Negotiating a Final Settlement in a Personal Injury Case

Personal Injury Lawyers Indiana 317-881-2700

Personal Injury Lawyers Indiana 317-881-2700

Negotiating a final settlement in a personal injury case is a common occurrence. It is much like buying a used car from a dealership. The salesman wants to sell the car at the highest price possible, while the customer wants the best price possible. So the negotiations continue until both parties are satisfied. An insurance adjuster and personal injury victim both want to come out on top during the negotiation process.

Although the insurance adjuster knows roughly how much the insurance company will pay out to the injured victim, they will try their hardest to negotiate the smallest payout that the victim is willing to accept. The victim knows what their personal injury damages are worth, so their attorney tries their hardest to get the highest possible payout from the insurance company or opposing party.

There are a few predictable circumstances and steps to the negotiations process that injured victims should familiarize themselves with in order to be better prepared when the time comes to recover the full and fair compensation they deserve after an accident. Continue reading to learn some common approaches to negotiating a personal injury settlement.

Settlement Negotiations Between Both Parties

The victim’s lawyer will ask for the highest amount first in a written demand letter. The insurance adjuster or opposing party will likely contest that amount by refuting the degree of liability or finding something else wrong with the claim. They may state that certain treatments, surgeries, or therapy was not necessary, or use some other type of similar excuse.

Once this happens, the victim’s lawyer will respond by negating their allegations and then asking for a certain amount of compensation for a second time. This is the time that the insurance company will counter with an insulting, low-ball offer to see if they can get lucky in the case that the victim is simply in a hurry to get a settlement check.

This is when the victim’s legal team responds by vaguely acknowledging the insurance adjusters interferences, and lowering the initial compensation request, but only slightly. At this time, an insurance adjuster is more willing to raise their low-ball offer, and most often do.

With a higher offer, the victim and their lawyer have the option to either accept the offer or to counter once again with the same compensation request, or one that is slightly lower once again.

This process continues like this until both parties come to an agreement on full and fair compensation for a victim’s damages. If an agreement cannot be made, then the case will go to court and a judge will decide the appropriate compensation.

Craven, Hoover, and Blazek P.C.

Personal Injury Lawyers

Personal Injury Lawyers 317-881-2700

Call Craven, Hoover, and Blazek P.C. at 317-881-2700 for information about personal injury claims in Indianapolis, Indiana. Attorneys, Daniel Craven, Ralph Hoover, and Keith Blazek retain extensive experience in litigation and personal injury law, and are eager to represent your case. We offer free initial consultations and never collect lawyer fees unless we win your settlement. If you or someone you love has been recently injured as a result of another’s negligence, contact one of our seasoned Indianapolis personal injury lawyers for information regarding your rights following a serious accident.

Defining Defamation of Character

The term “Defamation of character” describes a situation in which a false statement or accusation is mentioned or written as fact about a person, and subsequently causes suffering and damage to that persons reputation. Defamation is also referred to as “slander” or “libel”, and is recognized under Tort Law.

General Damages

Personal Injury Lawyers Indiana 317-881-2700

Personal Injury Lawyers Indiana 317-881-2700

When a persons’ name is “defamed” by another person, entity, or organization, there are consequences suffered as a result. This person can be scorned, ridiculed, hated, and shamed within their community because of a false accusation or statement about them. In more serious occurrences, slander situations can be on an even larger scale than just their community, especially if they are famous or well-known in the public eye.

In other cases, slander can cause many losses, such as child custody, employment, friends, and family support. If a person, organization, or other entity commits libel against a falsely accused person, it can result in a lawsuit, and more than likely not end in favor of the slanderer.

Legal Terms Concerning Defamation Law

There is terminology associated with defamation law, slander, and libel. These terms are important to be familiar with if ever involved in a defamation case. Knowing and understanding the facts surrounding a defamation case is crucial, and knowing these terms and phrases can help a person accomplish just that.

Oral Defamatory Statements

This occurs when a person, entity, or organization spreads a false statement or accusation vocally. This is an example of slander. Speaking these false statements and saying them out loud publically can come with consequences because it is categorized under defamation of character. In order to be recognized as actual slander, the person must have proof that it was said as fact, rather than opinion by the accuser. Oral defamatory cases are harder to prove because of these conditions and more. Sometimes slander cases are easier proven when malice is involved by the accusing party.

Malice

Malice can be described as intentional and hostile impulses of “meanness” or a desire to inflict suffering or harm on another person. If an entity, organization, or person commits any type of malice that can be proven, it can be a potential defamation case.

Defamation Per Se

“Defamation per se” are cases where there is so much obvious malice and harm to a reputation, that proof of intent is not required in order to pursue a defamation lawsuit against the accusing party. Accusing someone of having a contagious disease or committing an immoral crime (i.e. sex crimes, animal crimes, child crimes), is grounds for a defamation per se case.

Defamation Per Quod

“Defamation per quod” is the exact opposite of “defamation per se”. This is when malice and intent is not obvious at all, and proof is required to carry out a defamation lawsuit successfully.

Craven, Hoover, and Blazek P.C.

Personal Injury Lawyers

Personal Injury Lawyers 317-881-2700

Call Craven, Hoover, and Blazek P.C. at 317-881-2700 for defamation of character claims and lawsuits in Indianapolis, Indiana. Attorneys, Daniel Craven, Ralph Hoover, and Keith Blazek are seasoned personal injury lawyers with extensive trial and litigation experience. Our law firm provides free initial consultations to discuss your legal claims, and never collects attorney fees unless they recover compensation for you. Call 317-881-2700 and schedule an appointment with a licensed personal injury lawyer in Indianapolis today.

Errors that May Waive a Counsel’s Right to Argue for Mistrial

Indianapolis Accident Attorneys 317-881-2700

Indianapolis Accident Attorneys 317-881-2700

If counsel fails to ask the trial court to rebuke a juror during trial, has counsel, for purposes of an appeal, waived any claim of error for a mistrial? The Indiana Court of Appeals says, yes. Recently, in Upham v. Morgan County Hosp., 986 N.E.2d 834 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the attorney’s failure to ask the trial judge for an admonishment of the jury pool waived the counsel’s right to argue for a mistrial later.

In order to be entitled for a mistrial, the defendant must be able to establish that the questionable conduct that occurred was so prejudicial and inflammatory that it placed the defendant in a “position of grave peril”. Oliver v. State, 755 N.E.2d 582, 585 (Ind. 2001), citing Gill v. State, 730 N.E.2d 709, 712 (Ind.2000).

For Example…

In Upham, the wife of a deceased patient brought a wrongful death action against a hospital and their physicians, for their failure to diagnosis her husband’s ruptured abdominal aortic aneurism. The medical review board ruled that the evidence supported a conclusion that the hospital met the applicable standard of care and a jury found for the hospital. On appeal the estate argued that the trial court should have ruled a mistrial after a prospective juror, a retired attorney for Eli Lily opined that malpractice suits were “the goose that laid the golden egg for trial attorneys and specifically plaintiff attorneys.” The plaintiff’s attorney further asked the prospective juror if he believed she was “taking this case just because she wanted an attorney’s figure” and didn’t believe in justice. While the prospective juror replied that he recognized counsel would receive one-third of any judgment, counsel did not ask the trial court to admonish the prospective juror regarding such prejudicial statements.

A trial court has discretion to grant or deny a challenge for cause, and such decision is appealable, as long as it is not illogical or arbitrary. Woolston v. State, 453 N.E.2d 965 (Ind.1983). If a juror serves and should have been removed for cause, the complaining party is entitled to a new trial, absent waiver. Haak v. State, 417 N.E.2d 321, 324 (Ind. 1981). Accordingly, on appeal, in order for a challenging party to prove that an erroneous denial of a challenge occurred and is entitled to a new trial without waiver, the party needs to show that they were unable to strike another objectionable juror because the party had exhausted their remaining peremptory strike.

Therefore, in Upham, The Indiana Court of Appeals held that counsel’s failure to ask the trial court to admonish the jury pool waived counsel’s right for a mistrial. Upon denying the counsel’s motion, the Court of Appeals said that Upham’s counsel invited much of the juror’s prejudicial statements.

Craven, Hoover, and Blazek P.C.

Personal Injury Lawyers

Personal Injury Lawyers 317-881-2700

Call Craven, Hoover, and Blazek P.C. at 317-881-2700 for professional legal assistance in filing a personal injury claim in Indianapolis, Indiana. Attorneys, Daniel Craven, Ralph Hoover, and Keith Blazek have extensive trial and litigation experience in accident law. They are happy to answer your questions about compensation, lost wages, medical bills, legal rights, and more, following a recent serious injury. We offer free initial consultations and never collect lawyer fees unless we win a settlement. Call 317-881-2700 to schedule your consultation with a licensed personal injury lawyer in Indianapolis, today.

Can a Property Owner Be Held Liable for Injuries to a Trespassing Child?

Premise Liability Claims 317-881-2700

Premise Liability Claims 317-881-2700

Children are filled with curiosity and liveliness, two highly influential factors to their growth and development. But sometimes curiosity and spirit can initiate boldness, which can get children into trouble; trouble, at the most unfortunate times, being injury or harm. If a child were to trespass onto another person’s property and injure themselves, who would be responsible for their injuries and subsequent losses? Are there are certain laws in place to protect them and their families in this type of situation? Continue reading for answers to these child injury premise liability inquires and more.

Common Principles of Premise Liability

Premise liability is the legal principle that holds property owners, occupiers, and even renters accountable for any injuries or harm sustained by another person on their premises. These cases are ruled by the notion of negligence, and whether or not the owner or occupier demonstrated such negligence that caused unintentional harm to another person. A property owner has a certain duty of care to take reasonable action to maintain safe and hazard-free premises. But if a person trespasses onto anothers property and sustains an injury, the property owner is not liable. In the past, even child trespassers injured on private property were owed no duty of care by the premise owners. Modernly, this is not the case anymore.

The Attractive Nuisance Ordinance

If something is so enticing to a child that it motivates them to enter onto another person’s property, it is considered an attractive nuisance. Things like trampolines, swimming pools, tree houses, ponds, creeks, boat docks, construction equipment, heavy machinery, power tools, holes, wells, tunnels, exotic animals, staircases, junk cars, lumber piles, fire pits, sand dunes, low roof tops, and more are examples of attractive nuisances. Under modern law, property owners must retain a duty of care by keeping safe premises in the case of trespassing children. This is called the attractive nuisance ordinance, and is an exception to premise liability law.

Premise Liability Claims 317-881-2700

Premise Liability Claims 317-881-2700

Since modern law no longer expects children to understand what it means to trespass, and not appreciate the dangers it could involve, property owners have a special legal responsibility to make sure their premise is safe for kids that might enter their property unexpectedly. Property owners and occupiers are legally obligated to practice this special responsibility if they believe their premises might attract the interest of children, and is accessible by children.

If property owners, occupiers, or renters fail to meet this duty of care, they can be held liable for any injuries sustained on their property to children. Of course, courts also take into consideration a child’s age and intellectual capacity in order to determine whether or not they could understand the potential risk of injury on a person’s property. For example, if a person is digging an open pit in their backyard for a new swimming pool and hangs a sign that says “DANGER DO NOT ENTER”, they can still be held liable if a young child who cannot read enters their property and falls into the pit. On the other end of the spectrum, if a teenager with no mental handicaps enters the same property and sustains injuries, the owners may not be held liable for their damages.

For more details about attractive nuisances, premise liability, and child injury claims, consult a personal injury lawyer for trusted information and advice.

Craven, Hoover, and Blazek P.C.

Personal Injury Lawyers

Personal Injury Lawyers 317-881-2700

Call Craven, Hoover, and Blazek P.C. at 317-881-2700 to set up a free initial consultation with a child injury lawyer in Indianapolis, IN today. Personal injury attorneys, Daniel Craven, Ralph Hoover, and Keith Blazek have extensive trial and litigation experience in premise liability and child injury cases. We offer free initial consultations and never charge lawyer fees unless we win your settlement. Call 317-881-2700 today for more information about child injury claims and premise liability in Indiana.

Learn About Gross Negligence in Civil Injury Cases

Indianapolis Accident Attorneys 317-881-2700

Indianapolis Accident Attorneys 317-881-2700

Simply put: gross negligence, in terms of a civil injury case, suggests that an at-fault party was not just negligent and careless, but also, transparently reckless. Negligence is ignoring a certain standard of care or breaching an appointed duty of care, and as a result, an innocent victim is injured or harmed in some way. Take note that negligence doesn’t imply malicious intent or evilness, but rather, careless.

This concept is generally well-recognized and understood by adults. But when a person’s carelessness is exaggerated to the point of recklessness, it is considered a separate type of negligence called gross negligence. Continue reading to learn more about the meaning of gross negligence and how it is applied to personal injury cases and claims.

Gross Negligence Claims

Recklessness can be colloquially-defined as unreasonable and/or deliberate misconduct of a person. It is an act that upsets or alarms our society’s morals. There are significant, but hidden, differences between standard negligence and gross negligence. For example, if a driver is texting and subsequently rear-ends another vehicle at a stop sign, this is considered standard negligence. Whereas, if a person is speeding in an attempt to race other vehicles on the road, subsequently causing an accident that harms another driver and their passengers, this can be considered gross negligence.

Additional Examples of Gross Negligence:

• Hit and Run Cases
• Assault and/or Battery
• Sex Crimes
• Doctor Amputating/Removing Incorrect Limb or Organ
• Surgeon Leaving Foreign Object Inside Patient (i.e. bandages, thread, etc.)
• Permitting an Underage Driver to Operate a Vehicle
• Unsupervised Infants/Toddlers
• Wrongful Death Cases
• And More

Personal injury, as well as, property damage are common consequences of gross negligent behaviors. Since gross negligence is a blatant disregard for the law, or for personal responsibility to practice due care, it is common for punitive damages to be awarded to victims of such negligence, in addition to compensation for their losses and injuries. Contact a personal injury law firm if you or a loved one was recently injured by the negligent behaviors of another person or entity. You may be entitled to compensation for your losses.

Craven, Hoover, and Blazek P.C.

Personal Injury Law Firm Indiana

Personal Injury Law Firm 317-881-2700

Call Craven, Hoover, and Blazek P.C. at 317-881-2700 for information about filing a personal injury claim in Indianapolis, Indiana. Accident attorneys, Daniel Craven, Ralph Hoover, and Keith Blazek are seasoned Indianapolis personal injury lawyers with extensive trial and litigation experience. We offer free initial consultations and never collect attorney fees unless we recover for you. Call 317-881-2700 to schedule a free consultation with a licensed personal injury attorney in Indianapolis, IN today.