Online Marketing & SEO Exclusively For Attorneys

ARCHIVE

Lawyer Marketing News

Complacency is a Major Factor in Plane Crashes

Thursday, March 04, 2010

Air safety experts are warning that complacency on the part of air traffic controllers and pilots are an increasingly major factor in air crashes.

Those warnings come in the wake of a shocking incident this week, in which the child of an air traffic controller was allowed to talk to pilots waiting for departure (play the video below to hear the actual audio of the incident). The incident occurred at the traffic control tower at the John F. Kennedy Airport in New York City. One of the controllers had brought his child to work with him. The indulgent father then allowed his child to speak to pilots who were preparing to take off. The child spoke to five pilots in all.

The incident has predictably caused a furor among aviation safety experts. As of now, the traffic controller in question has been suspended, and investigations into the incident are going on.

There were no mishaps or any other adverse events from this incident. However, aviation safety experts warn that such casualness or complacency on the part of air traffic controllers is a bad sign. It is complacency that ultimately leads to a plane crash. When you begin to take your job lightly, and quite literally as child's play, you are more likely to have your attention distracted and lose focus on the job at hand - making sure that thousands of passengers reach their destinations without danger. That is a huge responsibility, and when air traffic controllers take it lightly, it is definitely a cause for concern to plane crash lawyers in California.

Unprofessional behavior by pilots was also linked to the Colgan Air plane crash near Buffalo last year that killed 50 people in all. The two pilots in that case were heard engaging in idle chatter just a few minutes before the plane crashed.


California plane crash attorneys
and passengers wouldn’t want to fly on a plane that's being directed by a child, or flown by pilots who are discussing their pet cat, or next week's party schedule. We expect aviation personnel to be thorough professionals, and most of them are. However, such lackadaisical attitudes must be curbed.

Achieving Closure for the Families of Flight 3407

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

The wreckage of the crash of Continental Airlines Connection Flight 3407 outside Buffalo, New York continues to be felt by the families of the 50 people who died that night last year. Husbands, friends, sisters, and neighbors were lost that icy evening, and a year later their loved ones are still struggling to pick up the pieces.

As time has gone on, much has been learned about Flight 3407 and the senseless mistakes that could have easily been prevented. Many cite the drastic slashing of required flight hours from over 1,000 to a mere 250 by regional airlines as a large part of the problem. Others blame pilot fatigue and decreased pay to be the source of crashes like Flight 3407. While others still see the lack of properly staffed smaller regional flights to be an issue as well.

Now in an attempt to achieve some kind of resolve or closure, the families have sought damages from Continental, claiming that corporate decisions and policies forced the pilot and co-pilot to make a series of mistakes that ultimately proved deadly. In addition to targeting Continental, the suit also names regional carrier Pinnacle Airlines and Colgan Air. Seeking steep punitive damages sends the message to Colgan and other regional air companies that poor safety practices and insufficient training are not to be tolerated by travelers. Because most insurance policies do not cover punitive damages, they hit companies where they hurt, and therefore make the damages a very powerful statement.

Although over a year has gone by since the tragedy of Flight 3407, the questions of who or what was really the cause of the crash are still very much on travelers' minds, especially on those who rely on regional commuter planes. While tougher regulations for regional aircraft are being discussed and debated, it is up to the families of the victims to seek some justice and resolve.

Study: Avandia has Double the Risk of Heart Attack Compared to Other Drugs

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Product liability lawyers, who have for long known the effects of GlaxoSmithKline’s anti-diabetic drug Avandia’s effects on cardiac health, now have new information that proves its detrimental effects. A new study by Harvard researchers shows that the number of heart attacks among diabetic patients who took Avandia was twice that compared to those who took a different medication.

Earlier studies sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline found that persons who used Avandia had an increased risk of a cardiac arrest that was between 35 and 41 percent greater than non-Avandia users. The Harvard study focused on 26,375 diabetic patients between 2000 and 2006, who took the Glaxo drug. These patients were compared to diabetic patients who took a different medication. The researchers found that Avandia users had their heart attack risk doubled over persons who used Avandia’s main competitor, Actos.

The study is to be published by the American Diabetics Association. This study only strengthens the case against GlaxoSmithKline - that the company failed to warn patients about the heightened risk of heart attacks with Avandia use. The company already faces dozens of lawsuits by former Avandia users who have suffered serious cardiac injuries, including heart attacks, strokes and heart failure from the use of the drug.

Heart disease is one of the most serious complications from Avandia use, but far from the only one. Other studies have indicated greater risk of bone disease and bone fractures, liver disorders, eye injuries and anemia from the use of the drug. In spite of all these harmful effects, Avandia continues to be sold in the market. The Food and Drug Administration has required GlaxoSmithKline to post a black box label on Avandia packaging, cautioning users about the increased heart attack risks, but to the dismay of product liability lawyers in California has fallen shy of pulling Avandia off the market all together.

How Sext Messaging Can Get You Into Big Trouble

Friday, December 18, 2009

The term "Sex Messaging" probably didn't mean anything to you a year ago and you definitely wouldn't of heard about it 5 years ago. Sext messaging is when a person takes a nude or semi nude photo of themselves and then forwards it to another person. It is usually a provocative picture that is past from a girlfriend to a boyfriend or vice versa. Advancements in camera phones have made this an everyday occurrence. This practice is leading to some very dangerous outcomes.

Imagine a girl who sends a "sexy" photo of herself to her boyfriend. She may think it is playful and fun and so may he. But what happens if their relationship goes south. The same thing that has happened to thousands of these pictures already. They end up on the internet for everyone to see. This could like to embarrassment, ridicule or even an arrest. That's right. Some of this activity is 100% illegal and is even characterized as child porn. If a 16 year old girl sends a naked picture of herself to anyone over the age of 18, that person could be classified as having child porn in their possession. Especially if that person chooses to forward that picture to other people.

Even if you think you are taking an innocent picture, it could be perceived in a very bad way. Anything that you send electronically could one day end up on the net for a future spouse or employer to see. Don't think that a company won't try to look you up on Facebook before they offer to hire you. You need to assume that any picture you send to someone else could one day end up on the internet.

Cell phones provide a tremendous amount of convenience but they can also get us into trouble. Sext messaging can lead to big trouble just as distracted driving causes accidents every day. Enjoy your cell phone but use it wisely or it could be the cause of a lot of physical or emotional pain.

California Tort Reform - Why MICRA May be Bad for Patients

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

The following letter was written to the San Francisco Chronicle outlining the details of how the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act came to be.



To Whom it May Concern,

I read with great interest you front page article in the Chronicle
this morning, concerning the MICRA (the Medical Injury Compensation
Reform Act) damage caps, its history and the impact on the continuing
and very numerous victims of medical misadventures and mistakes in this
country. First of all, Bless You for finding this area and for writing
about it, at least. We have seen similar articles from time to time
over the years since the Sacramento Sleight-of-Hand that produced this
odious legislation in the first place, each one sounding as though, oh
my, we just found out about this law, and how could it have been on the
books for so long, etc, without public attention and outcry? See, for
instance, a series in the LA Times, about six months ago. To your
credit, you at least did not start from that premise, and your text
confirms that you did some homework.

In the hope that there may be some follow on for this, may I just
offer a few further comments about MICRA, how it came about, and what
are the practical realities of its impact, some 34 years after passage.
I have been an active practioner and trial lawyer in California for many
years, and am very familiar with medical negligence cases and the
problems families have in finding counsel for assistance in these
matters, as you note. I was also present in Sacramento, as part of a
consumer and patient advocates legal group trying to fend off what
became MICRA, when all this boiled over in 1975. And I remember exactly
what happened. Unfortunately, no one now in the Legislature was there
at the time, nor has any grasp on how this all came about.

The medical negligence insurance market in California in the 70's
was dominated by two large private insurance groups, both no longer with
us. Customarily, these insurers would do blanket deals with local
medical associations, or even the CMA itself, to write coverage for all
the practioners, for attractive rates, much like any group plan. With
this, however, came no screening of the skills, training or track
record of the insurdeds, and so invariably there were some serious
medical errors committed, and more often than they would have wished,
which had to be picked up by the insurers. And, of course it cost them;
destruction of someone's life through a serious medical bungle, such as
taking out the wrong organ, giving the wrong medicine, allowing a
patient to "code" (going into cardiac arrest or similar) while
undergoing anesthesia, having someone wake up paralyzed after what was
supposed to be a routine procedure, etc, causes serious damage.

Consequently, it became clear that these insurers had gotten
themselves into a profit squeeze situation, but on the other hand, they
did not want to let go of all that captive business and all that premium
income. So they were looking for ways to change the situation, when one
of the regularly reoccurring stock and investment market downturns came
along, dropping the value of the insurers portfolios, by estimates of as
much as 25 percent to maybe one-third. Since insurers were regulated as
to how much coverage they could extend by their reserves, and those
reserves, in turn depended for their value on the worth of the
investment holdings of the insurer, this downturn meant that either a
lot of business had to be dumped, or premiums severely increased.

Viola: instant solution: blame everything on "runaway jury
verdicts;" "frivolous lawsuits;" greedy and faking patients, and most of
all on the unscrupulous lawyers, whose dark efforts drove all of these
things. People generally did not like lawyers anyway, but did like and
respect doctors, and, of course knew really nothing about the insurance
market for medical risks nor how it worked. So this was a natural. The
first thing that turned up, of course, was the media drive; reports in
papers, including yours, letters to editor, and what have you (no
internet nor Fox news in those days) about the "runaway verdicts; "
crazy juries awarding millions in no merit cases, due only to the
mesmerizing of them by Swengali-like trial lawyers; junk lawsuits: that
all one had to do was file one against a medical provider, and it would
be immediately paid off with large settlement, no questions asked. And
of course, the recurring message: all this is relentlessly driving up
the costs of medical insurance premiums, but in turn the costs of care
itself. As I remember, this the area where we first saw the term
"skyrocketing" applies to something other than love songs or the 4th of
July.

Next came the very subtle "Office Closing" forms. In almost
every medical waiting room in California, there started to turn up forms
for the attention of the patients, as they checked in. The form,
announced in bold letters, that the practioner or clinic in question was
very sorry, they loved serving their patients, etc, but because solely
of the onslaught and impact (or choose some other appropriate term) of
the lawsuits and verdicts, and the consequent, directly relegated
continuous rise of our medical negligence coverage premiums, we cannot
stay in business anymore, and will be closing our office on __________.
Yes, blank date; the doc or clinic was to fill this in along with their
name. Even with no date filled in the message was ominous, of course,
and repeated. And it had impact.

The last dance in the drama came in Sacramento in the spring of
'75, when all this had reached fever pitch, and nine out of any ten
people you stopped on the street would tell you that the
docs-are-gonna-leave-the-state scare was real, and it for sure was all
the fault of those lawyers and those lawsuits. No one had any clue
about the loss of the insurers to write this business at any reasonable
rate, because that issue was never touched, either by Sacramento or the
media, but a bit more on that later.

On the beautiful grounds of the State Capitol building in
Sacramento, there assembled a virtual Army of maybe anguised patients
and medical families; some practitioners, wives, children, dogs, all
banishing posters, banners, and what have you, with the same recurring
message: stop the junk lawsuits; stop the skyrocketing insurance
premiums; or we are closing offices and leaving the state.... Sort of
like a preview 34 years ago of the recent Town Hall meetings. It is
also interesting to note that our former president, George W. Bush, used
exactly the same arguments in some of his early State of the Union
Addresses, touting for a National Medical Cap on Damages bills, and
other "reforms," using medical folks in the balcony as examples. (but no
signs this time.)

On the very day that the MICRA keel was laid and the victim
patients yet to come were hung out to dry, there was another such
demonstration at the Capitol. Inside, at the negotiating sessions, the
medical lobby was pressing the then Speaker of the Assembly for
immediate legislative "Relief and Reform" hammering again the arguments
concerning the "direct relationship" between escalating verdicts and
settlements and premiums, the rise of which were responsible for all
this turmoil, the docs leaving the state, and the consequent collapse of
the medical care delivery system in California.

But there was one link missing, this issue, however drowned
out in the hubbub. Although the medical reform lobbyists were pressed
hard for this data; there was never any proof, any study, of any kind
that every found a connection between what was going on in the court
rooms and the rise in premiums. You note in your article today
essentially the same thing. Even the Rand Corporation has not been able
to find linkage, even after all this time. We on the side of the
consumers, and we thought the public, although for sure they did not see
it that way at the time, challenged these assertions again and again,
and thought finally, we had one at least one round in the battle to
stave off a special interest bill that would have immunized large
medical errors and error committers from legal accountability and
review. We were assured by the Speaker while in Room A, if we may call
it that, that there would be no rush to judgment; no bill passed simply
because of media pressure, lobbyists and a mob on the Capitol grounds;
that no bill would emerge from the Legislature until there were proper
and in depth hearings on the issue of the connection, if any between
lawsuits and premiums, or if indeed it was all driven by the diminution
of the investment portfolios of the insurers.

But, as sometimes, or oftimes happens in politics, it turned out
that the Speaker, went out of Room A and into Room B, where were
ensconced the "reform" lobbyists, and gave them what they wanted, and
then on to Room C, to ensure that the governor would call a special
session to deal with this unprecedented
All-our-medical-people-are-leaving-the-state crisis, and sign the bill.
And that is exactly what happened, in a very short space of time. MICRA
was rammed through the Legislature to avert a crisis that was entirely
the making of the folks who would benefit thereby. Not the medical
practitioners nor the clinics and hospitals, but the insurers.

The legislation was challenged in the courts by a coalition of
consumer advocate groups, trial lawyers, and others who saw what was
really going on and foresaw the impact of what MICRA would do to the
future victims of medical misadventures, especially in the cases where
the direct economic losses, as opposed to the so-called non economic,
like permanent disfigurement or pain, but after a long court battle, the
Supreme Court of California upheld the essential parts of MICRA, almost
always on 4-3 votes. Some of the dissenters, who tried to point out the
inequities in the legislation, and the fact that among other things, it
would make it near impossible for victims in low economic damage cases
to obtain competent counsel, later found themselves voted out off the
bench for supposedly being "soft on crime," but that is a different
story.

Now, over some 34 years later, here is the reality how MICRA impacts
across the board, and you have the essence part of it in your story
concerning the Ryan Volkmuth case. First, the Cap. As you note, the
legislature put zero in the original bill to allow this to adjust to
time or inflation, apparently assuming that somehow future legislatures
or the courts would deal with this. As a result, the cap, expressed in
fixed dollars, is now worth in purchasing power, according to our
economists who last ran these numbers, about sixty thousand, and
dropping. In every case that we undertook after MICRA, we always made a
motion to the court at outset to apply a CPI or other inflation index to
the court, so as to allow an award to at least allow the victim the same
equivalent recovery he or she would have had in 1975. Uniformly, the
courts have turned these motions down, ruling that this is a matter for
the legislature along to fix.

The second big vice in the Cap is not well known nor understood, unless
you have been actually involved in one of these cases. The medical
defense lawyers, who are among the best, and wellpaid to do it, have
convinced the courts that the fact of the Cap cannot be told or argued
to the jury, so when it makes its award, it has no idea that even if it
finds and awards, say a million dollars for a serious and egregious
mishap, the victim will never see it. It will be reduced by the court
later in a quiet motion made by the defense.

Next, the fees that can be earned by the lawyer for the medical error
victim on any sort of percentage basis are likewise severely limited, to
the point where many, if not the vast majority of those qualified to do
this kind of work simply cannot afford to take these cases. Not only
are the fees limited, but all expenses - and they can be extremely
substantial in a complicated medical negligence case - must be first
deducted from any recovery before any fee calculation is made. For
instance, assuming a medical negligence case recovery of even one
million dollars (not possible of course in a "nonecomic damage" only
case), where it has cost, say, $200,000 in expense, which in almost all
cases has to be advanced by the attorney handling the case, the mandated
fee schedule will allow the lawyer, who may have had all that expense
money in the case and worked on it for three or four years, a fee of
less than $200,000. Worked out over the years and hours, that is not
very much, and of course only comes when the case ends up successfully.
In any case that is lost or does not work out for whatever reason, there
is no fee, and that has to factored in to any assessment as to whether
any lawyer can handle any given case.

On the other side, however, there is no limit whatsoever to what the
defense may spend. Large hourly and trial time fees are routine and
paid regularly. I think it was Justice Rose Bird, who commented on this
phase of MICRA shortcomings in particular, pointing out that since
medical negligence cases invariably had to be handled for the victim by
a lawyer on a contingent or percentage fee, this discrepancy virtually
assured that the defense could hire and pay the best but that the victim
was precluded from hiring counsel at the going or "market" rate, as she
described it, even if he or she was happy to pay it. In fact there is a
case on the books in California, where the lawyer involved, a well known
and very competent practioner in LA, was hired by medical malpractice
victims, who recited in the retainer that they knew about MICRA and the
fee limits, but wanted the best and were willing to pay therefore, and
thus were contracting for special fees over and above the MICRA limits.
Appellate court disallowed: victims, you may want the best and be
willing to pay for it, but you cannot have where medical defendants are
involved.

There are some other ins and outs of MICRA that further inhibit the
ability of a medical negligence victim, such as forcing the victim to
take "periodic payments," sort of like an annuity at a low interest
rate, instead of receiving the full cash benefit of any award; offsets
for other insurance and medical benefits (the medical defense industry
at one point tried to get future social security benefits to be paid as
an offset, but they were not able to do that b/c SS is a federal issue,
fortunately.)


So, that brings us to a case like Ryan Volkmuth. This is a very typical
and tragic scenario; we see it time and time again with youngsters,
babies, older folks who are no longer supporting someone, disfigurement
cases where past bills are paid by medical coverage and there is little,
if anything that can be done in the future, and similar. In all cases
where there will be no significant componetnt of "economic damage,"
keeping in mind that most of the medical costs that are incurred to date
are usually covered by some insurance or plan, and thus go to the credit
of the medical defendant, so there is no "damage" to the victim there as
well. Since the Cap is an unbeakage $250,000, that is the maximum the
insurers can be called upon to pay, no matter how grievous the injury or
loss, or the egregiousness of the medical error.

Well, you might say, at least the victim should be able to recover that
without a lot of trouble in a clear case, right? Wrong. Since the test
of "medical negligence," under Cal law is that you must establish that
the procedure or treatment violated the acceptable Standard of Care, and
that can only be established and proved by expert medical testimony, you
have no case unless and until you provide the other side with a credible
expert or expert report pinning this down. And that is just the start.
They will counter with one or a number of experts who disputes what your
guy says, and who will have to be deposed. Many times, a lawyer
handling such a case has to screen though several potential medicinal
experts before finding one who can help, and each time this goes on ,
there has to be a retainer fee paid, records obtained, fees paid for the
review, and so on. As a practical matter the defense knows this, and
calculates, that on the average, even in a clear cut Cap case, the
lawyer for the plaintiff will have to spend somewhere between 50 and
70,000 dollars just to put the case in a posture to make the defense
worry. They also know that if they hold tight, it will cost the
plaintiffs' side at least that much or more if the case has to be tried,
and whatever all that comes to, it comes out of the $250,000 max Cap.

The end result is, that in many cases as Ryan's seems to be - a huge
tragedy for the family, and maybe a clear case of medical error - you
can expect the defense to never offer any more than about half to 60% of
the Cap, because it knows that the plaintiff or bereft family cannot do
any better even if they go to court and win.

It is a rotten and unfair system, and despite all the hullabaloo from
Bush and others, including some of our Republican governors who have
vowed public ally to veto any attempted legislative reform of MICRA,
there is a want of any solid empirical or other evidence that medical
insurance premiums are driven by court results or settlements, as
opposed to many other factors, or that a Draconian law such as MICRA
actually does reduce health care costs. There maybe some premium
reduction, because the insurers payout of course has fallen, but where
is the evidence that this has translated to any meaningful reduction in
health care costs? The last time we looked, they were still escalating
by about three times p.a. than other items in the index?

One last footnote. From time to time, hard work will start to bring
some of the legislators who have come along since MICRA around to
revisiting the issue, especially the Cap on damages and limits on
attorneys fees. Several bills. Limited only to making some
modifications on the Cap, such as letting it rise with the CPI, or
inflation, or an arbitrary percentage per year, or whatever, as opposed
to a full blown overhaul, have made some progress thought committees
from time to time. This happened a few years ago, when with Grey Davis
then in office, it looked as though if such a bill could get through the
legislature, he most probably would have signed it, even though he would
not take a public position in favor. This got blown out of the water,
however, one morning by Banner Headlines in the LA Times, which had
gotten wind of the bill, and apparently was induced to oppose it "Docs
can be Sued for Millions....", and so on. Bad start; many legislators
in the Southland; heard from constituents; end of effort. For now.

Thanx for taking the time to read some or all of this. I think it is
important history and background that has faded from folks' memories.
The balance between trying to contain health care costs and protecting
patients from unnecessary medical errors is a tricky and complex one.
We shall see what happens at the national level. One thing, tho, for
sure to keep in mind: any time any legislative product has the word
"Reform" in its title, you know someone without a big lobby in the
legislative halls is going to get screwed in some way.

Sincerely,

Gerald C. Sterns

www.trial-law.com

Private Planes Wait in the Wings

Monday, November 30, 2009

For private jet owners time is literally money. The operation of a jet is a little more than a 1st class ticket on a commercial airline. A typical flight could cost $50,000 when all is said and one. Private planes allow entrepreneurs and top executives to travel freely to meet clients, close deals and keep their operations running smoothly. Many of these businessmen are being stranded without one of their key tool, their plane.

Private jet completion centers are responsible for delaying production and upgrades to some of these jets for weeks and even months. This is more than an inconvenience to an executive that needs to be in three different cities in the same day. Trips may need to be canceled, business could be lost and the company can lose tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

These are complex matters and need the attention of a skilled attorney. Patrick Bailey, of Bailey & Partners has been handling these cases for years. He is an attorney and a pilot who has represented private jet owners against many different completion centers. Details about him and his law firm can be found on his website Aviation Attorney.

Taxi Cab Accidents in Las Vegas

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Taxis always seem to be in a rush from here to there. And why shouldn't they? The faster you get to your destination the quicker you can get to doing what you actually came to do. The taxi driver can then pick up another fare and increase the amount they make during their shift. These are all of the positives that come from rushing from place to place.

On the other hand, the constant rushing around causes a lot of unsafe conditions to drivers and pedestrians alike. Reckless and distracted drivers are the cause of a lot of car accidents today. Cab drivers seem to be especially guilty of reckless driving. Between texting, communicating with their dispatch and yelling at pedestrians, there seems like no time for safety. I believe there is a certain feeling of ownership that a taxi driver has about their city streets. I mean after all, they spend more time on the road than anyone. Why shouldn't they be allowed more privileges?

The answer is obvious. If one person isn't following the rules, it puts us all in danger. I would venture to guess that most people don't buckle up on short cab rides. Maybe they are in a rush or feel that a hired driver is safer. When you consider a typical cab, that has a plastic partition, even a small taxi cab accident could turn into a major injury. Protect yourself in a taxi. Buckle up, give clear directions and don't be afraid to ask the driver to slow down.

The Blurry Line Between Family Law and Criminal Law

Tuesday, November 10, 2009
If you are someone who knows that they will be facing some sort of accusation of domestic violence or spousal abuse, or if you have already been accused and charged it is vitally important that you find a qualified lawyer immediately.

In the Los Angeles or Van Nuys area an experienced attorney can often approach the District or City Attorneys to work at having any type of fraudulent, inaccurate, or dishonest charges dealt with outside of a trial scenario. This is particularly the case when charges are brought during a messy divorce or while family court issues are pending.

Interestingly enough, many people must simultaneously work with their family lawyer at the same time they are facing some sort of domestic issue too. Often a good lawyer will be able to request an Office Hearing that completely avoids the need for any further court appearances and can save someone a great deal of time and frustration.

If you are asking yourself if people really use domestic violence charges as a sort of weapon in the family court setting the answer, sadly, is yes. This might mean that you are in trouble because you entered your home to claim some belongings and your spouse phoned the police and accused you of trespassing and harassment. It could mean that you have a temporary restraining order placed on you and that you have been accused of violating that order by a spouse as well.

Current California law no longer allows for someone claiming spousal abuse or domestic violence to turn around and drop their claims and any associated charges; that is an issue for the authorities to decide.

This can often mean that a moment of poor judgment and bad behavior can lead to the ruin of someone’s permanent record, and even a period of imprisonment or lengthy probation.

If you are facing domestic violence, DUI arrest, or drunk driving charges in the state of California you need to talk with an attorney that understands all of the issues you are dealing with.

Protecting Your Rights After an Aviation Accident

Thursday, November 05, 2009

While the old adage that accidents happen is certainly true, this does not mean that they should simply be accepted. Aviation accidents are rare, and in many cases they are caused by faulty parts or error on the part of pilots or air traffic control. If you, a friend or family member have been the victim of an aviation accident, taking the time to learn your rights is a very important step.

Contacting an aviation accident attorney is important an airplane crash. Whether you or a loved one were on a private plane or a commercial flight, contacting a lawyer will help you to ensure that your rights are protected. Any plane crash must be investigated, and by speaking to a legal professional you can ensure that if another party was deemed at fault for the accident, you will have legal recourse to file a claim for damages, expenses, and losses incurred.

Getting in touch a lawyer is not just about suing for money, it is about protecting your or your loved one’s rights. While you may well be able to recover any expenses that you incurred due to the accident, contacting an attorney also helps make sure that you are not asked to sign any papers asking you to give up your right to file suit regarding the accident. A person’s rights are very important, and many airlines and lawyers will work quickly to help prevent future legal action. After any accident, there is always a chance for injuries to develop well after the fact, and protecting your future rights is very important.

Another benefit of using a law professional after such an accident is that you will be able to stay informed about the accident. Because aviation accidents can be very terrifying, knowing what caused the accident can provide great emotional and mental relief for many crash victims. Knowing whether the pilot made an error, if the plane malfunctioned, or if there was simple weather or other conditions that caused the accident can give you closure surrounding the event.

To put it simply, talking with a lawyer after any aviation accident is imperative. You deserve to be able to preserve your rights and to recover any losses that were incurred at the hands of a faulty part or errant pilot. As with any accident, settling it yourself can be an unwise decision that can strip you of rights if you have a future problem.


Get monthly marketing tips in the Lawyer Marketing newsletter >>

Your approved geography goes here. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum tristique nisl quis diam suscipit varius. In libero metus, ultrices ac suscipit ac, varius a augue. Quisque in nisi nec erat malesuada fermentum sed pellentesque augue. Aenean eu lorem porta mauris venenatis sodales ut id dolor. Donec ligula sapien, cursus in rutrum placerat, elementum sit amet dolor.