Unfortunately, “backing up” accidents become more common as the weather gets nicer and more children start to play outside.  Every parent should double-check the rear of his/her vehicle before exiting the driveway.  Every child should be accounted for before someone starts the car in reverse.

This is the second time this week where a child has been fatally hit by a vehicle backing out of the driveway.  Earlier this week a 3 year old girl on a tricycle was killed when a vehicle backing out struck her without warning.

Our hears and prayers go out to the family.  This is tragic, and we feel very sad for the father and the child’s mother.

Seattle attorney Chris Davis of the Davis Law Group in Seattle announces that he has recently published his fourth book in the field of personal injury and accident law.  This book, “Wrongful Death in Washington” focuses on the wrongful death claims.

In the book, Mr. Davis discusses the following topics:

1. Basic Facts About Wrongful Death Cases.

2. Planning a Funeral After a Wrongful Death.

3. Overview of Washington State’s Wrongful Death Laws.

4. The Pre-Litigation or Claims Process for Wrongful Death Claims.

5. The Wrongful Death of a Child.

6. Determining the Value of a Wrongful Death Case.

7. Specific Damages Recoverable in a Wrongful Death Case.

And many more topics of interest to surviving family members who may be contemplating a wrongful death case.

“I really wrote the book to help surviving family members, by answering the most common questions my firm gets from prospective clients,” says Davis.  The book has received some favorable reviews from other attorneys across the country and in Canada, states Davis.

Seattle lawyer Chris Davis has been handling wrongful death cases in Washington State for the last 16+ years.  Most recently, Davis recovered $4 Million for the surviving family of a woman that was killed in Kent, Washington.  That case was featured on Seattle’s KOMO TV News.

KOMO TV reports that the boy’s name is Noah B. Bishop.  The King County Medical Examiner has stated the cause of death was cerebral and cerebellar laceration and contusion, subarachnoid hemorrhage – bleeding between brain and surrounding tissues, brain stem hemorrhage and multiple skull fractures. The death was ruled accidental.

The boy’s injuries are severe.  The news reports do not state how the boy received such serious injuries while in the care of a reputable medical clinic.  The spokesperson for the University of Washington has declined to explain how the injuries occurred, but did state that an investigation has begun.  This suggests that the hospital knows it may have committed negligence which was a cause of the boy’s injury.

Usually when this type of tragic accident occurs, and no explanation is given by the hospital about how the injuries inflicted, a claim for negligence will often exist.  The term ‘negligence’ is defined as the failure to exercise ordinary care in similar circumstances.  Based on similar cases that I’ve handled involving children, it appears that the boy may have been dropped onto the floor and landed on his head and suffered a traumatic brain injury or TBI. A young child of this age does not have to be dropped from a high distance to cause the type of injuries that were found to have caused this boy’s death.

There are important differences associated with representing child injury claims.  These differences are explored in depth in my book Little Kids, Big Accidents.  I offer the book for free to parents of injured children.

If it is determined that the University of Washington’s negligence caused the boy’s injuries, then the parents will also have a wrongful death claim against the hospital for the loss of their boy.  There are special statutes that apply to parents who have lost a child due to another party’s negligence.  Wrongful death claims are complicated, especially when it deals with the death of children.  You can learn more about wrongful death cases by visiting the Davis Law Group website and DLG’s wrongful death page.

I want to offer my sincere and heartfelt sympathies to the parents of this young boy.  This type of tragic loss can devastate even the strongest of families.  I also have a young boy of similar age, so I cannot imagine the level of pain and grief these parents must be experiencing.  I hope they can get the answers of what happened and why, and at least start to heal from this painful experience.

Whenever we receive a call from an accident victim who already has a lawyer, we always advise that person to work out any dispute or conflict with their current attorney.  Most conflicts or misunderstandings can be worked out.  It just requires both the client and the lawyer to engage in effective communication.

Unfortunately, we will often decline to represent someone who already has a lawyer for a variety of reasons.  There are some cases however where we do agree to take on the case, but only in limited circumstances.  There are unique issues and potential problems with taking over a case from another attorney.  Here are some of the issues that may be present:

1.   The client may owe a fee to the former attorney.  If a client switches or fires his or her personal injury attorney, the former lawyer may have a right to be paid for the work that has already been performed.  Sometimes the former lawyer may have a right to collect a contingency fee if a settlement offer has been made in the case and/or substantial work has been done in the case.  Each case is different.  The terms of the former lawyer’s fee agreement will also have an impact.  What this means is that the client who switches lawyers may also have to pay 2 lawyers. Sometimes Davis Law Group will absorb the prior attorney’s fee claim so the client does not have to pay two lawyers.  But sometimes not, depending on the status of the case and what work is necessary to adequately represent the client’s interest.

2.   A mistake was made in the case.  Many times the client who wants to fire his or her attorney is due to some mistake that attorney has made in the case.  Sometimes this mistake makes it extremely difficult for me to rectify or solve.  Sometimes the mistake can be solved, but at a significant cost to the client.  Often times if the mistake is significant, then I will usually decline to take over. Other attorneys may feel differently so I encourage this person to contact other lawyers.

3.   The case is too far along in the process.  Sometimes the client wants to switch attorneys after too much time has elapsed or the case has worked its way through a substantial part of the claims or litigation process.  For instance, I will usually decline a case that has been litigated for a substantial period of time and the trial date is just a few months away.  In those cases I may not have sufficient time to work the case up in a fashion that I know will produce a good result.  In other occasions the important deadlines in the case may have already passed (like witness list and discovery deadlines) so my job would be extremely difficult to take over at such a late stage.  Again, I have to judge each case separately and decide whether I can actually help this person.

4.   The client may have unreasonable expectations.  Sometimes the person who calls and wants to fire his or her current attorney has unreasonable expectations on what can be achieved in their case.  Perhaps the person is unsatisfied with how long the process is taking.  Unfortunately, the legal process or the rules that apply to the case are often outside the control of the attorney.  If the quickest trial date I can get is 2 years away, that is something outside my control.  Perhaps the client is upset with the attorney’s evaluation of the case, or how much the case is worth.  I may have a similar or identical evaluation of the case so I may tell the person that their current lawyer has properly evaluated his or her claim.  There are no hard and fast rules here, but I can usually tell within the first 10 minutes or so whether the person has unreasonable expectations.  In those situations I advise the client to stick with his or her current lawyer.

5.   The case may have little or no merit.  In some cases the client’s case may not have been strong to begin with.  There are many personal injury attorneys who make promises to their clients when the case is already weak.  Perhaps the case is weak because certain evidence is missing, or the law may not recognize the type of case being pursued.  Sometimes there may be other proof problems, like proving negligence or causation.  Most of the time I would not have accepted the case to begin with, so I usually tell the person to stick with his or her lawyer.  Perhaps the current lawyer knows something about the case that I do not.

We don’t reject every client that wants to terminate their current lawyer.  Many times there are problems due to the lawyer.  Perhaps the lawyer doesn’t communicate very well with the client, or perhaps the lawyer has not evaluated the case properly, or has actually not done the necessary work to achieve the best result.  In many of these cases we will agree to take over the case, as long as we believe there is no chance that the client will be able to work out the conflict that exists with the current lawyer.  Again, each case different.

We at Davis Law Group are highly selective about the cases we accept.  We would certainly like to help everyone, but our resources are limited just like every other law firm out there.  If we believe we can successfully take over the case from your current or former lawyer, we will do so as long as the case meets our selection criteria.

I always advise people that they can avoid the problem of having to switch lawyers by taking the effort to find the best attorney for them in the beginning.  Do some research.  Choose a lawyer that specializes in the type of case you have.

Not only can an individual person be responsible for causing a wrongful death, but so can a corporation or governmental entity as well.  When a wrongful death occurs, the law permits the surviving relatives of the deceased to recover certain types of damages against the responsible party. 

In Washington (like most states), a wrongful death claim is governed by a specific statute that was passed by the legislature.  The wrongful death statute has specific requirements that must be met before a case may proceed.  To bring a wrongful death case, a person called a “Personal Representative” must first be appointed by the court on behalf of the deceased person’s estate.  The Personal Representative may also be known as the Executor or Executrix of the estate.  A petition to appoint the Personal Representative must be filed in court.  The judge must then enter an order appointing the person who will act as Personal Representative of the estate.  The Personal Representative is then legally responsible for prosecuting the wrongful death case on behalf of the estate and certain surviving relatives (also called beneficiaries).

In Washington, only certain designated surviving relatives can bring a wrongful death case.  These surviving relatives are also called “statutory beneficiaries” (because they are designated by the wrongful death statute).  The Washington legislature created what is called a “two-tiered” system of beneficiaries who may bring a wrongful death case.  This means that there are two levels of certain designated surviving relatives that have legal authority to recover damages caused by the death of a loved one.  If none of these designated surviving relatives exist then no wrongful death action can be brought.  In that case, the death of a person, even if considered “wrongful,” cannot recover damages against the responsible party.

In Washington’s “two-tier” system, the surviving spouse and children make up the first tier of authorized beneficiaries.  A step-child is also included in the first tier.  These surviving relatives have automatic standing to bring a wrongful death case for the wrongful death of a spouse or parent.  Often times one of these “first-tier” beneficiaries will be appointed as the Personal Representative by the court to bring the wrongful death lawsuit.

The second tier of beneficiaries who may bring a wrongful death action consists of a parent or sibling of the deceased, but only if this surviving relative was dependent on the deceased for financial support.  There is one exception however.  That is when the deceased child is a minor.  In that case, a parent may bring an action for the wrongful death of a minor child to recover damages for the “destruction of the parent-child relationship” regardless of whether the parent was financially dependent on the minor child at time of death.

But if the person wrongfully killed was an adult, unmarried and without children, only a parent or sibling may maintain a wrongful death action as long as this surviving relative was financially dependent on the deceased at the time of death.  Washington courts have stated that the “second-tier” beneficiary must have been substantially dependent on the deceased for financial support.  The parent or sibling does not need to be wholly or completely dependent on the deceased.  But there must be enough evidence to prove “substantial financial dependence.”  The financial dependence must also occur at the time of death, as opposed to having occurred in the past or to occur at some point in the future.  

What constitutes substantial financial dependence?  There are no hard and fast rules.  But Washington courts have generally held that substantial financial dependence may occur where the deceased was paying or contributing to a portion of the parent’s or sibling’s living expenses.  The courts have clearly stated however that services provided by the deceased that one would expect to be provided by a family member is not enough to show substantial financial dependence.  The courts have also held that “emotional” dependence is not enough either.  Without evidence of substantial financial dependence the court will almost certainly dismiss the wrongful death action for failing to comply with the specific terms of the statute.

Washington’s wrongful death statute can produce some very unjust results.  Take for example the situation where the person wrongfully killed is an adult, unmarried and has no children.  Even if the deceased had very close and loving relationships with his or her parents and siblings, no wrongful death action could be brought unless the deceased was financially supporting his parents or siblings.  One would assume that most single childless adults do not financially support other family members.  So when a wrongful death occurs in this type of situation no recovery can be made, no matter how egregious the conduct was that lead to the person’s death.  That is unjust.  The death of an unmarried childless person is no less painful or devastating to a surviving parent or sibling not receiving financial support than it is to a surviving relative who was receiving financial support from the deceased.  This is why many attorneys have asked the Washington legislature to amend the wrongful death statute to prevent these types of unjust results.

When the Personal Representative brings the wrongful death action, he or she does so for the purpose of recovering damages on behalf of the deceased person’s estate and surviving beneficiaries.  Both the estate and surviving beneficiaries each can recover economic and non-economic damages caused to them by the person’s death.  The estate’s economic damages may include healthcare and funeral expenses as well as the deceased person’s net accumulated earnings and benefits expected to have been earned over the course of the person’s life had death not occurred. 

The phrase “net accumulated earnings” refers to those earnings and benefits received after other personal and living expenditures are deducted (e.g., normal living expenses, gifts, contributions, and consumer expenditures).  The law requires that an expert (usually an economist) calculate the present value of the Estate’s expected net accumulation.  Obviously this amount will vary according to the deceased person’s income producing capability.  There can be wide disagreement among the experts on just how much net accumulated earnings would have been earned by the deceased had death not occurred.  For this reason it is very important to involve competent and highly skilled experts in the case who have excellent reputations.

A difficult case can arise when the deceased is a child or when the deceased’s earnings history is sporadic, or when the deceased’s earnings potential has not been fully realized.  In these cases the insurance company and its lawyers will almost certainly argue that any future expected earnings are too speculative to calculate.  In these cases the insurance company will often refuse to pay a large sum of money to compensate for future lost earnings.  For these reasons it is very important that an experienced wrongful death lawyer be hired early to investigate and pursue this type of case.  The experienced wrongful death lawyer can hire the best experts and uncover specific evidence to help prove that the deceased’s potential earnings were much more substantial than what the insurance company lawyers and experts may contend.

When using experts to calculate economic damages, it is important to involve the expert early on in the case.  It is also important to furnish the expert with all of the necessary documentation to help the expert calculate lost earnings and expected net accumulations.  These records may include without limitation employment, tax, educational, medical, bank, insurance, or other financial documents.  In the case of a deceased child or young adult, sometimes the financial records of the parent may help.  Many times the earnings potential of children may closely resemble that of their parents.  In any event, the expert will want to review as many records in the case to help support the expert’s opinion.

Each surviving beneficiary (first-tier or second-tier) also has an individual claim for economic damages.  This might include damages for lost financial support expected to be received from the deceased person had death not occurred.  For example, a surviving child might incur damages for expected contributions to cover the cost of a future college education.  There might also be damages for healthcare expense incurred by the surviving relative which were necessitated by the person’s death (e.g., counseling, psychiatric treatment, or medication).

The losses categorized as non-economic damages may be more difficult to calculate or quantify.  In the case of the Estate’s non-economic damages, these may include a recovery for the loss of enjoyment of life due to the deceased person’s shortened life expectancy.  Also included may be damages for the pain, suffering, anxiety, emotional distress, humiliation, and fear experienced by the deceased person prior to death as a result of the incident that caused death (e.g., a car accident victim who initially survives and is conscious before death).  Many times it may be necessary to hire a medical expert to help establish that the deceased person consciously felt pain, distress or anxiety before death occurred.  Sometimes the testimony of witnesses or passersby’s who had contact with the deceased right before death can help establish that the person was in fact conscious before death and experienced pain and suffering.  Occasionally the autopsy report will help prove the deceased was conscious before death, but often times not.

Each surviving beneficiary also has a separate or individual claim for non-economic damages caused by the person’s death.  A surviving spouse may recover damages for “loss of consortium” which includes the loss of emotional support, love, affection, care, services, companionship, including sexual companionship, as well as assistance, expected from the deceased spouse.  A surviving child may recover damages for the loss of a parent, to include the loss of love, care, companionship, and guidance expected from his or her father or mother.

In the case of an action brought by the parent for the wrongful death of a minor child, the surviving parent may recover economic and non-economic damages as well.  The economic damages may include financial support expected from the child (e.g., if the child were employed and/or contributing toward the parent’s living expenses at the time of death).  The non-economic damages may include damages for the parent’s grief, mental anguish, and suffering caused by the child’s death.

Whether damages are being claimed by the Estate, a surviving beneficiary, or a parent over the death of minor child, the non-economic damages portion of the case can be difficult to determine and present to an insurance company or a jury.  There is no magic formula to apply.  But certain facts may be relevant to deciding what amount of non-economic damages is fair and just.  These factors may include the deceased person’s life expectancy, the deceased person’s health and habits, and the quality of the deceased person’s relationships with surviving beneficiaries.  Many times using an experienced and competent mental health expert (e.g., therapist, psychologist, psychiatrist, counselor, etc.) can help establish and prove the “intangible” loss suffered by a surviving spouse, parent, child or sibling.  Not the least important is to hire an experienced wrongful death lawyer to pursue the case.  The wrongful death lawyer will usually possess valuable knowledge and expertise to assist in proving and presenting damages to the insurance company or jury if the case goes to trial.   

Clearly the death of a loved one is tragic.  An unexpected death in the family can be the most difficult experience to encounter in one’s life.  But if you are a surviving relative of a person who was killed due to the intentional and/or negligent conduct of another party, it is important that you hire legal representation as soon as possible.  A Personal Representative must be chosen and then formally appointed by the court.  In many cases the insurance company investigators and lawyers have already gathered a substantial amount of information to help mount a defense to the anticipated wrongful death action that will be filed.  If you delay hiring a lawyer, it could cause substantial difficulties later on, especially if evidence is lost, destroyed or misplaced.

Christopher M. Davis is the founder and managing attorney of Davis Law Group, P.S., a full service personal injury law firm with offices in Seattle and Bellevue, Washington.  Mr. Davis has been practicing personal injury law for 15 years.  His practice includes cases involving catastrophic injury and wrongful death.  In 2006, Mr. Davis was named a “Rising Star Attorney” by Washington Law & Politics magazine (designation of the top 2.5% of attorneys in the state age 40 years and younger).  In 2007, Mr. Davis was named a “Super Lawyer” by Washington Law & Politics (designation given to the top 5% of all lawyers in the state). 

Mr. Davis has authored a book to help accident victims, “The Ten Biggest Mistakes That Can Wreck Your Washington Auto Accident Case,” and a book about child injury claims, “Little Kids, Big Accidents.”  Both books are published by Word Association.  Mr. Davis lectures other attorneys in matters involving personal injury law, including topics such as wrongful death, damages, suing insurance companies and developing winning trial techniques.  He is a member of the Board of Governors for the Washington State Association for Justice.  Mr. Davis is also member in good standing of the Washington State Bar Association.  He lives in Seattle with his beautiful wife and two young children.

The attorneys who have filed the case, The Rasansky Firm, allege that the Woodbridge Day School failed to help or monitor the young child after she ingested a small rock.  The girl choked and then collapsed in the classroom.  The teacher allowed the young child to remain on the floor while other children poked and prodded her.  As much as 10 minutes passed before the teacher finally decided to get help.  But by then it was too late.  The child died.

The lawsuit also reveals that the daycare center sold the business soon after the child’s death in an effort to prevent a report to the Texas state licensing database.

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services performed an investigation that concluded the daycare center and its teacher were negligent in failing to recognize what was happening to the child and failing to get the child immediate medical attention.

This is a tragic and sad story.  As a parent of a young child myself, I cannot imagine what this little’s girl’s parents are going through.  This case sounds like the child’s death was easily preventable had the teacher and other daycare personnel been properly trained to spot and address potential hazards associated with toddlers.  Some questions I have – was there too many children for this teacher to properly supervise?  What precautions did the center take with respect to 2 year olds ingesting foreign objects? 

I know from experience that 2 year-old children take more supervision and attention than older children.  I’m wondering whether the daycare center did not recognize these special considerations for this age range.

My prayers go out to the family of this poor little girl.  I hope they can one day find some measure of relief from their terrible pain.

This report is every parent’s worst nightmare.  On Saturday, February 7, 2009, a young child was hit by a car while crossing the streets of 55th Avenue NE at 95th Street NE in the city of Marysville, Washington.

The child’s injuries appear serious given that he or she was transported by helicopter to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.  Harborview is considered the best trauma center in the Pacific Northwest, let alone in the state of Washington.

There was no word on how the accident happened, or the age of the child.  My heart goes out to the parents and I will pray that the child recovers fully.

I do want people to know that child injury claims can be complex and difficult.  The law treats these claims differently than those involving injuries sustained by adults.  There are special legal requirements at play, and the insurance companies can ignore the protections that are afforded to the child injury victims. 

Given the complexity and peculiarity of child injury claims, I wrote and published my book “Little Kids, Big Accidents: What Every Parent Should Know.”  I offer this book for free to parents as a public service.  In this book I go over in detail the laws and insurance claims processes that govern child injury claims so parents have all of the information and knowledge they need to make informed decisions about their children during the claims process.  I also discuss whether hiring a lawyer is adviseable.  Not every case requires a lawyer.

Parents can request a free copy of the book by visiting www.ChildAccidentBook.com.

On February 1, 2009, it was reported by the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office that a 3-year-old child was killed while the child’s mother was backing up a truck.  Reports were that the mother went outside to the truck, and the child followed without the mother’s knowledge.  The toddler climbed into the bed of the truck before it sped off.  Then the child fell off the back and was severely injured.  The child later died.

This is just a horrible, horrible accident.  I have a 4 year-old child, and I just can’t imagine this happening.  I really feel bad for the child’s mother.  I know she must be devastated.  I know I would be.  My heart goes out to this grieving family, and I pray that they have the strength to overcome this terrible tragedy.

A 6-year-old boy was killed after he was hit by flying metal from a truck at the Tacoma Dome on Friday night.  The boy was attending the Monster Truck Rally with his father.  The father of the boy was also hit and injured.  The boy was identified as Sabastian Hizey of Puyallup.

The scene was incredibly disturbing and gruesome according to witnesses.  One man shouted “My kid is dead! My kid is dead!”  It is unknown whether this was the boy’s father or not.

After the incident large amounts of people started to leave.  But surprisingly, show organizers decided to keep on going with the show.  Some witnesses reported that some people in the crowd began throwing beer and glass containers at the truck from which the debris was believed to have come.

Organizers of the show eventually released a brief statement: ”Our company follows strict safety guidelines designated to protect both spectator and competitors alike,” said Bill Easterly, Monster Jam’s senior director of operations, in a statement. Predictably, this statement is probably only intended to protect the organizers legally.

An ongoing investigation is pending.  Whether the City of Tacooma and the Tacoma Dome venue bear any responsibility remains to be seen.  My heart certainly goes out to the boy’s family.  I just can’t imagine how horrendous a scene this was.  The boy’s family obviously has a claim against the show organizers and possibly the City if there’s any evidence that certain safety precautions were not taken.

This information is brought to you by the lawyers at Davis Law Group in Seattle.  The attorneys at Davis Law Group specialize in representing victims and family members in wrongful death claims, including those involving children.  DLG founder Chris Davis recently published a book on child injury cases.  Go to www.childaccidentbook.com for more information.