I didn't know what to expect because I had never been in an accident like this before--actually, I was trying to work the case myself and it wasn't going so well. Fortunately, I talked to Mike and he was able help me out. He did an outstanding job.

-J. D. Dodd
Commercial Vehicle Accident

Proving Proximate Cause

San Antonio, TX Attorney Michael Grossman Discusses Proximate Cause in a Personal Injury Lawsuit

In any personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove proximate cause. Proximate cause is the event without which the accident would not have happened – the sine qua non.

Do you have a legal question?
Enter your phone number below and let's talk.
--

Proximate cause is not necessarily the first event in a series of events that led to the plaintiff’s injuries, nor is it necessarily the event that happened immediately before the injury. Proximate cause has to do solely with causing an accident. As an example, if a speeding motorist crashes into another car and the driver in that vehicle is injured, the speeding motorist’s reckless driving would likely be considered proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. That is, if the driver had not been speeding, then the other driver would not have been hurt.

However, proximate cause is not always so straightforward, as there can sometimes be multiple proximate causes to an accident. For example, consider a theoretical case wherein a pedestrian is struck by a drunk driver. Obviously, the drunk driver’s reckless action (driving while intoxicated) is one proximate cause to the pedestrian’s injuries. But Texas law allows victims injured by intoxicated person’s to (in some cases) hold the bar or establishment that served the intoxicated person responsible for any damages that intoxicated individual causes. In other words, if a bar or other establishment serves a person to the point of intoxication, that bar is thereby liable for any damages caused by the intoxicated person’s actions. This means that the bar where the driver got dunk in our example would also be a proximate cause of the victim’s injuries, and he or she could bring a lawsuit against the bar as well through a dram shop cause of action.

Whenever our firm takes a case, we conduct a thorough investigation of the details surrounding your accident. We work hard to identify every possible defendant so that you can be fully compensated for your injuries. We have a proven track record, with twenty years of experience in all personal injury practice areas.

Insurance adjusters and defense law firms know who we are, and they often cooperate fully with our settlement demands, simply because they do not want to face our attorneys in court. In other words, we can get you back on your feet quickly so that you can get on with your life. So if you or someone you love has been injured in an accident due to another person’s negligence, contact San Antonio personal injury attorney Michael Grossman today, and let us help you bring those responsible for your injuries to justice.


Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$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.
Total Recovery:
$226,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$84,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,500.00
$100,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries)
Recovery for client injured in a car accident in Dallas.
Total Recovery:
$100,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$33,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$100.00
$41,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries)
Recovery for client who suffered soft tissue injuries when she was struck by an 18-wheeler.
Total Recovery:
$41,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$13,666.00
Litigation Expenses:
$135.00
$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.
Total Recovery:
$70,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$23,100.00
Litigation Expenses:
$600.00
$150,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Nerve Damage)
Recovery for client who suffered nerve damage and required steroid injections as a result of a car accident.
Total Recovery:
$150,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$50,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$4,800.00
$550,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Closed-Head Injury)
A painter fell from an apartment balcony resulting in a closed-head injury and other minor bodily injuries. The case was successfully resolved through litigation against the plaintiff's employer and the general contractor.
Total Recovery:
$550,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$220,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$20,465.00
$40,000.00 Recovery - Medical Malpractice (Sexual Harassment by a Medical Provider)
Recovery for client who was sexually harassed by a medical provider.
Total Recovery:
$40,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$16,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$575.00
$125,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Closed-Head Injury)
Recovery for injured worker who suffered a closed head injury in a scaffolding accident.
Total Recovery:
$125,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$30,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$2,135.00
$350,000.00 Recovery - Premises Liability (Brain Injury)
Our attorneys sued an apartment complex in relation to a brain injury sustained by a toddler when he fell through a balcony railing. The apartment complex denied liability, asserted that their railings were in spec at the time of the building's construction (some 20 years prior), and they claimed that the child's mother was contributorily negligent in that she did not notice that her child was playing near the railing.

Through litigation, our attorneys countered the defendant's arguments by showing that the case law does not support the notion of any safety related concerns in the building code being "grandfathered" in. On the contrary, a property owner has an obligation to keep safety features such as balcony railings within the specs at all times. The railings in this complex were spaced at 7 inch intervals, which was at odds with the now-standard 4 inch interval.

Additionally, our attorneys countered the claims of contributory negligence as a practical matter in that the mother was indeed monitoring the child's activity and the child literally ran up to the railing and immediately fell through the rails. Alternatively, we argued that the doctrine of parental immunity applied and that the contributory negligence, if any such negligence ever even occurred, of the mother would not be admissible. The case was satisfactorily resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$350,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$115,500.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,000.00
$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.
Total Recovery:
$210,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$70,110.00
Litigation Expenses:
$3,787.00

"When I Lost My Daughter..."

Get Adobe Flash player

Our Cases in the News

Get Adobe Flash player

Contact Us

Fill out the form below and a legal professional will contact you shortly.

Full Name:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Describe your situation:

   

Related Articles

Click to Call

--
Enter your phone number above and click "Call Me" to talk to one of our lawyers about your potential case.

Our Clients' Words

Recent Successes