A friend of mine looked up Mr. Grossman on the internet and he drove out to Longview, TX, which is a couple hour drive, to see me while I was pretty much on my death bed. He came out there and it's been a situation where I wouldn't have been able to do what I've done without him.
-
C. Arguetta
Automobile Accident Case
Accidents Caused by Cell Phones
Car Accident Lawyer Michael Grossman Discusses Mobile or Cell Phone Usage While Driving
Driving while talking on a cell phone is incredibly dangerous. Studies have shown that talking on the phone while driving, even if using a hands-free headset, is just as dangerous as drunk driving, making drivers four times more likely to have an accident.
Texting is even more dangerous. According to a survey conducted by the Nationwide Insurance Company, 73 percent of drivers talk on their cell phones at some point while driving and 19 percent text while driving.
In the modern legal world, Driving While Distracted is becoming more and more serious. At least eighteen states have passed laws making it illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving, and there is been a nationwide ban on 18-wheeler driver's texting while driving. Lawsuits are being successfully brought against drivers for cell phone usage during an accident and employers are beginning to enforce policies against driving while using a cell phone. Even without specific legislation against cell phone usage, juries are generally unforgiving of cell phone usage in a Texas auto accident. In a car accident involving two individuals, one who was on a cell phone and one who was not, the jury is likely to side with the driver who was not distracted. If you have been in a car accident caused by another driver’s cell phone usage, contact the Dallas car wreck attorneys at Grossman Law Offices and get the compensation you deserve.
Related articles:
Questions answered by this article:
Is it illegal to drive while texting or talking on my cell phone?What if I was on my cell phone, but not at fault in the accident?
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$100,000.00 Recovery - Motorcycle Accident (Broken Femur)
(policy limits) Recovery for victim who sustained a broken femur in a motorcycle accident.
(policy limits) Recovery for victim who sustained a broken femur in a motorcycle accident.
Total Recovery:
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$33,000.00
$33,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$0.00
$0.00
$48,800.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Knee and Back Injury)
(policy limits + secondary claim) Recovery for victim who suffered knee and back injury due to a car accident.
(policy limits + secondary claim) Recovery for victim who suffered knee and back injury due to a car accident.
Total Recovery:
$48,800.00
$48,800.00
Attorney Fees:
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,188.00
$1,188.00
$200,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back Injury Requiring Surgery)
Recovery for motorcyclist who suffered a back injury in an 18-wheeler accident.
Recovery for motorcyclist who suffered a back injury in an 18-wheeler accident.
Total Recovery:
$200,000.00
$200,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$80,000.00
$80,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,709.00
$5,709.00
$41,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries)
Recovery for client who suffered soft tissue injuries when she was struck by an 18-wheeler.
Recovery for client who suffered soft tissue injuries when she was struck by an 18-wheeler.
Total Recovery:
$41,000.00
$41,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$13,666.00
$13,666.00
Litigation Expenses:
$135.00
$135.00
$300,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Facial Fractures and Head Trauma)
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
Total Recovery:
$300,000.00
$300,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$9,807.00
$9,807.00
$2,000,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
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.
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.
Total Recovery:
$2,000,000.00
$2,000,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$775,000.00
$775,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$250,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) A young mother was killed in an accident involving two commercial vehicles, one an 18-wheeler. The accident occurred as the young woman was a passenger in a vehicle that was traveling down a highway in the early morning hours. Without warning, the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a stalled 18-wheeler that parked in the right of way, resulting in catastrophic injuries that claimed the young woman's life soon thereafter.
The authorities initially faulted the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was a passenger, stating that he was using an electronic device rather than paying full attention to the roadway. However, the 18-wheeler was indeed blocking the roadway and plaintiff alleged that the vehicle did not follow the requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act in regard to providing adequate reflective or laminated warning at specific intervals. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to remove his vehicle from the roadway when he first noticed signs of mechanical failure.
Had he simply moved to the shoulder of the road, plaintiffs argued, his lack of adequate warning signs would have been inconsequential. An initial settlement has been obtained in this case, yet litigation has commenced in full against the remaining defendant, and is currently ongoing.
(policy limits) A young mother was killed in an accident involving two commercial vehicles, one an 18-wheeler. The accident occurred as the young woman was a passenger in a vehicle that was traveling down a highway in the early morning hours. Without warning, the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a stalled 18-wheeler that parked in the right of way, resulting in catastrophic injuries that claimed the young woman's life soon thereafter.
The authorities initially faulted the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was a passenger, stating that he was using an electronic device rather than paying full attention to the roadway. However, the 18-wheeler was indeed blocking the roadway and plaintiff alleged that the vehicle did not follow the requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act in regard to providing adequate reflective or laminated warning at specific intervals. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to remove his vehicle from the roadway when he first noticed signs of mechanical failure.
Had he simply moved to the shoulder of the road, plaintiffs argued, his lack of adequate warning signs would have been inconsequential. An initial settlement has been obtained in this case, yet litigation has commenced in full against the remaining defendant, and is currently ongoing.
Total Recovery:
$250,000.00
$250,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$78,000.00
$78,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$370.00
$370.00
$350,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back Injury Requiring Surgery)
Our client, a middle-aged woman, was injured when an 18-wheeler rear-ended her vehicle. As a consequence of the wreck, she sustained a back injury which required surgery to remedy. Naturally, the defendants denied liability and argued that the accident was unavoidable. Our attorneys filed suit. The defendant driver initially claimed that our client suddenly changed lanes in front of his tractor-trailer and then inexplicably slammed onto her brakes. When confronted with eye-witness testimony and other physical evidence that reflected an entirely different scenario, the truck driver ultimately recanted. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
Our client, a middle-aged woman, was injured when an 18-wheeler rear-ended her vehicle. As a consequence of the wreck, she sustained a back injury which required surgery to remedy. Naturally, the defendants denied liability and argued that the accident was unavoidable. Our attorneys filed suit. The defendant driver initially claimed that our client suddenly changed lanes in front of his tractor-trailer and then inexplicably slammed onto her brakes. When confronted with eye-witness testimony and other physical evidence that reflected an entirely different scenario, the truck driver ultimately recanted. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$350,000.00
$350,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$140,000.00
$140,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$8,188.00
$8,188.00
$180,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries and Labor Complications)
Recovery for pregnant car accident victim who suffered a premature delivery and soft tissue injuries.
Recovery for pregnant car accident victim who suffered a premature delivery and soft tissue injuries.
Total Recovery:
$180,000.00
$180,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$38,333.00
$38,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$138.00
$138.00
$60,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries & Chiropractic Treatment)
Recovered for client who was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler resulting in soft tissue injuries and chiropractic treatment.
Recovered for client who was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler resulting in soft tissue injuries and chiropractic treatment.
Total Recovery:
$60,000.00
$60,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,050.00
$1,050.00