Injury & Wrongful Death Lawyers: Accidents Involving Trucks with Flatbed Trailers

Injury & Wrongful Death Lawyers: Accidents Involving Trucks with Flatbed Trailers: Personal Injury Attorney: Have you been injured in an accident with a flatbed trailer truck? The trucking accident attorneys in our firm can help you.

Texas is a hotbed of activity for trucking accidents and injuries of all varieties including accidents involving trucks with flatbed trailers. Flatbed trailers are generally employed to transport large and massive items that would not ordinarily fit into a standard cargo container. Far too often, these vehicles are used to transport cargo that is even too large for the trailer.

This creates a possibility for a unique type of accident. Most commonly, flatbed trailers can cause accidents whereby the cargo falls off of the trailer and collides with another motorist. Again, these trailers generally transport massive cargo, and such a collision can prove devastating for the car’s occupants, unfortunate to differ from the displaced cargo.

There may be several potential defendants in the case in such an event. Naturally, the truck driver and their insurance company will bare a considerable portion of liability in the accident. Additionally, another company may have been responsible for loading and securing the cargo, which would make them a likely defendant.

In cases where the cargo fell from the flatbed due to a collision with another vehicle, that vehicle may also be liable for causing the accident.

Furthermore, if the event that the cargo is forced from the vehicle due to a collision with an overpass, trees, a power line, etc. the parties responsible for designating the driver’s route may also be to blame. Our Texas flatbed and trailer accident lawyers are here to ensure that you receive the compensation deserve. Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases $1,000,000.00 Recovery – Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man’s vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were vastly underinsured and were not financially solvent.

Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent on filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.

Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite our attorneys’ insurmountable liability arguments. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone. However, it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.

Additionally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assassination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant’s insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant’s insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed when they refused to settle.

Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers’ Demand with a brief time window for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier’s exposure under the Stowers’ Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits.

The defendant’s attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney’s threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney’s advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court.

Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm that did not have our specific track record or who would not have recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the clients would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had the right of first refusal.

The logical implication of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.

traffic ticket lawyer

Did You Get Stopped For Speeding?

This Blog was brought to you by the San Antonio Speeding Ticket Attorney Gordon Slade

Did You Get Stopped For Speeding?

Seeing flashing police car lights in your rearview mirror, especially when you are in a hurry to get where you are going, can be one of the most uncomfortable feelings. During the traffic stop, you may not even be sure of why you were pulled over. However, you may still find yourself driving away with a ticket in hand.traffic ticket lawyer

The first thing to do is to stay calm and contact a savvy traffic violations attorney who will fight your charges for you in traffic court. Our Law Firm has been helping drivers, like you, fight their traffic tickets for more than 25 years. We stay ahead of the curve when it comes to traffic laws and knows how to work with prosecutors in an effort to get clients’ charges reduced and, when possible, dismissed.

Contact us for a free consultation about your traffic ticket. The last thing you should do is toss the ticket in the glove compartment and forget about it. Paying the fine and pleading guilty won’t help you either. You need an aggressive lawyer who will get a full understanding of the circumstances that led to your ticket. After your consultation, we will get to work preparing your defense. We will protect your driving privileges, your wallet, and your driving record.

Common Traffic Violations
If you are facing any of the following traffic charges, you aren’t alone. One call to our Law Office and you will have the assistance of an experienced traffic ticket lawyer who will fight to protect your rights and driving privileges. If you are facing charges for any of the following motor vehicle violations, contact us for a free consultation about your charges:

Speeding Drivers to follow posted speed limit signs at all times. If you get stopped for speeding, depending on the number of miles per hour over the speed limit you were driving, you may be facing a ticket worth 2, 4, or 5 points.
Running a Red Light is a 2 point ticket.
Running a Stop Sign or Yield Sign is a 2 point ticket.
Reckless Driving is a 2point ticket.
Improper Passing is a 2 point ticket.

Careless Driving
A conviction of a ticket for careless driving is worth 2 points.
Following too Closely, also called Tailgating is a 2point ticket.

Driving Under the Influence: DWI is illegal in Texas pursuant to Texas Penal Code Section 49.04. Depending on the circumstances, it can be either a misdemeanor or a felony. The penalties you face if convicted of a DWI are quite serious. You will pay stiff fines, have your driver’s license suspended and you may even be facing jail time.
Distracted Driving (texting, talking on the phone, etc. ) This adds no points to your driver’s license. However, there are fines for this offense.

Driving with a suspended license, driving without a license, and driving without insurance are also serious charges that can cause your driving privileges to be suspended for a long time. You’ll also be facing stiff financial penalties and even possible jail time.
We will fight your charges. At the least, he will work hard to get your charges downgraded to a non-moving violation (no points. ) This may save you considerable money, since no points may mean no insurance surcharge.

Knowledgeable Traffic Ticket Lawyer Defends Drivers

Traffic ticket convictions lead to points on your driver’s license. Too many points can earn you a license suspension or revocation. Without driving privileges, getting around can be a difficult task. Don’t try to fight your traffic tickets without the assistance of a lawyer who knows how to get traffic violations downgraded and even dismissed in traffic court.

Contact our Law Office today for a free consultation about your ticket. We will ask you questions, get a full understanding of what happened during your traffic stop and review the evidence against you. We will then discuss the best defense strategy for you. We understand how important your driving privileges are to you; you can rely on our lawyers to fight for you every step of the way during your hearing in traffic court.

Traffic Infraction Tickets Can Be Very Costly If Not Paid

This Blog was brought to you by the San Antonio Traffic Ticket Attorney Gordon Slade

Traffic Infraction Tickets Can Be Very Costly If Not Paid

As if out of a Charles Dickens novel, people struggling to pay overdue fines and fees associated with court costs for even the simplest traffic infractions are being thrown in jail across the United States. Critics are calling the practice the new “debtors’ prison” — referring to the jails that flourished in the U.S. and Western Europe over 150 years ago. Before the time of bankruptcy laws and social safety nets, poor folks and ruined business owners were locked up until their debts were paid off. Reforms eventually outlawed the practice. But groups like the American Civil Liberties Union say it’s been reborn in local courts which may not be aware it’s against the law to send indigent people to jail over unpaid fines and fees — or they just haven’t been called on it until now. Advocates are trying to convince courts that aside from the legal questions surrounding the practice, it is disproportionately jailing poor people and doesn’t even boost government revenues — in fact, governments lose money in the process. “It’s a waste of taxpayer resources, and it undermines the integrity of the justice system,” staff attorney for the ACLU’s National Prison Project, told “The problem is it’s not actually much of a money-making proposition … to throw people in jail for fines and fees when they can’t afford it.
If counties weren’t spending the money jailing people for not paying debts, they could be spending the money in other ways.” Breaking down the cost to municipalities to jail debtors in comparison with the amount of old debt it was collecting. It doesn’t look like a bargain. For example, according to the report, one county collected $33,476 in debts in a year but spent $40,000 jailing 246 debtors — a loss of $6,524. Fines are the court-imposed payments linked to a conviction — whether it be for a minor traffic violation like driving without a license or a small drug offense, all the way up to a felony. Fees are all those extras tacked on by the court to fund administrative services. These vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, with some courts imposing more than others. As states and counties grapple with shrinking budgets and yearly shortfalls, new fees are often imposed to make up the difference, though they can be quite overwhelming to individuals passing through the system — 80 percent of whom qualify as indigent (impoverished and unable to pay).
One state, for example, has added 20 new fees since 1996, according to the center. Another state imposes late fees on debt not paid and surcharges ofn payment plans. More and more, courts are dragging people in for fines and fees that have ballooned due to interest imposed on the initial sums. Some owe money to the public defender’s office for the representation they received during their time in court. Others incur hundreds of dollars in fees while they’re incarcerated — for everything from toilet paper to the beds inmates sleep on. The tab for the average offender could be as low as $250 or as high as $4,000.

The ACLU has been targeting big states with multiple jurisdictions they say are flouting U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 1970, 1971, and 1983. Those rulings essentially say courts cannot extend or impose a jail sentence for unpaid fines and fees if individuals do not have the ability to pay. At the very least, according to the high court, the courts must inquire and assess whether a person is indigent and might benefit from an alternative method of payment, like community service, before sentencing. Even though a lot of jurisdictions do have statutes on the books that allow judges to waive fines and fees, it doesn’t always happen. Much of the time, probation or the conviction itself will hinder individuals from finding employment. But another incarceration over debt could either ruin the job they managed to get or make it even harder to find one.

Many jurisdictions have taken to hiring private collection/probation companies to go after debtors, giving them the authority to revoke probation and incarcerate them if they can’t pay. Research into the practice has found that private companies impose their own additional surcharges. Some 15 private companies have emerged to run these services in the South. A Circuit Judge in Alabama shut down what he called the “debtors’ prison” process there, echoing complaints that private companies are only in it for the money. He cited them in part for sending indigent people to jail. Calling it a “judicially sanctioned extortion racket,” Hw said many defendants were locked up on bogus failure-to-appear warrants and slapped with more fines and fees as a result. Defenders of the collection programs say the money is owed to the state and it’s the government’s right to go after it. When, and only when, an individual is convicted of a crime, there are required fees and court costs. If the defendant doesn’t pay, law-abiding taxpayers must pay these costs.

Meanwhile, there’s evidence that groups like the ACLU are prompting reforms. For example, the ACLU found that seven out of 11 counties they studied were operating de facto debtors’ prisons, despite clear “constitutional and legislative prohibitions.” More recently, one state ACLU completed a report on “pay or serve” programs throughout the state. The penalty was one day in the clink for every $50 owed; every offender got an automatic 10 days in jail. The report also found that one jail racked up more than $70,000 in costs for incarcerating 154 people over a five-month period — and only managed to collect $40,000 in overdue fines and fees in that time. Judges in these courts never assess the defendants’ ability to pay before sentencing them to jail, which would be unconstitutional. One Municipal Court judge told he agreed with the tenets of the ACLU investigation, but added that the practice of the automatic 10-day jail sentence was already scrapped. “It was because we had jail space problems and beds needed to be limited to actual criminals,” he said. He complained that local coverage of the ACLU report “makes it sound like we’re putting everyone in jail.” He said he asks everyone who comes before him if they have the ability to pay. He acknowledged, however, that his court is working with the ACLU and will be instituting formal “show cause” hearings to determine indigence. “Maybe the ACLU did some good, they brought it to my attention. Maybe they just should have done it in a better way,” he said. The reform movement is proceeding, albeit slowly in tough fiscal times. “A lot of the jurisdictions are still using fines and fees and passing legislation to add more fees and fines,” she said.