Walking your dog without a leash, even in a park, is negligent. While dog bites often occur due to the owner not properly maintaining their dogs (i.e. Not closing a gate or restraining the animal upon opening a door) more than half of reported animal attacks can be avoided if animal owners would simply place their dog on a leash. The common statement by dog owners, “my dog doesn’t bite” is disturbing. Dogs are animals and have instincts that most owners are not aware. They may become protective or aggressive without notice. Every dog has teeth and every dog is capable of attacking without provocation. Children are often victims of dog bites while out playing in the neighborhood. Aggressive dogs are attracted to bicycles, skateboards and loud children playing.

Personal injuries suffered from dog bite cases often result in stitches, scarring, muscle damage, neurological damage and extreme distress for fear of animals.  If you or a loved one has been attacked and bitten by a dog, contact Benson & Bingham at 702-382-9797.

Using a cell phone, Eating and drinking, Talking to passengers, Grooming, Reading, including maps, Using a PDA or navigation system, Watching a video, Changing the radio station, CD, or Mp3 player are all major causes of accidents because they are examples of distracted driving.   Wouldn’t be a shame if your airline pilot decided to text while landing the airplane and missed the runway?

Well, the fixed attention required to operate machinery is and should be a mandatory choice for the driver, but we are all human and we can actually think and do two things at once.  Society appears to be at ease with a certain level of distractions while driving:  the radio, billboards, etc, all take your eyes off the road, but we tend to allow certain distractions for the sake of functioning.   Imagine no billboards on the freeways?  Not likely to ever happen, but certainly, at least one auto accident has occurred because someone looked too long at the billboard and didn’t realize traffic had stopped in front.  Should we sue the billboard company for creating the distraction, or the county for allowing the billboard?  Likely not given our tolerance for certain levels of distractions.  If you have been the victim of distractive driving call Benson & Bingham today 702-382-9797.

Below are some statistics from the U.S. department of Transportation:

In 2008, there were a total of 34,017 fatal crashes in which 37,261 individuals were killed.

In 2008, 5,870 people were killed in crashes involving driver distraction (16% of total fatalities).

The proportion of drivers reportedly distracted at the time of the fatal crashes has increased from 8 percent in 2004 to 11 percent in 2008.

The under-20 age group had the highest proportion of distracted drivers involved in fatal crashes (16%). The age group with the next greatest proportion of distracted drivers was the 20- to-29-year-old age group (12%).

Motorcyclists and drivers of light trucks had the greatest percentage of total drivers reported as distracted at the time of the fatal crashes (12%).

An estimated 21 percent of 1,630,000 injury crashes were reported to have involved distracted driving.

Driving while using a cell phone reduces the amount of brain activity associated with driving by 37 percent. (Source: Carnegie Mellon)

Nearly 6,000 people died in 2008 in crashes involving a distracted driver, and more than half a million were injured. (NHTSA)

The younger, inexperienced drivers under 20 years old have the highest proportion of distraction-related fatal crashes.

Drivers who use hand-held devices are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves. (Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)

Using a cell phone use while driving, whether it’s hand-held or hands-free, delays a driver’s reactions as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08 percent. (Source: University of Utah)

Ever thought you may need a texting attorney?  Well, better stated, how about a personal injury lawyer who handles accident cases caused by driver’s who text–yes, you may need us.  Nevada continues to allow drivers to text (this article written June of 2010), and the notion of texting while driving should be illegal.  Connecticut recently banned texting while driving and for good reason as many accidents are caused by distracted driving.  Nevada laws continue to play catchup as opposed to leader when it comes to safety.  Our brother state of California seems to lead the way with smart legislation–then us Nevadans finally follow suit.  The following states banned mobile hand held devices:

• California
• Connecticut
• District of Columbia
• New Jersey
• New York
• Oregon
• Washington
• Virgin Islands

The States Below have taken the early steps to prevent accidents by enacting laws banning texting while driving.

• Alaska
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• District of Columbia
• Guam
• Illinois
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maryland
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Nebraska
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New York
• North Carolina
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• Tennessee
• Utah
• Virginia
• Vermont
• Washington
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

Someday, Nevada will stop texting, but first they will need to ban cell phone use while driving.  We all know it is unsafe to text while driving–It is not the same as adjusting the volume to the radio, or sipping that cup of coffee, as your attention is locked on to the phone for very long period of time.  Hand held cell phone use seems to be driver dependent; in other words, some drivers have the ability to multi-task better than others.  Personally, I find cell phones a must when driving, but they do create distractive driving.   As technology advances, the integration of communicating while driving will likely be streamlined and made safer by the use of the vehicle’s computer systems.   I look forward to those advances.

Over the past decade Benson & Bingham has been helping personal injury victims with on-the-job and at-home injuries caused by defective products. However, most personal injury victims are unsure if they have a case against a product manufacturer. In focusing on a product we look at several aspects to determine wether or not that product is defective. First, did the defect exist at the time the product was designed. In other words, does this product have a design defect. Even if the product came off the manufacturing line as it was designed, it is still defective in its original design. Secondly, has a safely designed product become dangerous because the manufacturer did not follow plans or specifications while making the actual product. Third, we look to see if the product has inadequate directions or warnings notifying the user of the potential dangers associated with the product. Any product can be defective ranging from infant or baby car seats, baby toys, lawnmowers, car tires, automobiles, and even industrial machinery. Often Benson & Bingham will retain engineering experts to determine wether or not you have a products liability case. In some circumstances the manufacturer will be held to a “strict product liability” standard rather than a “negligence” standard. Many victims of a defective product case suffer serious injury or death, including loss of a limb, loss of sight, paralysis, burns, or brain damage. If you believe you have a defective product liability case contact Benson & Bingham at (702)-382-9797 and speak to one of our attorneys to see if you have a “strict products liability case.

In recent years the media has brought to light the reported tire failure and/or tread separation product liability cases against Ford/Firestone. However many manufacturers such as General tires, Goodyear, Wilderness tires, Cooper tires, and Uniroyal-Goodrich tires have been involved in tire tread belt separation litigation. While tires, even with proper service will fail eventually.  The tire manufacturing industry is well aware of the dangers associated with tread separation. There is an underlying difficulty for the manufactures in adhering the steel belted radial to rubber. These separations are the result of a manufacturing and design defects such as: improper adhesion, allowing foreign bodies or contaminants within the tire during the manufacturing process, under-vulcanization, old ingredients or aged rubber stock, and lack of quality control during final inspection before releasing the tire to consumers.

Many tire plant manufacturers have their employees working twelve hour shifts with very stressful environments. These tire separation risks seem to be increased in the summer months when roadway temperatures  are warmer coupled with highway or freeway speeds. Nonetheless, these tread separations are foreseeable events and can be avoided.  Recent technology has discovered that nylon overlays used will significantly reduce the risk of tread separation. Many tread separation failures result in motor vehicle accidents or rollover accidents with catastrophic injuries, brain injuries, and sometimes death. If you or a family member has been injured in a car accident as a result of a tire failure or tire tread separation contact Benson & Bingham at 702-382-9797. We have the experts standing by to inspect your tires.

Broadside accident, T-Bone accident, and Side impact collision all refer to the scenario upon which the front of one vehicle impacts or collides with the driver side or passenger side of another vehicle.  Occupants experiencing a T-Bone collision are at higher risks of injury as the force impacting the broadsided vehicle are close in proximity to where the occupants are positioned.  As a result, occupants are subjected to tremendous force.  While many newer vehicles do employ side and side curtain airbags, older vehicles are not equipped with such technology.  Most T-Bone accidents occur at intersections and parking lots from the failure of drivers to obey traffic signals or yield to the right of way.  Occupants typically strike the inside frame of their vehicle and often strike other passengers traveling within the same vehicle.

Side impact accidents occurring at high rates of speed may cause a vehicle to overturn.  In roll-over accidents,  occupants who are seat-belted or restrained properly are subjected to a heightened risk of ejection.  Common injuries from Side impact collisions are: fatalities, wrongful death, pelvis fractures, hip dislocation, shoulder injuries, brain trauma, rib fractures, arm fractures, bleeding of the brain, leg fractures, spinal cord injuries, amputation, head trauma, lacerations from glass, close head injuries, broken ankles, fractured feet, and burns from the deployment of side airbags.

If you are a victim suffering injuries from the negligence of another driver in a T-Bone or side impact accident call Benson & Bingham at (702)-382-9797. We have helped thousands of injured T-Bone victims, ensuring each client receives proper medical attention and just compensation.

A head-on collision occurs when two vehicles traveling towards each other in opposite directions collide; typically, when the front of two vehicles collide.  However, when a vehicle strikes that of a second vehicle in the frontal area of the second vehicle, and continues its impact along the side of that vehicle, this may also be considered a head-on collision.  Head on collisions are responsible for more traffic fatalities than any other type of motor vehicle accident.  Head on collisions are often the most violent motor vehicle accidents (MVA’s) occurring on our roadways in Nevada. Two vehicles approaching each other in excess of 45MPH creates such significant forces that the impact often leaves occupants with life changing catastrophic injuries if not death.

Many head on collisions occur on interstate and rural roads, especially  Interstates 15 and 215 in Southern Nevada, and State Route 80 in Northern Nevada.  However, head on collisions may also occur on surface streets from an unsafe lane change, falling asleep at the wheel, traveling the wrong way on interstate entry/exit ramps, blind bends in the road, disobeying traffic signals, and failure to maintain ones travel lane.

Ben Bingham of Benson & Bingham has the experience needed to litigate injuries commonly associated with head on collisions, including: wrongful death, fatalities, brain injuries and brain trauma, frontal lobe damage, bleeding in the brain, close head injuries, memory loss, pelvis fractures, hip fractures, spinal fractures, spinal cord injury, paralysis, loss of limbs, amputation, disabilities and emotional trauma. If you or a family member has been involved in a head on collision contact Benson & Bingham at (702)-382-9797.  Let an experienced team fight for you.

Recall for Toyota one of Auto Industry's Largest Recalls Ever

Have you been affected by the Toyota Motor Recall?  Toyota’s apologies come a little late given the enormous consequences that will forever plague this troubled company.   Everyday more information is leaked about the issues of Toyota recalls and Toyota accidents, and the real problem inside the computer systems causing rapid, unexpected acceleration is still a mystery.  Often the brakes do not help overcome the forward movement.  From floor mats, to steel pedal friction issues, to accelerator module problems Toyota has a myriad of unreasonably dangerous issues.  Benson & Bingham is spearheading its own litigation for the victims of this horrible tragedy.  If you need a Toyota Attorney to fight for your rights call Benson & Bingham.

Vehicles

2005-2010 Toyota Avalon

2007-2010 Toyota Camry

2009-2010 Toyota Corolla

2008-2010 Toyota Highlander

2009-2010 Toyota Matrix

2004-2009 Toyota Prius

2005-2010 Toyota Tacoma

2007-2010 Toyota Tundra

2009-2010 Toyota VENZA

Alleged Accelerator Problems

2009-2010 Toyota RAV4

2009-2010 Toyota Corolla

2009-2010 Toyota Matrix

2005-2010 Toyota Avalon

2007-2010 Toyota Camry

2010 Toyota Highlander

2007-2010 Toyota Tundra

2008-2010 Toyota Sequoia

What to Do if your Toyota or Lexus Rapidly accelerates?

Toyota Vehicles can rapidly accelerate without depressing the gas pedal.  If your vehicle does rapidly accelerate, attempt to use the brake to overcome the forward movement, and quickly shift the vehicle into neutral.  It appears this is the only way to stop the car.  Most cars will stop with brake use, however, these cars will not as they are electronically controlled.  Don’t worry about the engine revving as the engines are electronically controlled to not over revolutionize.  Do not turn of the car or pull the keys out or you might lose the steering wheel function.  Once the vehicle drifts to a safe stop, you may take the keys out.  Remember to stay calm as smart drivers will remain calm is a stressful moment—it just may save your life!

What did Toyota Know and When Did they know?

Toyota Motors is now under the gun for what they didn’t do.   The television is blasting with new ads creating this “we are on our problem and its fixed” theme in the wake of a serious image problem created by horrific car accidents with Toyota vehicles suddenly accelerating for no apparent reason.   As if a phantom is controlling the vehicle, the cars act by themselves, and what’s worse is that the driver has no control in stopping.  This issue is by no means new to Toyota and their upper management.  Toyota USA is now defending their response to the fatal crashes indicating their recalls and fixes were appropriate.  The problem appears to have been much greater than Toyota is acknowledging.  The internal reports of accidents from dealerships and the NTSB have likely showed a trend of accidents going back many years, and they have kept this a giant secret.  To avoid the catastrophe that has emerged anyway, Toyota tried to save money by not publicly addressing the lethal problems plaguing the now recalled models.  Investigations will reveal the internal notes, tests, and history of accidents that they sat on without notifying the public of the true danger.  This nightmare is just beginning for Toyota, as it appears it did not do the right thing.  Instead, they did the wrong thing by internalizing and ignoring the public safety issue.  Corporate Criminal Charges are likely as this reckless behavior has serious legal consequences.  If you or a loved one has been affected by an out of control Toyota call the Toyota victims rights attorneys at Benson & Bingham.

Toyota Motor Testifies before Congress regarding the serious malfunctions of its products and the major recall.

Of importance is the brake pedal assembly, the computer system controlling acceleration, and the response of the company in the wake of the mounting evidence of problems including Toyota Crashes, Fatal Toyota accidents, and Toyota recall.   As of February 23, 2010, The President of Toyota will be testifying before members of Congress to address the serious issues of their products.

Search Terms:

Clark County Toyota Attorney, Nevada Personal Injury attorney, Las Vegas Toyota Attorney, Toyota Lawyer-Toyota Crash Lawyer, Toyota Crash Attorney, Nevada Toyota Lawyer, Personal injury lawyer Nevada Toyota, Lexus Personal injury lawyer, Toyota Personal injury lawyer, Las Vegas Toyota Attorney, Wrongful death Toyota lawyer



Car Accidents can be avoided if everyone uses proper care.  The problem is that we are human and we err.  Often we go beyond just making careless mistakes, but do things that personal injury attorneys love:  reckless behavior.    So what is the difference between reckless behavior and negligent?  Under definition, negligence equates to just breaching a duty owed—in essence being stupid:  day dreaming through a red light, grabbing that spilling coffee as you hit the yellow light that turned red, simply missing the big red stop sign, or playing with the radio as you crash into the rear end of the family wagon on the highway.  These are the mistakes we make as drivers.  The problem is when we do the next level of culpability: encountering a dangerous situation that you know to be dangerous, and do it anyway—that is recklessness.  This is a very fine line to adjudicate.  Is it reckless to drive a car after you have been drinking—many think so.  In fact, public policy finds that we want to discourage this behavior so much we will assign punishing damages to those persons.  Elements of punitive damages are designed to punish drivers or their employers for conduct that is “reprehensible.”

We find it reprehensible to get intoxicated and drive a deadly weapon.  We find it reprehensible to shoot a gun into a crowd thinking we will miss.  We find it reprehensible for a truck driver to do crystal methamphetamine and drive for 48 hours straight, or for airline pilot to cockpit the airplane after a few beers.  So, the question begs:  is it reprehensible to drive a vehicle using a cell phone?  We know it is dangerous.  We know it is distracting, but yet most of us do it.  Cell phones while driving cause deaths.   In California last year, the engineer on a train was “texting” on his cell phone when the train collided with another.  Reprehensible?  Yes.   What do you think?

Employers also must be careful not to condone or encourage cell phone use for its employees on the road.   The consequences are dire.

Court won’t disturb $82.6M award in SUV rollover

Supreme Court rebuffs Ford appeal of $82.6 million award to woman paralyzed in SUV rollover

• On 10:22 am EST, Monday November 30, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has left in place an $82.6 million award to a woman who was paralyzed after her Ford Explorer rolled over.

The justices on Monday rejected Ford Motor Co.’s challenge to the portion of the award, $55 million, that was intended as punitive damages. Ford argued that it should not be punished because its design of the vehicle met federal safety standards.

A California state appeals court earlier rejected Ford’s contention and upheld the award to Benetta Buell-Wilson.

She was driving on an interstate east of San Diego in January 2002 when she swerved to avoid a metal object and lost control of her 1997 Explorer, which rolled 4 1/2 times. The mother of two was paralyzed from the waist down when the roof collapsed on her neck, severing her spine.

A jury initially awarded Buell-Wilson $369 million, including $246 million in punitive damages but courts twice cut the size of the award. The jury concluded that Ford knew the Explorer had design defects that made it prone to rollovers in emergency maneuvers and the collapse of its roof.

The case is Ford v. Buell-Wilson, 09-297.