San Antonio Injury Lawyer Blog

If you drive on the north side of San Antonio, you should be aware that the highest rate for automobile accidents and wrecks are north of downtown. In fact in a recent report on KENS TV it was reported that the top 10 locations in the city for reported car wrecks were all on the north side of the city.

The top 3 intersections for traffic accidents were are along Loop 1604. At the intersection of Bandera Rd. and Loop 1604, there were 85 auto accidents reported in the previous six months. At the intersection of Loop 1604 and IH-10 West, it was reported that there were 100 collisions. And the most dangerous intersection in San Antonio for drivers in the last 6 months has been Loop 1604 and Hwy 281 on the far north side. There were 132 car accidents reported for this intersection in the last six months.

If you have been in an automobile accident, you should immediately contact your insurance carrier. You will also want to obtain the San Antonio Police Department accident report number, so a copy of the report can be obtained. This report will contain the other driver's identification and their insurance information. If the wreck was caused by the other driver, it is likely that their insurance company will contact you soon after the collision. You should know that you ARE NOT required to give the at fault party's insurance company a recorded statement. The adjuster will want to ask you questions, while being recorded, and will attempt to have you minimize your injuries, will ask questions designed to indicate that you may have been at fault, and often will attempt to get your permission to settle the claim before you know the full extent of damage to your vehicle or your own injuries, if any.

You should seek any medical attention you feel you need immediately. Contact your family physician, or seek help from a local emergency clinic or hospital emergency room, depending on the nature of your injuries.

You will also most likely be contacted by numerous individuals that have searched the police records. They will call offering a range of "services" including offers to pick you up and transport you to a medical appointment or to an attorney's office for assistance. While technically legal, these efforts are typically not trustworthy and in many cases people have found that they have hired a chiropractor or physician not of their choosing, along with an attorney, before they have even considered their own well being.

A reputable law firm, and reputable healthcare providers, will not contact you offering services after a car wreck. If you need legal assistance or medical attention, you should seek out the services you desire. A search on the internet can provide a list of physicians and law firms that are available to assist you with questions after a car accident, and after discussing your situation and once you feel comfortable with the person you have chosen, then and only then should you sign any documents.

If an insurance company asks you to sign any paperwork, you should carefully read and review any documents, and seek legal advice if you do not understand the implications. Signing a Release of All Claims without understanding the effect could forever bar you from gaining full compensation for your losses.

In San Antonio Texas many automobile drivers have only the minimum required statutory liability insurance. The minimum required automobile liability insurance is in the amount of $25,000.00.

The minimum auto liability policy is insufficient in circumstances where there are serious injuries. In cases with serious injuries the personal injury attorney should investigate the availability of underinsured motorist coverage. In cases where combining the liability coverage with the underinsured coverage will not provide sufficient insurance coverage the personal injury attorney should investigate other sources of funds to compensate the injured driver.

Other sources of compensation include personal assets of the at fault driver; however, the at-fault driver usually will not have assets beyond the Texas homestead exemption. Other areas that can be investigated in cases with severe injuries include: roadway geometry, drainage design, tire and vehicle defects and driveway design.

Driveway design is often overlooked by attorneys as the source of serious injuries. Driveway design can play a major role in causing accidents. Often driveways from private property do not have acceleration lanes. The lack of an acceleration lane often causes vehicles to merge into traffic at too slow of speed. The large difference in speeds of vehicles traveling on a roadway compared with those vehicles entering the roadway from drives without acceleration lanes causes large disruptions to the traffic flow.

Plans for shopping centers or other commercial developments should include acceleration lanes for those patrons leaving their establishments; however, occasionally those lanes are not constructed. The failure to construct parking lots and driveways without acceleration lanes can be the cause of serious motor vehicle accidents and those parties responsible for the faulty construction or design should be held accountable.

American Honda Motor Co. (Honda) is recalling almost 4000 Civic and Accord automobiles manufactured in 2001. The recall was announced by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The recall is based upon a defect in the drivers side airbag. If the affected bag is deployed in an accident the inflator may rupture. This rupture has the potential to cause metal fragments to be propelled like schrapnel into the passenger compartment of the vehicle and cause injury to the driver or passenger.

This airbag repair will be done free of charge by Honda Dealers. This repair should be done as soon as possible because of the potential injuries that could be caused by the defect.

"Off-label" uses for drugs and medical devices have been in the news lately. What is "off-label" use? Essentially, when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves a drug or medical device, the specific conditions for which the drug or device is approved are listed. Some drugs and devices, however, can provide positive benefits to patients if used for conditions or symptoms that have not yet been investigated and approved by the FDA. Only licensed medical doctors are allowed to use and prescribe drugs and medical devices in ways and for conditions not approved by the FDA, if based on sound medical judgment, the "off-label" use of the drug or device can help a patient. Even so, a physician can be held liable if the "off-label" use is unreasonable and not based on good medical judgment. However, drug companies and medical device manufacturers (and particularly the sales reps that promote the use of the drugs and devices to physicians) are not allowed to advertise their products for uses not approved by the FDA.

Lawsuits against drug manufacturers alleging that the company promoted the off-label use of its drugs or medical devices often include the allegation that the doctors also received secret inducements to prescribe the drug in a manner not intended by the FDA. Clearly, if a physician is accepting payments or incentives to use a drug or device in an unapproved manner, the basis for such a decision is subject to scrutiny.

In an unusual case the Department of Justice is investigating Medtronic Inc. for the off-label use of its Infuse Bone Graft. The Infuse Bone Graft was approved by the FDA for use in the lumbar (low back) spine area. Infuse Bone Graft, if used properly in the lumbar region, would cause bone growth that fills in the gap between the vertebrae and replaces damaged discs. The FDA, however, only approved the use of this bone grafting material in a small area of the lower lumbar spine.

A number of patients have complained that they were injured when the Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft was used in an off-label manner. In July the FDA issued a safety alert about the off-label use of the Infuse Bone Graft in the neck or cervical region of the spine. Some of the complications that occurred when the Infuse Bone Graft was used in the cervical region included severe breathing problems and difficulty swallowing. Using the Infuse Bone Graft in the cervical region has caused some patients to lose the ability to breath or to swallow resulting in tracheotomies in order to breathe, while others had to have feeding tubes installed.

Medical malpractice lawyers in Texas need to investigate all potential causes of injuries, especially in light of the $250,000.00 cap on non-economic damages when suing medical providers. The cap on damages would not apply to suits against the medical device manufacturer if the manufacturer promoted its product for an off-label use and the off-label use caused injury. If off-label uses, and perhaps incentive payments to physicians, have caused serious or catastrophic injury, a manufacturing company can be held to fully compensate a patient.

As an update to the previous entry on all-terrain vehicles (ATV) from November 6, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSA) recently released its final order on ATV safety.

Three-wheel ATVs are still under investigation and until final product safety guidelines are enacted, these models cannot be manufactured in, or imported into, the United States.

Beginning in April, 2009, all four-wheel ATVs must comply with the new product safety regulations set out in the November 14, 2008 CPSC Final Rule issued by the Commission. Injuries from these all-terrain vehicles (ATV) can be life-threatening and permanent, if not fatal.

See the new regulation. Or, visit the ATV Safety website sponsored by the United States Government.

Recent reports of attacks by vicious dogs highlight a misconception of many pet owners that if their pet has no history of biting they will not be responsible if it ever does occur. This is often referred to as the "one free bite rule". The "one free bite rule" is short for the legal theory that you as a dog owner will not be responsible for actions of your pet if you had no notice of the pet’s vicious nature.

The "one free bite rule" can only provide some assistance to the pet owner, and is not a bar to bringing a claim if a person has been attacked; there are many exceptions and an experienced lawyer can often find an exception. One of the exceptions is that a pet owner is always required to use reasonable care in handling his dog. As an example, it may not be reasonable to let your dog play with very young children if there are no young children in your household and the dog is not used to interacting with young children. It also may be unreasonable to let a young household guest play rough with your dog. In addition a pet owner is going to be held to a standard that requires them to take action to terminate any aggression by your dog.

Some Courts have considered a few dog breeds as inherently aggressive, putting the owner on notice of its natural tendency to be violent. Many dog owners dispute that their favorite breed is genetically bred to be vicious. However, a jury is more likely to award damages when the attack is committed by a pit bull in comparison to a small lap dog, and insurance companies are less prone to litigate and more likely to resolve a claim when an attack is committed by a breed with a reputation for aggression.

Dogs can be wonderful pets; however, not every dog is fit to be around children or house guests. Any dog attack needs to be treated seriously, and bites can become infected and leave permanent scarring.

During the recent election cycle there was some dialogue about the Texas Supreme Court and their bias towards insurance companies. This perceived bias is supported by the Court's rulings that favor insurance companies almost 90% of the time. This is even more alarming when you consider that in the vast majority of the cases reviewed the injured party prevailed in the trial court and also prevailed in the court of appeals; however, with some regularity the Texas Supreme Court reverses the findings of a jury of citizens as well as a panel of appellate judges and ruled in favor of the insurance company or corporate defendant. When an insurance company or large corporate defendant appeals a judgment to the Texas Supreme Court it is likely going to win.

The Texas Supreme Court acts in many instances as a monolithic block, voting in favor of defendants, and often reversing decades of legal precedents. Some have even gone as far as to suggest that the Court, which is comprised of 9 Republican Justices, rules in favor of many of the companies that donate substantial contributions to their campaigns. The vast majority of the money raised by the Texas Supreme Court comes from insurance companies, medical entities, and large law firms with cases before the Court.

In a recent case the Texas Supreme Court ruled against Texas homeowners who had defective synthetic stucco installed on their homes. Don's Building Supply, Inc. vs. OneBeacon Insurance Co., 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1367 (Feb. 7, 2008) In the OneBeacon case, the Court overruled decades of Texas jurisprudence in a decision that favored the insurance company. Because of the Court's ruling, thousands of Texas homeowners will not be able to recover for damages to their homes. In a nutshell the Court ruled that the homeowners were too late in bringing their lawsuit, even though it was without dispute that the homeowners did not know about the damage being done to their homes - because the damage was hidden by the defective stucco. Prior case law in Texas would have allowed the lawsuit to proceed based upon the "discovery rule." The discovery rule was a common law theory that allowed a lawsuit to proceed past the typical cutoff date if the injury or harm was not discoverable by the person harmed, even with the exercise of due diligence. Citing the language contained in the insurance policy - language created by and placed into the policy by the insurance company - the Court ruled that the discovery rule did not apply to this circumstance.

Product Liability lawsuits often assist federal regulators in identifying dangerous products and making them safer for consumers to use or own. Federal Regulators are often caught off guard when emerging hazards develop. One of the goals of a product liability suit is to improve the safety of a product for the public at large. Most products can maintain their functionality while being made safer for very little additional cost.
When a new product is designed for sale it often enters the market place without regulatory guidelines and without any history or competent studies to judge its safety. It can often take years before there are a sufficient number of injuries or deaths to alert the attention of a federal agency to investigate a potentially dangerous product. It is often the case that personal injury lawyers have been at the forefront of informing the public and federal regulators about the hazards of many products.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) did not start to investigate three-wheeled all terrain vehicles (ATV) until lawsuits were filed complaining of the multitudes of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries caused by faulty engineering and design principles that were ignored or overlooked by the ATV manufacturers. Even so, after being informed of the dangers of these products via lawsuits filed in various states, it still took three years for the CPSC to ban the sale of the three-wheel ATV, which was a product that had been proven to be clearly dangerous. Two years after the ban of the three-wheel ATV, a trade group published voluntary safety standards for a four-wheel ATV; however, cheaper versions of the ATV were being imported from China, without adhering even to the voluntary standards proposed in the United States, and often lacked the most basic safety features. Approximately 8 years later the CPSC finally enacted formal safety standards on the four-wheel ATV.

Today there are numerous models and brands of off road vehicles called Utility Terrain Vehicles (UTV) that are currently unregulated. These vehicles have four wheels, a steering wheel and look like powerful golf carts. However, the high center of gravity on these newer UTV models, combined with the powerful engines and large tires often, often cause disastrous rollovers. Numerous people have been killed and thousands injured. Again it wasn't until attorneys pressed their claims against the manufacturers that the CPSC started an investigation into the safety of these new products.

A fatal bus crash near Victoria Texas earlier in 2008 resulted in an initial investigation by the Houston Chronicle. The Houston Chronicle uncovered some irregularities in the titling of the buses owned by Green River Buses. The initial investigation made it appear as though there may have been an attempt to wash the titles so that they could be licensed in Texas. The Houston Chronicle article has spurred the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration as well as Texas Department of Public Safety to investigate the licensing of the company's buses.

There is a concern because at least 17 buses registered to Green River Buses were made in Mexico which has made many question whether they were made or built to U.S. Safety Standards. Representatives of the Department of Transportation have indicated that there are a large number of illegal buses operating in the United States.

San Antonio with its close proximity to Mexico may very have a large number of illegal buses operating on its roads and highways. If a large commercial bus is traveling on San Antonio roads and it is not properly maintained or was never designed with the safety features common to the U.S. it places not just its passengers at risk but everyone on the highway.

This weekend not only marks the end of daylight savings time, but should also be a reminder to everyone that this weekend is a good time to replace your smoke detector batteries. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued its semi-annual reminder that safety should come first in the household and smoke alarm batteries must remain fresh in order to be most effective. Annually, it is estimated that there are over 2500 deaths and over 13,000 injuries reported in home fires each year.

BE SAFE - REPLACE YOUR SMOKE DETECTOR BATTERIES!