Niño de Lesiones en un Accidente de Automóvil
Ha Sido su Hijo Herido en un Accidente de Carro? Es Posible que se le Debe Compensación
Si su hijo resulta herido en un accidente de coche, es importante saber que sus hijos tienen los mismos derechos que usted, su cónyuge, o cualquier otro adulto y que tienen derecho a una indemnización por daños y perjuicios ocasionados.
La principal diferencia entre las lesiones a un niño sostiene y la de un adulto, es que la atención especial debe ser ejercida con el fin de garantizar que todas las lesiones son totalmente descubierto y que el futuro del niño, en términos de cómo la lesión afectará su vida , se considera. Un abogado con experiencia, como los abogados de accidentes de coches de Dallas aquí en Grossman Oficinas de la Ley, puede hacer un cálculo justo y justificable de los daños para asegurarse de que su hijo es una indemnización justa por sus lesiones.
Los daños a un niño tiene derecho a ser compensados por
Los daños que un niño tiene derecho a una indemnización por son los mismos que un adulto tiene derecho a recibir. Hay dos tipos de daños pueden ser concedidas en virtud de la ley de Texas - daños generales y especiales de los daños. Los daños generales pueden variar considerablemente, y el valor potencial es subjetiva. Ejemplos de daños generales son el dolor y el sufrimiento, angustia mental, impedimento físico, sufrimiento emocional y la desfiguración. daños especiales son más específicas en su valor financiero. Ejemplos incluyen la pérdida de salarios y pérdida de capacidad laboral , gastos médicos, daños a la propiedad y los costos judiciales. Si bien la pérdida de salarios puede no ser aplicable a la mayoría de los niños (tener en cuenta que un estudiante de secundaria con un trabajo a tiempo parcial sigue siendo considerado como un niño bajo la ley de Texas), pueden reclamar daños y perjuicios específicos para otras cosas tales como cuentas médicas y otros tipos de daños y perjuicios.
Estatuto de Limitaciones de extensión para un hijo menor de edad
Al igual que con los adultos heridos, hay limitaciones de tiempo para presentar una demanda. En general, los adultos tienen dos años a partir de la fecha del accidente para iniciar acciones legales. Pero el estado de Texas permite más tiempo para los hijos menores. Sea cual sea la edad del niño es en el momento del accidente, la ley de Texas permite que la acción legal, hasta que dos años después de cumplir los 18 años del niño. La extensión del mismo cuerpo legal se aplica a los hijos menores de edad que solicitaron para la muerte injusta de un padre. En efecto, la ley comienza la cuenta atrás desde el día que el niño se convierte en un adulto. Esta extensión de la ley se instituyó para garantizar que el niño no pierde el derecho a una indemnización, simplemente porque estaban a merced de un padre o tutor que no lo tomó sobre sí mismos para presentar en nombre del niño.
Independientemente de donde usted vive en Texas, la ley es la misma. Para su comodidad, Grossman Law Offices sirve a todos los de Texas, y nosotros no le cobramos un centavo a menos que ganemos. Nuestros abogados pueden ayudarle con lesiones accidentes de auto .
Recovered for client who was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler resulting in soft tissue injuries and chiropractic treatment.
$60,000.00
$20,000.00
$1,050.00
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
The family of a deceased woman hired our firm following a fatal 18-wheeler accident. The fatal accident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered out of his lane, resulting in a massive collision. The decedent, a passenger in a vehicle, died on the scene.
Her adult children consulted our firm to initially investigate the accident and make sense of the facts and circumstances since the family felt that the police report did not make it clear enough precisely what occurred. We launched a full investigation an immediately deposed the investigating officers.
Upon the completion of our investigation, it was apparent that the trucking company was indeed negligent and a lawsuit was soon filed. The defendant's launched an aggressive defense whereby they initially claimed that the truck driver was overcome by his passenger who allegedly grabbed the steering wheel and deliberately drove the truck off the road, despite the truck driver's best efforts.
We refuted this claim by illustrating that the tire marks that were present clearly show the truck gradually moving across the road and eventually onto the grass, which is entirely inconsistent with an abrupt lane change caused by someone taking control of the wheel. It was quite an unusual defense strategy that we were frankly surprised to even find ourselves having to refute.
The defendants then argued that a tire blowout may have contributed to the accident, which is significant because it would enable the defendant to offset some portion of their liability to a tire manufacturer or installer. Through deposition testimony of the investigating officer we established that there was absolutely no indication at the scene of the accident that a tire had blown out.
Finally, the defendants argued that the company which loaded the trailer may have improperly loaded the cargo. This argument was most plausible considering that the precise cause of the decedent's death was that she was essentially pummeled by cargo that broke through trailer and struck her person.
Our firm consulted several experts in the fields of heavy cargo transportation and physics. Our experts felt that the cargo was secured in a manner that is perfectly consistent with industry standards and that due to the forces involved, the cargo would not have behaved any differently irrespective of how it was secured. In short, the collision caused the cargo to break free and the negligence lay squarely on the trucking company and not any other entity. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
$2,000,000.00
$775,000.00
$25,000.00
Recovered for client injured in a liquor liability accident.
$100,000.00
$40,000.00
$5,000.00
(policy limits were $100k) Recovery for wife of a motorcyclist who was killed in a drunk driving accident.
$97,500.00
$48,750.00
$0.00
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.
$3,200,000.00
$1,280,000.00
$50,000.00
The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
$335,000.00
$134,000.00
$63,000.00
Recovery for accident victim who suffered soft-tissue back injury caused by rear-end collision.
$75,000.00
$30,000.00
$2,700.00
(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.
$1,000,000.00
$333,333.00
$0.00
(policy limits) Recovery for client who sustained a broken leg in a car accident.
$47,500.00
$19,000.00
$168.00