Colorado Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Mac Hester : Personal Injury, Auto Accident, Medical Malpractice : Serving Denver, Colorado Springs, Aurora

With the repeal ("sunsetting") of Colorado's No-Fault legislation on July 1, 2003, Colorado reverted to the "tort" system.

Claims arising out of pre July 1, 2003 motor vehicle crashes must proceed under the "no-fault" system, while claims arising out of post July 1, 2003 motor vehicle crashes must proceed under the "tort" system.

Colorado has a three year statute of limitations for personal injury claims arising out of motor vehicle incidents, so most "no-fault" cases were gone by July 1, 2006 (But pre July 1, 2003 claims that were not filed prior to July 1, 2006 are not necessarily SOL; e.g., minor's claims).

Under the prior no-fault system, an injured person had to satisfy one of several "threshold" requirements in order to maintain an action against the negligent party. Under the current tort system, there is no "threshold" to satisfy prior to filing a suit against the negligent party.

Colorado's statutorily mandated minimum auto liability coverage is $25,000.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Will the right practice management software allow me to get my work done faster and easier so that I can spend more time with my family and/or rock climbing? Yes, say the ads. But is that reality? Or hype? I have used several different practice management programs but none have increased my family or rock climbing time. Sure, the problem could be entirely my own. I could have a time management problem, or I could be a workaholic, or I could have tech phobia such that I never learn to use the programs correctly, or of course it could be "all of the above." What in your experience or opinion is the best or most effective practice management software for small to mid-size personal injury law firms? And why?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In her book, The Story Factor: Inspiration, Influence and Persuasion Through the Art of Storytelling, Annette Simmons discusses the six stories you need to know how to tell: (1) "Who I Am" stories; (2) "Why I am Here" stories; (3) "The Vision" story; (4) "Teaching" stories; (5) "Values in Action" stories; and (6) "I Know What You're Thinking" stories.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

"Zen" is the Japanese translation of the abbreviated form - ch'an - of the Chinese transliteration of the Sanskrit word, dhyana, which means meditation.

Now you know what "Zen" is.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Negligence claims in Colorado require the four elements that were drilled into your skull during Torts class in law school: (1) Duty; (2) Breach of duty; (3) Causation; and (4) Damage.

The standard of care is the usual reasonable person standard; i.e., a person is required is exercise the degree of care or skill that a reasonable person would have exercised in the same or similar circumstances.

Colorado is a comparative negligence state. The plaintiff cannot recover if his/her percentage of fault is greater than or equal to the defendant's. At trial, the jury is required to assign percentages of fault. With one plaintiff and one defendant, it's a 50/50 rule. A 50/50 verdict is a defense verdict. Fortunately, that outcome can be explained to the jury.

Pro Rata liability: By statute, a defendant is liable only for his/her percentage of fault, and the plaintiff cannot recover damages commensurate with his/her percentage of fault.

Non-Parties at Fault: The defendant can designate persons or entities who are not parties to the action but who may share some percentage of fault.

The plaintiff's percentage of fault is compared with the total of the defendants' fault. For example, if the plaintiff is 30% at fault, Defendant A is 50% at fault, Defendant B is 10% at fault, and Non-Party is 10% at fault and the verdict is for the plaintiff in the amount of $100,000, then Defendant A is liable for $50,000, Defendant B is liable for $10,000, and Non-Party is not legally liable because the Non-Party was not a party to the action and did not have his/her day in court. The plaintiff recovers $60,000.

NOTE: (1) There is "pure" comparative fault in Product Liability claims. (2) The Colorado legislature preempted all common law claims for "premises liability" with the enactment of the "Premises Liability" statute - which made an action under the statute  the exclusive remedy for injuries caused by conditions or activities upon land. The inartfully drafted statute and the subsequent cases attempting to interpret and apply the statute have created confusion and chaos regarding negligence claims and defenses when persons are injured on premises. This will be addressed in a subsequent "Premises Liability " article.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Some historians debate whether a man named Sun Tzu ever existed, much less wrote The Art of War (500 B.C.). Some say that the works of several generals over several decades (or longer) were compiled into one volume and attributed to Sun Tzu, who may be an invention. The debate seems to be about as meaningful as the debate as to whether Shakespeare wrote the great plays attributed to him (My favorite line in the Shakespeare debate is one scholar's answer: "If Shakespeare did not write Hamlet, then someone else of the same name did." So, I take Sun Tzu as a single entity (a man) who wrote The Art of War sometime around 500 B.C.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I am, as I am typing this post, looking out my window at the diamond shaped east face of  Longs Peak, the most majestic of the 54 14'ers in Colorado, wondering why I am writing about it instead of climbing it. A natural question for a climber, to be sure, but a curious one for the publisher of a law blog. But, of course, this is a rhetorical question that segues quite nicely into why I am writing this blog. There are various reasons to write a law blog - from the mercenary (advertising one's talents and experience, marketing to potential clients and counsel for cases and referrals, stroking one's own ego) to the charitable (helping injured people; helping fellow trial lawyers) to the personal (self expression). I must admit that all of these reasons factor into why I have launched this blog, but the "real" reason is more basic. The basic reason is resonance. Climbing "resonates" with something basic in my being, so I not only love to do it but also to talk and write about it. Trial practice also resonates with me, so I am compelled to talk and write about it. Up until now, I have satisfied this basic urge through trial lawyer mail lists and discussion groups, but the blogosphere has opened up a whole new world for me. I hope that some of the topics or entries in this blog resonate with you. I have strongly held opinions and I'm not going to pretend to be neutral or objective  on everything (or anything, for that matter) - which I suppose is a good thing, as neutrality and objectivity is desireable for news reporting but boring in the blogosphere. Please feel free to comment or offer your opinions.  Welcome to the Colorado Trial Practice Blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks