Five Common Myths About Car Crash Cases

From billboard lawyers to ambulance chasers, car crash lawyers have developed a somewhat negative public impression. This impression has led to a lot of stereotypes about what makes a “good” car crash case.

The truth is that if you were hurt in a car crash, you deserve compensation. Period. No case is “good” or “bad,” and that is what separates Stanford Law Offices from the billboard firms.

This post will cover five myths or “stigma” about car crash cases, and why they simply don’t matter when it comes to winning your case. What matters is that you have an attorney willing to go the mile.

The police didn’t come to the scene and no one called an ambulance, so no one was actually hurt.

Determining whether someone was at fault or whether someone was injured does not require a badge. Oftentimes, police do not come to the scene of a crash. On those occasions, we encourage you to contact a lawyer right away to assist you with filling out a self-report of the crash to the police.

Injuries are not always evident on the scene. Adrenaline is coursing, masking pain, and other priorities take control. Most of the time, injuries show up later. That does not mean you are faking symptoms or someone told you to go to the doctor after the fact. It is just how the human body works.

Neither of the vehicles involved was significantly damaged, so no one was actually hurt.

Again, the human body does not work that way. Low speed crashes frequently cause severe injuries.

While some attorneys shy away from whiplash or soft-tissue injuries, our firm understands just how devastating these injuries are. An injury is an injury. Again, there is no “good” or “bad” case.

Further, people often assume that if the crash occurs via a rear-end, the driver who was in the back is at-fault. This is a myth. The driver in front may have been an improperly parked “sitting duck,” or they may have suddenly braked on a high-speed road for no reason.

There is no category or mechanism of car crash where someone can automatically determine fault by name only without analyzing what actually happened.

“Policy” controls.

If anyone stands in your way, or tries to compel you to take the quick and easy solution – be it an officer, insurance company, or the like – on the basis of “company policy,” that is not a legal standard, nor is it a legitimate excuse under the law.

A skilled personal injury attorney will explain to you what the standard actually is, or what the written policy actually says. “Company policy” almost always means there is more to the story.

If you were on the job, you are limited to worker’s compensation and can’t recover pain and suffering.

If you were in a car crash while working, you can recover worker’s compensation benefits against your employer’s insurance company.

You can also recover for pain and suffering, as well as other damages categories, against the at-fault driver.

A formula on the back-end will “pay back” the worker’s compensation insurer at least some of what it paid, but to say that is the only claim is false. It is not even the primary claim. Pain and suffering, as well as damages recoverable in a third party claim, will more than likely overshadow your worker’s compensation recovery.

The at-fault driver was using a cell phone hands-free and can’t actually be at fault on that basis.

Using a device hands-free is still distracting. Looking at a cell phone for directions, to read a text, or to review a notification can have devastating effects in a split second.

Just because Wisconsin law permits hands-free voice calls does not mean a skilled personal injury lawyer will be unable to prove distracted driving based on hands-free use.

Immediate letters of preservation to the at-fault driver will ensure the cell phone is preserved, where it can be analyzed for notification features, facial interaction, and open applications at the time of the crash.