2018

Sexual Abuse Lawyers

0

Sexual Abuse is a crime, and the perpetrators can be held criminal responsible and sent to jail. But, they can also be held civilly liable and forced to pay for the damages they cause to their victims. Although nothing can repair the trauma and pain survivors face on a daily basis, the law does provide for recovery for a wide array of categories including ongoing treatment and counseling, pain and suffering, and others.

Sadly, children are especially vulnerable to these predators. Incurring this type of trauma during a person’s formative years can have lasting consequences and require ongoing assistance. As Sexual Abuse lawyers, we work to help clients receive the compensation they are entitled to for this horrendous crime. Although nothing can take away what happened, we can at least help you obtain what relief the system does offer.

Unlike other types of injury, sexual abuse often includes feelings of shame, embarrassment, and fear. Telling one person can be terrifying, let along reliving the horrific experience in front of an entire court room. But holding abusers and their institutions accountable is important, and can sometimes help with the healing process.

But the decision to hire a sexual abuse lawyer and pursue a case is very personal, and has to be something you are comfortable with. Ultimately, the decision has to be yours and yours alone. If we can help by offering legal advise or with an explanation of the legal process, it would be our pleasure.

Survivors of sexual abuse face unique hurdles in seeking justice, but a dedicated and knowledgable attorney can make a major difference. If you or someone you know has been a victim of sexual abuse, please contact an attorney immediately. As with any injury case, the statute of limitations can prove to be an impossible hurdle to overcome if survivors wait too long.

accident injury law

0

To understand the made-whole rule, we first need to talk about Subrogation. Generally in injury law, subrogation refers to a situation where an insurance company is trying to recoup expenses for a claim it paid when another party should have paid at least some of the amount.

For example, imagine you are hit by a car while crossing the street and the driver speeds off. Since you don’t know who hit you, your insurance company may pay for some or all of the damages and losses you experienced. If later you find out who the driver was and make a claim against his insurance company, it would be subrogation if your insurance company tried to recoup some (or all) of what it paid to you from the second insurance company.

The made-whole rule addresses when an insurance company is entitled to subrogation. In one case, the Supreme Court held that an insurance company cannot seek subrogation until the insured has been made whole. This includes the expenses of litigation and attorney’s fees. The Court reasoned that in a situation where either the insured or the insurer must sustain a loss, it should be the insurer that goes unpaid because that is the risk the insured has paid it to assume.

Since that case, the Made-Whole Rule has been developed and grown into a strong protection for injury victims. The basic idea is that in a situation where someone (either the insurer or the insured) is going to suffer a loss, it should be the insurer. And because of that, where there isn’t enough money from the person who caused the damage to go around, it should first go to the victim until his losses have been repaid, and then go to repay the insurance company. Because this is a very pro-victim rule, it is controversial. If you have questions about the made-whole rule, please call me today to discuss your specific situation.

Incompetent Defendant Appeared Pro Se

0

Here’s a tip for all you trial attorneys out there: don’t proceed to trial against a (possibly) mentally incompetent defendant in her late eighties appearing pro se. And remember your Rule 10 notices. At least that’s the message from the Supreme Court recently.

The case is procedurally complicated enough that I won’t repeat it here, but here’s the gist of it: Juanita Stands was driving in “advanced twilight” on  the highway. Clark Rice was driving a tractor on that same road, and his tire extended in Stands lane. The tractor’s lights were not luminated and Stands struck the rear tire, which sent her spinning into Vianna Stewart, who was traveling in the opposite lane. Stewart and Stands sued everyone (inlcuding, initially, each other) and also named Rice’s mother, Edythe on the theories of respondeat superior and negligent entrustment.

At least initially, the Rices were represented by counsel. However, as the case drug on (it took five years until trial apparently) they could no longer afford their defense. In January of 2011, Clark’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw based on his inability to pay. Clark consented to the withdrawal, and the Court granted the motion. On January 10, 2011, Stewart served a Rule 10 notice on him.

On January 21, 2011, Edythe’s attorney filed a Motion to Withdraw and Motion to Continue. In addition to his request to withdraw, the attorney submitted an affidavit raising significant questions about Edythe’s mental health and requesting that a conservator be appointed prior to any further proceedings because it would be “an injustice to require [an] incompetent woman to proceed to trial without representation.”

On February 4, 2011, her attorney filed a motion asking the Court to allow Edythe to testify by deposition, again raising concerns about her mental health. On May 6 the District Court granted the motion to allow her to testify by deposition and on May 18 it allowed her attorney to withdraw. Both Clark and Edythe proceeded to trial pro se (without an attorney). Edythe was (mostly) physically present, but did not present any evidence or participate in the trial.

A bench trial was conducted, and the District Court concluded that Clark was negligent per se for violating three traffic statutes, and that each violation was an actual and proximate cause of the resulting collisions. Further, Edythe was found vicariously liable for the injuries because Clark was her agent and he was acting within the scope of his duties at the time of accident.

However, on appeal Edythe obtained counsel. The Supreme Court found that “that [Court’s] failure to evaluate Edythe’s competency prior to trial raises significant questions of the fundamental fairness of the proceedings with respect to her unrepresented participation in the trial.” Id., ¶ 31. The Court also ruled that the failure to provide Edythe with a Rule 10 notice “prejudiced her substantial rights and constitutes reversible error.” Id. ¶ 35. The Supreme Court passed on deciding the due process claims Edythe raised on appeal because the first two issues were already dispositive.

The Court reversed the judgment against Edythe and remanded the case for an evaluation of Edythe’s need for a conservator and new trial as to her vicarious liability only.