If you were injured in a car accident or injured by someone else’s negligence,& you wants car accident lawyer free consultation our personal injury attorneys are available to help you recover damages. Here we want to inform you about our services and how we can obtain justice for you and yours. Contact Brad Nakase if you need why you need seo for lawyers. Our office has been representing victims of car accidents and work accidents for several years. Here we offer free personal injury and property damage consultations. The testimonies of our clients satisfied with our work are our main letter of introduction. The quality legal representation we offer does not cost clients anything unless the case is won for you. We also serve residents and non-residents of other nationalities. At our Office, we have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for our clients. Because we have a deep understanding of California’s compensation system and have worked for decades taking cases in state courts.
Types of cases we handle
The personal injury cases we handle include:
Car accidents
Truck accidents
Bus accidents
Motorcycle accidents
Bicycle accidents
Pedestrian accidents
Work accidents
Slip and fall
Fire and burn injuries
Product liability
Wrongful death
Workers compensation
We have many excellent and reputable attorneys, who serve our clients in English and many other languages.
If you cause physical or psychological damage in a motor vehicle accident, public place, organization or business place or work – or if you are using a defective product or because of medical negligence or injury – you may needed personal injury attorneys.
Compensation includes compensation for economic and non-economic losses:
Loss of past and future income
Medical, rehabilitation and other treatment-related expenses
Expenses for domestic care and provision of home care
Support for returning to work
Reduced quality of life
Mental loss
Legal fees
Does the eggshell plaintiff rule apply to emotional injuries? The “egg shell head” rule means that someone has a thin head like an “egg shell”, which usually does not harm the normal person but causes fatal damage to the person. In order to determine the responsibility and protect the victim, when judging whether there is a causal relationship between the behavior and the damage, it should be considered that there is a causal relationship and the perpetrator has “negligence”. The most important reason for this judgment is that there is damage to the facts and the perpetrator has no reason to defend. In the “egg head” rule, fault liability should be applied instead of fair liability.
If you gently shave a person, and it happens that his head is as soft as an eggshell, and as a result his head bleeds and eventually dies, then you must be responsible for his death. The law requires that we must accept the characteristics of each individual, even if the victim’s physique is abnormal or too fragile, such as a thin skull and eggshell, the suspect is still responsible for his behavior.
In infringement cases involving persons with special physiques, whether the victim’s special physique can be considered as a factor to reduce the liability of the infringer has always been a difficulty in trial practice. The Supreme People’s Court issued Guiding Case No. 24 in 2014. The main points of its judgment are clear: the impact of the victim’s physical condition on the consequences of damage is not a legal situation that can reduce the liability of the infringer. Among the published guidance cases, guidance case No. 24 is the one with the highest frequency of application. There are judges who take the initiative to refer to the application, and some parties or their litigation agents make claims based on whether the relevant case should refer to the guiding case or not. However, the release of Guiding Case No. 24 did not draw a rest to the trial of infringement disputes involving persons with special constitutions. There are still cases where the basic facts are different from the guiding case, without referring to the guiding points of the guiding case.
In the trial practice, the main difference between the referee’s judgment on the specific case and the basic case of the guiding case is: the size of the injury participation and whether the victim is at fault. In such infringement cases involving victims of special physique that does not refer to the guiding cases, the injury participation is generally less than 30%, and the infringement acts are the incentives for the damage. In some cases, the effect of physical condition on the damage result is still considered, and participation is considered when calculating the total loss; secondly, the proportion of compensation is divided according to the fault of the parties. So does the size of the injury participation affect the reference and application of Guiding Case No. 24? Is it appropriate to directly multiply the damage participation ratio when determining the total loss? If the victim is at fault, can the infringer’s liability be reduced based on his own special physical condition? The author believes that the above questions must be answered: first, the concept and role of participation must be analyzed; secondly, the establishment and scope of liability for disputes involving the victim’s special physical tort should be discussed in conjunction with the causal relationship; and finally, infringement of such cases under special circumstances The issue of mitigating the liability for personal damages.
Leave a Reply