Missouri Injury Law Blog

As a St Louis based Missouri and Illinois personal injury attorney, I have represented several injured cyclists that have been hurt as the result of the negligence of a motorist. Over the last several years a few good foundations have fought for the legislation of better statutes and laws to protect bicyclists from cars in an attempt to reduce the number of bike accidents and injuries caused by drivers.

In Missouri the law requires that motorists maintain a safe distance when overtaking a cyclist, See Missouri Statutes 304.678 and 300.010:

Distance to be maintained when overtaking a bicycle.
304.678. The operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on the roadway, as defined in section 300.010, RSMo, shall leave a safe distance when passing the bicycle, and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle.

An excellent Missouri Bike Laws Resource: Missouri Bike Federation

To date however, there are many holes in Missouri's bike laws. For example, there is no law in Missouri giving a bike rider the right of way if a bike and a car approach an intersection at the same time going the same direction and the driver makes a right turn and hits the cyclist. There is no Missouri law in that case giving the cyclist the right of way, as any reasonable person would think. This may sound trivial, however, should this issue go to trial and a jury, then the personal injury lawyer for the injured bicyclist is not allowed to argue the car failed to yield. This could make a big difference to a jury and is a major claim of negligence that a judge may not allow a Missouri bike accident personal injury lawyer to submit on behalf of a bicycle accident victim.

Illinois Bicyclist Laws are progressing as well, as of January 1st Illinois law now requires:

1. Motorists must leave a minimum of 3 feet when passing a bike
2. Cyclists may "take the lane" (ride further from the curb) where right turns are authorized
3. Cyclists have the option of using a right arm hand signal when turning right

A Great Illinois Bike Law Resource: League of Illinois Bicyclists

More laws protecting cyclists will hopefully lead to less accidents and injuries, however, even if it does not, these laws are critical when protecting a cyclist's right in court. As I have learned through experience, a bike rider is fighting an uphill battle as most reporting police officers will report the case in favor of the driver, and most jurors tend to lean towards the driver, as all jurors are drivers, but few are bikers. The more laws stating the obvious protections then the more teeth an injured cyclist has in recovering from a negligent driver's insurance.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injury Law , Bicycle Accidents

Bookmark:

If you are the injured victim of a drunk driving accident in Missouri, Illinois, or any other state your personal injury lawyer should know that the drunk driver cannot insulate himself from liability by declaring bankruptcy. The Federal bankruptcy law is very clear on this point. See, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(9) exceptions to bankruptcy discharge include "(9) for death or personal injury caused by the debtor’s operation of a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft if such operation was unlawful because the debtor was intoxicated from using alcohol, a drug, or another substance"

As discussed in a previous entry, I am currently handling a case where a drunk driver slammed into the rear of my client's car when she was waiting at a stop light in Belleville IL. See Drunk Driving Car Accident Picture and ALLSTATE UNDERHANDED NEGOTIATION TACTICS Allstate has refused to settle the case for a reasonable amount and when my client refused to accept their low offer Allstate, through their insurance lawyers and the insured drunk driver, threatened that their insured, the drunk driver, would declare bankruptcy if my client did not take their low offer for settlement of her Illinois drunk driving personal injury claim as a result of Allstate's insured drunk driver.

After calling Allstate out on their misrepresentation about the law they now claim, through their lawyer, that only punitive damages would be prevented from discharge in bankruptcy and all the compensatory damages would be discharged; another blatant misrepresentation of the law. The motivation behind this bad faith action by Allstate is two fold:

1. They want their insured feel safe that any judgment over the policy limits will not come back on him personally. This is done to explain to their insured why they are not settling a drunk driving case within policy limits when we are willing to do so. Thus opening their insured up to an excess judgment.

2. Allstate, through their lawyers, are hoping that I am stupid and will fall for their threat of bankruptcy and convince my client to take their low offer. Fortunately, I did not sleep through law school. Additionally, as a Missouri and Illinois personal injury lawyer, I have argued this point in past cases in federal court, and it is clear that a drunk driver's liability cannot be discharged.

Allstate is willing to sell out their insured and make ridiculous legal claims in order to save a buck and try to protect a drunk driver that seriously injured my client. This is coming from the self proclaimed "Good Hands" people, that when they take off those white gloves expose their truly dirty hands with their bad faith negotiation tactics.

SAMPLE PETITION - Prevent Discharge of Judgment or other Debt Arising From Drunk Driving Car Accident - Prevent at Fault Drunk Driver from Avoiding Liability by Declaring Bankruptcy

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injury Law , Automobile Accidents , Drunk Driving Law

Bookmark:

Do a simple Google search on Allstate and deceptive or any other similar word and you will find countless articles about their deceptive claims practices that are in direct conflict of their advertised public image of being in "Good Hands". Ask any injury lawyer or most individuals that have had to make an insurance claim involving Allstate to describe if they felt they were in "Good Hands" and they will describe an experience probably closer to the experience against the fictional Great Benefit insurance company in the legal drama the Rainmaker.

I have to deal with Allstate on a regular basis as a Missouri injury lawyer based in St Louis, and there is no doubt they are the most difficult insurance company to deal with as they have a deny, deny, deny attitude towards just about every claim. Whether you are making a claim against an insured of Allstate or you yourself are insured by Allstate and making a claim against them for a loss, trust me, the "Good Hands" turn into boxing gloves very quickly.

Allstate reached a new low in a recent settlement tactic they tried on one of my clients. She was severely injured as the result of a car accident when a high speed drunk driver, insured by Allstate, slammed into the rear of her vehicle as she was waiting at a red light in Belleville Illinois. The drunk driver has a policy limit with Allstate of $100,000; however, despite my client's severe injuries and the gross negligence and recklessness on behalf of Allstate's drunk insured, they have offered less than half of the policy limits. So we filed a lawsuit and Allstate's shady settlement tactic was that after we filed a lawsuit, the at fault driver, through Allstate's lawyers, threatened filing bankruptcy unless my client settled for the above mentioned low offer. Essentially, saying you better take this low offer we have made or you get nothing.

Does bankruptcy preclude an injured victim from recovering? In most cases NO. Even if a negligent driver files bankruptcy, this does not preclude the injured victim to the insurance coverage carried by the driver when the accident occurred. Therefore, in the above case, even if the driver files bankruptcy and it is granted, my client can still recover up to the $100,000 insurance policy. Moreover, any judgment or settlement arising from the injuries of a drunk driving accident are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy court does not let someone get out of a debt incurred as a result of their intentional or reckless conduct, such as a drunk driving accident. Therefore, this debt would not be dischargeable in bankruptcy and Allstate know it. However, it is a tactic that is very influential on a non-lawyer or a lawyer not familiar with the bankruptcy court.

Our response to Allstate, we called them out, demanded policy limits or we will pursue a judgment in excess of the policy limits and punitive damages against their insured (likely making him personally liable beyond his insurance coverage for their refusal to pay). Now, if you were Allstate's insured in this case, would you feel as if you were in "Good Hands"?

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injury Law

Bookmark:

As an Illinois injury lawyer with a significant Missouri and Illinois medical malpractice legal practice, I am always keeping an eye on the interests of future injured victims and whether or not they will have any rights left in the years to come as the recent trend in Misosuri and Illinois, as well as other states. For the last 10 years their has been a constant and significant erosion of medical malpractice victim rights. Illinois is starting to swing that pendulum back to where it belongs, recently, a Circuit Court Judge for Cook County Illinois ruled that the damage cap provision of the 2005 Illinois Tort Reform Statute (Public Act 94-677) which limits non-economic damages to $500,000 against doctors and $1,000,000 against some hospitals, is unconstitutional. The Judge ruled that the act infringed on the jury's deliberation and amounts to a "legislative remittur" of the jury's findings. Remittur is when the court reduces a verdict based on several factors, but essentially the court will reduce the verdict amount if it is clearly excessive based on the facts of the case. The tort reform act is imposing remittur without consideration of the merits of the specific case, thus infringing on the provence of the jury and unconstitutional. Moreover, the tort reform act did not contain a severability clause, a clause that allows the rest of the act to survive if one portion is found unconstitutional; therefore, the entire act is deemed unconstitutional.

This is clearly a victory for victims and the trial lawyers bar, particularly Illinois injury trial lawyers (one of the few only organizations that represent the interests of future injured parties).

Clearly, this ruling will be challenged on appeal and this issue will likely go to the Supreme Court of Illinois despite the ruling on the appellate level. However, this ruling represents a victory in one of many battles of the war between medical malpractice victims and the insurance companies using their money and political influence to unfairly change the laws to protect their pocket books at the detriment of innocent people injured by the carelessness of others who they believe deserve special treatment because it says M.D. after their name.

Missouri's tort reform act that was also signed into law in 2005, has lower damage caps of $350,000 (which can not be adjusted for inflation) as well as several evidentiary rules that improperly tips the scales of justice in favor of insurance companies. A few examples. the collateral source rule, the defendant can get in evidence that the victim had insurance coverage or other financial support to help pay the bills, but the jury cannot be allowed to know the defendant has liability coverage, to even mention it or imply it is grounds for a mistrial. The other examples are presumption of bills paid as damages, requirement of a certificate of merit by a specialist in the exact same field for filing a Missouri Medical Malpractice case, venue rules as the place of injury as the only venue for the cause of action, and the list goes on, not even to mention the changes to Missouri's Workers Compensation laws.

Hopefully some cases facing the same issues for Missouri's 2005 Tort Reform act will start to raise these same questions and strike portions of the Tort Reform act as unconstitutional as well. However, the cases have to work their way through the system but we should start seeing them soon.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injury Law , Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

A few weeks ago in Desoto Missouri 3 teenagers were seriously injured in a car accident when their vehicle slid off the road and went off a 32 foot cliff and landed in a shopping center parking lot. One passenger was very lucky and walked away, however, the other 2 passengers and the driver are all seriously injured. Including head injuries, broken back, hip injuries, fractured facial bones, orbital fracture, and the list goes on.

See MYFOXSTL News Story - Three Teens Injured When Car Falls 30 Feet off Cliff in Desoto

As an experienced Missouri car accident lawyer many legal issues of liability against the city, county, and state come to mind for an improper barrier or guard on the side of the road to prevent a vehicle that runs of the road there from going down a 30 foot cliff. This is especially important given the anticipated limited amount auto insurance that will be available to my client and the other injured teens in this accident to compensate them for their personal injury. Good injury lawyers know where to look to make sure their clients don't just get the easy policy limit from one insurance policy, but to be thorough and creative to find all parties that may be legally liable.

There have been several personal injury car accident cases in Missouri that have resulted in settlements against auto insurers and the local and state governments as well. Many of those cases are discussed on this blog and include the following:

County Liable for Downed Stop Sign

MODOT Liable for Dangerous Intersection - Personal Injury Resulting From Car Accident

It is very likely that I and the other Missouri personal injury lawyers representing the other injured teens will be filing a claim against the city and other government agencies responsible for the lack of a guard rail and simply putting a cable on the side of the road to stop vehicles from going off the highway.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Injury Law , Automobile Accidents

Bookmark:

Missouri Products Liability Lawsuit - Brown v. Toys-R-Us, Inc. My client, Essence, is a young girl that suffered a severe injury to her eye from a surprising source, a toy. A toy kitchen set called "Lil Chef" kitchen set, The box strongly implies it was made by Toys-R-Us and has their company info on the box, additionally, nowhere does it indicate it was made in China. However, after filing a products liability lawsuit against Toys-R-Us, in St Louis Missouri, their lawyers are now trying to point the finger at a currently unknown Chinese toy manufacturer. They are attempting to add them as a third party defendant, thus they can argue that if they are liable then the Chinese company (third party defendant) should be liable to them for any judgment against Toys-R-Us.

What is wrong with this toy? The kitchen set is marketed for kids around 4-6 years old and includes plastic toy knifes. These toy knifes are serrated, stiff, rigid, and sharp. Essence was play cutting string when the toy knife cut through the string and stabbed her in the eye. The toy is unreasonably dangerous as its characteristics described above are not only unnecessary for a toy knife, but are absolutely dangerous in the hands of very young children. The injury resulted in a cut and bruised cornea severely debilitating her eye sight. Essence has been forced to undergo eye surgery and her doctors believe she will need surgery when she gets older and that she has a permanent injury to her eye that will result in eyesight problems for the rest of her life. Eye injury information.

Under Missouri injury law, Essence is entitled to her past medical bills (about $40,000),her future medical bills (yet to be determined) and her past and future pain and suffering, which included her permanent disability to her eye.

This personal injury /products liability toy lawsuit is another example of the flurry of defective and dangerous toys from China. Recent research is showing that despite all the recalls numerous dangerous toys from China are on the US store shelves.

This holiday season be careful, watch for the made in China labels on toys, however, if you are unfortunate enough to buy a toy made in China but it is not disclosed and a loved one is injured you have an option, call us, as we are experienced products liability and dangerous toy lawyers based in St Louis Missouri and covering all of Missouri and Illinois.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Injury Law , Products Liability / Dangerous Products

Bookmark:

Ms. Jacobs was traveling on I-70 when a fatigued truck driver fell asleep at the wheel and swerved into her and forced her off the highway. As a result of the truck accident she suffered shoulder impingement that required surgery.

The case was transferred to me after several years of drawn out litigation with another personal injury law firm that initially filed the injury case. The client came to us because she wanted her case pursued aggressively by personal injury trial lawyers. Her prior lawyers were not pursuing the case diligently, they failed to prepare and set the case for trial which keeps continued pressure on the insurance company.

When my office received the case the offer from State Farm Insurance, the insurer for the negligent truck driver, was about $20,000. I prepared the case for trial, primarily by getting the client's treating doctor's medical testimony on the record which supported her injuries, continued symptoms, medical treatment, and the doctor's opinion that the accident was the sole cause for the injuries and resultant symptoms.

More importantly, we amended the Injury Petition to a "Negligence Per Se Petition" based on the fact the negligent truck driver was cited by the police for careless and imprudent driving, moreover, the negligent truck driver plead guilty to and was convicted of the careless and imprudent driving, therefore, the issue of liability was was essentially admitted by the truck driver's plea of guilty and conviction. The negligence per se Petition was allowed by the Judge, thus adding tremendous pressure on State Farm. The issue at trial was not both liability and damages, but only damages now.

The defense lawyers for State Farm increased their offer by more than double within a few days of trial to $45,000. This was an exceptional injury settlement based on the medical bills of about $13,000 and the client's injuries which she recovered from.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements , Injury Law , Automobile Accidents , Truck Accidents

Bookmark:

In Franklin County Missouri, just outside the St Louis Missouri area, a serious truck accident occurred when a freight-liner model semi truck collided with a fire truck that was stopped on the side of the highway in response to another car accident.

Our client, an injured firefighter contacted us knowing we are experienced Missouri personal injury attorneys and especially Missouri truck accident lawyers. Both the fire truck and the tractor trailer were severely damaged and had to be towed from the scene as the semi truck struck the fire truck at about 60 MPH according to the truck driver's statement to police. The fire truck was hurled 186 feet, and worse yet, my client was in the fire truck when this massive truck accident occurred.

After the truck accident occurred and the trucks came to a rest, my client was evacuated to the hospital for treatment. Luckily, he is recovering from his injuries and hopefully will be back to normal after continued physical therapy.

Generally, a semi truck accident or collision involves another vehicle of much smaller size, such as the passenger vehicles most of us drive. The only thing that saved my clients life is the fact that he was in a vehicle that was the size and weight of the massive truck that slammed into him. Many truck accident victims are not that lucky. Experienced truck accident lawyers are essential as insurance, liability, and regulations are very particular in commercial freightliner and tractor trailer cases.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Injury Law , Automobile Accidents , Truck Accidents

Bookmark:

In 2007, there was a confidential settlement of a medical negligence case. Suit for the alleged negligent failure to timely diagnose and surgically treat complications following a gastric bypass (or stomach staple) procedure, settled for the sum of $3.5 million against the bariatric program of a hospital.

Additionally, we settled with the surgeon for his medical malpractice insurance policy limits of $1,000,000.00 Per confidentiality agreements names of parties and specifics of the case cannot be revealed.

CT Scan showing Leak from Staple Line
Arrows show leak abcess
A common complication that must be treated

Co-counsel on the above case was Robert Pedroli of Pedroli and Gauthier

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements , Injury Law , Medical Malpractice , Gastric Bypass Malpractice , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

My new client who has been a nurse for over 20 years can no longer work due to her work related injuries. She slipped and fell at work outside the operating room and violently hit a concrete wall twisting her beck and injuring her neck and shoulder. She has undergone 3 surgeries to her back to fuse her lumbar spine and will likely never be able to work again.

Workers' Compensation cases in Missouri and most other states exist whenever an employee is injured at work and while in the course and scope of their job duties. The goal of workers comp is to give an injured worker financial relief due to a work related injury that prevents them from being able to perform their job.

In the case of this particular client, her back injury will prevent her from being able to work in the medical field ever again. This is referred to as a permanent and total disability. Due to the back injuries, standing for long periods of time and strenuous and stressful work are impossible for my client.

Many people have a negative attitudes to injured workers, considering them fakers or looking for an easy buck. My clients that have permanent disabilities that prevent them from working are often financially and emotionally devastated due to the inability to financially plan for their future and carry on their once normal lives. Even though we are able to get them generous compensation for their injuries, you cannot put a price on your basic physical abilities and well being.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Injury Law , Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

In a previous entry I discussed the applicability of tort reform on medical malpractice actions in Missouri. See MISSOURI MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND WRONGFUL DEATH ENTRY

Specifically, I discussed a case I am handling where we filed the wrongful death case as a result of medical malpractice prior to Missouri Tort Reform which went into effect in August 2005. Based on discovery we added an additional party after the tort reform bill went into effect. The new defendant, a medical group named Southwest Medical Center, claimed that tort reform defenses should apply to them because they were added after tort reform.

As previously discussed, the Judge denied a change of venue motion asserted by the medical group holding that tort reform did not apply to their case because there was not a new cause of action and therefore the law at the time of the original filing applied.

I was waiting on an additional Order from the Court ruling on our Motion to Strike the Affirmative Defenses of the medical group. Just recently we received that Order and as expected the Judge Ordered that the medical group's affirmative defenses based on the new tort reform laws must be stricken from their pleadings.