Many of us use Lyft and Uber to get around town. But how safe are we? You need to know about these recent horrifying crimes their drivers committed on passengers:
- An Uber driver was caught after sexually assaulting a 77-year-old woman in Fort Worth;
- On Friday in Denver an Uber driver shot and killed his passenger. After firing ten .40 caliber bullets at him, the car veered off the road and crashed into a guard rail. The driver had a recent history of speeding and traffic violations;
- A few weeks ago we learned that over 100 Uber drivers had sexual assaulted or abused their passengers.
Yesterday, Uber once again promised its customers that it was working on making them safer.
Rather than rely on vague promises, here are seven good tips you can use to gauge your safety before you decide to get into an Uber of Lyft.
New Fort Worth Case: Supreme Court Caps Recovery for Death Caused By City Bus.
I filed a lawsuit last week against a school district whose loaded school bus driver crashed into my client’s vehicle.
The Texas Supreme Court just revisited the maximum damages that an injured person or the family of the deceased can receive in these cases.
The Texas Tort Claims Act places a $100,000 cap on the maximum damages if a local governmental vehicle (like a city or school bus) is involved.
The Supreme Court refused to raise that limit, even though different facts and statutes could have changed the results.
What happened in this case?
A Fort Worth woman was crossing the street downtown in 2010 when she was fatally struck by a Fort Worth Transportation Authority bus.
It was driven by a woman who worked for two independent contractors, not the local government agency.
Or if he doesn’t carry a large enough amount?
This is unfortunately a common question since here in Texas, 20% of drivers don’t have a liability policy, and from my personal experience, this number is much higher.
That means there are at least four million uninsured drivers on our roads. Yikes!
And that doesn’t even count the huge number of highly restricted “junk policies” our state legislators allow to be sold where the driver has been excluded from coverage by the owner.
A good personal injury lawyer will chase down these subprime companies, their insureds, and drivers and demand proof that there is no insurance. We have been successful at making some of them change their coverage decisions and pay claims, and when this doesn’t happen, sue the driver (and by extension his company) for our client’s damages and collect money that way.
Usually the other driver will have liability insurance coverage, but probably in the minimum amount of $30,000 for any one person’s injuries, $60,000 for all people he injured, and $25,000 for all vehicle damage.
Of course, this is often insufficient, especially if there are serious injuries with large medical bills and lost wages and/or multiple vehicles involved in the highway chain-reactions we see far too often on the highways in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
In this case, if you and your attorney can negotiate a successful settlement with his liability adjuster or you have to file suit and either settle at a later stage of the litigation (which happens 99% of the time) or go to a trial, you will be paid this amount.
But what happens if and when he or she didn’t have insurance — or didn’t have enough? If you file a lawsuit and take a judgment, how will you collect your damages?
This is a serious problem that Texas drivers often have to deal with.
After having an affair with President Trump, then accepting $130,000 and signing a silencing agreement just before the election, the lawsuit the porn star filed last week went viral.
But since she chose to sign the agreement, how can she talk about the affair now? And what does this scandal have to do with my field of personal injury?
You know by now that the case involves a shadowy nondisclosure agreement between the comically named David Dennison and Peggy Peterson.
A clause in the agreement required the parties to resolve disputes through confidential arbitration, a provision common in whistle-blower contracts, and provides for enormous damages of $1 million if “Peggy” speaks out.
But Trump never signed the contract, so there is a legal question whether it is valid. And there is the moral issue of whether the most powerful man in the world can stifle anyone, especially a woman in this era of “me-too.”
The administration just indicated that it has already won a temporary restraining order and may try to to exercise prior restraint on the freedom of the press and prevent her interview with 60 Minutes from being broadcast.
Her lawsuit has lavished attention on this once obscure legal detail. Continue reading
Arbitration clauses have become the norm in health care provider contracts that patients must sign.
Why? They usually favor the big hospital over the little consumer and remove the possibility of a lawsuit.
But what happens when a patient is better off trying to resolve a billing dispute in front of a jury of his peers, not a panel of businessmen?
On Monday an all-too-rare appellate decision allowed that to happen when it sided with an injured Texan in Cardon v. Goldberg.
Why did hospital file a lien against patient’s settlement?
Susan Goldberg received treatment at the Seton Healthcare Services emergency room in Austin for injuries she sustained in an automobile collision. Ms. Goldberg incurred $7,800 in charges which were billed to her health insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas. BCBS had the standard reduction contract with the hospital and the bill was reduced to $6,503.
BCBS agreed to pay its share of $4,600 and Ms. Goldberg was billed the remaining $1,903. She forwarded that to her own automobile insurance provider, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. So far, so good.
However, instead of just paying that lower amount, Nationwide somehow paid the full $5,000 available under her personal injury protection (PIP) policy.
You might think this situation could be easily corrected. After all, the hospital was paid in excess of the original bill, let alone the adjusted bill as negotiated by BCBS, and could simply refund the difference. Ms. Goldberg never agreed that all $5,000 of her PIP proceeds was to paid to the ER and had other medical bills and lost wages that she presumably wanted to pay with those funds.
But nothing is straightforward in the often Upside Down world of insurance (“Stranger Things” fans will quickly agree). Continue reading
Our use of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media platforms is rampant. We think nothing of exchanging our private thoughts online. But those posts can come back to haunt people who have been injured in car wrecks. Look at what just happened to this woman.
A New York appeals court just delivered a decision that will help insurance company lawyers further pry into the social media accounts of people injured in car wrecks. The court held that a woman’s “private” Facebook status did not prevent disclosure of photos showing her physical condition before and after an accident.
In the discovery phase of lawsuits, one piece of evidence can lead to another. So courts are liberal in what attorneys can obtain if there is justification for its release. While you might assume that your post was not meant to be read by strangers, courts have taken the opposite approach.
Social media is a hot topic in the law. As the law and technology are rapidly evolving, questions about privacy versus their use at trial are common.
I’m always astonished how many drivers do not appear to know what the traffic laws are. But it’s been 30 or 40 years since many people read the driver’s handbook back in driver’s education class and no retest has been required since.
Many of our rules of the road are common sense or common courtesy — two things you don’t see as much of these days. But others can be a little confusing.
For example, what happens if two people arrive at a four way stop exactly at the same time? Or a traffic light is out and there is a blinking red light?
But turning at an intersection is a simple task.
We have a ridiculous number of car wrecks in Texas. It is tragic that over 21,000 people died or were seriously injured in them in 2016, according to sobering statistics that were just released.
So it’s worth reviewing traffic laws, especially right-of-way rules, every now and then. Continue reading
Does the State of Texas have a duty to warn drivers about a dangerous road condition? Last week’s decision by a Texas appellate court ruling said that it did.
The Dallas court affirmed a jury’s verdict in favor of a motorcyclist who crashed when his wheels hit a large crack in the highway. The trial court capped the $1,200,000 verdict at $250,000, the maximum damages allowed under the Texas Tort Claims Act, and the state appealed.
Brian Milton was traveling on FM Road 148 in Kaufman in 2012 at night. He couldn’t see the deep cracks in the road pictured here until he hit one and crashed his bike into a ditch. Milton had never driven on this road before. He was severely injured.
Testimony from state employees and other evidence showed that the TxDOT clearly knew about the problem before the crash. The responding officer noted the “big cracks” in the roadway.
A few days later, Milton’s wife took this photo of the severely eroded highway. And just one month earlier, a TxDOT worker had taken pictures of the poor road conditions and ordered signs to warn drivers about the failing road but the signs weren’t placed in the correct location.
In addition, the agency had begun roadwork nearby but had not yet made its way to the area of the crash where work orders were in place.
A rare Congressional victory for injured plaintiffs.
Buried within the 600 pages of the federal Bipartisan Budget Act enacted on Friday is an obscure provision that allows some auto accident victims to keep more of their settlement or verdicts.
This resolves an ongoing reimbursement battle that has been an ongoing issue in personal issue cases since a catastrophic 1996 Arkansas vehicle collision crash.
All states have statutes requiring tort claimants to repay them for medical expenses paid by their Medicaid programs. But calculating exactly how much of the plaintiff’s verdict or settlement should be reimbursed has caused vexing problems for attorneys.
For example, was it fair that the state be repaid in full while the injured person received little — if any — money? How much of the recovery had been allocated to those medical bills as opposed to other damages? And what happened in those all too frequent cases with difficult liability and damage issues and small insurance policy limits and assets that had affected case valuations in the first place?
With the new law, Medicaid enrollees will no longer be forced to reimburse state agencies from money they recovered for their non-medical expenses. As a result, they will be able to keep more of the funds for their own use.
The 1996 case: Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn
A young woman named Heidi Ahlborn was severely injured and her medical bills were astronomical. A portion ($215,000.00) was paid by her state’s Medicaid program. The Arkansas Department of Human Services (ADHS) obtained an assignment of rights from Ms. Ahlborn to repay the state from her settlement or verdict.