Personal Injury

Oklahoma Personal Injury and the Frivilous Case for Tort Reform

September 17, 2008

It’s just not right: Not only must Oklahoma personal injury victims fight the insurance companies to get a fair shake, but nowadays they also must swim against the tide of so-called “tort reform.” Brainwashed by propaganda bought and paid for by the most dangerous industries and their insurers, potential jurors naturally come into court believing that all personal injury plaintiffs are exaggerating — or worse. Sadly and wrongly, this causes you and I as taxpayers to often end up paying for the injureds’ medical care and lost wages instead of those who through their negligence are responsible for the damages.

Oklahoma car accident victims and other personal injury victims suffer a double whammy, incurring  expensive but necessary medical treatment at the same time they are losing income while unable to work. If the insurer for the careless driver, dangerous company, defective product manufacturer or other “injury-causer” is not held liable for the injury, then the victim likely will have no choice but to let Medicaid pick up the health care tab, and let the Social Security System pay disability benefits to replace earnings. The bottom line is that either the “injury-causer” pays, or you and I do. In fairness, whom do you think should pay?

Another reality, unknown to most of the public, is that juries are kept in the dark about insurance companies’ involvement in almost all personal injury trials. Even though an insurance company is behind the entire fight in almost all personal injury cases — paying for the defense lawyer and any judgment ultimately collected — the jurors are prevented from knowing that the wrongdoer has insurance coverage available to pay the injured’s medical bills and lost wages.

To counter the lies and distortions about tort reform that continue to be broadcast to the general public, I searched for hard evidence, just as I do in preparing a case for court, . My search uncovered an article that appears to be an extensive and well-documented resource on the truth about tort reform. “The Frivolous Case for Tort Law Change” was published in May of 2005 by the Economic Policy Institute. It contains many other references documenting this simple fact: “Tort reform” clearly is a very elaborate, and successful, propaganda war being financed by those who maim and kill others and yet do not want to be held responsible for their actions. It’s just not right!

Posted in Tort Reform By Dan Nunley Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Bicycle Accident Fatality Statistics

September 6, 2008

A total of 770 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles in 2006. Bicyclist deaths were down 23 percent since 1975 but 23 percent more than in 2003. The decline among female bicyclists (49 percent) was larger than the decline among male bicyclists (18 percent).

Ninety-five percent of bicyclists killed in 2006 reportedly weren’t wearing helmets.

Twenty-four percent of bicyclists killed in 2006 had blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent. This percentage is one-third higher than in 1982.

Bicyclist deaths in 2006 occurred most often during June-September and between the hours of 6pm and 9pm.

Deaths among bicyclists younger than 16 have gone down by 84 percent since 1975, while deaths among bicyclists 16 and older have more than doubled.

More than 7 times as many bicyclist deaths in 2006 were males compared with females. At every age more male than female bicyclists were killed and the rates of bicyclist deaths per million people were higher for males than females. The highest rate of bicyclist deaths per million people occurred for 50-54 year-old males.

Many more bicyclists were killed in urban areas than in rural areas in 2006 (71 percent compared with 27 percent). In 1975, bicyclist deaths occurred equally in rural and urban areas.

One-third of bicyclist deaths in 2006 occurred at intersections.

Sixty percent of bicyclist deaths in 2006 occurred on major roads other than interstates and freeways, and 33 percent occurred on minor roads. Forty-six percent of deaths among bicyclists younger than 16 and 62 percent of deaths among bicyclists 16 and older occurred on major roads.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a bicycle accident, contact me today for a free consultation. There is no charge to talk to me and you will be under no obligation to hire me. When I represent a person who has been injured in a bicycle accident, my work is done on a contingency fee basis. That means that I don’t get paid unless and until my client gets money either through settlement or jury trial.

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Posted in Bicycle Accidents By Dan Nunley Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Oklahoma Bicycle Accident Lawyer

September 6, 2008

Two percent of motor vehicle-related deaths are bicyclists.

The most serious injuries among a majority of those killed are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent.

Oklahoma does not have a law requiring that bicycle riders of any age must wear a helmet.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have helmet laws applying to young bicyclists; none of these laws applies to all riders. Local ordinances in a few cities require some or all bicyclists to wear helmets.

Helmets are important just as important for adult bicycle riders because statistics reveal that 85 percent of bicycle deaths affect persons 16 and older.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a bicycle accident, contact me today for a free consultation. There is no charge to talk to me and you will be under no obligation to hire me. When I represent a person who has been injured in a bicycle accident, my work is done on a contingency fee basis. That means that I don’t get paid unless and until my client gets money either through settlement or jury trial.

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Posted in Bicycle Accidents By Dan Nunley Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Motorcycle Accident Fatality Statistics

September 5, 2008

A total of 4,697 motorcyclists died in crashes in 2006. Motorcyclist deaths had been declining since the early 1980s but began to increase in 1998 and have continued to increase. Since 1997 motorcyclist deaths have more than doubled, reaching a record 11 percent of all motor-vehicle crash deaths in 2006.

In 2006, about a third fewer fatally injured motorcyclists were operating without a valid license (26 percent) than in 1995, but this is still higher than among fatally injured passenger vehicle drivers (16 percent).

Forty-four percent of motorcyclist deaths in 2006 occurred in single-vehicle crashes, and 56 percent occurred in multiple-vehicle crashes.

In 2006, 58 percent of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were helmeted. Helmet use was lower, at 43 percent, for people killed as passengers on motorcycles.

In 2006, 85 percent of fatally injured motorcyclists were helmeted in states with helmet laws that cover all riders, in contrast to only 20 percent in states with no helmet law. In states with helmet laws that cover only some riders, 35 percent of fatally injured motorcyclists were helmeted.

In the early 1980s the proportion of fatally injured motorcyclists 40 and older started to increase, from 9 percent of all rider deaths in 1982 to 15 percent in 1991 and 47 percent in 2006. However, the absolute number of motorcyclist deaths among all age groups has been climbing since 1999.

Ninety-one percent of motorcyclists killed in 2006 were males.

Sixty-six percent of the females who died in motorcycle crashes in 2006 were passengers and their deaths represented 87 percent of the passenger deaths. Ninety-nine percent of the males who died were drivers.

The average engine size of motorcycles whose drivers were killed in crashes went up dramatically in the last few years. Among motorcycle operators killed in 2006, 23 percent drove motorcycles with engine size larger than 1,400 cc, compared to 9 percent in 2000 and less than 1 percent in 1990.

Seventy percent of motorcyclist deaths in 2006 occurred during the six months of April-September. Fatalities peaked during July and were lowest during December-February.

Fifty-eight percent of motorcyclist deaths in 2006 occurred during Friday-Sunday.

Forty-two percent of motorcyclist deaths in 2006 occurred between 3pm and 9pm. Another 28 percent occurred between 9pm and 6am.

Twenty-seven percent of fatally injured motorcycle drivers in 2006 had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above 0.08 percent; among single-vehicle crashes this was 41 percent.

Fifty-two percent of motorcycle drivers killed at night (9pm - 6am) in 2006 had BACs at or above 0.08 percent.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a motorcycle accident, contact me today for a free consultation. There is no charge to talk to me and you will be under no obligation to hire me. When I represent a person who has been injured in a motorcycle accident, my work is done on a contingency fee basis. That means that I don’t get paid unless and until my client gets money either through settlement or jury trial.

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Posted in Motorcycle Accidents By Dan Nunley Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Oklahoma Motorcycle Accident Attorney

September 4, 2008

Motorcycles are less stable and less visible than cars and often have high performance capabilities. When motorcycles crash, their riders lack the protection of an enclosed vehicle, so they’re more likely to be injured or killed. The federal government estimates that per mile traveled in 2005, the number of deaths on motorcycles was about 37 times the number in cars.

Research published in 1995 shows that five crash types account for 86 percent of fatal motorcycle crashes: motorcycle runs off road (41 percent), motorcycle or other vehicle runs traffic control (18 percent), head on (11 percent), car turns in front of motorcycle (8 percent), and motorcycle goes down in roadway (7 percent).

If you or a loved one has been injured in a motorcycle accident, contact me today for a free consultation. There is no charge to talk to me and you will be under no obligation to hire me. When I represent a person who has been injured in a motorcycle accident, my work is done on a contingency fee basis. That means that I don’t get paid unless and until my client gets money either through settlement or jury trial.

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Posted in Motorcycle Accidents By Dan Nunley Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Oklahoma E. coli outbreak is largest in U.S. history

September 3, 2008

The recent E. coli outbreak in northeastern Oklahoma is the largest outbreak of this specific strain of E. coli in United States history according to the Oklahoma State Department of Health’s latest news release.

At least 206 persons are sick as a result of the outbreak including 149 adults, 53 children, and four whose ages have not yet been confirmed. Cases range in age from 2 months to 88 years. One person, 26-year-old Chad Ingle of Pryor, has died.

The Country Cottage restaurant in Locust Grove, thought to be the source of the outbreak, has been closed voluntarily for more than a week. The owners are cooperating with state health officials in the ongoing investigation which has not yet pinpointed the source of the outbreak, according to state epidemiologist Dr. Kristy Bradley. The state is currently testing food preparation and serving surfaces at the restaurant and interviewing those who became ill.

For more on the E. coli outbreak and its effect on the small town of Locust Grove, read today’s Associated Press article.

Posted in Food Poisoning By Dan Nunley Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Oklahoma Motorcycle Accident Lawyer

September 3, 2008

Motor vehicle accidents, including motorcycle accidents, typically occur because of someone’s negligence. Motorcyclists are especially susceptible to accidents because motorcycle drivers are often not seen by other drivers because of the motorcyclist’s relatively small size.  Injuries suffered in a motorcycle accident are likely to be serious, long-lasting and sometimes catastrophic because the motorcyclist is far more exposed to serious injury than is the driver of an automobile.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a motorcycle accident, contact me today for a free consultation. There is no charge to talk to me and you will be under no obligation to hire me. When I represent a person who has been injured in a motorcycle accident, my work is done on a contingency fee basis. That means that I don’t get paid unless and until my client gets money either through settlement or jury trial.

Posted in Motorcycle Accidents By Dan Nunley Comments (1) Trackbacks (0)

Does Oklahoma have a law regarding cell phone use while driving?

September 2, 2008

No. Oklahoma currently has no state law prohibiting or regulating the use of cellular telephones while operating a motor vehicle.

Currently, five states (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington) plus the District of Columbia prohibit driving while talking on handheld cell phones.

Seventeen more states have restricted cell phone use for novice drivers, licensed drivers under the age of eighteen or those who have only a learner’s permit.

Four states (Alaska, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Washington) prohibit text messaging while driving.

Source: Governors Highway Safety Association.

Posted in FAQs By Dan Nunley Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

What is premises liability in Oklahoma?

September 1, 2008

Premises liability cases are those kind of cases where someone suffers an injury on the “premises” of another, due to the negligence of the person/company that owns or operates the premises. The premises could be a residence such as a house or apartment, or a business such as a restaurant or grocery store, or a government location such as a courthouse.

Those who own/lease property have a responsibility to make it safe for their guests, visitors and customers. That means keeping the property safe from any known dangers or other conditions that can cause injury to people.

One of the most common premises liability cases is a “slip and fall” or a “trip and fall” where the guest or customer slips on a substance spilled on the floor or trips over an item and falls resulting in an injury.

Is a property or store owner liable simply because someone falls or trips and injures himself? The answer is NO.

Before the property or store owner can be held liable, you must prove that they knew or should have known of the dangerous condition. For instance, if a person slips in some water at a fast food restaurant, that does not mean the restaurant is liable. It is possible that another customer spilled something on the floor just a few moments before the person slipped in it, or it is possible that whatever it was on the floor could not have been seen by store employees.

It is common for businesses such as restaurants, grocery stores, retail stores, and home improvement stores to have video cameras recording the comings and goings of customers and employees. So if you or a loved one falls or is hurt in a business of any kind, make sure to request in writing that the business either produce or preserve the video tapes for that day.

It is also common for a business manager to complete an accident report, and you should also request in writing a copy of that report.

Some homeowners and businesses have insurance policies that provide med-pay or “no fault” coverage, which may pay some of your medical bills even if the homeowner or business not at fault.

So if you are injured on someone else’s property, you should ask:

  1. if they have no-fault or med-pay insurance coverage,
  2. for a copy of the accident report, and
  3. that video tapes be produced or preserved.

If you or a loved one has been injured on someone else’s property, contact me today for a free consultation. There is no charge to talk to me and you will be under no obligation to hire me. When I represent a person who has been injured on someone else’s property, my work is done on a contingency fee basis. That means that I don’t get paid unless and until my client gets money either through settlement or jury trial.

Posted in FAQs, Premises Liability By Dan Nunley Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

The truth about Oklahoma tort reform

August 31, 2008

The right to trial by jury has been guaranteed and protected by the United States’ Constitution for more than 200 years and by the Oklahoma Constitution for more than 100 years.  But your constitutional right to trial-by-jury is being attacked today by powerful and wealthy special interests groups.

You likely have frequent contact with some of these special interests groups, such as insurance companies, automobile manufacturers, doctors and hospitals. These special interests groups are not inherently evil. In fact they produce many useful products and services that greatly benefit our society.

However, when these special interests groups believe that they should not be held accountable for injuries and death directly caused by their negligence, that is evil. And when these big business conglomerates mislead the public as to their true intentions (abolishing the fundamental right of trial-by-jury) by using vague terms such as “tort reform” or “lawsuit reform”, they are being downright unAmerican.

For decades special interest groups have been doing their best to convince Oklahomans that unless we pass laws limiting or abolishing the right to trial-by-jury, terrible things will happen, such as: doctors will stop delivering babies, doctors will leave Oklahoma for other states, and Oklahoma will not be able to attract good jobs and industry. The reality is that this doom-and-gloom scenario is pure fiction. Oklahoma doctors are still delivering babies. In fact, just look in the Yellow Pages — Oklahoma is flush with doctors. And the Oklahoma economy is doing quite well. Oklahoma has one of the lowest unemployment rates of all states in the United States and companies are bringing high quality jobs to Oklahoma. Look at the city of Pryor and its two newest corporate citizens Gatorade and Google.

The truth is that these big business special interests groups are seeking to scare Oklahomans into changing the laws so that companies can more easily avoid being sued and held accountable when they injure or kill someone. Big business doesn’t like it when a jury of common folk judge them and hold them accountable for their wrongdoing. And big business hates it when these juries comprised of down-home, hard-working, God-fearing Oklahomans serve justice by ordering that they pay their victims substantial compensation.

We Oklahomans need to let the corporations know that while we welcome them to our state, and we applaud and appreciate their products and services, we also insist that they be model corporate citizens exhibiting the virtues of personal responsibility and corporate accountability.

Posted in Tort Reform By Dan Nunley Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)