Tag: accident attorneys las vegas

D.R. Patti & Associates Obtains Six-Figure Settlement in Las Vegas Scooter Accident

Posted by drpadmin on

Las Vegas scooter accident settlement

From our extensive experience as personal injury attorneys, we have seen our fair share of unfortunate Las Vegas scooter accidents and the injuries and other damages they cause. Thankfully, we have been able to obtain compensation for Las Vegas scooter accident victims. Recently, we were able to obtain a six-figure settlement for two people riding an electric scooter who was struck and injured by a truck. Unfortunately, based on statistics, we know that this may not be the last Las Vegas scooter accident we see and work on.
In an unstable economy and averaging between 60 to 100 miles per gallon, mopeds and scooters have been the cheaper option for many people, particularly those on college campuses, and their popularity has been increasing.[1] The popularity of this economical mode of transportation is evident on the Las Vegas Strip all the way to downtown, with tourists opting for this cheaper way to see the sights and casino-hop. One study estimates that moped and scooter sales have increased by as much as 60% in recent years.[2]

Unfortunately, the increased use of mopeds and scooters has led to more accidents, crashes, injuries and even fatalities. A recent Florida study found the following to have been common factors in those accidents resulting in severe injuries and fatalities: lack of a helmet, the speed of the moped or scooter, the speed limit in the area of the accident, and the amount of traffic in the area.[3]

It is no surprise that the lack of a helmet has contributed to the more severe injuries and fatalities. In many of these tragic events, the operators of mopeds and scooters were not wearing helmets.[4]The Florida study revealed that only 17% involved in moped or scooter crashes wore helmets. In Nevada, while motorcyclists are required to wear helmets that meet standards set by the U.S. Department of Transportation, those driving mopeds 50 cc or under, with less than 2 horsepower and capable of no more than 30 mph are not.[5]

The Florida study also found a high correlation between the speed of the moped/scooter, the speed limit in the accident site, and the amount of traffic. The number of accidents and severity of injuries increased when the street had three (3) or more lanes of travel.[6]The number of accidents resulting in severe injuries or fatalities also increased when the scooter/moped was driving above 20 miles per hour and the speed limit in the area was over 30 miles per hour.[7]All of these factors make sense – mopeds and scooters traveling in a busier area with faster cars will have greater chance of being involved in an accident and a greater chance of causing severe injuries or deaths. Like motorcycles, mopeds and scooters are sometimes difficult for other drivers to see on the roads. Thus, car drivers, who are likely not anticipating them or looking out for them, will likely not watch out for moped and scooter drivers.

Moped and scooter drivers must watch out for themselves. The lessons from the Florida study: wear a helmet and avoid driving in high traffic areas. Be safe out there.

If you are a moped or scooter driver who is injured in a car accident, call the Las Vegas scooter accident attorneys at D.R. Patti & Associates, or email us and see how we can help you obtain the compensation you deserve.

Low Property Damage in Las Vegas Car Accidents

Posted by drpadmin on

Las Vegas Personal Injury Attorneys

The extent of property damage in car accidents is important in determining how a car insurance company deals with personal injury claims. What most Las Vegas personal injury attorneys know and the public may not is that low property damage in Las Vegas car accidents equates to low offers and a take it or leave it attitude from insurance companies.  Such cases have often been categorized as MIST cases—Minor Impact Soft Tissue injury cases. The experienced Las Vegas personal injury attorneys at D.R. Patti & Associates would agree with such classifications, as low property damage in Las Vegas car accidents does not necessarily equate with minor impact, but that is a blog for a different day.

But insurance companies do equate minor property damage with low impact, as part of their “delay, deny, defend” strategy. They developed this strategy in the mid-1990s as a way to increase their profits. By taking a hardline approach, insurance companies made the car accident cases with less property damage more expensive and more time-consuming to fight. They take this approach regardless of whether the accident victim is an eggshell plaintiff or how other extenuating circumstances. An eggshell plaintiff is someone who is more susceptible to injury. The insurance company’s goal is to deter MIST or claims for personal injuries based on low property damages.

Unfortunately, automobile insurance companies are winning. Quite a few Las Vegas personal injury attorneys are now less inclined to take cases with low property damage in Las Vegas car accidents.  Even when an attorney has taken on such a case, some are less inclined to litigate even when the insurance company offers a mere pittance, sometimes offers below the personal injury client’s medical bills.  On some few occasions, automobile insurance companies lose, and sometimes lose big, but these occasions do not make enough of a big dent in the trillion dollar insurance industry pockets to stop this strategy. According a book by Rutgers law professor, Jay M. Feinman, property/casualty insurance companies collect $440 billion in premiums and pay only about $250 billion in claims each year.

The “delay, deny, defend” strategy works well for the automobile insurance industry in Las Vegas because they know Clark County jurors’ reputation as conservative.  To me, Clark County jurors in general are skeptical.  They generally have bought into the idea that a person cannot be possibly injured. They tend to see persons making personal injury claims as simply out to make money, seeking a reward rather than compensation.  A CNN article referenced a case where the victim of a rear-ender who incurred $15,000.00 in medical bills and lost wages received only $1,500.00 because the jury did not believe she could be injured when her car only had dents.  According to the article, three of the jurors said that blow-up photos of the minor property damage sealed the plaintiff’s fate.  That case could very well have occurred in Las Vegas.
Source: