Las Vegas Injury & Accident Attorney Blog

An OOJ or Offer of Judgment is a tool for parties in litigation used to shift risk to an opposing side.   The procedural rule allows judgment to be taken against that party in a specified amount.  The offer of judgment is a formal way to make an offer to settle the case; hence, a party may believe the value of the case is worth more (from the plaintiff’s side), or a party may believe the case is worth less (from the defendant’s side) and make an offer accordingly.  The risk of such an offer is that is may be accepted at a lower threshold than a jury might award.   NRCP (Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure) and the FRCP (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) both govern this strategic move.

An OOJ can be made at anytime after the commencement of the litigation–hence after an answer is made.   Certainly, to be fair to both sides, and surely to meet certain legal factors, an excellent time to do an offer of judgment is a time when both sides are truly familiar with the facts of the case and can make a reasonable judgment as to whether the case is worth settling or rolling the dice at trial.  Recently, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that service by fax of an Offer of Judgment is only valid if, of course, the party to which service is made upon has consented to such service( by fax).  Given technical difficulties of fax machines, internet service, and the like, our firm does not allow service or notice by fax.  Serving an OOJ by fax is not a good way to notice this serious weapon, and should be served in person by what us lawyers call: a signed ROC,  ”Receipt of Copy.”  This way, the OOJ is properly served with no argument as to notice.

What exactly happens when a party to a car accident receives an offer to settle involving NRCP 68 or NRS 17.115?   Well, a party may have to pay COSTS of litigation AND ATTORNEY FEES in the event of losing.  This is a powerful tool to get a case resolved when the stakes are high. Litigation is not a cheap activity, and a failure of a party to not accept a reasonable offer can have dire consequences.   In fact, a party can actually be successful at trial (e.g win the case), but lose financially. Exactly how?  Real simple.  Here is an example:  A party wrongly believes their accident case is worth $50,000 so they make an OOJ of slightly lower:  $45,000.  The Defendant disagrees with the “outrageous” offer.  The clients medical expenses are $10,000 and the client has totally healed.  10 days goes by and the offer of judgment is automatically rescinded due to non-acceptance.  They proceed to a jury trial.  Now, the jury awards $30,000.  $15,000 less than if they had accepted the offer.  Big Problem.   The judge in the matter can then award the Defendant attorney fees and costs!

Those costs might well exceed $100,000.  So, this example illustrates that a party who had a good case and won, will lose $70,000!  Not a good result.  The secret weapon is there!  An opposing example:  A party offers to settle for $1 million dollars on a wrongful death claim, and the opposing side refuses the offer thinking they can beat it at trial.  The personal injury attorney smartly decides the case can be proven and the damages will likely be awarded much higher.  The case proceeds to trial and a Nevada jury awards $2 million dollars.  The Plaintiff here will make more than just the award of $1M, but also attorney fees (billed by the hour since the OOJ was made), and gets the total costs of bringing the case to trial.  This is a win, win.   If no Offer of Judgment was ever made the case for an award of fees and costs is discretionary and is optional–which in all likelihood means no award of fees and costs.  If you have a case and would like the experience and expertise of Las Vegas Personal injury lawyers Joseph Benson and Ben Bingham, call us today. 702-382-9797

Benson & Bingham  ”Here to help you litigate your case.”

Dog Bites occur quite frequently in Clark County–about 4 per day!  The statistics show that 1,241 dog bites occurred in 2009 in Clark County.  This is the heaviest volume of dog bites recorded in the last 10 years, however, each year about 1,000 have been recorded annually give or take a few hundred.  The County keeps track of these statistics including the “bite by breed” statistic.   The overwhelming leader in Bites every year is the Pit Bull.  The Pit Bull accounts for 20% or so the bites every year.  Far greater than any other breed.   Bull dogs, labradors, mixed breeds, german shepherds, and terriers, consistently lead the pack here in Las Vegas dog bits.   Who knows if the shepherds bites are police related?  Upon reading the statistics, certainly some breeds may be more prone to bite, just as some breeds may be more prone to retrieve that ball you throw.  But, the major lacking component to the statistics is the TOTAL number of dogs that live in our community.

If Pit Bulls make up 50% of the households, then 20% of the bites is not a bad number!  It is likely hard to measure the total population of specific breeds unless each dog is officially registered.   No doubt that Pit Bulls are a popular animal–especially among Las Vegas residents.  The attraction may be the agility or the home defense characteristics that the dog breed possesses.  To prove my point, the Chihuahua in 2009 made up 11% of all dog bites in Clark County with 122 bites.  Compare this to 2000 when Chihuahua bites were only 1.3% of the total dog bites (14 total bites).  Perhaps Paris Hilton’s popularity of the animal tucked away in her dog purse helped Las Vegans want the animal more–who knows, but it is safe to say that Chihuahua’s population has increased, and that increase has had a marked impression on the total Chihuahua dog bites.  SO, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?   Statistics must be looked at carefully.    If you have been the victim of a pit bull attack or other breed contact the dog attack lawyers at Benson & Bingham today 382-9797.

So if you have had Bull dog bite and need a Bull dog lawyer, or had a labrador bite and need a labrador attorney, a mixed breed bite, or a german shepherd bite, and/or  terrier bite, then you might just need a Terrier lawyer or shepherd attorney to handle that case. If is sounds silly it is, because personal injury lawyers don’t need to be specific breed attorneys, just solid dog bite attorneys who know the law.  Call us today:  702-382-9797

See the compiled statistics for animal attacks made by Clark County animal Control:

Plastic Surgery and Total Recovery Help from Benson & Bingham 702-382-9797.

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.

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.

Each year around Independence Day, injuries among children and adults rise significantly from fireworks.  While many stage events have fireworks / pyrotechnics throughout the year, “Fourth of July” celebrations typically kick off with a BBQ and fireworks.  Many of the injuries suffered from the explosives are often the result of user error. However, fireworks themselves can malfunction often resulting in severe burns.  Not only is the operator in danger of a malfunction, but also the spectators of the event.  Studies have shown that spectators account for up to 40% of reported firework injuries.  A scorching rocket darting into a crowd of onlookers can cause severe burns.  Last summer, close to ten-thousand people were treated for injuries associated with fireworks.  Those injuries are typically burns and lacerations, but also may include hearing loss or loss of sight.  The most common variety of firework causing injury are bottle-rockets, firecrackers, roman candles and sparklers.  Yes, sparklers!  Sparklers burn at 1,800 degrees and can throw sparks striking the eye and head.  It is also not understood by many that the average fuse time on a firework is only three-five seconds.

If you or a loved one has suffered a personal injury as a result of the negligence from an individual or company using fireworks or pyrotechnics, contact Benson & Bingham for a negligence consultation.  However, if you believe the firework itself malfunctioned, you may have a potential product liability case.  Contact Benson & Bingham at (702)-382-9797.

Personal injury firm, Benson & Bingham has been contacted by the family of a man found in a pool of blood inside an elevator on the casino floor at the Plaza Hotel. While investigations of said matter are in their infant stages, there have been comments suggesting that the elevator may have experienced a power outage. The deceased is seen on video footage entering the elevator on the nineteenth floor. The next segment of footage displays the door opening at the casino floor with the same gentleman lying on the elevator floor suffering a broken neck, broken nose, and missing teeth. Upon being retained, Benson & Bingham shall immediately file a lawsuit and begin discovery in this wrongful death action. Of most concern is the video footage inside the elevator which has not been released.

The family contacted Benson & Bingham after having previously retained counsel who essentially did not preform any work over the past year (i.e. obtain video footage).  In elevator/escalator negligence or elevator/escalator malfunction cases, it is of utmost importance to obtain and preserve all of the evidence immediately to preserve the elevator or escalators condition, as well as being able to retain engineers to inspect the elevator or escalator to determine the malfunction. Further, many witnesses to an event in a casino are likely from out of town. Their statements may play a crucial role in determining what precipitated the events surrounding the event. While most elevator/escalator cases result in broken bones, spinal injuries, hip and/or leg fractures, this family suffered a loss of a husband and father.  As discovery unfolds in this matter and maintenance records are obtained with video footage, the truth will surface.

In certain circumstances*, Passengers in automobile accidents will have more insurance coverage available to them.   Those passengers who are in a vehicle that is “also” at fault in an accident (what we call joint tort feasers) or multiple at-fault drivers can now maintain a 3^rd party claim and a 1^st party claim against the same insurance policy in a single accident.  This is new law and good news for passengers who, before, could only go after liability OR underinsurance coverage on the same policy.   For example, in a two car accident involving a passenger who broke her arm requiring surgery she would not be limited to just the liability coverage of the driver of her car and the other at fault car, she could also make a claim for “underinsurance” against the Driver of her car; thus, she would have a potential breach of contract claim if they didn’t offer her a reasonable sum over and above the two other liability policies (in an addition to negligence actions).  This example, of course, assumes BOTH drivers were at fault for the accident.

This changes the old policy that would only enable an accident victim to recover against the liability policy of the 2^nd car and the liability of the 1^st car.   No UIM/UM claim could be made.   The Nevada Supreme Court made this distinction in Delgado v American Family Insurance Group, 217 P.3d 563, (2009) where a passenger was allowed to make a claim against the $50,000 policy of the 1^st at fault driver, $15,000 against the 2^nd car’s liability policy, and also $25,000 against he 1^st car (the car she was a passenger in) for the underinsurance benefits.  Thus, the $25,000 claim is now allowed under Nevada Law.  If you were a passenger and need an experience Las Vegas personal injury lawyer call the experts at Benson & Bingham.

Many states, such as Nevada, have imposed egregiously unfair limits on pain and suffering damages in Medical malpractice cases.  These cases often have horrible damages leaving the victims unfairly compensated for bad medicine.  Nevada currently has a cap of $350,000 for pain and suffering.   Two states in 2010 have now repealed their respective States’ laws on caps.  The first this year was Illinois and now Georgia (who has a cap similar to Nevada $350,000.)

These States’ Supreme Courts banned such limitation based on the Separation of Powers Doctrine Embodied in the US Constitution.  The crux of the argument is that the legislature can’t impose rules on those duties fundamentally outlined for the judiciary—here reducing verdicts.   The principle behind the Courts’ rulings is likely to be challenged.   Can a legislature make laws that affect the judiciary?  It really depends on your legal philosophy.  In some respects, it seems like a conflict of interest to have a Court decide whether they have the power over the legislature to interpret a law—in other respects, it does make sense that our Separation of Powers doctrine was implemented to serve the very issue of fairness over the legislature.  With the new health insurance reform, time will tell how this may impact our Medical mal-practice laws.  What do you think?



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.