I delivered a load of hay and a couple of bales got pushed down on top of me. They were very patient with me, worked with me, they filled me in on details, they stayed in communication, and they let me know what was going on. The atmosphere of the people was very friendly, very likeable, VERY LIKEABLE, and no pressure. Mike was exquisitely very, very nice, very friendly. They looked out for my interests.
-
H. Lindquist
Workplace Accident Case
Car Safety Feature Malfunction
Our Dallas Personal Injury Attorneys Discuss Car Accident Safety Features
As a result of the approximate 40,000 fatal car accidents each year, the federal government has steadily increased the required safety features on production automobiles.
As it currently stands, there are numerous features such as airbags, and seat belts that are required to meet a minimum safety standard as defined by the government, with many other safety features such as traction control and anti-lock brakes soon to become required standard equipment.
Automobile safety features are generally classified as being "active" or "passive" depending upon how they are actuated.
Active safety features are safety features which are generally controlled by input or involvement from the driver. A perfect example of an active safety feature would be a seat belt. A more liberal interpretation of an active safety feature would be the general handling ability of a nimble sports car in the sense that it can be turned more abruptly in order to avoid an accident.
Passive safety features are those which simply function when necessary and do not require and input from the driver. These can be as straightforward as an air bag or as obscure as the front crumple zones integrated into a steel unibody frame.
Some common examples of safety features found in modern automobiles include:
- Driver and Passenger Side Airbags
- Side Curtain Airbags
- Seat Belts
- Traction Control
- Crumple Zones
- Side Impact Door Beams
- Bumpers
- Engine Cutoff Systems
- Adaptive Headlamps
- Anti-lock Brakes
- Electronic Brake Force Distribution System
- Tempered Glass
- Electronic Stability Control
All of these features theoretically work in harmony to either help you avoid an accident or suffer less severe injuries in the event of an accident.
Unfortunately, just like any other manufactured good, the various systems and components that you trust your safety to can malfunction. These car safety feature malfunctions can cause an accident or result in more severe injuries in the event of an accident. If you or a loved on has suffered as a result of a car safety feature malfunction, defect, or inadequacy, the Dallas personal injury attorneys of Grossman Law Offices can help you obtain compensation for your injuries.
Can safety malfunctions cause an accident?
(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 mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
$335,000.00
$134,000.00
$63,000.00
Our client was injured in a motor vehicle accident when an employer driving a company vehicle failed to yield the right of way and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant's employer was sued for negligence soon thereafter. The defendants alleged that the company should not be held liable for the actions of the employee.
They claimed that the employee was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Through discovery, our attorneys learned that the defendants had a policy, both written and implied, whereby employees of the company were allowed to drive work vehicles after hours.
Furthermore, our attorneys argued case law that expanded the definition of course and scope which showed that the defendant was indeed "on the clock" when the accident occurred.
As a result, the defendants conceded liability and turned their defenses toward the alleged damages. They claimed that our client had a preexisting condition that was responsible for her current state.
We deposed the emergency room physician who assessed the client and recommended surgery regarding the medical necessity of the surgical procedure and the proximate cause of the plaintiff's condition. He testimony unequivocally defeated these arguments. The case was satisfactorily resolved through litigation.
$210,000.00
$70,110.00
$3,787.00
Recovery for client who suffered nerve damage and required steroid injections as a result of a car accident.
$150,000.00
$50,000.00
$4,800.00
(policy limits) Recovery for victim who sustained a broken femur in a motorcycle accident.
$100,000.00
$33,000.00
$0.00
Recovered for client injured in a liquor liability accident.
$100,000.00
$40,000.00
$5,000.00
Recovery for client who suffered injuries to both legs in a truck accident.
$102,500.00
$40,833.00
$19,984.00
(policy limits + secondary claim) Recovery for victim who suffered knee and back injury due to a car accident.
$48,800.00
$15,000.00
$1,188.00
(policy limits) Recovery for a child who suffered an in utero brain injury as a result of a rollover car accident.
$1,150,000.00
$379,500.00
$20,000.00
Recovered for car accident victim who suffered a closed head injury.
$200,000.00
$66,666.00
$1,500.00