Taking Your Auto Accident Case to Court
July 19th, 2010 | 
Author: Your auto accident lawsuit is the biggest thing on your mind almost all of the time. Everyday you come up with more questions and new scenarios to ask your auto accident lawyer about because you feel you need to win this. You believe you need to win this not because just because you’re falling farther behind in the bills and you still aren’t sure when you’ll be able to return to work, but because the other driver was so incredibly out of line with his behavior behind the wheel and after the accident, there is no other form of justice out there for you.
The opposing side has offered you a fair injury settlement, but you turned it down based on principle and your auto accident lawyer’s judgment that a jury would hear your side loud and clear. You can’t sleep because you wonder about your auto accident lawsuit, you worry about the bills, you’re scared of how your physical condition may or may not progress. Your life has been turned upside down by one driver’s reckless thoughtlessness, and you’ve been left to deal with it.
Turning down a personal injury settlement.
was a big step for you. You and your family could have sued for the money now, but there’s this part of you that knows your auto accident lawyer was accurate when he told you that juries are offended by people who lack compassion for those they hurt, and the other driver has seriously lacked compassion for you since the moment you were pulled from the mangled car alive.
There isn’t a personal injury settlement that he could offer that would erase the nightmares you’ve had or the depression your kids have watched you go through. And he never even apologized for the accident, a simple human courtesy and it was too much for him. You’re angry. You wonder if you turned down a good deal when he offered the personal injury settlement because you’re angry at what this has done to your life.
It’s 3 o’clock in the morning and you desperately want to call your auto accident lawyer and ask him if that’s what you did. You want to make wise decisions right now, not ones based on anger. By 4 o’clock you will have realized that you turned down the personal injury settlement offer because you knew in your heart it wasn’t a fair offer.
Taking your auto accident lawsuit to court will be a continuation of this roller coaster ride that has kept you awake at night for months. Some days you feel ready and you can’t wait to get this all behind you and other days you don’t think you’ll ever be ready and you secretly hope that the day to go to court will never come.
You have the utmost faith in your auto accident lawyer, and know that they are competent. You have asked every question you could possibly think of and your auto accident lawyer has answered them all patiently, directly, and as honestly as possible. Your auto accident lawyer discussed the personal injury settlement offer with you several times from various different angles, and you know in your heart that your auto accident lawyer was giving you solid advice.
These emotions, the fear, the anxiety, the stress, and the chronic questioning will eventually dissipate, although for many people, the roller coaster doesn’t end until the auto accident lawsuit does. It is a big deal when your life is changed beyond your control, and your only recourse is an auto accident lawsuit. You have the courage of your convictions to take it to court, and you are comfortable with your decision.
In the event that the stress of an auto accident lawsuit is inhibiting your sleep or you are chronically concerned about a personal injury settlement offer you turned down in favor of taking your auto accident lawsuit to trial, you may want to seek a little professional counseling.
These things are very stressful, and no matter how competent and wonderful your auto accident lawyer is, a huge stressor is exactly that. There is no shame is determining that the stress of taking your auto accident lawsuit to court is costing you sleep. Sometimes talking about the accident, how it changed your life, and where to go from this moment on is the healthiest thing that a victim can do. Obsessing about your auto accident lawsuit isn’t going to help.
Finding a balance, understanding your reasons for declining a personal injury settlement offer, and knowing that there is joy in the world even if you aren’t awarded a dime is the healthiest place you can go. Once you can positively deal with your auto accident lawsuit, it will turn out much better for you.
Posted in 
As Long As The Accident Wasn’t Your Fault You Can Claim
So you’ve been involved in an accident and it wasn’t your fault but you’re unsure if you can claim? If so, you’ve come to the right place.
At Accident Consult Ltd we are able to advise you on your compensation and the amount of money you may receive. You need to live in the United Kingdom and have had an accident of some sort may it be a road traffic accident to repetitive strain injury and it wasn’t your fault to make an accident claim. If you decide to fill in the accident claim form your compensation claim will be dealt with efficiently and honestly.
Accident Consult Ltd won’t take any of your accident compensation as we work on No Win No Fee Basis, the losing party will pay for your legal fees and if your claim is unsuccessful you won’t have to pay any legal fees. Pursing a accident claim is not expensive and complicated so why suffer loss of earning, painful joints, hospital costs etc. for something that isn’t your fault.
Over 2 million accidents last year were the fault of another persons negligence so why should we put up with this, the answer is don’t put up with it claim today. Whatever your accident fill in the claim form and wait for your response, we have dealt with: whiplash injuries, road traffic accidents, slip trip fall injuries, repetitive strain injury, medical negligence cases, work and public place accidents.
Once you have submitted a compensation accident claim the personal injury solicitors.
will investigate the case before they agree to take the case on. The case will be discussed with you at length so they are able to get the full facts and circumstances surrounding the accident. If the solicitor thinks it has a good chance of winning they will begin to collect evidence on your behalf. If the accident happened more than 3 years ago it is unlikely the solicitor will take the case on due to statute barred. The solicitors will contact the doctors who have dealt with your accident injuries and take all the details as evidence for the claim. If police have been involved a specialist accident claims advice solicitor will liaise with the police officers who were witnesses or arrived shortly after the accident and obtain the police accident report as evidence for the client. Any witnesses to the client’s accident will be contacted and written statements will be signed by the witness which will be used to verify the client’s accident claim.
If you’ve had an accident recently write a daily diary with the details of your injuries, how you’re feeling and the amount of pain you’re in. Any photographs of the place of accident and or injuries can be used as part of the evidence in accident claiming as well as any expenses you’ve paid for since the accident relating to your injury.
People who experience personal injuries through accidents caused by someone else’s negligence fully deserve compensation payouts for their distress and lost earnings so claim today!
Hiring An Accident Lawyer Takes Consideration
If you’ve been injured in an accident that’s serious enough to require legal representation, you owe it to yourself and your family to ensure that you hire a good attorney. This means being cautious about ambulance chasers and taking the time to check out backgrounds before hiring an accident lawyer.
Whether it’s a car accident, a slip or fall or some other form of catastrophe that led to the injury, a good accident lawyer will work for you, not just for money. Hiring a lawyer takes time, consideration and patience to be certain the best person for the job has been hired. For those who are uncomfortable hiring a lawyer, when a serious injury is involved, lost wages, medical bills and other needs might stack up and require the hiring of an accident lawyer.
If you’ve been injured in an accident, there are some things to consider before evening making the decision to hire an accident lawyer:
* How serious is the injury that resulted from the accident? Litigation over a minor scrape or bump might not be wise, but if you’ve been side-tracked from your professional or personal life, hiring a lawyer makes good sense.
* Are the damages you’ve suffered enough to require the hiring of an accident lawyer? For example, if your injuries are very minor and your expenses are covered completely by your own insurance, is it really necessary to hire an accident lawyer? Clogging up the legal system with unnecessary cases doesn’t do anyone any good. A good lawyer won’t take a frivolous case.
* What do you have to gain?
* Do you have a solid case?
If you’ve answered these questions and feel you need to hire an accident lawyer, don’t run out and hire the first one you find. You need to consider some things first. Before you agree to hire a lawyer make sure:
* The lawyer you’re hiring has experience in both in and out of court cases. If you case should go to trial, getting a rookie might not be the best.
* The accident lawyer only charges if your case is won. This is very important, especially if you’ve been out of work due to the injury. If your lawyer doesn’t offer this agreement, don’t consider hiring. A good accident lawyer has confidence in his or her ability to win and will therefore hold off charging until a victory has been obtained.
* Free consultation. A good accident lawyer should be willing to hear your case at no charge. Take advantage of this so you can decide if you want to work with this person. It’s important you feel comfortable with the accident lawyer you’re considering hiring. A good line of communication is important to help a case along.
* Check into the accident lawyer’s background. Make sure he or she has proper licensing within your state and is in good standing with the bar association.
Hiring an accident lawyer is a very big undertaking. Since you’re likely injured and have suffered financial loss, it’s important to ensure you hire the best professional for the right reasons.
You Have A Personal Injury In A Car Accident? Know The Facts
Have you ever been involved in a car accident where you were injured seriously? What would you do in such a situation? The first thing to ever do is administer first aid and call for help. Knowing the facts in the case of personal injury from a car accident forms the crux of our topic today.
Let us first discuss the common types of injuries that may happen in a car accident. The first type of injuries is known as whiplash injuries. Whiplash injuries are the most common types of injuries to occur in any country. Whiplash injuries may include damage to the neck or the spine and muscles around the neck. The extent of the injury might be little or more depending on the case. The effects of the injury might be observed for a short time or in many cases it can also be permanent. In some cases a whiplash injury can leave the neck or the spine permanently damaged. The injuries are diagnosed by using x rays by the doctor. The doctor will also use the x rays to see if any injury has been caused to vertebra and the extent of damage to the neck. The next most common types of injuries are the head injuries. Head injuries can prove to be fatal as a serious blow to the head can cause damage to the brain. Damage to the brain can occur at the time of the accident or over time as the internal injury can aggravate. The third type of injuries is bodily injuries which can occur on the arms and the legs. If they are small, they can be treated and healed in a few days. If they are big like a fracture then it can take anywhere between a fortnight to months to heal completely.
So what should you normally do when you meet with an accident and get personally injured? The first and the foremost thing is to call the emergency number and call for an ambulance immediately. Also if you are seriously injured then you can tell the passers by to get the necessary information of your family members and the doctors from your car or wallet and call them up immediately. The course of treatment will depend on how deep the injury is and on which part of the body is injured. Try not to panic too much as this can raise your blood pressure. Stay calm. Do not try to move too much. Moving can seriously aggravate the injuries inside and can bring permanent damage to any body part.
When the ambulance arrives try to answer the questions that the staff may ask? The medical team may ask you questions while administering you doses of medication and checking your vitals, heart beats etc. Answer truthfully all the questions of the medical team. Ask the medical team to call your family members and inform them about the accident. Do follow the instructions of the doctors to ensure your speedy recovery. When you are discharged from hospital do take a few days of rest at home and resume work only when you feel fully fit and fine.
Last but not least. Answer any questions by the police truthfully. Do not lie! If you feel the need to lie or you are worried about the situation, ask for an attorney to be present. Mistakes here can cost you more than money. And money will be no problem if you carry car insurance.
CASELAW UPDATES WEEK ENDING JULY 17, 2009 AUTO 1ST & 3RD PARTY
SUPREME COURT
BERKEYPILE V WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY
July 17, 2009
“Mini” oral argument granted on application by defendant Westfield Insurance Company for leave to appeal. Order says the parties (in their supplemental briefs) “shall address the effect of paragraph E(1)(a) of the Westfield policy’s Michigan uninsured motorist coverage, which provides that ‘[i]f there is other applicable insurance available under one or more policies or provisions of coverage . . . [t]he maximum recovery under all coverage forms or policies combined may equal but not exceed the highest applicable limit for any one vehicle under any coverage form or policy providing coverage on either a primary or excess basis.’” Supplemental briefs by the parties are due +42 days from the date of the order (= 8/28/09). No amicus invitations extended. Berkeypile appealed by leave granted the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant Westfield Insurance Company pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in this action involving the interpretation of an insurance policy. Plaintiff was injured in a multiple-vehicle collision. The chief question posed was whether, under the pertinent language of the Westfield policy, plaintiff still has the potential right to recover uninsured motorist benefits even though plaintiff previously received, through separate litigation against three of the drivers involved in the accident, settlement proceeds exceeding the $300,000 policy limit set forth in the UM endorsement of the Westfield policy. So the issue was whether the settlement proceeds should be offset against the total amount of damages, not yet determined, or offset against the UM policy limit of $300,000 without any consideration of possible damages, which, given the amounts of the policy limit and the settlement proceeds, would eliminate any liability on Westfield’s part under the policy. The trial court ruled, as a matter of law, that the policy limit must be reduced by the aggregate of the settlements, leaving Westfield with no obligation to pay plaintiff UM benefits. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that there is no language in the policy supporting the trial court’s benefits-reduction ruling and that the language in the UM endorsement dictates that any offset pertains only to duplicate payments for the same noneconomic and excess economic losses. [PRELIMINARY EMAIL ALERT SENT 7/18/09]
S CT DOCKET NO. 137353
CT APP DOCKET NO. 274177
S Ct Order:
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20090717_S137353_57_137353_2009-07-17_or.pdf
Ct App Opinion¸ 280 Mich App 172, 8/12/08:
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20080812_c274177_47_115o-274177opn.pdf
Docket:
Rehearing/Reconsideration: 8-10-09 (due to Court furlough day on 8-7-09)
FULKERSON DONALD M
PO BOX 85395
WESTLAND MI 48185
734-467-5620
and
BENNER BRIAN J
28116 ORCHARD LAKE ROAD
FARMINGTON HILLS MI 48334
248-737-5544
COLE V SUBURBAN MOBILITY AUTH REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
July 15, 2009
Application by plaintiff for leave to appeal denied. Kelly & Hathaway would grant leave to appeal. Delayed appeal from summary disposition order, which the Court of Appeals declined to grant. Don’t know underlying issue. [ALSO REPORTED IN GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PROCEDURE & APPELLATE CASE UPDATES; EMAIL ALERT SENT 7/16/09]
S CT DOCKET NO. 138552
CT APP DOCKET NO. 288480
S Ct Order:
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20090715_S138552_25_138552_2009-07-15_or.pdf
Ct App Order¸ 2/20/09:
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/coa/public/orders/2009/288480(18)_order.pdf
Docket:
Rehearing/Reconsideration: 8-5-09
CALCATERA THOMAS
3000 TOWN CENTER BLDG, SUITE 1601
SOUTHFIELD MI 48075
248-350-3700
COURT OF APPEALS
CHALKO V STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INS CO
July 9, 2009
Issues: Whether the trial court properly granted a judgment of no cause of action in favor of the defendant-insurer in this first-party no-fault case; Whether plaintiff was entitled to attendant care benefits based on the aggravation of a preexisting condition; Coblentz v. Novi; Mithrandir v. Department of Corr.; Whether the trial court properly did not direct a verdict for plaintiff where she did not request a directed verdict; Sniecinski v. BCBSM; Kern v. Blethen-Coluni; Smith v. Foerster-Bolser Constr., Inc.; Jury instruction (SJI2d 50.11); MCR 2.516(D)(2); Chastain v. General Motors Corp. (On Remand); Stevens v. Veenstra [ALSO REPORTED IN GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PROCEDURE & APPELLATE CASE UPDATES; EMAIL ALERT SENT 7/10/09]
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Judge(s): Per Curiam – Sawyer and Zahra; Concurring in part, Dissenting in part – Shapiro
The court held the trial court correctly granted a judgment of no cause of action for the defendant-insurer after a jury trial in this first party, no-fault action. The case arose from a motor vehicle accident in which plaintiff suffered an open fracture of her right ankle. She sued to recover 24-hour a day attendant care benefits. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, finding plaintiff sustained an accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident, but defendant had already paid the allowable expenses for which it was obligated, with the exception it should continue to pay for two hours of attendant care per day. Plaintiff argued the trial court erred in not granting summary disposition on her claim for attendant care benefits because the undisputed facts showed aggravation of a preexisting injury. The evidence submitted in support of the parties’ motions established one doctor could not see any relationship at all between the injury she suffered and the motor vehicle accident and the respiratory failure which occurred. The doctor opined there was a greater likelihood plaintiff would be able to ambulate presently if she were not morbidly obese. Another doctor opined the 24-hour attendant care was necessary due to the injuries from the accident. The court concluded this conflicting medical opinion evidence demonstrated there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the need for the 24-hour attendant care arose out of the accident. Thus, summary disposition was not appropriate because plaintiff would not have been entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court also held the trial court did not err in not sua sponte granting plaintiff a directed verdict on her claim for attendant care benefits where based on the conflicting medical evidence there was a question of fact upon which reasonable minds could differ whether her need for the attendant care benefits arose out of the accident. Further, the court held she was not entitled to a jury instruction based on SJI2d 50.11 where it was inapplicable to the case and might have confused the jury. Affirmed.
Shapiro, concurring in part & dissenting in part, agreed with the majority opinion that plaintiff was not entitled to summary disposition or a directed verdict on the issue of coverage for her attendant care. He disagreed with the majority that the trial court properly refused to give any of plaintiff’s requested jury instructions on the issue of benefits for conditions or services that are required due to the combination of an injury arising out of the accident and an injury or illness not arising out of the accident. Reversal and remand for new trial is required given the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the what the law provided if they concluded as fact-finders that plaintiff’s need for attendant care was due to a combination of medical conditions some, but not all of which are auto-accident related. Shapiro points out:
“These instructions concerned the central, if not sole, issue in the case and plaintiff’s requested instructions properly stated the law. Moreover, defendant’s position is inconsistent with our State’s no-fault scheme and no-fault insurers’ fiduciary duties. Defendant’s approach would place the burden of care on victims, their families, or the taxpayers who fund government-provided health care rather than on the no-fault insurers who receive payments of premiums in exchange for provision of such benefits.”
CT APP DOCKET NO. 278215
Rehearing: 7-30-09
S Ct App: 8-20-09
ATTMORE ROBERT E
2908 32ND ST SE
GRAND RAPIDS MI 49512
616-608-4382
SUPER V MICHIGAN DEP’T OF TRANSPORTATION/ KANE
July 14, 2009
Issues: Automobile negligence claims against defendant DOT and its agent (defendant Kane); Whether the plaintiffs’ claims were barred because they failed to file a notice of intention to file a claim within 6 months as required by MCL 600.6431(3); The Governmental Tort Liability Act (MCL 691.1401 et seq.); Rowland v. Washtenaw County Rd. Comm’n; The “motor vehicle exception” to governmental immunity (MCL 691.1405); Whether the minor tolling provision (MCL 600.5851[1]) applied to the notice provisions of MCL 600.6431; Statutory interpretation; Allen v. Bloomfield Hills Sch. Dist.; Klida v. Braman; Difference between a statutory notice provision and a statute of limitations; Davis v. Farmers Ins. Group; The Legislature’s authority to structure governmental immunity as it deems appropriate; Mack v. City of Detroit [ALSO REPORTED IN GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PROCEDURE & APPELLATE CASE UPDATES; EMAIL ALERT SENT 7/15/09]
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Judge(s): Per Curiam – Cavanagh and Fort Hood; Dissent – Davis
Because the plain language of MCL 600.5851(1) applies to “periods of limitations” and MCL 600.6431(3) is not a period of limitations, MCL 600.5851(1) did not apply to the notice provisions of MCL 600.6431 and plaintiffs’ claims for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident were barred on the basis they did not file a notice of intention to file a claim for damages within 6 months of the accident. Thus, the trial court erred in denying defendant-DOT’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7). The case arose from injuries a minor allegedly sustained on August 14, 2006 in a car accident involving defendant-Kane, an agent of the DOT, while she was driving a DOT vehicle. Plaintiffs asserted the DOT was liable for the minor’s injuries resulting from Kane’s allegedly negligent operation of the vehicle. They filed suit on July 24, 2007. The DOT moved for summary disposition on the basis plaintiffs’ claims were barred because they did not file a notice of intention to file a claim within 6 months as required by MCL 600.6431(3). Plaintiffs argued their claims were not barred because the minor tolling provision, MCL 600.5851(1), applied to the notice provisions of MCL 600.6431(3). The trial court concluded the notice provisions were tolled because the claimant was a minor and denied the DOT’s summary disposition motion. The court concluded in Davis a statutory notice provision is not the same as a statute of limitations. MCL 600.6431(3) serves as a notice requirement, requiring if a claimant alleges property damage or personal injuries, the claimant shall file a notice of intention to file a claim or the claim itself within 6 months after the accident. The statute does not curtail or limit the time a potential litigant has to bring his or her claim. “Instead, the provision requires a timely written notice of the intention to file a claim.” Thus, the court held the six-month notification requirement is a notice provision and not a limitations period, and the minor tolling provision did not apply. Reversed.
Davis, dissenting, wrote that he is “not convinced that the result reached by the majority is absolutely mandated by the present state of the law, and furthermore, important policy considerations warrant the opposite result.” He also points out:
[T]he purpose of the minority/insanity tolling provision is to protect disabled persons from the consequences of being unable to exercise their rights on their own. It is a tradeoff, but a tradeoff that is deeply entrenched in our jurisprudence. The ultimate goal – permitting disabled persons the opportunity to bring suit – would not be served by extending one deadline until the disability is removed, but not extending another. Furthermore, this is not a case in which the claim can be said to be trumped up, nor one in which the State did not already know about the occurrence or have the superior capacity to investigate it in the first place. I have not found any cases that necessarily require the result reached by the majority, and I would not do so now.
CT APP DOCKET NO. 282636
Rehearing: 8-4-09
S Ct App: 8-25-09
HOLADAY BEVERLY
251 NORTH ROSE ST, 4TH FLOOR
KALAMAZOO MI 49007
269-283-2300
Car Accident Eye Injury – What You Must Know
Eye injuries are common in car accidents. With all the flying debris it is no surprise that the eyes are at risk for severe injuries. What may surprise you is that many eye injuries are caused by airbags. Airbag induced eye injuries may not be as common as eye injuries cause by flying debris but they are severe enough for concern.
Results of Airbag Eye Injuries
Airbag eye injuries can cause partial or total blindness. Sometimes the damage is temporary, but in many cases it is permanent. There is still research being done to see how different circumstances affect the damage to the eye by an airbag. The research includes looking into the effects on people of different heights and people who wear corrective lens. There appears to be a greater risk for injury for children and women. Both drivers and passengers are at risk for injuries from air bags.
Airbag Deployment and Injury
Eye injuries occur when the airbag deploys and comes in contact with the eye. Upon the deployment of the airbag, particles fly at high speed from the air bag compartment, posing a serious danger for the eyes. There is proof that air bags may do more harm than good. Studies show that the risk of an extreme eye injury and other serious injuries outweigh the benefits of air bags.
Why Airbags Pose this Risk
Airbags were developed to be an added safety measure, but they are proving to be more of a risk than anything. Airbags were designed to work with a male of a height around 5 feet 8 inches. Since this is far from the average size of women and men, airbags have a major flaw. They are not designed to suit women drivers or those of short stature. Anyone larger than the model used is also at risk.
While there have been notices made that children under the age of 12 should sit in the backseat to avoid the possible harms of airbags, the truth is that every passenger is still at risk from the flying debris of an airbag. So, no matter where you sit in a car with airbags, you are at risk for eye injuries caused by them.
What to do About Airbag Eye Injuries
If you are in an accident and you suffer an eye injury from an air bag you may have grounds for seeking damages from the car manufacturer. You should consult with an attorney that specialized in injury law. To prevent eye injuries from air bags, you should follow all instructions from the manufacturer about safety. This includes keeping children in the back seat and using aids to help you sit higher in your seat if you are driving and are of a short stature.
Eye injuries from a car accident may happen from any flying debris. You may be able to prevent them by using airbags carefully and being aware of the risks they pose. It cannot hurt to get information and learn how to minimize your chance of a traumatic eye injury in a car accident. Wearing eyeglasses, safety glasses or sunglasses while driving or riding in a car could also be helpful.
Tags: Welcome to Michigan Accident and Injury Attorney Website
We will be doing blogs weekly to keep our clients informed.