What Are My Chances of Winning a Lawsuit in This Case

[Taxing Matters]

He was charged with failure to yield to a pedestrian. He's also 94 years old. I'm not planning on suing as long as my lawyer can get a satisfactory amount from the insurance company.

That's a reasonable way to go. Most personal injury cases (90%+ in most states) are settled either before filing the lawsuit or after filing the lawsuit but before the trial. If you can get what you want without going to trial that's a good result for you.

This is the first time this has happened so I didn't know insurance paid anything other than medical bills.

Yep. You are entitled to compensation for all the harm suffered from the accident — your medical bills, of course, but also compensation for lost wages/income, pain and suffering, any property damage (which would include even clothes damaged in the accident), etc. Since the driver would owe you for all that in a lawsuit, the insurance company pays for that.

[Hemispheres]

There's no way my scar is going to be barely noticeable in a year. Just got a good look at my forehead and you can visibly see a line/indentation under the stitches.

[Harold99]

There's no way my scar is going to be barely noticeable in a year. Just got a good look at my forehead and you can visibly see a line/indentation under the stitches.

You don't have to defend yourself to anyone here. Nobody here has seen your injuries. Also, you were in one of the most protected areas of any street, that is a crosswalk with the 'walk sign' on. You got two black eyes, an injured leg, a concussion and a permanent facial scar. The only thing that would make the damages worse is if you were a pretty, young girl left with a scared face for life.

You have serious, visible damages...not some fake back injury. Listen to your attorney and allow him to negotiate for the highest claim he can while the insurance company will negotiate for the lowest amount they can. It's a game they've played many times before. Let them play it.

Two things to consider: The driver may have very low insurance coverage limits that will limit your compensation amount without going after the personal assets of the driver. But your lawyer will know the net worth of the driver and then you can decide if you think he should personally compensate you out of pocket. 2) Insurance companies will often hold back their best offer until you are about to enter the courtroom which tests the fiber and resolve of your lawyer. Many times lawyers do not want to do all the work involved in a trial. In those cases the insurance company can save big money if the lawyer is bluffing about actually trying the case. They will not know that about your lawyer until the day before a court appearance. Good luck!

[Taxing Matters]

2) Insurance companies will often hold back their best offer until you are about to enter the courtroom which tests the fiber and resolve of your lawyer. Many times lawyers do not want to do all the work involved in a trial. In those cases the insurance company can save big money if the lawyer is bluffing about actually trying the case. They will not know that about your lawyer until the day before a court appearance. Good luck!

Most personal injury lawyers love going to trial, but you're right that there are some that run practices in which they avoid trial and take whatever settlements they can get. If the lawyer has been in practice for awhile the insurance company will know which type of lawyer he is. If he's the type willing to take good cases to trial the insurance company won't wait until the eve of trial to come up with a good offer. It will know before then what it is facing. The insurance company is paying its lawyers by the hour, after all, and the more time its lawyers spend on the case, the more it pays in fees. If it's going to have to cough up that money anyway, it's better to do it earlier and and avoid paying its lawyers the extra fees.

[Hemispheres]

Most personal injury lawyers love going to trial, but you're right that there are some that run practices in which they avoid trial and take whatever settlements they can get. If the lawyer has been in practice for awhile the insurance company will know which type of lawyer he is. If he's the type willing to take good cases to trial the insurance company won't wait until the eve of trial to come up with a good offer. It will know before then what it is facing. The insurance company is paying its lawyers by the hour, after all, and the more time its lawyers spend on the case, the more it pays in fees. If it's going to have to cough up that money anyway, it's better to do it earlier and and avoid paying its lawyers the extra fees.

I'm 32 years old and I remember watching my lawyers commercials on TV as a young child. He also has hundreds of 5 star reviews so I'm confident he'll do everything to fight for the maximum compensation he can.

[Harold99]

Most personal injury lawyers love going to trial, but you're right that there are some that run practices in which they avoid trial and take whatever settlements they can get. If the lawyer has been in practice for awhile the insurance company will know which type of lawyer he is. If he's the type willing to take good cases to trial the insurance company won't wait until the eve of trial to come up with a good offer. It will know before then what it is facing. The insurance company is paying its lawyers by the hour, after all, and the more time its lawyers spend on the case, the more it pays in fees. If it's going to have to cough up that money anyway, it's better to do it earlier and and avoid paying its lawyers the extra fees.

TM,
I am sure you know the term "ambulance chaser" in regard to personal injury lawyers. What is your definition of that term and what percentage of metropolitan personal injury lawyers fit that definition?

[Taxing Matters]

TM,
I am sure you know the term "ambulance chaser" in regard to personal injury lawyers. What is your definition of that term and what percentage of metropolitan personal injury lawyers fit that definition?

My definition of the term doesn't matter. What I can tell you is that most of the personal injury lawyers in the cities in which I've lived and practiced enjoy trying cases and are happy to go to trial if the defendant — and his/her insurance company — won't agree to a reasonable settlement of the case. They know that if they can get more by going to trial its worth doing it not just because they like trying cases but also because the more they get the bigger their fee is because they take these cases on a contingent fee basis. So the more they get for the client, the more money they make. Sure, there are the firms out there that are settlement mills that rarely if ever go to trial and will only work up a settlement to the point that they get serious resistance from the insurer and then settle. They are not the majority of the firms out there in any place I've practiced, but I certainly don't deny they exist.

My point here is that the insurance company lawyers know which kind of lawyer they are facing if that lawyer has been in practice for any length of time. They don't need to wait until the eve of trial to know if that lawyer is one who is willing to take cases to trial or not. They don't need to wait until the eve of trial to make a good offer to a client represented by a good lawyer. Sure, there are some instances when, for one reason or another, one side changes its stance on the offer and raises or lowers it right before trial. But more often if a case is going to settle, it'll settle before the eve of trial. So if the OP does get a good offer — one that meets what he's looking for — well before trial he'll probably want to take that offer and get it over with. He won't always benefit by waiting until just before trial. Sometimes things do actually get worse by doing that.

[Mercy&Grace]

There's no way my scar is going to be barely noticeable in a year. Just got a good look at my forehead and you can visibly see a line/indentation under the stitches.

It is too soon to know how it will heal. Are you a model? The reason I ask is if you are. the scar would probably carry more weight than if you are not. Do your other injuries interfere with the performance of your job? Have you seen a doctor for followup care?

[Harold99]

My definition of the term doesn't matter. What I can tell you is that most of the personal injury lawyers in the cities in which I've lived and practiced enjoy trying cases and are happy to go to trial if the defendant — and his/her insurance company — won't agree to a reasonable settlement of the case. They know that if they can get more by going to trial its worth doing it not just because they like trying cases but also because the more they get the bigger their fee is because they take these cases on a contingent fee basis. So the more they get for the client, the more money they make. Sure, there are the firms out there that are settlement mills that rarely if ever go to trial and will only work up a settlement to the point that they get serious resistance from the insurer and then settle. They are not the majority of the firms out there in any place I've practiced, but I certainly don't deny they exist.

My point here is that the insurance company lawyers know which kind of lawyer they are facing if that lawyer has been in practice for any length of time. They don't need to wait until the eve of trial to know if that lawyer is one who is willing to take cases to trial or not. They don't need to wait until the eve of trial to make a good offer to a client represented by a good lawyer. Sure, there are some instances when, for one reason or another, one side changes its stance on the offer and raises or lowers it right before trial. But more often if a case is going to settle, it'll settle before the eve of trial. So if the OP does get a good offer — one that meets what he's looking for — well before trial he'll probably want to take that offer and get it over with. He won't always benefit by waiting until just before trial. Sometimes things do actually get worse by doing that.

I beg to differ that your definition of an 'ambulance chaser' doesn't matter because this is a class of lawyer in your industry, and who could describe them better than you. So, a more accurate response would have been "I choose not to speak negatively of other lawyers on this board." ...Which removes you as an objective poster.

I also disagree with you that most lawyers like to take cases to trial. Take for instance this case, lets look at the costs and returns associated with settling it vs. trying it.

Say for instance the insurance company offered $100K to settle and the OP's lawyer thought it was worth $200K. The insurance company stood firm so the OP's lawyer encouraged his client to refuse it and to try the case. As soon as they do that their costs and skin in the game start mounting. They will need a $10K medical doctor, a $10K accident reconstructionist and likely a $10K physiologist (to testify to the phycological damage of facials scars) as expert witnesses. They will have depo costs and about 200 hours of attorney and assistant's time to invest. They will have IT costs, court costs, clerical costs and co-counsel costs.

Now let's crunch the numbers:

Settling the case at a 33%/66% split would pay medical bills at about $5K, the lawyer about $31K and the OP about $62K. All with very little time and costs invested.

Trying the case at a 40%/60% split, if they were awarded the full $200K, would pay medical at $5K, costs $35K, the lawyer (after his loss/investment of 200 additional hours of his time) would pay him $64K, and the OP would walk away with about $96K. If they were only awarded the original $100K because the insurance company had a better lawyer, better expert witnesses, the OP's lawyer was lame or the jury thought the OP was gold digging, the takeaway would be dismal. Medical $5K, costs $35K, the lawyer (after 300hours of invested time) would be $24K, and the OP would walk away with about $36K (half of the original, guaranteed amount).

I do not agree that most lawyers like to puff their chests and try cases. They know the real costs, time and risks involved. Financial risks they rarely lay out to their clients beforehand. Oh, and if they lose completely, who pays each side's costs ($70K)? I'll tell you, the plaintiff does.

To conclude, the term personal injury lawyers use in advertising is "If you don't win, you don't pay." That is flat out false, and only true if you do not try the case!

[Taxing Matters]

Harold, I'm well aware of your views of lawyers and well aware that you like to rant about your hatred of lawyers every chance you get. You are entitled to your views about lawyers, misguided though some of them are. You don't have a good grasp of how lawyers evaluate cases nor how they determine which cases are worth going to trial. That's not surprising. You are not a lawyer and have never been one. You've been a contractor for the last 30 years. You have very little knowledge of the law and what lawyers do, and it shows in your posts. But still, you are entitled to your opinion and to rant to about lawyers if you like. But I won't go down that road with you and derail this thread.

My only point here has been simple: the OP doesn't necessarily have to wait until the eve of trial to get the best deal the insurance company has to offer. The insurance company is going have a pretty good idea if the lawyer is one who will take the case to trial or not before the eve of trial. The OP may well get a good offer well before then, and if he gets that offer, he ought to take while it's on the table. His lawyer will advise him on the whether the offer is worth taking or not.