Albany Injury Lawyers

Personal Injury Verdict in Albany - $3.85 Million

As mentioned on my other blog, we had a huge personal injury verdict on Friday (4/27/2007) in Albany. The verdict was $3.85 million. I'm supposed to say something like: "Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome" or "Your mileage will vary." I'll be more clear than that. You better hope you never get hurt bad enough to have any kind of shot at all at getting a verdict like this, and even if you do, the odds of doing this well are pretty darn small. Many outstanding personal injury lawyers go their entire career without getting a verdict this large. If you do hire us, I can almost guarantee that you will not get that much money. Even this client will likely get less than that.

Anyway, I will describe the case in detail over the course of the next few weeks. I'll start with an intro here.

Our client was driving his motorcycle through the village of Waterford. Traffic had stopped and he was waiting behind another vehicle. All of a sudden, an SUV coming the other way crossed over the centerline, striking the client and his motorcycle, and driving them into another SUV (operated by a Troy police officer who testified at trial).

The accident itself caused a partial amputation of my client's left foot (somewhere between the toes and the middle of the foot). In other words, a chunk of his foot was found on the ground at the scene. He had multiple fractures in his left leg, including at the hip, mid-shaft of the femur, and in his lower leg as well.

Client was taken to Albany Medical Center. Within hours he went into surgery, where they attempted to fix the various fractures and did a further amputation of his foot in an attempt to save the ankle. About 12 days later he had another surgery, amputating his leg below the knee. He spent roughly 46 days in the hospital.

At trial, the big question was about who crossed the centerline. An eyewitness said the defendant crossed over. The defendant himself said he didn't know. A sheriff's reconstruction concluded that my client had crossed the line. Both sides hired experts and the jury heard quite a bit of testimony about this issue. In the end they found that the defendant crossed over and was 100% responsible. It was a unanimous verdict.

At least a few people seem to think I'm a millionaire now. Not true. I'm still five figures in the hole on this case. The trial was only Round One. Round Two is a battle with the defendant's insurance company in what's known as a bad faith claim, plus there's another insurance policy which we should be able to tap into.

In the next few weeks I'll post some photos and other documents related to the case, and I'll try to explain and analyze all of what went on with this $3.85 million dollar verdict.

Click Fraud - an AdWords experience

I use AdWords to promote my law firm website, and personal injury is one of the more expensive topics for this type of advertising. I review my statistics regularly and noticed an anomaly one day. Down below is my e-mail exchange with AdWords (from Google), but first a brief summary.

One day, I got three clicks from the same IP address who searched for exactly the same phrase, "personal injury settlements". Two of the clicks were within 90 seconds of each other, and the third was later the same day.

I felt, and still feel, that I should not have been charged three times for these clicks. Google responded by asserting that this behavior was consistent with "comparison shopping", which does not make the clicks invalid.

I find a couple of things troubling about this. First, Google essentially puts the burden of proof on the customer. But Google has far more information than we do, and they certainly don't provide their analysis. For example, Google certainly knows what other ads the user clicked on, and also knows what non-ads he/she clicked on too. I can't know that.

Second, Google has decided on its own what constitutes an "invalid click". I suspect most people will agree with me that I shouldn't have to pay three times to get clicks from the same person. By adopting this particular policy, Google is actually encouraging click fraud - as long as you make your clicks look like "comparison shopping."

Third, many AdWords advertisers are less sophisticated and cannot easily access their server logs and find the suspicious transactions.

Fourth, just from a customer service perspective, you would think they'd go with the "customer is always right" approach on this one. I spend over $1000 a month on AdWords. This is the second or third time I've inquired about something like this in maybe three years, and the amount in question is less than $50. It's very important for Google that advertisers have confidence in the PPC (pay-per-click) business model. And wouldn't you think that after the third e-mail from me, the issue should have been kicked up to a supervisor? Anyway, the exchange of e-mails follows:

[Me to AdWords: Fri, 23 Mar 2007]
I received 3 clicks on four impressions on the keyword "personal injury settlements" on March 21, 2007. This seems highly unlikely to have been three separate individuals and seems highly likely to represent click fraud. I had no other impressions for that phrase in the past 7 days, and my average position was 6.5. These seem likely to be bogus clicks.

[Google/AdWords Response]

... After thoroughly reviewing your account, we did not find any evidence suggesting that invalid clicks have been charged to your account. The clicks your ads received appear to fit a pattern of normal user behavior.

Warren, please keep in mind that Google looks at numerous data points for each click, including the IP address, the time of the click, any duplicate clicks, and various other click patterns. However, if you notice click activity that doesn't fit your usual patterns, please keep in mind that individual users may legitimately click on your ad more than one time when
comparison shopping or returning to your site for more information. Please know that our system analyzes numerous factors to isolate and filter out invalid clicks.

Google considers security for AdWords advertisers a top priority, and we will continue to monitor all clicks on your ads to prevent abuse. For more information about our invalid click policies, please visit https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=6422&hl=en_US.

Sincerely,
Jerry -- The Google Click Quality Team

[My next message to them, on 3/30]
After receiving your response, I asked my brother (who runs our server) to find the server log entries on these clicks. The info is below. Since they are from the same ip address, with the same operating system (and an unusual one at that -- Windows NT 5.1), same browser, etc., and since two of the clicks were within 90 seconds of each other (and the third within one hour), I hope AdWords will reconsider and at the very least drop the charges for two of the three clicks. Given the hassle, I think it would be more reasonable to credit me for all three.

[Response from AdWords/Google - this is long and I am editing heavily for brevity]
As you know, each click on an AdWords ad is examined by our system. Google looks at numerous data points for each click, including the IP address, the time of the click, any duplicate clicks, and various other click patterns. Our system then analyzes these factors to isolate and filter out invalid clicks.
Regarding your concern about receiving more than one click from the IP address [omitted] on the same day, please keep in mind that individual users may legitimately click on your ad more than one time when quickly comparison shopping or returning to your site for more information. Please know that comparison shopping represents a legitimate user accessing your advertisement in expected ways. In addition, please know that Windows NT 5.1 is better known as Windows XP which is a popular operating system. Clicks made with this type of OS are not automatically considered invalid. Invalid clicks may include the following:
Manual clicks intended to increase your advertising costs or to increase profits for website owners hosting your ads.
Clicks by automated tools, robots, or other deceptive software.
Warren, please know that the security of Google AdWords advertisers is a top priority for Google, and we dedicate a number of resources to click protection strategies. Below please find some additional information on how we monitor for invalid clicks. [Omitted]

[My response on 4/2]
Just want to make sure I understand Google's position. You assert that this may have been a user engaging in "comparison shopping." Presumably Google can determine whether that user clicked on any other comparative sites to determine whether this was legitimate comparison shopping. Has Google done so in this case?

[Google Response]
There are several valid reasons for an ad to receive multiple clicks from a single source. Comparison shopping is one of the possible scenarios that may explain legitimate users accessing your advertisement in expected ways.

Google's proprietary technology analyzes clicks in an attempt to determine their validity. The goals of our system are to automatically identify invalid clicks generated by users and automated robots and to filter out these clicks before they ever reach your reports. We look for invalid clicks that fit a pattern intended to artificially drive up an advertiser's clicks or a publisher's earnings. Our system analyzes numerous data points for each click, including the IP address, the time of the click, any duplicate clicks, and various other click patterns. The clicks by IP  [omitted] appeared to fit a pattern of normal user
behavior.

Additionally, after another thorough review of your account, we did not find evidence suggesting that invalid clicks have been charged to your account. However, if you have additional information that suggests invalid click activity, please send it to us and we'll be happy to reinvestigate.

When to go after someone's personal assets

It's pretty rare, but once in a while personal injury lawyers come across cases where we're tempted to go after someone's personal assets.

Typical scenario is where your client suffers substantial injuries, where the value of the case is potentially in excess of $100,000. And the person who injured your client has limited insurance (say $25,000) but appears to be wealthy.

I have a case pending like this. Client was a passenger and was pretty badly hurt (fortunately he's recovering well). The person who caused the accident was driving at a high rate of speed in a $30,000+ luxury performance car with additional performance modifications, and had only $25K insurance.

Personal injury lawyers have a general sense that poor people driving old, cheap cars are likely to have low insurance, while the middle class driving newer cars of decent quality will typically have a $100/300 policy ($100K per person, $300K per occurrence), and wealthy people driving cars worth $30K plus will typically have more insurance.

So in the case I just mentioned, where a snot-nosed punk (I'm just being colorful here) is racing on city streets in a hot-rodded high-end car, we get a little out of joint about there not being enough insurance.

This brings us to the question -- do we try to get more than the insurance coverage by going after the tortfeasor (oops, used a lawyer word) personally? We really don't like doing that. In this case I discussed it with the client, explained my concerns, and we decided not to go after the guy.

There are a few reasons not to do this. First, it's much more difficult. Usually in a case like this we can settle with the insurance company without even having to sue. The case gets resolved quickly with little or no expenses (meaning both client and attorney get more money). If we want to get personal assets, we would usually have to go through a trial which would take a lot of time, cost a lot of money, and there's always the danger of getting a bad result from a jury.

The second reason stands out to me more. Personal injury lawyers have a bad enough name as things stand now. If it becomes commonplace for us to go after personal assets, we will fall into much wider disrepute. From a long-term economic perspective, we would risk creating a backlash that could cut off or damage our gravy train. While I personally support and advocate tort reform, that is not a popular view in the trial bar.

Sometimes you just scratch your head

I've got this case that I started handling a couple years ago. I won't get into the details because it's still pending.

Client was injured and had gone to a lawyer. That lawyer sat on the case for two years, and did very little on it. I think he may have thought the case was worth nothing.

I got to know the client's wife from our previous office space. She was complaining about the other lawyer (who I know, like and respect), and I told her I'd take the case, but only if they paid the expenses up front.

So they hire me. This occurs about 2 years after the injury. We filed suit against the party we felt was responsible. It's not the easiest kind of claim, but there was something there and the client was motivated.

There were a number of delays along the way, mainly due to the defense (the defendant didn't respond initially when sued, but eventually his insurance company stepped up).

We just made a deal, right before trial, to arbitrate this case with a low of $20K and a high of $200K. I think the case is worth close to the $200K.

Even if I'm wrong it's worth $20K and that means a fee of over $5K (there have been signficant expenses). So we're talking about a fee of somewhere between $5K and $65K.

I'm scratching my head wondering why the other lawyer sat on the case. He's a good lawyer, well respected in the community (among both lawyers and non-lawyers). Maybe he's so successful that this kind of fee isn't enough to make him jump?

Or maybe he just made a bad call.

Car accident cases

A couple cases resolved themselves in the past couple days. A car accident case involving a forehead scar settled for $25K, though there is still a claim against another vehicle on that one. An old car accident case is settling for another $15K (had settled with the other car in that case for $100K).

Got a new car accident case recently. Client was a passenger and badly fractured his leg. Both cars are clearly liable but have minimum insurance ($25,000 each for my client). With one car it's tempting to go after the driver personally - someone driving a $30K car should have more insurance. But both client and I feel we should resolve the case and move on. With the other car, we're dealing with an insurance company that has some bad practices and this may lead to another bad faith claim against that company. But I suspect they've learned their lesson and will pay quickly on this one.