Recent Posts in Drunk Drivers Category

In continuance of our series, this week we will look at variations of police/emergency personnel involvement as well as some classic drunk driver scenarios.

O)    ACCIDENT WHERE POLICE ARIVE / Filed Report = OK Case

The police report is helpful in proving what happened at the scene and you should always insist that the vehicles stay put and the police are called to the scene.  Unless, of course, the police tell you to move your car or file a cold report, obviously.  The mere exchanging of information at the scene is often troublesome later in a case.  An independent police report will go a long ways in proving both liability and injuries. 

P)    ACCIDENTS WHERE POLICE ARE NOT CALLED = Bad Case

Very hard to prove what actually happened at the scene without a report. Not calling the police, makes the case much tougher to prove even if the at-fault driver is admitting liability there at the scene, it is not uncommon for that story to change once they get “lawyered up”

Q)    PARAMEDICS TAKE INJURED TO HOSPITAL = Really Good Case

Many people get injured in motor vehicle accidents without knowing they are injured at the scene.  However, as it relates to proving probable injury, nothing is more helpful to a case than immediate paramedic and emergency room documentation.  If you are injured in an accident, then taking the ride to the E.R. in the ambulance is a good idea.

R)    POLICE VIEW NO INJURIES= Not Such a Good Case

You start the case in a bit of a hole when the police document no injuries at the scene.  Though it is certainly a fact that can be overcome, the case is simply better, when your police officer supports with documentation the appearance of injury at the scene.  This means that open and honest communication with the officer at the scene of the accident should take place.

S)    DRUNK DRIVER Leaving Bar with Empty Beer Cans in the Car = Bad Case to Sue the Bar

Surprise! When you sue the bar for negligently over-serving the drunk, the bar’s lawyer will use the empties in the vehicle to prove it wasn’t the bar’s conduct that made the Defendant THIS drunk. They will say: “he must have drank in the car after he left our responsible tavern.”  Witnesses are the key to cases like these unfortunately they can often be very difficult to track down.

T)    DRUNK DRIVER Leaving Bar without any Alcohol in Vehicle = Better Case to Sue Bar

The case is much cleaner when we can say, “what else other than this bar could have possibly made this man that drunk?”  Thorough and early investigation is crucial in a case like this.

________________

If you find your case meeting some of these “rules of thumb” discussed above, do not dispair – please call us at ANDERSON HEMMAT & LEVINE to speak with one of our attorneys today to discuss your case.

Contact Us Now

This week we continue our series divulging trade secrets of personal injury attorneys.  These “rules of thumb” used by attorneys are sure to continue surprising you.

D)    SLIP AND FALLS/ grocery store= Generally Bad Case
Juror perceptions are that most “slip and falls” are the work of con-artists.  Getting good witness information, immediately reporting the fall and filling out an incident report with management, and taking pictures of what caused you to fall are good ways to help overcome this perception.

E)   SLIP AND FALL/ private residence= Really Bad Case
Surprise! There is no jury appeal in suing grandma for not shoveling her walkway quickly enough after a storm.  We live in Colorado and most jurors expect there to be snow and ice in the winter.  “At your own risk” generally applies to these type of cases.

F)    HIT BY A DRUNK DRIVER leaving the bar= Really Good Case
Jurors rightfully hate drunk drivers. These cases against drunks are hands down our favorite.  If ever there was a “bad guy,” it is the drunk who got behind the wheel and ruined someone’s life because of his/her selfishness.

G)    PUNCHED BY A DRUNK after leaving the bar= Really Bad Case
Surprise! The drunk’s liability insurance won’t cover the injury because it is excluded conduct under most insurance policies.  Also, people (drunk
or sober) who punch other people tend not to have anything to lose.  Sure, you could sue the drunk personally, but you would likely receive little monetary recovery. 

H)    HIT BY A TRACTOR TRAILER= Generally Great Case
Interstate trucking is one of the most regulated areas of law. However, drivers rarely follow the safety rules required.  Frankly, I have never taken a case against a truck driver and not discovered numerous violations by the trucker and the trucking company. The thing that makes a great case versus a good case is TIMING.  The company can purge their records (your evidence)  6 months following the collision. So victims need to find the right lawyer quickly.

__________________________

Stay tuned next week for more of the Calculus of Personal Injury as we continue to explore the “rules of thumb” used by many attorneys.  At ANDERSON HEMMAT & LEVINE, we want our clients to be able to make the best and most informed decision.  Call us today to discuss your case.

Contact Us Now

You see distracted drivers on the road all the time.  In our fast-paced society, a distracted driver may be using an electric shaver, drinking coffee, eating a Big Mac, and reading a novel-all at the same time.  Nearly every motor vehicle collision is caused by inattentive drivers.

There is, however, a more sinister level of inattention that occurs when drivers text or email while driving.  Numerous driver studies conducted around the world rate the cell phone driver as equal to the fatigued, and in some instances, the drunken driver.  Emailing and texting is even worse. The New York Times recently published a report stating that people who text while driving are 23 times more likely to cause an accident.  Not only is the brain focused on matters other than driving, but the driver's eyes are also splitting time between completing the texting and the road.

In their first meeting with me, injury victims often mention that they have suspicions that the at- fault driver was on a cell phone or texting. This is an important piece of information that needs to be promptly investigated.

Why it's Important Information

A driver who simply makes an error in driving and accidentally causes an accident is viewed differently in the eyes of the law than a driver who willfully and with reckless indifference causes an injury accident.  Texting and driving is willful and reckless and can result in a court awarding heightened recovery to a victim.

Currently, only 14 states have outlawed texting while driving.  Colorado recently passed such a law that goes into effect on December 1, 2009.   We also have laws about driving with a willful and reckless disregard for the safety of others.  These laws can and should be used to hold these dangerous drivers responsible.

What Should Be Done?

An attorney acting in the best interest of his client should take immediate action to get to the bottom of whether texting or cell phone usage was the primary cause of the accident.  The only way to prove that the driver was texting at the time of the accident is to subpoena the cell phone company records. This requires filing a lawsuit against the driver, taking his or her deposition and learning the cell phone number and their service provider.  Lastly, the records from the phone company need to be reconciled with the timing of the traffic accident.

This above method is the only way to prove cell phone or text messaging caused a collision. Once the lawyer gets the information to support the "texting during driving" allegation, the appropriate next step is for the attorney to file a motion to amend the Complaint to add punitive (sometimes called exemplary) damages.

These cases should be treated just as seriously by your attorney as if you were hit by an intoxicated driver. Texting and driving is serious, it can be deadly, and a victim should be certain that his attorney is aggressively investigating these issues.

At ANDERSON, HEMMAT & LEVINE we understand the importance of these issues and are here to assist you.  As always, your initial consultation is free. 

Contact Us Now

Drunk drivers are a repugnant evil on the roadways of Colorado.  Drunk drivers killed over 200 innocent people in the State of Colorado last year.  For the most part, these drunk drivers are alcoholics.  They have an illness.  There is no doubt that drunk drivers and their insurance companies should be financially responsible for the injuries and deaths they cause.  But I am at a loss as to how often lawyers forget to pursue victims' rights against the co-conspirators on these crimes.  In criminal cases, prosecutors focus their attention less on junkies and more on drug dealers.  When representing injury victims involved in drunk-driving related offenses, why do many lawyers look the other way and not sue the tavern that served the alcohol to the drunk? 

This failure to bring lawsuits against the bars that over-served these drunks is inexcusable. The obstacles to bringing these taverns to justice are numerous, but there is no excuse for not investigating these claims.  Three of the most pervasive reasons for lawyers failing to recognize these claims are:

1) Time:

Claims against bars have to be brought within one year of the injury accident.   The filing of a lawsuit must be done early in the case so that there is enough time for proper discovery to be conducted in order to file the claim within the statute of limitations.

2) Hard to Identify:

Drunks are encouraged by their criminal lawyers to say nothing when they get arrested.  They often conceal the identity of the bar at which they were drinking.  However, sometimes it is obvious where these drunks were drinking, and still, a lawyer fails to bring a claim. 

3) Laws make it hard to prove:

The Colorado legislature changed the laws some years ago to make it harder to put fault on bars. Simply proving that a drunk got intoxicated in a particular bar is insufficient evidence to recover money from that bar.  Under our Dram Shop laws, a plaintiff must prove that the bar willfully served the drunk AFTER the drunk was "visibly intoxicated."  Hard task?  Sure.  It requires thorough investigation, eye-witnesses, and zealous advocacy.

All of the above are reasons why your lawyer can justify simply ignoring the tavern in these cases. Yet, 19 years of representing victims injured by drunk drivers has proven to me that these claims against the taverns should be actively investigated and not ignored. In fact, in most of my past cases, our investigation has yielded sufficient evidence to bring a viable claim against the tavern.

If you cannot get your current lawyer's attention to pursue these taverns, consider getting more aggressive counsel.

At ANDERSON, HEMMAT & LEVINE we view it as our community obligation to pursue these taverns that put these dangerous drunks on the road.

Contact Us Now

Victims of drunk drivers are often told by insurance companies that they have three years to sue. While that is technically true, we ALWAYS SUE IMMEDIATELY in these cases. We do that for two reasons:

1) Drunk drivers are criminals. They often leave the jurisdiction after their arrest. If they leave and you cannot serve them your lawsuit, there is no case and the insurance company for the drunk does not have to defend them in the action, or pay you anything. So, in these cases we sue at the earliest possible opportunity to make sure we have the drunk and his insurance company on the hook to pay for our client’s injuries.

2) Ask yourself, where did the drunk get intoxicated? Often times the answer is, at a bar. THE BAR might be an excellent ADDITONAL DEFENDANT, provided you sue early enough. Lawsuits against a bar for “tanking up” the drunk and putting him on the road must be brought within ONE YEAR of the accident. Often times we dont know about the bar or that there even was a bar involved until we take the deposition of the drunk and make him tell us where he was drinking. These claims are called Dram Shop claims and can be very valuable and a great source of additional compensation for our injured clients.   

If you meet with an attorney who does not want to bring lawsuit immediately in such a circumstance, they are probably the wrong lawyer for the job.

At Anderson, Hemmat & Levine we bring lawsuits against drunk drivers and the bars they drank at all the time, and if you’re hurt by a drunk driver we can help you too. Call us for a free consultation.

Contact Us Now