by KKmommy » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:40 pm
My children and I were rear ended Sept 23, 2007. I secured an attorney and assumed he would be handling my children's claim as well. He is not and only recently contacted me to sign papers allowing him to represent my children. During this time I have found out my attorney has been in jail for the past 4 years for embezzlement. He also told me during these past 4 years he had taken time off and was in Europe taking a much needed vacation. Ok so Im stuck with him and at this point I am trying to handle my children's claim on my own. My children werent taken to the hospital in an ambulance nor was I, I was taken straight to jail and not offered medical attention because I was driving under suspension. The driver who struck me failed to yeild to a light on a draw bridge and rammed the back of my car. The insurance company has totaled my car and paid damages in the amount of $1500.00 (and I had to pay the storage and towing fees). Ok so when I was released from jail later on that night I had to go the ER and took my children along with me of course. A very good friend of mine came with to help with the children. I did not realize until later on that my children had not recieved xrays. I'm trying to make this story short but detailed as possible. Again I am trying to settle the claim for my children who are 2 and 10 the 10 year old being a downs child. Neither of my children are verbal and I have a hard time trying to access they're level of pain! My children's lives have been turned upside down to having to move from a private school to a county school, to changing they're everyday routine, as well as nightmares and the battle I go thru to get them both in vehicles and on the school bus since the accident. The insurance adjuster offered my children $500.00 for they're pain and suffering. This is ridiculous to me, what should I do, how do I know what they're claim is worth? What about future effects of this wreck on my children? The adjuster has assured me that because my children had to leave they're home and relocate to another school who cannot service my son's needs as his previous school...my 2yr old's nightmares and unwillingness to ride in a vehicle is compensated for with an offer of 500 not to exceed 650.00!
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:38 am Post Subject:
tusso, debate always pulls out some real good points and information. It is unfortunate that kmommy was in this accident, but to Loris point, she should not have been driving, LOL. and I think she is well aware of that, but I don't know what her circumstances are that forces her to drive without a license and insurance. We see it everyday where I work, people looking for a job without a license, we live in a rural area where public transportation is not available, so through many different situations such as dui they loose thier license but still have to put food on the table and pay the bills. I don't agree with their actions and hope they get them restored soon, but they will drive regardless. One of my felons has never had a license and did quite a few years for not obtaining one, go figure, he probably will never get a license, he has been arrested so many times it has become a felony conviction, along with dui. People will do what they have to do, legal or not.
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:42 am Post Subject:
Some good points Good natured, while I agree with
People will do what they have to do,
People will also do WHAT THEY WANT TO DO...legal or not..Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:05 pm Post Subject:
On principle felt Trusso might be interested to know that marriage laws are nearly identical in both NY and LA
Some states are whacky, like ones that allow 13 year olds to get married or to marry members of their own family.
Louisiana: Applicants aged 16 and 17 will need the appearance of their parents at the clerk's office at the time of the marriage application. If your parents were divorced, you will need to have them show a certified copy of the custody judgment. A court order is necessary for anyone under the age of 16 to receive a marriage license
New York: If you are 16 or 17 years of age, you will need to have a completed parental consent form filled out by both parents. If you are either 14 or 15 years of age, you will need to show the written consent of both parents and a justice of the Supreme Court or a judge of the local Family Court.
Some states are whacky, like ones that allow 13 year olds to get married or to marry members of their own family.
AND HERE'S THE REAL KICKER!!!!
LA does not allow first cousins to marry unless they are adopted...
NY ALLOWS FIRST COUSINS TO MARRY!!!!!!!!
Marriage License Laws
Note: All states allow the marriage of second cousins.
Louisiana: Adopted cousins, yes.
New York: First cousins, yes.
We should always becareful when hurling insults, my step dad used to say, 'when you are pointing one finger at someone, three others are pointing back AT YOU'....
ok, i feel i have vendicated LA now....
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 04:53 pm Post Subject:
I really am not here to call anyone names and hurl insults at anyone. I thought I was debating this pretty well, except for the "half-assed state" comment. I wasnt calling anyone one an ass personally. I just know that some states have some strange laws. I guess NY is not devoid of those but we always here of states having their own rules that are far from the rest of the country. I apologize to Louisiana if I offended thee. But it is pretty hard to defend themselves when one of their great exports is Britney Spears. Oops, I did it again. Sorry Britney.
Seriously, it just seemed that common sense was being attacked in this thread. The physical accident was the rear-ender's fault. I was being fought tooth and nail on that point. Of course, if the woman didnt drive, she wouldnt have been there and therefore, could not have been rear ended. But that is too much of a "if, then" statement. (ie: If Mark David Chapman's parents did not have sexual relations, then the Beatles would have reunited and John Lennon would be alive and happy). We can take it a step further and say that if this woman didnt drive, then maybe a fuel truck would have been there instead and the rear-ender would have been dead and blown to pieces. Do you see how far fetched we get when we add all of the other "ifs". If she had insurance, we would all feel bad for her and told her to go after car #2 because they were clearly at fault and wrecklessly slammed into her. Since she didnt have insurance, now some are saying that that same car is no longer at fault. I am not referring to you Lori. There were others in the thread that said that due to these circumstances, car #2 was no longer at fault because car #1 shouldnt have been on the road.
One thing I do not understand, Lori, is that you are looking beyond the information that the OP is telling the truth about her not being taken away in handcuffs in front of her kids. I am just responding to the information given. I am not investigating it deeply. This is not a court of law. Of course, we can look deeper and think the worst, butI think we should be debating the facts given.
I have to re-read the OP. I kind of skimmed over the part where she got arrested. I was only interested in the physical damage of the vehicle, which is what I responded about in the first place.
As for cousins marrying, you are right. That is a new law, I beleive that passed last year. THis state is getting whacky. Our governor was about to give all illegal immigrants drivers licenses so that there would be a way to track them. Meanwhile, that would mean they would take away all of the driving jobs and work fo $8/hr and also they would be given the right to vote, and they arent even citizens. The people of NY were so astounded and vocal about it, we changed his mind about it. If there is one group of people I am not going to apologize about offending, it is the illegal immigrants that are here sucking our government of it's resources. (sorry).
But let's stay away from world issues. Tell your daddy he gave good advice. I learned that right here in this forum. I can have a debate without being insulting. I am intelligent but not so intelligent that I more intelligent than everyone. You, Lori, were insinuating that was not intelligent at all and you told me to GROW THE HELL UP. That isnt exactly a kind thing to say.
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 01:37 am Post Subject:
YES she was ! she was on the street! And she should not have been PERIOD..again, no way (in a pure comparative state let's say) that she would get the higher percentage....But I have handled many many claims with facts of loss exactly like these (minus mama goes to jail) and yes even arb.has given this uninsured, or unlicensed driver at least 10% negligence...
Anything is possible in a court of law but... I don't agree. The two things don't have anything to do with each other in that not having a drivers license does not negate liability against the party that rear ended the OP. I understand your point and it does appear to make sense but I cannot see any court upholding this stance. Again, the are just too far removed from each other to be related. Example: perhaps her license was suspended because she did not pay some parking tickets. What does that have to do with the accident? Your only argument is that she should have never been driving on the road, therefore avoiding the accident was partially in her control. Those things are too far removed from each other. Lets say I'm under house arrest but I'm illegally walking down he street. You walk up and hit me. You're going to argue that I had some negligence as I should not have been in public to begin with? The correct response to the OP driving without a valid drivers is to issue her a citation... not to place liability against her for the accident.I said it once and I'll mention it again... AFI is not a true measure of liability.
:arrow: Okay... I just read ahead and see that you "clarified" your post (though, you certainly did not mention your post applied only to the BI claim for the children). I agree that the children's "trauma" claim is diminished but not because of liability... because most of it was probably due to the OP being hauled off to jail (sorry, OP).
NY ALLOWS FIRST COUSINS TO MARRY!!!!!!!!
Sweet... I'm moving to NY... I have a HOT first cousin! 8) :lol:Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 08:54 am Post Subject: kkmommy
*sigh* Thank most of you for your positive responses. Let me address this lady who has nothing to do with her spare time. My children were never taken away from me as a result of the arrest...My brother who was 2 cars behind, took my children away as it started to pour DOWN RAIN...at my request, my car was in no position for my children to be sitting in and waiting. The police due to traffic being backed up because of the accident and weather did not arrive until half an hour later...my children never saw me arrested and left with they're UNCLE. I caused no trauma to my children. Find something else to discuss because in this case lady you have no idea what you are talking about...and you are wrong. As for my getting my license back, I am working on it. I wont go into details, Goodnatured the outlook is good and I will have my license back very soon. Now I know I'm not at fault I've consulted with another attoney and he is more then pleased to handle the claims. Again I was stopped at a light waiting on the draw bridge to go up...Clearly stopped, so If I were the passenger in someone else's insured car, involved in a similar accident the police ran my id and found I had a warrent due to an unpaid ticket and went to jail, I'm still at fault for my children's trauma? LOL stop this really.
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 08:57 am Post Subject:
I need to stop reading these posts! I never said I went to jail for lack of insurace, keep up people. I went to jail for driving under suspension. I came here seeking advice, I have no reason to lie about the accident to anyone period. If you dont believe what I have to say, you have nothing positive to contribute...then why bother really, you're just taking up space. Leave the post to people who have a genuine interest in offering sound advice as to how I should proceed. I was rear ended, I was driving under suspension I went to jail, My children NEVER saw me in handcuffs as they were back at our home before the police arrived with FAMILY, I did not cause my children any trauma. A big ass truck coming out of no where hitting they're car scared my children, not mommy going to jail, they didnt see it and they know nothing of it. Again any advice is very helpful to me at this point, but some posts I'll have to bypass as they have yet to prove helpful so far. Again everyone else thank you and I will keep you all posted.
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:39 am Post Subject:
you're right trusso this was uncalled for and i apologize
You, Lori, were insinuating that was not intelligent at all and you told me to GROW THE HELL UP. That isnt exactly a kind thing to say
it was knee jerk and my insinuation was that we don't display intelligence when we rather than stick to topic, hurl insults...again sorry....lastly, i do not think for one second the other driver is not 100% at fault for the accident and any 'injury' sustainted...simply that the mother 'contributed' to the 'trauma' portion...of her childrens ''injuries''
Okay... I just read ahead and see that you "clarified" your post (though, you certainly did not mention your post applied only to the BI claim for the children). I agree that the children's "trauma" claim is diminished but not because of liability... because most of it was probably due to the OP being hauled off to jail (sorry, OP).
I should've (clearly) been more clear...I thought I was even with my first post, but apparently i wasn't as seems you all thought i was talking about the entire claim...the only part of this that i am in disagreement about is that the mother contributed to the kids ''trauma'' claim...that's ALL...
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:46 am Post Subject:
It is a shame that the kids are nonverbal and have these disabilities that don't let them express what is going on with them. Hopefully they are getting the medical attention that they need, they are the true victims of both parties here really. Mom, putting them in the situation and the other person for hitting the car. I hope the kids are getting through this okay.
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:53 am Post Subject:
I could not agree more good natured
they are the true victims of both parties here really. Mom, putting them in the situation and the other person for hitting the car. I hope the kids are getting through this okay.
Add your comment