Hamilton, CO Personal Injury Law Firms & Lawyers

The question depends upon who has ownership and control over the property. Which party (owner or renter) is responsible for upkeep on the sidewalk? Is there a rental agreement in place that specifies who has control over the sidewalk and the outside of the building? Usually the answer is the owner of the building, but not always.

The California law in question at play here was established by Proposition 213 in 1996. While usually this law bars a person from collecting compensation for pain and suffering for injuries they sustained in an accident (while driving without insurance), there are some limited exceptions related to whether the at-fault driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the collision. This is a fact specific evaluation and we have been successful numerous times in very similar situations.

In such an event, the parents will likely be presented with exorbitant amounts of medical costs. Whether there is health insurance available or some form of health insurance through the two entities, i.e. school and or church, these costs and policies will need to be handled in accordance with policy language. Unfortunately, most insurance companies will attempt to deny a number of costs associated with medical treatment, and may or may not base their reasoning of the denial on policy language. Once again, suitable representation will allow the parents to shore up the aggregate difference between denials and proper payment of medical treatment. Again, this will be contingent upon policy language and the appropriate presentment of healthcare bills in accordance with standard operating procedures of each company. The main benefit of the aforementioned would be that the parents would not find themselves in a position, to either pay out-of-pocket or limit the payout of the medical costs and will properly align future recovery associated with those costs. Finally, the parents may not, with the proper handling of costs, be in a position where they are forced into bankruptcy. If the aforementioned is properly handled most of the costs that do come out-of-pocket and any healthcare provider liens, subrogation interest by the insurance company, costs associated with future medical care, including but not limited to neurological, physical therapy, counseling, etc., would likely be recoverable. In relation to the scope of the question, notably, "what course of action should the parents take?" It is my firm belief that provided the fact pattern presented in this case, coupled with the serious nature of the injuries, representation should immediately be sought out. Quite frankly, the presented fact pattern suggests this situation becoming rougher long before it is smooth again. With proper representation the parents can focus on their child's health, welfare, and well-being without having to fight multiple insurance companies that are simply trying to save money. I have found and my own experience in situations as severe as that with parents supporting their injured child, and not dealing with the administrative aftermath, they actually speed the recovery of the injured child, thus mitigating their damages. This article will soon be republished on my website Bodeylaw.com. At some point in time attempts will be made to settle the bodily injury portion of the claim by the tortfeasor's insurance company. This settlement usually incorporates the aforementioned future medical care required. Generally, minors in the state of Washington cannot, due to capacity issues, enter into contracts and or releases. So how would an insurance company/defendant obtain a release for settlement purposes that would be effective and valid? In 1992, the Washington State Supreme Court in Scott By and Through Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort stated, "courts often hold that in a post injury setting a parent's signature on a release is ineffective to bar a minors claims against a negligent party. Washington law is in accord. Under Washington law parents may not settle or release a child's claim without prior court approval. Further, in any settlement of a minor's claim, Washington law provides that a guardian ad litem must be appointed (unless independent counsel represents the child) in a hearing held to approve the settlement. See SPR 98.16W; Scott By and Through Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort, 119 Wn.2d 484, 494, 834 P.2d 6, 12 (Wash. 1992). Many defendants and insurance companies believe, and this is based on past experience, that there is a monetary threshold for the appointment of a settlement guardian ad litem. My research indicates that this is patently false. I have not been presented with any information statutory and or otherwise, which would be contrary to this assertion. That is not to say that I would not invite such