Help My son

Arizona

My son was in a motorcycle accident and has multiple injuries that a very serious. and now the insurance company wants to settle with only a minimal amount and yet my son has sustained long term injuries and to me this is not fair they took my son's normal healthy life from him and he has lost everything
and almost the his life. even though he did not were a helmet this was not require by state law and still this is not fair. i had an attorney but he backed
out from the case after stating that it was at least a 1 million dollar law suit
but he wont touch it. HELP MY SON.

Cryingmother58 said:

Arizona

My son was in a motorcycle accident and has multiple injuries that a very serious. and now the insurance company wants to settle with only a minimal amount and yet my son has sustained long term injuries and to me this is not fair they took my son's normal healthy life from him and he has lost everything
and almost the his life. even though he did not were a helmet this was not require by state law and still this is not fair. i had an attorney but he backed
out from the case after stating that it was at least a 1 million dollar law suit
but he wont touch it. HELP MY SON.

Click to expand...

My response:

Assuming that your son was not partially at fault for the cause of the accident - -

1. You never mentioned the amount of the other person's available insurance;

2. You never mentioned whether your son had insurance and the amounts of coverages;

3. You never mentioned your son's age on the date of the accident;

4. The insurance company did not injure your son. Your son, however, may be comparatively liable, in some percentage amount, for the total amount of his medical injuries even though he was not wearing a helmet - - and despite the fact that there is, or is not, a law concerning helmets.


Please fully explain the statement - -

"i had an attorney but he backed out from the case after stating that it was at least a 1 million dollar law suit but he wont touch it."


IAAL

My further response:

Anyone want to take a bet on whether we hear from "Cryingmother" again and, if we do, she won't answer all of the above questions?

Takers?

IAAL

I'm amazed at how many cyclists I see riding around Arizona without helmets. I'm curious to know your opinions on whether or not he would be partially negligent for not wearing a helmet, since it's not required by law. Any thoughts?

InsuranceLadyAZ said:

I'm amazed at how many cyclists I see riding around Arizona without helmets. I'm curious to know your opinions on whether or not he would be partially negligent for not wearing a helmet, since it's not required by law. Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

My response:

Of course he's comparatively negligent. All because a law may, or may not, be "on the books" doesn't mean a person doesn't have responsibility for themselves, to protect themselves, when the technology exists (cheaply).

The whole purpose of the law is to "force" people to do that which they should have been doing voluntarily.

IAAL

offended to implication

az
you imply that my son is negligent all because he did not wear a helmet
that is wrong, just because he did not wear a helmet
arizona state law does not enforce the helmet law and that is because the statics do not show jusifiable cause that a helmet would insure a person that they would not sustane injury just from wearing one so the option to wear one is up to the rider.
so dont you ever imply that my son is negligent for not wearing one
and dont say that a helmet could make the differance .
in the injuries he sustained not even a helmet would have made a differance
it would have shattered any way!!!!
his mother!!!!!

Cryingmother58 said:

az
you imply that my son is negligent all because he did not wear a helmet
that is wrong, just because he did not wear a helmet
arizona state law does not enforce the helmet law and that is because the statics do not show jusifiable cause that a helmet would insure a person that they would not sustane injury just from wearing one so the option to wear one is up to the rider.
so dont you ever imply that my son is negligent for not wearing one
and dont say that a helmet could make the differance .
in the injuries he sustained not even a helmet would have made a differance
it would have shattered any way!!!!
his mother!!!!!

Click to expand...

No, that is not what he implied. Your son could be negligent, however, you really did not state who they found at fault.

Now I am going to say something about what you are defending. This is coming from a wife whose husband rides a Harley,............


arizona state law does not enforce the helmet law and that is because the statics do not show jusifiable cause that a helmet would insure a person that they would not sustane injury just from wearing one so the option to wear one is up to the rider. What statistics? Share them please.


so dont you ever imply that my son is negligent for not wearing one
and dont say that a helmet could make the differance . I will say it,.A helmet makes all the difference. I can't help the fact that you do not see this. It is common sense really. The helmet protects what?

in the injuries he sustained not even a helmet would have made a differance
it would have shattered any way!!!!
his mother!!!!! If you are implying that a helmet would have shattered, then guess what? It could have saved his brain.

I feel bad that you are so defensive about the helmet thing after reading your post.

My further response:

Anyone want to take a bet on whether we hear from "Cryingmother" again and, if we do, she won't answer all of the above questions?

Takers?

IAAL

Click to expand...

My response:

I WIN!!

IAAL

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:

My response:

Of course he's comparatively negligent. All because a law may, or may not, be "on the books" doesn't mean a person doesn't have responsibility for themselves, to protect themselves, when the technology exists (cheaply).

The whole purpose of the law is to "force" people to do that which they should have been doing voluntarily.

IAAL

Click to expand...

IAAL, that's what I thought as well, but I wasn't sure. It's too bad the OP thought I was blaming her son when I wasn't. I was just curious about the negligence issue.

Thanks for the info.