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

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

This case was filed in the District Court of Dawson County, CI 23-00145, and was removed to federal court by the Defendants.

Premises liability law is summarized by the idea that a landowner has a legal obligation to protect visitors invited onto their land from

Omaha, Nebraska personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on an auto negligence theory.

In Nebraska, the right to compensation is based on the “51% rule.” A plaintiff can still recover partial compensation so long as their degree of fault is less than that of the defendant(s) in the case. The plaintiff's compensation will be reduced in proportion to their percentage o

Pierre, South Dakota personal injury 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.

Pierre, South Dakota personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on an auto negligence theory.

In South Dakota, car accident liability is primarily determined based on fault. This means that the party responsible for causing the accident is typically held liable for the resulting damages. This is because South Dakota follows a modified comparative negligence rule.

Fargo, North Dakota personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on auto negligence theories.

North Dakota is a modified comparative negligence state It allocates fault to all parties involved, thus reducing how much each party can recover from the car accident. Since North Dakota is a modified comparative negligence state, drivers can claim damages so long as they were only

Fargo, North Dakota personal injury truck wreck lawyers represented the Plaintiffs who sued on auto negligence theories.

This case was filed in the Morton County Court, and was removed to federal court by the Defendants.

North Dakota is a modified comparative negligence state It allocates fault to all parties involved, thus reducing how much each party can recover from the car a

Minneapolis, Minnesota personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on an auto negligence theory.

Minnesota follows the “comparative negligence” rule. Under this system, a plaintiff's compensation can be reduced by a percentage that equals their share of fault in causing the accident. If a plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault, they are barred from recovering d

Minneapolis, Minnesota personal injury 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.

Minneapolis, Minnesota personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants on auto negligence theories.

Minnesota follows the “comparative negligence” rule. Under this system, a plaintiff's compensation can be reduced by a percentage that equals their share of fault in causing the accident. If a plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault, they are barred fro

Cedar Rapids, Iowa personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a Federal Tort Claims Act 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.

Kansas City, Missouri personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a premises liability negligence theory.

Missouri is a pure comparative negligence state. The law allows you to sue for damages even if you are 99 percent at fault for your own injuries. However, as in the example above, a jury will reduce your award by your percentage of fault.

Kansas City, Missouri personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on an auto negligence theory.

This case was filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, 2316-CV23414, and was removed to federal court by the Defendants.

Missouri follows a comparative negligence principle which means even if you're partially at fault for an accident, you can still receive