Personal injury (PI) law involves the claim for compensation by people who are injured by the negligent conduct of others. When a person is injured by another, the injured person is entitled to damages (money) to compensate them for their loss. The damages would include several elements, including the following: Medical expense, time loss from work, future wages, property damages, pain and suffering. As a PI lawyer my job is to ensure that the injured person is treated with respect by the civil justice system and obtain a dignified result. Insurance companies are not in the business of treating injured people with dignity. You are not “in good hands with” an insurance company. The insurance company is not there to insure people, they are there to insure PROFIT. My job is to help the innocent party who is injured deal with the professionals on the other side in the insurance industry. My services are paid on a contingency fee basis. That means that I don’t get paid unless my client receives compensation first. The contengency fee makes a PI lawyer accessable to clients who may not have the money to hire a lawyer to represent them in the claim process. There is no charge for an initial consulation to discuss your PI claim.

Clients are rightfully concerned that they receive justice when they are involved in a dispute. Since we are in the justice system (whether civil or criminal) it only seems appropriate that a person would want justice done in their case. But, sometimes I find that when we look at what justice means, the client is seeking more than justice.

There is an important difference that needs to be examined. From a Biblical perspective we know that there are three concepts involved in dispute resolution. Here are the important definitions: “Justice” is getting what you deserve. “Mercy” is NOT getting what you deserve. “Grace” is getting what you DON’T deserve.

So I have to ask the client whether you really want justice, or do you want mercy and grace. Often he real answer is that we want mercy.

Now, what about the adverse party (your opponent)? What do you want for that person? Should they receive justice? Do you care? These are important issues to talk about with your lawyer when you are involved in a dispute or law suit. In a criminal case the opponent is the government, so we have to ask what the accused person wants from the court. The answer is seldom a request for merely justice.
Most of us want justice tempered by mercy.

So, be careful of what you ask from from the justice system. It is important to understand the
concepts before you say you “just want justice.”

The term “land use” is an area of law that involves many functions and talents. It involves both enviornmental law and govenmental relations, but is much more. It is important to understand that land use law is not real estate law – there is a difference that is important.
Why Do I Need A Lawyer? Clients who come to me either want to obtain a permit from the government to use their real property, or they are concerned that a neighbor is trying to get a development permit. As a land use lawyer I represent both land owners and citizen groups who have environemental concerns. My job is to work in the area of govermental relations and to help people in the permitting process. I work in a team approach to help clients obtain their goals. We bring together people with experience and training in other related fields to make decision about how best to help the client. I have worked with planners, traffic engineers, wetland specialists, shoreline specialists, hydrogeologists, surveyors and civil engineers. If you have a need for our services and would like to work as a team, give Tom a call. We can talk about “The Four Ps” of Land Use Law.
What Experience Does Tom Have? I have represented citizen environmental groups, property owners, developers and municipal corporations in land use matters. I also have been a Hearing Examiner for Skagit County, the City of Sedro-Wooley and the City of Mount Vernon, making decisions on land use permit applications. Give me a call if you have questions about my experience or a particular land use issue of concern.

One of the most common questions I hear from my clients and people who call our office about personal injury claims is related to property damage – the value of your car. The other driver is at fault, your car is totaled, and their insurance company offers you a cash settlement is that obviously less than the market value. Or, your own insurance company offers you less than market value for your car. I have had clients who actually found an identical replacement vechile for market value comparisons. Such relevant market information does not seem to persuade the claims adjustors at the insurance companies. The law says you are entitled to market value for your car. The insurance industry counts on the fact that you are not going to go to court to force them to pay market value.

To understand the problem you have to first understand who you are dealing with on the other end of the phone. Claims adjustors are trained to settle claims for as little as possible. They do not consider it bad faith or unethical to pay you less than what your car is actually worth in the real world. They are not there to help you, they are there to make a profit for the insurance company. They know that you are without a car, you don’t have enough cash to buy another car, and time is on their side. If you are driving a rental car (paid for by your company because you paid for this protection when you bought the insurance policy) the adjustor will threaten to cut off your rent payments if you do not accept the offer.

The other problem is that most insurance companies use industry-friendly data to support their total loss values. Instead to actually using the standard “Blue Book” or contacting car dealers in your community, they subscribe to database programs from companies that suply the insurance industry with proprietary information. The adjustor is told to use only the approved computer program in making appraisals for your total replacment value. The numbers generated are usually undervalue the market replacment value of your car.

I don’t represent cars, I represent injured people. If there is a personal injury involved, my office will give you assistance and advice you on how best to deal with the property damage claim. We do not take any fee for our services on such property claims.

What you know about the McDonald’s case is probably based on newspaper accounts and not the facts. As is often the case, there is the rest of the story. Once you get behind the sensational headlines, the conduct of the jury makes much more sense. Mrs. Lieback (the plaintiff) was sitting in the passenger seat (not driving as reported) of her grandson’s car holding a coffee after purchasing it from a drive-through window of a McDonald’s. When she opened the lid to add cream and sugar, she spilled the coffee. (The car was stopped when she attempted to open the lid, not moving as reported in the papers). The simple accident caused third-degree burns on more than 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital areas. She was hospitalized for 8 days. She under went skin grafting and debridement treatment. She has permanent scarring on 16% of her body from the burns and skin grafting. McDonald’s served coffee 20 or so degrees hotter than the industry standard. McDonald’s had already ignored more than 700 similar claims of coffee burns, many involving children. The company even ignored a request from the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati to turn down its coffee. Other establishments sell their coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. McDonalds served their coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit. At that temperature, liquids will cause third degree burns on human skin in 2 to 7 seconds. If the coffee was 155 degrees the danger of serious burns would have been much, much lower. McDonald’s refused to pay the then 79-year-old woman’s initial medical expenses totaling $11,000. McDonald’s actually countered with an offer of $800. And they also refused to turn down the heat on their coffee. Left with $20,000 unpaid bills, she finally hired a lawyer. A mediator later recommended the parties settle for $225,000. Again, McDonald’s refused and the case went to trial. McDonald’s representatives lied to the court and jury about the existence of other claims. A jury reduced the original verdict of $200,000 to $160,000 for contributory negligence – Liebeck spilled it on herself. Based on McDonald’s annual profits of more than $1 billion annually, and more than $1.3 million gross daily coffee sales, the jury levied two days of coffee sales receipts as punitive damages for a punitive damage award of $2.7 million. A judge later reduced the $2.7 million jury award to $480,000. McDonald’s later settled the case for an undisclosed amount, requesting the deal be kept sealed. Most major newspapers ignored the judge’s reduction and the final outcome of the case.