view our case results read client reviews

Personal Injury Blog


When is an Injury Serious Enough for an Lawyer?

Thursday, March 15, 2018

If you were hurt in any kind of accident, your injuries will need treatment. Many believe that they should only get lawyers involved if they are laid up in a full body cast and unable to work, but the truth is that minor injuries can often rack up huge expenses too. If the injury was not your fault, why should you be stuck paying for your medical bills even if they are for something small? If someone else's negligence caused an injury, even if it is a minor one, you shouldn't be stuck with the bill.

Seeking Compensation for Soft Tissue Injuries

By insurance companies, relatively minor injuries are labeled as "soft tissue" injuries. While they are small, they still merit representation by a skilled personal injury attorney in order to receive compensation. Soft tissue injuries include:

  • Sprains
  • Strains
  • Injuries like whiplash
  • Torn ligaments

The above injuries might be something that people feel they can just walk off or that seeking compensation is not worth the effort. However, the problem with soft tissue injuries is that they can often turn into something more. Everything from a strain to a torn ligament can potentially become worse and lead to permanent damage. Unfortunately, if you only decided to seek compensation after it gets worse, often you will find yourself outside the statute of limitations to file for a personal injury case. This is why it is important to file even for small injuries, not only in order to not pay for an injury that wasn't your fault, but to be able to get future compensation if complications occur.

Unfortunately, those who think that pursuing compensation for soft tissue injuries will be somehow easier, but they would be wrong. Insurance companies are unwilling to pay out any sort of money, even if it is a relatively small amount, without a fight. This is why it is so crucial to invest in a personal injury attorney for any injury. Going it alone will allow insurance companies to try to trip you up in order to try to give you less compensation than your injuries deserve.

When to Talk to a Lawyer

When injured, you shouldn't wait to contact an attorney if you decide to pursue a personal injury claim. One of the first benefits is that even during your initial consultation, a lawyer will evaluate the specific details of your case in order to make sure it is a legitimate claim. The evidence will be analyzed, the details will be looked over, and if the other party involved was truly negligent then your lawyer will meet with the insurance company with you to get compensation.

If you decide to meet with insurance adjusters first without a lawyer, you are setting yourself up for disaster. Alongside not wanting to pay you, insurance adjusters will also work hard to make sure you don't reach out to an attorney. They make try to make you feel very comfortable and seem upstanding, but it is every insurance adjuster's job to keep costs low. The best way that they can do that is to keep you in the dark about the process as much as possible, and that means keeping you from feeling like you need a lawyer.

If you were hurt in Greater Los Angeles area, even if it was just a minor injury, you deserve compensation. Contact us today so the great legal minds at Freeman & Freeman can go over your case and represent you. Don't just let the injuries caused by another negligent party go, you don't deserve to have to pay for injuries that weren't your fault.

The Severity of Pool Accidents and Drowning Injuries

Thursday, March 08, 2018


The Frequency of Swimming Pool Accidents

Pool accidents and drowning injuries are more common than a lot of people think. People who have been in pool accidents will often blame themselves. They might think that they were just being careless and that they should absorb all of the associated medical costs themselves as a sort of punishment.

However, there are many instances where the pool owners themselves will actually be liable. Swimming pools absolutely have to meet certain requirements, or they are not regarded as safe. The requirements for a safe swimming pool have actually changed over the years, and some pool owners and operators might not have updated them recently enough. People who have suffered from pool accidents should consider the possibility that the swimming pool that they used was just unsafe.


In cases involving pool accidents and drowning injuries, establishing negligence on the part of the pool owner is often important. It's also much easier than a lot of people think. Far too many pool owners are under the impression that preventing swimming pool injuries is the responsibility of their guests. The fact that it's very easy for them to be liable for these injuries is not something that a lot of people take into account.

For instance, slip and fall accidents around swimming pools are distressingly common. In some cases, if homeowners do not adequately warn people that a given area might be slippery, they might be liable. Finding puddles of standing water surrounding a pool are common enough that a lot of people don't realize those pool owners and operators can be liable if someone has a slip and fall accident as a result of the puddle. If the pool owners knew that the puddle was present and did not address it, it's a clear case of negligence.

Insurance and Swimming Pool Accidents

Pool owners often fail to get the insurance coverage that they need in order to defend themselves from being liable. It should be noted that when a person suffers a very severe injury in the context of using a swimming pool, the pool owners and operators may not truly have the coverage that they need. Legally, situations like that are truly serious. As the associated injury gets more and more severe, the chances that the pool owners are liable will only increase in many cases.

People who were in pool accidents might be under the impression that the pool owners have the insurance coverage that's necessary in that situation. However, swimming pool liability often requires its own insurance policy. A homeowners insurance policy or a similar overarching insurance policy might not be enough.

Many people who have been injured in pool accidents are only too used to the fact that insurance companies frequently fail to provide them with what they need in order to cover all of their medical expenses. If these same individuals got the legal representation that they need, they might be able to make more progress when it comes to recovering.

Seeking Assistance

People who have been involved in swimming pool accidents and people who have family members that have been in swimming accidents should consider getting in touch with Freeman & Freeman. Freeman & Freeman can help people living in Los Angeles and throughout the greater Los Angeles area itself.

Swimming pool accidents can be particularly common in these areas. This is partly because people are just more likely to own and use swimming pools there in the first place. Swimming pool owners and operators sometimes forget about all of the risks involved with using a space like a swimming pool. People involved in swimming pool accidents directly or indirectly should not have to suffer for this.

Contact us for more information.


What If My Brain Injuries Don't Show Up Right Away?

Thursday, March 01, 2018

After an accident, broken bones and lacerations are bad injuries to have. However, when it comes to non-fatal injuries, traumatic brain injuries are the worst injuries that you can receive from an accident. The issue is that the brain is a complex organ and controls so much in the body. This means that even small injuries to the brain can manifest themselves in a wide variety of symptoms and can greatly affect your daily lives.

However, because brain injuries are so serious, they often qualify victims for large payouts to cover their treatment and any long-term effects of the brain injury. Yet, there is a major problem that can come from brain injuries that occurred during an accident - they don't always show up right away. The real issue is that so many people don't realize that they have a traumatic brain injury until much later when the symptoms and other effects start to show up. However, if you are diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury from an accident months or even years in the past, can you still receive compensation to cover it?

What To Do If Brain Injury Symptoms Show Up Later?

It is recommended that as soon as an accident is over, you visit a doctor. Even if you feel fine, the doctor can examine any symptoms as well as examine the specifics of the accident to see if a brain injury may be present. However, if they manage to overlook it and you manifest symptoms or discover an injury later, you may still have some options available.

Statute of Limitations for Personal Injury Cases

If you are injured in an accident, brain injury or otherwise, California gives you a set statute of limitations in which you can pursue compensation. In California, this time limit is two years after the accident. If you try to pursue compensation for an injury any later than two years, your case likely will not be heard.

However, there are quite a few exceptions to this statute of limitations time period. The exception that will typically apply to those with traumatic brain injuries is the delayed discovery rule. In this exception, the statute of limitation time period is suspended and actually begins when the victims suspects or should suspect that they were injured by some wrongdoing. This means that if you feel fine for months after an accident, then manifest symptom and discover there is some injury to the brain that likely came from that accident, then this is when the clock starts.

However, the issue with using the delayed discovery exception is that is much easier for the person that caused the accident to argue that you injured yourself in some other way. This is even more suspect if you have been in other accidents, even minor ones, since the accident you are holding suspect.

This is why it is so crucial that if you even hit your head a little bit or were subject to a motion that would make your head rapidly snap back and forth that you have a doctor check it out at the time. Not only will this increase the chances of detecting a brain injury early, but it will document that one may have been caused by that particular accident.

Need Help?

Have you been the victim of a brain injury whose symptoms didn't start showing up until much later? Unfortunately this means that you are in for a tough fight for compensation, but the Law Office of Freeman & Freeman are ready to fight for you. If you need representation to get the compensation that you deserve, then contact us today.


Strict Liability and Dog Bites: What Does it Mean?

Thursday, February 15, 2018


Dog bite law throughout all states is typically very similar. However, where the legal rules for dog bites start to become a bit muddled is in the liability. In California, the state follows strict liability laws. This means that liability for a dog bite case cannot be disputed. If a dog bites someone, it is the owners fault and they are held liable except in some very small exceptions.

Strict Liability of Dog Bites

It used to be that California had a "first bite free" rule, as many called it. This rule basically stated that victims could not receive monetary compensation from a dog owner unless the dog has a history documenting a vicious nature. This otherwise means, they could not get compensation unless the dog had already bitten someone.

However, that rule has since been replaced by strict liability. Now, a victim of a dog bite who was bitten in a public place or a private residence where they were lawfully permitted (such as being invited over) can receive compensation for a bite regardless of previous viciousness or lack thereof. Furthermore, under strict liability, you do not have to prove any owner negligence as you may have to in other states outside of California.

This law was created in order to make sure that owners always abide by their duty of care to prevent a dog from biting. Since the victim has no need to prove negligence, but rather liability will always automatically be placed on the owner, it provides compensation for injuries and encourages more discretion to prevent bites on the part of the owner.

When Does Strict Liability Not Apply?

Section 3342 under the California Civil Code details the strict liability of dog bites. However, it also details the small exceptions in which strict liability does not apply. This means that if the victim was in breach of these small exceptions, then strict liability is not applied to the owner. In the case of these exceptions, the victim will be responsible for their own injuries.

Exceptions to Strict Liability include:

  • Trespassing - If you invite someone over, you as the owner are liable for your dog. However, if someone is on your property without your knowledge or invitation, then you are not responsible for the event of a dog attack as the owner. Of course, this does not apply to those that have reason to be there, such as postal workers.
  • Occupational Hazard - Also known as the veterinarian's rule, veterinarians, groomers, and everyone that works in a profession where they are around many dogs has a reasonable assumption of risk that they may get bitten. They are trained to take precautions against this, and as such, the owner surrenders their responsibility to them. If a veterinarian or other dog professional gets bit, it is an occupational hazard and not the owner's responsibility. However, it is still the owner's responsibility to warn the professional if the dog has been aggressive lately or has bitten in the past. By informing them, they know to take appropriate preventive action.

Been Bit in California?

Have you been the victim of a dog bite in California? Then it is extremely likely that the owner can be held liable for your injuries that were the result of their dog. However, while you have a strong case for compensation for your injury, you still need someone to represent you throughout the process. If you have been bite by a dog and you need compensation for you injuries, contact us today. Let the Law Office of Freeman & Freeman help walk you through the process so you can get compensation that your injuries require.


Wrongful Death of an Unborn Child: A Complicated Civil Suit

Thursday, February 08, 2018


Wrongful death suits are a fairly common recourse for those who lose a loved one to an accident that should never have happened in the first place. Even if what happened was not illegal in the criminal sense, you still lost someone important to you, and there should be recompense for that. It's hard enough when the loss is a partner or a parent, but when it's a child that loss can be devastating. Even worse, perhaps, is the loss of an unborn child. Worse, that kind of wrongful death is rarely the kind of open and shut case a parent may be expecting. Which is why if you're planning on pursuing a suit for the wrongful death of an unborn child, you should know what you're getting into.

The Basics of Wrongful Death

According to The Free Legal Dictionary, the idea of a wrongful death suit is pretty straightforward. It is defined as, "the taking of the life of an individual resulting from the willful or negligent act of another person or persons."

That might sound complicated, but in legal terms, it's actually quite simple. In order for a suit like this to be brought, someone has to die, and that death has to be the direct result of another person's (or persons') willful act or negligence. So, for example, if someone gets behind the wheel, and then an axle breaks, resulting in a car accident that causes a death, that was not a deliberate action by the driver. It was a technical malfunction that led to an unfortunate result. In another scenario, though, say the car was in perfect working order, but the driver was impaired. Perhaps he was too tired to operate his vehicle effectively, or he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Because he chose to get into the vehicle, and the accident was a result of that impairment, that means the resulting death could be considered a wrongful death.

Life is rarely so straightforward, though. Determining the wrongful death of an independent person, child or adult, is hard enough. When we try to determine the wrongful death of an unborn child, though, things get complicated.

Wrongful Death of an Unborn Child

In order for a wrongful death suit to have any chance of success, there has to be a clear line drawn between the incident in question, and the resulting death. Take the impaired driving example above. If there was a child in a car seat, and that child died as a result of the accident, that would be a clear case for a wrongful death suit. The child was just fine before the accident, caused by the deliberate actions of another person.

When we start bringing in unborn children, though, a slew of other factors get involved in the case. First and foremost is the question of whether or not an unborn child is a person in the eyes of the law. This will vary from state to state, and it's important to review the jurisdiction where the incident occurred. According to the Sacramento Injury Attorneys Blog, 40 states currently have laws that recognize an unborn child in the case of a wrongful death lawsuit, but each law has its own specifics that must be met in order for the case to be considered valid.

The next difficulty is proving that it was this particular act which led to the unborn child's death. This is significantly more complicated because there are dozens of factors that can lead to the premature termination of a pregnancy, and all of them have to be discounted in order to prove the incident was the cause. This can be particularly difficult if the unborn child's status at the time of the incident wasn't known, and there's no one who can testify as to whether the fetus was healthy, or if there were problems that could have contributed to the death.

A Difficult, But Not Always Impossible Case

Bringing a wrongful death suit is hard, and bringing one for the wrongful death of an unborn child can be even harder. However, just because a case is complex, or difficult to win, does not mean that it's impossible. It simply means that you need to adjust your expectations and look at the facts before you. Something which is not always easy to do, particularly when grieving for a loss like an unborn child.

If you are considering bringing a wrongful death suit for an unborn child, it's important to collect all of the information surrounding the incident. You need to have the details of what happened, who was responsible, and you need to have your unborn child's status confirmed. Most importantly, though, you need to present your case to a lawyer with experience in bringing these kinds of suits who can advise you on your chances. This can be particularly important if you need to bring this kind of suit in one of the states where the wrongful death of an unborn child either isn't recognized or will be extremely difficult to bring before the court.

Losing an unborn child can be a traumatizing experience, and if there is a way for you to be compensated for that, you should be. If you need assistance finding your way through these troubled waters, all you have to do is contact us today to speak with one of our experienced legal professionals.

Office Locations

21900 Burbank Boulevard
Third Floor
Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418

P: 818-992-2919
F: 818-992-2940

From our offices in Woodland Hills, California, Freeman & Freeman, LLP, provides legal advice and representation for clients in communities throughout the state, including those in Burbank, Glendale, Encino, Sherman Oaks, Van Nuys, Tarzana, Santa Clarita, Agoura Hills, Reseda, Canoga Park, Chatsworth, Northridge, Granada Hills, Pacoima, Panorama City, North Hollywood, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, Lancaster, Palmdale and Alhambra.