Houston Personal Injury Attorneys – Smith & Hassler

August 9, 2010: Opponents of Houston’s red light camera program turned in 30,000 signatures on a petition backing a proposed charter amendment to have the cameras banned.  Mayor Annise Parker is questioning whether there is sufficient time for the city secretary to verify the signatures are from Houston voters before an upcoming August 24th election deadline. Opponents of the cameras claim the program has more to do with generating revenues than it does with promoting safe driving and reducing car accidents in Houston.  The Chronicle’s story is available here.

Strike up a conversation with someone about personal injury lawsuits and more often than not the so-called “McDonalds coffee case” is brought up.  The case is usually brought up by people who will tell you they are opposed to personal injury lawsuits, they generally don’t care for people who bring injury claims and they really don’t like personal injury lawyers. Often these people take the position that the lawsuit was frivolous, that the injured lady is responsible for her own injuries and that the jury way over-compensated her.  This opinion is usually based on knowing few of the specifics of that particular case.  Wikipedia has a very good write-up of the case, Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, that is well worth reading.  You can view it by clicking here.  Here’s a few of the high points of things you may not know about the case:

* Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, sustained third degree burns to her groin area and spent 8-days in hospital undergoing skin grafts.

* Stella offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000 which would include reimbursement of her $11,000 in medical costs.  In response McDonald’s offered Stella $800.

* During the lawsuit Stella’s attorneys discovered that McDonald’s required its franchisees to serve coffee at 180 to 190 degrees. At that temperature the coffee would cause a third degree burn in two to seven seconds. From 1982 to 1992 McDonald’s received 700 reports of people burned by McDonald’s coffee to varying degrees of severity.

* A 12 person jury reached a verdict on August 18, 1994 and found Stella 20% responsible for her injuries and McDonald’s 80% responsible.  The jury found that although there was a warning on the coffee cup, the warning was not large enough and was not sufficient as worded.

Ultimately the decision must be your own as to whether you decide to retain a personal injury attorney to represent you for a car accident case (or any other injury case). A good personal injury attorney will give you a free consultation and will be up front with you about what an attorney can and cannot do for you.  At the end of the consultation you should feel that you understand what is involved in presenting a personal injury or car accident claim and how the process works. You should not feel pressured to sign up with an attorney simply because they met with you and gave a free consultation.  You should be able to make an informed decision about retaining an attorney.

Something you might consider in weighing whether to have representation is who is “on the other side” of your claim. In the great majority of instances you will be dealing with representatives of an insurance company (“adjusters”) who have handled many hundreds if not thousands of claims similar to yours.  Smith & Hassler’s attorneys and support staff routinely represent clients’ interests in claims made with insurers such as Allstate, State Farm, Progressive, Farmers, Liberty Mutual, Safeco, Zurich, Fred Loya, Mercury, USAA, Texas Farm Bureau, Germania and many others.

Insurance adjusters have an advantage over you in that they are very experienced in handling injury claims.  You on the other hand have probably been in one or two automobile accidents your entire life, and find the claims process frustrating and cumbersome, largely because you are not familiar with your rights under the applicable laws.  Bias aside, insurance companies and the adjusters that work for them have a financial incentive to pay you as small a settlement as possible.  Here is a link to a special report by CNN’s Anderson Cooper on how major auto insurers such as Allstate and State Farm play hardball with people making injury claims under their policies.

Insurance companies profit when they collect insurance premiums from their policyholders.  Paying claims eats into those profits, therefore what do you think an insurance company would rather pay you on your claim: fair value or as little as they can get away with?  Having an experienced, knowledgeable personal injury attorney on your side helps keep the insurance company honest and increases the likelihood you will be fairly compensated for your injuries and losses.

A good personal injury firm will make themselves available to answer your questions during the lifespan of your injury claim and will promptly return calls.  Research has shown that clients’ number one pet peeve is unreturned calls.  Your personal injury attorney ideally will handle the administrative burdens of your claim, such as gathering your medical bills and records from your medical providers, documenting lost income and if the claim is to be settled negotiating reductions of outstanding medical bills when possible.

Most personal injury attorneys, including Smith & Hassler, work on a contingent fee arrangement where the attorneys are paid for their work only if the client recovers.  For that reason the attorney and client’s interests are truly aligned and the attorney and client are in a sense partners.  For that reason there is great value to getting recommendations from friends, family and co-workers who have retained a personal injury attorney and been satisfied.

Friday July 23, 2010: Transocean Chief Engineer technician Mike Williams told a Marine Board panel that a computer monitoring fire, gas and toxic fume sensors was working at the time of the rig explosion, however the alarm had been “inhibited.”  The ultimate effect of setting the alarm this way was to cause the sensors to send information to the computer, but for the computer to NOT trigger an alarm. Williams also testified that inhibiting the system this way prevents the computer from activating emergency shut down systems designed to stop or minimize damage. Williams said the reason this decision was made is because the rig’s supervisors did not want people woken at 3:00am by false alarms.

Read Click2Houston.com’s report on the story here

Read the Houston Chronicle’s report on the story here