What would be the fastest way to sue someone in a traffic accident? Post Accident Legal Strategies (In America), when there is a traffic accident, it is generally a civil matter that can be resolved between the parties. Several courses of action are available to the parties to resolve the dispute which generally involves property damage and or injury to the parties or to other third persons or property. An insurance company plays an important part in resolving the disputes but that alone does not preclude the parties from litigating in the court, in addition to filing an insurance claim. The party who moves the court may have some advantage in negotiating or sometimes have the opportunity for a default judgement which makes the option of SUING IMMEDIATELY a valuable tool to achieve or expedite settlement. Taking some general assumptions in mind such as jurisdiction, value of car, who is at fault or not at fault,the questions presented are:- What is the fastest way to sue someone in the event of a traffic accident ? What sort preparation can a driver make to move swiftly. Whatever time or day of the week accident takes place, summons served to defendant by next court day 9 AM. (assuming court opens at 8 AM). This will requires much planning and advance prep. Once complaint filed, would there be greater chance that an attorney will be willing to represent for a lower cost or a limited scope representation with lowered fee than to process the case from scratch ? What would you estimate as the cost difference in % for one traffic accident case for full scope from scratch compared to the described situation where moving party files, serves summons and then shops.Would you say the cost could be more than 50% less or less than 50% less that full scope ? In your personal experience, has moving the court provided any benefits in achieving settlement / justice over simply letting the insurance process drive the matter ? Would you be "shocked" if you received summons by the time you woke up next day following the day of the accident ? What would your reaction be and how would you plan the response ? Would you counter sue or just run to the nearest attorney ? ( perhaps your car is still in the workshop causing additional distress) Finally, what kind of documentation,artifacts can make the moving party prevail ? Photographs, accident witnesses, police reports are all known. Are there any specialized approaches to propel judicial process,negotiation advantage or cause the other party to throw in the towel ? E.g Accident reconstruction report, Expert witness, GIS analysis, other drivers driving history subpoena,proving other driver as negligent/reckless using sources of information other than the accident ? ( How about evidence that driver was distracted using cell phone - compel forensic exam of drivers cell phone) or use car black box report. A well pre-planned strategy could include obtaining subpoenas addressed to some 10-20 parties to discover and open up the other parties such that the party will be compelled to settle.
Short answer The general approach and attitude that you propose is a horrible one that would bring an unfavorable result. It would add many months or years to the time when the case would mostly likely be resolved and would reduce the economic value of your case by a substantial percentage, perhaps cutting it in half or more. Your instincts towards the litigation process in a simple car accident case are all wrong. Lawsuits are poker games, not wars, and lawyers are good poker players.The way to get a good result in a case like this one is to act like you are in no rush, to marshal all relevant facts in a non-flashy matter of fact way that makes the result seem pedestrian and predictable, and to build enough of a level of trust with opposing counsel to make a settlement easy for everyone to sell to their respective clients. The winning tactical approach in an automobile accident case is MEGO (&quot;my eyes glaze over&quot;), and not &quot;shock and awe&quot;. The only people who are impressed by &quot;shock and awe&quot; in an automobile accident case are the jurors, and if you have gotten to a jury, you have defeated your goal of getting a quick result and have probably also failed to get the maximum possible recovery net of legal fees in the case. This because the court process takes a long time to get to a jury and because the defendant has a limited settlement budget and it takes a considerable amount of money to litigate a case to trial that could otherwise have been used to compensate you more fully in an earlier settlement. Long answer The party who moves the court may have some advantage in negotiating or sometimes have the opportunity for a default judgement which makes the option of SUING IMMEDIATELY a valuable tool to achieve or expedite settlement. You are wrong. This is a very bad idea for reasons explained at greater length below. Also, automobile accident cases rarely produce default judgments because defendants with an ability to pay a judgment can hire attorneys for free as part of their car insurance. Usually default judgments are obtained only in cases where you have wildly undervalued your case and are asking for a judgment that is too small. What is the fastest way to sue someone in the event of a traffic accident? What sort preparation can a driver make to move swiftly. Whatever time or day of the week accident takes place, summons served to defendant by next court day 9 AM. (assuming court opens at 8 AM). This will requires much planning and advance prep. In many courts it is possible to efile a complaint 24 hours a day. But, one might be wary of filing suit when the nature of the harm (especially physical injuries) was not fully known which could take more time, because if the other side defaults and you don't know the full extent of your damages at that point, you could recover less than the full value of your claim. Also, this is often too fast to determine if there are other parties who are liable of whom you were not aware (e.g. a defective product implicating a manufacturer, an employer who is vicariously liable, family members under a family car or negligent supervision theory, etc.). Acting like you are in a hurry conveys the impression that you are weak and will settle for a low or nuisance offer. This bad first impression will work against you for the entire time until the case is resolved and is not easily remedied. Once complaint filed, would there be greater chance that an attorney will be willing to represent for a lower cost or a limited scope representation with lowered fee than to process the case from scratch? What would you estimate as the cost difference in % for one traffic accident case for full scope from scratch compared to the described situation where moving party files, serves summons and then shops.Would you say the cost could be more than 50% less or less than 50% less that full scope? I would charge significantly more to anyone who tried to do it themselves, potentially damaging their case with rookie mistakes. If it was a contingency case, I might insist on a 50% contingency with a larger advance for costs than in a usual case, rather than the usual 1/3rd. On an hourly basis, your legal fees could easily double. Many lawyers would refuse to represent you at all if you had already filed a case. Also, don't forget that the prevailing party does not get attorneys' fees in an automobile accident case. If a plaintiff spends too much on litigation, that reduces the amount the plaintiff will have left, net of litigation costs, as compensation. In contrast, a typical defendant's automobile insurance policy provide (theoretically) unlimited defense attorney services without reducing the amount of coverage available to pay an eventual judgment (if any) to the plaintiff. There is no added value from pro se work in a personal injury case. Pro se efforts significantly reduce the value of the case in the eyes of an attorney. Anyone who wants to represent themselves pro se in any half way serious automobile accident case is a fool. In your personal experience, has moving the court provided any benefits in achieving settlement / justice over simply letting the insurance process drive the matter? The two are not necessarily tightly linked. Often using the insurance process without going to court can lead to a faster resolution. Would you be &quot;shocked&quot; if you received summons by the time you woke up next day following the day of the accident? Yes. What would your reaction be and how would you plan the response? I would suspect that the whole accident was a pre-planned intentional insurance fraud and would take extreme and unusual measures in discovery and investigation to rule out that possibility. I would be extremely reluctant to settle with you and would not make offers nearly as reasonable to you as I would in an ordinary case because I would not be able to trust you. Your desire for a quick resolution on favorable terms would be spoiled. Would you counter sue or just run to the nearest attorney? (perhaps your car is still in the workshop causing additional distress) I would contact my insurance company which would provide an attorney at their expense. Finally, what kind of documentation,artifacts can make the moving party prevail? Photographs, accident witnesses, police reports are all known. All of the above. Auto accident cases are won with facts, not law. Are there any specialized approaches to propel judicial process,negotiation advantage or cause the other party to throw in the towel? E.g Accident reconstruction report, Expert witness, GIS analysis, other drivers driving history subpoena,proving other driver as negligent/reckless using sources of information other than the accident? (How about evidence that driver was distracted using cell phone - compel forensic exam of drivers cell phone) or use car black box report. The more clear liability and damages are, the more likely someone is to settle. But, it usually takes months to achieve that clarity and there is no magic bullet. Some cases justify intense discovery, others do not. It depends upon the facts and circumstances and the severity of the harm. In a lot of cases, liability is clear at the outset and damages are the primary issue. A well pre-planned strategy could include obtaining subpoenas addressed to some 10-20 parties to discover and open up the other parties such that the party will be compelled to settle. This is generally allowed only in the middle part of a lawsuit once there has been a preliminary exchange of pleadings and certain other case management matters and disclosures have taken place. Normally, 10-20 subpoenas at the outset would be quashed as unreasonable and disproportionate to the amount in dispute. If someone came on that strong early in litigation, I would assume that they had no case on the merits and were trying to bluff me the same way that someone with a weak poker hand might. I would be disinclined to offer even a nuisance settlement, and would do everything possible to slow down the case because your urgency would indicate weakness. It is much easier to slow down a lawsuit than it is to speed one up. Also, no one is ever compelled to settle. A defendant can always take the case all of the way to a trial by jury, followed by an appeal, which could easily take two to three years. If you want a quick resolution, you need the other side's cooperation. Postscript I spent several years practicing in an insurance defense law firm and several more in a firm that brought personal injury claims on a regular basis. So, I am more qualified than most people to answer questions on litigation tactics such as this one which don't have neat, clean answers that can be found in rule books or appellate case law.
tl;dr Hitting the pedestrians is a separate crime, even if they shouldn't be there. Background On a highway, you might have a legal right of way and therefore a claim against the pedestrians for failing to yield. Since the states (and not the federal government) own and operate the interstate highway system, your specific answer depends on the state law. In North Carolina, for example, pedestrians walking along or upon a highway have a statutory duty to yield the right of way to all vehicles. So you could probably videotape and press misdemeanor charges against them individually. That said, contacting the police and waiting (or taking an alternate route) is the best recourse. Having the right of way (or feeling ethically justified) doesn't allow you to commit an offense like hitting a pedestrian. The fact that the pedestrians aren't supposed to be in your way is of little consolation in the charges you'll face if you injure or kill one. The court will see this as a legal/ethical problem, but one that won't go in your favor. In particular, you deliberately directed your vehicle into the crowd with the knowledge that the action might cause harm. One doesn't have to imagine the Austin Powers steamroller scenario to know that injuries are possible when cars go through crowds. That will pull all of the "involuntary"-flavored mitigations off the table. In particular, driving a car into a crowd might be considered "an inherently dangerous act or omission, done in such a reckless and wanton manner as to manifest a mind utterly without regard for human life and social duty." In the worst case scenario, where someone died as a result, a North Carolina prosecutor might push for second-degree murder (which operates on a "recklessness-plus" standard and might not be as crazy as it sounds since driving into the crowd is likely reckless, and driving in slowly with them yelling at you to stop could push a jury over the top). In that case, as a defendant, you'd hope your charge could be mitigated down to something like death by vehicle (which is similar to "vehicular manslaughter" in other states), and you'd shoot for the misdemeanor version of death by vehicle since you weren't driving under the influence. However, a key element of proving death by vehicle is that you unintentionally caused the death---and the fact that you deliberately drove into the crowd might ruin your defense. In the case where you just hurt someone, you'd likewise hope to mitigate intentional charges to unintentional ones. A claim for false imprisonment is unlikely to succeed. False imprisonment is called a variety of things---like felonious/misdemeanor restraint, unlawful detainment, etc.---depending on where you live. To prove it (and generalizing a bit since this varies by state), you typically have to show (1) detention or restraint against your will, and (2) unlawfulness of the detention or restraint. A big challenge here is that courts often interpret this to mean detention or restraint by exercise of force or threat of force, as in Harris v. Stanioch, 150 Wash. 380 (1928) for example. The protesters are just in the way, so it's unlikely this would hold up. Self defense almost surely won't be a viable excuse. The idea of driving the car slowly through the crowd relies on the notion that you should be able to escape the alleged detention. The escape you're considering in driving through the crowd likely comes at the expense of making contact with members of the crowd. Making unprivileged contacts might be allowable in self defense. However, self defense probably hold up either. Setting aside notions of proportional defense, you have to be defending yourself against something: force or threats of it by the protesters. So if they don't use force, or threaten it, against you, then your defense is going to be really shaky.
It isn't 100% clear from the question if a case has been filed in court, or someone was just planning on filing a lawsuit, which is an important fact. It seems like the ex filed a court case and you hired attorneys who responded. If there is a court case filed, that can't just be abandoned until all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed in the eyes of the court. The lawyers can't quit unless the court gives them permission to do so. Usually, lawyers are entitled to be paid for all of the work they do and out of pocket charges they incur in a case, until it is wrapped up, even if some wrap up work happens after the event that determines the final outcome of the case like your ex deciding to abandon his arguments. But, otherwise, if there isn't a pending court case, you normally have the power to tell your lawyers to stop everything and give you the moment left (if any) in your retainer. At first read, it almost sounded as if your lawyers are willing to do that, but are warning you that your ex might continue to be a problem after the lawyers quit and that if that happens, it will be more costly and time consuming to start all over dealing with the threatened lawsuit that your ex made, than it would be to get it over and done with now. But, upon closer inspection, it seems that there is a pending lawsuit and that this is the issue.
There have been cases in the UK where paying someone's legal bills was interpreted as joining their case. So when A with no money libels someone, and B with deep pockets pays A's lawyer, then B risks being held liable for damages if A gets convicted. So B should be very careful. Just giving you money is probably the safest. But attorney-client privilege is between attorney and client. I have been laid off twice with my company asking me to take an employment lawyer and paying for it. (Interestingly each time the bill was exactly the maximum amount the company was willing to pay :-) It would have been absurd if my company could demand information that is under attorney-client privilege just because they paid the bill. Why did two companies pay the lawyers bill? Because that way they ensure that the separation is without problems. The lawyer explained the settlement contract and what it meant exactly. They also checked that the contract didn’t contain anything unacceptable which the company would have fixed. So if I had tried to sue them later I would have no chance to win (but there was no reason to sue). Another reason not to sue was that the company offered I settlement that was very significantly more than was legally required, but if you sued them you would only get what you got in court - most likely less than you would get without suing. So basically they paid to make sure I would have no reason to sue them later.
Generally speaking, ex parte communications with a judge (i.e. communications to which all parties to a case are not notified) are prohibited, both by law and as a matter of judicial and attorney ethics, subject to some narrow exceptions (e.g. applications for arrest warrants prior to the arrest warrant being carried out). Generally speaking, communications with the court (which is to say with judges or their subordinates) are made a matter of public record, and if the communication is about a particular case, all attorneys in the case must be given notice of it (if someone is not represented by an attorney, the notice goes to the defendant rather than their non-existent attorney). The attorney may then communicate the communication to their client, and generally speaking should communicate it to the client. I don't see anything in the question that suggests that this proposed communication would fall outside the general rule. But, the question isn't very specific and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that an exception might apply in a case with very unusual facts. Also, usually, a request to reconsider a sentence has to be made by a formal motion filed by the prosecutor or the defendant. Generally speaking, a third-party cannot file that motion unilaterally. A third-party or victim would usually only have input into the decision through the prosecutor's office. Third parties and victims are not generally permitted to file motions to reconsider sentences that have been imposed even in states with "victim's rights" statutes, but can publicly provide input to the court before a sentence is imposed, usually at the behest of either the prosecutor or the defendant. Furthermore, generally a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to not have a sentence made more severe after being sentenced the first time around. Reconsideration of a sentence once it is imposed may only be in the direction of leniency. Once a sentence is imposed, it can't be reconsidered to be made more harsh.
I will assume that your question pertains to the United States. In other jurisdictions, different rules could apply. Context matters. The usual penalty for spoliation of evidence (the technical term for what you describe) in a civil case is a judicial determination or jury instruction that the evidence destroyed would have established the relevant part of the other side's case had it not been destroyed. In all of these cases, your failure to take affirmative action to preserve the evidence once you knew that there was a bona fide likelihood that you would be sued could be held against you by making an adverse determination that the evidence would have been unfavorable to you and possibly also money sanctions. You could not be held in contempt of court for this if these events happened before a case was commenced. In a criminal case, where you are a defendant, you have an absolute right to not incriminate yourself and do not have to take affirmative action to preserve evidence, although this right is limited to criminal cases and your failure to preserve evidence can still be held against you in a civil case. Certainly, in situation 4 you are a potential criminal defendant, so the 5th Amendment protection would apply. In situations 1 and 2, where the precautions were not put in place to facilitate a crime, the 5th Amendment would protect you if you were a potential criminal defendant, but suppose that you are a bystander like a third party ISP representative. If you were a third party, at a minimum you would have to be put on notice of the police need for the evidence, would probably have had to have had the police ask you for the evidence, and of course, would have to be aware that the destruction was imminent and have the power to prevent that destruction. If all those conditions were present, you might be guilty of obstruction of justice (there are precedents for inaction knowing of the consequences in the fact of a police question amounting to obstruction of justice). In situation 3, this kind of action pretty much amounts to being an accessory to some crime before the fact (unless someone was successfully deceived by a very elaborate story) and would likely make anyone involved part of a conspiracy to commit the crime that the destruction of the papers would facilitate. While the papers themselves might have been evidence of a crime or civil wrong, the destruction of the papers might itself be considered part of the crime, regardless of what could be established regarding the actual content of the papers.
Not necessarily. Your own statements and the statements of the officer would be legally sufficient to convict you. Also, your statement that you don't believe you are at fault is strongly at odds with a widely held interpretation of the traffic laws (not stated in the formal language of these statutes). The prevailing interpretation of the traffic laws is that you are always at fault if you rear end someone because you failed to maintain a safe distance, pretty much as a matter of strict liability and regardless of the circumstances, because a safe distance is almost by definition a distance that it is possible for you to come to a full stop from if the care in front of you suddenly comes to a stop for any reason. The only situation I can imagine where there wouldn't be liability for rear ending someone would be if you were at rest behind them at a stop light and they actively backed up into you. In practice, almost any judge and almost any jury, would convict you of failure to maintain a safe distance if you rear ended someone absent the most extraordinary of circumstances. I honestly don't know any lawyer or likely potential juror who wouldn't convict you under these circumstances with only the testimony of the police officer and your own testimony (which you would have to offer to have any shot at avoiding a conviction) to establish that you did indeed rear end someone. Police are allowed to lie to suspects of crimes, and often simply do not have an accurate understanding of how the legal system works. So, you are not entitled to rely on a statement made by a police officer. Of course, it is also certainly possible that his statement is consistent with local practice in your neighborhood traffic court. So, showing up to contest the charge might still make sense, and it wouldn't be uncommon to receive a plea bargain with fewer points against your license, just for showing up to court.
https://www.mwl-law.com/how-to-sue-yourself-and-win/ Yes, and there can be cases this is profitable. You negligently killed someone in a car accident. You need to sue yourself to use your insurance. The victim is dead so their estate goes to you. So you sue yourself on the estates behalf, the estate wins, and you get the estate. Directly suing yourself is impossible however.