San Antonio Injury Lawyer Blog

When a bus is in a serious accident it is often assumed that a driver is at fault, and in most bus accidents it is driver error that causes the accident. Serious bus accidents in San Antonio and surrounding areas are common events. When a bus accident occurs it is not uncommon for the driver of the bus to blame the other driver or a pedestrian as the cause of the accident.

However, if the bus-driver gives a statement that some component of the bus mechanically failed, causing the accident, the San Antonio personal injury lawyer representing the injured party should investigate the claim of a defect. If a product defect is found it will increase the likelihood that the injured party can be fully compensated.

A recent recall by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) involved 226 City Transit buses manufactured by North American Bus Industries. The recall was based upon a faulty steering gear assembly that could result in the bus driver losing control of the vehicle and causing a crash.

In San Antonio drivers who hit bicyclists or pedestrians are seldom ticketed or arrested. The injured party is often severely injured or killed while the at-fault driver is left to explain that it was just an accident. Accidents do not normally happen without some active negligence. A two-ton motor-vehicle or a 20 ton semi-truck traveling at highway speeds is going to cause massive injuries to vulnerable road users if they do not pass with a sufficient safe distance between them.

The Texas Governor vetoed a bill that would have required motor-vehicles to give other vulnerable users of our roads and highways a sufficient clear safe passing buffer. With that veto the San Antonio City Council has been debating a City Ordinance that would require a safe passing clearance of at least three feet for cars and 6 feet for trucks. This safe passing distance would be applied to all vulnerable users such as: pedestrians, bicyclists, wheel chairs, and road workers.

If passed the ordinance is not expected to eliminate all accidents and injuries to bicyclists and other vulnerable users; however, it may reduce the number of accidents making our streets friendlier for cyclists. We are in favor of a safe passing ordinance if it is coupled with a marketing push to inform San Antonio drivers of the ordinance. The effectiveness of the ordinance would be enhanced if the other metropolitan areas and not just San Antonio passed similar ordinances to protect cyclists throughout Texas.

Potential serious injuries and death may result from riding a defective All-Terrain Vehicle. San Antonio, Texas purchasers and those across the State of Texas and the United States should be made aware that if they purchased a Polaris ATV that was manufactured between January 2009 and August 2009, the vehicle may have a defective front suspension joint stem that can cause the rider to lose control of steering during operation. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the recall involves approximately 8,500 Polaris Sportsman 2009 and 2010 models. The specific model numbers are listed at the CPSC recall website.

Many people are injured every year riding ATVs. Some of these injuries are the result of careless driving. However, when the product is defective and steering control is lost, causing injury, paralysis or death, a thorough investigation into the cause of the accident should be conducted. What may have been thought to be momentary carelessness on the part of the driver may very well have actually been caused by a defect in the design or manufacturing process. Texas product liability laws provide for compensation to victims that have been injured as a result of a poor product design, a defective component, or inadequate warnings and instructions on the use of a product.

If you purchased a Polaris Sportsman ATV, stop using it immediately and visit the CPSC website or call your local Polaris dealer to determine whether your vehicle needs to be repaired.

Severe personal injury, including amputation of fingers, is the reason behind a recall of Graco strollers. About 1.5 million strollers, many of which have been sold in San Antonio and throughout Texas, are being recalled due to faulty latches that fail to lock the stroller in place when opened. This can result in the stroller collapsing, causing broken bones and severe lacerations requiring stitches. According to the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) Graco has received over 500 complaints of injury from users of the Duo Tandem Stroller and the Metrolite Stroller. At least one injury resulted in the child requiring 46 stitches to close the wound. The strollers were manufactured between 1994 and 2002, and were sold nationwide at various discount stores, department stores and children’s stores for prices ranging between $80-$200. By checking the recall notice at the CPSC website, purchasers of Graco products can review the involved model numbers/serial numbers.

Defective products, especially products designed for children, can cause serious, long-term injuries and victims should contact experienced lawyers to investigate. In addition to government recalls, there are databases that should be maintained by manufacturers, and all necessary information should be sought in order to best protect future product users, as well as compensate those that have already been harmed.

Many Texas drivers take the option of adding Uninsured/Underinsured insurance protection when buying auto insurance. Since many San Antonio and Texas automobiles are not insured, or only have minimum required liability insurance, paying for this coverage makes sense. If you are in an auto accident with a driver that causes serious injury, and the at-fault driver does not have insurance, or does not have enough insurance to properly compensate you for your losses, the uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) insurance protection on your policy is supposed to compensate you for any losses that are not covered by the at-fault driver.

For years, Texas courts held that since an injured person was dealing with their own insurance company, and seeking compensation for losses covered by UM/UIM protection, that an insurance company must act in good faith and reasonably pay those claims. There was an added consideration - since the insurance policy is a contract - Texas law provides that when a contract is breached, the party in violation owes attorney fees as an additional penalty. Therefore, when a UM/UIM claim was submitted, the insurance company acted reasonably to avoid paying additional penalties in the form of attorney fees.

However, in late 2006 the Texas Supreme Court decided that insurance companies do not have an obligation to pay attorney fees until a person takes the company to court, and obtains a verdict against the company, and then, ONLY, if the insurance company does not pay within 30 days, can attorney fees be added. Essentially, today, UM/UIM insurance companies have been placed in the position of being able to sit back and force their policy holders to go to court, without incurring any penalty. All the while, the insurance company is earning interest on the money, and hoping that policy holders will not have the stamina to fight to the end.

If you have been injured by an uninsured driver, or if the injuries you have received exceed the liability coverage of the at-fault driver, you need experienced help fighting these claims if you want to recover your legal losses.

San Antonio and all Texas motorcycle riders should be aware of a recent recall issued from the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) - a division of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The product defect recall involves certain 2009 and 2010 BMW model K1300 and K1300 GT motorcycles.

According to published reports, motorcycles manufactured between September 11, 2008 and November 19, 2009 may be prone to a build up of small deposits within the throttle bodies - pronounced with poor fuel quality. The build up of deposits, especially during engine operation at low RPM's, can result in engine stall. Given that these effects occur typically during low RPM range driving, such as when coming to a stop, engine stall may lead to a vehicle crash and potential serious personal injury.

The safety recall is expected to be addressed by BMW in January, when repair of the problems will begin - free of charge to owners. Further information may be obtained from NHTSA, referencing Campaign ID No.:09V471000.

Serious injury can occur to the most prudent riders of motorcycles, as a result of neglect by other vehicle operators not paying attention to the two-wheeled users of the roadway.
Adding a product defect that could result on engine stall only increases the chances of a wreck occurring. If an engine stalls as a result of this build up - even if a car operator behind the motorcycle is paying attention, the sudden loss of momentum may result on the nmotorcyle being rear-ended, and the rider suffering serious injury.

A wrongful-death lawsuit has been filed by the parents of the couple that were fatally injured while cycling on October 1, 2009 north of San Antonio. The couple was riding a tandem bicycle when they were struck by a Ford F-150 truck. The driver of the truck briefly left the roadway and then overcorrected causing him to lose control.

In a wrongful death lawsuit the injury lawyer will likely try to recover: medical and funeral expenses; compensation for loss of companionship, mental anguish, and the decedent's pre-death pain, suffering and mental anguish. The couple left a young child and any recovery would likely be held in trust for the benefit of the child.

The Sheriff's Department and the District Attorney's office are investigating this vehicle accident to determine whether charges for manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide should be brought against the truck driver. The investigating authorities are probably subpoenaing the phone records of the driver to determine whether he was on the phone or texting while driving.

The success of the personal injury claim is not dependant upon a criminal case being filed. Each court system, criminal and civil, has independent burdens of proof and different methods of determining justice – one to determine whether the driver will lose his freedom, and the civil court system will determine whether the driver or his employer should compensate the young child for the loss of both parents.

A San Antonio motorist is reported to be in critical condition following a head-on collision late Wednesday, December 9, 2009. Apparently, a 25 year old driver lost control of his 2003 Nissan while traveling along a curve in the roadway. The vehicle spun around and then crossed into oncoming traffic, striking a van head-on. The driver of the Nissan was reported to have not been wearing his seatbelt, and was thrown about the car causing critical injuries. No report was given concerning whether speed was a factor. However, additional inquiry may reveal other factors and causes of any injury.

Although it was reported that the driver was not wearing his seatbelt, it is possible that he was, and the seatbelt failed. By investigating the seat belt mechanics, any issues with the locking system, and other components, a reasonable determination can be made concerning whether the restraint system failed - leaving the appearance that an occupant was not wearing the restraint when emergency responders arrive.

Experienced and resourceful investigation can many times correct other erroneous first impressions – such as whether an injury occurred in the first place. First responders (police, fire, EMS) are trained to aid those in need. Some have additional training to investigate accidents. But for the most part, they are concerned with safety and well being. If it appears that an individual was not wearing a seat belt, or that an accident didn't leave visible damage to a vehicle and therefore no injuries were sustained, no further thought is given by these first responders. However, serious injury can be inflicted on humans even though a car does not show evidence of damage. Cars are made with state of the art materials that are designed to displace the energy of a collision and leave no physical indication of damage; however, as the energy passes through these materials, it still imposes forces on the human musculoskeletal system and our bodies suffer injury as a result.

A San Antonio driver allegedly caused a two-car wreck with a San Antonio Police officer shortly after midnight on December 10. It was reported that the driver apparently drove in front of the officer causing the patrol car to crash into the truck. The driver was also charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), which can also be called driving under the influence (DUI).

The driver and the officer were transported to Northeast Methodist Hospital for treatment of personal injuries after the wreck was investigated. The auto accident occurred at the intersection of Thousand Oaks Dr. and Nacodoches Rd.

When a collision is caused by any driver, an investigation into the factors and negligent acts of the vehicle operator must be undertaken. However, when a person is alleged to have been intoxicated, further investigation is warranted. An analysis of the intoxication level is only the beginning: a thorough evaluation of whether the driver was intoxicated at the time of the wreck should be followed by an investigation of when and where the driver consumed the alcohol. If a person is consuming alcohol at a restaurant or bar, and is already showing signs of intoxication while still being served, the bar or restaurant may be liable for injuries to the victim in the car wreck. By determining the alcohol level recorded by the police, using scientific principles, an analysis can be made to determine what the alcohol level and intoxication level were earlier in time. If it can be shown that the person was clearly intoxicated at a time that bar tenders or servers were providing alcohol to the person, Texas law provides for what is commonly referred to as Dram Shop liability.

Only experienced lawyers and law firms with knowledge in the area of DWI/DUI and the science of blood-alcohol concentrations can effectively evaluate these potential cases.

Drivers and auto accident victims in San Antonio and throughout Texas should be aware that there is currently a recall on Jeep Grand Cherokee 2010 models concerning a potential failure to deploy passenger side airbags. Obviously, such an event could seriously impact and increase the injuries one may sustain if riding in one of these vehicles and being invloved in a collision that should ordinarily deploy the airbag to protect the passenger. Without passenger side airbag deployment, if a person strikes their head on any part of the door frame, damage and personal injury ranging from contusions to serious brain injury can occur.

Information regarding this automobile product defect recall can be found at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Vehicles affected include the 2010 model Grand Cherokee, with manufacturing dates from October 22 through November 12, 2009. The cause appears to be an electrical system/instrument panel error, and dealers are expected to begin replacement of the top cover of the instrument panel in December.

In any car wreck, in addition to determining the fault of the driver that may have negligently caused injury, it is always important to ascertain whether a manufacturing defect may have been the source of injury or potentially aggravated the injury beyond what should have occurred in an otherwise, seemingly typical car accident.

The San Antonio legal community lost one of its most respected members this week. Judge Andy Mireles died on December 15, 2009. May he rest in Peace.

Judge Mireles started his career as a personal injury lawyer, fighting for the rights of victims of negligent employers and those that caused needless injury and harm to others. Early in his career he became respected by lawyers and judges in the community as a tenacious opponent. His ethical standards were above reproach, and he soon became regarded as one of the leading lawyers in San Antonio. His dedication to this city was exemplified by his first effort at elected office - Trustee of the San Antonio Independent School District Board. He championed the cause of education and of providing a future for young men and women.

Once he was elected Judge of the 73rd Judicial District Court, he continued to speak out - and act in the best interests - regarding young people. He is considered to have been one of the pioneers of the juvenile justice system in Bexar County. As a judge presiding over civil trials, he always expected lawyers to be prepared and ready. He would always ask lawyers about recent caselaw that might affect the current argument under discussion, in order to be sure that his rulings were in line with the law. He was also a fierce believer in the fact that the courthouse is a public place and that citizens, acting in their role as jurors, fulfilled the constitutional mandate of our forefathers.

Judge Andy Mireles will long be remembered in this community. His passing brings a heavy heart to those of us privileged to have known him, worked with him and appeared before him. Vaya Con Dios, mi juez.

A wrongful-death lawsuit has been filed by a personal injury attorney as the result of a drunken driving accident that caused the death of a motorcyclist Northwest of San Antonio. The passenger on the motorcycle was killed and its driver was seriously injured when they were struck from behind by an allegedly drunk driver.

The driver of the pick-up that struck the motorcycle was charged with intoxication manslaughter and intoxication assault. According to the troopers reports the alleged drunk driver's alcohol level was 0.19. The legal limit is 0.08.

The author of this article has hired numerous experts in intoxication fatalities and dram shop cases and most experts believe that everyone is severely and obviously intoxicated at 0.16, and some believe the obviousness cannot be hidden at even lower levels. Therefore, the lawyer that filed this case against the establishment that served the alcohol will probably be able to show that the driver was "obviously intoxicated" and should not have been served alcohol. In defending the saloon that served the drunk driver it may be argued that the driver's past alcohol abuse, as indicated by his prior DWI, gave him a high tolerance to alcohol and therefore, he was not "obviously intoxicated". Expert toxicologist or others experienced in the effects of alcohol are very often hired by experienced personal injury lawyers to explain the science of alcohol absorption rates and the effect of alcohol on reaction time.

Bringing a lawsuit against the drunk driver and the bar or saloon that served the alcohol serves many purposes. One is to compensate the family of the deceased for their loss. Another possibly greater good is to make businesses aware that they can be held liable if they over serve their patrons alcohol. The dram-shop laws do not make the businesses liable every time one of their drunken customers injures someone. They are only liable if they serve an "obviously intoxicated" patron. When a customer is very intoxicated the business must refuse to serve any additional alcohol or risk a lawsuit. It is not legally required that they call a cab or take away the person's keys; even though that may be the right thing to do.