FAQ

A: The length of time necessary to conclude your automobile accident injury case depends upon a number of factors. For example, if you received a serious injury, you do not want to settle your claim until you have received sufficient medical care so that either your physician has released you or your future medical expenses related to the accident can be determined with reasonable certainty. Therefore, the amount of time you need to heal may determine the length of time necessary to conclude your claim. The amount of time before you recover also depends on whether your case is settled or goes to trial.

A: Each state sets a time period during which a person must bring a personal injury claim. Both the length of that period and the way it is measured in motor vehicle accident cases varies from state to state. Even within a state, the time period may vary depending on the circumstances surrounding the accident, such as the plaintiff’s age, the type of personal injury claim, the particular facts giving rise to the injury, and when the injury is discovered. You must be absolutely certain that you know the time limitation period that applies to you, or you risk jeopardizing your legal rights. Regardless of how long you have to bring your particular injury claim, it is best to obtain an experienced and knowledgeable personal injury attorney early in the process. It is not uncommon, in Missouri especially, for medical providers to give false or misleading information about who is responsible for your medical bills related to a car accident so they can collect 5 or 10 times as much money from your settlement than they are really entitled to.

A: Accepting a check may be construed as a settlement that prohibits you from obtaining any additional amounts from the at-fault driver or his or her insurance company. Therefore, you should not accept a check or sign a release from the at-fault driver or his or her insurance company until after you have conferred with an attorney. Typically, an attorney will encourage you to wait to accept a check until you have completed your medical treatment and have been released by a doctor, so you know you have received an amount that adequately covers your medical bills and other damages. An insurance adjuster may push you to settle the claim for the lowest possible amount and may discourage you from contacting an attorney. If so, you should ignore his or her advice, and consult an attorney immediately before accepting any payment, signing any release, or otherwise settling your claim to ensure that you are receiving fair compensation and not jeopardizing your right to a full and fair recovery.

A: The value of a case depends on a variety of factors and cannot be determined without analyzing information regarding the injury, medical bills, loss of income, and permanency of the injury. There is no rule of thumb, and each set of facts results in a different amount of damages.

A: Personal injury lawyers will agree to pursue a personal injury claim for a contingency fee, which means that the law firm’s fee is subtracted from any amount that the firm collects for you. If no amount is recovered, then the firm receives no fee. Plaintiff’s law firms will front any necessary cost to prosecute the claim which would also be recovered from any eventual settlement or judgement. If you have a injury claim and an attorney wants you to pay them money to handle the claim or costs associated with the claim most likely that lawyer does not practice personal injury law regularly and/or that lawyer doesn’t believe your claim is likely to recover enough money to cover his fees and expenses.

A: The at-fault party’s insurance typically pays for your damages in many states. If the at-fault party is not adequately insured, your own insurance policy may contain coverage that will compensate you for your injuries. Many people in Missouri have “medical pay coverage” from their own insurance company and do not even realize it. These policies typically cover a few thousand dollars of medical expenses incurred by anyone in the car as a result of an accident, regardless of who is at fault.

A: In some cases, an accident victim may be able to sue parties other than the at-fault driver. For example, if the at-fault driver did not own the car, the car’s owner may also be liable for your damages. If the at-fault driver was impaired from consuming too much alcohol, you may be able to bring a “dram shop” complaint against a business that served alcohol to the driver even though he was visibly impaired. In some cases, you may be able to bring an action against another party, such as an automobile manufacturer or construction company, if a defect in the vehicle or the roadway caused the accident. If the accident involved a tractor-trailer, the driver’s violation of rules and regulations may be the basis for a lawsuit against the driver or his or her employer.

A: Not necessarily. Many motor vehicle accident cases are concluded without even filing a lawsuit. Most lawsuits are settled without an actual trial. A settlement avoids the costs and delay of a trial and may result in a greater net recovery. However, if the case cannot be settled on satisfactory terms, it may be necessary to try it in court.

A: Yes, if you are a victim of civil you can potentially file a civil rights lawsuit under laws such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 is part of the U.S. Code that allows lawsuits against government officials, including police officers, for violations of citizens’ constitutional rights. For various reasons, courts have held that not all instances of police misconduct can be the basis of a successful lawsuit, however. One of the main protections afforded police officers from lawsuits for misconduct is known as qualified immunity.

A. Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine created by federal judges that protects police officers from being held personally liable for constitutional violations under certain conditions. Broadly, courts decide if the alleged actions violated “clearly established” law. Different courts can sometimes decide what makes a right “clearly established” in radically different ways. At the extreme, some courts will hold that officers aren’t liable unless there is a previous case finding police officers liable for identical conduct.A. Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

Even if courts determine that the violated right was “clearly established” at the time the officer violated it, courts still proceed to determine if a “reasonable officer” in the same situation could have made the same mistake. Obviously, in determining whether or not some hypothetical “reasonable officer” could have done the same thing gives a large amount of discretion to trial judges to dismiss lawsuits against police officers.

A. Yes, there are time limits for filing a complaint which varies by the type of claim and jurisdiction. A “1983” action has the statute of limitations that is the same as the “general tort” statute of limitations in the state where the event occurred. In Missouri, that statute of limitations is five years. A 1983 lawsuit is often not the only way to sue police officers for misconduct, however. Depending on the facts, various claims against law enforcement in Missouri must be brought within 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, or  5 years. It is important to consult a civil rights attorney as soon as possible so that your claim can be fully investigated and so that you have all options available to you to seek relief.

A: No. To the surprise of many, there is no requirement in Missouri that police officers carry body cameras or even possess dash cameras in their vehicles. Other states, such as New Mexico, do impose that duty on their police officers. In Missouri, however, whether or not your encounter with law enforcement is recorded is up to the head of that specific police department, his or her policies, and his or her use of budget resources for body cameras.

A: Not only is it right to do so, our system depends on it. Whole we would like to think that police adequately police themselves, the reality is that bad police officers are rarely held accountable for their actions. Bad officers are often able to float from one police department short on manpower until they wear out their welcome and move on to some other department desperate for officers. This problem is so pervasive that a 2017 study by the Pew Research Center found that almost three out of four officers disagreed with the notion that “officers who consistently do a poor job are held accountable.”

While filing a lawsuit doesn’t solve the problem by itself, it does establish a public record of the officer’s misconduct. Not only does it establish a public record, the reality is that holding police officers, departments, cities and counties financially responsible for officer misconduct is often the best way to force policing practices to change.