What Proposition 213 Means For Uninsured Auto Accident Victims in California

Image : http://www.flickr.com

If you have suffered an injury in a car accident that was not your fault, you are entitled to compensation for your injuries. As an injury victim you are entitled to compensation for:

medical bills
lost wages
property damage
pain and suffering
emotional distress

Compensation can divided into two separate categories. The first type is known as economic damages. Economic damages refer to reimbursement for the actual costs associated with the accident, expenses like hospital bills doctor bills and any other actual costs associated with the accident itself. The second category damages are referred to in the legal profession as general or non-economic damages. These types of damages are not hard costs of the injury, but reimbursement for any emotional distress or physical pain or suffering.

Back in 1996, Californians tired of the effects of uninsured drivers on the system as a whole, overwhelmingly passed Proposition 213. Proposition 213 states that an injured driver must show the vehicle had liability insurance coverage at the time of an accident in order to collect "general damages" from the driver who was at fault for the accident. This applies even if the driver was not at fault in any way for the collision. Simply put, if you are involved in a car accident that was not your fault and suffered an injury as a result, and were either the owner or driver of the car that was not at fault, you must show there was liability insurance coverage on the car in order to be compensated for your "general damages". Under Proposition 213, passengers who are injured in an uninsured car that was not at fault in accident can still collect general damages in addition to economic damages, as long as they are not owners of the vehicle.

There is one exception to Proposition 213. This exception occurs when the driver of the "at fault" vehicle was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the accident. In a case like this one, the driver or owner of the car that was not at fault can still collect general damages even if the car was uninsured at the time of the car accident.

Proposition 213 was the subject of intense and protracted litigation surrounding its provisions at the time it was enacted. It is now settled law and applies to all personal injury car accident cases in California. Your personal injury attorney should be well versed with Prop 213, its provisions and the means by which it may affect your individual case. Car accidents are the most common means by which people suffer personal injuries Experienced personal injury attorneys, therefore, are expert at all phases of the car accident injury case as well as the laws surrounding such cases.

Tags : Insurance, Auto Insurance Student Loan white water rafting maine

Looking Through The Mist - Minor impact soft tissue injuries

Image : http://www.flickr.com

As a personal injury lawyer in California can, a lawyer, or elsewhere, so I tell you, with little effect on cases that are the types of soft tissue injuries, including whiplash injuries, especially "red flag" from the field insurance as a case with special needs. These cases were caused by the code-word "nebula known as the abbreviation of a minor impact soft tissue injury. The idea behind the shit" "damages with insurance companies to providefor lower pay outs for claims resulting in little or no damage to the vehicles involved in an auto accident, and to also permit the insurance companies to pay less for injury claims that cannot be easily seen by the naked eye.

MIST cases are typically denied in their entirety by the defendant's insurance company. If the MIST claims are not denied categorically, the defendant's insurance company will often make an extremely low offer to settle, often not enough to even cover all the related injury expenses. This holds true even in cases where the defendant is clearly at fault in the accident. What can be even more frustrating is the fact that often, fault is admitted by the defendant in the accident. The insurance companies simply state that these "low ball" settlement offers are in keeping with what they see jury verdicts rendering in these kinds of related personal injury cases. As a result of the difficulty in litigating MIST injuries, many personal injury attorneys no longer accept car accident cases involving only minor damage to a vehicle if the damage is involved injury of soft tissues.

The difficulty of soft tissue injury litigation created a dilemma, so that a victim of traffic accident with only two choices: adopt the policy of offering a solution or a process that will bring the defendant before the court. Although not accept a proposal for a regulation of insurance, there are several factors to consider, while the decisionmaking process. The first thing to remember is that going to court involves a substantial commitment of time for both the representing attorney and the recovering client. The second idea to consider is that bringing a case to trial and ultimately through to a verdict is often costly in terms of the expenses required to so, including but not limited to the costs of specialists, medical experts, and accident re-constructionists. Thirdly, it must also be noted that litigation can be risky and that there are absolutely no guarantees as to a successful result. It is up to the client to request their personal injury attorney to proceed through a cost-benefit analysis to determine if the case can be successfully litigated in a cost effective manner.

For victims of MIST injuries, it is important to engage in an active discussion about the possible outcomes of the options comprising soft tissue litigation. It is also important that one question their attorney about the bottom line when obtaining advice for an appropriate course of action to best resolve the soft tissue injury case.

Friends Link : Ferret Austin dwi california Auto free insurance quote austin dwi new york

California Boat Accident - Case Study - Boat Hits Water Skier

Image : http://www.flickr.com

If you or a family member are seriously injured in a boating accident in California, then it is important for you to understand how maritime law operates. This article is a case study of a vessel collision between a small inflatable power boat and a water ski boat that illustrates boat accident law.

A maritime legal analysis is performed in order to illustrate boat accident negligence and vessel collision legal principals. This is a recreational boating accident in California.

A Case Study - A Boat Accident on Mission Bay

Picture this, a typically beautiful chamber of commerce weekend on Mission Bay in San Diego. It's Saturday morning at the beginning of spring, so the water park is busy, but not the zoo it will be in a few hours.

A ski boat is slowly towing a young girl and is going in the proper counter-clockwise rotation flow of traffic. As is usually the case in recreational boat accidents, a day of pleasure quickly turns to danger and danger in turn quickly turns to disaster.

A small inflatable power boat pops up from behind an anchored luxury yacht. The inflatable boat is going the wrong way. That is, clockwise, against the flow of traffic. Further, the inflatable boat is going way too fast. The ski boat driver takes the proper evasive maneuver to starboard and turns the ski boat in order to pass the inflatable boat port to port.

After passing the ski boat the inflatable boat driver takes a radical turn to port - - apparently in an effort to try and "catch air" over the ski boat's wake. The young girl's skis go under the inflatable boat, launching her and slamming her into the inflatable boat's engine, seriously injuring both of her legs and right arm.

Maritime Law Analysis: Rules of the Road Violations:

Federal Navigational Rules are also referred to as "Rules of the Road." The following is a thumbnail analysis of the Rules of the Road violations presented in this Case Study.

The young girl has a strong liability case against the operator of the inflatable boat. The inflatable boat operator is in violation of the following Navigational Rules:

Rule 5 - - Lookout

The vessel failed to keep a proper look-out.

Rule 6 - - Safe Speed

The vessel proceeded at a speed too fast for the conditions.

Rule 10 - - Traffic Separation Schemes

The vessel failed to proceed in the appropriate traffic lane in the general direction of traffic flow for that lane.

Rule 18 - - Responsibilities between Vessels

The vessel failed to keep out of the way of a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.

Defeating the Limitation Action

The inflatable boat was launched from the luxury yacht and is owned by the yacht owner. The yacht owner filed a Limitation of Liability Action in Federal District Court. The Limitation Action was defeated because the yacht owner was deemed to have privity and knowledge of the inflatable boat driver being up partying hard the night before and drinking 2 hours before the collision. The inflatable boat driver blew a.09 on the Breathalyzer and was booked by the San Diego Police for boating while under the influence.

Applying the Pennsylvania Rule

Under maritime law, when a vessel violates one of the Rules of the Road the burden rests upon the violating vessel to show not merely that their fault might not have been one of the causes, or that it probably was not, but that it could not have been. This is called the Pennsylvania Rule, or as I like to call it, "Check Mate." The Pennsylvania Rule is used to establish liability for boat collisions. Used properly, the Rule is a powerful weapon in boat collision lawsuits.

Case Result:

The insurance company for the yacht / inflatable power boat owner paid a high six figure settlement to the Guardian ad Litem of the young girl.

Disclaimer:

The foregoing is a California boat accident case study. It is not legal advice. Any resemblance to actual events, persons and/or vessels is purely coincidental. I am simplistic in order to achieve clarity. Each boat accident case is different and has separate challenges, difficulties and/or nuances. There is no guarantee that your boating accident case will have a similar result as discussed in this vessel collision case study.

Thanks To : Hipmore Blog Student Loan life assurance quotation chicago injury lawyers Life assurance quotes