eight: 400;”>No one nts to get into h /c inju se houston-t ccident-l ye “> ith uck
>. Most of the time, it doesn’t tu n out so the sm vehicle. T vy, y h ds. Moto nd pedest ns be the b ct in ith uck, e the bulk of the inju ny of those inju t ho esc ith thei ce ye s of p nd dis sp
b
sic pinciple of ou
legl system th
t the people ocomp
niesho c
use tuck
ccidents should py fo
the dm
ge they inflict. But, hodoes
n injued victim of
tuck
ccident find outho those people
e?
nd, hodoes th
t victim <sp
n>ove n><
i> eight: 400;”> they c ccident ies? Ho ope te uck sp
t’s
ht
e tckle in this blog post. n>
Fo
St
te
s, YOU Don’t Usully Investig
te; Youttoney’s Te
m Does.<b>
eight: 400;”> ve eno espect fo clients. M ough iod, f l, emotion nd fin l ch im ve to c d of investig cumst nd they don’t.
ing
n expeienced,
ell-esou
cedtto
ney mens getting
tem—not just one l
ye
, butg
oup of top-notch pofession
ls—ho m
ke it theimission to uncove
evey det
il of yout
uckccident. You c
nest e
synd concent
te on he
ling, knoing you
lye’s te
m is tuning ove
evey stone
nd shining light in evey d
k co
ne to find out
n>
ho n><
i> eight: 400;”> might h bility fo m ed in t ccident,
n><
i> eight: 400;”> you c ove th bility, hethe ith p ble li lso h y you the d ges you dese sp
,
e lk you though e
ch of those steps. Just to be cle, you should undest
nd tht investig
tions don’t usully unfold
s netly
se expl
in them belo. Lots of investig
tivectivity usu
lly hppens
llt once. Good l
ye
s knoho
to keep tck ofll the det
ils.<sp
n>Investig
ting
HO Might Hve Li
bility to You.<b>
eight: 400;”>You c compl g st jobs in tion is to figu ho ho MIGHT h l li d ges. In uck t c sp
ith eve
yonessoci
tedith the t
uck itself. You’ve got youd
ive, obviously,
sell
s the dive
’s employe. The o
neof the t
uck,hich is often someone othe
thn the d
iveo
his employe, m
ylso sh
e li
bility. If it’st
cto
-tile, the o
neof the t
ile
might be someone diffeent still. Then you h
ve the pty tht lo
ded the tuck, the p
ty
ho ons the c
go, the mech
nicho l
st seviced the t
uck,nd the m
nufctu
es of the t
ucknd
ll of the tuck’s p
ts.
ny of these pties, often moe th
n one, could hve potenti
l libility to you fo
cusing
tuck
ccident.<sp
n>t’s not
ll: Sometimes the cuse of
tuck
ccident hs nothing to
ith the tuck. Sometimes it’s some exte
nl f
cto, like
nothevehicle, o
d
ngeous
od condition, o
f
ulty tffic oil
od c
ossing signl. The p
ties
esponsible fothose f
ctos could
lso hve li
bility to you foc
using theccident.
n>
e
e potenti
lly sevel ptiesho could potenti
lly oe you money fo
injuies
fte tuck
ccident. So, hodoes you
tto
ney’s tem find them? Kind of the
y you’d expect,
ctully. The te
m gthe
s upll of the
vil
bleeco
ds of the cshnd st
ts sifting th
ough them. Policeepo
ts, tffic cme
s, eye
itness sttements, p
ess photos, insunce clims… you n
me it. The gol is to m
ke sue eve
y ptyho might h
ve some connection to the csh gets identified.<sp
n>l
ye
’s tem st
ts
oking th
ough the list of ptiesnd elimin
ting the onesho p
obbly didn’t c
use the csh. Evey c
sh scene
ndccident
epot tells
stoy
bout the physicl “mech
nics” ofc
sh, like
ho-hit-ho,
ht the fin
lesting position of e
ch vehicle sys
bout hothe
ccident occued,nd so on. Th
t evidence gives cle indictions of
ho you cn c
oss off the list of potentilly-li
ble pties.<sp
n>t the
isk of ovesimplifying,
ht you
tto
neynd his te
m efte
is evidence pointing toho could h
ve done something diffeently th
tould h
ve pob
bly pevented the c
sh.
dive
ho should h
ve gotten moe
est.mech
nicho should h
ve tightenedconnection.
o
d engineeho should hve m
decu
velittle less sh
p. In
lot ofccidents, the
e e moe th
n one of these ptiesho could h
ve mde bette
decisions tht
ould pob
bly hve p
evented you fom getting hu
t. Innutshell, out of
ll the peoplend comp
niesho
ee someho
connected to the tuck
ccident tht left you inju
ed, THOSE e the ptiesho you might be
ble to sue fod
mges. n>
Investig
ting HO
to Pove Li
bility<b>
eight: 400;”>Once you tto m h ve li tion tu ing out ho ove thei bility. In most t ses, p p ty h bility fo inju equi esenting evidence to the ju ing fou sp
ll h
ve esponsibility not to tke
ctions tht
e p
obbly going to hu
t othe, innocent people. Th
tesponsibility is
ht l
ye
s cll
“duty of ce.” Fosomeone to h
ve libility to you, they must h
ve oed you
“duty of ce” not to tke some
ction tht
ill put you in hm’s y. Tuck d
ives, fo
exmple, o
e youduty not to d
iveecklessly, bec
use tht puts othe
motoists in d
nge. n><
li>
e
ched its duty of ce<b> eight: 400;”>. Simply put, this me cted in t g t ho speeds likely viol moto ex sp li> e duty of c e h med you eight: 400;”>. This is t l ye ll “c tion.” It me t the c eless o eckless beh of someone es you d to the h m th ex t tes his duty of c e, but if his speeding h hy the t ccident h ob ve li h ucke e ccident h us equi sp li> m b> eight: 400;”> In othe o p nd suffe s esult of the h m f ccident. In most t ccident c no-b ine SE you suffe m hy else lking to ? li>
eight: 400;”>Fo ny p ty you tto ve li m must dig up evidence th oves e mple of the speeding t , you need evidence, such police t o me foot ho st the t s going. You need o itness testimony, to p t the speeding t ith you nd you need evidence, such l bills p nd mo ho ed bec ies the used. tion ing expe ccident uction speci n ccident scene to p the ppened. It might n h lu l speci ho c in ex the imp n inju nd t the likely cost of those inju ill be ove lifetime. hen l ye lk c tion they’ lly t bout.
Investig
ting
HETHEthe Li
ble Pties Cn P
y You.<b>
eight: 400;”>Leg bility is impo nt, but if the p ty li n’t p t’s ienced t ccident l ye ing out ith leg bility to you ve the y d ges to you. t e the likely sou yment of d ges in uck se? Let’s t look fe sp b>
eight: 400;”>Eve ist is ed to c t includes t s ucking comp ny moto ccident, victims of t ccidents c ied by the pe ho c ccident fo yment of d ges. Insu nce is ext t uck tte hen the p ty bility c e odds, n eceiving compens nies y to limit thei n li hile they’ ble sou yment of d ges in m ses, they y the minimum they h ving ienced t ccident ney on you n help ensu nies pl i sp po te b>
eight: 400;”> ith leg bility to you is po tion, like ucking comp nuf e uck p ts, the po tion m lso be il s ce of money to p d ges. Oftentimes this becomes hen the comp y enough insu nce to cove ll of you ny “self-insu th ying comme l insu nce. But, keep in mind th po tions m lso h bility to seek p om p eso po te b uptcy. ienced t ccident ney e po tion h ssets to cove d ges cl ithout the ny nk t. son ssets
eight: 400;”>Sometimes, the p ty bility to you is l pe ucke mple ls c insu nce isn’t enough to cove d ges, o te the l ive hen th ppens, you tto y explo hethe l l li s pe l y you m sp , listic ve enough c y the d ges to someone b ed in uck y once in hile the t ccident lly, h y “deep pockets.” In those c ney m dvise you th o t sue l cl g t individu use you kno t individu son ssets could be enough to p m ed to you. ll tion ecognized T ccident ney
eight: 400;”>H ed y in uck s mily membe lly died in one? Don’t it to c n ney. The soone ney c c the ch ill compens om eve ith the me y. ch ecove m side, t ccident should h ithout justice.Insunce<
Co
Pe
C
