- Home
- All Practice Areas
- Personal Injury
- What is Personal Injury?
- Personal Injury Statute of Limitations
- Can I Handle My Own Case?
- How Personal Injury Claims Work
- How Our Attorneys Can Help
- Denied Insurance Claims
- Personal Injury Damages
- Premises Liability
- What To Expect After Filing a Claim
- Types of Personal Injury
- Burn Injuries
- What is a Personal Injury Lawsuit?
- Why Do I Need an Attorney?
- Can I File an Injury Claim?
- Mediating a Personal Injury Case
- The Victim's Duty to Mitigate Damages
- San Antonio Personal Injury Lawyers
- Preponderance of Evidence
- San Antonio Personal Injury Attorneys
- Proving Proximate Cause
- San Antonio Law Firms
- The Thin Skull Rule
- San Antonio Injury Lawyer
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- San Antonio Injury Law Firm
- Vicarious Liability
- Personal Injury Attorneys in San Antonio
- Subrogation
- Personal Injury Lawyers in San Antonio
- San Antonio Injury Lawyers
- Wrongful Death
- Texas Wrongful Death Law Explained
- Wrongful Death Statute of Limitations
- The Benefits of a Wrongful Death Attorney
- Auto Accident Wrongful Death
- Semi Truck Accident Wrongful Death
- Wrongful Deaths on the Job
- Construction Accident Wrongful Death
- Loss of Future Earnings Compensation
- Texas Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Big Rig Accidents
- Texas Truck Accident Attorney
- Commercial Vehicle Accidents
- 18-Wheeler Accident Litigation
- Truck Accident Claims
- Insurance Company Tactics
- Fatal Big Rig Accidents
- Dump Truck Accidents
- Flatbed Trailer Accidents
- Falling Cargo Accidents
- Causes of 18-Wheeler Accidents
- San Antonio 18-Wheeler Accident Attorney
- San Antonio Truck Accident Lawyers
- San Antonio Truck Accident Attorney
- Unsafe Trucking Practices
- Legal Opposition You Will Face
- Don't Damage Your Case
- Tractor Trailer Accidents
- Texas Truck Accident Lawyer
- San Antonio Truck Accident Firm
- Automobile Accidents
- San Antonio Auto Accident Lawyer
- Common Car Accident Injuries
- How To File an Accident Injury Claim
- San Antonio Car Accident Lawyer
- Child Injuries in a Car Accident
- Passenger Injuries
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Insurance
- Proportionate Responsibility
- Tire Defect Accidents
- Rollover Accidents
- The Benefit of Hiring An Attorney
- Challenges Recovering Compensation
- Auto Accident Attorney in San Antonio
- San Antonio Accident Injury Lawyer
- The Legal Opposition You Will Face
- Uninsured Motorist Accidents
- San Antonio Accident Attorney
- What To Do After an Accident
- San Antonio Car Wreck Lawyer
- Work Related Accidents
- Construction Accidents
- Drunk Driver Accidents
- Other Vehicle Accidents
- Dangerous & Defective Products
- Drowning Accidents
- Day Care Abuse
- Medical Malpractice
- What is Medical Malpractice?
- Filing a Medical Malpractice Claim
- Malpractice Claims & Litigation Process
- Nursing Home Abuse & Neglect
- Misdiagnosis & Faulure to Diagnose
- Pharmacy & Prescription Errors
- Surgical Errors & Mistakes
- Nursing Malpractice
- Birth Injury
- Rest Home Abuse
- The Informed Consent Document
- Birth Injury Malpractice
- Drug & Pharmacy Injuries
- Personal Injury
- Our Attorneys
- Success Stories
- Information Center
- Contact
Mr. Grossman and his staff took good care me and my family. I highly recommend his services to anyone who has a significant injury from an accident.
-
E. McClure
Commercial Vehicle Accident Case
Proving a Preponderance of Evidence
Texas Personal Injury Attorney Michael Grossman Explains Preponderance of Evidence
In a personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff (accident victim) has the burden of proof. There are several things that a plaintiff must prove (their attorneys do the actual work) to the jury.
The standard of proof that a plaintiff is burdened with, is known as the preponderance of evidence. This phrase essentially means that the plaintiff must prove that his or her claims are true and believable for all intents and purposes. That is to say, that his claim is more than likely accurate. This is considerably different than the standard of proof in a criminal case where the state has an obligation to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
For a personal injury lawsuit to be successful, the plaintiff must be able to demonstrate that:
- They were owed a legal duty
- That duty was violated
- That violation was the proximate cause of their injury
- That they incurred damages as a result of that violation
Legal Duty Owed and Violated
In a broad sense, we all have a legal duty to ensure that our actions do not cause harm to those around us, such as when we drive a car we must do so in a safe manner. Often times, people are owed more specific legal duties. For example, a drinking establishment owes a legal duty to us all to ensure that their patrons do not endanger the public by way of being served to the point of intoxication. Another example of a more specific legal duty is an employer's duty to ensure the safety of their employees by providing a workplace free from safety hazards.
The plaintiff has the obligation to prove that the defendant owed them a legal duty and that it was violated. To do this, the plaintiff's attorneys will cite the specific statutes and case law that are relevant to the incident in order to prove to the jury that such a violation occurred. This is further corroborated with physical evidence, witness statements, expert reports, etc.
Proving Proximate Cause
A proximate cause is, by definition, an event sufficiently related to an injury to be held the cause of that injury. It is not necessarily the event immediately preceding the injury, nor the first in a chain of events leading to an injury. It is simply an event, without which, the injury would not have occurred. In a car accident in which the defendant was at fault, it can be relatively easy to show that the collision was the proximate cause of an injury. But in a defective drug case, for example, it may take the testimony of a medical professional to establish a causal link between the taking of the drug and the plaintiff's subsequent injury.
In any event, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant was the proximate cause of their injury. In some cases the defendant is the sole proximate cause, meaning that they were the only contributing factor to the injury. Again, a car accident is a perfect example of this. In other cases, they were one of several contributing factors that resulted in the injury. For instance, a person may sue the manufacturer of an automobile for selling the car with defective seat belts that caused them to suffer an injury. The driver of the other car that hit them may be the reason that the accident happened, but the seat belt defect is certainly a cause of the injury as well.
Proving Damages
Damages are the dollar figure placed on the plaintiff's suffering, and the plaintiff must prove that they incurred damages as a result of the defendant's actions (or inaction). Damages come in many forms but are typically in the form of medical expenses, lost wages, money for pain and suffering and mental anguish, etc.
A primary job of the defense attorneys is to downplay the amount owed to the victim. They attempt to cast doubt on the validity of the plaintiff's claim for damages and the plaintiff has the burden of proving up the damages. Many law firms don't always focus as much effort on this as is necessary. At Grossman Law Offices we use expert witnesses, computer rendering, video evidence & much more to validate the extent of your damages in such a way that a jury can understand in order to ensure that you get the maximum recovery possible. If you or someone you love has suffered a personal injury, call the San Antonio attorneys at Grossman Law Offices today!
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$210,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Neck Injury Requiring Surgery)
Our client was injured in a motor vehicle accident when an employer driving a company vehicle failed to yield the right of way and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant's employer was sued for negligence soon thereafter. The defendants alleged that the company should not be held liable for the actions of the employee.
They claimed that the employee was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Through discovery, our attorneys learned that the defendants had a policy, both written and implied, whereby employees of the company were allowed to drive work vehicles after hours.
Furthermore, our attorneys argued case law that expanded the definition of course and scope which showed that the defendant was indeed "on the clock" when the accident occurred.
As a result, the defendants conceded liability and turned their defenses toward the alleged damages. They claimed that our client had a preexisting condition that was responsible for her current state.
We deposed the emergency room physician who assessed the client and recommended surgery regarding the medical necessity of the surgical procedure and the proximate cause of the plaintiff's condition. He testimony unequivocally defeated these arguments. The case was satisfactorily resolved through litigation.
Our client was injured in a motor vehicle accident when an employer driving a company vehicle failed to yield the right of way and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant's employer was sued for negligence soon thereafter. The defendants alleged that the company should not be held liable for the actions of the employee.
They claimed that the employee was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Through discovery, our attorneys learned that the defendants had a policy, both written and implied, whereby employees of the company were allowed to drive work vehicles after hours.
Furthermore, our attorneys argued case law that expanded the definition of course and scope which showed that the defendant was indeed "on the clock" when the accident occurred.
As a result, the defendants conceded liability and turned their defenses toward the alleged damages. They claimed that our client had a preexisting condition that was responsible for her current state.
We deposed the emergency room physician who assessed the client and recommended surgery regarding the medical necessity of the surgical procedure and the proximate cause of the plaintiff's condition. He testimony unequivocally defeated these arguments. The case was satisfactorily resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$210,000.00
$210,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$70,110.00
$70,110.00
Litigation Expenses:
$3,787.00
$3,787.00
$180,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries and Labor Complications)
Recovery for pregnant car accident victim who suffered a premature delivery and soft tissue injuries.
Recovery for pregnant car accident victim who suffered a premature delivery and soft tissue injuries.
Total Recovery:
$180,000.00
$180,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$38,333.00
$38,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$138.00
$138.00
$70,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries to Neck, Back, and Knee)
Recovered for car accident victim who suffered soft-tissue injuries to knee, neck, and back.
Recovered for car accident victim who suffered soft-tissue injuries to knee, neck, and back.
Total Recovery:
$70,000.00
$70,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$23,100.00
$23,100.00
Litigation Expenses:
$600.00
$600.00
$226,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Shoulder Injury Requiring Surgery)
Our attorneys were hired by a delivery driver who sustained a serious shoulder injury when a worker for a third party negligently operated a fork lift. The accident occurred as the plaintiff delivered a load of hay bails to a commercial farm.
An employee of said facility attempted to unload the trailer with a forklift. In doing so, he pushed several bales of hay off of the flatbed, over the side opposite the forklift. Consequently, several of the 400 lb (est.) bales of hay struck the plaintiff who was working to disconnect tie downs on the opposite side of the trailer. This resulted in serious injury to the plaintiff's shoulder.
The defendants took an aggressive stance and denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries by virtue of the fact that he was standing in a known dangerous area. Suit was filed soon thereafter. Our attorneys argued that the plaintiff's ordinary work duties, and indeed the normal protocol for all flatbed delivery drivers, consists of letting loose the materials to be unloaded. We maintained that the true cause of the plaintiff's injuries was that the forklift operator rushed into unloading the trailer.
Furthermore, the manner in which he unloaded the trailer was itself a contributing element of the defendant's negligence. The forks that were incorporated into the forklift in question were not compatible with stabbing hay bails; they were ordinary forks that were designed to be positioned below a heavy object that was to be lifted. The case was successfully resolved in mediation.
Our attorneys were hired by a delivery driver who sustained a serious shoulder injury when a worker for a third party negligently operated a fork lift. The accident occurred as the plaintiff delivered a load of hay bails to a commercial farm.
An employee of said facility attempted to unload the trailer with a forklift. In doing so, he pushed several bales of hay off of the flatbed, over the side opposite the forklift. Consequently, several of the 400 lb (est.) bales of hay struck the plaintiff who was working to disconnect tie downs on the opposite side of the trailer. This resulted in serious injury to the plaintiff's shoulder.
The defendants took an aggressive stance and denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries by virtue of the fact that he was standing in a known dangerous area. Suit was filed soon thereafter. Our attorneys argued that the plaintiff's ordinary work duties, and indeed the normal protocol for all flatbed delivery drivers, consists of letting loose the materials to be unloaded. We maintained that the true cause of the plaintiff's injuries was that the forklift operator rushed into unloading the trailer.
Furthermore, the manner in which he unloaded the trailer was itself a contributing element of the defendant's negligence. The forks that were incorporated into the forklift in question were not compatible with stabbing hay bails; they were ordinary forks that were designed to be positioned below a heavy object that was to be lifted. The case was successfully resolved in mediation.
Total Recovery:
$226,000.00
$226,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$84,000.00
$84,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,500.00
$5,500.00
$100,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries)
Recovery for passenger of Uninsured Driver Injured in Head-On Crash.
Recovery for passenger of Uninsured Driver Injured in Head-On Crash.
Total Recovery:
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$41,500.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Soft-Tissue Neck Injuries)
Recovery for client who suffered soft tissue neck injuries in a relatively minor car accident.
Recovery for client who suffered soft tissue neck injuries in a relatively minor car accident.
Total Recovery:
$41,500.00
$41,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$16,600.00
$16,600.00
Litigation Expenses:
$918.00
$918.00
$475,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Motorcycle Accident (Shoulder Injury Requiring Surgery)
An airline pilot suffered a shoulder injury resulting in surgery when he was sideswiped by an 18-wheeler. The case was resolved through litigation, as establishing liability was a contentious matter. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff made an illegal passing maneuver, but the evidence showed that the defendant made a sweeping turn and intruded upon our client's right of way.
An airline pilot suffered a shoulder injury resulting in surgery when he was sideswiped by an 18-wheeler. The case was resolved through litigation, as establishing liability was a contentious matter. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff made an illegal passing maneuver, but the evidence showed that the defendant made a sweeping turn and intruded upon our client's right of way.
Total Recovery:
$475,000.00
$475,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$158,333.00
$158,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$40,000.00 Recovery - Premises Liability Accident (Foot Injury Requiring Surgery)
Recovery for client who needed surgery on her foot due to a slip and fall accident.
Recovery for client who needed surgery on her foot due to a slip and fall accident.
Total Recovery:
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$16,000.00
$16,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,168.00
$1,168.00
$100,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries)
Recovery for client injured in a car accident in Dallas.
Recovery for client injured in a car accident in Dallas.
Total Recovery:
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$33,000.00
$33,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$100.00
$100.00
$100,000.00 Recovery - Motorcycle Accident (Neck, Back, and Knee Injury)
Recovery for a client who suffered neck, back, and knee injuries in a motor cycle accident.
Recovery for a client who suffered neck, back, and knee injuries in a motor cycle accident.
Total Recovery:
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$33,333.00
$33,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$627.00
$627.00



