Our San Antonio Lawyers have been helping people in Bexar County with their auto accidents successfully. We do this because our paralegals, case managers and lawyers, are ranked by others as Top Legal Representation. But we just don't say this, others do.
We have been able to get maximum settlements for our clients as a result of some one's negligence. Our legal team will make an on spot determination of liability, and send you to see doctors immediately. We have top paralegal helping our lawyers with the case unlike insurance companies who do not!
We are proud to say that, since we have not lost a single personal injury case, we offer contingency cases. If we don't win, we don't get pay! It's that simple.
We have been selected as Super Lawyers by our peers. Insurance companies have lawyers in their ranks, you should have Top Lawyers on yours when it comes to Auto Accidents.
Download our free accident applications for both iPhones and Android.
Find Personal Injury Trial Lawyers that will treat you with dignity and respect. The Baez Law Firm, P.C. is dedicated to help those less fortunate. We are professionals that care about your legal needs. Come visit us www.thebaezlawfirm.com or call us (210) 979-9777. Have a blessed day!
The Baez Law Firm | San Antonio Lawyers and Attorneys
San Antonio Lawyers and Attorneys
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The 4th Amendment and Excessive Force: A case that helps our clients!
The threshold to overcome by Plaintiffs in civil actions against Police Officers for "excessive force" is that, the force utilized on the date in question has to be excessive and not reasonable under the circumstances.
In all cases, the "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split–second judgments–in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly revolving–about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers’ actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.
This case bellow has been used by our law firm to time and time again to help our client's cases in federal court against police officers who used "excessive force." This is a 5th Circuit case.
Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2004)
A police officer sought to detain a sixteen (16) year old woman because she was parked on the wrong side of the road and because, when he shined a spotlight on her car, several people fled from the vicinity. The woman did not respond to the officer’s repeated commands that she stop and instead drove away. The officer shot her car to prevent her escape. The officer’s shot entered the car’s bumper just above the tailpipe and ultimately lodged in the back of the muffler. The minor suffered no immediate physical injury, though her car was damaged.
When the woman stopped, the officer arrested her for evading detention. It was determined that the sixteen years old was in violation of a weeknight curfew for minors. Later investigation revealed alcohol in the area surrounding where the car was parked, though no evidence suggested she had been drinking. The woman sued the officer and the city pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming excessive use of force.
On appeal, the court held that the district court properly denied summary judgment on the excessive force claim. The officer used physical force by shooting at her car, and the termination of her freedom of movement was accomplished by the shot to her car. The suspect’s perception of her detention is not considered when it is accomplished by means of physical force. It was clearly established that shooting toward a person is a use of physical force. It was also clearly established that a use of physical force that succeeds in stopping a fleeing suspect constitutes a seizure. It was clearly established that stopping a moving car by intentionally shooting it constitutes a seizure.
It was clearly established at the time that psychological injuries can be sufficient to state a 4th Amendment excessive force claim. The officer was on notice that using force carrying with it a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm is "deadly force." The officer was also on notice that deadly force would only be justified by a reasonable belief that he or the public was in imminent danger. The officer reasonably should have known that his action caused a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm. As such, the officer is not protected by qualified immunity as to the minor’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.
Police Officers should not be deterred from using force, if necessary, while effectuating an arrest, but only when–the force utilized–is "objectively reasonable" under the circumstances and not "excessive." It is the burden of the Plaintiff to prove and show that the Police Officer was not entitled to Qualified Immunity on the particular date.
If you, or someone you know has been injured by a police officer, and you believe that the force was excessive give us a call (210) 979-9777. The Baez Law Firm has been helping people with their police brutality cases and has been successful in bringing great results.
In all cases, the "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split–second judgments–in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly revolving–about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers’ actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.
This case bellow has been used by our law firm to time and time again to help our client's cases in federal court against police officers who used "excessive force." This is a 5th Circuit case.
Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2004)
A police officer sought to detain a sixteen (16) year old woman because she was parked on the wrong side of the road and because, when he shined a spotlight on her car, several people fled from the vicinity. The woman did not respond to the officer’s repeated commands that she stop and instead drove away. The officer shot her car to prevent her escape. The officer’s shot entered the car’s bumper just above the tailpipe and ultimately lodged in the back of the muffler. The minor suffered no immediate physical injury, though her car was damaged.
When the woman stopped, the officer arrested her for evading detention. It was determined that the sixteen years old was in violation of a weeknight curfew for minors. Later investigation revealed alcohol in the area surrounding where the car was parked, though no evidence suggested she had been drinking. The woman sued the officer and the city pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming excessive use of force.
On appeal, the court held that the district court properly denied summary judgment on the excessive force claim. The officer used physical force by shooting at her car, and the termination of her freedom of movement was accomplished by the shot to her car. The suspect’s perception of her detention is not considered when it is accomplished by means of physical force. It was clearly established that shooting toward a person is a use of physical force. It was also clearly established that a use of physical force that succeeds in stopping a fleeing suspect constitutes a seizure. It was clearly established that stopping a moving car by intentionally shooting it constitutes a seizure.
It was clearly established at the time that psychological injuries can be sufficient to state a 4th Amendment excessive force claim. The officer was on notice that using force carrying with it a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm is "deadly force." The officer was also on notice that deadly force would only be justified by a reasonable belief that he or the public was in imminent danger. The officer reasonably should have known that his action caused a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm. As such, the officer is not protected by qualified immunity as to the minor’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.
Police Officers should not be deterred from using force, if necessary, while effectuating an arrest, but only when–the force utilized–is "objectively reasonable" under the circumstances and not "excessive." It is the burden of the Plaintiff to prove and show that the Police Officer was not entitled to Qualified Immunity on the particular date.
If you, or someone you know has been injured by a police officer, and you believe that the force was excessive give us a call (210) 979-9777. The Baez Law Firm has been helping people with their police brutality cases and has been successful in bringing great results.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Judgment for $1.3 million
The Baez Law Firm from San Antonio Texas, obtained a trial judgment Friday, June 29, 2012 against Skyco Inc. an equipment company from Florida. The judgment was obtained based on Skyco's misrepresentations fraud and deceptive practices here in Texas.
The judgment was awarded to Pannel Construction Co. a Texas company that purchased equipment from Skyco. Pannel Construction is one of many clients of the firm, that we have help recover damages for their injuries here in Texas.
When any company does business over the internet in Texas, they can be held liable to a Texas jury for any damages that they may cause to either an individual or a company in Texas. This is called availing themselves to a Texas forum. If you thing that a company is doing you or your business wrong, give us a call.
We represent people, businesses and others in Texas on multiple issues including litigation and trial, appeals, and many more. If you are in need of business representation, or have litigation issues, give us a call. If your company has been damaged, give us a call.
We have been selected as Super Lawyers by our peers because of our success and commitment to our clients and their cases.
Out of State companies doing businesses in Texas, either over the internet or mail, and make misrepresentation to a Texas company or individual, and a contract is entered into, those out of State companies will be held liable in Texas for their wrongs.
Congratulations to Pannel Construction Co. for the judgment obtained yesterday against Skyco. It has been a long process but it had its rewards. We have been honored to have represented you during this entire litigation. This is why we say, "we care about your legal needs!"
The judgment was awarded to Pannel Construction Co. a Texas company that purchased equipment from Skyco. Pannel Construction is one of many clients of the firm, that we have help recover damages for their injuries here in Texas.
When any company does business over the internet in Texas, they can be held liable to a Texas jury for any damages that they may cause to either an individual or a company in Texas. This is called availing themselves to a Texas forum. If you thing that a company is doing you or your business wrong, give us a call.
We represent people, businesses and others in Texas on multiple issues including litigation and trial, appeals, and many more. If you are in need of business representation, or have litigation issues, give us a call. If your company has been damaged, give us a call.
We have been selected as Super Lawyers by our peers because of our success and commitment to our clients and their cases.
Out of State companies doing businesses in Texas, either over the internet or mail, and make misrepresentation to a Texas company or individual, and a contract is entered into, those out of State companies will be held liable in Texas for their wrongs.
Congratulations to Pannel Construction Co. for the judgment obtained yesterday against Skyco. It has been a long process but it had its rewards. We have been honored to have represented you during this entire litigation. This is why we say, "we care about your legal needs!"
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Is your auto accident covered by PIP Insurance?
Do you know whether your claims is covered by PIP or not? Have you been injured in a motor vehicle accident? Is your claim covered? There are numerous court factors considered in making the determination. Here is some of the research on that topic.
The statute's definition of "personal injury protection" is detailed, but it does not specify whether merely "an accident" will trigger coverage or whether a "motor vehicle accident" is required. The statute uses the term "the accident" six times, and the phrase "the date of accident" once, without expressing whether "the accident" contemplates, or does not contemplate, an automobile or motor vehicle accident.
Personal injury protection consists of provisions of a motor vehicle liability policy which provide for payment to the named insured in the motor vehicle liability policy and members of the insured's household, any authorized operator or passenger of the named insured's motor vehicle including a guest occupant, up to an amount of $2,500 for each such person for payment of all reasonable expenses arising from the accident and incurred within three years from the date thereof for necessary medical, surgical, Xray and dental services, including prosthetic devices, and necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing and funeral services, and in the case of an income producer, payment of benefits for loss of income as the result of the accident; and where the person injured in the accident was not an income or wage producer at the time of the accident, payments of benefits must be made in reimbursement of necessary and reasonable expenses incurred for essential services ordinarily performed by the injured person for care and maintenance of the family or family household.
The insurer providing loss of income benefits may require, as a condition of receiving such benefits, that the insured person furnish the insurer reasonable medical proof of his injury causing loss of income. The personal injury protection in this paragraph specified shall not exceed $2,500 for all benefits, in the aggregate, for each person.
The benefits required by this Act shall be payable without regard to the fault or nonfault of the named insured or the recipient in causing or contributing to the accident, and without regard to any collateral source of medical, hospital, or wage continuation benefits. An insurer paying benefits pursuant to this Act shall have no right of subrogation and no claim against any other person or insurer to recover any such benefits by reason of the alleged fault of such other person in causing or contributing to the accident.
All payments of benefits prescribed under this Act shall be made periodically as the claims therefor arise and within thirty (30) days after satisfactory proof thereof is received by the insurer subject to the following limitations:
The coverage described in this Act may prescribe a period of not less than six months after the date of accident within which the original proof of loss with respect to a claim for benefits must be presented to the insurer.
The decision in Le v. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. considered whether this statute permitted the State Board of Insurance to promulgate a policy that required a "motor vehicle accident" and concluded that it did. That court reasoned that "[i]t is likely that the statewide cost for injuries which happen to occur in a car is higher than the cost of paying for injuries which result from a motor vehicle accident." It gave deference to the Board, concluding, "[w]e do not find the Board's construction repugnant to the statute."
The reasoning in Le v. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. is sound. It is certainly reasonable and permissible for a policy providing personal injury protection to require the occurrence of a "motor vehicle accident" before coverage is applicable. An insurer paying personal injury protection coverage has no right of subrogation for the fault of another person in causing or contributing to "the accident." does not prohibit automobile policies issued in this state from requiring that the injuries be sustained as a result of a "motor vehicle accident."
However, the court found that a motor vehicle accident occurs when one or more vehicles are involved with another vehicle, an object, or a person, the vehicle is being used as a motor vehicle, and a causal connection exists between the vehicle's use and the injury-producing event, and
driver's injury resulted from a "motor vehicle accident" and entitled him to PIP benefits. Texas Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sturrock, 146 S.W.3d 123 (Tex. 2004).
There is hope out there that your PIP may cover your claim. Give us a call if you have any questions. We are San Antonio Personal Injury Lawyers here to help you! We care about your legal needs.
The statute's definition of "personal injury protection" is detailed, but it does not specify whether merely "an accident" will trigger coverage or whether a "motor vehicle accident" is required. The statute uses the term "the accident" six times, and the phrase "the date of accident" once, without expressing whether "the accident" contemplates, or does not contemplate, an automobile or motor vehicle accident.
Personal injury protection consists of provisions of a motor vehicle liability policy which provide for payment to the named insured in the motor vehicle liability policy and members of the insured's household, any authorized operator or passenger of the named insured's motor vehicle including a guest occupant, up to an amount of $2,500 for each such person for payment of all reasonable expenses arising from the accident and incurred within three years from the date thereof for necessary medical, surgical, Xray and dental services, including prosthetic devices, and necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing and funeral services, and in the case of an income producer, payment of benefits for loss of income as the result of the accident; and where the person injured in the accident was not an income or wage producer at the time of the accident, payments of benefits must be made in reimbursement of necessary and reasonable expenses incurred for essential services ordinarily performed by the injured person for care and maintenance of the family or family household.
The insurer providing loss of income benefits may require, as a condition of receiving such benefits, that the insured person furnish the insurer reasonable medical proof of his injury causing loss of income. The personal injury protection in this paragraph specified shall not exceed $2,500 for all benefits, in the aggregate, for each person.
The benefits required by this Act shall be payable without regard to the fault or nonfault of the named insured or the recipient in causing or contributing to the accident, and without regard to any collateral source of medical, hospital, or wage continuation benefits. An insurer paying benefits pursuant to this Act shall have no right of subrogation and no claim against any other person or insurer to recover any such benefits by reason of the alleged fault of such other person in causing or contributing to the accident.
All payments of benefits prescribed under this Act shall be made periodically as the claims therefor arise and within thirty (30) days after satisfactory proof thereof is received by the insurer subject to the following limitations:
The coverage described in this Act may prescribe a period of not less than six months after the date of accident within which the original proof of loss with respect to a claim for benefits must be presented to the insurer.
The decision in Le v. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. considered whether this statute permitted the State Board of Insurance to promulgate a policy that required a "motor vehicle accident" and concluded that it did. That court reasoned that "[i]t is likely that the statewide cost for injuries which happen to occur in a car is higher than the cost of paying for injuries which result from a motor vehicle accident." It gave deference to the Board, concluding, "[w]e do not find the Board's construction repugnant to the statute."
The reasoning in Le v. Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. is sound. It is certainly reasonable and permissible for a policy providing personal injury protection to require the occurrence of a "motor vehicle accident" before coverage is applicable. An insurer paying personal injury protection coverage has no right of subrogation for the fault of another person in causing or contributing to "the accident." does not prohibit automobile policies issued in this state from requiring that the injuries be sustained as a result of a "motor vehicle accident."
However, the court found that a motor vehicle accident occurs when one or more vehicles are involved with another vehicle, an object, or a person, the vehicle is being used as a motor vehicle, and a causal connection exists between the vehicle's use and the injury-producing event, and
driver's injury resulted from a "motor vehicle accident" and entitled him to PIP benefits. Texas Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sturrock, 146 S.W.3d 123 (Tex. 2004).
There is hope out there that your PIP may cover your claim. Give us a call if you have any questions. We are San Antonio Personal Injury Lawyers here to help you! We care about your legal needs.
Monday, June 18, 2012
San Antonio Lawyers and Attorneys
The Baez Law Firm has San Antonio Lawyers and Attorneys helping the legal needs of our community. We do this, because we care about people's legal needs. Our staff members make a difference, and our San Antonio Attorneys will fight for your rights.
We handle not only personal injury, but other areas of law. In the area of personal injury, we have created an accident tool that can help you, in the event of an accident in San Antonio. Our lawyers are here to help you step by step, in the event of an injury as a result of negligence.
We have partner in the area of family law in San Antonio and in Texas, with Cheap Texas Divorce. When people cannot afford an attorney but need a divorce in Texas, Cheap Texas Divorce is the solution for a Texas Divorce. Although we handle divorces, many people cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars for a divorce, but they can afford Cheap Texas Divorce.
When you need a criminal defense lawyer in San Antonio, you need us! We have successfully helped numerous defendants present their cases in court. We handle DWI defense, drug charges, assault and battery, murder, or any felonies and misdemeanors in all courts in Texas. When you need aggressive legal representation for your criminal case, we are here to help.
Regardless of your legal need in San Antonio, when you need a lawyer or attorney in San Antonio, you can count on The Baez Law Firm. Come and see us, and you will see the difference. We have payment plans to help any budget. Do not go to court in San Antonio alone. Have your own legal team helping you.
When you need a Super Lawyer in Antonio, you need The Baez Law Firm.
We handle not only personal injury, but other areas of law. In the area of personal injury, we have created an accident tool that can help you, in the event of an accident in San Antonio. Our lawyers are here to help you step by step, in the event of an injury as a result of negligence.
We have partner in the area of family law in San Antonio and in Texas, with Cheap Texas Divorce. When people cannot afford an attorney but need a divorce in Texas, Cheap Texas Divorce is the solution for a Texas Divorce. Although we handle divorces, many people cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars for a divorce, but they can afford Cheap Texas Divorce.
When you need a criminal defense lawyer in San Antonio, you need us! We have successfully helped numerous defendants present their cases in court. We handle DWI defense, drug charges, assault and battery, murder, or any felonies and misdemeanors in all courts in Texas. When you need aggressive legal representation for your criminal case, we are here to help.
Regardless of your legal need in San Antonio, when you need a lawyer or attorney in San Antonio, you can count on The Baez Law Firm. Come and see us, and you will see the difference. We have payment plans to help any budget. Do not go to court in San Antonio alone. Have your own legal team helping you.
When you need a Super Lawyer in Antonio, you need The Baez Law Firm.
Monday, May 28, 2012
During a trial, you never know what a juror is thinking!
Jurors are very unpredictable! We know that, there are three kinds of jurors, but during a trial, anyone can change. Specially, if the subject of the trial is controversial, complicated or boring. We saw that this past week in Federal Court, and thus this post.We believe in the system that we have in America, but, can a juror get it wrong? When both sides have strong arguments, credible witnesses and a lot of facts to back up their story, what do jurors focus on? It would be interesting to know, as a litigator, what those jurors are thinking during your argument, or during your questioning of a particular witness.
What if one side has so much money that, the other side looks ill prepared. What if one side can bring experts, videos and gadgets and the other side can't? Is that equal? What if one side is backed up by an insurance company, and the other one is not?
Our jurisprudence system was created with justice and equality for all. Our founding fathers envisioned a system where, a jury of your peers, would be the judges of the facts. But what if they get it wrong? What if the jurors are confused. What if the jurors fall asleep and the most likable party gets their vote. What if the jurors are so tired, that they just want to leave?
It is an honor to work in a system that is fair and impartial for all. But, is it equal? We believe that, the more green you have, the easier it becomes to get justice for your client. Maybe the more green its spent to prepare for a trial, the better outcome will be for your client. Is that equal? It is fair! And, it is impartial....never equal!
If you are in need of a litigating firm, give us a call (210) 979-9777. Our San Antonio Lawyers will prepare and fight for your rights in court. Our San Antonio law firm is here to help you with your legal needs!
Monday, May 21, 2012
Texas Dram Shop Liability
Many individuals have been injured as a result of alcohol consumption in Texas. Many people don't know that, the person that served them the alcohol, could be liable to them for the injuries suffered. This is called "Dram Shop" laws.
This law allows individuals to bring civil action against a person(s) who serves, sells, or provides alcohol to someone who is visibly intoxicated to the extent that such person presents a clear and obvious danger to self or others.
All the injured party has to do is prove that the intoxicated person was served alcohol after being obviously intoxicated, and the intoxication was the proximate cause of the damage incurred. In other words, the bartender knew you were drunk, but kept on serving you. The Texas Dram Shop Act was passed in 1987 and extended in April 1993.
The Act allows the intoxicated person to sue for damages. There are some obsticles that the injured person has to overcome. Mainly, the Comparative Responsibility Act, which applies to the dram shop laws. This Act holds that the intoxicated person can recover damages, but only if the establishment is more responsible, than the individual, for the individual’s intoxication.
Our lawyers have been sucessful in helping Texans recover against the bars, clubs or other establishments, for Dram Shop liability. If you believe that you were a victim of negligence, please call us at (210) 979-9777.
This law allows individuals to bring civil action against a person(s) who serves, sells, or provides alcohol to someone who is visibly intoxicated to the extent that such person presents a clear and obvious danger to self or others.
All the injured party has to do is prove that the intoxicated person was served alcohol after being obviously intoxicated, and the intoxication was the proximate cause of the damage incurred. In other words, the bartender knew you were drunk, but kept on serving you. The Texas Dram Shop Act was passed in 1987 and extended in April 1993.
The Act allows the intoxicated person to sue for damages. There are some obsticles that the injured person has to overcome. Mainly, the Comparative Responsibility Act, which applies to the dram shop laws. This Act holds that the intoxicated person can recover damages, but only if the establishment is more responsible, than the individual, for the individual’s intoxication.
Our lawyers have been sucessful in helping Texans recover against the bars, clubs or other establishments, for Dram Shop liability. If you believe that you were a victim of negligence, please call us at (210) 979-9777.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- The Báez Law Firm, P.C.
- San Antonio, Texas, United States
- Find Personal Injury Trial Lawyers that will treat you with dignity and respect. The Baez Law Firm, P.C. is dedicated to help those less fortunate. Our San Antonio Lawyers also handle family law, criminal defense, business law, immigration, social security disability, patent law, trade marks and much more. We are professionals that care about your legal needs. Our motto is simple: “Minimizing Legal Worries!”℠ Visit us at http://www.thebaezlawfirm.com or call us (210) 979-9777. Have a blessed day!
