One afternoon, three young boys were hanging out, hopped on their bicycle and started riding around their neighborhood.  Two brothers and their cousin.

The oldest boy was on the seat, pedaling along and leading the way while his younger brother stood on the back pegs and their cousin sat on the handlebars.  None of the boys were wearing helmets.

They pulled out from a driveway onto the street and directly into the path of a Toyota Tundra. The truck and the boys collided.

After many life threatening surgeries, extended hospitalizations and grueling rehabilitation sessions all three boys were lucky to have survived. They made it out with their lives, but their lives would never be the same. Faced with astronomical medical bills, long-lasting and permanent injuries, and a potential for more surgeries in the future, they began searching for an attorney that could help.

They met with numerous attorneys, yet each one turned them down. The police report described the accident as being 100% their fault, and it’s hard finding a personal injury attorney willing to help if there’s no promise of payment.

That’s where we came in.

We remember the first day they came to our office. Nice, hardworking, respectful young men with bright futures ahead of them, even despite their injuries.  They deserved a chance.  We decided to take on their case despite the adverse police report.  We believed in them, and we believed in their case.  Most importantly, after we evaluated that report — despite what the officers wrote, and despite what the other attorneys thought — we did not believe it was completely their fault.

California is a comparative law state, which meant if we could prove (through expert witness testimony and through scientific physical evidence) that it was 50% their fault and 50% the driver’s fault, we could get the boys 50% of their compensation. They deserved at least that much.

We got right on the case. We hired experts to recreate the accident and got to work.  These experts went to the scene with us, took measurements and made scientific calculations.  Through their findings, we were able to prove that not only was the driver of the Toyota Tundra speeding at the time of impact, but based on where and when he first should have been able to observe the profile of the bike, he would have had plenty of time to react — in fact, almost four times the normal human reaction time to apply his brakes and avoid them — had he only been paying attention to the road.

We compiled our demand and sent it to the insurance company. They responded with an offer of less than $50,000 in total for the three boys and made our decision easy. We filed a lawsuit and began the litigation process.

We dove into the discovery process and deposed the driver of the truck.  We found out that not only did he work for a big company who had a sizable insurance policy, but that he was rushing to deliver something to a mailbox that he had to send out that day for work.

We used this information to amend the lawsuit and involved the driver’s employer through a legal theory referred to as respondeant superior/vicarious liability. Essentially, it means that an employer can be responsible for the actions of employees within the course of their employment. Such as speeding to ensure that the package was delivered in time for work. We used this doctrine to our advantage and were able to obtain a sizable settlement for our clients.

We took a case that was unappealing for most lawyers and had zero value to them and obtained a settlement of almost a million dollars for the trauma our clients suffered. At the Drexler Law Firm, we believe in our clients, and we will go the extra step to prove liability even where the determination of fault may not be so clear.

If you’d like to discuss your case with us, please give us a call. You can reach us at (818) 907-7373, or fill out this form to the best of your ability and we’ll contact you.

Disclaimers:

The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction.  This blog is not intended to, and does not, create an attorney client relationship, an offer of employment or a guarantee of success for clients of The Drexler Law firm.  No information or representation contained in this post should be construed as an offer of employment, guarantee of success or the creation of an attorney client relationship with The Drexler Law firm, nor as legal advice from The Drexler Law Firm or the individual author.  No reader of this post should act, or refrain from acting, on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer in the corresponding jurisdiction.

There are time deadlines during which a case must be brought, according to your jurisdiction or state, and failing to abide by the jurisdictional statute of limitation rules can result in your case being time-barred.