Bufete de Abogados en Dallas de Muerte Injusta
Los abogados de nuestra Bufete de Abogados en Dallas de Muerte Injusta explicarle sus derechos si usted ha perdido un ser querido debido a la negligencia de otros
Si su familia ha perdido a un ser querido debido a las acciones o la inacción de la otra parte, nuestra experiencia Bufete de Abogados en Dallas de Muerte Injusta puede ayudarle a entender los derechos y determinar el mejor curso de acción.
La información contenida en este artÃculo se proporciona ayuda a entender las complejidades legales y las sutilezas de las leyes de Texas por homicidio culposo con el fin de ayudar a su familia en la toma de una decisión educada. Esta información ha sido acumulada durante décadas de batallas legales y las victorias obtenidas a través del trabajo duro y determinación de los abogados de nuestra firma y el personal. Mientras que ninguna cantidad de dinero cada vez traerá un ser querido de nuevo, nuestros abogados están comprometidos con el objetivo de asegurarse que los responsables comparezcan ante la justicia, que la familia del fallecido una indemnización adecuada, y que los responsables se ven obligados a cambiar sus caminos para que nadie más va a sufrir el mismo destino. Esperamos que la información proporcionada a continuación es de gran ayuda, pero por favor no dude en llamarnos para cualquier pregunta sobre la muerte de su ser querido y las ramificaciones legales posteriores. 1-855-426-0000 (gratis).
¿Cómo Trabajan los Casos de Muerte por Negligencia en Texas?
Por desgracia, muertes injustas son bastante frecuentes en Texas, nuestro estado tiene el dudoso honor de liderar la nación en la mayorÃa de las formas de los accidentes mortales.
La legislatura de Texas ha redactado proyectos de ley que establece que ciertos familiares supervivientes pueden perseguir a las personas o entidades responsables de la muerte de sus seres queridos (la parte responsable se conoce como el demandado). Pero, ¿qué es exactamente lo que los fabricantes las leyes de Texas dicen que en lo que respecta a este asunto? De acuerdo con las Prácticas Civiles de Texas y el Código de Recursos, las leyes de Texas están diseñados para mantener ofensores responsables de las lesiones y la muerte que infligen a las partes inocentes haciéndolos soportar la carga financiera de tal pérdida.
Al igual que con todas las causas civiles en Texas, los hombros de la familia de la vÃctima la carga de la prueba de que el demandado está obligado a indemnizar a la familia. Esto se establece al demostrar que el acusado fue la causa inmediata de la muerte del difunto. Establecer el nexo causal es generalmente el resultado de la investigación y la recopilación de pruebas / conservación realizada por una empresa con experiencia Bufete de Abogados en Dallas de Muerte Injusta. A la demostración de que el acusado fue la causa de la muerte, los demandantes deben demostrar que son elegibles para recibir una compensación con el fin de una indemnización por daños, perjuicios es el término utilizado para describir el valor monetario asignado a un determinado tipo de sufrimiento. Hay dos variedades de daños y perjuicios aplicables en un caso de muerte de Texas por negligencia: los daños de muerte por negligencia y daños y perjuicios de supervivencia.
Los Daños de Muerte Injusta
Diferentes miembros de la familia tendrá diferentes reclamaciones sobre la base de varios factores. El tipo más común de reclamo que se conoce como daños y perjuicios por muerte injusta reclamación. Daños y perjuicios por negligencia la muerte son muy subjetivo y se basan en la idea de que la familia de la vÃctima merece ser compensado por su angustia mental como consecuencia de la pérdida de sus seres queridos. Indemnizables los daños por muerte injusta incluyen el dolor y el sufrimiento, la pérdida de la sociedad, la pérdida de consorcio, la pérdida de los ingresos proporcionados por el difunto, etc, en definitiva, una demanda se dirige contra la parte demandada sobre la base de que las acciones del acusado se cobró la vida de la persona fallecida y, como tal, la familia del difunto merece ser compensado por todas las formas en que la muerte ha afectado sus vidas. En general, el cónyuge, hijos y padres del fallecido tienen la oportunidad de llevar una indemnización por muerte injusta reclamación en contra de cada persona o entidad que en forma conjunta o solidariamente responsables por la muerte de su ser querido.
Daños Supervivencia
Además de los daños por homicidio culposo, un miembro de la familia en particular van a heredar los daños supervivencia reclamación. En esencia, la afirmación de la supervivencia de los daños puede ser considerado como la demanda por lesiones personales que el fallecido hubiera tenido si hubieran sobrevivido a sus heridas. Esto abarca una reclamación por daños, tales como el dolor y sufrimiento, gastos médicos, angustia mental, etc, que el difunto haya incurrido como consecuencia de el hecho que causó su fallecimiento. La afirmación de la persona fallecida es heredado por el albacea de la herencia, que es generalmente la esposa del difunto o de los niños.
Los Juicios con Jurado, Juicios, y los Asentamientos
Contrariamente a la creencia popular, no todos los casos de muerte por negligencia de Texas se resuelven a través de un juicio con jurado. De hecho, muchos ni siquiera incluyen el sistema judicial en absoluto. La mayorÃa de los casos de muerte injusta (si es manejado por un abogado con experiencia) se iniciará con un proceso de investigación exhaustiva llevada a cabo por abogados de los demandantes que identificar con precisión qué partes son culpables y deben continuar. Los demandantes de los abogados se pondrá en contacto a los acusados y sus portadores de seguro / abogados y darles el aviso de los demandantes de intenciones. En la mayorÃa de los casos, un perÃodo de descubrimiento por el cual seguirá los acusados tratan de encontrar una forma de negar la pretensión del todo o al menos disminuir el valor de la demanda, mientras que los demandantes están trabajando hacia la meta contraria en la búsqueda de evidencia, además, que valida su reclamación. Una vez que ambas partes están de acuerdo que una buena cantidad de evidencia ha sido recogida, la demanda será enviado a los acusados que se describen los términos propuestos de acuerdo en nombre de los demandantes. Los acusados revisará la demanda, determinar su propia impresión de su exposición (la posibilidad de que se verÃan obligados por un jurado que pagar más o menos de la cantidad propuesta de acuerdo) y, finalmente, aceptar la propuesta, rechazar la demanda, sino abrir los canales para la negociación, o rechazar la demanda de plano y la fuerza de los demandantes para litigar.
Antes de este punto, el caso ha existido en gran medida fuera del alcance del sistema legal. Ciertos movimientos pueden haber sido presentado, tal vez incluso una demanda haya sido presentada, pero la mayor parte de las negociaciones se han llevado a cabo en privado y el resultado no se deja a la decisión de un jurado. Una vez que las negociaciones se suspenden, el caso se convierte en gran medida depende del sistema judicial y las habilidades de un abogado durante el juicio en última instancia, tendrá un gran peso en la determinación del resultado.
¿Cuál es el Primer Paso?
En primer lugar: no firmar ningún reconocimiento de responsabilidad o compromiso de no demandar a cambio de la compensación de una compañÃa de seguros o del demandado.Es necesario contratar a un abogado tan pronto como sea posible. Cada segundo que espera contratar a un abogado, la evidencia está desapareciendo. Los testigos están olvidando lo que vieron, y la escena del accidente está evolucionando. Cuanto más tiempo se dude de encontrar una Bufete de Abogados en Dallas de Muerte Injusta, más difÃcil será para su representación para encontrar las pruebas necesarias para prevalecer en su reclamo. Su abogado necesita para comenzar a investigar inmediatamente. Tan pronto como se produjo el accidente, la compañÃa de seguros y los abogados de la defensa fueron la construcción de un caso en contra de su ser querido, y se necesita un Bufete de Abogados en Dallas de Muerte Injusta adaptada a sus esfuerzos, o su caso puede ser arruinado.
Nuestra Bufete de Abogados en Dallas de Muerte Injusta ha estado ayudando a las familias en duelo alcanzar la justicia y la compensación en Texas durante 20 años, y estamos familiarizados con todo tipo de casos de homicidio culposo. Cuando son contratados, que recorren la escena del accidente, en busca de cualquier cosa que resulte el caso de nuestros clientes. Nos aseguraremos de que cada parte responsable tiene que adaptarse a rendir cuentas, la presentación en contra de terceros responsables, si es necesario.
Nuestros abogados han solucionado con éxito y litigado casos con cerca de cada compañÃa de seguros en los Estados Unidos, entregando millones de dólares en compensación para nuestros clientes. Las compañÃas de seguros saber sobre nuestra trayectoria, y que a menudo ofrecen a nuestros clientes los asentamientos equitativa para evitar cumplir con nuestros abogados en la corte agresivo. Sin embargo, si no va a negociar, van a reunirse con nosotros en el juicio y les gustarÃa tener.
Si usted ha perdido un ser querido en un fatal accidente, llame a las oficinas de Grossman Ley ahora en 1-855-426-0000 (gratis) de una consulta gratuita con un Bufete de Abogados en Dallas de Muerte Injusta.
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
(policy limits) Recovery for wrongful death/ nursing home negligence which resulted in bed sores which became infected.
$100,000.00
$33,133.00
$400.00
(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
(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.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
(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
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.
$400,000.00
$132,000.00
$25,000.00
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.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
(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.
$250,000.00
$78,000.00
$370.00
Recovery for the father of a young man who was killed in a car accident.
$95,035.00
$31,678.00
$25.00
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
$550,000.00
$220,000.00
$40,000.00