A pedestrian was critically injured in a Spokane car accident in the South Hill area, according to a KXLY news report. The injury collision occurred at the intersection of 10th and Oak where the victim was hit by a car. The driver of the car fled the scene of the crash. The victim was taken to a local hospital. The pedestrian is believed to have sustained life-threatening injuries. The suspectas vehicle has been described as a light brown or blue sedan with a loud muffler.

As a Seattle car accident attorney, Kirk Bernard understands the serious consequences of hit-and-run accidents. Leaving the scene of an auto collision is a serious crime in Washington State and is punishable by jail time. According to the Revised Code of Washington Section 46.52.020: "A driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in the injury to or death of any person or involving striking the body of a deceased person shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such accident or as close thereto as possible but shall then forthwith return to, and in every event remain at, the scene of such accident until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of subsection (3) of this section; every such stop shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary."

A 50-year-old driver was injured in a Washington car accident after his 2005 Toyota pickup truck was rear-ended by a 1997 Nissan Maxima. The driver of the Toyota was making a left turn into the Sundown M. Ranch from the northbound State Route 821 in Selah, Washington, the Yakima Herald-Republic reports. Both drivers were transported to a local hospital. The extent of their injuries is not known. Officials believe that the woman driving the Maxima may have been inattentive just before the collision occurred. It is not clear what she was doing at the time.

Distractions and inattention amount to negligence when it comes to vehicular accidents. Distractions could include anything from talking on a hand-held cell phone, texting, eating, applying makeup or looking out the window at something that caught your eye. This is how most rear-end accidents are caused and several of these incidents often result in serious injuries. It could cause head injuries, spinal cord injuries or other types of neck and back injuries. Whiplash is one of the most common consequences of a rear-end collision. If you have been injured in a car accident as a result of a rear-end collision caused by a negligent driver, you can file a claim with the help of a Seattle car accident attorney seeking compensation for the medical expenses incurred as well as loss of wages.

Distracted driving is something that takes the lives of many innocent Missouri drivers each year in fatal car collisions. You would think that something so deadly would be heavily regulated in the hopes of eliminating the danger. Not so in Missouri. Compared to the rest of the nation, Missouri lacks the laws necessary to deter distracted drivers. Most states have four or five relevant laws; Missouri is one of 12 states that have one or none.

Currently, the only relevant law in the sate deals with texting while driving and only concerns those 21 or younger. To help improve the situation, a Distracted Driving Summit, moderated by Missouri State Highway Patrol Captain Tim Hull, was held in Jefferson City this week. The summit was intended to develop an education program that can be used across Missouri to inform the public about the deadly consequences of driving while distracted.

The summit began with a presentation by Jennifer Smith, whose mother was killed in 2008 after being hit by a man talking on a hands-free phone. Smith said that it's wrong to assume that hands-free devices are safe, saying that they too impede the driver's cognitive responses. "Yes, your hand is on the wheel, but your brain isn't seeing what's right in front of it."

Smith referred to this particular problem as "inattention blindness." A study conducted at the University of Utah has shown distracted driving places the driver's cognitive functions at a level similar to that of an intoxicated person with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent, equal to Missouri's legal limit.

Another shocking bit of information is that in the time it takes to send or read a text, a driver can travel the length of a football field. Even a moment of inattention can be deadly, as Smith has painfully come to understand. She said the number of fatalities resulting from distracted driving is comparable to one major aircraft crash per week. Instead of acting like it's a big deal that must be stopped the public has remained largely complacent leading to further unnecessary deaths.

Law enforcement officials have found that enforcing the texting while driving ban has been difficult. Although officers at accidents fill out crash reports and are supposed to have the power to subpoena phone records, that rarely happens.

Given the lack of distracted driving laws on the books in Missouri, law enforcement agencies must draft carefully worded city ordinances and use creative strategies to stop distracted drivers. One strategy is to pair up offenses like speeding and phone use, using high ground to be able to look into cars and spot the texting or talking.

Another major problem in the state is a lack of information. Few hard statistics exist about the real sources of distracted driving and numbers need to be shown for there to be action. To remedy the problems, a new crash report form and policy was introduced in January across the state. The form offers more detailed options to establish what exactly distracted the driver and differentiates between hand-held devices, hands-free devices, web browsing and other electronic activities.

With inattention listed as the primary cause of crashes in Missouri, personal injury attorneys across the state see more and more examples of the negative effects of such carelessness. The tragic consequences of distracted driving are why we at Sansone / Lauber repeatedly stress vigilance and awareness while operating motor vehicles. It only takes one or two seconds of distraction to cause irreparable damage. For information on how to protect your legal rights if you or a loved one has been seriously injured, call one of our Missouri car accident attorneys today at 1-314-863-0500.

Source: "Distracted Driving Summit aims to bring attention to statewide problem," by Alyssa Schueneman, published at ColumbiaMissourian.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri Highway Patrol Gives Advice to Drivers Following Fatal Wreck

Role of Property Damage Pictures in Missouri Car Accident Injury Trials

In Missouri, injury claims, such as a car or truck accident, are valued by the amount of harms and losses suffered by the victim. There are two general types of harms and losses or "Damages" in personal injury cases; (1) Special damages or economic damages: which include specific amounts billed or out of pocket, such as past and future medical bills, past and future lost wages, damage to property. The second general type of damages is (2) Non economic damages or pain and suffering. In the past medical bills were determined by the amount billed, not the amount paid. So if the injured victim was charged $100,000 in medical care but their insurance paid $50,000, at trial the evidence would be $100,000, not $50,000.

Currently, the billed versus paid amount being submitted to a jury is controlled by the Missouri Supreme Court case of Deck v Teasley. See St Louis injury law article: "Under Missouri Personal Injury Law, Medical Damages are Amount BILLED to patient, NOT Amount PAID by Insurance; assuming proper evidence is established by Plaintiff" However, What if the medical bills are only partially paid and not satisfied in full by a lower amount paid by insurance, can the defense make a rebuttable presumption of reasonable value being the amount paid? As a practicing St Louis PI lawyer I think the answer is no.

An affidavit as to the amount partially paid with a balance owed should not invoke the rebuttable presumption of reasonable value created by Missouri Statute 490.715. As the statute specifically provides that " (2) In determining the value of the medical treatment rendered, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the dollar amount necessary to satisfy the financial obligation to the health care provider represents the value of the medical treatment rendered. R.S.Mo. 490.715.5 (2) (emphasis added.) If the medical providers bills are not satisfied in full then the defendant should not be entitled to the statutorily created presumption. No provision of law, and certainly not R.S.Mo. 490.715, allows Defendant to urge that the partial payment of a medical bill which does not satisfy the balance owed is the reasonable value of medical services provided to Plaintiff.

The Deck case did not completely resolve the billed versus paid battle. This is currently still a tricky area of law and is handled differently by different judges. At trial many Judges are currently allowing the plaintiff to submit evidence of the total amount billed and allowing the defense to submit evidence of the amount paid. However, neither side is allowed to comment as to why the numbers are different. Neither side is allowed to mention insurance, neither medical insurance or auto insurance. So they issue of billed versus paid is still not completely settled, but good injury lawyers are making sure they submit the strongest evidence on behalf of their clients to at least get the amount billed in front of a jury whether it is submitted with the amount paid or hopefully, just by itself.

St Louis car accident attorney and personal injury lawyer Ben Sansone of the Sansone / Lauber law firm has been practicing injury law for over 10 years in the St Louis area and across Missouri and Illinois. Call (314) 863-0500 or contact an injury lawyer online for a free no obligation consultation today.

More and more often, personal injury cases are now involving my client's Facebook or other social networking accounts. Always assume, anything you put on your social networking account will be seen by the other side and can compromise your injury claim. Before the Internet, insurance companies, attorneys, law enforcement, collection agencies and other individuals responsible for investigating information had to work harder to verify statements from individuals. It was much harder to do many tasks that are taken for granted today such as case discovery, job hunting and so forth.

The rise of social networking websites such as MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn and other online communities have encouraged people to post anything and everything about themselves. Friends and acquaintances are not the only people taking notice. It has also become a crucial tool used by insurance companies, and other organizations, to gather evidence and seemingly innocuous posts on popular websites can damage a personal injury claim.

Attorneys use social networking websites to verify what the opposing party is doing. If someone gets into an accident and claims to have an injury while submitting documentation that he or she cannot work, an investigator can easily go look up the person's Facebook page. If the person's Facebook page displays pictures of them dancing or rock-climbing or doing something that contradicts what was told to the insurance company, that person has just sabotaged their case.

Being tagged in a photograph by a friend who does not have privacy settings on a Facebook page can also spell trouble. If a supposedly injured person is seen doing something they claim not to be able to do, it can be used as evidence to deny a settlement offer or dismiss a court case seeking money for injuries. While this article should not be read as encouraging deception, injured parties should be aware that anything posted online is not 100% private.

Your Missouri personal injury attorney recommends taking down or deactivating all individual social networking pages while a claim is being pursued. If you're not prepared to take the big step of deactivating your accounts, there are other precautions that can be taken short of that.

1. Immediately make your profile "private," and set all privacy settings to the highest level.
2. Remember to not discuss your accident, injuries or treatment, including any prescribed medication, on ANY social networking sites.
3. Avoid discussing recent activities you've engaged in, physical exertion, abilities and limitations, or any other information that may bear on what you can and cannot do because of your injuries. It's important to avoid this even if you're not directly talking about activities related to your lawsuit.
4. Remove all photographs and videos of you taken since your injury, and refrain from posting until your claim has been resolved.
5. Be sure you know everyone who is your "friend." Do not accept friend requests from people you do not personally know.
6. Review your friend list and block anyone you are not 100% sure you trust. Opposing parties could pose as a friend or get information from others who are to gain access to potentially incriminating information that could negatively affect your lawsuit.

The most important point to remember about personal injury: social networking is used by everyone for a multitude of purposes and any competent St. Louis personal injury lawyer should alert their clients to this reality. Before considering whether to continue a social networking presence, a personal injury claimant should consult a skilled Missouri personal injury attorney who can provide specific guidance and instruct a client to act accordingly. If you need advice with your personal injury claim, contact Sansone / Lauber law firm today for a free initial consultation at 1-314-863-0500.

Source: "Social Networking Impacts Personal Injury Cases," by Ann Sheeley, published at PBN.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

St. Louis churchgoer sues over injuries from excess "spirit" - Act of God?

Role of Property Damage Pictures in Missouri Car Accident Injury Trials

According to a recent article on KSDK.com, the Missouri State Highway Patrol has recently released several tips for drivers after a fatal accident along a busy stretch of interstate in St. Louis. Southbound Interstate 55 was closed just this week when a pedestrian was struck and killed by a tractor-trailer near Sidney Street.

Police say the victim, 67-year-old Moustafa Elmansy, got a call from a friend saying he needed help. The friend was pulled over on the shoulder of I-55 after his car had run out of gas. The victim bought gas and rushed out to help his stranded friend. When Elmansy arrived, he parked in front of his friend's stalled vehicle and began adding gas to the car when he was clipped by a passing semi. Police have said that the truck driver told them he never saw the victim prior to the impact.

Missouri State Highway Police Sergeant Al Nothum said that if a driver encounters vehicle issues "always yield to the right." This is because drivers have significantly more room on the right shoulder than the left. Nothum says following a few guidelines can save you from a potentially dangerous situation, risking not only injury, but also death. The left shoulder, where Elmansy was hit and killed, is not a place to be outside of the car. A good general rule of thumb is to stay inside your vehicle where you at least have some level of protection. Once a driver exits the vehicle their chance of injury increases exponentially.

The Missouri Highway Patrol also has a toll free number for drivers who find themselves in dangerous situations while on the interstate. "Call *55 and inform them where you're at," Nothum said. "Give them a good location and tell them you need assistance immediately." Highway Patrol says that someone will be dispatched immediately to provide a safe perimeter and assistance.

The victim that was tragically killed was married with children. Though it is a horrible accident, police so far believe no serious charges are expected. However, the investigation remains ongoing.

Suffering from a pedestrian accident caused by another person's actions can leave you facing injuries that will affect your life in a number of ways. You need to understand that you do have rights to protect during this difficult time so that you can move forward. You can resolve this matter in a beneficial way when you ensure that your case is handled properly so that you do not suffer medical bills, lost work wages and other costs. With the help of an experienced St. Louis car accident lawyer, you can begin to move forward with your case and regain your life.

The tragic consequences of traffic accidents are why we at Sansone / Lauber repeatedly stress vigilance and awareness while operating motor vehicles. It only takes one or two seconds of distraction to cause irreparable damage. Our Missouri car accident attorneys regularly handle car accidents and cases involving pedestrians being struck by other vehicles. For information on how to protect your legal rights if you or a loved one has been seriously injured, call our office today for free at 1-314-863-0500.

Source: "Missouri Highway Patrol offers tips after Moustafa Elmansy killed on I-55," by Steve Patterson, published at KSDK.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Defendant's Denial of Liability can Come back to Haunt Them

Evidence in Missouri Drunk Driving Car Accident Injury Case: Proving the Other Driver was Intoxicated

In Missouri auto accident cases, it is typical practice for insurance defense lawyers to outright deny all liability, even when the insured driver being sued is clearly at fault. I see it all the time and am amazed, especially when the car accident was caused by a drunk driver. Fault is often admitted directly by the driver, or even when they plead guilty to DWI or failure to yield, reckless driving, failure to maintain safe distance, or other traffic ticket they plead guilty to. Fault has been admitted to through a plea of guilty to the traffic violation and the accident is clearly their fault. So in their deposition the defendant, a drunk driver in my example, will admit they pleaded guilty to the DWI charge to get probation (an admission of fault) and that the injured victim or other driver was not speeding and do not do anything improper.

So a trial tactic insurance lawyers like to take, after dragging an injured person through months or years of litigation, is to say to a jury, "we know it was our fault so go ahead and give them a little money and pay their medical bills, but do not give them as much money as they are asking for." This is an attempt to gain credibility with the jury and act like they want to do the right thing and pay for the damages their insured driver caused. I immediately respond to these appeals to the jury with a statement to the affect that the insurance company has the gall to admit they are at fault, yet refuse (until now) to pay the Plaintiff for their injuries and drag them through litigation and a car accident trial.

Additionally, attack them with their prior legal pleadings denying liability, showing that they now claim they want to do the right thing, but all along have been denying liability. This tactic will be objected to and fought by the insurance lawyer, however, Missouri case law supports the proposition that the victim's lawyer can make this argument, even if the pleadings were later amended.

When a defendant takes a position at trial that is inconsistent with a prior pleading, that pleading may be received in evidence. "Such admissions are not binding on the party but may be employed for impeachment and are to be weighed by the trier of fact in the same manner as any other admission. Hall v. Denver-Chicago International, Inc., 481 S.W.2d 622, 628 (Mo.App.1972). The basis for receiving in evidence the pleading admission, later abandoned, is its inconsistency with the position taken at trial. Howell v. Dowell, 419 S.W.2d 257, 260 (Mo.App.1967)."

Thus, given that a prior or superseded or abandoned pleading may be received in evidence because of inconsistency with a position taken at trial, as an admission against interest, and/or for impeachment purposes, Bank of America, N.A. v. Stevens, 83 S.W.3d 47, 56 (Mo.App. S.D. 2002), precluding its use in advance would be improper.

This along with may other trial tactics are very important, often it is not enough for a jury simply to agree with the injury victim that the other driver was negligent, a good trial lawyer shows the defendant's disregard and lack of caring for what they did, which should result in a better result for the injured victim of the car accident.

See related blog:

Evidence in Missouri Drunk Driving Car Accident Injury Case: Proving the Other Driver was Intoxicated

Trial Evidence in Missouri Personal Injury Lawsuits - Can a Personal Injury Lawyer Admit into Evidence an SIS (Suspended Imposition of Sentence - probation in lieu of a conviction)

Injuries to cyclist happen all too often as a result of driver inattention. See Common Causes of Bike Accidents. Typically, the negligent driver will immediately claim they did not see the cyclist and claim that as their defense, basically shifting blame to a cyclist for not being seen by the driver, despite adequate lighting, visible clothing, and no violation of the law or negligence by the biker.

To be clear, negligence law in Missouri and just about every state in the US, requires unintentional breach of a duty, not intentional breach of a duty. Intentional breach of a duty, i.e. intentionally hitting a cyclist, is criminal assault and battery, and on the civil side is an intentional tort, such as assault, not negligence. Negligence is inadvertently or recklessly causing a collision. Examples of negligence: failing to hit your brakes in time and hitting the rear of another car, not seeing another cyclist or motorist and turning into their path of travel and casuing a collision, inadvertently cutting a cyclist off, inadvertently running a red light because you are looking at your cell phone, etc ... Therefore, the "I did not see them" defense and therefore "I did not do it on purpose" defense is not a defense at all.

I know this seems to be an obvious distinction, but in order to sway juries, defense lawyers try to mix up concepts of negligence and intentional acts as part of their defense, you cannot let that happen. Attempts to improperly influence the jury with the argument that because the bike injury or other accident was not caused by an intentional action, then the victim should not be compensated fully, because by fully compensating the victim you are somehow punishing the defendant who did not do anything on purpose.

Why is the negligence versus intentional act distinction important in bike injury and other personal injury cases?

This is a very important mindset you have to be prepared to deal with when going into a jury trial. During "voir dire", commonly know as jury selection, the victim's lawyer must discuss with the jury that the burden on the Plaintiff (victim) is to show negligence, not intentional conduct; but even more importantly, through jury selection and throughout the trial, the injury victim's lawyer must emphasize with the jury that the juries' job is to award money or compensate the Plaintiff for the harms and losses suffered, that is it! It is improper for them to consider impact on the defendant, their insurance company, or other factors, because once the jury determines the defendant was negligent then the only thing to consider is what amount of money will make up for the victim's harms and losses. The award of money damages is solely about past, present, and future harms and losses suffered by the victim. See Calculation of Damages in Injury Claims

See Also:

Bicycling.com article: The "Ignorance is Bliss" Defense

I personally see it all the time and in my experience as a St Louis med mal lawyer, most people are not surprised that doctors and nurses cover each other's backs to conceal mistakes and surgical errors even when the patient is severely injured or dies. Before I continue with this article, I must say that the vast majority of doctors and nurses are good, competent, and honest people. But when errors occur at the hands of the minority of incompetent medical care providers, it is not uncommon for there to be a cover up. Most healthcare providers justify the cover up, as to them the doctor or the nurse did not make the mistake on purpose and their intentions were to help the patient. They also feel that if a medical mistake is a "known complication", that automatically means they did not do anything wrong. Well.... as I like to say to a jury..... it is a "known complication" of driving a car that someone may be negligent, run a red light, and cause a car accident; that does not mean the driver who was not paying attention and who caused the "known complication" was not negligent. The same applies to healthcare providers. If they were accused of causing the injury on purpose, that would be criminal, not negligence. I am not exaggerating; I have had multiple defense expert doctors make that exact claim; that the defendant doctor did not do it on purpose, so he was not negligent. Amazingly, an educated person can say that with a straight face.

It is this attitude of many healthcare providers that leads to the justification to cover up 80% of medical errors. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human services, not according to lawyers associations, 80% of errors are unreported. The under reporting percentages applied just as much to medical malpractice wrongful death as to minor mistakes and injuries. Meaning medical errors and doctor negligence are often covered up, not reported, or reported in medical records as something else to hide malpractice. There are numerous articles about medical errors going unreported and recently ABC News published a story: "Report: Hospital Errors Often Unreported".

I have personally been the lawyer on several cases wherein the operative report indicated something completely different than the post-op radiology images. The operative report will be written as the operation went perfectly, but the post-op radiology images show surgical clips left in, anatomy cut that was not reported as being cut, and so on. One example is a negligent lap-choli case I am currently handling, the doctor's op report was flawless, yet he left multiple surgical clips in the patient on her common bile duct, blocking her bile from her liver to her small intestine and causing a major complication. See Surgical Clips Left on Common Bile Duct by Missouri Surgeon

Keep this information in mind this election year as I am sure politicians will preach about the necessity of "tort reform" and limits on damages. What they are really saying is that their lobbyists paid them a lot of money to push laws that give them special treatment. Already healthcare providers, in most states, have special protections under the law that shield them from responsibility in many medical malpractice situations. Politicians and their surrogates try to scare you with the talking points of needed tort reform to keep doctors from fleeing the state and to keep health insurance premiums for all of us from going up. Before you listen to that propaganda again, see Medical Malpractice "Tort Reform" Myths Proven Wrong by Statistics

See Also: Missouri Medical Malpractice Issues - Almost No Public Information About Serious Medical Errors

Often after a car accident or other injury the victim's future medical condition cannot be certain and often doctor's will opine that future surgery may be required as a result of the injuries sustained. This leads to the questions of ... when can the risk of future surgery be submitted to a Missouri jury for their consideration?

This issue was addressed by the Missouri Supreme Court in Swartz v. Gale Webb Transportation Co., 215 SW 3d 127 (MO 2007). This case arose from serious injuries, including lower back disc bulges, sustained after a car and bus collision. The plaintiff was the passenger in a car that was struck by a school bus owned by the defendant, Webb Transportation. The jury determined that the bus driver was at fault and as part of their verdict considered the need for potential future surgery. The defendant appealed claiming the jury should have never been able to hear medical testimony about future surgery and appealed on that ground.

The defendant argued that it was error to admit the doctor testimony that the Plaintiff's injuries put her at an increased risk of future surgery and other complications. Claiming that the experts were not able to testify that "more likely than not" the injured victim would need surgery in the future as a result of her injuries sustained. One expert testified that she had a 50/50 chance of requiring future surgery, a "more likely than not" standard requires a just a little bit more ...50.1% sure not just 50%. Additionally, the doctor admitted future surgery was "speculation" and could not be stated "within a reasonable degree of medical certainty". All buzz words or phrases that are problems for the Plaintiff to meet her burden of proof. See Injury Lawyer Article: Reasonable Degree of Medical Certainty Standard.

Despite the uncertainty of the future risk of surgery and problems, the testimony and evidence of future surgery and problems is admissible. It is admissible for purposes of establishing the nature and extent of the Plaintiff's current injuries.

"The fact that her back injury carries with it at least a 25 percent chance, and perhaps a 50 percent chance, of requiring surgery in the future makes it a worse injury than a back injury that has a lesser chance of future complications requiring surgery or that had fully healed by the time of trial."

Since the present injury brings with it this increased risk of future injury this "is information the jury should have in the difficult task of trying to give plaintiff's condition a dollar value." Because the testimony of doctors was admissible for the purpose of establishing the nature and extent of the victim's injuries, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony or in refusing withdrawal instructions.

Therefore, an experienced Missouri injury attorney will get any evidence of future problems in front of a jury so they can fully decide the damages to award and the full nature and extent of the injury. Even if it is speculation that the future surgery would be needed, it goes to the extent of the present injury. However, I believe if you want to ask for specific damages - the jury to award the cost of the future surgery - you need a doctor to testify it is more likely than not the surgery would be required and what the likely cost would be.

As a Missouri auto products liability lawyer, I was interested to read an Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion upholding quite a large verdict in a case involving brake failure. In Covel v. Rodriguez et al., the family of H. K. Covel sued Rodriguez Transportes, its owners and its insurance company, alleging the brakes on a Rodriguez bus were defective in the accident that took Covelas life. After a jury award for $2.8 million in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages, the defendants appealed, arguing that the plaintiffsa expert testimony was inadmissible. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court restored the verdict, noting that the defendants waived their appeal by failing to object to the expert at trial.

The Covel family asserted at trial that H. K. Covel was struck in traffic by another driveras car, pushing his pickup truck into the oncoming lanes of traffic. There, Covelas truck collided almost head-on with the bus, killing him at the scene. They alleged that faulty brakes on the bus made it harder to avoid the accidents. The Rodriguez defendants maintained that even if their brakes were defective, their driver could not have avoided the accident and the brakes were not a cause. After the juryas decision, the defendants moved unsuccessfully for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, then appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed with one judge dissenting. It acknowledged that the defendants never raised objections to the plaintiffsa expert testimony, and that admitting the evidence was not fundamental error, but still found that the testimony was legally insufficient on Daubert grounds.

On appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the plaintiffs argued that the expert testimony argument had been waived and therefore the appeals courtas decision was improper. Defendants countered that the admissibility is a question of law properly before the court. Citing federal precedent, the high court decided in favor of the plaintiffs. The Tenth Circuit has held that failure to object to expert testimony forfeits a Daubert challenge, it said; objecting creates an opportunity to clarify as well as rule. Trial courts are not required to challenge expert testimony without an objection. Similarly, Oklahoma rules require parties to object in order to establish that the expertas testimony is unreliable. Thus, any error in this expertas testimony is waived on appeal, the high court found. It further agreed with the court of appeals that there was no fundamental error in this case. After reviewing the testimony by both sidesa experts, the court found that the jury had sufficient evidence for its decision. It also dispensed with a slew of objections about how the trial was conducted before affirming the trial courtas decision.

This decision is pleasing to southern Illinois products liability attorneys like me. To establish liability in almost any product defect case, itas necessary to have an expert testify. The safety of a consumer productas design is almost always a specialized topic not easily understood by jurors unless they happen to work in a related field. As a result, any case involving defective automobiles or their parts is vulnerable to a challenge to the expert witnessas credibility. In cases where courts agree that the expert didnat have the right background or didnat adequately make the case, losing the expert sometimes leads to dismissal because the plaintiff simply canat find someone else in time. As a St. Louis motor vehicle accident lawyer, I prefer to win or lose on the merits of my cases, not on procedural grounds.

As a Missouri auto accident attorney, I know uninsured motorist benefits are some of the hardest to get from an insurance company, even if the facts are clearly on the driveras side. Insurance companies like collecting premiums for uninsured motorist claims, but after an accident, they will often use a hit-and-run or other facts that are hard to verify as an excuse to deny coverage. That was the claim made by Larry Squires in Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Squires, a decision by the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Squires was injured after swerving to avoid a box left in the road; the parties stipulated that an unidentified vehicle dropped the box. Allstate received a declaratory judgment in Pennsylvania state court that it did not owe Squires a settlement. The Third Circuit reversed, finding that direct contact with the uninsured vehicle was not necessary under the policy.

Squires put in a claim for uninsured motorist benefits after his accident. The relevant part of the disputed policy says Squires may recover for bodily injury aaris[ng] out of the ownership, maintenance or use of an uninsured auto.a Pennsylvania state law defines an uninsured vehicle to include aan unidentified vehicle that causes an accident resulting in injury,a provided that the victim report it to authorities and his or her insurance company. Allstate filed for a declaratory judgment that it did not owe benefits under the policy; Squires filed counterclaims for insurance bad faith and breach of contract. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings to Allstate and dismissed the claims by Squires, finding that the sole issue was whether the box-related accident arose out of the aownership, maintenance or usea of an automobile. It did not, the court said, and found that the policy only applied to accidents caused directly by a vehicle.

Squires appealed, arguing that contact with a vehicle was not necessary under the language at issue. The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately agreed. Seeking to understand what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would do, it examined Pennsylvania caselaw and concluded that under the aarising out ofa language in his policy, Squires can avoid summary judgment by alleging that the unidentified vehicleas use caused his injuries. The court cautioned that more may be needed to ultimately make a recovery. It also rejected a case heavily relied on by the district court, in which uninsured motorist benefits were denied to a boy who suffered injures as he bicycled, when another boy intentionally threw hay from the back of a truck. In that case, the injury was caused by the hay-throwing boy, the court said, but in this one, the falling box was a direct consequence of the use of the unknown vehicle to transport cargo. The appeals court noted that Pennsylvaniaas auto insurance statute is to be construed liberally and in favor of the insured in close cases. Thus, it reversed and remanded the case.

This ruling is good news for Squires and other Pennsylvania drivers. This decision clears the hurdle of whether the policy language applies to his case. Though the appeals court correctly noted that Squires must still prove his breach of contract and bad faith claims, he can now say his claim for insurance is valid. Thus, he may be able to collect the settlement and move on without worrying about proving the bad faith and breach of contract claims. Itas common, in my experience as a southern Illinois car accident lawyer, for insurers to narrow in on specific policy language as a reason to deny coverage. Thatas why itas important for accident victims to come to a St. Louis car crash attorney like me as soon as possible after realizing theyare not being dealt with fairly. Though negotiations and, when necessary, litigation, we can sometimes reach a fair settlement without the hassle of a trial.

As a Missouri auto accident lawyer, I know railroad crossings can be a serious hazard for Midwestern drivers. A crash between a car and a train is no contest at all, and some crossings, particularly rural ones, can be dangerously poorly marked. So I was interested to see an adverse ruling from the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a man who lost his wife in a train accident. In Cornwell v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Dennis Cornwell lost in trial court after the court dismissed three of his four expert witnesses testifying as to the crossingas safety. He challenged those dismissals on appeal and also the summary judgment granted to Union Pacific on other safety claims. The Tenth upheld the district court, finding its decisions well supported by precedent.

Renia Cornwell hit a Union Pacific locomotive at 11:45 a.m. at an at-grade crossing, killing her at the scene. Some, but not all, witnesses heard the trainas horn sound before the collision, and the trainas onboard recorders provided contradictory information on the horn. The crossing also had warning signs, but no lights or gates; the installation of those safety features was completed about a month after the accident. Dennis Cornwell eventually sued Union Pacific for negligent, reckless and intentional wrongdoing in the operation of the crossing and the horn. At trial, the Oklahoma district court excluded three of Cornwellas four witnesses, finding their testimony unreliable under Daubert. Cornwell went to trial with the fourth expert witness, but the jury found for Union Pacific.

On appeal, Cornwell argued that the district court incorrectly assessed the evidence the witnesses were offering. One, general railroad expert Alan Haley, Jr., was deemed unqualified, unreliable and relying on insufficient data. Two others, accident reconstructionist Robert Painter and his videographer, Bryan Schubert, were excluded because their accident reconstruction was dissimilar to the conditions of the actual crash, and also because they had trespassed on Union Pacific property during their research. The Tenth Circuit upheld these. Haley alacked the proper background,a the Tenth found, and frequently changed his opinions on specific factual issues like the reliability of the trainas onboard video. Thus, he would not be able to give meaningful help to the jury. Similarly, the Tenth found Painter and Schubertas reconstruction was speculative and conclusory because they tried to reconstruct Renia Cornwellas view using a minivan rather than an SUV and the wrong type of locomotive, and made assumptions about how her eyes would have tracked as she reached the intersection. However, it declined to reach the trespassing issue, noting that the Daubert reasons were enough to uphold their exclusion and well supported by Tenth Circuit precedent and other caselaw.

As a southern Illinois car crash attorney, I am disappointed in this ruling. Excluding witnesses is not just a procedural matter; excluding expert witnesses is essentially excluding evidence. Because thereas no clear other way to demonstrate certain issues to a jury, having experts excluded can sound a death knell for the case. For this reason, defendants like very much to exclude the plaintiffas expert witnesses, then try to have the case dismissed for lack of evidence. Itas also disappointing that the court declined to reach the trespassing issue, which is unusual a most accident reconstruction takes place on public roads not requiring permission, and permission from the adverse party might be difficult to get. As a St. Louis motor vehicle accident lawyer, Iad be pleased to see it revisited in other cases.

Much of my work as a Missouri auto accident attorney focuses on insurance coverage a whether insurers should pay claims of their insureds. This is more complex than it might sound, because insurance companies make the most money when the minimize what they pay on claims. And of course, they write their policies to minimize their payments, at least within the confines of the law a but state law allows injured drivers to fight back. That was what happened in Tripp v. Western National Mutual Insurance, an auto accident insurance case decided by the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Driver Cindy Tripp and her husband, Lyle Tripp, sued Western for bad faith and breach of contract when it refused to provide the full amount of their underinsured motorist coverage. They lost on the bad faith claim but won both the money and attorney fees, and the Eighth Circuit upheld the attorney fee award.

Cindy Tripp and her daughter were going shopping when their car was rear-ended by Jeffrey Christiansen, hard enough to deploy Christiansenas airbag. Tripp suffered $3,000 in property damage and recurring pain and sleeplessness that have affected her daily life and her work. After the crash, Western offered Tripp only the $5,000 limit of her medical-pay insurance; she settled with Christiansenas insurance company for an additional $87,000, then made a claim on her own underinsured motorist insurance for $150,000, the limit she could legally obtain. Despite estimating the caseas worth at $120,000 to $150,000, Western offered Tripp $10,000. Instead of taking the offer, she sued for breach of contract and bad faith. The jury found for Tripp on breach of contract and awarded her $150,000, but did not find bad faith. The trial court awarded Tripp attorney fees under a South Dakota state law allowing such an award when an insureras refusal to pay is avexatious or without reasonable cause.a

Western appealed the attorney fee award to the Eighth Circuit, arguing that the trial court was wrong on both the facts and the law to award the attorney fees because Western had won on the bad faith count. The Eighth disagreed. The South Dakota Supreme Court has consistently found no connection between insurance bad faith, a tort, and the statutory right to attorney fees when conduct was avexatious or without reasonable cause.a When a jury finds in favor of an insured on bad faith, the court noted, South Dakota caselaw requires a separate analysis of whether the refusal to pay was vexatious. Thus, the Eighth expressly ruled that attorney fees for refusal to pay that is avexatious or without reasonable causea can stand even when bad faith is not found, and requires a separate analysis. It also rejected Westernas argument that the facts donat support the avexatiousa finding in its case, noting that Western itself valued the claim at $10,000 to $140,000 more than its original offer to Tripp, and never investigated the loss independently. Thus, it upheld the district court.

As a southern Illinois motor vehicle accident lawyer, I applaud the ruling in this case. Judging by this opinion, neither the statute itself nor the caselaw in South Dakota supports Westernas position, making it odd that Western chose to fight the issue into the Eighth Circuit. While insurance companies may have all kinds of reasons to appeal their cases, this kind of protracted litigation can be hard on injured plaintiffs who are obligated to defend themselves and their judgments on appeal. An individual like Cindy Tripp is unlikely to have the financial resources to match Westernas, which means she may have been further strained financially by the case, after already suffering the economic losses of her injury. As a St. Louis car accident attorney, itas my job to level the playing field whenever possible in the face of this gross power imbalance.

An Illinois State Representative has introduced new legislation that would ban cell phone use while operating a vehicle throughout the State. Yet, the use of hands-free devices would continue to be allowed under the new law. Nine other states have enacted similar laws banning cell phone use while driving.

According to the Illinois Department of Transportation, cell phone distractions were the main cause of over 500 crashes in Illinois during the first half of 2010.

As an Illinois car accident attorney, I have seen the serious injuries that can result from distracted driving. Although I appreciate the everyday convenience that cell phones provide, I support this legislation because I believe it will reduce the amount of serious injuries and deaths that result from cell phone distracted driving.

As a Chicago car accident attorney, I want to express my support for the new Illinois law requiring that adults wear seat belts while riding in the back seat of a vehicle, which took effect on the first of this year. As winter weather conditions make Chicago area roads more dangerous, the simple step of wearing a seat belt can prevent serious injury or death in the event of an accident.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2010, 38 un-belted back seat passengers died in car crashes in Illinois. While this may seem like a relatively small number, many of these deaths likely could have been averted if the passengers were wearing their seatbelts. I strongly encourage Illinois motorists to follow this new law to avoid getting a ticket, and more importantly, to prevent serious injuries or death.

I am disturbed by the story of a recent arrest of a California teen. As a Chicago auto injury attorney, I am all too familiar with the deadly combination of teens, alcohol and reckless driving.

18 year old Ryan Armstrong was driving under the influence when he crashed his car, killing his passenger. According to Officer Robert Lehman of the California Highway Patrol, the Carmel Valley resident was arrested on charges of felony DUI and vehicular manslaughter.

Armstrongas vehicle drifted off of the edge of Tasajara Road, and rolled several times. His passenger, Keenan Lucero, 19, of Carmel, was not wearing a seatbelt and was thrown from the vehicle as it flipped. Lucero died at the scene.

Lucero was a well-liked student-athlete at Carmel High School and went on to Chico State University.

Two other passengers suffer minor to major injuries.

This tragedy might serve as a reminder to all about auto safety. I strongly urge my clients to always wear seatbelts when travelling in a vehicle and to be cautious and alert -- not only as a driver, but also as a passenger. The family of Kevin Lucero and other victims of careless drivers have the right to seek justice for their losses, pain, and suffering.

The Chicago Tribune reports on a recent lawsuit settlement.To summarize: seven years ago, Gregory Jones, 8, and Datondra Mitchell, 11, were hit by an unmarked police car. Jones died shortly thereafter, and Mitchell suffered serious injuries.

The officer who hit the children claimed that he was in pursuit of a vehicle, after he had seen a man in the vehicle pointing a gun at a pedestrian. However, police investigation never located the suspect, or the car Officer Mark Delboccio was chasing.

Recently, the City Council Finance Committee awarded $6.5 million to settle the lawsuit as a result of this horrific incident a $590,000 to the girl, now 18, and the remaining to the boyas family for their losses. The full council will vote on the settlement this upcoming Thursday.

As a Chicago auto incident attorney, I see tragic cases like this that may call for a wrongful death lawsuit. Wrongful death claims mean that a person, or an institution, wrongfully causes the death of someone else. Families who are dealing with tragedy of this sort have legal rights to financial compensation. A person who is negligent should be held accountable for their wrongful behavior that causes the loss of a loved one, pain, and suffering. A wrongful death claim may arise in many types of law including medical malpractice cases, nursing home cases, and like in case of Gregory Jones, auto accidents.