Lawsuits For Wrongful Death Explained

Generally, wrongful death cases are caused by another persons negligence, carelessness, or malpractice. Despite being unintentional, the victim’s death is still the responsibility of the defendant. Therefore, they may be required to provide just compensation for the survivors or victims.

Winning these civil lawsuits can recover payment for damages to the victims lives. The compensation may cover medical and funeral costs, lost wages including future earnings, lost benefits, lost inheritance, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of support or companionship, general damages, and punitive damages.

Generally, parents, spouses and children of the deceased can file the wrongful death lawsuits on their loved ones’ behalf because they are almost always eligible to file a claim. Minors may need an adult guardian to take a wrongful death lawsuit to court. Moreover, other family members including the stepparents, grandparents and dependents may also be permitted to file suit in some states.

When you believe you may have a valid wrongful death claim, you should consult one of the experienced wrongful death lawyers in your area. Doing so is very important because a wrongful death lawyer can help you gather evidence, understand the law, complete necessary paperwork, and build a convincing lawsuit against the defendant. In addition, to have an attorney can also help lessen the pain, stress and suffering you may be experiencing due to the incident.

Laws vary from state to state with regard to how long you have to bring your wrongful death case. These laws may limit the time you have to as little as one year from the time of the victim’s death. If you fail to bring your case within the time proscribed by law, you may lose your opportunity to bring the case forever. This is yet another reason that discussing your case with a wrongful death lawyer near you must be done as soon as possible.

And For My Next Trick: Medical Liability

Michael Hiltzik makes some great points calling tort reform the circus sideshow of the health care debate:

“Insurance companies love it because the less money they pay out to plaintiffs, the more they get to keep. Republicans love it because trial lawyers give three-quarters of their political donations to Democrats. And Democrats pay it lip service because theyre afraid to look like lawyer lovers.

Couldnt have said it better myself. In almost every political discussion, the giant elephant is self-interest. No one wants to accept that we all argue from our own self-interests. The unfortunate problem is that too many of us are losing sight of whats actually good for us. Misdirection and slight-of-hand are big business in politics today.

That facts according to Hiltzik are:

Liability for medical mistakes is estimated to contribute to no more than three percent of all U.S. health care spending. That means out of the over one-trillion dollars of annual health care costs, approx. fifty-billion dollars is comprised of malpractice litigation. In other words, even if we eliminated medical liability altogether, we would be in the exact same situation with health care.

The myth of medical liability being the main cause of health care costs has to end. We need to start focusing on the real problems and inefficiencies of the current system and stop chasing ghosts. Even if we got rid of medical liability in total, we would still be facing the same problems. Therefore, let’s shift the discussion to the real problems and stop filing in with the insurance lobby.

In fact, in places where tort reform has taken firm root, we have not seen a dramatic decrease in health care costs. Do you know what we have seen in those areas? Greater profitability for insurance companies. Even worse, people with legitimate personal injury and medical malpractice claims go without compensation.

Vehicle Collision Verdict $25M For Paraplegic

Following a trial for a car accident where both drivers claimed to have green lights, the permanently injured plaintiff was awarded $25 Million.

This could be Cook County’s highest jury verdict ever for a case involving a paraplegic individual, according to the personal injury lawyer for the plaintiff.

At trial, it was shown that the plaintiff is permanently paraplegic and must use leg braces and a cane to walk. However, he spends most of his time in a wheelchair.

On April 19, 2004 in Schaumburg, Illinois, an Illinois Dept. Of Transportation employee broad-sided the plaintiff’s car as both drivers traveled through an intersection. Both the plaintiff and the IDOT employee stated that they had the right of way. Investigators involved in the case weren’t able to determine who actually had the green light at the time of the accident.

The jury found that the plaintiff was 5% responsible for the accident for speeding, but found the defendant 95% responsible and awarded the plaintiff twenty-five million dollars in damages. This award was reduced by 5% for the plaintiff’s liability.

The IDOT driver suffered permanent injuries in the accident as well, and has partial paralysis to the right side of his body. He also received a mild traumatic brain injury from the car accident.

Despite the large award, it is unlikely that the plaintiff will recover all twenty-three million dollars. IDOT will only be responsible for closer to the two-million dollar insurance policy that covered its driver.

Too many times individuals that have suffered serious and permanent injuries at the hands of another go improperly compensated for their injuries. Despite being awarded a jury verdict, the plaintiff in this case will probably not recover even 10% of the entire award.

In today’s world of high health care costs, and insurance rates, it is easy to lose sight of what purpose of a jury verdict is in a case like this. When liability has been found, the jury tries to decide on an award that can compensate the plaintiff for his injuries. This is the only compensation that the plaintiff will receive for these injuries his entire life.

Almost $50 Million Awarded In Injury Case

A college who suffered traumatic brain injuries, was awarded almost fifty-million dollars by a jury in California. A collision involving two trucks resulted in catastrophic injuries to the student.

The award is certainly amongst the largest for a sole-plaintiff in Santa Clara in the past 10 years. In fact, it may be the largest of the decade.

This award is of note based on the fact that juries in this part of the country are known for being more conservative and less likely to award such a large figure to a plaintiff.

It is also believed that this verdict will be upheld on appeal. This is due to the fact that a large portion of the award is for damages arising from out of pocket expenses.

In May of 2007, the plaintiff’s car was struck by a semi truck that had collided with another truck. According to the plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer, the plaintiff’s severe injuries require the plaintiff to receive medical care at all times of the day. The plaintiff was only twenty-one years old at the time of the collision.

Over twenty-seven million dollars was awarded on the basis of future medical expenses. This is due to the fact that plaintiff will require full-time medical care for the rest of his life. The plaintiff was only 21 at the time of the incident and will therefore require such care for many years.

According to the lawyer for the plaintiff, the significance of the size of the award is really a reflection on the high cost of providing medical care to individuals who have suffered traumatic brain injuries. While modern medicine has prosthetic devices for the loss of an arm or a leg, there simply isn’t any replacement for loss of brain function.

At the conclusion of the trial, which lasted for five weeks, the jury apportioned fault to the various defendants. 60% was attributed to the driver striking the plaintiff’s vehicle and 35% to the other driver.

The defendant trucking company continues to maintain that its driver was not negligent and bears no fault in the occurrence of this incident.

California had settled with the plaintiff for $10 million prior to the conclusion of trial, according to an attorney for the state.