Tyler Wrongful Death Lawyer
Tyler Wrongful Death Attorney Michael Grossman Explains Your Rights After Losing a Family Member Due to Someone Else’s Negligence?
- Does Your Employer Subscribe to Workers' Comp?
- Obstacles to Proving Your Claim
- Wrongful Death Damages
- What Should You Do Now
Has a loved one been killed in a fatal accident in Tyler or elsewhere in East Texas? According to statistics, one Texan dies every few hours on the roads of the Lone Star State. Work-related fatal accidents don’t happen quite as often, but some lines of work are more dangerous than others and have much high mortality rates.
Construction workers are exposed to all kinds of hazards, fishermen drown when their boats sink in storms, bank tellers are fatally shot during robberies, oilfield workers die in explosions, and miners perish in cave-ins. Moreover, someone can wrongfully be killed when visiting the property of an owner who did not provide adequate safety.
Whether it occurred on the road, at work or on someone else’s property, the untimely death of a loved one in a fatal accident is a devastating loss from which to recover. While nothing compares to the absence of the person you love, the monetary strains can also be tremendous following the death of your loved one. Surviving loved one must not only figure out how to live without the missing family member, but they must also try to find out whether or not the family has legal recourse and whether or not they need a Tyler wrongful death attorney. For the past 20 years, the lawyers at Grossman Law Offices been successfully litigating wrongful deaths claims in Tyler and all over the Lone Star State, and we want help you family safely navigate the hazardous legal process by helping you better understand the legal options available to you.
Proving the liability of the responsible party isn’t easy, so not everyone who deserves compensation for the loss of a loved one it able to secure it. The victim’s family members hold the burden of proof for establishing that the party or parties who caused the accident ignored a legal responsibility to the deceased. Defendants contest most wrongful death cases, and the laws involving accidental fatalities are very complex. Thus, an experienced Tyler wrongful death attorney is required to protect your rights and secure the just compensation you deserve for the loved one who has been taken from you. Our firm wishes we can bring your loved one back to you, but all we can do is make sure the parties who caused his or her death are held accountable.
The family of the deceased can recover damages through insurance in most wrongful death cases – either workers compensation insurance for work-related deaths or a standard car insurance carrier in the case of car accidents. If the negligent parties were not insured, then a lawsuit must be filed to recover restitution. Actually securing compensation is seldom simple, and a number of different variables affect the amount of compensation that can be sought and the type of claim that needs to be filed in any wrongful death case.
On-the-Job Fatalities
Before the family of the victim can proceed in a work-related fatality claim, several questions must be answered. The family of the deceased, also known as the plaintiffs, must determine most importantly whether the employer committed negligent actions that directly caused the death of the victim. However, the plaintiffs must also determine whether or not their loved one’s employer subscribed to workmen’s comp insurance and whether the victim was legally considered an employee or just a contractor of the employer. You need a Tyler wrongful death attorney who can answer these questions and plan a strategy in response to the unique details of the accident that killed your loved one.
Subscriber or Non-Subscriber?
Employers in the state of Texas are not required to carry workmen’s compensation insurance.
How a wrongful death claim is handled differs completely whether or not the employer has purchased workers’ compensation coverage, known as a subscriber, and or not, known as a non-subscriber.
Subscribers
Employers who responsibly subscribe to workmen’s compensation insurance receive protection against lawsuits. Unless gross negligence is involved, the loved ones of wrongfully killed employee who were working for a subscriber cannot sue the employer. Filing a claim with the insurer is the only way to secure compensation from subscribing employers. Filing this claim, however, does not guarantee the insurance provider will agree to give you fair compensation.
Insurance companies are in business to make a profit, not to help people recover from the loss of family members. As a result, insurance adjusters will attempt to deny a claim or convince the grieving loved ones to agree to an inadequate settlement in order to save their company money. Workers’ compensation was created to protect the needs of people affected by work-related fatalities, but insurance providers still unfairly deny the claims of numerous people every year.
Granted, workers’ comp laws were designed to reduce the amount of lawsuits caused by work-related deaths and injuries, but sometimes that’s the only recourse when the insurance companies aren’t negotiating in good faith. An experienced Tyler wrongful death attorney can use legal action to compel the insurance provider to pay the loved ones of a deceased worker the compensation they deserve.
There are two notable exceptions to the workmen’s compensation laws:
- If gross negligence resulted in the death of an employee then a wrongful death lawsuit is in order.
- Often times, more than one party beside the employer may have negligently contributed in whole or in part to the wrongful death of the, for example: contractors, other employees, or unrelated third parties. The only way to know the right course of action to secure total compensation from all of the liable parties is through years of experience litigating cases. Our Tyler wrongful death attorneys have spent the past 20 years mastering investigation technique to identify all the parties who caused a wrongful death and make them pay for their actions.
Gross negligence
Proving gross negligence, the only way to sue a subscribing employer in an on-the-job fatality case, can be much more difficult then proving standard negligence, a lone error or a momentary lapse of concentration or decision-making. Gross negligence happens when the employer carelessly or intentionally ignores his or her legal responsibility to provide a safe workplace for his or her employees. For example, if a construction worker accidentally misfires a nail-gun, killing a co-worker, then that represents standard negligence. Although, if that same worker has a habit of randomly and unsafely shooting off the nail gun because he likes to play Rambo with the gun, and the foreman should have known about this behavior, then that is gross negligence. The foreman should have reasonably predicted that the sporadic firing of a nail gun would eventually lead to an accident, but nothing was done to protect the safety of the workers.
In another instance, a mining company learns that dangerous seismic activity could cause a cave-in in their silver mine, but the company chooses not to evacuate its mine. A quake then buries 115 miners alive, so the mining company has committed gross negligence.
In one more example, the captain of an oil tanker has been drinking when he crashes the tanker on some rocks, sinking the ship and killing several of his crew who were not able to get to lifeboats. If the captain were sober and just made a mistake, then that would be standard negligence. But, he or she committed gross negligence, because he was drunk at the time of the accident.
The burden of proof for establishing gross negligence is much higher than with standard negligence. A skilled Tyler wrongful death attorney who can thoroughly investigate, constructing an infallible case can meet the high standard of proof.
Non-subscribers
Often times, employers will attempt to save money and not subscribe to workmen’s compensation insurance. The family members of victims who suffer wrongful deaths while working for non-subscribers must litigate to secure compensation. Fortunately for you, plaintiffs must only prove general negligence secure damages from non-subscribing employers.
Since Texas law seeks to punish non-subscribing employers for creating a bigger logjam in the court system, the loved ones of a wrongfully killed employee can recover much greater compensation than they would be able to secure form a workers’ comp insurance policy.
However, the legal process for recovering compensation through litigation is even more complex than taking on the subscribers’ insurance carrier; thus, plaintiffs have an even greater need for an experienced Tyler wrongful death attorney.
Working in the favor of the grieving loved ones, general standard of negligence is low, making the burden of proof easier to meet. In order to get just restitution, the plaintiffs must prove that the employer’s general negligence caused the. Additionally, the process of determining the value of compensation for a death is highly subjective, and plaintiffs must be prepared to prove their requested compensation is equitable.
Obstacles to Proving Wrongful Death Claims in Work-Related Accidents
Many employers have tricks for avoiding liability and their responsibility to compensate the loved ones of wrongfully killed workers.
Sole Proximate Cause
Proving sole proximate cause is the first line of defense for many employers. Sole proximate cause occurs when the employee’s own negligence is fully responsible for his or her own death. As a result, non-subscribers will usually attempt to besmirch your loved one’s reputation with attempts to show that he or she was a grossly negligent employee.
Once they’re facing the risk of paying a sizable settlement non-subscribing employers will splurge for highly experienced attorneys who know how to use their investigation to make it look like the victim caused his or her own death. Our Tyler wrongful death attorneys can fight fire with fire.
Non-Work Related Wrongful Deaths
Yes, it is possible for your loved one to wrongfully die when not working. Negligence in a car accident, or by property owners on the their property can both lead to wrongful death litigation.
The victim’s family members in most wrongful death lawsuit are permitted to seek two types of damages: wrongful death damages and survival damages.
Wrongful Death Damages
Only spouses, children, and parents may seek wrongful death damages in most car accident cases, but in rare cases, siblings are also permitted to do so. Wrongful death damages can include:
- The victim’s medical expenses prior to death
- Funeral expenses
- Loss of monetary support provided by the victim
- Restitution for mental and emotional distress and loss of the irreplaceable family love provided by the deceased
Survival Damages
Survival damages offer the victim’s loved ones compensation for the damages the victim could have sought had he or she survived the accident and only suffered injuries. Only the victim’s closest living relative is allowed to seek survival damages, following down the line from spouse to children to parents and finally to siblings. Examples of survival damages include:
- Medical bills
- Property damage
- Lost wages for the period of recuperation had the victim recovered
- Lost earning potential due to possible long-term severe injuries
- The victim’s physical pain and suffering
- Emotional or mental distress the victim would have incurred during the rehabilitation process if he or she had survived
Not only must separate strategies be devised for wrongful death and survival damages claims, but also they must be filed separately as well. The complexities of these procedures are difficult for inexperienced lawyers, and people with no legal experience have no chance of succeeding. You need the help of an experienced Tyler wrongful death attorney. Twenty years of litigating such cases has taught our attorneys how to safely navigate these procedures, and we can ensure all your loved ones receive damages for the pain and suffering they have incurred due to your family member’s death.
Fatalities in Premises Liability Cases
According to Texas wrongful death laws, property owners must meet a reasonable standard of safety for protecting visitors to a property they own. If the owner ignores this responsibility and someone dies while visiting the property, then a legal concept called premises liability allows the victim’s family to file a wrongful death lawsuit to pursue restitution. The nature of the visitor and the conditions that caused the fatal accident determine whether such an accident can be litigated. Different duties to maintain safety are owed to different types of visitors, and our Tyler wrongful death attorneys can tell you what type of visitor your deceased loved one was and whether or not you can seek compensation.
What Should You Do
It’s easy to remember the first thing you should do after your loved one has been wrongfully killed in an accident: don’t sign anything the insurance company gives you without consulting with an attorney. Certainly, do not surrender the right to sue in exchange for a sub-par settlement offer.
Next, you need to find an attorney as quickly as possible. Proving an employer’s gross negligence can be very tricky, and it’s just as difficult to prove premises liability or the responsibility of a negligent driver for the death of a loved one. Evidence vanishes quickly, and the longer you wait to put your attorney on the case, searching for evidence, then the more damage you do to your chances of proving your case and getting fair restitution. Your attorney needs a chance to find evidence before it fades and question witnesses before time alters their memories. The insurance company and defense attorneys already have a head start on proving the victim’s liability, and who knows whether or not they’re acting reputably. An experienced Tyler wrongful death attorney can safeguard your right to compensation no matter what the particular details of your family member’s death.
For 20 years, the attorneys at Grossman Law Offices have been helping grieving Texans resolve all kinds of wrongful death claims in Tyler and all over East Texas. We conduct a thorough investigation as soon as we’re hired, locating any witnesses and evidence that could secure compensation for our clients. We know how to file a comprehensive lawsuit that holds all the liable parties accountable for leading to your family member’s death.
We have beaten every major insurance company in the nation, helping hundreds of Texans secure millions and millions of dollars in damages. The insurance companies know about our successful track record personally, they know don’t want to see us at trial. They often offer our clients fair settlements rather than risk giving up more in court.
If you have lost a loved one in a fatal accident caused by someone else’s negligence, then call Grossman Law Offices at 1-855-258-1111 (toll free) for a free consultation to find out how we can help you.
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
$550,000.00
$220,000.00
$40,000.00
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
(policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an underide 18-wheeler accident. In addition to being a decorated veteran, the decedent worked both professionally and on a voluntary basis to establish numerous learning institutions and vocational programs for at risk youths. The accident occurred as the decedent was traveling on a rural highway when an 18-wheeler failed to yield the right of way and made a rolling stop through a stop sign.
This placed the trailer of the 18-wheeler in a position whereby it blocked the entire roadway and shoulder, leaving the decedent no option but to collide with the trailer. Witnesses on the scene attempted to revive him but to no avail. Furthermore, while two female eye witnesses struggled to pry open the decedent's door to provide emergency care, the truck driver stayed in his truck and offered no assistance. Despite what appeared to be an incredibly apparent case of negligence on behalf of the defendant, defense counsel refused to accept liability resulting in rather lengthy litigation.
The defendants initially denied the claim based on the allegation that the decedent was speeding and the truck driver therefore could not adequately gauge the amount of time he had to pause at the stop sign. The physical evidence contradicted this notion entirely, notwithstanding the fact that even if the decedent had been contributorily negligent, that would not have outweighed the severe degree of negligence on the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, our attorneys were able to conclusively refute this argument based on eye-witness testimony and the testimony from police investigators who calculated the decedent's speed to be precisely at the posted speed limit. In a desperate and largely unprecedented move, the defendants then designated the state as a responsible third party.
Generally speaking, a defendant will often threaten to designate a third party in order to leverage their position but it is rare that such an arbitrary and arguably frivolous designation is actually carried out. However, that is precisely what occurred and the state was thusly incorporated into the lawsuit by the defendants. The basis of the defendant's argument was that the state erected a large street sign that obstructed the truck driver's view of approaching traffic.
Several months of intense litigation were required to before the defendant finally acquiesced in regard to this argument. The argument was finally abandoned by the defendants when in the first mediation our attorneys presented video footage shot (in a controlled setting) from the perspective of an 18-wheeler driver which showed that the sign simply did not obstruct enough of the roadway in order to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
(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 largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.
Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon 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 the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.
Additonally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assasination 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 the moment that they refused to settle.
Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers' Demand with a brief window of time 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 who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client's 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 right of first refusal.
$1,000,000.00
$333,333.00
$0.00
A young handicapped woman lost her life when a long-term care facility failed to provide her with treatment for obvious symptoms of severe illness. The defendants maintained that there were no outwardly visible signs of illness. The medical evidence showed otherwise. The case was successfully resolved through litigation, though damages caps imposed by tort reform were a factor.
$400,000.00
$132,000.00
$25,000.00
(policy limits) A young mother was killed in an accident involving two commercial vehicles, one an 18-wheeler. The accident occurred as the young woman was a passenger in a vehicle that was traveling down a highway in the early morning hours. Without warning, the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a stalled 18-wheeler that parked in the right of way, resulting in catastrophic injuries that claimed the young woman's life soon thereafter.
The authorities initially faulted the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was a passenger, stating that he was using an electronic device rather than paying full attention to the roadway. However, the 18-wheeler was indeed blocking the roadway and plaintiff alleged that the vehicle did not follow the requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act in regard to providing adequate reflective or laminated warning at specific intervals. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to remove his vehicle from the roadway when he first noticed signs of mechanical failure.
Had he simply moved to the shoulder of the road, plaintiffs argued, his lack of adequate warning signs would have been inconsequential. An initial settlement has been obtained in this case, yet litigation has commenced in full against the remaining defendant, and is currently ongoing.
$250,000.00
$78,000.00
$370.00
The family of a deceased woman hired our firm following a fatal 18-wheeler accident. The fatal accident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered out of his lane, resulting in a massive collision. The decedent, a passenger in a vehicle, died on the scene.
Her adult children consulted our firm to initially investigate the accident and make sense of the facts and circumstances since the family felt that the police report did not make it clear enough precisely what occurred. We launched a full investigation an immediately deposed the investigating officers.
Upon the completion of our investigation, it was apparent that the trucking company was indeed negligent and a lawsuit was soon filed. The defendant's launched an aggressive defense whereby they initially claimed that the truck driver was overcome by his passenger who allegedly grabbed the steering wheel and deliberately drove the truck off the road, despite the truck driver's best efforts.
We refuted this claim by illustrating that the tire marks that were present clearly show the truck gradually moving across the road and eventually onto the grass, which is entirely inconsistent with an abrupt lane change caused by someone taking control of the wheel. It was quite an unusual defense strategy that we were frankly surprised to even find ourselves having to refute.
The defendants then argued that a tire blowout may have contributed to the accident, which is significant because it would enable the defendant to offset some portion of their liability to a tire manufacturer or installer. Through deposition testimony of the investigating officer we established that there was absolutely no indication at the scene of the accident that a tire had blown out.
Finally, the defendants argued that the company which loaded the trailer may have improperly loaded the cargo. This argument was most plausible considering that the precise cause of the decedent's death was that she was essentially pummeled by cargo that broke through trailer and struck her person.
Our firm consulted several experts in the fields of heavy cargo transportation and physics. Our experts felt that the cargo was secured in a manner that is perfectly consistent with industry standards and that due to the forces involved, the cargo would not have behaved any differently irrespective of how it was secured. In short, the collision caused the cargo to break free and the negligence lay squarely on the trucking company and not any other entity. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
$2,000,000.00
$775,000.00
$25,000.00
(policy limits) An incredibly intoxicated driver drove head-on into a vehicle, killing several of the vehicle's occupants. The defendants had limited assets, yet an alternative policy was uncovered, which the defendants argued was non applicable. Under threat of litigation, our attorneys negotiated a settlement for the policy limits.
$300,000.00
$132,000.00
$0.00
(policy limits) Our firm was hired to pursue an intoxicated driver who killed an elderly school crossing guard. The fatal accident occurred as the decedent was escorting a woman and her child across the roadway through a crosswalk. The defendant then sped through the school zone, in an intoxicated a state, and struck the decedent who died on the scene.
The family hired our firm to investigate and pursue the defendant under a wrongful death cause of action. Following our investigation and preliminary vehicle inspection, our attorneys issued a Stowers' demand to the defendants. A significant factor in resolving this claim is that merely days before we submitted our demand to the defendant' insurance carrier, we won a large case against the very same insurance carrier, which was one of several such victories secured against the carrier in our firm's history. Our threats of litigation were therefore heeded and the defendants offered policy limits to settle the claim without the need to file suit.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
(policy limits) Recovery for wrongful death/ nursing home negligence which resulted in bed sores which became infected.
$100,000.00
$33,133.00
$400.00