Our Contingency Fee Lawyers Explain the Merits of our Contingency Attorneys Fees System as Your Key to the Courthouse Door
THE CONTINGENCY FEE SYSTEM
“YOUR KEY TO THE COURTHOUSE DOOR"Our Law Group attorneys are aware of the fact that there has been created a negative public perception of the contingency fee system. It is often portrayed, particularly in the pervasive insurance industry propaganda, as a system by which "personal injury lawyers" take advantage of their clients. As a product of that negative public perception, it is possible that attorneys in general may have more difficulty at the outset in establishing the good attorney-client relationships so important to the most effective prosecution of their clients' rights. Therefore, our attorneys would offer to demonstrate that contrary to this unfortunate negative public perception, the contingency fee system is, in fact, essential to permit all of us equal access to this most important of democratic institutions, our courts.
The contingency fee system is absolutely essential if all of us, rich, middle class, and poor alike, are to have any practical access to our court system. Think about it. Practically speaking, if it were not for the contingency fee system, it would be only the very rich who could pay to assert their rights in a court of law ~~ only those people who could afford to pay a lawyer by the hour. In a contested personal injury case, attorneys fees could range from several thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars at the hourly rates charged by non-contingency fee lawyers. In the absence of the contingency fee system, therefore, the fact is that most of us would have no practical means to assert our rights in our courts of law at all.
Furthermore, under the usual non-contingency fee, hourly attorney/client fee arrangement, the client must pay the attorney's fees whether the attorney wins or loses the case; whereas, in contrast, under the common contingency fee agreement, the client pays attorneys fees only if a recovery is obtained. In an hourly, non-contingency fee arrangement, therefore, it is the client, rather than the attorney, that must take the "risk" that he will lose the investment of all the attorneys fees he’s paid to prosecute the litigation. Under an hourly, non-contingency fee attorney/client contract, if the case is lost, the hourly fee attorney doesn't give back to the client all the money the client has paid in hourly fees. In the hourly, non-contingency fee case, if the case is lost, the client must be prepared not only to suffer the defeat of his rights, but the loss of all the attorneys fees he was required to pay to prosecute the case.
There can be advantages to paying an attorney an hourly fee to prosecute litigation, conceivably even personal injury litigation. However, clearly it is only by virtue of the contingency fee system that injured victims, rich, middle class, and the poor alike are empowered to pursue their rights in a court of law, without paying any attorneys fees until the case is completed, and even then, only if a recovery is obtained. Indeed, it is only by virtue of the contingency fee system, that most clients may avail an attorney's services at all, enjoy the benefit of his "day in court," and with the peace of mind that even if his case should fail, he will be able to walk away free of any financial obligation for the attorney time that was required to obtain his "day in court."
So, in the absence of our contingency fee system, what proportion of the public do you think would have the wealth to pay hourly attorneys fees and litigation costs in order to purchase their admission to assert their rights in our courts? Would we really want a system of justice where justice itself was available only to those who could afford to pay for it? NO! This much maligned contingency fee system of ours serves an absolutely essential democratic function to make our courts equally accessible to all people, regardless of their economic status.
Every time the insurance industry sets out to undermine the contingency fee system, with its pandering legislative lobbying, or with its "tort reform" initiatives, what do you suspect are the insurance industry's motives? Should we take at face value the calculated message of the insurers $100,000 20 second television ads, always made to appear as though they were "sponsored by" a “concerned citizens” group? Should we believe that the insurers who attack the contingency fee system are motivated by a good, high and altruistic calling to protect the public from overreaching contingency fee lawyers? Of course not! So, why do insurers so vehemently attack the contingency fee system? Well, perhaps it is to achieve precisely the effect that their carefully drafted "tort reform" initiatives and lobbied for legislation would have if enacted and actually put into practice. Think about it. The insurers want to avoid paying the valid claims of victims for injuries caused by those they insure ~~ claims which the insurers will continue to be held responsible to pay so long as the victims retain the practical ability to avail the court system to prosecute their cases. The answer: Insurers attempt to create public hostility to the only existing system that permits the public access to the courts solely and specifically in order to impair the ordinary man’s practical ability to have his "day in court."
It is only as an unfortunate bi-product of the insurance industry's "tort reform" campaigns and the industry's ongoing efforts generally to undermine public support for the contingency fee system that this unfortunate negative public impression of the contingency fee system and contingency fee lawyers is created.
Now, is the contingency fee system perfect? Clearly not. Is there any other system that has ever been proposed by the insurance industry, or our legislators or anyone else for that matter, that would do a better job to permit all people access to our court system? The answer is "NO."
The facts set forth above are intended solely for informational purposes, to counterbalance the prejudices against the contingency fee system which may, in turn, negatively influence the way clients perceive contingency fee lawyers. The information is not intended as legal advice. It is certainly not intended to advise any particular potential client to enter into a contingency fee contract with a Law Group member or any other contingency fee lawyer in preference to an hourly attorney fee contract where an hourly fee contract would be a practical option for the individual. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Where the potential client has the practical ability to pay for hourly representation he should weigh the relative advantages and disadvantages of his options and chose the option that best suits him.
*Jury Verdicts and Settlements:
$2.5 million dollar settlement in a contested liability motorcycle accident case in which the motorcyclist suffered a below the knee amputation. The motorcyclist pulled out from between two left turn lanes, splitting lanes, presenting a difficult liability case. The driver of the car that hit him also had a minimum $15,000/$30,000 auto liability insurance policy raising the "collectability" problem. Law Group attorney Henke was able to overcome the liability contest, to the satisfaction of the settlement judge, as the result of his deposition interrogation of the investigating law enforcement officer who ultimately agreed that the motorcyclist's having split lanes between the two left turning cars was not a competent cause of the accident. And the Law Group serious injury auto accident lawyer was also able to overcome the "collectability" problem after discovering through his investigation that the other motorist was carrying tools in his car trunk essential to his work, permitting the Law Group auto accident lawyer to sue also the motorist's employer, given this evidence that at the time of the accident the motorist was operating his vehicle "in the course and scope of his employment."
$2.7 million dollar jury verdict. Medical malpractice, drug product and medical fraud case. Medical malpractice and drug product liability attorney Henke represented 5 plaintiffs in a consolidated four month trial in which the jury found the defendants liable on multiple causes of action, from medical and hospital negligence to fraud and conspiracy to defraud the plaintiffs with dangerous and ineffective FDA approved and unapproved drugs. The Law Group lawyer designated highly distinguished scientists, epidemiologists and AIDS physicians to testify for the plaintiffs in the case, including Luc Montagnier, the head of France's National AIDS Laboratories who discovered HIV; Michael Gotlieb, co-founder of AMFAR, the astute physician who discovered AIDS, Don Francis, head CDC AIDS Task force who first discovered the causes of AIDS, Roger Detels, the senior investigator on largest epidemiological study on AIDS drugs and their efficacy, John Curnutte, senior investigator on the largest AIDS vaccine study, Peter Wolfe, Member of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the American Foundation for AIDS Research. He conceived the "test" litigation to rectify the epidemic of AIDS drug fraud that followed upon the AIDS epidemic by suing also hospitals with the strategy that if punitive damages could be obtained against the hospitals that tolerated AIDS physicians who used on their patients ineffective AIDS drugs that hospitals across the nation would recognize the danger of failing to revoke the staff privileges of physicians who practiced AIDS drug fraud. In addition to awarding compensatory damages, the jury found the defendant hospital liable both for negligence and conspiracy to defraud, and awarded 1.6 million dollars in punitive damages against the hospital. The case was chronicled in most of the most legitimate newspapers in the United States, from the front page of the New York Times to the front page of the Los Angeles Times, from the Washington Post to the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner, in legal journals, including the National Law Journal, and on national television, including Tom Brokaw's NBC Evening News and CNN . Pharmaceutical product liability attorney, Henke, also testified before Congress with regard to these cases and the need to rein in AIDS drug fruad, at the invitation of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives.
$3.8 million dollar gross jury verdict in medical malpractice case involving failure to diagnose atrial myxoma, the most rare tumor in the human body. The plaintiff had presented initially to the defendant internist with a history of two episodes of feinting. The internist did a battery of tests including an electrocardiogram. When the tests failed to identify a medical cause for the feinting episodes the internist referred the patient to a neurologist who in turn did a battery of tests, also failing to identify a medical cause for the feinting episodes. The internist then diagnosed "vaso vagal syncope" a medical term suggesting a psychological cause for the feinting and referred the patient to a psychologist. The patient then had a stroke and the atrial myxoma was diagnosed during her hospitalization. The medical experts engaged by our Group medical malpractice attorney, Henke, offered to testify that while it was not required by the standard of care that the physicians consider atrial myxoma in their differential diagnoses, if they had considered other more common cardiologic disease and had they done an echocardiogram to rule them out, they would have seen the atrial myxoma. In the opening statements the defense attorneys made the argument that the plaintiffs were attempting to assign liability for failure to diagnose the rarest of tumors, one that most cardiologists would never have heard of, one that, in the very few case reports in the medical literature was in each case an autopsy diagnosis, atrial myxoma never having previously been diagnosed in a live patient. The Group medical malpractice attorney called as his first witness the defendant internist and led with his chin asking "Doctor, did you consider atrial myxoma in your differential diagnosis." The internist responded as he was assuredly coached to do by his attorneys, "Mr. Henke, you don't think of zebras when you hear hoof beats, which is actually a medical syllogism expressing the proposition that the physician should list the most common possible disease entities that can cause the patient's symptoms, not the rarest. But a light bulb went off in the brain of our Group medical malpractice lawyer and he first said softly "Mitral valve prolapse," and then more loudly, "It's a horse isn't it." His lawyer objected, but the doctor had "opened the door" and the Judge ordered the physician to answer the question. He dodged, saying, "I don't know what you mean." But our Group medical malpractice attorney was prepared, "Well, doctor, mitral valve prolapse occurs in about 6 percent of a randomly selected population of females Mrs. Z's age, its a horse, isn't it. The doctor replied, "Okay, its a horse." The medical malpractice lawyer continued, again first softly, "Mitral stenosis," and then more loudly, "Its a horse, isn't it doctor." The doctor said "Okay, its a horse." The medical malpractice lawyer continued, again first softly, "Idiopathic subaortic stenosis," and then more loudly "It's a horse, isn't it doctor." The doctor reluctantly admitted it again. And then the punch line, "So doctor, upon hearing the hoof beats, Mrs. Z's symptoms of feinting, had you merely thought horse, these other common potential cardiologic diagnoses, and turned in the direction of the hoof beats, performed and echocardiogram, you would have seen the zebra, wouldn't you have doctor. The medical malpractice attorney's use of the syllogism offered by the defendant internist was indeed faithful to the testimony that he would then elicit from his experts. The medical malpractice lawyer then came back to the zebra syllogism in closing argument to make more understandable than he might have otherwise the logical progression of his expert's premises upon which the jury then held both the internist and neurologist liable.
$1.5 million dollar settlement in a pharmaceutical product liability birth injury case. The case involved an experimental drug which the manufacturer sought to test for its efficacy as a sedative, employing over 1000 physicians nationwide. One of our Group pharmaceutical product liability lawyers, Henke, obtained from another, Pennsylvania Law Group drug product lawyer the list of the physicians who served as investigators for the drug company when 3 of his clients in the same small city contacted him with similar limb defects characteristic of the teratogenic drug, all of whose mothers were treated during pregnancy by the same obstetrician. It was confirmed that the mothers' common obstetrician was on the list of investigators who received the drug from the pharmaceutical company. The three cases, including the one above referenced case were filed against the drug manufacturer and the physician. The physician no longer had the patients' medical records. The clients mothers recalled receiving a sedative during pregnancy but did not recall the name of the drug. However, the Group pharmaceutical product liability attorney developed expert testimony that the limb defects were characteristic of limb defects caused by the suspect drug which combined with the evidence that the common obstetrician had access to the teratogenic sedative was deemed sufficient for the manufacturer and physician to resolve the above referenced case and the two others out of court for substantial settlements. The settlements were achieved despite that the mothers exposure to the drug and the births of the clients occurred more than 30 years prior to the case being filed, leading the manufacturer and physician to file demurrers and motions for summary judgment asserting the statute of limitations defense. The Group pharmaceutical product liability lawyer, Henke, responded to the motions with the contention that the manufacturer had sought to obscure that it had supplied the notorious drug to physicians in the United States, and that the physician intentionally concealed from the mothers that the drug might have been the cause of their babies birth defects. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the motions, and the settlements were achieved shortly thereafter..
Amount of settlement sealed by the Court. Law Group food poisoning lawyer, Nick Allis, settled a Food poisoning E. coli case resulting in Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, HUS on the eve of trial. The case resulted in one of the largest E.coli settlements or verdicts ever reported in the United States.
Most recently our Law Group pharmaceutical product liability lawyers have settled many Vioxx cases in the context of the Vioxx Class Action. In many of our cases we filed appeals of settlement awards granted by the settlement administrators, gaining superior settlement awards upon the appeals.
*The results obtained in the cases listed were dependent upon the facts of the cases, and the results will differ in other cases based on different facts
$2.5 million dollar settlement in a contested liability motorcycle accident case in which the motorcyclist suffered a below the knee amputation. The motorcyclist pulled out from between two left turn lanes, splitting lanes, presenting a difficult liability case. The driver of the car that hit him also had a minimum $15,000/$30,000 auto liability insurance policy raising the "collectability" problem. Law Group attorney Henke was able to overcome the liability contest, to the satisfaction of the settlement judge, as the result of his deposition interrogation of the investigating law enforcement officer who ultimately agreed that the motorcyclist's having split lanes between the two left turning cars was not a competent cause of the accident. And the Law Group serious injury auto accident lawyer was also able to overcome the "collectability" problem after discovering through his investigation that the other motorist was carrying tools in his car trunk essential to his work, permitting the Law Group auto accident lawyer to sue also the motorist's employer, given this evidence that at the time of the accident the motorist was operating his vehicle "in the course and scope of his employment."
$2.7 million dollar jury verdict. Medical malpractice, drug product and medical fraud case. Medical malpractice and drug product liability attorney Henke represented 5 plaintiffs in a consolidated four month trial in which the jury found the defendants liable on multiple causes of action, from medical and hospital negligence to fraud and conspiracy to defraud the plaintiffs with dangerous and ineffective FDA approved and unapproved drugs. The Law Group lawyer designated highly distinguished scientists, epidemiologists and AIDS physicians to testify for the plaintiffs in the case, including Luc Montagnier, the head of France's National AIDS Laboratories who discovered HIV; Michael Gotlieb, co-founder of AMFAR, the astute physician who discovered AIDS, Don Francis, head CDC AIDS Task force who first discovered the causes of AIDS, Roger Detels, the senior investigator on largest epidemiological study on AIDS drugs and their efficacy, John Curnutte, senior investigator on the largest AIDS vaccine study, Peter Wolfe, Member of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the American Foundation for AIDS Research. He conceived the "test" litigation to rectify the epidemic of AIDS drug fraud that followed upon the AIDS epidemic by suing also hospitals with the strategy that if punitive damages could be obtained against the hospitals that tolerated AIDS physicians who used on their patients ineffective AIDS drugs that hospitals across the nation would recognize the danger of failing to revoke the staff privileges of physicians who practiced AIDS drug fraud. In addition to awarding compensatory damages, the jury found the defendant hospital liable both for negligence and conspiracy to defraud, and awarded 1.6 million dollars in punitive damages against the hospital. The case was chronicled in most of the most legitimate newspapers in the United States, from the front page of the New York Times to the front page of the Los Angeles Times, from the Washington Post to the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner, in legal journals, including the National Law Journal, and on national television, including Tom Brokaw's NBC Evening News and CNN . Pharmaceutical product liability attorney, Henke, also testified before Congress with regard to these cases and the need to rein in AIDS drug fruad, at the invitation of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives.
$3.8 million dollar gross jury verdict in medical malpractice case involving failure to diagnose atrial myxoma, the most rare tumor in the human body. The plaintiff had presented initially to the defendant internist with a history of two episodes of feinting. The internist did a battery of tests including an electrocardiogram. When the tests failed to identify a medical cause for the feinting episodes the internist referred the patient to a neurologist who in turn did a battery of tests, also failing to identify a medical cause for the feinting episodes. The internist then diagnosed "vaso vagal syncope" a medical term suggesting a psychological cause for the feinting and referred the patient to a psychologist. The patient then had a stroke and the atrial myxoma was diagnosed during her hospitalization. The medical experts engaged by our Group medical malpractice attorney, Henke, offered to testify that while it was not required by the standard of care that the physicians consider atrial myxoma in their differential diagnoses, if they had considered other more common cardiologic disease and had they done an echocardiogram to rule them out, they would have seen the atrial myxoma. In the opening statements the defense attorneys made the argument that the plaintiffs were attempting to assign liability for failure to diagnose the rarest of tumors, one that most cardiologists would never have heard of, one that, in the very few case reports in the medical literature was in each case an autopsy diagnosis, atrial myxoma never having previously been diagnosed in a live patient. The Group medical malpractice attorney called as his first witness the defendant internist and led with his chin asking "Doctor, did you consider atrial myxoma in your differential diagnosis." The internist responded as he was assuredly coached to do by his attorneys, "Mr. Henke, you don't think of zebras when you hear hoof beats, which is actually a medical syllogism expressing the proposition that the physician should list the most common possible disease entities that can cause the patient's symptoms, not the rarest. But a light bulb went off in the brain of our Group medical malpractice lawyer and he first said softly "Mitral valve prolapse," and then more loudly, "It's a horse isn't it." His lawyer objected, but the doctor had "opened the door" and the Judge ordered the physician to answer the question. He dodged, saying, "I don't know what you mean." But our Group medical malpractice attorney was prepared, "Well, doctor, mitral valve prolapse occurs in about 6 percent of a randomly selected population of females Mrs. Z's age, its a horse, isn't it. The doctor replied, "Okay, its a horse." The medical malpractice lawyer continued, again first softly, "Mitral stenosis," and then more loudly, "Its a horse, isn't it doctor." The doctor said "Okay, its a horse." The medical malpractice lawyer continued, again first softly, "Idiopathic subaortic stenosis," and then more loudly "It's a horse, isn't it doctor." The doctor reluctantly admitted it again. And then the punch line, "So doctor, upon hearing the hoof beats, Mrs. Z's symptoms of feinting, had you merely thought horse, these other common potential cardiologic diagnoses, and turned in the direction of the hoof beats, performed and echocardiogram, you would have seen the zebra, wouldn't you have doctor. The medical malpractice attorney's use of the syllogism offered by the defendant internist was indeed faithful to the testimony that he would then elicit from his experts. The medical malpractice lawyer then came back to the zebra syllogism in closing argument to make more understandable than he might have otherwise the logical progression of his expert's premises upon which the jury then held both the internist and neurologist liable.
$1.5 million dollar settlement in a pharmaceutical product liability birth injury case. The case involved an experimental drug which the manufacturer sought to test for its efficacy as a sedative, employing over 1000 physicians nationwide. One of our Group pharmaceutical product liability lawyers, Henke, obtained from another, Pennsylvania Law Group drug product lawyer the list of the physicians who served as investigators for the drug company when 3 of his clients in the same small city contacted him with similar limb defects characteristic of the teratogenic drug, all of whose mothers were treated during pregnancy by the same obstetrician. It was confirmed that the mothers' common obstetrician was on the list of investigators who received the drug from the pharmaceutical company. The three cases, including the one above referenced case were filed against the drug manufacturer and the physician. The physician no longer had the patients' medical records. The clients mothers recalled receiving a sedative during pregnancy but did not recall the name of the drug. However, the Group pharmaceutical product liability attorney developed expert testimony that the limb defects were characteristic of limb defects caused by the suspect drug which combined with the evidence that the common obstetrician had access to the teratogenic sedative was deemed sufficient for the manufacturer and physician to resolve the above referenced case and the two others out of court for substantial settlements. The settlements were achieved despite that the mothers exposure to the drug and the births of the clients occurred more than 30 years prior to the case being filed, leading the manufacturer and physician to file demurrers and motions for summary judgment asserting the statute of limitations defense. The Group pharmaceutical product liability lawyer, Henke, responded to the motions with the contention that the manufacturer had sought to obscure that it had supplied the notorious drug to physicians in the United States, and that the physician intentionally concealed from the mothers that the drug might have been the cause of their babies birth defects. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the motions, and the settlements were achieved shortly thereafter..
Amount of settlement sealed by the Court. Law Group food poisoning lawyer, Nick Allis, settled a Food poisoning E. coli case resulting in Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, HUS on the eve of trial. The case resulted in one of the largest E.coli settlements or verdicts ever reported in the United States.
Most recently our Law Group pharmaceutical product liability lawyers have settled many Vioxx cases in the context of the Vioxx Class Action. In many of our cases we filed appeals of settlement awards granted by the settlement administrators, gaining superior settlement awards upon the appeals.
*The results obtained in the cases listed were dependent upon the facts of the cases, and the results will differ in other cases based on different facts
Driving Under the Influence of Cell Conversation Results in DUI Level Driving Impairment And a 4 fold Increased Likelihood that the Driver will Cause an Accident.
Read the Henke Law Group Scientific Review Article. As Auto Accident Lawyers Knowledgeable About the Scientific Evidence, We Can Investigate to Establish That The Other Driver Was On His Cell Phone, and The Evidence Can Often Make the Difference in a Contested Liability Case.
In Serious Accident Cases, Where Our Auto Accient Lawyers Can Establish That the Motorist Was Engaged in a Business Call, Our Accident Attorneys Can Bring the Motorist's Employer in as a Defendant and Recover Against the Employer's Assets and Insurance Coverage.
Our auto accident attorneys have reviewed all the epidemiology and controlled experimental literature on the effect of cell phone conversation to impair driver attention. Driving under the influence of cell conversation results in DUI level driving impairment and renders the motorist four times more likely to cause an accident. Contrary to popular belief, it is not "holding" the cell phone which results in the impairment. It is the diversion of conscious attention to the internal-cognitive tasks associated with the give and take of the cell conversation away from the external-visual tasks essential for safe driving. Indeed, it does not matter whether the motorist uses a handheld or hands-free cell phone, the impairment is the same, and the 4 fold increased likelihood that the motorist will cause an accident is precisely the same. Yes, a number of other states have enacted "handheld cell phone" laws; unfortunately that is just a function of politics. The scientists are not in dispute. All agree that driving under the influence of cell phone conversation, regardless of the device used, results in the identical DUI level driving impairment and increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident.
It is important that the auto accident lawyer obtain the cell phone records of the other driver in every "contested liability case," and especially in any serious injury auto accident litigation in which it appears that the other driver lacks sufficient insurance coverage to fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries and full measure of his damages. In the contested liability case, the evidence of the other party's cell phone use in the moments prior to the accident may snatch victory from the mouth of defeat. In the most common serious injury auto accident case in which the motorist lacks sufficient insurance to fully compensate the client for his injuries and damages, it is essential that the auto accident attorney obtain the cell phone records of the motorist and conduct the appropriate depositions to determine whether the other driver was engaged in a business call in the moments leading up to the bicycle accident. If he was, then the knowledgeable auto accident lawyer can bring the employer into the litigation as a defendant, "vicariously liable" for the injuries caused by its employee in the "course and scope of his employment." In this way the auto accident accident lawyer may assure that his client will be fully compensated up to the limits of the employers insurance policy, and indeed, the employer's assets would be available to execute against.
Read the Henke Law Group Scientific Review Article. As Auto Accident Lawyers Knowledgeable About the Scientific Evidence, We Can Investigate to Establish That The Other Driver Was On His Cell Phone, and The Evidence Can Often Make the Difference in a Contested Liability Case.
In Serious Accident Cases, Where Our Auto Accient Lawyers Can Establish That the Motorist Was Engaged in a Business Call, Our Accident Attorneys Can Bring the Motorist's Employer in as a Defendant and Recover Against the Employer's Assets and Insurance Coverage.
Our auto accident attorneys have reviewed all the epidemiology and controlled experimental literature on the effect of cell phone conversation to impair driver attention. Driving under the influence of cell conversation results in DUI level driving impairment and renders the motorist four times more likely to cause an accident. Contrary to popular belief, it is not "holding" the cell phone which results in the impairment. It is the diversion of conscious attention to the internal-cognitive tasks associated with the give and take of the cell conversation away from the external-visual tasks essential for safe driving. Indeed, it does not matter whether the motorist uses a handheld or hands-free cell phone, the impairment is the same, and the 4 fold increased likelihood that the motorist will cause an accident is precisely the same. Yes, a number of other states have enacted "handheld cell phone" laws; unfortunately that is just a function of politics. The scientists are not in dispute. All agree that driving under the influence of cell phone conversation, regardless of the device used, results in the identical DUI level driving impairment and increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident.
It is important that the auto accident lawyer obtain the cell phone records of the other driver in every "contested liability case," and especially in any serious injury auto accident litigation in which it appears that the other driver lacks sufficient insurance coverage to fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries and full measure of his damages. In the contested liability case, the evidence of the other party's cell phone use in the moments prior to the accident may snatch victory from the mouth of defeat. In the most common serious injury auto accident case in which the motorist lacks sufficient insurance to fully compensate the client for his injuries and damages, it is essential that the auto accident attorney obtain the cell phone records of the motorist and conduct the appropriate depositions to determine whether the other driver was engaged in a business call in the moments leading up to the bicycle accident. If he was, then the knowledgeable auto accident lawyer can bring the employer into the litigation as a defendant, "vicariously liable" for the injuries caused by its employee in the "course and scope of his employment." In this way the auto accident accident lawyer may assure that his client will be fully compensated up to the limits of the employers insurance policy, and indeed, the employer's assets would be available to execute against.
©2010 The Ray Henke Law Group