Birmingham Personal Injury Lawyer - Automobile Accidents - Most Commented

Riding a Bicycle without a helmet is just not smart

Danny Feldman — Sun, 17 May 2009 13:00:16 GMT

This is the second in a six part series regarding dangerous and annoying cycling behaviors. Although motorists may not much care one way or another about cyclists who don't wear helmets, it should matter to the cyclist. Riding a bicycle without wearing a helmet simply is not a smart thing to do - and fortunately, almost without exception, most regular cyclists do not ride without a helmet on, period.

I do not have the statistics readily in front of me, but suffice it to say that the statistics show that wearing a helmet saves lives. The most serious cycling injuries, and the injuries that most often result in death, are traumas to the head. When a serious head trauma occurs, the brain swells and/or bleeds (hemorrhage), and unless that pressure can be relieved immediately (that is, a neurosurgeon is there to remove the skull) the person is very likely to die. A helmet absorbs the impact that the skull simply cannot - and as a result, a person who otherwise may have died is left with a slight headache.

Sometimes people ride and because they are going a short way decide to forgo a helmet. The problem is we just do not know when an incident may occur and this short helmetless ride may be your last. I have a very good (albeit not terribly coordinated friend) in the medical profession, who upon receiving a bike as a Christmas gift took it out for a short spin around the block. When he had not returned some 20 minutes later, his wife and small children found him in a daze literally a couple of houses down the street. Apparently, he had hit the curb, went down and struck his head, knocking himself out for several minutes. Luckily, he did not injure himself worse. He no longer rides without a helmet - even for a short distance.

I certainly understand the liberating feeling that comes from riding your bike with the wind blowing your hair (actually, in truth, I remember that feeling given that I don't ride without a helmet anymore and neither do I have much hair to speak of anymore). And, I recognize the fact that a helmet is not a 100% guarantee against a serious head injury. I have, however, gone down head first at about 20 - 25 miles per hour and cracked my helmet from one end to the other. Although I had a pretty badly broken thumb that required surgery, my head was just fine (despite what my wife may think). Looking at the cracked helmet, I could not help but think that but for that helmet, I would no longer be here.

Two last points - always replace a helmet once it has been compromised (been in any kind of impact) as it will no longer protect like it should. Finally, in Alabama, and in certain municipalities in the State, helmets are mandatory - especially for minors. While I personally am unaware of these laws being rigorously enforced, and while I understand the controversy that may exist regarding them (similar to mandatory seat-belt laws), I do believe these laws are helpful if for no other reason than to educate the public and to inform new cyclists about the risks of riding without a helmet.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Feldman

Are they Really Accidents?

Jon Lewis — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:52:36 GMT

I just finished a book called "Safety 24/7 - Building an Incident-free Culture". The authors, Gregor M. Anderson and Robert L. Lorber, Ph.D, make it clear that there are very few true "accidents". In the book, they call them "incidents". What's the difference? In the book, they define the difference as follows:

Incident vs. Accident: an accident implies the result is outside a person's control. In 97 percent of the cases, what happens - the incident - is easily within someone's control.

Somewhere along the line, we started calling "incidents" "accidents". Why? When someone runs a red light and causes a collision, is it an accident? When someone is texting on their cell phone and has a crash, is it an accident? When someone drinks and drives, is it an accident?

These aren't accidents. These are choices people make. We choose whether to pay attention to the roadway. We choose whether to look at the radio or look at the road. We choose whether to drive defensively. These are choices, and the term "accident" implies we have no choices.

When we are in a court of law, you will hear the defense attorneys constantly refer to the term "accident". Plaintiff attorneys will use the terms "collision," "wreck," or "crash". Which is more accurate?

In future posts, I will discuss more of the theme of this book. It does not only apply to car wrecks. it also applies to the workplace, public stores, and other commercial establishments. If you are interested in the book, you can purchase it from Amazon.com.

Or, you may call or e-mail our firm, Lewis, Feldman, Lehane & McAtee, LLC, for your free copy.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Alabama Neck Injuries - Low Impact Car Accidents

Jon Lewis — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:40:47 GMT

Can your neck be injured in a car crash with a low impact? Most defense attorneys and insurance companies would have you believe that it's impossible. They make many arguments to jurors that it's impossible and that these are just preexisting injuries. But, they are wrong!! Don't be fooled!

There are two examples I can give that will illustrate the force applied even at low speeds: 1) would you put your hand on the back of a stopped vehicle and let another car roll into your hand at 5 miles per hour? Of course not. It would crush your hand. 2) Have you ever played with the ball pendulum game (commonly called kinetic balls or Newton's Cradle)? This game demonstrate newton's third law of motion: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. When one ball is pulled back and strikes the next ball, the force is great enough to travel through the three others and kick the last one up.

When your car is hit from the rear, the force travels through the car, jerks your body, and typically, your head snaps back and then forward. This force can trigger symptoms that were not present prior to the impact. It can also cause damage. This is commonly referred to as whiplash, but that term has been used so critically that it is better to use the proper medical terminology of "cervical strain", "bulging disk", or "herniated disk", depending on what your condition is. If you were already susceptible to an injury due to degeneration in your neck, this force causes the symptoms to present themselves through pain and, sometimes, through numbness and tingling.

Do you have an experience where you were involved in a low impact car crash and experienced significant pain and injury to your neck? Did the insurance company or defense attorney argue such a condition couldn't result from such a low impact? Did they make you feel awful - like you were lying? Let us know. We want to hear your story. The more people who talk about the possibilities show how real they are. Please give us your comments even if they are contrary to the above (maybe you were involved in a low impact car crash and had no pain). We want to know.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Club Liable for Stripper's Car Accident?

Jon Lewis — Wed, 28 May 2008 11:00:00 GMT

This is an interesting case. The Birmingham News reported in its May 27 edition that Patsy Hamaker has sued her employer, the Furnace, as a result of a single car collision which occurred after work one evening. According to the article, the club encourages dancers to increase liquor sales by giving them a percentage of the drink sales. As a result, Ms. Hamaker allegedly became highly intoxicated and was allowed to leave work in that state.

Without knowing more facts, it is difficult to assess whether the Furnace would have liability in this situation. Surely, the club's owners will deny the allegations. Furthermore, even if they agree that they encouraged their dancers to increase drink sales of customers, they will most certainly argue that they do not encourage their dancers to actually drink the beverages and get drunk.

While I would not argue that this is a frivolous case, it will definitely lead to such arguments simply given the facts, and the tort reformers are probably licking their chops. They will argue that the employee should be responsible and not get intoxicated. But, this is a business which allegedly encourages intoxication because it leads to more money. Whether you approve of strip clubs or not, an employer of such a business should never allow an employee to leave work intoxicated. In fact, the employer should have a duty not to allow an employee to leave work intoxicated. This should be the case not only to protect the employee but, also, to protect the other motorists.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

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

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

Death over Dogs

Jon Lewis — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:27:39 GMT

There was a short editorial in the Birmingham News this morning discussing Donte Stallworth's sentence versus Michael Vick's sentence. The article questions the justice between the two. After reading this piece, it got me to thinking that this would be a good Part 6 to my Accidents Caused by Drunk Driving Series, but the title just didn't seem to fit.

I agree with the writer that there is something wrong with this picture. How could Michael Vick be sentenced to 23 months in prison for his involvement in a dog fighting scandle when Donte Stallworth only received 30 days in jail for getting in a car drunk and killing someone? It doesn't make sense.

I'm a dog lover. My family has a dog at home. We give to Hand in Paw. However, it seems strange that the penalty for driving drunk and killing someone would be so much less severe that being involved in a dog fighting ring. Is it because we have been de-sensitized to drunk driving, but we aren't used to dog fighting? I can't answer that question, but I agree that the justice seems out of whack.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Accidents Caused by Drunk Drivers - Part 1

Jon Lewis — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:46:47 GMT

Tragedy knows no economic status. It has been reported today that a Major League pitcher, Nick Adenhart, has been killed by a drunk driver. See CNN's report. Adenhart pitched for the Los Angeles Angels just prior to the accident which was his fourth Major League start.

Unfortunately, while such a death is tragic, it is an event which occurs regularly in every State. When it happens to a professional athlete, it brings attention to the subject. However, the occurrence is much more prevalent with everyday individuals.

We have handled numerous drunk driving accidents over the years, and they are always very difficult. One involved a twenty-year old individual who lost a leg. One, which we are handling right now, involves the death a man who had three minor children.

All of these accidents and tragedies are preventable. Clearly, these activities are illegal and subject to criminal penalty, but there are also civil remedies available. I will discuss these remedies in Part 2 of this series.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Trial or Settlement?

Jon Lewis — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 09:00:00 GMT

The other day one of my partners and I were discussing a case which was set for trial. In the case, the defendant was clearly at fault, and the question became: what is the threshold settlement value, i.e.: at what value do we recommend to our client that they should settle the case?

The case involved a husband and wife who were injured in a car accident. The case is pending in a very conservative venue (the juries do not render large verdicts). The medical bills were somewhere in the neighborhood of $7,500 - $10,000. Ten years ago, we would have recommended a settlement to the clients in the $25,000 - $30,000 range. Today, we discussed a settlement of $15,000-$20,000. Why? Tort reform and changes in the laws.

Ten years ago, we had a law in Alabama called the "Collateral Source Rule". This rule provides that the defendant cannot put into evidence the fact that the injured party had health insurance to cover his medical bills. This rule has now been abolished. So, the defendant's attorney can ask the injured party if his medical bills have been paid and by whom. The jury not only hears that the medical bills were paid by the health insurance company, let's say BlueCross BlueShield (BCBS), but also how much they paid.

How does this devalue the case? BCBS has contracts with all of the medical providers, and they never pay the full amount of the bill. For example, if the hospital and doctor charges were $10,000, BCBS might only pay $4,000-$5,000 pursuant to their contract with the hospital and doctor, and the rest is written off aside from any co-pays and deductibles paid out of the injured party's pocket. Consequently, the jury hears that the actual payment for the bills was only $4,000-$5,000, and those bills have been paid. So, instead of showing the jury the medical charges for the services rendered, the jury sees what the health insurance company paid for those charges. Therefore, instead of seeing the $10,000 bill, the jury sees the $4,000 payment, and the case value has been lowered significantly.

Is this right? We argue that it is not only not right, but it is unconstitutional. If the injured party had no health insurance, the bill would be $10,000 or the value that the medical providers put on their services. The defendant is benefitting from the fact that the injured party has health insurance and has paid premiums for health insurance. If the injured party didn't have health insurance, the case would be worth more. Is that right?

Additionally, while the defendant can tell the jury the injured party had health insurance, the injured party is NOT allowed to tell the jury that the defendant had car insurance. Is that right? Shouldn't the jury get to know all of the facts and circumstances? Why do we hide this fact? Insurance companies argue that if the jury knows the defendant has health insurance, that knowledge will prejudice the jury into awarding a larger sum of damages. Is that not the same type of prejudice as having the jury know that the plaintiff has health insurance, and thus, the verdict will be lower?

On top of that, BCBS is entitled to get their money back that they paid out for the bills from any settlement or verdict rendered. This is called subrogation. If the jury looks at the damages as $4,000 and gives a verdict of $4,000 based upon what BCBS paid, the injured party will get nothing, and BCBS will get some of their money back. On the other hand, if the jury sees the charges as $10,000 and renders a $10,000 verdict, BCBS would get their $4,000, and $6,000 would still be available. Is that right?

Finally, in such a situation where a jury renders a verdict for the amount of the medical bills, that verdict would not take into consideration the pain and suffering and mental and emotional distress suffered by the injured party. We make light of these types of damages, but they are serious damages. A person who is injured as a result of someone else's neglect is required to: take off work, go to doctor's appointments, feel pain, and change the way they do daily activities, if they can still do them at all. Isn't that worth something?

Who benefits from this change in the law? Insurance companies. If the defendant has automobile insurance to pay for these damages, the insurer benefits from paying less out to the injured party. Over the last several years, insurers have been paying less and less on these types of claims. Are they reducing their premiums? Very little if at all.

Insurance companies also benefit because attorneys refuse to take some cases now for injured individuals due to the fact that they are not profitable economically, and when that is the case, we cannot help those individuals. What do I mean? If a client comes into the office with $2,500 in medical bills and BCBS paid $1,000, the insurance companies will only offer $3,000-$4,000 to settle the case. Such a settlement is usually not satisfactory to the client after the fees, expenses and subrogation are paid. Furthermore, the case would cost more than it's worth to take it to court. Consequently, these people are left to deal with experienced insurance adjusters on their own.

Who loses? Attorneys lose because the value of cases is lower? Yes. There is no question that we make less money on a contingent fee case when the values are lower. There is no question that we, as attorneys, gain from higher settlements and verdicts. We also are not ashamed of this. We pay for all the expenses and take the risk of losing a case in exchange for a contingent fee contract. We work for that fee, and we are entitled to be paid for the work we perform just as anyone would be entitled to be paid for work performed.

Who really loses? People who are physically injured. Lost in all of the tort reform battles are the victims of carelessness, neglect, and out and out wrongful behavior. We, as a society, put much more emphasis on money and money issues as opposed to life issues. When we focus on money, we make decisions based upon money but which affect other areas of life.

Our focus as attorneys for injured parties is on the harm done to a person and that person's family. Money is a means to an end for us, and that end is making the injured party's life a little easier. It's a way to try to help the person get back on her feet. It's a way to provide more physical therapy. It's a way to help the person get some more education in order to change a career to something that is less physically demanding. It's a way to get the person the medical equipment she needs. It's a way to help her keep her house while she's out of work. It's a way to help her hire people to assist with various household duties.

When the public fails to pay attention to certain changes in laws lobbied for by various companies, they suffer the consequences down the line. In this case, those consequences are suffered by injured people. Which is more important: insurance company profits or those who are physically injured?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

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