Blog Home

Although Seat Belts Are Great, They Can Fail. So If You Think that a Seat Belt Has Caused an Injury or Made it Worse, Seek Legal Advice.
Posted by: David Abney
August 13, 2010
Topic: Seat Belts and Air Bags

Do not think that we are telling you not to use seat belts because some seat belts are poorly built or badly designed and fail to protect the drivers and passengers using them. Statistically, you are overwhelmingly safer using seat belts. In a crash, they almost always keep you from being ejected from the vehicle and keep you from violently striking a windshield, dashboard, steering wheel, window, or other interior surface.

But as the passenger-liner Titanic and the space-shuttle Challenger remind us, nothing that people make is perfectly safe. Seat belts can and do cause injury and death. For instance, some seat belts suffer from "film spool," which lets the shoulder part of a three-point seat belt slacken. That can let the person wearing the seat belt snap forward viciously in an accident, causing permanent paralysis or even death. For example, a recent case involved a five-year-old girl using a three-point seat belt in a Ford Taurus. The seat belt had "film spool," and its slackness in a collision caused her to upper body to lurch violently forward. That caused a spinal-cord injury with permanent loss of all feeling in her body below her rib cage. Stark ex rel. Jacobson v. Ford Motor Co., 693 S.E.2d 253 (N.C. App. 2010).

A related problem is failure to lock. For instance, the driver of a Ford Escort was properly wearing his three-point seat belt when another vehicle crashed head-on into his car. The lap-belt part of the seat belt locked properly, and the driver had no injuries to the lower part of his body. But the retractor on the shoulder restraint was defectively designed, and failed to lock, causing the driver to suffer a severe head injury. Force v. Ford Motor Co., 879 So.2d 103 (Fla. App. 2004).

Another defect in some seat-belt designs is a tendency to come unlatched in an accident--just when you most need the seat belt to stay closed. For instance, an eighteen-year-old girl was killed when the buckle of her GM Tahoe's seat belt came unlatched because of an "inertial release." That happens when the forces of a collision exert pressure on the defective seat belt just as if someone has pressed the seat belt's release button. When the Tahoe's seat belt suffered inertial release, the seat belt flew open, and the girl was thrown from the vehicle. Frazier v. Honeywell International, Inc., 518 F. Supp. 2d 831 (E.D. Tex. 2007).

In addition, some seat belts that are designed well are made badly. For instance, a man driving a Ford Ranger pickup truck braked hard when traffic in front of him stopped suddenly. Although the man was wearing his seat belt, it came unbuckled, letting his body fly forward. His head hit the windshield and his right shoulder struck the car's interior. An expert examination of the seat belt revealed that the seat belt's latch spring was badly manufactured and had fatigue cracks that had let the seat belt pop open during the crash. Znaor v. Ford Motor Co., 159 P.3d 1252 (Or. App. 2007).

Once again, use your seat belts. They almost always protect you very well in a collision. But if you or your loved ones have been hurt in a crash, and you believe that a seat belt has failed, don't think that you are just imagining things. Seat belts can be badly built or defectively designed. So if you have been involved in a serious accident and suspect a seat-belt problem, consult the lawyers at Knapp & Roberts--lawyers who understand that seat belts can fail to do their job properly.

Permalink

Statutes of Limitations: Only an Expert Can Deal with Them Properly
Posted by: David Abney
August 04, 2010
Topic: Statutes of Limitations

Thanks to books, television, and movies, a surprising number of adult Americans understand that there are strict time limits for bringing a personal-injury or wrongful-death case. But many adults still do not know about those time limits. And even among those adults who do, they often do not realize how little time they have to protect their legal rights. This article will help you understand the complications and dangers connected with the time limits for suing and for presenting claims.

Let's start with the term "statute of limitations." A "statute of limitations" is a law setting a time limit on bringing a legal claim or filing a lawsuit. All states -- and the federal government -- have statutes of limitations for filing claims and lawsuits. And they can be vastly different. Some states, like Minnesota, have a six-year statute of limitations for personal-injury cases. Other states, like Kentucky and Tennessee, have a one-year statute of limitations for personal-injury cases. So although you can loaf a bit in some places, swift action is key in others.

But what about situations where you don't even know that you have been hurt until your symptoms appear? For instance, a worker negligently exposed to asbestos may not show symptoms until decades later -- and then a painful death will swiftly come. A surgical patient may not realize that the surgeon has left scissors inside the patient's abdomen until years later, when the scissors shift and pain erupts. To make allowance for that, most states, and the federal government, have decided that the time does not start running on a claim or lawsuit until the injured person knows, or reasonably should know, both that there has been an injury and who caused it. That is called the "discovery rule."

But there are many other dangers and complications. For instance, if you were injured by a public employee or a public entity (federal, state, county, local), there are special rules. In Arizona, for example, a person injured by a state or local employee acting for a public entity only has 180 days from the date of injury to file a notice of claim with the public entity. And there is only a one-year statute of limitations for suing the public entity and the public employees. If the injured person fails to file a proper and timely notice of claim within the 180-day deadline, the entire case is over. For federal claims, the time limit for filing a notice of claim is two years, with other special rules on filing a lawsuit.

The law provides some leeway for minors and for people of unsound mind. Most jurisdictions stop ("toll") statutes of limitations for minors and for people who are mentally unable to protect their legal rights. But once the minor becomes an adult, or the person of unsound mind gains the capacity to protect that person's rights, the time starts running again.

Statutes of limitations have so many rules and exceptions that only an expert can hope to unravel them properly. Deal with statutes of limitations yourself, and you may soon discover that you have lost your claim and destroyed your lawsuit. Any time you have a wrongful-death claim, or a serious personal-injury case, the best thing you can do is to contact Knapp & Roberts at once for professional, expert advice on the relevant statutes of limitations. Any delay could be fatal.

Continue Reading

Three Great Reasons to Wear Seat Belts: Two You Know. But Number Three May Shock You.
Posted by: David Abney
July 27, 2010
Topic: Serious Personal Injury

There are three powerful reasons for a motor vehicle's driver and passengers to wear seatbelts. First, wearing seatbelts protects every vehicle occupant from serious injuries and death. Second, not wearing a seatbelt is illegal, and can result in a traffic citation and a fine. Third, not wearing a seatbelt can mean that, if you are injured in a traffic collision--even if the collision was not your fault--you could lose the right to recover all or part of your damages.

First, as far as safety, Ray LaHood, Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation, has accurately said that, "Wearing a seatbelt costs nothing and yet it's the single most effective traffic safety device ever invented."

While seat belts have been around since the first cars, the breakthrough in seatbelt technology occurred in 1958, when Volvo safety engineer Nils Bohlin invented the 3-point seatbelt. Volvo quickly released the patent to let other car manufacturers offer the revolutionary design in their vehicles. Researchers now estimate that the 3-point seatbelt has saved over one million lives, and that using it cuts the risk of fatalities and serious injuries in half.

A May 2009 report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showed that the national average for seatbelt usage among drivers was at an all-time high of 83%, up from 81% in 2006. Achieving a 90% seatbelt-use rate across America will save 1,652 lives and prevent 40,000 nonfatal injuries each year.

One myth about seatbelt use needs debunking. An urban legend is that pregnant women are better off not wearing seatbelts. But a first-of-its-kind, detailed crash-analysis study in the May 2008 issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology proved that about 200 fetuses could be saved every year with proper seatbelt buckling each time a pregnant woman travels in a motor vehicle. (The proper seatbelt technique for a pregnant woman is for the lap belt to be low, under the belly, and for the shoulder belt to be crossing in the center of the chest.)

Besides safety, most states have laws requiring seatbelt use. Some state laws are strangely weak. In Arizona, for instance, the maximum fine for not wearing a seatbelt is $10. In Texas, on the other hand, the maximum fine is $200. Still, even if the fine is low, you can avoid it entirely, and be far safer, by always wearing your seatbelt.

Finally, in many states, such as Arizona, if you are hurt in a motor-vehicle crash that was not your fault, and were not wearing your seatbelt, you could lose your right to recover some or all of your damages. The reason is something called the "seatbelt defense." Here's how it works: A motor-vehicle crash badly injures you when you are ejected from your car. Because of your injuries, you have a personal-injury claim worth at least $250,000. But expert evidence proves that, if you had been wearing your seatbelt, you would not have been ejected and would not have suffered more than a few bruises. If the jury believes that, you'd lose your $250,000 in damages and maybe get a few hundred dollars-if you're lucky. So if safety and avoiding fines for not wearing your seatbelt don't motivate you to wear it, maybe the "seatbelt defense" will.

The point is simple and clear. Wear your seatbelt. Make sure that all of your passengers wear their seatbelts. Be safe and be legal. And if you are ever in a serious motor-vehicle accident, be smart, and contact the Knapp & Roberts law firm for a free consultation.

Permalink

Uninsured-Motorist and Underinsured-Motorist Coverages: They're Not Only Cheap, They Cover You Almost Anywhere.
Posted by: David Abney
July 26, 2010
Topic: Auto Insurance

Uninsured-motorist and underinsured-motorist coverages are some of the insurance industry's best-kept secrets. They're cheap and cover you and your loved ones almost anywhere. We encourage all drivers to ask their insurance agents about making sure that they have ample uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages.

But first you need to understand what the products are, why you should buy them, and what they cover. First, uninsured-motorist coverage provides coverage for you, your family members who live with you, and your motor vehicle's passengers. It covers medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering that may result from a motor-vehicle collision. The trigger for uninsured-motorist coverage is a collision with a driver who has no liability insurance. Since about one-third of all drivers have no liability insurance, uninsured-motorist coverage is an important way to protect you and your loved ones.

Second, underinsured-motorist coverage applies when you are in a crash with a driver who has insurance, but not enough to cover your bodily injuries. For instance, suppose a driver who only has $15,000 in liability-insurance coverage causes a crash that breaks your arm. You have $30,000 in medical bills and other bodily injuries. The other driver's liability insurance will only cover $15,000 of your damages. In a case like that, the other driver is "underinsured," and you have the right to recover $15,000 from your own underinsured-motorist insurance coverage-if you had the sense to buy it.

Uninsured-motorist and underinsured-motorist coverages are far cheaper than liability-insurance coverage. If you or your loved ones use either of those coverages just once, you will probably receive more money from them than you would pay in a lifetime of premiums to buy them. Moreover, if you did not cause the collision, the fact that you received underinsured-motorist or underinsured-motorist benefits to help pay for your bodily injuries will not make your own insurance premium go up.

Finally, most people do not know that their uninsured-motorist and underinsured-motorist coverages follow them almost everywhere. Those coverages protect you when you are riding in someone else's motor vehicle, when you are walking, when you are riding a bicycle, or even when you are sitting on your porch. In fact, suppose you are sleeping in your bed when an uninsured truck driver negligently loses control of his truck and crashes into your bedroom, breaking your arm. Since that crash was motor-vehicle related, your uninsured-motorist coverage will cover your bodily injuries. (All of that is true if the negligent driver was underinsured, and you have underinsured-motorist coverage.)

The moral of the story is simple. Your insurance agent should offer you the chance to buy uninsured-motorist and underinsured-motorist coverages. If not, ask for them. They are far less expensive than liability insurance coverage, so buy as much as you can reasonably afford. Use one of these coverages just one time, and you have probably recovered more than a lifetime of their premiums. And never forget that the coverages apply almost everywhere. (They usually won't cover you outside the United States, unless you buy special coverage for foreign travel, but that's a different story.)

Protect yourself and your loved ones by your own safe driving. But you also need to protect yourself and your loved ones by buying insurance to safeguard against drivers who have no liability insurance-or who do not have enough to cover the harm they may cause to others. Finally, if you are in a serious accident, consult lawyers with the experience and knowledge to help you, like the lawyers at Knapp & Roberts.

Permalink

Knapp & Roberts Law Firm Wins Precedent-Setting Appellate Victory for Abused and Neglected Adults
Posted by: Craig Knapp
July 21, 2010
Topic: Assisted Living Facilities

The law firm of Knapp & Roberts has won a landmark victory for abused and neglected adults. On June 29, 2010, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in Estate of Braden v. State of Arizona that the State of Arizona and its agencies must treat incapacitated and vulnerable adults with the same care and attention that the Arizona Adult Protective Services Act (APSA) requires from private caregivers. The opinion is a first in Arizona.

Jacob Braden was an exceptionally disabled young man suffering from a host of medical problems, including seizure disorders, spastic quadriparesis, clinical blindness, severe hearing deficit, and an inability to speak or communicate. Because of these tragic conditions, for many years the State had been providing around-the-clock care for Jacob through one of its many agencies-the Division of Developmental Disabilities of the Arizona Department of Economic Security. Jacob had a hard life, but he was coping as well as he could, and should have lived for many years.

But Jacob died at age 19. The immediate cause was internal bleeding from a blunt-force traumatic fracture of his thoracic spine. The medical examiner who autopsied Jacob called his death "suspicious, unnatural, and unusual." Knapp & Roberts conducted an intense investigation, which uncovered a shocking pattern of neglect and abuse, including widespread bruising, rectal bleeding, multiple fractures, chronic lack of supervision, anemia, and malnutrition.

The State of Arizona, however, refused to admit that it had the duty to control, manage, or direct the care that its agency provided Jacob-or to protect him from neglect and abuse. In a clear, strong opinion, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that the State had assumed a legal duty to care for Jacob. Moreover, the Court held that the State was not immune from liability under the Arizona Adult Protective Services Act. As the Court wrote, if the Arizona Legislature had wanted to provide immunity to the State, it "could have done so." But it did not.

Knapp & Roberts overturned an adverse trial-court ruling and won a precedent-setting victory against the largest law firm in Arizona-the Office of the Arizona Attorney General. No longer can the State evade its legal duty to supervise the care that its agencies and caregivers provide for incapacitated and vulnerable adults like Jacob Braden. This opinion means that Jacob did not die in vain. His death will bring better care-and justice-for hundreds of other incapacitated and vulnerable adults.

Permalink