Texas Estatuto de Limitaciones de Muerte Injusta
¿Qué es el Estatuto de Limitaciones de Muerte Injusta? Grossman Procurador Michael Explica
Nunca es una experiencia fácil de perder un ser querido. La experiencia puede ser aún más doloroso si se trata de un "homicidio culposo" causado por la negligencia de otros.
Grossman Law Offices está equipado para trabajar en el marco de la ley para llevar a los responsables a la justicia, pero nuestros abogados se dan cuenta que el tiempo es importante. El proceso de duelo es importante, también, pero hay una cantidad limitada de tiempo de esa persona o familia tendrá que presentar una demanda por homicidio culposo y es vital para presentar esa solicitud lo antes posible después de la pérdida sufrida.
En pocas palabras, un estatuto de limitaciones se detalla el período de tiempo durante el cual se pueden tomar acciones legales.
En la mayoría de los casos de homicidio culposo una demandantes tienen un estatuto de limitaciones de dos años. Esencialmente, esto significa que la demanda debe ser resuelta dentro de ese período de dos años desde el momento de la muerte O debe ser una demanda presentada en el plazo de dos años, desde la presentación de una demanda se ampliará el plazo adicional.
Excepciones al Estatuto de Limitaciones Año 2
Hay, sin embargo, excepciones a la ley de dos años de limitaciones:
Cuando el demandante es un menor de edad. - La demanda por muerte injusta de un hijo menor de edad no puede caducar hasta que el niño es mayor de edad para ejercer tal afirmación. El estatuto de limitaciones de dos años por lo que no se inicia la cuenta atrás hasta el cumpleaños 18 del niño. Por ejemplo, si un niño de 15 años de edad perdió a su padre en un accidente de trabajo, la demanda de ese niño se extendería hasta dos años después de ser mayor de edad (su 20 cumpleaños). Un niño menor de edad no está obligado a esperar hasta cumplir los 18 años para seguir una demanda por homicidio culposo. Un padre o tutor puede ejercer la reclamación en nombre del hijo menor de edad y esto es por lo general una mejor idea de esperar debido a la evidencia necesaria para ganar un caso de homicidio culposo por lo general desaparecen mucho antes de que el niño se hace mayor de edad. Cuando un padre o tutor persigue un caso de homicidio culposo en nombre de un menor, el tribunal nombrará a un tutor ad, un no-en polarización negativa, el abogado de terceros, que va a revisar los términos de la sentencia de liquidación o un jurado para determinar que el resolución justa y en el mejor interés del niño. Esto mantiene a los miembros de la familia y otras partes de ayudarse a sí mismos a la demanda del niño. Una vez que el caso sea resuelto, el dinero se coloca en el registro de la corte y se pone a disposición del niño cuando la mayoría de edad legal.
Cuando la fecha exacta de la muerte o el paradero del difunto no se conocían. - En algunos casos la familia del fallecido no lo sé con certeza que su ser querido está muerto o los detalles de la muerte es ambigua, en cierto modo. Como resultado, el estatuto de limitaciones puede ser extendido. Por ejemplo, nuestra firma es litigar un caso contra un establecimiento por su papel en la muerte de una mujer joven. Desde hace varios años la joven se pensó simplemente que falta hasta que finalmente confesó su asesino. Aunque la confesión fue más de dos años después de la mujer en realidad murió, la familia fue capaz de interponer una demanda por muerte injusta contra los acusados, ya que no descubrió que la muerte se había producido hasta después de expirado el estatuto.
Cuando los demandados o su negligencia no se conocían. - casos de muerte por negligencia en Texas están sujetas a la "regla de descubrimiento", que establece que los dos años no empezará a correr hasta el momento en que una persona razonablemente prudente hubiera sabido que había una causa de acción. Un ejemplo perfecto para ilustrar este sería un caso farmacéutica. Imagine que un hombre toma un producto farmacéutico y muere debido a complicaciones de tomar ese medicamento. diez años después de su muerte se determina que la droga estaba defectuoso y que el murió como consecuencia de este defecto. La viuda del difunto más que probable que se pueda presentar una reclamación a pesar de que la ventana estándar de dos años había expirado. La idea detrás de esto es que el demandante no sabía que había un caso hasta que años más tarde que, por tanto, ampliar el plazo de prescripción.
Fraude. - En los casos en que el demandado ocultado deliberadamente su participación o culpabilidad en la muerte, el estatuto puede ser ampliado para que la familia del fallecido de continuar la acción civil contra dicho demandado.
Mental o incapacidad física. - Si el demandante ha sufrido alguna incapacidad física o mental que les impiden responder dentro del estatuto estándar de dos años de limitaciones, la ley podrá ampliarse para dar cabida. Por ejemplo, si un hombre y su esposa están involucrados en un accidente automovilístico y muere el hombre pero la mujer entra en coma durante tres años, su estatuto de limitaciones es probable que no se extenderá al hecho de que ella era mentalmente o físicamente incapacitado y no pudo llevar a cabo una demanda por homicidio culposo en nombre de su marido.
casos de muerte por negligencia no debe ser manejado por los bufetes de abogados sin experiencia. El homicidio culposo abogados de Dallas de Grossman Law Offices tiene 20 años de experiencia en litigar con éxito la muerte de reclamaciones por negligencia y podemos ayudarle con su demanda por homicidio culposo, así. Póngase en contacto con Michael Grossman en el 1-855-426-0000 (llamada gratuita) para una consulta gratuita.
(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
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) An incredibly intoxicated driver drove head-on into a vehicle, killing several of the vehicle's occupants. The defendants had limited assets, yet an alternative policy was uncovered, which the defendants argued was non applicable. Under threat of litigation, our attorneys negotiated a settlement for the policy limits.
$300,000.00
$132,000.00
$0.00
A young woman lost her life after a bar over served her to more than three times the legal limit resulting in her burning to death in a single-vehicle accident. Witnesses stated that she was so intoxicated that she could barely make it to her vehicle without assistance. Through litigation, our attorneys ascertained the necessary evidence to prove that the establishment provided alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person, thus resulting in her ultimate demise.
$550,000.00
$220,000.00
$25,000.00
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
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
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
(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) 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
Major freight train company sued as the result of an incident which claimed the life of an employee. Our attorneys settled the case outside of court for a confidential amount.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential