San Antonio Injury Attorney Blog

There are various types of losses a Texas personal injury attorney can recover for an injured claimant. In San Antonio wrongful death cases , for example, medical, funeral, and burial expenses can be recovered in a survival action brought by the executor of the estate. Medical and funeral expenses are also recoverable in wrongful death actions, but recovery is strictly limited to those expenses actually incurred by the beneficiaries.

In an action for wrongful death, the beneficiary can recover medical expenses provided the beneficiary had a legal obligation to pay for those expenses. In addition, an estate can recover punitive damages in a survival action, but parents cannot recover exemplary / punitive damages for a child's death. Any expenses must also be reasonable in order to have recovery.

In a survival or wrongful death action, there is also recovery for pecuniary losses such as the value of the care, support, and services, a plaintiff would have received if the deceased individual had lived. There must be evidence the deceased family member provided such support and services. Expenses for psychological counseling also fall under the realm of pecuniary losses and may be recovered in wrongful death actions.

When an adult child has died, the parents are entitled to pecuniary damages relating to care and maintenance that the parent would have received from the adult child if he had not died. /for example, in the Ledezma case, the jury awarded $215,000 in pecuniary losses to the mother of an adult child who had supported his family since the age of seven.

Under the Texas Wrongful Death Act, the beneficiary may assert damages for loss of inheritance. The loss of inheritance damages are determined by estimating the amount the decedent would have left the beneficiaries if not for the premature death or accident. If for some reason, the deceased injured party would have outlived the beneficiary, then inheritance damages would be denied. There must also be enough evidence in the record to place a dollar figure on the likely estate value at the end of a normal life as well as the present value if the estate in order for such inheritance damages to be awarded.

Wrongful death claimants and survival beneficiaries are also entitled to lost earnings. A loss of earnings capacity damages claim is not limited by the deceased's salary prior to injury. For example, a plaintiff has been found entitled to loss of earnings capacity damages when the deceased was unemployed at the time of injury.

There is a distinction between loss of earnings capacity damages and loss of earnings damages. In contrast to loss of earnings capacity, to obtain loss of earnings damages, the wrongful death plaintiff must demonstrate with reasonable certainty that actual amount of lost past earnings. It must also be shown that the plaintiff who was killed had capacity to work prior to the injury and the injury seriously hurt that capacity. Moreover, any past employment that can illuminate what the plaintiff's future earnings could have been can be introduced. Evidence of the weaknesses and degenerative nature that resulted from personal injury and plaintiff's work-life expectancy are additional factors.

Medical and funeral expenses, pecuniary losses, loss of inheritance, loss of earning capacity, and loss of earnings are some of the economic damages a Texas wrongful death lawyer will pursue for you in a San Antonio serious personal injury accident or malpractice claim.

Since January 1, 2009, there have been several important developments affecting motor vehicle accident personal injury litigation in San Antonio and greater Texas .

Specifically, the Texas legislature updated the minimum limits for auto insurance to $25,000 for injuries per person for policies written after April 1, 2008 and $50,000 per accident if more than 1 person is injured. There is a $25,000 minimum coverage for property damage for policies written after April 1, 2008 with allowances of a $250 deductible per person injured or for property damage and $500 per accident. See Tex. Transportation Code § 601.072.

In a recent San Antonio accident San Antonio car accident involving a dump truck and eighteen-wheeler (18 wheeler), the Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict against the dump truck driver and his employee. The court ruled that had the employer followed the law and contacted the driver’s former employee, he would have discovered the driver’s multiple speeding citations and positive drug test for cocaine. Moreover, the court upheld the award of $400,000 for pain and suffering, because it appeared the driver was at least conscious while his vehicle spun out of control and was aware he would soon die.

In another auto accident case, drivers brought suit against the Texas Department of Transportation for deaths and injuries caused by loose gravel on the road. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that loose gravel was not a special defect under the Texas Tort Claims act, and the TxDOT did not owe a invitee standard of care to drivers.

If you have been in an auto accident, do not delay. Contact a San Antonio injury auto accident lawyer today.

In San Antonio and greater Texas, there have been several key personal injury cases in the area of premises liability in 2009.

In one case, a guest at a condominium severed his finger while sitting in a pool-side chair. The court held there was no evidence that the condo association had actual or constructive knowledge of the broken weld in the chair. A San Antonio personal injury attorney can aggressively pursue evidence of constructive or actual knowledge in premises liability cases.

In a case against the City of San Antonio alleging benzene exposure from a nearby closed municipal landfill, the Texas Supreme Court found there was no expert evidence as to the level of benzene in the plaintiff’s daughter. There were also questions concerning the association between the mother’s exposure to benzene and the daughter’s leukemia in utero. Oftentimes, benzene lawsuits in Texas hinge on the quality and strength of expert opinions on causation.

In another case, a contractor sued for personal injuries against the San Antonio property owner
when he fell through the roof while trying to repair an air conditioning unit. The court denied the property owner’s motion for summary judgment, because the plaintiff’s claim arose from the condition of the roof, not the air conditioner.

In another case out of Corpus Christi, the estate and family of a deceased inmate brought a Texas wrongful death action against a private correctional facility after the inmate was murdered by two inmates. Allegedly, the prison guards did nothing to stop the attack and the prison wardens laughed. $47.5 million was awarded in actual and punitive damages. The court held there was sufficient evidence to show negligence, and it supported the trial court’s spoliation instruction concerning the destruction of the prison’s surveillance tapes.

In the last ten years, SUV rollovers have become a major problem in San Antonio and greater Texas. There are several factors that contribute to this tragic phenomenon in the states. For example, many manufacturers produce SUVs with an excessively high center of gravity. Sometimes, SUVs possess weak suspension systems or shock absorbers that are not located far enough outboard. The bottom line is that it is absolutely unacceptable when an SUV or any type of vehicle for that matter can roll over on a flat surface - manufacturing defects are absolutely present.

Imagine you or a loved one is properly seat belted and your vehicle rolls over. Now you are facing complete disability as a quadriplegic. A Texas personal injury serving Texas and San Antonio is needed to effectively prosecute these types of manufacturing defects.

One of the most glaring defects is a defectively designed roof. A roof is considered excessively crushed when the crush measures more than 4 inches. The most amazing thing is that these roofs actually meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which represent the baseline. However, the fact that these roofs meet the federal standards does not pre-empt a suit for personal injury damages.

The history of standards on vehicle roof crush standards is very ironic. When the roof crush is designed in such a way that it does not exceed four (4) inches, a seat belted individual (or even a non-seat belted individual) would not likely suffer rollover injury even when the vehicle exceeds ninety (90) miles per hour.

In fact, the now bankrupt General Motors (GM) at one time possessed the goal of manufacturing vehicles that would not roll over up to 65 mph. Yet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were modified so that the Federal standard on the crush limit for roofs was greater than 4 inches. Thus, auto manufacturers like GM had little incentive to build SUVs with roofs that did not exceed roof crush limit of 4 inches.

With the rise in gas prices, the decrease in SUV sales, and the increasing emphasis on safety, one hopes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will lower the roof crush limit to a safe level. Recently the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) has imposed much stricter roof standards, doubling the requirement for light vehicles weighing up to 6,000 pounds. Now, the roof protecting both the driver and passenger sides must be able to withstand a force equal to 3x the weight of the vehicle. For vehicles between 6,000 to 10,000 pounds, the roof has to be able to withstand a force equal to 1.5x the weight of the vehicle. See the USDOT news release.

These types of vehicle rollovers and roof crush are absolutely unacceptable, and a Rollover Personal Injury attorney can assist you with prosecuting this case with the right mix of investigators and experts.

As a follow up to our last entry on defective vehicle door latches in which persons are ejected through the door, San Antonio and Texas are seeing a rash of auto accidents in which occupants are being ejected through the vehicle window. The problem is especially acute in rollovers and other car crashes.

Why does this happen? First, the side roll down windows are made of glass that will disintegrate into thousands of small pieces facilitating ejection. Yet the fact of the matter is that the glass should possess an interlayer of plastic to guard against ejection i.e. a form of laminated glass. When auto makers do not employ this laminated glass, they place occupants at great risk of ejection - all in the name of saving less than $20. It is a design defect for which they should be held accountable.

In the last 30 years, auto makers have done crash tests on vehicle with unseatbelted dummies. When laminated side glass windows are used, the dummies are not ejected. Laminated glass side windows are just as safe as the older, more dangerous design.

A San Antonio and greater Texas personal injury attorney will be able to guide you through the tragic consequences of ejection as a result of the failure to use laminated glass.

Why do we hear about passenger and drivers being ejected out of a vehicle during an accident? What happened - how are they ejected through the car doors?

The answer is simple : the door latches unlatch due to particular inertia forces caused by the accident or a compression of the rod in the door latch as a result of the twisting of the vehicle. Yet a San Antonio and greater Texas personal injury attorney will tell you that door latches are simply not supposed to come unlatched during a car crash. If the door came open when a vehicle went through a rollover or an accident in general, then there is most certainly a design defect in the latch.

Can you believe that the auto industry has known for decades about a solution to keep door latches from unlatching ? The solution is called a Bowden cable - it costs less than $10 and is a suitable substitute for the customary rod in the door latch setup. Manufacturers have also developed door latches that will not be affected by inertia forces.

It is imperative to preserve evidence and consult with the necessary greater San Antonio and Texas legal experts when you or a loved one have suffered devastating injury as a result of being ejected from a vehicle.

Throughout San Antonio and greater Texas, stories abound of deadly vehicle fires, that burn, maim, and ultimately kill drivers and passengers. There are many potential explanations behind vehicle fires. Some of the most common defects include electrical problems, leakage of gasoline from the fuel lines, and the ignition of transmission fluid. A strong Texas auto accident personal injury attorney will be able to pinpoint automotive defects including defective electrical devices, transmissions, and/or ignition switches.

It is a well known fact that the automotive manufacturers do not adequately protect the gas tank, which can inevitably cause the gas tank to be punctured and lead to fuel ignition. An automobile must be designed with effective inertia shutoff devices which stop the flow of fuel druing a crash. Ultimately, vehicle fires are a preventable occurrence if the car is adequately designed.

If you or a loved one have been seriously injured by a vehicle fire, consult a Texas personal injury attorney to guide you through the process of preserving evidence and retaining the right experts to defend your claims.

In San Antonio , Texas, and throughout the United States, an interesting problem is occurring - you have your seat belt on as an occupant in a car accident and the official police report says you did not have the seat belt on. You are angry and upset, because you know that you did in fact have your seat belt on. The Texas Department of Public Safety like many states offer specific occupant restraint laws .

Unfortunately, the crash impact can actually cause the seat belt to detach without any evidence of damage. After the accident, the seat belt functions without a problem, and there are no stress signs on the webbing of the belt, plate where the belt latches, and the metal D-ring.

Do not fret - even if a traffic investigation report reflects that the seat belt was not worn, you may in fact have a good seatbelt defect case .

The phenomenon behind seat belt defects lies in the application of G forces created by the crash. The G forces create enough energy to move the buckle with vibration. The vibration can effect the spring that latches the buckle, in effect forcing the button to release the seat belt to move downward. A passenger's hip can also create enough force to unlatch the belt.

The unlatching of the seat belt is known as 'inertia unlatch'. Seatbelts can be designed in such a way that inertia unlatch does not occur - yet, ironically auto manufacturers will not implement these latch designs. During a crash, an occupant can be subject to severe abdominal injuries when their body moves under the lap belt. In addition, some seatbelts do not lock during crashes because of defects in the seat belt retractors.

Even in rollover accidents, investigators will find the retractors on the seat belts will lock and unlock multiple times. The slack in the seat belt caused by defective retractors can be extremely dangerous.

In the course of an investigation of an auto accident in Texas , an expert accident reconstructionist makes mathematical calculations that revolve around a physics concept : the Delta V. The Delta V represents velocity change. To illustrate, imagine your car strikes another object and decelerates from 35 mph to 25 mph. The Delta V is 10 mph.

Air bags generally do not deploy in auto accidents where the Delta V is 14 mph or less. The common misperception is that the air bags should deploy when the vehicle crashes into another object that moves after impact, causing people to believe the Delta V is not great enough to trigger air bag deployment.

In addition, if your vehicle or SUV is involved in a rollover, do not expect the air bag to open. Air bags open and deflate in a fraction of a second - their main function is to protect on the initial impact but they do not provide continuous protection.

Federal Motor Carrier Vehicle Safety Standard 571.208 covers occupant crash protection and air bags.

Do you have an air bag defect case ? There are sensors in the air bags that evaluate crash data and those sensors could be defective. The sensors feed information to an air bag computer that sends signals to the air bag to open. There may be defects in the computer as well. There may also be late deployment of air bags, which may also be attributable to defects.

A proper investigation of a potential air bag defect case requires an accident reconstructionist to evaluate the air bag computer data.

We all remember the tragic Firestone injuries and accidents that occurred throughout San Antonio and the state of Texas a few years ago, and the lengths to which tire manufacturers have gone to avoid liability.

The cornerstone behind tire blowouts and defects is a phenomenon known as ' detreading '. Detreading is the foundation of a great deal of auto injuries, and an injured victim needs a San Antonio and greater Texas personal injury attorney who knows how to work tire defect cases.

When a tire detreads, the tread of the tire literally separates from the rest of the tire. Alternatively, underneath the tire tread are steel belts which can also detach from the tire. The tire manufacturers utilize unacceptable bonding techniques that cause the separation.

If you ever visit a tire factory, you will witness the placement of the tire into a large press-like apparatus. The tire is exposed to a tremendous amount of pressurized heat, so that the rubber can meld together. The real manufacturing problems occur when dirt or foreign-like substances contaminate the tire. Sometimes, the rubber is simply not quality or the steel belts undergo oxidation. Consequently, when such factors occur, the tire is more likely to detread. To further complicate the situation, the press may have mechanical issues with insufficient pressurized heat, which will also affect bonding.

The key for a San Antonio Texas tire defect attorney is to locate indivduals with knowledge of the defects in the manufacturing process of the tire manufacturer. These individuals are known as whistle blowers. Tire manufacturers counter claims of manufacturing defects by claiming the tire was under or over inflated or possessed punctures that created excessive heat and de-treading.

Yet even in these situations where the user over or underinflated the tire, it is still incumbent on the manufacturer to incorporate a ' cap ply ' in the manufacturing process. A cap ply is a sheet of nylon placed above the steel belts under the tread. The nylon holds the steel belts in place even when the belts separate from the tread. The tread itself is more likely to hold in place with the cap ply.

Although the cap ply is a relatively inexpensive and easy design to incorporate, in their quest for profits, the tire manufacturers still do not use the cap ply.

Many victims of tire defects are entitled to punitive damages, and a strong attorney will seek out other victims who were injured similarly by the same type of tire defect from the same tire manufacturer. Other key personnel include any accident witnesses and investigators in the other similar incident. It is essential to establish that the tire did not undergo any changes from the time it left the assembly line at the factory to the time detreading occurred.

As Texas roads become littered with more and more trucks traveling across state lines, Texas residents are at greater risk of catastrophic heavy truck accidents. If you have been a victim of a heavy trucking accident in Texas or the greater southwest region, then time is running against you and it is imperative that you contact a Texas personal injury attorney who can guide you through the maze of discovery and help your case obtain critical time sensitive evidence.

Today, all major tractor trailer and heavy truck drivers in Texas and the companies that employ them are governed by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Standards . The standards and regulations of this government agency are designed to reduce Texas crashes and injuries caused by trucks and buses.

The most significant aspect of these regulations is that in the course of an investigation a Texas personal injury attorney can discover specific violations of the Federal Safety standards. Any violation automatically creates the presumption of negligence per se, a legal term used to reflect negligence as a matter of law. In negligence per se situation, the issue of whether the truck driver committed negligence has already been answered and the question never goes to the jury. With negligence per se, a personal injury victim is eligible to receive punitive damages, which are intended to punish reckless conduct and are awarded in addition to actual damages.

A Texas strong heavy trucking accident attorney will take important steps such as the subpoena of the driver's trip expenses and compare those expenses with the driver log. Oftentimes, there will be discrepancies between the expense record and the log. For example, the trip expenses may show the driver was operating the vehicle while a log shows the driver was sleeping. Under federal regulations, drivers can only operate their vehicle for so many hours within a given period.

Other steps include a thorough mechanical survey of the truck's brakes and other potential mechanical issues to determine whether improper maintenance caused the accident. Again, improper maintenance would be considered negligence per se.

A Texas personal injury attorney will employ a heavy trucking expert to discuss discrepancies in the driver's log and poor maintenance to influence a jury as to who truly was at fault.

More often than not, a Texas personal injury attorney will need to employ an expert in a complex personal injury case, especially those involving complex auto accidents or product liability cases. The United States Supreme Court has decided several landmark decisions that define acceptable experts and their testimony. Those cases include Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals and Kumho Tire Inc. v. Carmichael . However, the plaintiffs' bar is discovering that more experts are being disqualified at an alarming rate.

Many times, once the plaintiff's expert has been disqualified, the defendants will win on summary judgment, because the plaintiff can no longer prove causation. Texas has tightened standards in some cases. For example, some Texas courts have taken the position that a substance alleged to be cancerous, such as benzene, must have evidence indicating a 100% increase in the cancer rate over the general population. In other cases, judges have been known to exclude animal studies of product exposure as being unreliable despite the fact that animal studies are routinely used in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) risk assessments.

In the past, courts often looked favorably on the local certified engineer or registered professor to testify on behalf of the injured plaintiff. That is no longer the case. These days, especially in the area of products liability and testimony regarding a defective product, the only acceptable expert will be one who was involved in the design of a similar product.

In addition, a test of basic scientific principles by a local expert may not be acceptable to the court on account that the test is not recognized by the scientific community and has not been deemed a reliable test in a peer reviewed journal.

As you can see, it is very likely that experts and their scientific evidence which the courts once accepted, could now be excluded. Once a court excludes an expert, then defense lawyers take the exclusion order to other courts where that expert will testify and try to use the order to disqualify the expert again.

To properly navigate this growing system of expert exclusion, a San Antonio and Texas products liability attorney must have experts who were previously employed in a similar industry (for example, the pharmaceutical industry) and who were involved in the design of a similar product. Rigorous research is needed to make sure the peer publications are strong enough to back the expert opinion and that his method of research is accepted as a reliable. The more scientific evidence published by the expert in a journal of his / her peers, the more likely, the expert will be Daubert-proof.

In our last entry, BLF discussed the trends in San Antonio and greater Texas personal injury cases involving parental liability for the negligent acts of their children. We covered parental liability for the use of dangerous instruments especially where the parent(s) know their children are using dangerous instruments and may have violent tendencies. The common dangerous instruments are ATVs and guns, including non-lethal paintball guns.

In this entry, we discuss claims involving a minor's use of an automobile (including motorcycles) which harms another. The common tort for a parent's civil liability is known as a claim for negligent parental entrustment of a motor vehicle. The basis for such a claim is two-fold. First, the parent must have exercised some control over the vehicle. Second, the parent must know of a child's tendency to drive recklessly.

The fact that a parent owns a vehicle under many Texas Supreme and state court decisions is not enough to qualify under the claim of negligent parental entrustment. In fact, many courts throughout the nation have stated that a parent may have to be physically present while the child was operating the vehicle in order to hold the parent liable for negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle. You should consult with a personal injury for the latest requirements on a negligent entrustment claim.

In addition, with respect to a parent's knowledge of a child's propensity to drive recklessly, some courts have ruled that a parent's knowledge of prior traffic accidents may not qualify as knowledge. Courts have ruled that the existence of prior motor vehicle accidents involving teenagers does not necessarily reflect knowledge by the parents of a tendency to drive recklessly. Because claims are very fact specific, and the law is always changing, consult with a greater San Antonio Texas personal injury attorney. Reckless teen driving is always a potential negligent entrustment claim.

Parents should also be aware they can be held liable for alcohol consumption by a minor child which causes injury to others. The Texas courts are very specific that parents can be held civilly liable where they furnish alcohol to the minor. Texas laws for furnishing alcohol to minors under the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) permits liability where a party is injured by an intoxicated person under age 21 and the parent furnished alcohol to the minor. Parents should be ultra vigilant where they encourage alcohol consumption by minors in San Antonio and greater Texas.

Generally, parents will not often be assessed civil liability for the negligent acts of their children. However, in situation where parents did not properly supervise their children's use of dangerous instruments such as ATVs and guns, including paint ball guns, there is potential liability. In addition, liability for a minor's use of a motor vehicle or consumption of alcohol can still attach to the parents. Key questions include the parent(s)' knowledge of violent propensities by the child in the case of dangerous instruments. Check with your greater San Antonio Texas personal injury attorney for your options if you have been personally injured by a minor.

Your child has committed some form of negligence in Texas resulting in a personal injury to another person. Are you as the parent responsible for your child's negligence ? To what degree ? These are common questions being played out by San Antonio and greater Texas personal injury attorneys throughout the state and nation.

When faced with potential causes of action against parents of children who have committed negligent acts, several theories of liability may be utilized. The first theory is a failure of the parent(s) to supervise. The second theory is the parent allowing a child to operate a motor vehicle or dangerous objects. The final theory of liability surrounds personal injuries from drug or alcohol intoxication .

Several states subscribe to the rule that parents cannot be held liable for a failure to properly supervise their children. Yet there are certain situations in which a parent could very well be held civilly liable for the actions of their children. Those situations arise where parents negligently entrust their children with "dangerous instruments".

A common form of dangerous instrument is a gun. However, many Texas and San Antonio residents would be surprised to learn that even a paintball gun can be classified as a dangerous instrument. The implication is that theoretically parents can be held liable where their child used a paintball gun to cause an eye injury to another minor, particularly in situations where the injury was caused outside an actual paintball game. Gun safety particularly in Texas with its abundant outdoor hunting opportunities is a serious issue for any parent to consider.

In other cases, a Texas All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) has been upheld to be a dangerous instrument. Juries have determined that due to the speeds associated with such a vehicle, and the ability of a passenger to hold on to the driver while seated, an ATV is a dangerous instrument.

The key question in many Texas personal injury cases is whether the parent was in fact aware that the child possessed the dangerous instrument. Another secondary factor is whether the parents knew of any potentially violent propensities of the child to hurt others. Generally, if it can be shown that the parent(s) did not know that the child possessed a dangerous instrument or knew of any violent predispositions of their children, Texas negligence claims for negligent supervision of children will fail as to the parents.

Enjoy the video - Baseluos Law Firm (BLF) will cover parental liability for their children's negligent use of auto and minor alcohol consumption.

In a serious Texas auto accident, a law firm can confront one of the most difficult cases : a plaintiff who suffers a spinal cord injury. What exactly you may ask is a spinal cord injury? A high spinal cord injury during an auto collision refers to an injury to the spinal cord at a level of C4 or higher. These types of injuries can occur in a car crash, but they can also result from a fall or sports related injury. In San Antonio and throughout the state of Texas, high spinal cord injuries are devastating and costly for the plaintiffs and their families.

A personal injury attorney must confront the paralysis of his client whenever injury occurs at the C4 vertebrae level or higher. Often, a significant injury to the spinal cord will cause the plaintiff to stop breathing shortly after the vehicle crash. Some paralyzed plaintiffs are able to be resuscitated at the scene of the accident. Neurological complications can occur. For plaintiffs injured after the age of 29 with neurological complications, the survival rate drops to about 50% after 10 years. Ventilator Associated Pneumonia (VAP) becomes the leading cause of death for victims over 55 years. With expert medical assistance and treatment , families and care givers can minimize the massive effects of high spinal cord injuries on a plaintiff's ability to breathe.

A plaintiff's attorney confronted with such a devastating injury will enlist medical experts to analyze medical records, develop case chronologies, and prepare pain and suffering reports. The right documentation is the key to securing a large recovery. A Texas injury lawyer will work with experts to prepare life care plans, prepare medical illustrations for trial, and assist with the preparation of settlement brochures.

A Texas personal injury attorney will be able to assist you if you do your homework following an auto accident. There are certain checklists about the details of an accident that you should bear in mind when you bring your case to a qualified motor vehicle accident lawyer in San Antonio.

For example, note where the accident happened; the physical and mental condition of the other driver; time of day (darkness, sunset, dawn); position of the vehicles; observations before impact; point of impact; force of impact; and factors affecting visibility. An auto accident in Texas , especially San Antonio, can be affected by the angle of the sun, rain, curves or hills, and even a dirty windshield.

After your serious or minor auto accident, you should compile information regarding each vehicle owned including the name of the owner and also whether the vehicle involved was empty or loaded (affects force of impact). You will be asked about the specifics of the collision including positions and speeds of other cars. In Texas law, the personal injury liability will fall on certain facts affecting the driver's negligence including intoxication and speed.

If you are a pedestrian injured by an automobile, you may be asked questions about distance, corrective lenses, color of clothing, and obstructions. Personal injury damages in Texas are also an issue. Were there prior claims or lawsuits? Who were the treating physicians and what did they treat the accident victim for? Were you rendered unconscious? Where were you taken after the auto accident and what types of tests did you undergo? X-rays? MRI?

A qualified motor vehicle attorney will focus on your present pain and suffering after the auto accident, your medical expenses, loss of earnings, and property damage.

It is up to the Texas attorney to aggressively pursue the defendant's insurance carrier and determine the adjuster's willingness to handle legal disputes. The lawyers will also focus on witnesses such as eyewitnesses and statements made by the defendant to witnesses or the injured person. In the end, if you are injured in an auto accident, stay alert and write down everything. Take pictures if you can of personal injuries and property damage at the scene. You will have done you and your personal injury lawyer representing you a great favor!