by the way, I'll bet you the NASCAR drivers are paying attention and not putting on makeup.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis