Las Vegas, Nevada personal injury truck wreck lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on auto negligence theories.

This case was filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, A-22-855311-C, and was removed to federal court by Landstar System, Inc. et al.

Under Nevada law, a car accident victim can only recover damages if their percentage of fault is less than 50%. If a v

Las Vegas, Nevada personal injury truck wreck lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on an auto negligence theory.

This case was filed in the 8th Judicial District Court, A-22-853257-C, and was removed to federal court by Allied Van Lines, Inc. et al.

Under Nevada law, a car accident victim can only recover damages if their percentage of fault is less than 50%. If a victim is

Missoula, Montana personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on a negligence theory.

Montana follows a “modified” comparative negligence rule, which means that a plaintiff can recover damages only if their degree of fault is less than 50%. If the plaintiff's fault is found to be 50% or more, they are barred from recovering any damages.

Billings, Montana personal injury truck wreck lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on an auto negligence theory.

Montana follows a “modified” comparative negligence rule, which means that a plaintiff can recover damages only if their degree of fault is less than 50%. If the plaintiff's fault is found to be 50% or more, they are barred from recovering any damages.

Billings, Montana personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on auto negligence theories.

Montana follows a “modified” comparative negligence rule, which means that a plaintiff can recover damages only if their degree of fault is less than 50%. If the plaintiff's fault is found to be 50% or more, they are barred from recovering any damages.

This case was filed

Boise, Idaho personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiffs who sued on Federal Tort Claims Act negligence theories.

Idaho follows the modified comparative negligence rule. Under this rule, a plaintiff (the injured party) can only recover damages if their percentage of fault is less than 50%. If the plaintiff is found to be 50% or more responsible for the accident, they cannot recover

Boise, Idaho personal injury truck wreck lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on an auto negligence theory.

This case was filled in the Ada County District Court, CV01-23-05561, and was removed to federal court by FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Idaho follows the modified comparative negligence rule. Under this rule, a plaintiff (the injured party) can only recover damage

Indianapolis, Indiana criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with .

Seattle, Washington personal injury lawyer presented the Plaintiffs who sued on negligence theories.

This case was filed in the King County Superior Court, 24-00002-03365-3, and was removed to federal court by the University of Washington.

The jurisdiction of the court upon removal was challenged by the Plaintiffs.

Tacoma, Washington personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a premises liability negligence theory.

This case was filed in the Pierce County District Court, 2A733747C, and was removed to federal court by Safway, Inc.

To establish liability against the property owner, you must prove three things: The property owner had a duty to protect you from harm, The prope

Seattle, Washington personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on a negligence theory.

This case was filed in the King County Superior Court, 17-00002-04219-6, and was removed by Seattle Tunnel Partners, et al.

If a person acts carelessly and injures someone as a direct result of that carelessness, the careless party must pay compensation to the injured party. “

Seattle, Washington personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on an auto insurance law theory.

This case was filed in the Pierce County Superior Court, 23-00002-04739-2, and was removed to federal court by the Allstate Insurance Company.

Richland, Washington personal injury lawyer presented the Plaintiffs who sued on negligence theories.

This case was filed in Benton County Superior Court, 22-00002-01428-03, and was removed to federal court by Packing Corporation of America.

The state of Washington is a pure comparative negligence state, meaning that the courts will take into account both parties' actions when de

Yakima, Washington personal injury car wreck lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on a Federal Tort Claims Act auto negligence theory.

Under the FTCA, the federal government acts as a self-insurer, and recognizes liability for the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of its employees acting within the scope of their official duties.

Sacramento, California personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a premises liability negligence theory.

This case was filed in the Kern County Superior Court, BCV-22-102269 DZ, and was removed to federal court by Home Depot.

Premises liability laws in California are based on negligence, which is represented under Civil Code §1714(a). In a premises liability c

Sacramento, California personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff on an auto negligence theory.


Under this law, the amount of compensation an injured party can receive is determined by their level of fault in relation to the accident. For example, if a court determines that the injured party is 20% at fault, their total damages award will be reduced by 20%.

San Jose, California personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a premises liability negligence theory.

This case was filed in the Santa Clara County Superior, 21CV392500, and was removed to federal court by the Defendant.

Premises liability laws in California are based on negligence, which is represented under Civil Code §1714(a). In a premises liability claim

San Francisco, California personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on a premises liability negligence theory.

This case was filed in the Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County, C22-02469, and was removed to federal court by the Defendant.

Premises liability laws in California are based on negligence, which is represented under Civil Code §1714(a). I

San Francisco, California personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiffs who sued the Defendants on auto negligence theories.

On August 18, 2002, Marc Holland ("Holland") rented a 2002 Ford Escort from ERAC-SF. ( See Duley Decl., filed October 22, 2004, Ex. 5; Watt Decl., filed November 5, 2004, Ex. B.) At the time Holland rented the subject vehicle, his driver's license was suspended

Los Angeles, California personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on a negligence theory.

This case was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, 23STCV22093, and was removed to federal court by the Defendant.

There are four basic elements of negligence under California state law: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Duty demonstrates the expectation to use reas

Los Angeles, California personal lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a federal tort claims act auto negligence theory.

Under the FTCA, the federal government acts as a self-insurer, and recognizes liability for the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of its employees acting within the scope of their official duties.

San Diego, California personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on auto negligence theories.

Comparative Negligence in California Under this law, the amount of compensation an injured party can receive is determined by their level of fault in relation to the accident. For example, if a court determines that the injured party is 20% at fault, their total damages award will

Phoenix, Arizona personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on a premises liability negligence theory.

This case was file in the Maricopa County Superior Court, CV2022-091842, and was removed to federal court by the Defendants.

In Arizona, property owners and occupiers have a duty to protect visitors from injuries arising from known dangers on their property. Whe

Tucson, Arizona personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a Federal Tort Claims Act auto negligence theory.

Under the FTCA, the federal government acts as a self-insurer, and recognizes liability for the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of its employees acting within the scope of their official duties.

Phoenix, Arizona personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiffs who sued on auto negligence theories.

This case as filed in the Maricopa County Superior Court, CV2023-008744, and was removed to federal court by the Defendants.

Arizona operates under a “comparative fault” rule, meaning that if someone is entirely to blame for the auto accident, they must take care of the r