A vehicle fire may occur after any dangerous car crash, make sure to get a safe distance away from any wreck until fire officials arrive on scene. According to the National Fire Protection Administration, during the years of 2003-2007, national fire departments responded to around 287,000 vehicle fires per year. These vehicle fires resulted in an average of about 480 deaths and nearly 1,530 injuries.

If you or a family member have been injured in a vehicle accident, contact a dedicated Redmond vehicle accident attorney today. Vehicle collisions can be very devastating and very confusing. Deciding whether to take legal action in a vehicle accident case can be very frustrating. Call me at Premier Law Group and I can help make your decision less stressful by dedicating my time to your case in order to protect your legal and medical rights. For more information and a FREE CONSULTATION, contact me at (206)285-1743.

According to TruckAccidents.org, about 98 percent of all semi truck accidents result in at least one death due to their big size and weight. Fatigue is often responsible for commercial truck accidents and roughly 130,000 people are injured each year in total. Big trucks are a part of every day traffic and should be approached with cation.

If you or a family member have been injured in a trucking accident, contact an experienced Seattle trucking accident attorney today. Trucking accidents can cause various damages and are very dangerous when they become out of control. The liability and cause of a trucking accidents can be very confusing to figure out. Call me at Premier Law Group and I can help make your decision to take legal action less stressful by dedicating my time to your case in order to protect your rights. For more information and a FREE CONSULTATION, contact me at (206)285-1743.

The foundation of that educational process was a nationally representative poll conducted in November of 2010, in which over 1000 Americans were questioned about distracted driving.  The results were disturbing, to say the least:

• Almost two-thirds of those under 30 said they had used a handheld phone while driving in the past 30 days – and almost a third had texted while driving during the same period.

• Only 36 percent of those under 30 were very concerned about the problem of distracted driving.  Only 30 percent felt it was very dangerous to use a handheld phone.

• 64 percent of all respondents reported they had seen other drivers texting within the past 30 days.

• 58 percent had witnessed a dangerous driving situation related to a distracted driving within the past 30 days.

On the more positive side, “Consumer Reports” also looked into what the most effective weapons were in the battle against distracted driving.   They asked respondents, who said they had been influenced to personally stop distracted driving practices, just what had caused them to commit to avoiding that dangerous behavior:

• 66% of the respondents said that it was because they had either read or seen information on the dangers of distracted driving.

• 44% said they were aware of laws passed in their state or community banning the practice.

• 20% cited media campaigns such as Oprah Winfrey’s and websites such as www.TeensAgainstDistractedDriving.com.

• 22% said they either witnessed or were involved in a car accident caused by distracted driving.

It’s clear from these numbers that the more education that is provided to Americans, the more distracted driving car accidents that result in personal injury and wrongful death can be prevented.

The Department of Transportation and “Consumer Reports” recognize this – and have already made available a free guide for parents and teachers, which can be accessed both at http://Distraction.gov and at http://www.consumerreports.org/distracted, and which will also be distributed to schools nationwide.   This April, they will also be showing a special distracted driving video in retail stores that is expected to reach over 100 million people.

For more free “Straight Talk Law” information, please visit the website of Seattle, Washington Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Attorney Jason Epstein at www.straighttalklaw.com, where you can order free books on personal injury lawyers, Washington auto accidents, auto insurance, and other valuable legal information, offered as a public service by Mr. Epstein’s law practice in Seattle, Washington.   Mr. Epstein also invites teen drivers to take the pledge to not text and drive at his website, www.TeensAgainstDistractedDriving.com.

Now, a new survey brings a whole new level of distracted driving danger.  State Farm Insurance polled 912 drivers last November – and found that 19% of them surfed the internet while they were driving.   Yes, that’s almost one out of every five drivers who are checking sports scores, entertainment news or whatever else Google can find for them…while they’re behind the wheel.

The other bad news is that most of the drivers polled were in their 30’s.  Undoubtedly, younger drivers, who also tend to text and drive more than older drivers, engage in this kind of behavior more often.

No doubt the increasing use of Smartphones that enable internet access is behind these numbers.  Because of everything these new devices can do, there are plenty of extra temptations that can cause more and more distracted driving incidents.

And that’s why more and more distracted driving car accidents are happening every year.  In 2009, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 5474 wrongful deaths and 448,000 cases of personal injury resulted from distracted driving.

Many states have led the way in passing legislation against the practice of texting and driving, including Washington.  30 states now prohibit the practice for all drivers while 8 more only have a ban in place for novice drivers.

Now, however, there seems to be a backlash brewing in the remaining states.  In South Dakota, for example, a bill to ban texting and driving recently failed to move forward past a legislative panel.  Last year, a different anti-distracted driving bill failed to pass through the state legislature.  And in Idaho, a bill has actually been proposed to allow texting and driving – as long as the driver is not distracted when he or she is doing it!

One 38 year-old driver who admits to surfing the web says he knows it isn’t “the smartest thing in the world, but I do it anyway.”   That’s now how 16 year-old Dakota Woodward of Crestview, Florida feels.  He learned distracted driving wasn’t the smartest thing in the world the hard way – he was almost involved in a car accident because he was updating his Facebook status while driving.

“I don’t look at my phone anymore,” he told USA Today. “It’s more important to keep my eyes on the road and my hands on the wheel than to text somebody back, or update my status, or see what somebody else is doing on Facebook. It scared me so much, I don’t text and drive or Facebook and drive anymore, or do anything with my phone.”

For more free “Straight Talk Law” information, please visit the website of Seattle, Washington Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Attorney Jason Epstein at www.straighttalklaw.com, where you can order free books on personal injury lawyers, Washington auto accidents, auto insurance, and other valuable legal information, offered as a public service by Mr. Epstein’s law practice in Seattle, Washington.   Mr. Epstein also invites teen drivers to take the pledge to not text and drive at his website, www.TeensAgainstDistractedDriving.com.

It’s strange to think how a single man’s apparent moment of misfortune could so positively impact the lives of hundreds of people in similar circumstances years later. While attending law school at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, Jason Epstein was in an auto accident. The recent graduate of USC retained Marina Del Rey based attorney Doug Schiffer to handle his case, and after it was settled, he began working for the veteran lawyer as a legal intern.

The funny thing about law school is that graduating only provides the young lawyer with a general competency degree, not necessarily a specialty. Sometimes, as Epstein discovered, extraordinary life circumstances lead to a great discovery, or in his case, a lifelong mission. Schiffer’s mentoring taught the Seattle native all the ins and outs of personal injury law—and led him to see that he could make a difference in this arena as a David helping his clients take on the Goliath-sized insurance companies.

After several years of working for plaintiff law firms in Seattle, Epstein – currently honored for the third year in a row as a “Rising Star” by Washington SuperLawyers – joined Premier Law Group as a partner in 2007. Establishing himself as a top personal injury attorney specializing in auto accidents, serious injury, and wrongful death cases, Epstein created Straight Talk Law as a branding segment of the firm in 2009.

Straight Talk Law represents “real people” against insurance companies and large corporations. Epstein and his team of attorneys fight for those that have been injured, so they can focus on recovering physically and mentally. The firm also represents families of wrongful death victims and cases involving employment law, wrongful termination and sexual harassment.

The key to Epstein’s success is handling things differently than most Seattle personal injury lawyers—i.e. “when you hire us, you get us.” Rather than pass off cases to a case manager, his lawyers are hands on, focused and selective about the cases they handle. They have experience in dealing with all the physical and emotional issues connected to these accidents and commit to going the distance to seek justice.

Part of the “Straight Talk” Epstein promises includes telling prospective clients something most attorneys won’t dare: that, depending on their unique circumstances, they may not even need an attorney at all!

Over the past two years, he has written a total of five books (available through Amazon.com) that have helped him achieve his goal of putting people in a position to make better decisions when they need assistance with a personal injury claim. He offers the books, mostly geared around Washington State law, free to residents. His flagship Straight Talk Law item is “The Truth about Washington Auto Accidents,” subtitled “The Ten Secrets Insurance Companies Don’t Want You To Know.” The others cover different areas of Epstein’s wide ranging expertise: “The Truth About Buying Washington Auto Insurance”; “The Shocking Truth About Lawyer Advertising”; “The Truth About Washington Motorcycle Accidents; and “In Case of Death: Straight Talk on Washington Wrongful Death.”

“I wanted to write books geared towards consumers, so that people could come in to lawyers’ offices with knowledge that would even out the conversation,” says Epstein. “The bottom line is that the best relationship between attorney and client is one where the two understand each other and that the clients know what the lawyer can do for them. The idea was to give the average citizen a framework of what these different cases are about. This information shouldn’t be held in an ivory tower somewhere. In any personal injury case, we’re dealing with real people in their worst moments.

“I want people to know I’m on their side, and I don’t mind giving the information away for free,” he adds. “Typically we find that without this kind of knowledge, people will generally trust insurance companies that are actually working at cross purposes to them. They often come to a lawyer like me after a negative interaction with an insurance company that they thought would be more cooperative.”

Epstein feels that imparting these necessary facts is a way to correct the disparity of power that often exists when a client in a precarious position (physically or emotionally) comes to a lawyer. It was an even greater need to balance the scales of power that motivated his interest in personal injury law in the first place. His feeling was that when such a disparity exists in life, there are very few places where a single person can set it straight and make things right. One place, he realized early on, was in the law.

“The glaring thing to me,” he says, “is that insurance companies make hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars, yet make no bones about their purposeful desire to squash small claims and personal injury lawyers in order to maximize profits.”

As a budding lawyer, Epstein learned of a fascinating revelation about the insurance industry that came about in the McKinstry Documents, which were uncovered in the late 80s by a lawyer who was litigating a bad faith claim against Allstate Insurance. The docs give the history of personal injury claims in the United States in the years following World War II. When soldiers came back home, people had more spare time and there were more drivers on the road—thus, more accidents. Insurance companies saw their profits decreasing because they were paying regularly on accident claims. So they started to come up with a systemized way to increase corporate profits.

Instead of doing what was fair and right, Epstein learned, they decided that it would benefit them to squeeze the bottom, low level claims. For every million dollar accident settlement, there are a million thousand dollar claims. So they would squeeze on the small claims and make it so lawyers couldn’t afford to front money to take on these contingency cases. The insurance companies did this by forcing smaller cases into trial.

“They knew that to go on trial even in a minor case lawyers had to front five to ten thousand dollars,” says Epstein. “Lawyers didn’t get paid if they didn’t win, so the companies’ goal was to make everything harder for the lawyers to handle. In these documents, Allstate adopted a change in slogan: when someone brought a claim, they went from ‘good hands’ to ‘boxing gloves.’”

This powerful, disillusioning story led Epstein later to model his practice in such a way that he would fight the behemoth insurance companies as often as necessary in the one realm where everything is even: the courtroom. “A lot of lawyers take low settlements right away because they’re afraid of the financial and emotional risks of going to trial,” he says. “The way I do things, I will go to trial if I don’t feel my client would be getting fair compensation by settling. The only way to achieve a fair settlement is to be prepared to go to trial. If the insurance company sees we have a great case, they may make a better, more appropriate offer.”

“We’re not just trying to take a fee to get short term gain,” Epstein adds. “We want to create long term trust. For better or worse, we are motivated by our hearts and correcting perceived injustice.”

One thing Epstein sees a lot of when insurance companies are forced to go to trial is their employ of biomechanical engineers. Typically in cases when there is not a lot of property damage, they will have an engineer take the stand and say he has examined the cars involved in the accident and in his opinion, “only minor G forces were imparted on the occupant,” not enough to cause the injuries that the victim is suing for. Of course these ‘experts’ make a lot of money testifying almost exclusively for insurance companies.  Epstein sees this as intellectually lazy and junk science.

“The law provides certain remedies,” he says, “like making the person who causes the accident pay for all reasonable medical treatment. But in smaller cases, the insurance company will say, yes, you needed it but your condition wasn’t caused by the accident because the G-force wasn’t severe enough. It’s crazy what they will do to try to avoid paying what is right. Our job is to tell the story of our client to the jury and hope that we’ve conveyed the truth about what would merit fair compensation.”

Besides his books, Epstein has amassed a list of impressive accolades in his decade as a personal injury lawyer. He has the highest possible rating (10.0) on Avvo.com; is a graduate of legendary trial attorney Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyer’s College (an intensive 3.5 week course with limited enrollment); is a frequent lecturer to other attorneys; is a graduate of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy; and was rated AV (highest possible rating) from Martindale in 2010.

But at the end of the day, his greatest satisfaction is being able to look his two children, ages six and two, and tell them that despite the way things may seem, the world can be a fair place—or at least, that the ideal is one worth fighting for. “You tell your kids certain things about life,” he says, “how they should act, about fairness and doing things right. I feel like a lot of my work as a personal injury attorney is, in my own way, an extension of telling my six year old that fairness matters. I’m trying to help make the world the way I’m telling him it can be.”

QinetiQ North America, a research and development company located in Watham, Massachusetts, held the first public demonstration of its new technology, The Driver Alcohol Detection Systems for Safety (DADSS for short), which employs automatic sensors that instantly gauge a driver’s fitness to take the wheel.  The new devices have the potential to save thousands of lives.

The most commonplace devices used today are the ignition interlock systems that require drivers to blow into a breath-tasting device before the car will start.  These systems are often mandated by judges for convicted drunk drivers.  However, ignition interlock systems are very intrusive to the everyday driver and would never gain widespread acceptance for usage in all vehicles.

The DADSS, in contrast, is a passive technology system that measures blood alcohol content through two ways – either by analyzing the driver’s breath, or through the skin using special touch-based sensors that are placed either on steering wheels or door locks.

The analysis is done without the driver having to take any extra steps.  Thus, a sober driver can go on his way without even thinking about the device doing its job; the device, however, would stop that same driver from operating a vehicle if, on a certain occasion, he or she happened to be inebriated.

LaHood called the technology “another arrow in our automotive safety quiver, ”  although the company behind it estimates that it would not be available to the general public for another eight to ten years.

The head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), David Strickland, also attended the DADSS demonstration.   He predicted the new hi-tech systems could prevent as many as 9,000 fatal alcohol-related car accidents a year in America.  The DADSS is the result of an exploratory $10 million research effort, funded by the NHTSA and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety.

It’s estimated that over 10,000 wrongful deaths will occur this year as a result of car accidents caused by alcohol.  It’s also estimated that a motorist arrested for driving drunk has done it before an average of 87 times prior to the police pulling him or her over.   Also, one in three of all drivers will be involved in an alcohol-related car accident at some point in their lives.

For more free “Straight Talk Law” information, please visit the website of Seattle, Washington Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Attorney Jason Epstein at www.straighttalklaw.com, where you can order free books on personal injury lawyers, Washington auto accidents, auto insurance, and other valuable legal information, offered as a public service by Mr. Epstein’s law practice in Seattle, Washington.

These “red light cameras” have been called cash cows by some, because they allow local police departments to ticket motorists for running red lights without having to witness the traffic violations in person.  Lawsuits against the devices have been filed even here in Seattle, Washington alleging that the cameras instigated excessive fines and improper tickets, and, as recently as January of 2011, Washington state lawmakers have tried to put the usage of these cameras to a public vote in an effort to ban their usage.

It turns out those cameras do more than take pictures, however; they also save lives.  According to a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), red light cameras saved 159 lives in 2004 through 2008 in 14 of America’s biggest cities.  Not only that, but, had these cameras been operational in all of our country’s big cities, a total of 815 deaths could have been prevented.

“The cities that have the courage to use red light cameras despite the political backlash are saving lives,” says IIHS president Adrian Lund.

The cameras also lowered car accident rates, as well as cases of wrongful death and personal injury.  The rate of all fatal car accidents at these intersections fell 14% in camera cities – as opposed to that same rate rising 2 percent in cities that don’t use the cameras.  The researchers looked at 99 U.S. cities with populations over 200,000 for the purposes of this study.   A previous study by the IIHS found that red light cameras reduced personal injury car accidents by 29 percent.

Red light cameras have been used since the 1990’s.  Although only 25 communities used them in 2000, around 500 cities have them in place today.  Only about half the states allow red light cameras to be installed.

Running red lights is a dangerous and widespread traffic problem.  In 2009, car accidents that resulted from running red lights caused an estimated 113,000 cases of personal injury and 676 wrongful deaths.  Only a third of those deaths involved the drivers who actually ran the red lights – the rest were of pedestrians, bike riders and passengers in other cars who were victims of the traffic violation.

“Somehow, the people who get tickets because they have broken the law have been cast as the victims,” commented Lund. “We rarely hear about the real victims — the people who are killed or injured by these lawbreakers.”

Red light cameras may cost motorists more in terms of traffic tickets – but it’s clear that their life-saving presence is more than worth the price.

For more free “Straight Talk Law” information, please visit the website of Seattle, Washington Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Attorney Jason Epstein at www.straighttalklaw.com, where you can order free books on personal injury lawyers, Washington auto accidents, auto insurance, and other valuable legal information, offered as a public service by Mr. Epstein’s law practice in Seattle, Washington

What is PTSD?

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is, in its simplest terms, an anxiety disorder that occurs after a traumatic event and is accompanied by flashbacks, nightmares, lack of involvement with reality, and survivor guilt. PTSD is a bit different from a typical anxiety disorder in that it is triggered by some sort of physical or physiological trauma and it lasts for a prolonged period of time and has a big impact on the sufferer’s life.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder has a variety of symptoms which vary depending on the person. Symptoms include:

• Nightmares or flashbacks
• Random thoughts about the traumatic event
• Sudden anger or sadness
• Insomnia
• Inability to remember important parts of the traumatic event
• Hypervigilance
• Loss of interest in life and activities

PTSD symptoms can appear shortly after the trauma is experienced or could take months and years in some cases to develop. In fact, children that are abused or assaulted will oftentimes develop PTSD in adulthood as a direct result of their childhood.

What Causes PTSD?

While Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is a type of anxiety, it is more complex in that a severe trauma is altering the brain’s function. When experiencing fear or a traumatic experience the brain releases adrenaline- if you have ever participated in an extreme sport such as skydiving, or base jumping or if you have been on a roller coaster even you know the great rush adrenaline can give you. In many PTSD sufferers, however, this adrenaline release never turns off. As a result of the body overproducing adrenaline the victim becomes jumpy, preoccupied and in constant fear of danger. PTSD sufferers are liable to over-react to situations and become hyper-responsive to traumatic or scary events.

There are various traumatic events that can cause Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and do not necessarily have to be a direct physical harm to the person with PTSD.

• Severe Car Accident
• Sexual Assault
• Abuse
• Rape
• War Trauma or Shell Shock
• Fatal Accident in which either a loved one died, or an innocent person died
• Child Neglect
• Natural Disasters
• Death of a loved one

What are the Treatment Options for PTSD?

Treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder varies depending on the individual and is decided on by a trained doctor. These treatment options typically involve some form of counseling and therapy and may also include medication depending upon the symptoms and the patient’s tolerance of drugs.

If you are suffering PTSD from a Washington auto accident that was caused by someone else, and would like to speak with a Bellevue personal injury attorney, please call us for a free initial consultation at (206) 285-1743.

The first step to reducing the risk of being in an accident is getting a better understanding of Washington pedestrian collisions. There were 1,786 pedestrian accidents in the state of Washington alone in 2009. Of these collisions, 287, or 1 in every 6, resulted in a serious injury. Even worse, 61 resulted in a pedestrian fatality. The background behind these statistics is what is most important, though. Some of the key factors involved in these collisions are the location of the road, the location on the road itself, and the age of the pedestrian. The statistics show overwhelming evidence that the majority of pedestrian collisions occur on city streets, in the intersection. Age also plays an important role, as 1 in every 3 pedestrian collisions involve a pedestrian between the ages of 10 and 24.

When walking the streets of Seattle, Bellevue, or anywhere else in Washington that sees automobile traffic, it is important to follow the following tips to reduce the likelihood of being in an accident:

• Be aware of the rules of the road that you are on. Obey all traffic signs and signals.
• Look both ways when crossing the street. This has probably been beat into your head since you were young, but the vast majority of accidents occur in intersections. These can be avoided sometimes by looking both ways to see if there are any cars coming your way.
• Be aware of your surroundings. Not every pedestrian injury is caused by a car. Sometimes the street itself can be in bad shape and result in an injury. Always be on the lookout for bumps and holes on the street.
• Don’t assume that drivers are paying attention. Let’s face it; there are a lot of drivers out there that do not fully pay attention to the road. Even if you have the right of way in an intersection, make sure you see oncoming cars slow down before you cross.
• Avoid construction site areas. Construction site injuries happen more often than people think, and can injure unassuming pedestrians. If there is another way to walk to your destination, you should take it.

These tips can help lower your risk of injury, but accidents can still happen. If you happen to be involved in a Washington pedestrian injury, be sure to call an experienced Seattle pedestrian accident lawyer. As a Bellevue personal injury lawyer with over a decade of experience, I can give you the advice you need on whether or not you have a case, and the steps to take if you do.

This information is provided by Straight Talk Law, where you can order free information on Bellevue auto accidents, purchasing car insurance in Washington, and other valuable legal information, offered as a public service by Seattle personal injury lawyer and author Jason Epstein and his Washington auto accident, Tacoma motorcycle accident, and King County wrongful death law firm in Seattle, Washington.

When both parties are found to be partially responsible for an accident or the injuries sustained it becomes a case of comparative negligence.

What is Comparative Negligence?

Comparative Negligence: a system which restricts the compensation the victim of an accident can receive if they had a role in their own injuries or damages.

An example of a comparative negligence case is if you are driving a vehicle through a green light and are struck by a car that ran a red light. The incident was not your fault, but you sustain serious injuries because you were not wearing a seatbelt. Because you contributed to your injuries when you failed to wear a seatbelt you would be found partially responsible for your injuries and comparatively negligent.

There are four different systems for deciding comparative negligence cases in the United States and depending upon the state you may receive partial compensation or no compensation. The different systems are: pure comparative negligence, pure modified comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence with a 50% bar rule, and modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar rule.

Pure Contributory Negligence

Negligence law of:

Virginia, Alabama, District of Columbia, North Carolina, Maryland

Pure Contributory Negligence: If the victim is found to be responsible for their own harm on any level the at-fault party will not be held liable.

For example, Linda hits Crystal’s car and Crystal is injured in the accident, but Crystal is found to be 10% responsible for her injuries- in this system she will receive no compensation for the damages because she had a minor role in her own injuries.

The pure contributory negligence system is based off of English laws but only 5 states in the United States continue to use this system while the other 45 have adopted more progressive laws.

Comparative Negligence

While contributory negligence provides no compensation for those found partially responsible for their injuries, in a comparative negligent system partially responsible parties are entitled to partial compensation. The level of compensation, however, depends on which system is used: pure comparative negligence or a modified comparative negligence.

Pure Comparative Negligence

Negligence law of

Washington State, Alaska, California, Arizona, Kentucky, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana,

Missouri, New York, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Dakota

Pure Comparative Negligence: a system that compensates for damages based on the level of fault of each party. A percentage of guilt is determined by the judge or jury deciding the case which determines the percentage of compensation.

Example:

For example, Lauren and Tom have an accident, but the jury decides tom is 99% responsible for his own injuries because of his failure to wear a seatbelt. In a pure comparative negligence system Tom is then responsible for 99% of his $10,000 medical bills and Lauren is only required to pay for 1% or $100.00.

Modified Comparative Negligence-50% bar rule

Negligence Law of:

Colorado, Arkansas, Kansas, Georgia, Idaho, Maine, West Virginia,

Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah,

Modified Comparative Negligence- 50% bar rule: this law operates on the principle that if the victim is responsible for 49% or less of the damages they will be compensated. If, however, it is decided that the victim contributed to 50% or more of their own damages they will not be compensated.

Modified Comparative Negligence- 51% bar rule

Negligence Law of

:Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Modified Comparative Negligence with a 51% bar rule: this version of the comparative negligence law only provides compensation if the victim is found at fault for 50% or less of the damage. If the victim is thought to be responsible for 51% of the damages or more he is awarded nothing.

Understanding auto accident laws can be challenging. If you have suffered injury in a car accident contact a Redmond personal injury attorney immediately to review your case. If you are in the Seattle area, contact our Bellevue personal injury law firm.