Personal Injury Claims & Related Claims

Personal injury claims are quite diverse. I represent injured persons by the type of claim (e.g., semi-truck accidents), the type of injury (e.g., traumatic brain injury), and by claims that are not literally personal injury claims but that are related to or arise out of personal injury claims (e.g., insurance bad faith). But the recovery of money damages from the at fault person or entity is not the only service that is provided to the client.

Clients often need help in related matters, such as finding insurance coverage, dealing with the insurance company, getting medical bills paid for, getting lost wages recovered, setting up payment plans with creditors, getting claim or lawsuit  funding when all their sources of income have run out, and reducing debts owed to medical providers and insurers who are seeking repayment of insurance benefits. I help clients with these day to day matters to help ease their stress and so they can focus on healing and returning to full activity and enjoyment of life.

Personal Injury Lawyer - Trial Lawyer

I have conducted psychological/sociological experiments at parties and social functions: I mingle and talk and almost every conversation involves the question - whether asked of me or by me - "What do you do?" I usually answer that I am a lawyer or that I practice law. The reactions to this answer are quite interesting: the reactions are usually not neutral; they seem to be more positive  or negative than if I had answered, for example, that I was an account manager.

The negative reactions are usually more pronounced than the postive reactions. Negative reactors often tell a lawyer joke. I usually laugh and maintain good humour, but I wonder why people think that is is okay to denigrate the profession of someone that they have just met. I have wanted to conduct the experiment of putting the shoe on the other foot: Tell a nasty joke about the profession of the person who I just met before they have told a lawyer joke and observe their reaction. But I have not had the guts to do it. I guess that I am not a true scientist. However, I have conducted that experiment after the other person has, in effect, given me permission to conduct that experiment. Here is what I have done on a few occasions: I decided in advance to respond to a lawyer joke with a joke about the profession of the person I just met not out of anger but as a pure experiment. The person tells a lawyer joke. I laugh. Then I good naturedly tell a joke about that person's profession. My experience has been that the other person is very surprised to hear their profession belittled, even if in jest. They are usually a little offended and their realizations about what just happened vary quite a bit. Only a couple of people "got" what I was doing. The others were disconcerted, although most of them admitted that tit for tat is only fair (but I still suspect that they will continue to feel that lawyers are fair game while their profession is not). A couple of people got upset and terminated the conversation and quit my company - no doubt having their opinions of lawyers confirmed in their minds. I haven't even got to personal injury law yet. I am quite amazed when people I have just met think that it acceptable to refer to me as an ambulance chaser. I usually just laugh it off but I have conducted a couple of experiments about that as well. I have acted hurt. The person was slightly apologetic, but I don't believe was completely sincere in the apology. Another time I plainly stated that it was rude to insult a person who you have just met. The insulter was not apologetic at having made the comment but allowed that I could be an exception to the rule. My response was that it's not a rule that lawyers conform to the characteristics of the joke. Maybe my experiments are not true experiments. Maybe I'm a little thin skinned. I don't know. What I do know is that most personal injury lawyers and "trial lawyers" good naturedly take a lot of crap from rude people and don't want to "rock the boat" for fear of reinforcing the opinions of these people. However, my experience has been that these same people usually want the aggressive, ethically challenged lawyers that they denigrated when they need legal representation. Most personal injury lawyers and trial lawyers just try to avoid these situations and let things slide by. In fact, I think that most lawyers believe "the less said the better." But I don't believe that. I believe that people will continue to be prejudiced and rude if they are not called on it. I grew up in South Carolina in the 60's and 70's so I know about name calling and its consequences.

 

Fort Collins Personal Injury Lawyer and Trial Lawyer Mac Hester

Car Accident - Personal Injury - What to Do - What Not to Do

If you are in a car accident and the car is damaged and/or you are injured (or someone else's car is damaged and/or someone else is injured), then the drivers are required by law to do certain things.

 

C.R.S. 42-4-1601(1): A driver involved in a car crash in which someone is injured is required to stop, stay at the scene, or return to the scene until the driver fulfills the requirements of C.R.S. 42-4-1603(1).

 

C.R.S. 42-4-1603(1): A driver involved in a car crash in which someone is injured is required to give name, address, and registration number of the vehicle to the other drivers. And, upon request, a driver is required to exhibit the driver's license to the other drivers. A driver involved in a car wreck in which someone is injured is also required to render aid and/or assistance to the injured person.

 

To move or not move the car: If there are signs directing drivers to move crashed cars from traffic, then the drivers should move the cars from traffic. If there are no such signs, then it's a judgment call. If it was a very minor collision with probably no injuries and it's rush hour traffic, then maybe the car should be moved from traffic. If it was a huge collision involving serious injuries, then the cars probably should not be moved from traffic. Generally, it is preferable to not move the cars so as to preserve evidence for the investigating authorities.

 

Other things to do and not do:

DO check on yourself and the passengers of  your car for injury.

DO check on the other driver(s) and passengers for injury.

DO call 911 if someone is injured.

DO what you can to make the scene safe.

DO obtain names, addresses and phone numbers of all involved drivers, passengers, and witnesses.

DO take photos of the cars and involved persons with your cell phone camera.

DO provide detailed information to the investigating authorities (CAVEAT: A criminal defense attorney might advise you otherwise depending upon your potential criminal culpability).

DO get checked out medically if you are injured or not feeling well.

DO call your insurance agent to report the crash after you have done the above.

DO check on all insurance coverage that is available to you; e.g., Medical Payments coverage, Uninsured Motorist, Underinsured Motorist, health insurance, etc.

DO call  a lawyer if you have questions about the law, insurance, insurance claims, or  your rights and responsibilities.

 

DO NOT refuse ambulance transport to the hospital if you are injured.

DO NOT refuse medical treatment or delay in getting medical treatment if you are injured or not feeling well.

DO NOT say you are doing okay if you are not doing okay.

DO NOT agree to be interviewed by the at fault driver's insurance company about the accident and your injuries. It is okay to discuss getting a loaner or rental car and your car repaired or replaced.

DO NOT agree to have your statement recorded over the phone or in person by the at fault driver's insurance company about the accident or your injuries. It is okay to discuss getting a loaner or rental car and your car repaired or replaced.

DO NOT settle your injury claim immediately. There's at least two reasons not to settle immediately: (1) It is illegal for insurance companies to immediately settle or attempt to settle injury claims; and (2) Your injuries or condition might not be apparent immediately or your injuries or condition might get worse.

DO NOT trust the at fault driver's insurance company to treat you fairly or to compensate you fairly for your injuries. The at fault driver's insurance company's loyalty is to its insured, the at fault driver, not to you. The insurance company is a for profit corporation that strives to pay claims as cheaply as possible in order to be profitable.

DO NOT let the at fault driver's insurance company treat you disrespectfully because you want to be reimbursed and compensated for your injuries and damages. They probably paid full value or close to it for your car damage. Is your body and life less valuable than your car? No.

 

DO call an experienced personal injury attorney if the at fault driver's insurance company is not treating you fairly. Or simply to learn more about your rights.

 

Fort Collins Colorado Car Accident Lawyer Mac Hester

 

 

 

 

Evidence of Liability Insurance: Rule 411 Misconceptions

All judges and almost all lawyers think that evidence of liability insurance is generally not admissible at trial. However, they are wrong.

Colorado Rule of Evidence 411 provides that evidence of liability insurance is admissible for any reason in the world - except one: to show negligence or wrongful conduct of the defendant.

Rule 411 states that evidence of liability insurance cannot be admitted to show negligence or wrongful conduct. Then, Rule 411 sets forth a listing of possible reasons for the admission of liability insurance including proof of agency, ownership, control, or bias or prejudice of a witness. The list is non-inclusive. Consequently, Rule 411 provides that evidence of liability insurance can be admitted for a potentially infinite number of reasons but can be excluded for only one reason.Thus, Rule 411 is the most liberal of all the evidence rules.

It is amazing that this incredibly liberal rule has come to be considered so incredibly restrictive regarding the admission of liability insurance when the rule so clearly states that the evidence is potentially admissible for any reason except for one.

Q.  What can account for this blatant misinterpretation of Rule 411?

A.  Rule 403.

Rule 403 provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time,  or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

All defense lawyers and almost all judges go apopletic when liabilty insurance is mentioned during trial. I have never heard liability insurance being mentioned during trial regarding the fault of the defendant; rather, every mention that I have heard by a prospective juror or by a witness has concerned coverage - which is not a fault issue. In fact, the existence of liability insurance has little to no relation to the defendant's fault. Consequently, Rule 411 is almost never violated and there is only a small possibility that it will be violated.

So why the apoplexy? The answer is that it has nothing to do with Rule 411 and everything to do with Rule 403- specifically, the danger of unfair prejudice component of Rule 403, The danger is that the jury may find liability and award damages or more damages if they know that the defendant is insured when they otherwise might not find liability or might award lower damages. Thus, the mention of liability insurance presents a danger of unfair prejudice.

Conclusion: Judges (usually correctly) exclude evidence of liability insurance pursuant to Rule 403 (or pursuant to Rule 402: exclusion of irrelevant evidence) all the while mistakenly believing that they are excluding it pursuant to Rule 411.

If the evidence of liability insurance is usually corrected excluded, then what's the big deal about Rule 411?

The big deal is that judges should know the rules and apply them correctly. The big deal is that lawyers should know the rules and argue them correctly. I have never heard a civil  defense lawyer argue Rule 411 correctly. In fact, every argument I have ever heard from a civil defense lawyer about Rule 411 is that Rule 411 automatically excludes evidence of liability insurance except to show proof of agency, ownership, control, or bias or prejudice of a witness. That argument is incorrect because Rule 411 automatically includes evidence of liability insurance for any reason except to show fault. Resort must be had to other Rules (e.g., 403 or 402) in order to exclude evidence of liability insurance.

I don't recall hearing any plaintiff's lawyer arguing Rule 411 correctly before I started making a big deal out of it. It is one of my pet peeves. Or, I should say that one of my pet peeves is when a rule, or case, or law is perversely twisted into its opposite meaning or a totally erroneous meaning through laziness and sloppiness combined with inertia and indifference to correct application. In other words, the erroneous interpretation of Rule 411 is symptomatic of a larger problem as to the diligence, or lack thereof, in interpreting, analyzing, and applying rules, cases, and law. Rule 411 is simply the most blatant illustration. 

 Fort Collins Insurance Lawyer Mac Hester

Representation in insurance claims, denial of insurance claims or coverage, breach of contract, and insurance bad faith.

 

Insurance Bad Faith - First Party

Your own insurance company owes a duty of good faith and fair dealing to you, its insured, because of your contract (the insurance policy) with the insurance company and because it is the law of Colorado. This is a "first party" contract.

The insurance company for the person or entity that  injured or damaged you (the liability insurer) does not owe a duty of good faith and fair dealing to you. The liability insurer owes a duty of good faith and fair dealing to its own insured, the person or entity that injured or damaged you. You are in a "third party" relationship with the liability insurer. So the liability insurer is not required to treat you fairly or to deal with you in good faith - which is why they usually don't.

1.  If your own insurance company (the first party insurer) violates the policy, then you can sue it for breach of contract - in which case you can recover common law contract damages if you win the case (and possibly additional statutory damages as discussed in paragraph 4). 

2.  If the first party insurer willfully violates the policy, then you can sue it for willful breach of contract - in which case you can recover common law contract damages and non-economic damages (emotional distress) if you have proved the willful conduct by clear and convincing evidence.

3.  If the first party insurer acted unreasonably in violating the policy or in handling your claim and it either knew that its conduct was unreasonable or recklessly disregarded the fact that its conduct was unreasonable and you were damaged, then you can recover common law contract damages (If you are pursuing policy benefits. then you may be able to get additional statutory damages as set forth in paragraph 4.), economic damages (past and future) and non-economic damages (past and future). This is called first party "bad faith" breach of contract or first party bad faith handling of your claim.

4.  If the first party insurer denied or delayed payment of policy benefits without a reasonable basis, then you will be able to recover double damages (two times contracted for benefits), court costs, and attorneys fees pursuant to C.R.S. section 10-3-1116 if you win your case.

5.  If the jury (or judge in a trial to the court) finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the first party insurer acted in a fraudulent or malicioius or willful and wanton manner, then you will be able to recover punitive damages (damages to punish the defendant). Punitive damages cannot exceed the amount of actual damages.

Fort Collins Colorado Insurance Bad Faith Lawyer Mac Hester

The Defendant Denied Liability Right up to Trial

In a rear end auto collision case, the Defendant is presumed by law to be at fault. The Defendant can overcome that presumption by proving, for example, that the Plaintiff slammed on the brakes and the Defendant couldn't stop in time.

However, in the case where the Plaintff was at a complete stop and the Defendant rear-ended the Plaintiff, the Defendant will not be able to overcome the presumption of liability. Nevertheless, Defendants rarely admit liability in litigation. They, or rather their attorneys - puppets of the insurance company, file an Answer admitting that the front of the Defendant's car struck the rear of the Plaintiff's car but they deny that the Defendant was at fault. After a year or more of litigation the case goes to trial. The Defendant has denied liability the entire way. Then, on the first day of trial the Defendant admits liability, says he's sorry, and says that he will be happy to pay what's reasonable.

The judge will not allow the Plaintiff to tell the jury that the Defendant has been denying liability from the start all the way to trial.

Q. Why would the Defendant deny liability all the way to trial and then admit liability?

A. (1) To punish the Plaintiff for filing a lawsuit by causing the Plaintiff to incur litigation expenses, delay, and frustration (Remember, the insurance company is paying for the attorney and litigation expenses, not the Defendant); (2) To teach the Plaintiff's attorney a lesson (If you file lawsuits you will be punished); (3) To advance the insurance industry agenda of punishing and preventing people from trying to recover for their injuries and damages; and (4) so that when the case goes to trial they can portrary the Plaintiff as greedy and the Defendant as magnanimous - admitting fault and being willing to pay a fair amount of damages (hoping of course that the jury is going to punish the Plaintiff by awarding little or no money damages - or at least not enought to have made the litigation economically productive).

Fort Collins Colorado Auto Accident Attorney Mac Hester

 

The Defendant Has Insurance

The Defendant has insurance and his or her insurance company is paying for the defense attorney and all litigation expenses.

The Defendant is not going to have to pay the verdict out of his or her own pocket.

The Defendant's insurance company will pay the verdict up to the amount of the Defendant's insurance coverage.

If the verdict exceeds the insurance coverage, then it is possible - but still unlikely - that the Defendant will have to pay some of the verdict out of his or her own pocket. It is unlikely because the insurance company will often pay the entire verdict to avoid being sued by its own insured (Defendant) for failing to settle the case for an amount equal to or less than the insurance coverage. That lawsuit by the insured against his own insurance company is called "Bad Faith Failure to Settle."

If the Plaintiff loses (verdict for the Defendant) then the Plaintiff gets nothing and is responsible for paying his or her own litigation expenses - which, in an average auto collision injury case, will be in the range of $20,000 to $40,000. AND, the Plaintiff will have to pay the litigation expenses of the Defendant - which may also be in the range of $20,000 to $40,000.

Fort Collins Auto Accident Lawyer Mac Hester 

 

 

Colorado "Caps" on Personal Injury Damages

  • Non-economic damages: $366,250 ($250,000 adjusted for inflation). But can be doubled if "clear and convincing evidence" shown. C.R.S. 13-21-102.5.
  • Punitive damages:  Not to exceed actual damages. C.R.S. 13-21-102.
  • Health care providers:  $1 million present value presumptive total, but may be exceeded for good cause shown if application of the cap is unfair; $300,000 for non-economic damages. C.R.S. 13-64-302.
  • Wrongful death: Economic damages not capped. Non-economic $341,250. C.R.S. 13-21-203.
  • Solatium for wrongful death:   $68,250. Economic damages not capped. C.R.S. 13-21-203.5.
  • Alcohol vendors, hosts:   $219,750. C.R.S. 12-47-801.
  • Ski areas:  $1 million present value; $250,000 non-economic. C.R.S. 33-44-113.
  • Government:  $150,000 per person; $600,000 per incident. C.R.S. 24-10-114.
  • Recreational lands:  $150,000 per person; $600,000 per incident. C.R.S. 33-41-103.
  • Construction professionals:  $250,000. C.R.S. 13-20-806.
  • Volunteers:  Applicable vehicle liability coverage. C.R.S. 13-21-115.5.
  • Reservoirs:  Must carry at least $50,000 per person and $500,000 per incident liability coverage (if so, then certain pesons are immunized). C.R.S. 37-87-104.
  • Damage caused by minor:  $3500. C.R.S. 12-21-107.

NOTE: This is only a summary of certain damage "caps"  and should not be solely relied upon. The applicable statutes must be reviewed carefully, as the statutes contain conditions, qualifications, and exceptions; e.g., the Governmental Immunity Act has a strict 180 day notice requirement that must be formally complied with.

Fort Collins Colorado Automobile Injury Attorney Mac Hester

 

Allstate Scorched Earth Claim & Litigation Tactics

Allstate, over the past several years, has implemented scorched earth insurance claim and litigation tactics, which were developed in large measure by McKinsey & Company. McKinsy was inspired by military strategy and tactics, especially the strategy and tactics advocated by Colonel Boyd of the U.S. Air Force (e.g., "OODA Loop") which subsequently were adopted by the U.S. Marines and implemented in the first Gulf War ("shock and awe") and in the invasion of Iraq ("seize the initiative"; "change the game"). McKinsey decided to focus on "change the game" and Allstate adopted McKinsey's plan and implemented it as "The New Game: 'Good Hands to Boxing Gloves'". The adandonment of the good hands metaphor in favor of the boxing gloves metaphor illustrates Allstate's strategy of confrontation and combat and implementation of intimidation tactics that are designed to bludgeon claimants and claimant attorneys into submission by making pursuit of claims unpleasant, stressful, time consuming and financially, mentally and emotionally expensive and by making claims uneconomic; e.g., incentivizing claimant attorneys to decline "soft tissue" cases and/or settle them cheaply and forcing claimants to drop claims or settle them cheaply.

Attorney David Berardinelli reveals McKinsey/Allstate tactics in his book "From Good Hands to Boxing Gloves: How Allstate Changed Casualty Insurance in America" and reveals the following quotes from McKinsey's materials obtained in an insurance bad faith lawsuit against Allstate:

Page 1426 "Improving Allstate's casualty economics will have a negative impact on medical providers, plaintiff attorneys, and claimants.

Page 1427 "Establishing new market values will require aggressive new litigation strategies."

Page 1609 "Align 'alligators' with 'attorneys.'"

Page 2827 "Objective Keep attorneys out."

Page 2929 "Winning the Economics Game; New plays, New game plan, Changing the rules, New game..."

Page 2932 "Capturing the opportunity will require reducing the number of represented claimants and more agressively managing the claims that do become represented."

Page 2939 "Aggressively manage those cases that become represented through...more aggresive litigation approaches."

Page 2939 "Many plaintiff attorneys yield to more aggressive tactics."

Page 2982 "Claims is an economic game. We will win the economic game."

Page 4216 "The New Game Plan: 'Zero Sum Game'... somebody has to win and somebody has to lose...We want to win by modifying the rules and regulations to our advantage."

Page 5226 "Roll Out: 'Build new evaluation system around Colossus..." [Colossus, a computerized claim valuation software program, will be discussed in a subsequent article.]

Page 5403 "Do not re-evaluate approved settlement amount. Stand firm on final offer with no real negotiation."

Page 6325 "These strategies will include significantly higher levels of litigation to establish lower values."

Page 6449 "Early Test Results Favorable: Test: Targeted: Evaluation '175 files through system, 37 settlements at approximately 50% of historic medians.'"

Page 8028 "Based on the existing levels of performance, the four process steps should ultimately yield between $375 million to $475 million a year in casualty by 1997." [Increased profit due to reduced payment of claims.]

Page 8043 "The first important step is to establish aggressive goals and tie compensation to performance against these goals." [Claim adjuster compensation is tied to limiting/reducing payment of claims.]

Page 10059 "Recommended Attorney Performance Measures: Measure: Results: Percent of cases closed at or below evaluated amount." [In house attorneys are compensated and retained or fired based on limiting/reducing payment of claims.]

Page 10069 "Outside Counsel Compensation Approach: Measure: Deviation from evaluated amount plus expenses; Resulting action: Base fee raised or lowered or Gain or loss of cases or Bonus at end of year." [Outside defense attorneys compensation and continued retention based on limiting/reducing payment of claims.]

Page 11545 "Colossus Training Checklist: Prior to MCO training: - Determine the number of tuning regions, - Complete initial tuning by evaluation consultants; Post training: Verify tuning: - Spot check closed claim study, - Create scatter graphs and calculate payment rates, - Retune as necessary." [Tuning, essentially, means that if the computer spits out numbers that Allstate management thinks is too high, then Allstate will re-program the computer to spit out lower numbers so that Allstate will have higher profits.]

The above quotes come from Litigating Minor Impact Soft Tissue Cases, Koehler, Karen K. and Freeman, Michael D., ATLA Press, Thomson-West, 2005, vol. 1, 2005 supp. pp.67-74 which notes that the quotes are "unverified" in the sense that attorney Berardinelli obtained them while reviewing the McKinsey materials while under a temporary protective order. The court ruled that the McKinsey materials (and thus quotes derived therefrom) were not protected trade secrets. Allstate appealed, but their appeal was dismissed as untimely filed.

Fort Collins Colorado Personal Injury Attorney Mac Hester

 

 

Colorado Auto Insurance

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.

Negligence

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.

 Fort Collins Injury Attorney Mac Hester

Welcome to Colorado Trial Practice Blog

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.

Fort Collins Personal Injury Lawyer Mac Hester