E-Scooters Are BACK! Six Statistics That May Keep E-Scooter Riders Safe.

Portland’s E-Scooters are back. The E-Scooters were taken off the streets over the winter, but the City of Portland recently permitted them to return. The return of the E-Scooters brings with them another convenient but dangerous mode of transportation. It is no secret that E-Scooter riders have suffered broken bones, muscle strains, head injuries, and even have been killed. A recent study of E-scooter crashes found that:

1. 37% of riders claim they were going too fast on the scooters at the time of the crash;

2. 24% of riders were travelling downhill while injured;

3. 55% of riders were injured in the street;

4. 33% were injured on the sidewalk;

5. 16% were injured when colliding or swerving to avoid a car;

6. 15% experienced a traumatic brain injury.

The statistics say a-lot. Speed and control seem to be large contributing factors to E-scooter crashes and injuries. Riders can likely reduce their chances of being injuries if they simply reduce their speed. The study also came to a rather obvious conclusion, “Studies have shown that bicycle riders reduce the risk of head and brain injuries by wearing a helmet,” the report stated. “Helmet use might also reduce the risk of head and brain injuries in the event of an e-scooter crash.” It is not only a good idea to wear a helmet on an E-Scooter, but it is also the law.

The study conducted by The Centers for Disease Control and the Austin Public Health Department concluded that almost half of the injured riders had a severe injury. This included bone fractures, nerve , tendon, and ligament injuries, severe bleeding , and organ damage that required an extended stay in the hospital. These types of injuries, especially fractured bones, likely happen when the rider is traveling at a higher rate of speed, so they can be avoided if the riders slow down.

View fullsize

https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Health/Epidemiology/APH_Dockless_Electric_Scooter_Study_5-2-19.pdf

The recent Austin Texas study also claimed that the there are roughly 20 injuries per 100,000 trips taken on E-Scooters. This does not seem like that many injuries, but the report acknowledges, that it “likely underestimates the prevalence” of scooter'-related injuries.

If you or someone you know has been injured on an E-Scooter please call Portland Oregon personal injury lawyer Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658. Ross Law PDX is happy to provide a free personal injury case evaluation to persons that were injured while riding a e-scooter. Also, please remember that Ross Law PDX is not affiliated with the City of Austin or the Center for Disease Control.

Litigation Shenanigans & the Attorney Fee Multiplier-What You Need to Know

Most consumer and personal injury lawyers represent clients based on a contingency fee agreement. That means that the attorney will not get paid unless the client receives a settlement, award, or judgment in their favor. Many firms and attorneys defending lawsuits charge by the hour. They are then paid monthly by the corporate defendant or insurance company. This can often result in defense lawyers using tactics that are meant to drain the plaintiff’s attorney’s time, money, and resources in an effort to force the plaintiff to settle or divert the plaintiff’s lawyers attention from the issues in the case. These tactics can come at a price though, and an unpublished Ninth Circuit opinion sheds some light on the remedy available to a party who is subjected to litigation shenanigans. In Beck v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co., No. 16-35816 (9th Cir. June 5, 2018) the Ninth Circuit approved an attorney fee multiplier of 2.0 due to the defendant’s litigation tactics. What this means is that the plaintiff’s lawyers attorney fee claim of $597,669.25 was doubled to $1,195,398.50 “due to the nature of this case and the conduct of Metropolitan and its Counsel.” Beck v. Metropolitan Prop. and Casualty Insurance Company,. 3:13-cv-00879-AC pg 44. (Dist. Or. Sept. 16, 2016)

You are probably wondering how was the plaintiff able to force the defendant Insurance company to pay double the amount of her attorney fees. Thankfully, John Acosta, United States Magistrate Judge, drafted a 56 page order that provides a clear road map for lawyers who are seeking an attorney fee multiplier in Oregon. In this breach of insurance contract case, Judge Acosta addressed the legal standard that permitted the plaintiff to seek fees under ORS 742.061 (whether or not the plaintiff satisfied the “proof of loss requirement). Judge Acosta found the plaintiff had satisfied the proof of loss requirement under ORS 742.061. As a result the defendant was forced to pay plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees. The question then became, What is the reasonable amount of fees?

The Judge used the ORS 20.075(1) and (2) factors to determine what was reasonable. First, the Judge rejected defendant Metropolitan’s argument that the ORS 20.075(1) factors apply only to the court’s determination whether to award fees and not the amount of fees, and not to the reasonableness of the fees.. In doing so, the court provided clear guidance that both ORS 20.075(1) and ORS 20.075(2) factors are to be used to determine the reasonable amount of attorney fees to award.

The Court then delved into the factors under ORS 20.075(1). The court evaluated the parties’ respective pre-litigation conduct and did not look kindly at Metropolitan’s attempts to resolve the case on unilaterally established terms. The court also looked at the objective reasonableness of the claims and defenses asserted by the parties under ORS 20.075(1)(b). In addressing that factor the court acknowledged that the case was a simple breach of contract case. However, the defense asserted unreasonable defenses in its answer, and advanced unreasonable arguments to use as the equivalent of defenses. For example the defense asserted a merit-less “Fraud” defense. This is a common defense tactic in consumer cases, and the court did not take kindly to it. The Court then delved into the various other ORS 20.075(1) factors and found they either weighed in plaintiff’s favor or they did not apply.

The court then turned to the ORS 20.075(2) factors. The court did a fantastic job concisely addressing each of the numerous factors. In doing so, the court addressed the prevailing market rates for legal services in the relevant community. In this case the plaintiff’s attorneys submitted expert declarations as expert evidence of the plaintiff’s attorneys’ skill and experience in insurance law and to support the hourly rates she requested. The court used the expert opinions and the 2017 Oregon State Bar Economic Survey to assist in establishing the attorneys’ respective hourly rates.

The court also addressed whether the fee is fixed or contingent factor under ORS 20.075(2)(h). The plaintiff’s lawyer initially worked under an hourly fee and then transferred to a contingency fee. The Beck case is similar to many consumer cases, because the defense used tactics which made it impossible for the plaintiff to pay the lawyer an hourly rate. However, the firm representing Ms. Beck continued to be able to do so under a contingency fee agreement. The court noted that the defense’s litigation strategy increased the risk to Beck’s attorneys that they might not be fully compensated for their time, and that factor weighed in favor of an attorney fee award.

The court then addressed the attorney fee multiplier. The court noted, “Oregon law permits an enhancement of fees when it is supported by the facts and circumstances of the case. See Griffin v. TriMet, 112 Or. App. 575, 585 (1992) aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 318 Or. 500 (1994) (approving trial court award of 2.0 multiplier).” The court then spent significant time addressing the facts leading up to the litigation and the defense’s litigation tactics. The court noted that the defense’s efforts to attempt to obtain irrelevant evidence through the discovery process, using theories that lacked any relevance, and the defenses disorganized or deliberately untimely approach to raising various issues resulted in the plaintiff incurring fees for having to respond to both the substance of the issues and their “procedural infirmity.”

However, the court limited the 2.0 multiplier to the fees the plaintiff only incurred during the litigation. The court concluded that pre-litigation fees that were incurred were not subject to the multiplier because the defense’s litigation counsel played no role in the parties’ negotiations.

Judge Acosta did a magnificent job in providing a road map and guidance for future litigants facing a defendant who desires to engage in litigation shenanigans in a fee shifting case. Hopefully the opinion will have a deterrent effect and help litigants combat litigation shenanigans. The opinion is also a fantastic example of the various issues a fee petition should address and the arguments a fee seeking party may face. Lastly, the opinion is an excellent example of the facts and factors the court looks to when deciding if a fee multiplier is appropriate in a particular case.

If you are having an issue with an insurance company or have questions about attorney fees, call Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658. Ross Law PDX represents people in various claims against their insurance companies Ross LAW PDX is happy to represent Oregonians in Personal Injury Protection Insurance disputes, and claims for Uninsured Motorist Benefits and Under-insured Motorist benefits. Please remember the law is constantly changing and to not solely rely on this post.

6 Fatal Traffic Crashes In 4 Days in Portland! WTH Portland Drivers?

SIX fatal traffic crashes have occurred in the past FOUR DAYS in Portland Oregon! As an Oregon wrongful death and personal injury lawyer this is extraordinarily alarming. Each and every one of these heartbreaking deaths were likely preventable if people used common sense and simply followed the law while they were driving. Portland Police Bureau Chief Outlaw is warning, “Drivers [to] slow down, don’t drive impaired/distracted. Bikes and peds use caution-don’t assume drivers see you.”

Chief Outlaw also warned that the PPB is going to stepping up traffic enforcement. Portland drivers take note that you may be ticketed for what you perceive as a minor traffic violation (driving 10 miles over the speed limit, rolling through a stop sign, failing to stop while a pedestrian is waiting at a cross walk.) Hopefully increased enforcement will work to change Portland driving behavior.

Law enforcement are not the only folks out there trying to change Portland’s driver’s behavior. Here at Ross Law, we believe that it is our duty to use the civil justice system make our community a safer place by holding wrongdoers accountable and hopefully deterring people from driving negligently, carelessly, or recklessly. We do this by filing lawsuits against the bad drivers that injure our clients. This will hopefully force the bad driver, their family, and their friends to change their driving behavior. We know that it is not easy to be sued and explain your actions that injured or killed someone. We use the civil justice process to attempt to force bad drivers that injure our clients to own up to what they did, and be held responsible by having to explain their actions, and admit they were at fault. Additionally, their insurer will have to pay to compensate the person they injured. We wholeheartedly agree with Chief Outlaw that drivers need to slow down, don’t drive impaired or distracted, and cyclist and pedestrians should be cautious on the roads.

If you or someone you know have been injured or killed in a Oregon motor vehicle crash, call Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658. Call Ross Law for your free personal injury case evaluation. We proudly represent people injured in car crashes, bicycle crashes, and pedestrians that were struck by a vehicle.

Sexual Assault Awareness Month and Things You Should Know About Consent

April is a month to reach out to the public and educate the public about sexual violence. This is also known as the Sexual Assault Awareness Month or “SAAM.” This years theme is “I Ask” and is focused on asking to obtain consent before engaging in sexual activity. The National Sexual Violence Resource Center notes “The Campaign theme, I Ask, champions the message that asking for consent is a healthy, normal, and necessary part of everyday actions.”

Ross Law is doing our part to get out the word. As a law firm that represents sexual assault survivors, it is imperative to us to do what we can to prevent or deter sexual violence by holding people and entities responsible for their actions and failures. Here are some useful tips and resources:

Consent and Sex:

What is it: Someone giving permission for something to happen or to do something.

When to Ask for Consent Obtain consent before engaging in sexual conduct: Ask for consent before beginning in sexual activity. This includes kissing, cuddling and any kind of sex. Remember to continually ask for consent as the sexual contact increases or changes. This ensures you are not putting the other person in a situation where they are feeling pressured or you are taking advantage of them by escalating the situation.

How to Ask: Ensure that when you are communicating with the other person that you make it clear that it is perfectly fine if they say “no.” You do not want to be pressuring the person. If you are not clear if the other person has consented ask again in a different way.

Click Here for More Tips on obtaining consent prior to engaging in sexual activity.

Consent, Sex, and Digital Technology

Why is This Important: Technology has brought things that used to happen behind closed doors out into the open. People do things and say things through their phones or computers that they would never do or say to another person if they were in front of them. That is why it is important to understand there are boundaries that must be respected when communicating with another.

How often to text: You don’t want to be considered a creeper by the other person. Fifty texts a day for some people is great, while for others it is overwhelming. Talking about how often to text in general terms may help you understand your partner’s preferences. This may also help you understand how often they prefer to respond to texts. This conversation may save the anxiety from thinking “am I texting too much” or “why haven’t they responded yet?”

What to Text-Sexting: Obviously not everyone is comfortable with “sexting.” Sexting means sending sexual photos, videos, or messages. Sexting can be extremely disturbing to the recipients if the recipient hasn’t given the sender express consent to send them. Imagine being at work when someone sends a nude person of themselves. Some people would be embarrassed or horrified upon receipt of this photograph. Others, may be fine with it. This is why is is critical to obtain another’s consent before sexting with another.

Consent Violations: If someone sends a nude photo, DO NOT share it with others. It is a breach of their trust, but you may get sued or prosecuted if you do. Also, remember that it is a crime to store or share sexual photos of someone under 18, even if you are also under 18. Parents need to ensure their kids understand this.

Click Here for more information.

Consent and Intoxication:

Consent and an Intoxicated or Impaired Person This is an area where people should simply steer clear of. Engaging in sexual activity with a person that is intoxicated, mentally defective, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless will put you at risk or being arrested and prosecuted and being sued in civil court for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. You do not want to be the person claiming that you thought the other person was sober enough to consent, so you thought it was OK. This is a time when simply asking for consent is not enough, because the other person doesn’t have the mental capacity to give consent.

Talk to Your Kids About Consent:

Credit: Rainn.org

This is also a good month to discuss consent with your children. The Rainn Group has some good tips regarding “safe dating” for teens, college students, and kids. The idea is to get kids comfortable with the idea that they are in charge of their own body, and that they have the power to say no, even, if they change their mind. Click here for more tips.

If you or someone you know has been a victim of sexual violence please contact Oregon crime victim lawyer Jeremiah Ross and Ross Law PDX for your free case evaluation at 503.224.1658. Here at Ross Law we have represented people that have been sexually assaulted and abused in various cases throughout Oregon. Please call us to discuss your rights and your options. Please also remember to not solely rely on this post for guidance or information regarding obtaining consent and sexual violence.

Another Satisfied Client at Ross Law PDX

We recently represented a nice woman in an issue involving a personal injury case and a car dealer. The matter concluded and she wrote this review

“I recently had the pleasure of working with Ross Law and Jerimah Ross as my attorney. He represented me in automotive hit and run which I was not responsible for but some how was caught in the middle of - due to a shady unmentioned dealership and individual who was. Jeremiah was able to represent my interest and get this sorted out within a couple of weeks. I had been trying to resolve it on my own for almost a year - and unfortunately was not able to clear my involvement until he was hired as my attorney. Thank you and truly appreciate your expediency in getting this put to rest. ”

— S.B.

Oregon Women Pay More For Car Insurance Than Oregon Men! Here is Why...

As an Oregon Personal Injury Lawyer and Consumer Lawyer, I am regularly asked by people if making a claim to their auto insurance will cause their insurance rates to go up. This is not an easy question to answer, because Insurance Companies are for profit businesses. As a result, Insurers are going to do what they feel is necessary in order to make a profit unless regulators or attorneys’ stop them. For example, GEICO was ordered to pay $23,000,000.00 to one of their insureds for GEICO failing to pay benefits, and denying payments on a whim. State Farm agreed to pay its customers $250,000,000 (That is not a typo) in order to avoid a racketeering trial in which customers claimed that State Farm was rigging an election for a Judge that had made favorable rulings for State Farm. USAA agreed to pay $39,000,000.00 to settle a lawsuit filed by its insureds (Veterans, Active Duty Military, and their families). These cases are evidence that some Insurance Companies are willing to skirt the law and disregard the moral high-ground in an effort to make a profit. Another example of insurers putting profit over people is how insurance companies are charging Oregon women more than Oregon men for auto insurance.

A recent study by an insurance search engine, The Zebra, found that Oregon women’ paid roughly $70.00 more for auto insurance last year than men did. A recent Pew Research study also came to the same conclusions on a national level. The studies found certain states prohibit gender based pricing, but Oregon is not one of them. What this means is that Insurers are at liberty to charge women more for insurance than men, and they do not have to have any justification for doing so.

The statistics support the fact that Oregon insurance companies are charging dramatically different rates for women than men. In 2016, insurers charged Oregon women $13.00 more for auto insurance than men. However, in 2018 that number inexplicably jumped to women paying $71.00 more for auto insurance than men. Does that mean that women are more dangerous on the road than men if insurers are charging them more? The answer is no.

The data does not support the Insurance Industry’s decisions to charge women more for car insurance in 25 States. The Zebra study affirmed that women and men equally engage in distracted driving, so that could not be a basis to charge women more. Additionally, fatality statistics do not support the insurance industry’s decision to overcharge Oregon women for car insurance. For example, men are the drivers in the vast majority of fatal Driving Under the Influence (DUII) crashes. Men also cause more speed related wrongful deaths on the road. The statistics show that men are riskier to insure than women.

View fullsize

Additionally, different companies charge different rates to similarly situated women throughout the country. For example, State Farm charged middle aged women the same as men. However, GEICO charged middle aged women 16% more than men. This is an important statistic. If insurance companies rates reflect the risk of a particular demographic of drivers then there would not be such a large disparity between the rates particular insurance companies are charging.

Then why are insurance companies charging women the so called “pink tax” to insure their vehicles? Why have the number of states where women pay more than men doubled in the past two years? The answer is simple, profits. The insurance industry is operating in a relaxed regulatory environment that permits them to take actions that will make their companies more profitable, even if that means imposing the “pink tax” on women.

For example, the insurance industry knows that Oregon does not have a bad faith claim, and Insurance Companies are specifically exempted from Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). The UTPA is a law that provides consumers a remedy if consumers are ripped off by a business. However, the insurance industry lobbied the legislature to be exempted from that law. As a result the insurance industry knows they are likely immune from any real consequences of arbitrarily charging women more for insurance than men.

Despite the insurance industry’s protections, here at Ross Law we will sue insurance companies if a person has been wronged by an insurer and there is a recognized legal remedy for that person. For example we regularly sue insurance companies on behalf of people whose automobile insurers deny paying personal injury protection benefits. We also sue insurance companies to collect uninsured and under-insured motorist benefits. Ross Law has also sued insurance companies for denying insurance coverage for a car crash.

If you or someone you know has an issue with an auto insurance company please call Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658 for your free case evaluation. Ross Law PDX is happy to represent Oregonians in many types insurance disputes.

Please note that Ross Law PDX is not affiliated with The Zebra or the Pew Research Center. Please refer to the links in the article for the most accurate information. Please note that this blog may be considered attorney advertising and expresses the opinions of this law office. Please remember that the law is constantly changing and insurance issues are usually very complicated. Please consult with an Oregon attorney if you have a dispute with an Oregon insurer. Do not simply rely on this blog post.

Victims of Assault Can Fight Back With Civil Lawsuits

It seems like every couple of weeks a new wealthy celebrity is caught assaulting someone. Last month NFL Running back Mark Walton was arrested for getting into a scuffle with a woman in Miami Florida. In January 2019 NFL Linebacker Trevor Bates punched a cop in the face and refused to pay for a $32.00 cab fare. In November 2018, NFL Running back Reuben Foster was arrested for pushing and slapping a woman in Tampa Florida. In July 2018 NFL Defensive Tackle Vernon Butler was cited for pushing a woman and throwing a drink in her face in Dallas Texas. That same month, NFL Tight End Ricky Seals Jones was arrested for pushing a hotel staffer so he could use the bathroom. These assaults and arrest are so prevalent there is actually a website dedicated to tracking NFL arrests.

NFL players are not alone. San Francisco Giants’ CEO Larry Baer recently brazenly assaulted his wife in public while on video. Comedian Katt Williams recently punched a Portland chauffeur for refusing to allow William’s dog to ride in the front seat. These assaults seem to be getting more and more prevalent in our society. Most victims of assault rely solely on the criminal justice system to punish the offenders. However, assault victims can fight back with a Civil Lawsuit.

Civil Lawsuits allow the victim to take the power back and be compensated for the hell the assailant put them through. Civil lawsuits also punish the assailant by forcing the assailant to pay punitive damages. The civil justice system is a very powerful tool to use against wealthy powerful people, such as professional athletes, celebrities, and wealthy individuals. This is due to the fact that most of these assailants have the financial resources to hire people to keep them out of jail and keep their jobs. In a sense they are “above the law” because they do not suffer real consequences for their actions. A small court fine and misdemeanor probation with no jail time is a common sentence for these individuals even if they have a history or pattern of assaults. That is not likely to change their abusive behavior.

On the other hand, if the assailant is forced to pay the victim a substantial amount of money then they will likely learn from their mistake. The assailant will also have to explain why they assaulted the defendant. In Oregon, in most cases defendants in a civil lawsuit can be deposed and can be forced to explain their actions. This can help the victim’s healing process and provide closure.

Here at Ross Law we strongly believe in holding assailants accountable. We have used the legal process to force assailants to pay victims of assault, sexual assault, and domestic violence significant amounts of money. We have also helped victims receive closure by using the civil justice systems to get answers from the assailants regarding why they did what they did.

If you or someone you know is a victim of assault, domestic violence, or sexual assault call Ross Law PDX for your free case evaluation. Call Portland Personal Injury Attorney Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1658 to discuss your case and your options. Please note that every case is different and results may vary. Ross Law PDX cannot represent victims in every case, and there are various factors that may play into whether or not a civil lawsuit can be used to hold a perpetrator accountable. Click (HERE) for more information regarding the differences between a civil court and criminal court.

Ross Law Has Been Busy Fighting on Behalf of Eastern Oregonians

We are often asked if we represent clients that live outside of the Portland Metro Region. The answer is yes! In the last year Ross Law PDX represented Eastern Oregonians in the following cases:

1. Jeremiah Ross represented a man that was brutally assaulted while in the custody of law enforcement officer in Milton-Freewater Oregon. Ross Law filed a lawsuit in Federal Court alleging 28 USC 1983 claims for the violations of the victim’s civil rights and state law claims, including negligence. The case resolved after filing the lawsuit.

2. Jeremiah Ross represented a client from an Eastern Oregon town in a patient safety case. The client went to a medical provider who negligently performed a procedure. The provider’s negligence fractured the client’s ribs. Ross Law attempted to settle the malpractice claim with the provider’s insurer. The chiropractor’s insurer failed to make a reasonable offer. Ross Law filed a medical malpractice lawsuit on behalf of the man against the medical provider. The insurance company then promptly settled the lawsuit for virtually every penny that was asked for, plus costs and attorney fees.

3. Jeremiah Ross has represented multiple people who have been ripped off by car dealers in Pendleton, Hermiston, and Ontario, Oregon.

4. Jeremiah Ross and another law firm represented a truck driver who was severely injured at a loading dock near Nyssa, Oregon . The truck driver was walking through the loading area when a fork-lift violently struck him and dragged him for several feet. The crash caused serious injuries to the man’s chest, low back, and knees, pelvis, feet and shoulders. We alleged the forklift driver wasn’t properly trained, supervised, and was not following the law. The matter was initially set for trial, but the parties chose to proceed in private arbitration after the Court re-scheduled the initial trial date. The arbitrator awarded our client a significant amount of money.

Ross Law is also currently litigating a wrongful death case in Umatilla County. If you are an Eastern Oregonian who needs legal representation in a personal injury case, wrongful death case, civil rights case, or a auto fraud or lemon law case, call Jeremiah Ross at 503.224.1659. Please call Ross Law PDX for your free case evaluation. If we are unable to assist you with your legal matter we are happy to attempt to find someone that is able to. Please remember this blog post could be considered ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.