- Home
- Practice Areas
- Personal Injury Information
- Houston Personal Injury Lawyer
- What is a Personal Injury?
- Can I File an Injury Claim?
- Statute of Limitations
- What Makes Up a Strong Case?
- Personal Injury Damages
- Personal Injury Categories
- Vicarious Liability
- Injury Attorneys in Houston
- Houston Premises Liability
- Child Injury Cases in Houston
- Preponderance of Evidence
- Fire & Burn Injury
- Free Online Legal Advice
- Houston Personal Injury Law Firm
- Conroe Personal Injury Attorney
- More...
- Houston Pro Bono Lawyer
- Houston Personal Injury Accident Claim
- Houston PI Lawyer
- Houston Personal Injury Law Attorney
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Amputation Accidents in Houston
- Houston Personal Injury Legal Advice
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Houston Personal Injury Lawyers
- Houston Personal Injury Attorneys
- Mitigating Damages After an Injury
- Proving the Proximate Cause
- Thin Skull Rule
- Broken Bones
- Mediation in an Injury Lawsuit
- Houston Personal Injury Law
- Subrogation Reimbursement
- Best Injury Lawyer in Houston
- Wrongful Death Information
- Houston Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Statute of Limitations
- Texas Wrongful Death Law
- Texas Survival Statute
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Truck Accident Fatalities
- Plane and Aviation Fatalities
- Houston Fatal Boating Accidents
- Motorycle Accident Wrongful Death Cases
- Houston Work Related Death Cases
- Fatal Construction Accidents in Houston Texas
- Fatal Pedestrian Accidents in Houston
- Houston Elderly Wrongful Deaths
- Conroe Wrongful Death Lawyer
- 18-Wheeler Truck Accidents
- Houston Truck Accident Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Accident Info
- Flatbed Trailer Accidents
- Trucking Accident Claim
- Cargo Related Trucking Accidents
- Intoxicated Truck Driver Accidents
- Unsafe Trucking Company Practices
- Commercial Vehicle Accidents in Houston
- Accidents Caused by Defective Truck Tires
- Houston Tractor Trailer Accident Lawyer
- Conroe 18-Wheeler Accidents
- More...
- Houston Truck Accident Lawyer
- Houston Dump Truck Accidents
- Accidents with Construction Vehicles
- Houston Truck Crash Attorney
- Houston Trucking Accident Lawyer
- Houston Truck Injury Lawyer
- Houston 18-Wheeler Accident Lawyer
- Flatbed Truck Accidents
- Houston Truck Accident Lawyers
- Houston Tractor Trailer Accident Attorney
- Big Rig Accidents in Houston
- Houston Truck Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Attorney
- Car Accidents
- Houston Automobile Accident Attorney
- How the Claims Process Works
- Statute of Limitations
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Denied Car Insurance Claims
- Damages Available in a Car Accident
- Negligent Entrustment of a Vehicle
- Injury to a Child
- Rollover Accidents
- Can You Trust the Insurance Adjuster?
- Auto Accident Attorney in Houston
- Conroe Car Accident Lawyer
- More...
- Injured in a Houston Car Accident?
- How Property Damage Affects Your Personal Injury Claim
- Rear End Collision
- Head, Neck and Back Injuries
- Soft Tissue Injuries
- Car Accidents Resulting in Psychological Damages
- Accidents Caused by Drivers on Their Cell Phone
- Getting a Rental Car
- We can help you get Medical Attention
- How to Handle a Car Accident Claim
- Houston Insurance Attorney
- How Uninsured and Underinsured Claims Work
- How Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Works
- How Witness Statements Affect Your Claim
- Accident Mediation Process
- How to Handle Disputed Liability
- Drunk Driving Accidents
- On The Job Injuries
- On the Job Injury Attorney
- Worker's Compensation
- Non Subscriber Cases
- Injuries Caused by Machinery
- Houston Drilling Accident Injury
- Houston Mesothelioma Cases
- Forklift Injury Cases Houston Texas
- Slip and Fall Accidents
- Conroe Work Injury Lawyer
- More...
- Houston Lifting Injury
- Industrial Accidents
- Houston Warehouse Injury Attorneys
- Shiping and Receiving Dock Injuries
- Houston Carpal Tunnel Office Injuries
- Houston Delivery Driver Injuries
- Subscriber Claims and Workers Compensation
- Loading Dock Accidents and Waterfront Injuries
- Houston Oilfield Injuries
- Toxic Exposure and Asbestos Cases
- Construction Accidents
- Job Site Injury Attorneys
- Workers Compensation Cases in Houston Texas
- Houston Non Subscriber Cases
- Construction Site Hazards
- Heavy Equipment Injuries in Houston
- Electric Shock Cases in Houston Texas
- Crush Injuries on Houston Construction Sites
- Power Tools Injuries and Accidents in Houston Texas
- More...
- Trench Collapses in Houston Texas
- Houston Hazardous Chemical Exposure
- Construction Accidents Caused by Equipment Malfunction
- Scaffolding Accidents and Injuries in Houston
- Houston Road Worker Injuries
- On the Job Burn Injuries
- Houston Crane Accidents
- Fallling Injuries in Houston
- Structure Collapse Cases Houston Texas
- Maritime Injuries
- Product Defect Liability
- Prescription Drug Injury
- Medical Malpractice
- Birth Injuries
- Day Care Child Abuse
- Drowning Accidents
- Other Vehicle Accidents
- Personal Injury Information
- Successes
- Meet Our Attorneys
- Information Center
- Main Information Page
- Attorney Referrals
- Legal Term Glossary
- Glossary Terms "A"
- Glossary Terms "B"
- Glossary Terms "C"
- Glossary Terms "D"
- Glossary Terms "E"
- Glossary Terms "F"
- Glossary Terms "G"
- Glossary Terms "H"
- Glossary Terms "I"
- Glossary Terms "J"
- Glossary Terms "L"
- Glossary Terms "M"
- Glossary Terms "N"
- Glossary Terms "O"
- Glossary Terms "P"
- Glossary Terms "R"
- Glossary Terms "S"
- Glossary Terms "V"
- Glossary Terms "W"
- Mission Statement
- Recent Cases of Note
- FAQs
- Contact Us
Michael Grossman recently tried a case for me. The case was very sensitive and very important to me and my family. As the trial progressed things were looking a little shaky. Mr. Grossman was able to take this difficult case and turn it into a winner. What a relief! It felt like the weight of the world was taken off of my shoulders. I would recommend Mr. Grossman to anyone looking for an excellent trial attorney. My faith in Mr. Grossman and his staff was handsomely rewarded. Justice prevailed!
-
K. Moore
Texas Wrongful Death Law
What Makes a Death a Wrongful Death?
Wrongful death lawsuits can be filed by some surviving family members or beneficiaries when a victim is killed due to another person’s or entity’s negligence.
The laws surrounding these accidents are part of the Texas wrongful death statute. The Houston wrongful death law firm of Grossman Law Offices is here to help you understand wrongful death claims. With twenty years of experience in litigating wrongful death claims against negligent parties, we’re well-prepared to help you seek compensation and see justice served in light of your loved one’s loss.
In order for a wrongful death lawsuit to be filed, four conditions must be met:
- The defendant must be the proximate cause leading to the victim’s death.
- The defendant must have been careless or negligent in regards to the victim’s well-being, either knowingly or unknowingly.
- Monetary loss must have been sustained by the plaintiff. These losses are known as damages.
- There must be a surviving family member, dependent, or beneficiary who can receive compensation for the victim’s death.
Who Causes a Wrongful Death?
When a wrongful death occurs, it is said that the negligent party has violated a legal duty that they owed to the decedent and that the violation that occurred was what caused the decedent to die. However, a liable party can be any party whose negligence contributed to a wrongful death occurring. This means that there could be more than one liable party to blame for a wrongful death. A sadly common occurrence of multiple parties in a wrongful death claim happens when a drunk driver kills someone. The driver is a liable party, but Texas dram shop law also holds that the alcohol-serving establishment that over-served the patron or knowingly allowed the patron to leave their premises while intoxicated can also be a liable party for any accident that the drunk driver then causes. Assessing liability, and the number of possible defendants, is often the first step in any wrongful death claim. Each defendant is responsible for awarding a certain percentage of compensation to the victim’s beneficiaries based on their portion of liability in the accident. By enlisting the help of an experienced Houston attorney that has a full understanding of Texas wrongful death law, you can be sure that a thorough investigation will be made into your loved one’s accident so that all liable parties are found and held accountable for their negligent behavior.
Who Bears the Burden of Proof in a Wrongful Death Case?
The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff. In other words, the plaintiff must seek legal action against a negligent party if they desire to be compensated for their loss. A liable party will not simply offer compensation out of the goodness of their hearts, nor will an insurance company do the same. Since the sum of compensation is often quite large in wrongful death cases, a plaintiff will likely have to seek experienced legal help in order to have the best opportunity at receiving fair compensation for their loss. In pursuing legal action through a wrongful death claim, the plaintiff, i.e. the victim’s family member or beneficiary, must be able to prove that the defendant or defendants possessed a majority of the liability for the accident. With our investigative techniques and knowledgeable Texas wrongful death law attorneys, Grossman Law Offices is often able to prove the truth of an accident scene such that justice is served.
Who Can File a Wrongful Death Case in Texas?
Texas wrongful death law allows for children, spouses, or parents that have lost a loved one to a wrongful death to pursue legal action against a negligent party through a wrongful death claim. In some instances, a sibling can also pursue justice through this route. If you’re unsure whether or not your relationship to the deceased will allow you to pursue compensation for your loss, contact our offices at 1-855-392-0000 (toll free) for a free consultation.
What Are the Types of Damages That Can Be Sought in a Wrongful Death Case?
Damages are the financial losses that a victim or a victim’s beneficiary has incurred as a result of an accident. Texas wrongful death law allows for two different types of damages to be sought in a wrongful death claim, known as survival damages and wrongful death damages. Survival damages relate to the damages that the decedent incurred prior to death and what they would have incurred had they survived the accident. These damages can include medical bills, pain and suffering, and lost wages. Properly assessing these damages can be challenging in that the damages must be justifiable. When talking about possible damages that the decedent might have incurred, it can take an experienced attorney to be able to show to a jury why the requested amount of compensation is justifiable.
On the other hand, wrongful death damages relate to the damages incurred by the family members or beneficiaries as a result of losing their loved one. These damages can include medical bills, funeral expenses, legal fees, loss of future income, pain and suffering, and loss of companionship. These damages must be fully and properly calculated so that the surviving family members are able to take care of themselves in light of their loved one’s loss. Proving loss of future earnings is an especially important part of calculating wrongful death damages, and it often takes an experienced Houston wrongful death lawyer like Michael Grossman to be able to properly calculate that rather subjective number so as to ensure that the family members are provided for in light of their loss.
What is the Statute of Limitations for Wrongful Death Cases in Texas?
Texas wrongful death law allows for an aggrieved victim to file a wrongful death claim against a negligent party within two years of the negligent action’s occurrence. However, certain exceptions exist that serve to lengthen the time frame in which a victim’s family can seek legal action through a wrongful death claim dependent upon the specifics of the accident. For example, a minor who has merit in bringing a wrongful death claim against a negligent party has, effectively, until the age of 20 to pursue such action. Technically, the statute of limitations begins for such a minor at the age of adulthood in Texas, 18, thus giving them two years from that point to bring a wrongful death lawsuit against a liable party. Other exceptions also exist in Texas wrongful death law in order to ensure that an aggrieved party has a fair opportunity to seek compensation and justice for their loss. If you fear that you might have a wrongful death claim to make but have missed the time frame in which to take action, consider contacting us at 1-855-392-0000 (toll free) to discuss your loved one’s accident as you may still have some legal recourse to see justice served.
What Are Some Common Obstacles in Wrongful Death Cases?
Wrongful death cases can present quite a number of challenges to a non-attorney, or even to an inexperienced attorney. Often, since an insurance company will likely be involved and the amount of compensation at stake will be quite valuable, the insurer will utilize their most seasoned adjusters to work the claim. Often, they will attempt to cast as much blame as possible on the decedent in order to not lose the likely sizable sum that’s on the line. As such, having an experienced Houston wrongful death law firm on your side like Grossman Law Offices can prove to be very helpful against these types on insurers since we’ve brought cases against every major insurer in the country. As such, our reputation often precedes us into a court case, often resulting in our clients being offered out-of-court settlements.
Wrongful Death Cases and Workers Compensation Insurance
In Texas, workers compensation insurance prevents an employee’s family from bringing a wrongful death lawsuit against the negligent company, save for one important exception. If a negligent company showed gross negligence, as opposed to standard negligence, in their role in the accident that killed one of their workers, a family of the decedent can legally bring a wrongful death lawsuit against that employer. However, proving gross negligence requires a high degree of proof since it must be shown that the employer was previously aware that a disastrous accident had a high likelihood of occurring before it actually occurred. Grossman Law Offices is familiar with both workers compensation laws in Texas and Texas wrongful death law. In other words, we can help you if your loved one was killed by the gross negligence of their employer.
The Sole Proximate Cause Defense
When a non-subscribing employer must defend itself from being accused of negligence, their defense must rely on only one defensive measure known as the sole proximate cause defense. In essence, the defense must be able to prove that the decedent was wholly responsible for their accident. This can be an especially troubling aspect of a wrongful death case as the family must endure their loved one’s competence to do their job being questioned without their loved one there to prove otherwise. As such, contacting Grossman Law Offices will provide you with a competent investigative team that will work to find evidence that will establish the truth of the accident’s cause. We work with your best interests in mind so that you can stand to receive proper compensation for your loved one’s loss. Furthermore, we will seek to have certain laws changed or amended where applicable in order to ensure that a future, similar accident doesn’t have to put another family through the same trials that you’re likely experiencing.
If You’ve Lost a Loved One to an Accident, Contact Us Quickly to Start an Investigation
Often, the enemy in wrongful death cases is not another person, but time itself. Hesitating just a day longer could mean the difference between full compensation and no compensation whatsoever. Evidence can get lost with time, or could even be manipulated by those that simply do not want to get caught. Witnesses could forget relevant details about the accident, or they may not even be able to be tracked down if even a few days pass after the accident has occurred. Furthermore, defense attorneys for the liable parties may have already visited the accident site in order to build a case against you. Be sure that you have proper representation that can react quickly and conduct a thorough investigation on your behalf so that you are well-positioned to seek justice on behalf of your loved one. By choosing to act quickly, even in light of the emotional upheaval you’re likely experiencing as a result of your sudden loss, you will likely be serving your own best interests. While we fully understand that the compensation you may receive through a wrongful death claim does nothing to replace the person you’ve lost, it can do much good towards helping you and your family recover from a sudden tragedy. This is even more true if the loved one you lost was the primary wage-earner for the household as you or your family’s financial future may be at stake.
Contact the Texas Wrongful Death Law Attorneys at Grossman Law Offices
As you can see, wrongful death lawsuits are very complex. Without the help of an experienced Houston wrongful death law attorney, you may have difficulty securing an adequate settlement. However, our offices have been helping families file wrongful death claims for twenty years and we know how to overcome the many difficulties you will likely face in this type of lawsuit. If you have lost a family member because of someone else’s negligence, contact the Houston wrongful death lawsuit settlement lawyers at Grossman Law Offices at 1-855-392-0000 (toll free) for a free consultation and start the process to get the compensation you deserve.
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$97,500.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / First-Party Dram Shop Accident
(policy limits were $100k) Recovery for wife of a motorcyclist who was killed in a drunk driving accident.
(policy limits were $100k) Recovery for wife of a motorcyclist who was killed in a drunk driving accident.
Total Recovery:
$97,500.00
$97,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$48,750.00
$48,750.00
Litigation Expenses:
$0.00
$0.00
$1,000,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man's vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.
Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.
Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.
Additonally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assasination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant's insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant's insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle.
Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers' Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier's exposure under the Stowers' Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits.
The defendant's attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney's threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney's advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court.
Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client's would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal.
(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man's vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.
Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.
Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.
Additonally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assasination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant's insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant's insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle.
Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers' Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier's exposure under the Stowers' Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits.
The defendant's attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney's threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney's advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court.
Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client's would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal.
Total Recovery:
$1,000,000.00
$1,000,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$333,333.00
$333,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$0
$0
$250,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) A young mother was killed in an accident involving two commercial vehicles, one an 18-wheeler. The accident occurred as the young woman was a passenger in a vehicle that was traveling down a highway in the early morning hours. Without warning, the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a stalled 18-wheeler that parked in the right of way, resulting in catastrophic injuries that claimed the young woman's life soon thereafter.
The authorities initially faulted the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was a passenger, stating that he was using an electronic device rather than paying full attention to the roadway. However, the 18-wheeler was indeed blocking the roadway and plaintiff alleged that the vehicle did not follow the requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act in regard to providing adequate reflective or laminated warning at specific intervals. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to remove his vehicle from the roadway when he first noticed signs of mechanical failure.
Had he simply moved to the shoulder of the road, plaintiffs argued, his lack of adequate warning signs would have been inconsequential. An initial settlement has been obtained in this case, yet litigation has commenced in full against the remaining defendant, and is currently ongoing.
(policy limits) A young mother was killed in an accident involving two commercial vehicles, one an 18-wheeler. The accident occurred as the young woman was a passenger in a vehicle that was traveling down a highway in the early morning hours. Without warning, the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a stalled 18-wheeler that parked in the right of way, resulting in catastrophic injuries that claimed the young woman's life soon thereafter.
The authorities initially faulted the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was a passenger, stating that he was using an electronic device rather than paying full attention to the roadway. However, the 18-wheeler was indeed blocking the roadway and plaintiff alleged that the vehicle did not follow the requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act in regard to providing adequate reflective or laminated warning at specific intervals. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to remove his vehicle from the roadway when he first noticed signs of mechanical failure.
Had he simply moved to the shoulder of the road, plaintiffs argued, his lack of adequate warning signs would have been inconsequential. An initial settlement has been obtained in this case, yet litigation has commenced in full against the remaining defendant, and is currently ongoing.
Total Recovery:
$250,000.00
$250,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$78,000.00
$78,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$370.00
$370.00
$3,200,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Automobile Accident
Our attorneys were hired to represent the family of a middle aged woman who was killed in a car accident. The incident occurred as another vehicle struck the car that the decedent was a passenger in, head-on on the passenger side. The impact resulted in catastrophic injuries which claimed the life of the decedent.
Our attorneys were hired soon after the accident and we launched a full investigation. Through the course of our investigation, it was soon determined that the head-on collision was caused a failed component in the defendant's vehicle (the particulars of which cannot be elaborated upon per the resolution agreement). Suit was filed against the manufacturer of said component and litigation commenced. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
Our attorneys were hired to represent the family of a middle aged woman who was killed in a car accident. The incident occurred as another vehicle struck the car that the decedent was a passenger in, head-on on the passenger side. The impact resulted in catastrophic injuries which claimed the life of the decedent.
Our attorneys were hired soon after the accident and we launched a full investigation. Through the course of our investigation, it was soon determined that the head-on collision was caused a failed component in the defendant's vehicle (the particulars of which cannot be elaborated upon per the resolution agreement). Suit was filed against the manufacturer of said component and litigation commenced. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$3,200,000.00
$3,200,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$1,280,000.00
$1,280,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an underide 18-wheeler accident. In addition to being a decorated veteran, the decedent worked both professionally and on a voluntary basis to establish numerous learning institutions and vocational programs for at risk youths. The accident occurred as the decedent was traveling on a rural highway when an 18-wheeler failed to yield the right of way and made a rolling stop through a stop sign.
This placed the trailer of the 18-wheeler in a position whereby it blocked the entire roadway and shoulder, leaving the decedent no option but to collide with the trailer. Witnesses on the scene attempted to revive him but to no avail. Furthermore, while two female eye witnesses struggled to pry open the decedent's door to provide emergency care, the truck driver stayed in his truck and offered no assistance. Despite what appeared to be an incredibly apparent case of negligence on behalf of the defendant, defense counsel refused to accept liability resulting in rather lengthy litigation.
The defendants initially denied the claim based on the allegation that the decedent was speeding and the truck driver therefore could not adequately gauge the amount of time he had to pause at the stop sign. The physical evidence contradicted this notion entirely, notwithstanding the fact that even if the decedent had been contributorily negligent, that would not have outweighed the severe degree of negligence on the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, our attorneys were able to conclusively refute this argument based on eye-witness testimony and the testimony from police investigators who calculated the decedent's speed to be precisely at the posted speed limit. In a desperate and largely unprecedented move, the defendants then designated the state as a responsible third party.
Generally speaking, a defendant will often threaten to designate a third party in order to leverage their position but it is rare that such an arbitrary and arguably frivolous designation is actually carried out. However, that is precisely what occurred and the state was thusly incorporated into the lawsuit by the defendants. The basis of the defendant's argument was that the state erected a large street sign that obstructed the truck driver's view of approaching traffic.
Several months of intense litigation were required to before the defendant finally acquiesced in regard to this argument. The argument was finally abandoned by the defendants when in the first mediation our attorneys presented video footage shot (in a controlled setting) from the perspective of an 18-wheeler driver which showed that the sign simply did not obstruct enough of the roadway in order to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation.
(policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an underide 18-wheeler accident. In addition to being a decorated veteran, the decedent worked both professionally and on a voluntary basis to establish numerous learning institutions and vocational programs for at risk youths. The accident occurred as the decedent was traveling on a rural highway when an 18-wheeler failed to yield the right of way and made a rolling stop through a stop sign.
This placed the trailer of the 18-wheeler in a position whereby it blocked the entire roadway and shoulder, leaving the decedent no option but to collide with the trailer. Witnesses on the scene attempted to revive him but to no avail. Furthermore, while two female eye witnesses struggled to pry open the decedent's door to provide emergency care, the truck driver stayed in his truck and offered no assistance. Despite what appeared to be an incredibly apparent case of negligence on behalf of the defendant, defense counsel refused to accept liability resulting in rather lengthy litigation.
The defendants initially denied the claim based on the allegation that the decedent was speeding and the truck driver therefore could not adequately gauge the amount of time he had to pause at the stop sign. The physical evidence contradicted this notion entirely, notwithstanding the fact that even if the decedent had been contributorily negligent, that would not have outweighed the severe degree of negligence on the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, our attorneys were able to conclusively refute this argument based on eye-witness testimony and the testimony from police investigators who calculated the decedent's speed to be precisely at the posted speed limit. In a desperate and largely unprecedented move, the defendants then designated the state as a responsible third party.
Generally speaking, a defendant will often threaten to designate a third party in order to leverage their position but it is rare that such an arbitrary and arguably frivolous designation is actually carried out. However, that is precisely what occurred and the state was thusly incorporated into the lawsuit by the defendants. The basis of the defendant's argument was that the state erected a large street sign that obstructed the truck driver's view of approaching traffic.
Several months of intense litigation were required to before the defendant finally acquiesced in regard to this argument. The argument was finally abandoned by the defendants when in the first mediation our attorneys presented video footage shot (in a controlled setting) from the perspective of an 18-wheeler driver which showed that the sign simply did not obstruct enough of the roadway in order to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workplace Accident
Major freight train company sued as the result of an incident which claimed the life of an employee. Our attorneys settled the case outside of court for a confidential amount.
Major freight train company sued as the result of an incident which claimed the life of an employee. Our attorneys settled the case outside of court for a confidential amount.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Premises Liability
Facility sued for negligent contribution to the death of an innocent bystander. A fatal shooting occurred on the property after the facility failed to appropriately respond to outbursts of violence & gang activity. Following the young man's death, his parents hired our firm to pursue the facility for their negligent actions including failure to provide adequate security. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
Facility sued for negligent contribution to the death of an innocent bystander. A fatal shooting occurred on the property after the facility failed to appropriately respond to outbursts of violence & gang activity. Following the young man's death, his parents hired our firm to pursue the facility for their negligent actions including failure to provide adequate security. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential
$250,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
Our attorneys were hired to investigate a fatal motor vehicle accident involving an 18-wheeler that claimed the lives of several men, the family of one in particular which our firm represented, felt that the official version of events as outlined in the police report was not an accurate portrayal of the facts and circumstances of the collision.
Our firm launched an investigation, the findings of which served as the basis for a subsequent lawsuit. We were able to determine that the defendant's accusations of contributory negligence on behalf of he driver of the vehicle did appear to be valid and plaintiffs conceded as much. However, the plaintiffs were adamant that the contributory negligence did not entirely overshadow the negligence on behalf of the defendant truck driver.
Through physical evidence and an admission of liability that our attorneys were able to importune from the defendant under oath, we were able to show that the defendant had indeed pulled into the path of the decedent's vehicle, which was of consequence irrespective of the decedent's own contributory negligence, and that icontact.com
Our attorneys were hired to investigate a fatal motor vehicle accident involving an 18-wheeler that claimed the lives of several men, the family of one in particular which our firm represented, felt that the official version of events as outlined in the police report was not an accurate portrayal of the facts and circumstances of the collision.
Our firm launched an investigation, the findings of which served as the basis for a subsequent lawsuit. We were able to determine that the defendant's accusations of contributory negligence on behalf of he driver of the vehicle did appear to be valid and plaintiffs conceded as much. However, the plaintiffs were adamant that the contributory negligence did not entirely overshadow the negligence on behalf of the defendant truck driver.
Through physical evidence and an admission of liability that our attorneys were able to importune from the defendant under oath, we were able to show that the defendant had indeed pulled into the path of the decedent's vehicle, which was of consequence irrespective of the decedent's own contributory negligence, and that icontact.com
Total Recovery:
$250,000.00
$250,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$82,500.00
$82,500.00
Litigation Expenses:
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$400,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Medical Malpractice
A young handicapped woman lost her life when a long-term care facility failed to provide her with treatment for obvious symptoms of severe illness. The defendants maintained that there were no outwardly visible signs of illness. The medical evidence showed otherwise. The case was successfully resolved through litigation, though damages caps imposed by tort reform were a factor.
A young handicapped woman lost her life when a long-term care facility failed to provide her with treatment for obvious symptoms of severe illness. The defendants maintained that there were no outwardly visible signs of illness. The medical evidence showed otherwise. The case was successfully resolved through litigation, though damages caps imposed by tort reform were a factor.
Total Recovery:
$400,000.00
$400,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$132,000.00
$132,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$100,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Medical Malpractice
(policy limits) Recovery for wrongful death/ nursing home negligence which resulted in bed sores which became infected.
(policy limits) Recovery for wrongful death/ nursing home negligence which resulted in bed sores which became infected.
Total Recovery:
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$33,133.00
$33,133.00
Litigation Expenses:
$400.00
$400.00









