Nearly all Buffalo personal injury lawsuits involve the injured party seeking payment from insurance companies. Over the past fifteen years or so, many home and auto insurance providers have begun using injury evaluation software in the process of determining payments to the injured party. A recent study by the Consumer Federation of America has found that this software has, in fact, allowed insurance companies to manipulate claim payments and reduce payments to injured customers.
The study found that this software allows insurers to reclassify injuries as being less serious than stated by the injured person’s physicians and to adjust other payment parameters, resulting in savings to the insurance provider at the expense of the injured party. Some insurers have reported reduced overall payments of up to 20% upon shifting from the use of human adjusters to the use of software.
In response to the study, the American Insurance Association has stated that the purpose of the software is to provide consistency to payments – not reduce payments – and that most insurers do not rely solely upon the results given by the software when assessing the severity of injuries and determining payouts.
The insurance claims software business is largely unregulated, and – based upon its findings – the Consumer Federation of America has called for state insurance regulators to investigate the software vendors and insurers for potential unfair settlement of claims following a personal injury.
There are many public snowmobile trails in the areas surrounding Buffalo. Unfortunately, not all of the users of these trails act responsibly when snowmobiling, which leads to personal injury accidents. As a result, New York State has specific rules requiring that snowmobiles operated on public property be insured. This includes snowmobiles operated on any part of a roadway or shoulder of a highway.
Under the New York State Parks law, snowmobilers are required to carry liability coverage in the minimum amount of $10,000 for any accident involving one person, $20,000 for accidents involving two or more people, and $5,000 in coverage for any property damage from one accident.
Snowmobilers are required to carry proof of insurance and must display it on request of any magistrate, law enforcement officer, or any individual who has sustained a personal injury or suffered property damage as a result of the snowmobiler’s actions.
If you have been injured in a snowmobile accident, we would be happy to help you. We can be reached at 716-542-5444.
Obviously, it would be impossible for Buffalo schools to watch every single student at all times to ensure that a personal injury accident does not occur. Schools, however, are required to provide a certain standard of supervision to provide for the safety of the students.
While the courts have ruled that schools are not the insurers of students’ safety, schools in New York State are required to supervise students using the same degree of care that a parent of ordinary prudence would exercise under comparable circumstances. Under this standard, whether the required degree of supervision has been met or not will usually require an analysis of the specific circumstances surrounding the injury.
As a result, when a personal injury lawsuit is being contemplated against a school district, the family of the injured child should consult with an experienced personal injury attorney to determine if there is merit to a claim that this standard of supervision has been breached. While different individuals will have differing opinions regarding what constitutes “ordinary prudence” under the circumstances, an experienced personal injury attorney will be able to provide some guidance based on prior law regarding this issue.
In nearly all Buffalo personal injury lawsuits that end in a trial, the defense will require the injured party to be examined by one or more doctors of their choosing. While the purpose of this examination is supposed to be to gather medical evidence, the examination almost always results in the defense’s doctor concluding that the injuries are not as bad as the plaintiff’s treatment providers indicate, not related to the accident in question, or some other opinion that is favorable to the defense.
On rare occasions, however, a defense medical expert may reach a conclusion that is favorable to the injured person. Under such conditions, the defense may not wish to use this expert at trial. While neither party is required to call any particular person as a witness, when a party declines to call a witness who would normally support their version of events, the jury may be given a special instruction regarding this missing witness.
When the defense fails to call its medical expert, the jury will usually be instructed at the conclusion of the trial that they may conclude that the medical expert’s testimony would not have supported the defendant’s position and would not contradict the medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the personal injury lawsuit. In other words, the jury may conclude that the defense medical expert would have been favorable to the plaintiff.
Buffalo Toyota owners should be aware that Toyota has issued new recalls recently regarding potential problems with the accelerator pedal becoming entrapped by the floor mat, leading to unintended acceleration and possible personal injury. The most recent involves 154,000 model 2010 RX 350 and RX 450h Lexus SUVs. There have been twelve reports of motor vehicle accidents related to this condition, according to Toyota.
Since November of 2009, Toyota has recalled more than 7 million vehicles regarding problems with pedals potentially becoming trapped. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has recommended that owners impacted by the recall remove the driver’s floor mat immediately until the problem can be addressed by the manufacturer.
Toyota intends to modify or replace the accelerator pedals and replace any Toyota designed floor mats not specified for the vehicles. Early this year Toyota recalled a large number of 2006-2010 RAV4 models, 2003-2009 4Runners, and 2008-2011 Lexus LX 570 models to fix floor mat problems.
If you own a vehicle subject to these recalls, you should be hearing from Toyota regarding repair of this problem.
If you have been injured by a defectively designed product, we would be happy to answer your questions. Please feel free to call us at 716-542-5444.
There are specific laws governing the responsibility of the driver and the pedestrian in Buffalo personal injury lawsuits involving car-pedestrian collisions. When a pedestrian is walking along the side of a road that has no sidewalk, both drivers and pedestrians are expected to follow these rules or they may be found negligent in a personal injury lawsuit.
New York State law requires all drivers to exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian and to give warning by sounding his or her horn when necessary. A pedestrian walking in an area without sidewalks, however, is required to walk upon the left side of the road – facing traffic – and to move to the left as far as possible to avoid traffic.
Failure to follow these rules does not automatically make the driver or the pedestrian wholly responsible for the collision. Instead, all of the circumstances surrounding the motor vehicle accident must be weighed, and both parties may be found to bear part of the responsibility.
If you or a loved one has been injured by a car, please do not hesitate to call us at 716-542-5444. We would be happy to answer your questions.
Buffalo drivers who have purchased a Chevrolet Cruze should be aware that General Motors has recently issued two separate recalls in the United States and Canada. One of these recalls is for the possibility of the car catching fire. No personal injury or deaths are known to have yet occurred as a result of this defect.
The Cruze is G.M.’s second bestselling automobile, and the recall is quite extensive. 475,000 of the vehicles are being recalled based on a risk of oil spilling onto a plastic shield on the underside of the cars, which can then ignite and lead to an engine fine. The second, smaller recall (61,000 vehicles) involves the possibility of faulty welds on fuel tank brackets.
All of the cars affected by the recall were built between September of 2010 and May of 2012, with approximately 30 car fires reported in the 2011 and 2012 models. The problem appears to be tied to improperly completed oil changes which allow the oil in the motor to drip.
Owners of these vehicles should begin receiving letters in July explaining the purpose of the recalls and providing further directions to obtain repairs.
If you have been injured as a result of a defect in the design of an automobile, we would be happy to help you. Please call us at 716-542-5444.
Whether a specific injury or medical condition has been caused by the accident that is the subject of a Buffalo personal injury lawsuit is best left to your medical providers to determine. If your shoulder hurts following an automobile accident – or you have pain anywhere else, for that matter – you should inform your doctor so that the cause of your pain can be properly determined.
Regarding the shoulder, however, you should be aware that shoulder injuries are not uncommon in automobile accidents, even though you didn’t hit your shoulder. These injuries are usually caused by the shoulder harness portion of the seatbelt. There is no question that seatbelts save lives and injuries from motor vehicle accidents would normally be much worse if not for seatbelts, but they are not a perfect system. When a person’s body is thrown forward in a collision and the shoulder harness locks down to keep that person in place, the pressure on the shoulder may lead to injury.
In some cases, this shoulder injury amounts to some bruising and aches and pains that resolve relatively quickly. In serious cases, however, the impact can lead to more serious internal injury to the shoulder. If you have shoulder pain following a motor vehicle accident, you should definitely have it properly diagnosed and treated by your physician.
If you have suffered injury in an automobile accident, please feel free to call us with your questions. Our number is 716-542-5444.
In certain Buffalo personal injury lawsuits, situations may arise where the judge is asked to determine the value of an injury without a full scale jury trial being necessary. This is usually accomplished through a damages inquest at which the parties present evidence of the injuries and losses to the judge, who will then determine the amount of damages.
A damages inquest is specifically provided for in cases where the defendant has failed to appear and the court grants the plaintiff default judgment. In this situation, the defendant is found liable by the court based on its failure to contest the case and the only issue is the damages to be awarded. The defendant – if he appears – is allowed to present evidence regarding the damages at the inquest, but he does not have the full right to confront the plaintiff’s medical providers that would be available at a trial.
On other occasions, the parties may agree that a damages inquest is simply the best manner to resolve the case. This may occur, for example, when there are multiple injured parties but only a limited amount of money available from the defendant’s insurer. If the insurer makes the full amount of insurance available but the parties cannot agree on how it should be divided up, one solution is to ask the judge to conduct a damages inquest to determine the proper allocation for each plaintiff.
If you have suffered a personal injury and have any questions, we would like to speak with you. Please call us at 716-542-5444.
In Buffalo personal injury lawsuits, the injured party is required to provide the defendant with a document called a Bill of Particulars when requested by the defendant. The information requested in this document will almost always include a list of the injuries the plaintiff is claiming to have suffered.
Generally, the injured person is barred from presenting any evidence at trial regarding an injury that is not set forth in the Bill of Particulars, so some degree of specificity is required when sharing this information with the defense. If new injuries come to light as the plaintiff’s treatment progresses, the injured person will usually be allowed to supplement the Bill of Particulars to add these additional injuries.
While all this seems very clear cut, sometimes issue do arise regarding what constitutes an injury and whether it was claimed in the Bill of Particulars. This can happen, for example, where some form of brain trauma is claimed but specific conditions that arise from that trauma (memory issues, personality change, etc.) are not. In such situations, the defense has been known to claim that these conditions constitute separate injuries not alleged in the Bill of Particulars.
When such a situation arises, it is up to the court to decide whether the symptoms not documented in the Bill of Particulars will be admitted. While presenting new injuries is generally barred, the courts have ruled that injuries or symptoms flowing immediately from claimed injuries may be presented at trial.
If you have suffered a personal injury, let us help you. Please call us at 716-542-5444 with any questions.
