Fairfax & Loudoun Personal Injury Lawyer - Car Accident

Good Witnesses use ALL their senses

Doug Landau — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:01:00 GMT

Good witnesses can methodically recall what happened before, during and after an impact through the use of all of their 5 senses. These observers can not only recollect what they saw before and after a car crash, but they can also relate what they:

    * smelled (gasoline on the pavement, leaking transmission fluids, burning rubber from skid marks on the ashphalt, etc.);
    * heard (the horn going off before the sound of shattering glass, the back up warning before a large truck went into reverse, the screams of the other passengers to "watch out !" and the sirens of the ambulance, police and emergency personnel);
    * tasted (airbag propellent that had exploded into their mouth, blood, nausea, etc.);
    * felt (glass in their skin, throbbing from where their hit hit the windshield, burning from the safety air bags, upside down or sideways when the car or truck came to rest on the side of the road, a warm wet feeling seeking down the arm from a laceration, etc.)

If you or a loved on has been in a car accident, train wreck, bike crash, it is important to document and set down the important facts of what happened. One way you might get the most out of the recent memory of the event is by trying to go through the 5 senses before, during and after the impact when making notes as to what you recall. This is important to do while it is still fresh in your mind. If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident or crash, please contact us at ABRAMS LANDAU, Ltd. by e-mail or telephone (703-796-9555), as we may be able to help.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Who is to blame? - Negligent Entrustment

Doug Landau — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:00:27 GMT

“An unfit driver borrowed a friend’s car and hit me. Can I sue the friends for putting him behind the wheel?”

In a recent Arlington Circuit Court case, the defendant allegedly knew that the 17-year-old, who was entrusted with her vehicle, was an inexperienced driver on a restricted license due to her speeding and racing habits. The plaintiff, who was injured by the unfit driver in an accident, brought a negligent entrustment case against the car owner to court.

Negligent entrustment in these cases can arise where a parent lends or "entrusts" a car (or other dangerous machinery) to an underage or unfit person, and that person causes injury to an innocent victim.

In this claim, the plaintiff must prove that

The defendant expressly or impliedly permitted the driver to drive his or her vehicle
The driver was an unfit driver
*The defendant knew or should have known the driver was unfit
*The driver was negligent as a result of the unfitness
*The driver’s negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries.

In the Arlington case, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, and therefore, the car owners did not have to pay even though the plaintiff had evidence that entrusting their friend with a vehicle, when they knew the friend was a bad driver, was the reason the driver caused the accident.

The best way to determine what claims can be made (and won) and who may be responsible for your losses is by consulting an experienced trial lawyer.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Why insurance companies use lizards and cave men!

Danielle Landau — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:15:23 GMT

Car and bike crash injury lawyer Doug Landau warns: Don't be lulled into a false sense of security by a green gecko or Neanderthal.

Who can resist an adorable lizard with a Cockney accent, or a cave man and his quest to be accepted into modern-man's world? We all laugh as the jokes in these campaigns unfold. So when the commercial ends and the insurance company name appears on the screen, we smile.

But when our laughter leads us to blind trust, then we have fallen for a clever advertising technique. The companies invent these fictional characters in the hopes that we the consumers, see the catchy ads, and put our safety and money in the hands of the gecko or cave man. Insurance companies use these false characters to lure us in, often without conferring with an attorney.

According to car crash and bike injury lawyer Doug Landau, watch out! This advertising is the result of many millions of dollars of research and testing. The gecko and cave man are designed to lull the injured victim of a car, bike or truck crash into a false sense of security. The insurance company ads are geared toward suggesting: "You CAN trust us," "put yourselves in good hands," "like a good neighbor" etc.

When you are injured in an accident, the insurance companies will discourage you from getting competent legal assistance. The insurance companies know that they can settle cases for much less money when the injured victim is unrepresented by counsel. Insurers have special units geared toward keeping "control" of the file and working on the unrepresented claim. Personal Injury Lawyers are now combating the national “put your trust in this funny creature” epidemic fueled by insurance companies, by means of commercials that intend to expose the true facts.

When you are in a car accident, you reach for the insurance companies card, but do you have an experienced personal injury lawyer's number handy as well? Probably not, and the problem with that is insurance companies answer your call knowing you have just had an accident and are feeling vulnerable and insecure.

Doug Landau advises: Take a deep breath, remember that the Gecko is not real, and call an experienced injury lawyer.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danielle Landau

Parents who host, lose the most: Parents pay the price for their kids under aged drinking

Danielle Landau — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:44:20 GMT

As a parent, is allowing your son or daughter to host a party with under aged drinking worth $2,500 per person, loosing your driver’s license, and spending a year in jail?

It is absolutely not. Drinking alcohol, if you are under 21 is illegal in the United States, and can result in a $500 fine, community service, and loss of ones driver’s license. But it is also a Class 1 misdemeanor for ADULTS TO PROVIDE ALCOHOL to any person under the age of 21, other than their own child in the privacy of their own home. (An example is a parent may give his or her child alcohol in their home for a religious occasion).

The penalties for an adult providing alcohol to their children’s under aged friends are more costly than the penalties for the drinkers. A $2,500 fine PER YOUNG PERSON PROVIDED WITH ALCOHOL is just one penalty. This means if you allow your daughter to have 10 under aged friends over to your house to drink you will pay $25,000. That is more than a little pocket change, and should not be taken lightly.

In addition, the kids you host could drive home drunk. They may promise they will spend the night and then once they have consumed some alcohol, convince themselves they are able to drive. Driving while intoxicated is also a crime, and can lead to serious injury and death, especially in teenagers who are inexperienced drivers. And if the young drunk driver hits and injures someone, the parents who hosted the party and provided the alcohol to a minor could be liable.

Things parents can do to prevent the worst:

- 1. If your child is going to a party, find out where it is and call other parents to make sure it will be alcohol free

- 2. Lock up your alcohol so that your child won’t have access to it.

- 3. Check bag packs and purses at the door to make sure no alcoholic beverages are entering your home in the hands of teenagers.

- 4. Refuse to buy alcohol for your child, or host a party where persons under 21 consume alcohol.

Under aged drinking is a serious offense, but adults who play the laid-back, party hosting, parents really have to pay the price.

For more information visit www.unifiedpreventioncoalition.org

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danielle Landau

Injury lawyer Doug Landau supports the STANDUP Act teen driving law so that 5,000 teenagers won’t die in car crashes this year

Doug Landau — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 12:35:00 GMT

New legislation will create safer roads for teenagers, one state at a time.

The STANDUP Act is a comprehensive approach to graduated drivers licensing (GDL) that has already reduced injury and death in the states where these laws have been enacted. The STANDUP Act helps new young drivers gain experience under supervised and less risky conditions and addresses several major facets of the teen-driving problem.

- -STANDUP is The Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection Act of 2009.
- -It is legislation that would establish minimum federal requirements for state GDL laws.
- -(GDL Laws or Graduated Driver Licensing laws allow young drivers to experience safe driving in stages before obtaining full driving privileges.)
- -It would encourage all states to adopt GDL laws that meet those minimum requirements within 3 years.
- -For 3 years following enactment states with the minimum GDL requirements would receive grants in an effort to help them with education and enforcement.
- -For states that don't comply with the STANDUP Act minimum requirements within three years, the Secretary of Transportation would withhold a percentange of certain federal highway construction program funds.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Avoiding low speed crashes: Cars can now Stop Themselves with "City Safety"

Danielle Landau — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:17:03 GMT

Cars can’t drive themselves yet, but Volvos are getting closer to doing so. Some cars can now avoid low-speed collisions, making cities all over the world a bit less accident-prone.

Volvo has developed what may be considered to be the ideal safety package for urban drivers. The City Safety package is a low-speed braking system designed to avoid fender-benders and parallel parking “bumps”, which have become characteristic of city driving.

The system works at low speeds, 20 miles an hour and below to be exact, and is made up of a light detection and ranging system. A laser, placed centrally at the top of the windshield, points out from the system, and senses reflections from license plates, bumpers, taillights or anything else that may catch the systems attention within a 20-foot distance. It detects the speed at which the car is moving towards the object and takes into account that the driver has not begun to break, and then the system breaks automatically. Furthermore, the City Safety system has been able to detect pedestrians in some low-speed tests.

This system seems fool proof, but keep in mind it is a back-up system. Staying alert and attentive while driving, especially in an urban area is key to your safety and the safety of others.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKXoll6GaNQ

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danielle Landau

Victimized by an Uninsured Driver: Use Subrogation Action

Doug Landau — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:20:18 GMT

What happens when an uninsured driver hits you? Who pays for the medical bills that may result from that accident, when the at-fault driver is has an insurance policy that does not cover the damages to you and your vehicle?

If you have your own auto coverage, or are covered under another member of your household’s policy, you may have “Uninsured” or “Underinsured” motorist coverage. This type of insurance is generally mandatory for Virginia drivers. This insurance may enable you to collect against your own insurance policy. Your insurance company can then go against the negligent Defendant to try and recover its money in a “subrogation action.”

“Literally, subrogation means one person or party stands in the place of another. Subrogation issues surface when a person has been injured and someone other than the person or party at fault pays for all or some of the damages resulting from the injury. By definition, a subrogation claim allows the innocent paying party, … to stand in the shoes of the injured party.”

We at Abrams Landau Ltd. get calls all the time from people who have been injured in car accidents, where the other car owner had no insurance.

So, just because you may have been hit and injured by a deadbeat with no insurance, do not despair, there may still be other coverage available to help you and your family to recover from your injuries. At Abrams Landau, Ltd., we review our own clients’ insurance contracts in order to find coverage and protections that can assist them after an accident.

Remember: Do not under insure yourself! Many people don’t realize that auto insurance policies are meant to protect you, not just the people you may hit.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Bicycle Versus Car

Doug Landau — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:00:00 GMT

As I have just concluded another bicycle crash case, I believe it is important to look at cases involving cyclists. Motorists have a legal duty to drive at a reasonable speed and to keep a lookout for other vehicles. They must also take care to pass bicycles at a safe distance and speed. The Virginia Code provides that: “any driver of any vehicle overtaking a bicycle . . . proceeding in the same direction shall pass at a reasonable speed at least two feet to the left of the overtaken bicycle . . . and shall not again proceed to the right side of the highway until safely clear of such overtaken bicycle.”

When a cyclist is cut off or driven off the road, problems of proof can prevent an injured plaintiff from legitimate recovery for his/her loss. Objective proof, eyewitness testimony and/or physical evidence can help in a bicycle negligence case where the 2-foot zone and/or contact is disputed.

In one case I handled, the defendant motorist denied contact with the injured cyclist, who was traveling in the second position in a line of three cyclists on a two-lane road.

(Fleeter v. Cawthorn, Loudoun County Circuit Court.) Fortunately for the biker with the broken ankle, the third/trailing rider had saved the rear view window from the Defendant’s car. The last rider of the trio had been struck just moments prior to the tortuous impact: the driver did not pass with the 2-foot safe distance minimum.

The case settled after that evidence came to light and several “scene depositions” showed the topography of the roadway, which was an important element of the case. As in most “car versus cyclist” cases, visibility and lines of sight are important issues. In a case where a Virginia Community College physical education professor was injured on a “Maine to Miami” charity bicycle tour, the fact that the motorist had a clear line of vision and decided to try to “beat” the cyclist to the one lane bridge, were critical to the ultimate, and favorable disposition of the case. During the cycling portion of a well-known triathlon, a competitor was struck by a car within sight of the finish line. In Colosi v. Willis, Cambridge, MD, the motorist chose not to continue waiting despite signage and race volunteers. The resulting personal injury claim was not against the race directors or event promoters, but solely against the driver. Fortunately, as the plaintiff was in top physical shape, he, like many of our other athlete-clients, made an almost full physical recovery. Critical to the success of both cases were personal inspection, familiarization, photographing and measurement of the scene as well as preservation of the physical evidence. It is also important to have documentary proof of the worth of the bicycle, as top-end models can cost more than the cars that strike them! See also, e.g,

Kastberg v. Milagros, United States Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division (Judge Brinkema), wherein we and D.C. co-counsel recovered the full $300,000 policy limits for a cyclist struck while training with his teammates in Reston.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Doug Landau

Virginia to Ban Text Messaging While Driving

Danielle Landau — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:40:20 GMT

Text messaging is all the rage for teens. But pair texting with driving and an accident is bound to happen.

Texting while driving increases ones response to brake time, or the time it takes to stop a moving vehicle. This distracting method of conversation is simply a bad idea behind the wheel

Fox News reported one example of an accident in New York.

“Text messages were sent and received on a 17-year-old driver's cell phone moments before the sport utility vehicle slammed head-on into a truck, killing her and four other recent high school graduates”.

Another crash that happened recently in Ohio involved a driver who admitted she was text messaging when her vehicle veered off the road, and overturned after hitting a mailbox. The eighteen-year-old driver was thrown from the car and was later cited for operating a vehicle without reasonable control.

The point is texting while driving is dangerous, to both yourself and others.

But texting is a problem for more than just teens. Over 30% of drivers in Maryland and Virginia admit to texting while driving.

As of July 1^st text messaging while driving in the state of Virginia will be illegal for all drivers. (LINK)

Texting distracts the driver, and Abrams Landau Ltd. has won cases in which the negligent driver was distracted. The trial team at Abrams Landau Ltd. represents clients who are injured by drivers who are distracted by cell phones, text messages, cb radios, and other "inside the vehicle distractions." We believe drivers should not be allowed to text while driving, period. Injured citizens come into our office regularly due to preventable accidents caused by distractions. Crashes caused by inattentive text messagers will cause permanent injuries and death to innocent victims. With this new law, Virginia is in the right mindset. The Loudoun, Leesburg and Fairfax injury law firm ABRAMS LANDAU, Ltd. hopes other states follow suit.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danielle Landau

New Jersey driver negligent for "waving in" another vehicle into traffic

Lauren Holtzman — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:17:02 GMT

In June, 2006, a crash occurred when a truck driver named David Carhuamacca waved another vehicle, driven by Thurman Baker, onto the highway. As that vehicle was crossing, it collided with a motorcyclist who sufferred a concussion, arm injury, and cracked many teeth. While the truck driver later denied that he waved the car in, the police officer testified he told a different story at the crash scene.

A verdict of $1.5 million in damages was obtained in this case. While in most states this might reflect negligent conduct, based on common law, this case reflects a state law provision in New Jersey which holds drivers responsible for negligently waving a vehicle into traffic. In addition, this case nicely shows why it is important to talk to the police officer in personal injury cases - they may well remember the Defendant saying something different than what they do during depositions or at trial.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lauren Holtzman