Serious Accident Injury in Buckley | Washington Personal Injury Lawyer

Contact Davis Law Group, P.S. to ensure you have the best results from Washington State Accident Attorneys.

Loose Tarp Causes Car Accident Injury on I-90 | Personal Injury Lawyer

Seattle Accident Lawyers at Davis Law Group have extensive experience in all types of accident cases.

Two Injured in Motor Home Crash near SeaTac Airport | Seattle Accident Attorney

Type: Car Accident

Date: October 17, 2009, 10/17/09

Location: State Route 509 near SeaTac Airport

Outcome: 2 seriously injured

A driver of a motor home and his passenger were critically injured in an accident Saturday around 6:30 p.m. near SeaTac Airport.

The driver and the passenger, both Shoreline Residents, were transported to Harborview Medical Center, with life-threatening injuries.

Around 8:20 that same evening, both driver and passenger were listed in stable condition.

The motor home crashed into a light pole while on the off ramp from the southbound lanes between State Route 509 and South 188th Way, on the south end of SeaTac Airport.

Washington State Troopers don't believe alcohol and speed were factors in this crash, but the cause is still under investigation.

We hope for a full and rapid recovery for the driver and passenger injured in this crash.

National Car Accident Statistics state that someone is injured in a car crash every 14 seconds and about two million people injured in car accidents each year suffer permanent injuries.

80% of car accidents are due to inattentive drivers. If inattention while driving was the cause of your injury, please contact an experienced Seattle accident lawyer who will fight for your peace of mind.

Washington State Chiropractor Fined $20,000 for Excessive Treatment to Accident Victims

TACOMA, WA -- The Washington State Court of Appeals for Division Two recently upheld a ruling issued by the Board of Health concerning charges against a Wenatchee chiropractor that he provided excessive treatment to his patients.  The chiropractor, David Wall, was charged with unprofessional conduct after he treated two accident victims more than 400 times in a single year.

The two individuals saw Dr. Wall following a car accident.  They complained of neck and back injuries.  Dr. Wall submitted a claim for payment with the patients' automobile insurance company Farmers Insurance Group.  Dr. Wall submitted bills to Farmers seeking payment for more than 400 visits the two patients received in the year following the accident.

Farmers requested an Independent Medical Exam by another chiropractor.  That chiropractor questioned the necessity or benefits derived from Dr. Wall's frequent treatments, opined that daily treatments likely aggravated discomfort, and pointed out Wall's lack of "objective assessment outcome criteria . . . used to measure . . . improvement." This chiropractor also reported that he had never seen a case requiring daily treatment over a five-month period and noted that he would expect a "difference in treatment frequency" between the two individuals.

Understandably, Farmers filed a complaint with the Washington State Department of Health alleging that Dr. Wall's treatment was excessive and without basis. The Department held a hearing and found that Dr. Wall engaged in unprofessional conduct by performing treatment that was unnecessary.  The Department also found that Dr. Wall had various recordkeeping deficiencies and that he had used an improper x-ray regimen and procedures on both patients.  The Department placed Dr. Wall's license on probation for two years, imposed a $20,000 fine, and ordered him to complete 30 hours of continuing education.  The Court of Appeals upheld the Department's findings and conclusions.

Occasionally my office will encounter a chiropractic physician who engages in aggressive and excessive treatment and billings to one of our clients.  These chiropractors do a disservice to their patients.  It's almost as if the chiropractor's main goal is to milk as much treatment revenue out of the accident victim without any regard to the patient's well being or whether the treatment is even helpful.  Dr. Wall's case is an egregious example of a chiropractor who engages in excessive treatment.  Unfortunately, Dr. Wall's excessive treatment regime probably damaged the patients' personal injury claim as well.  No insurance company will agree to pay for 200 chiropractic visits in one year following an auto accident.  The Department was correct to fine him $20,000 and require that he undergo continuing education.  Dr. Wall's unprofessional conduct is the type of conduct that gives other chiropractors a bad name and it should not be tolerated.

Chris Davis is an accident attorney in Seattle, Washington.  He founded the Davis Law Group, P.S, and specializes in representing victims of auto accidents, wrongful death, child injury claims, and spinal injuries and trauma.  Mr. Davis has been named a Super Lawyer in consecutive years by the legal publication Washington Law & Politics.  Mr. Davis also serves on the Board of Governors for the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association.

Seattle Truck Accident Lawyers

An average of about 5,000 trucks are involved in a fatal traffic accident each year. Tractors pulling one semitrailer are the most common truck configuration, accounting for about 60% of all trucks involved in a fatal accident.

The number of people killed in accidents involving a truck decreased to 5,567 in 2000, compared with an average of 5,647 from 1997-1999. The number of truck drivers killed in traffic accidents increased from 658 in 1998 to 713 in 2000. About 360 pedestrians and 70 bicyclists are killed each year in traffic accidents involving trucks.

For more information, statistics, articles, studies, and more visit our truck accident library page. 

The Davis Law Group represents plaintiffs in wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases in Washington. Christopher Davis focuses on cases involving car accidents, commercial vehicle accidents, and truck accidents (semi truck, tractor trailor, big rig truck, 18 wheeler, log trucks). Chris Davis has successfully handled hundreds of personal injury claims and has obtained numerous outstanding settlements and verdicts in complex injury and wrongful death cases.

Car Accident Statistics

With the increasing number of cars on the roads of the US each year, car accidents have unfortunately become a very common sight. Many people die as a result of car accidents, with many more receiving serious injuries. Such injuries and death often leave the victims and their families devastated. Here are some car accident statistics, which might be helpful in making people aware about trends in car accidents, and thus hopefully reducing the number of car accidents in the United States.

On an average, there are more than 6 million car accidents on the roads of the US, annually.

More than 3 million people get injured due to car accidents, with more than 2 million of these injuries being permanent.

There are in excess of 40,000 deaths due to car accidents every year. Although this is a very high number by itself, some heart can be taken in the fact that statistics show that car accident fatalities have been witnessing a downward trend in recent years.

The majority of car accidents could be avoided if only the drivers would drive more responsibly. About 40% of car accident fatalities occur because of a drunken driver. About 30% of the car accident fatalities can be attributed to driving above the speed limits and 33% and above because of reckless driving that causes the car to go off the road and result in an accident.

The majority of car accident victims are the drivers, then the passengers of the car, followed by pedestrians, and lastly cyclists.

Every 12 minutes, one person dies because of a car accident. Every 14 seconds, a car accident results in an injured victim.

For those in the age group of 1 to 30 years, the leading cause of death is due to being involved in a car accident. People, who are between 15 to 24 years, and those who are above 75 years of age, are the people who are most severely affected by car accidents.

According to the car accident statistics released by the United States Department of Transportation’s (USDOT’s) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), there were almost 43,000 deaths in 2002 because of car accidents. The car accident fatalities for the year 2003 stand at 42,643.

In 2002, there were around 6,316,000 car accidents in the US, with these causing about 2.9 million injuries. In 2003, the total number of car accidents was 6,328,000 and the resulting injuries stood at almost 3 million.

More than 25% of all car drivers were involved in car accidents in a five year period.

In more than half of all car accident fatalities, the deceased were found not to be wearing their seat belts at the time of the crash. Even with seat belts being mandatory, a vast majority of people choose to disregard this safety precaution and end up losing their lives because of it.

Many car accidents are caused by people talking to other passengers while driving, and others due to drivers playing with the radio while driving. A large percentage is because of eating or drinking while driving, and 25% of car accidents are caused due to talking on the mobile phone while at the wheel of the car. These car accident statistics are sad enough on their own, the saddest part being that they could have easily been avoided had drivers been paying more attention to driving and less to other activities.

For more victim information, car accident news, personal injury statistics, car accident statistics, personal injury news, studies, and more visit our car accidents practice area page. 

The Davis Law Group represents plaintiffs in wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases in Washington. Christopher Davis focuses on cases involving car accidents, commercial vehicle accidents, and truck accidents (semi truck, tractor trailor, big rig truck, 18 wheeler, log trucks). Chris Davis has successfully handled hundreds of personal injury claims and has obtained numerous outstanding settlements and verdicts in complex injury and wrongful death cases.

Washington State Accident News - May 17, 2008

YELM - Street racing may be linked to a traffic death near Yelm, and vehicular homicide charges may be filed.  Washington State Patrol says alcohol also was involved in the crash.  The 20-year-old driver of a 2000 Ford Explorer died when it was overturned.  The 18-year-old driver of a 1982 Chevrolet S10 pickup truck escaped injury. 

For more information on what to do if you have been in an injury accident in Washington state, visit the car accident practice area page on our website. 

 

Another DUI Crash Severely Injures

SULTAN, WA -- This weekend produced another possible DUI crash that occurred in Highway 2 near Sultan.  Just after midnight on Saturday, a 33-year-old man from Monroe was severely injured after driving head-on into another vehicle without headlights.  Two other occupants, young females, were also injured but suffered less severe injuries.

The Washington State Patrol states that the man was likely intoxicated because he was swerving down Highway 2 in the darkness without headlights.  However, his parking lights appeared to be on.

The man crossed over the center line just west of Sultan at Fern Bluff Road and crashed head-on into the other vehicle, knocking it on its side, said the investigating Trooper.  The man told police at the scene that he drank a six-pack of beer before driving. He was airlifted to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle in critical condition.

The female driver of the other vehicle was transported to Harborview by ambulance with head lacerations and a broken ankle. Her injuries were not considered life-threatening. Her passenger had minor injuries and was taken to Valley Hospital in Monroe.

The lawyers at Davis Law Group have substantial experience representing injured individuals who have been the victim of DUI crashes, or accidents caused by intoxicated drivers.  We also have a proven reputation of getting substantial settlements and verdicts based on our trial and negotiating skills.  Don't take a chance by hiring a lawyer with less experience or less than a proven track record.

--------------------------------------

Learn more about how to deal with a car accident!
Visit our car accident resource library.
Watch videos about dealing with a car accident.
Get a FREE 90+ page book The Ten Biggest Mistakes That Can Wreck Your Washington Accident Case
Contact Davis Law Group about a free consultation.

Learn more about finding and hiring a good lawyer!
The Smart Consumer's Guide To Hiring A Great Lawyer
When Do You Need to Hire a Personal Injury Lawyer?  
Hiring a Lawyer You Trust
Some Alternatives to Hiring a Lawyer  

Important questions to consider when hiring a lawyer!
How important is/are the number of years an attorney has practiced law? 
How important is it to hire and attorney who specializes in personal injury to handle my accident/injury/car accident case?
What about testimonials, references, etc?
What is the most important personal trait for a good attorney?

Man Killed in South Seattle Motorcycle Crash | Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer

Type: Motorcycle Accident

Date: October 25, 2009, 10/25/09

Location: South Seattle

Outcome: One dead

A motorcyclist was killed Sunday around 10 p.m. after he was thrown from his motorcycle in South Seattle.

The man, identified as Joshua C. Smith of Seattle was pronounced dead at the scene.

According to Seattle police, Smith was traveling westbound at a high rate of speed on South Myrtle Street when he hit the back of a car at Beacon Avenue South.

Smith was thrown from his motorcycle and hit by another car.

Our deepest sympathies go out to the family of Joshua C. Smith and we pray the family finds strength and comfort in a difficult time.

The main causes of motorcycle accidents are road conditions like pot holes, puddles and debris and also driving errors by the motorcyclist like following a vehicle too closely, swerving in and out of traffic and the lack of protection.

Wearing a helmet can cut the risk of brain injuries related to motorcycle accidents by 88% due to the high rate of death from head trauma.

It may be in your best interest to speak with an experienced Seattle accident lawyer if you or someone you know has been involved in a motorcycle accident.

Another motorcyclist killed in traffic accident

This weekend a motorcycle driver was killed after colliding with an SUV in Concrete, WA.  Apparently the motorcyclist lost control of his bike while going around a curve.  He dropped the bike and slid under the SUV.   

The Washington State Patrol reported that the motorcyle was being operated by Bryan A. Dunham, age 3.  Mr. Dunham was driving east bound on SR 530 east of Concrete, which is about 60-80 miles southeast of Bellingham, Washington (the northern part of the state).  Mr. Dunham died at the scene.  He was wearing a helmet at the time.

Davis Law Group represents accident victims and surviving relatives in serious motorcycle accidents, including those involving wrongful death, brain injury, spine injuries and paralysis.  Call DLG founder and Seattle Super Lawyer Chris Davis at 206-727-4000.

Kent Man Killed in Pedestrian Accident | Pedestrian Accident Lawyer

Pedestrian and Crosswalk Accident Lawyers at Davis Law Group bring over 15 year of experience to the table. Contact now for a free no-obligation consultation.

Pedestrian Critically Injured in North Seattle | Injury Lawyer

Type: Pedestrian Accident

Date: Oct. 14, 2009, 10/14/09

Location: Bitter Lake, Greenwood Ave. N.

Outcome: 1 critically injured

A pedestrian was hit by a car and critically injured, in North Seattle, Wednesday around 8:30 p.m.

The man hit by the car was rushed to Harborview Medical Center with a life-threatening head injury.

Seattle Police said the pedestrian was near Bitter Lake in North Seattle when he was hit. He was walking west across 136th Street N. while the car was going south on Greenwood Ave.

Police have ruled out drugs or alcohol as a factor in this case and are continuing to investigate.

We hope the pedestrian injured in this crash is able to make a full recovery.

Pedestrian accidents typically happen for two reasons: The first is that the pedestrian was being careless or was lacking awareness of what was going on at the time they crossed. The second reason is negligence on the driver's part.

If you or someone you know has been injured in a pedestrian accident, you should speak with an experienced Seattle lawyer who can look over the facts of your case and help get what may be owed to you.

From Good Hands to Boxing Gloves: How Allstate Has Earned Billions by Shortchanging Policyholders & Claimants

The book From Good Hands to Boxing Gloves: The Dark Side of Insurance (2008) by David J. Berardinelli, discusses how Allstate revolutionized the claims handling process by implementing policies to deliberately reduce benefits and claim payouts by intentionally paying out less than the true value of the claim. 

Mr. Berardinelli states that our insurance system is founded on two key rules: the indemnity principle and the fiduciary principle. Together these principles are intended to level the playing field between the insurance company and the policyholder. These principles balance the insurer’s legitimate goal of being profitable while allowing the insured policyholders to get prompt and fair payment for covered losses.

Mr. Berardinelli states that casualty insurance is a unique insurance product. It’s different from other kinds of insurance like life insurance. Life insurance pays a set benefit when you die regardless of the cause or consequences of your death. But casualty insurance is indemnity coverage. It doesn’t pay a set benefit. It pays as much as the policyholder needs, up to the policy’s limit, "to restore an insured to the same financial position after the loss that he or she was in prior to the loss."  To indemnify someone means to make them whole again. That means the insured doesn’t get paid more than the actual loss. It also means the insured shouldn’t get paid less than what it takes to make the insured whole again. The insurance company's duty is to pay the full amount the policy holder needs to be put back in the same position he or she was in before the loss.  This is called the indemnity principle.

Mr. Bernadelli states that Allstate implemented a program to intentionally pay out less than the true value of claims.  Essentially, Allstate intentionally violated the indemnity principle, leaving policyholders and claimants much less than the insurance coverage they were entitled to receive.

How did Allstate accomplish this?  Well Allstate often deliberately delays paying legitimate claims by asking for useless information or demanding more proof than it really needs. It would delay payment or force policyholders to jump through needless hoops, in hopes they’ll give up or take less than the full and fair amount of the benefits they’re owed under the policy. Allstate paid for studies which showed that nearly 85% of claimants would accept whatever lowball offer Allstate made, and not bother with the hassle.  When you are talking about hundreds of thousands of claims, this adds up to hundreds of millions saved for Allstate.

Another tactic Allstate uses is to pressure policyholders who are in a financial bind into accepting a quick payment that’s far less than what they need to make them whole. It forces policyholders to file needless, expensive, and time consuming lawsuits as the only way to get what they need to fully restore them to where they were before the loss. Again, Allstate found that most people will not bother to go through the hassle of hiring a lawyer and filing a lawsuit.  More money saved for Allstate.

Mr. Bernadelli found that Allstate repeatedly violated the important principles which are necessary to protect people who purchase insurance.  Yet Allstate continues to get away with its tactics.  Allstate continues to put its own financial interests ahead of their insured’s needs, and now the system is no longer fair. The playing field is no longer level and an insured either accepts less than they receive or seeks legal counsel to level the field.

 

Another insurance company fails to protect its insured – Davis wins $362,500 verdict on $50,000 policy.

Mr. Davis is busy today as he just wrapped up a trial late yesterday.  So I am making this blog post for him today. -Mischelle, Client Relations Manager

In 2004 Ed Pemberton, age 46, was the victim of a 35 mph car crash that was caused when another driver ran a stop sign.  Mr. Pemberton t-boned the other driver's car and then ran into a tree.  Both vehicles were declared a total loss. 

Mr. Pemberton ran and operated his own residential and commercial glass company.  He claimed losses to his business following the accident. He endured neck and back injuries including disc protrusions at C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7, post concussive syndrome and mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI).  He had a range of other symptoms and conditions due to the accident.  A neuropsychological evaluation confirmed ongoing cognitive, memory and concentration problems.

The insurance company for the other driver, Encompass Insurance Company, dug deep into Mr. Pemberton’s past medical history which revealed a prior whiplash injury from a car accident in 1999.  A cervical MRI following that accident showed a bulging disc.  The insurance company argued that his neck pain and symptoms were caused in large party by this previous accident.  In 2008, Mr. Pemberton was injured again in another rear-end accident.  The insurance company was also able to argue at trial that this 2008 accident caused his neck injury to worsen. 

Mr. Pemberton’s past medical bills exceeded $25,000.  He also claimed past income loss of $83,000.  Despite these amounts, Encompass refused to pay out the at-fault driver’s policy limits of $50,000 when demanded by Mr. Davis.   Mr. Pemberton was then forced to incur substantial expense to prepare for trial.  About one month before trial Encompass offered its $50,000 policy.  But by  this time Mr. Pemberton had incurred additional litigation expense of several thousands of dollars.  The decision was made to reject the offer and try the case in court.

Trial lasted seven (7) days.  The jury returned a unanimous verdict in the amount of $362,500.  Mr. Davis reports that he will ask Encompass to pay the entire verdict based on its failure to protect its insured’s interests when it had an opportunity to settle for policy limits early on in the litigation.  This is the fifth (5) such excess verdict recovered by Mr. Davis over the last few years.  Insurance companies can, and do, violate their fiduciary obligation to protect their insured’s interests by not settling the case for an amount at or within policy limits when given the opportunity to do so.

What is Joint and Several Liability? l Seattle Personal Injury Attorney

Often times there may be more than one party who is responsible for an accident that causes harm to another. The State of Washington follows the law of comparative negligence (also called comparative fault). This term means that more than one party may be responsible for a person's injuries and damages according to each party’s percentage of negligence.  Remember, the term "negligence" means the failure to exercise ordinary care under the circumstances.

Here's an example that illustrates the law of comparative fault.  Let’s say Party A and Party B both negligently cause a car accident that injures Bob. And Bob's damages are calculated at $100,000. Party A was found 25% responsible and Party B 75%. Party A’s share of Bob's damages is just $25,000 and Party B’s share is $75,000. Under the law of comparative fault, each negligent party is only responsible for its share of damages as determined by the jury (or a judge if the matter is tried without a jury, i.e., bench trial).

Law of Joint and Several Liability

Now, under Washington law there is an exception to the rule of comparative fault. This occurs when the injured person is considered fault-free. In this situation, if there are multiple negligent parties who have caused injury to a person then each negligent party will be jointly and severally liable for all damages. This means that each negligent party is also individually responsible for 100% of the damages and not just limited to his or her respective share of fault.

Take the example of Party A and Party B above. If joint and several liability exists, then Party A is liable for the full amount of Bob's damages calculated at $100,000, and not just limited to Party A’s proportionate share of $25,000. This is the same for Party B, who is also responsible for the full award of $100,000 owed to Bob and not just Party B’s share of $75,000.

Some people question whether the law of joint and several liability is fair or just. Sometimes a negligent party who shares a very small percentage of fault could be legally required to pay a much higher percentage of the injured person’s damages. For example, if Party A was only found to be 1% at fault and Party B 99% at fault, Party A could still be made to pay much more than its share of $1,000 of Bob's total damages.

Let’s say Party B is uninsured and has no money to pay a settlement or verdict. Then Party A could be liable for the full $100,000. Is this fair? Well, the rationale behind joint and several liability is that it is more just to fully compensate an innocent victim than to allow a negligent party to limit his or her share of damages to that actor’s proportionate share of fault.  If you agree with the policy of protecting innocent victims, then the rationale of joint and several liability makes sense.

Other legal commentators have noted that joint and several liability benefits society by effectively placing the economic burden on those who can afford it most (e.g., corporations, governmental entities, insurance companies, etc.) while at the same time protecting the innocent victim who has been harmed. See Guido Calabresi & Jon T. Hirschoff, Toward a Test for Strict Liability in Torts, 81 YALE L.J. 1055 (1972).

In any event, people who have been seriously injured in an accident that is caused by more than one person or entity, may face important legal questions or hurdles about the share of damages that may be apportioned to each negligent party. Usually the most important thing to do is to preserve joint and several liability to make sure that the injured person's damages are fully compensated.  What does this mean?  Well, if  you settle with one defendant by not the others, then joint and several liability may be lost. 

Take the example above.  If you settle with Party B (who has nominal insurance) and then go to trial against Party A, you accept the risk that a jury might apportion a greater percentage of damages to Party B.  If the jury assigns 99% of the fault against Party B and just 1% to Party A, you can only recover 1% of your damages from Party A.  By settling with Party B before trial, you have lost joint and several liability against Party A so Party A is only liable for her share of fault assessed by the jury.

The decision to settle with one party before trial, must be handled by an experienced and competent personal injury attorney.  The facts of liability have to be scrutinized carefully.  There are pros to settling with one party before trial, like recovering some money sooner for the injured person.  But the pros and cons have to be assessed based on the individual facts of that case.