{"id":23409,"date":"2015-01-01T12:51:50","date_gmt":"2015-01-01T17:51:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sidebarforplaintiffs.naomifein.net\/?p=23409"},"modified":"2015-01-01T12:51:50","modified_gmt":"2015-01-01T17:51:50","slug":"why-lawyers-may-not-take-sure-personal-injury-lawsuits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sidebarforplaintiffs.naomifein.net\/?p=23409","title":{"rendered":"Why lawyers may not take sure personal injury lawsuits"},"content":{"rendered":"

This story — Victims of G.M. Deadly Defect Fall Through Legal Cracks – NYTimes.com<\/a>. — illustrates a hole in the justice system, especially for cases which, as I’ve maintained<\/a>, are a way plaintiffs’ can challenge and even change or make laws and regulations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Times story begins:<\/p>\n

The law firm was unequivocal. It refused to take the case against General Motors<\/a> involving a car crash that killed 18-year-old Natasha Weigel, saying that the value of her life in a lawsuit was too small to justify the expense and risk of litigation.<\/em><\/p>\n

Her family was stunned. A Wisconsin police investigator had looked into why the car\u2019s airbags had not opened when it swerved off a road in 2006 and plowed into trees, killing Ms. Weigel and a second teenager. The inquiry uncovered critical clues: The car\u2019s ignition switch had powered off seconds before the accident, and G.M. had received reports of similar incidents, pointing to a possible defect.<\/em><\/p>\n

But when Ms. Weigel\u2019s family shared that report with a major plaintiff\u2019s law firm in Milwaukee, the firm responded with cold, hard math.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cBecause of the $350,000 maximum recovery for loss of society in Wisconsin and the extreme expense of litigating the case against General Motors<\/a>, our office is unwilling to become involved in this matter,\u201d Daniel A. Rottier, a partner in the firm, Habush, Habush & Rottier, wrote in May 2007.<\/em><\/p>\n

Today, at least 42 people are known to have died in crashes linked to the defective ignition switch, and both G.M. and federal safety regulators have come under fire for allowing the danger to linger for more than a decade. But the experience of some accident victims and their families shows that other opportunities to raise public alarm bells \u2014 through the legal system \u2014 were also lost.<\/em><\/p>\n

It may be math but it’s sad: if a state limits compensation for personal injury cases, its lawyers will not take cases on contingency — which means that you, the plaintiff, doesn’t pay the lawyer’s fee during the case (he gets his fee out of a successful settlement or award), but more significantly, nor do you pay the expenses of the lawyer, which can be considerable –<\/a>– unless he is sure you will win, and win enough to reimburse his fees, as well as compensating him for his time and work.<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This story — Victims of G.M. Deadly Defect Fall Through Legal Cracks – NYTimes.com. — illustrates a hole in the justice system, especially for cases which, as I’ve maintained, are a way plaintiffs’ can challenge and even change or make … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[337],"tags":[247,684,622,249],"class_list":["post-23409","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-legal-news","tag-legal-contingency-cases","tag-personal-injury","tag-product-liability-lawsuits","tag-what-contingency-means"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t