Hi and welcome to JA

I will be with you in a couple of minutes. Please be patient. Thank you.

rich

Sorry. Computer lost my answer twice. I'm typing it now on word and then transfer it over. BRB

rich

PLEASE IGNORE THIS ANSWER. IT WAS PUT IN THE WRONG BOX COMPUTER ACTING UP AGAIN.

A. Inability of Public Lands to Meet Demand
Unfortunately for modem day outdoor enthusiasts, federal, state, and local efforts to
acquire more recreational land have not kept pace with public demand. Many of our state and
national parks suffer from overuse and their natural resources are being seriously degraded.6
To protect fragile plants and wildlife, public access to national parks such as Yellowstone, Teton,
and Yosemite has been curtailed.
In addition, much of the public land is concentrated in the western U.S. and is not easily
accessible to many Americans. There are approximately 746 million acres of public land in the
U.S., of which 691 million acres are owned by the federal government. But only 8 percent of the
public land is in the eastern U.S.7
B. Private Lands Opened to Public (Reasons)
The obvious solution to the lack of public land for recreational use is for outdoor
enthusiasts to find private landowners willing to grant recreational users access to private
properties. Even though urban expansion annually consumes an estimated 1.5 million acres of
agricultural land, and the U.S. is annually losing 400,000 acres of wetlands,8 there is still an
estimated 1.28 billion acres of private rural land in the United States. Of this acreage, just less
than 37 percent lies in the east.9
It is estimated that nearly all agricultural lands and 64 percent of rangelands are
privately owned. In addition, 71 percent of the total U.S. forest land is owned by private
landowners or private industry. Private rural land in the contiguous United States makes up
more than 60 percent of the nation's total land area. As a result, a high percentage of the 141
million Americans who participate in outdoor recreational activities must rely on private lands
and the natural resources they afford.10
But why would any landowner permit other persons to use his or her property for
recreational purposes, especially when some of those persons are total strangers? Three
reasons commonly come to mind when answering the question of why landowners permit
public access to their property.
1. Hospitality
Farmers and ranchers are known for their hospitality and willingness to share with
others. Most farmers and ranchers are justifiably proud of their properties and do not mind
sharing some of the pleasures of rural life with those who often do not get a chance to
experience them.11
2. State Promotional Activities
As the United States has become a more urban society, there are less and less rural areas to be
enjoyed. Yet, with an increasing population and the desire of many persons to get away from
the hectic pace of city and suburban life, many states have actually encouraged landowners to
open up their properties to recreational uses. To encourage landowners to permit such
recreational uses, state legislatures have passed recreational use statutes promising
8 Kaiser & Wright, supra note 5, at 478.
9 H. Ken Cordell et aI., Trends in Outdoor Recreation and Implications for Private Land Management in the East, in
PROCEEDINGS AND INVITED PAPERS: NATURAL RESOURCES INCOME OPPORTUNITIES ON PRIVATE LANDS
CONFERENCE (Jonathan S. Kays et at. eds., 1998), at 4.
10 Id. at 4.
11 When a farmer or rancher permits the recreational use of their land, they rarely ever consider the possibility of
an accident and subsequent lawsuit.
10
landowners immunity from lawsuits when recreational users are accidentally injured wlile on a
landowner's property.
3. Monetary Gain
Farmers and ranchers often open their properties to recreational users because, as landowners,
they need the additional revenues generated by those persons who pay for the privilege of
camping, hunting, fishing, sightseeing, or other recreational activities on private lands.
For many farmers and ranchers, the extra revenue generated by recreational activities
on farm and ranch land means the difference in economic survival. This is especially true in
many Western states where the uncertainty of cattle revenues has prompted many ranchers to
get into the tourism business.12
For many farmers and ranchers, the extra revenue generated by recreational
Financial margins have traditionally been tight for western ranchers and many of them
have held second and even third jobs in construction, mining, or the oil business to financially
survive. But, as those sources of additional revenue have been scaled back, ranchers have been
forced to turn to tourism for additional dollars.13 The additional money from tourism activities
not only helps to pay bank loans, but helps to subsidize paying for repairs to ranch buildings,
reservoirs, and fencing.14
12 Doug McInnis, Ranches Add Tourism to Raising Cattle, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. II,1994, atY38.
13 Id.
14 Id.
Commentary: Monetary Gain
U.S. citizens spend a substantial amount of money on wildlife related recreation. In
1996, 77 million Americans participated in hunting, fishing, or wildlife watching.
The sum of the individuals involved in hunting, angling, or wildlife watching
actually exceeds 77 million because many people participate in more than one
activity. It is estimated that expenditures for trips and equipment for these
activities exceeded $100 billion in 1996. David G. Waddington, Wildlife-Associated
Recreation in the US: Results from the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation and What It Tells Private Landowners, in
PROCEEDINGS AND INVITED PAPERS: NATURAL RESOURCES INCOME
OPPORTUNITIES ON PRIVATE LANDS CONFERENCE (Jonathan S. Kays et al. eds.,
1998 at 53-4).
11
The types of tourism activities conducted on ranches vary greatly. Some ranches offer
hunting and fishing trips with food and lodging available. Some ranches permit guests to
actually work on the ranch. These paying guests perform a number of chores, including moving
livestock for 10 to 12 hours a day.15
What is true for the farmers and ranchers in the Western states is true for farmers and
ranchers throughout the United States. Some landowners have opened bed and breakfast
operations on their properties while others have gone so far as to open restaurants where old
style country home cooked meals are the main offering. After a hearty meal, guests are
welcome to tour the property and see a working ranch or farm in operation. Farm animals in
particular fascinate children and adults alike, as do other common farming elements such as
barns and farm equipment.
U-pick or direct marketing operations are also extremely common for farmers who own
fruit orchards and berry farms. Consumers can purchase fruit and berries already picked by the
farmer and available at the farmer's fruit stand or, at a cheaper price, consumers can enter the
orchards and fields and pick their own fruit. Traditionally, farmers furnish the consumers
whatever equipment is needed, such as gloves, buckets, and ladders. For farmers, U-pick or
direct operations have the dual benefits of reducing labor costs while generating revenues.
Consumers get to select their own fresh fruit while engaging in a recreational outing, although
for some the outing can be very strenuous.
Having delivered a number of lectures on the liability issues associated with U-pick or
direct marketing operations, I can personally attest to the growing popularity of such activities.
I have also endured the pleasures of picking strawberries, blueberries, and apples at such
operations.
In a few instances farmers and ranchers have opened day care centers for children.
Personally, I doubt that this qualifies as a recreational activity, except for the children. But given
the alleged scarcity of quality day care centers in the United States and the growing trend of
two-income families, it is hardly surprising that rural families are encouraged to open day care
centers to generate additional income to support farming operations.
15 Id.
12
I am sure there are many other recreational activities conducted on private farm and
ranch lands which I have not mentioned. But any recreational activities conducted on private
property have two things in common: (1) the possibility of generating additional income to
support the farm or ranch; and, (2) the possibility of a liability action being commenced against
a property owner because of bodily injury to a recreational user of the property.
II. DUTY TO PROTECT LAND ENTRANTS
A. Dangers to Land Entrants
Agriculture is a hazardous business, as any farmer or rancher can attest. In 1992, there
were 1,200 agriculturally related deaths in the United States and an additional 140,000 serious
injuries.16
Naturally, recreational users can be exposed to some of the same risks to which farmers
and ranchers are exposed on a daily basis. Some agricultural operations are chemically
intensive operations and recreational entrants may be inadvertently exposed to harmfu1levels
16 1994 U.S. Statistical Abstract.
Commentary -Agritourism
The use of farm and ranch lands for recreational use has become so popular that
new terms, such as agritourism and agritainment, have been coined. Farmers and
ranchers are limited only by their imaginations in the use of their lands for
recreational activities. Some landowners have even created giant mazes in their
cornfields and have charged people for the "fun" of negotiating their way through
them, as well as for food and drink.
Commentary - Additional Resource on Liability
The following is a brief description of the liability issues associated with the
recreational use of private land. A more detailed explanation can be found in the
NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND INCOME OPPORTUNITY SERIES: LEGAL
ISSUES, a joint publication of the NCALRI and the West Virginia University Extension
Service. A copy of the publication can be obtained from the National Center for
Agricultural Law Research and Information, Robert Leflar Law Center, University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701, or call(NNN) NNN-NNNN
13
of pesticides or herbicides. There is also the possibility that some recreational users may have
allergic reactions to even relatively low levels of pesticides or herbicides.17
Animals, of course, can injure recreational entrants. A recreational user could be thrown
from a horse or run over by an animal that has escaped from an enclosure. Arid there is the
nightmare situation of a landowner owning a vicious animal which attacks and injures a
recreational user.18
Modern agriculture is also highly mechanized. The use of heavy equipment can pose a
risk to land entrants and even idle equipment, such as a bulldozer with a blade on it, can result
in injury to the unwary land entrant.19
Even the land itself can pose risks to someone using the property recreationally. Holes,
ditches, and waste pits that are familiar to the landowner can represent a real threat to
someone who is hunting or fishing on the land or engaged in any other recreational activity.
Finally, there is also the risk of a recreational user being intentionally or negligently
harmed by a landowner's employee. If the injury occurs during the course and scope of
employment, the landowner can be held vicariously liable for the employee's actions.20
B. Causes of Action Against Landowners
Any of the foregoing exposures may result in physical injury to a recreational user of the
landowner's property. When a land entrant is injured during recreational activities, there is the
strong likelihood of a lawsuit being filed by the injured party against the landowner.
The landowner will be accused of having committed a tort against the land entrant. A
"tort" is simply a wrongful act, injury, or damage, other than breach of contract, for which a
civil action may be brought.21
The types of damages the injured party is likely to seek include compensation for the
physical injury itself, compensation for pain and suffering, Emotional Distress, medical
expenses, and lost wages. In cases of death, a wrongful death action may be filed. The
17 JOHN D. COPELAND, NATIONAL CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL LAW RESEARCH AND INFORMATION,
UNDERSTANDING THE FARMERS COMPREHENSIVE PERSONAL LIABILITY POLICY: A GUIDE FOR FARMERS,
ATTORNEYS AND INSURANCE AGENTS (1992), at 12.
18 Id. at 3.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 3-4.
21 LEWIS E. DAVIDS, DICTIONARY OF INSURANCE, 7TH ED. (1990).
14
landowner may also face claims from family members for loss of companionship. These are just
some of the typical claims that can be made in such cases. The types of tort actions possible
against a landowner include strict liability or Negligence.
1. Strict Liability
Strict liability is often referred to as liability without fault. Strict liability is based on the
societal judgment that those who expose the community to a dangerous risk must bear the
financial responsibility for any resulting damage, even while acting with the utmost care.
Because the probability of harm is so great, the burden of loss must be shifted to the one who
created the danger.22
A good example of the application of the doctrine of strict liability is injuries caused by
an animal with vicious or dangerous propensities. If a landowner is in control of an animal with
such propensities, and the landowner has knowledge of the propensities, then the landowner is
strictly liable for any injuries caused by the animal.23
Examples of vicious animals for which land, 'ners have been held strictly liable where
injury resulted include: a camel addicted to biting people,24 a bull with a tendency to charge
people,25 and, of course, a dog with a tendency to attack people.26 An animal need not be
vicious for strict liability to apply. Injuries inflected by a dangerous animal (which is one likely to
inflict serious damage) can also result in a strict liability case. In one case a landowner was held
strictly liable because he owned a dog which had a habit of playfully jumping on people. The
dog's size and power made the animal dangerous to others.27
Obviously, the doctrine of strict liability has broader application than just animals owned
by a landowner. The doctrine applies to any situation or circumstance where the exposure to
injury is abnormally great, such as the storage of explosives or hazardous chemicals.28
22 Charles L. LeCroy III, Tort Liability of Agricultural Landowners To Recreational Entrants: A Critical Analysis, 11 U.C.
DAVIS LAW REV. 367, 389 (1978).
23 Id. at 388.
24 Id. at 389, n. 59, citing Gooding v. Chutes Co. 155 CaL 620, 102 P. 819 (1909).
25 Id., citing Clowdis v. Fresno Flume & Irrigation Co., 118 Cal. 315, 50 P. 373 (1897).
26 Id. at 389, n. 60, citing Hicks v. Sullivan, 122 Cal. App. 638,10 P.2d 516 (1932).
27 Id. at 389, n. 62, citing Hillman v. Garcia-Ruby, 44 Cal.2d 625, 283 P.2d 1033 (1955).
28 J.D. LEE & BARRY A. LINDAHL, MODERN TORT LAW: LIABILITY & LITIGATION, § 3.15 (Rev. Ed. 1988).
15
2. Negligence
Fortunately for landowners, most tort actions are not based on strict liability, but upon
negligence. Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonably prudent person would ordinarily
do under the same or similar circumstances of a particular case, or doing what a prudent
person would not have done. Negligence may be caused by acts of omission, commission, or
both.29 A claim of negligence involves three elements: (1) a duty owed to another person; (2)
breach of that duty; and (3) injury caused to the person as a result of that breach.
In cases involving land entrants, the critical question for the landowner is often the level
of duty owed to the land entrant, because the level of duty determines whether a breach of the
duty has occurred. Farmers and ranchers are not liable merely because someone is injured on
their premises. Traditionally, the common law has divided property users into three categories.
The duty owed by the landowner to the injured person depends to a large extent on whether
the person on the premises is a trespasser, licensee, or invitee.
c. Status of Land Entrants
The three land entrant categories of trespasser, licensee, and invitee have been
recognized in the United States since 1865.30
While most states judge a landowner's duty in
accordance with these three categories, some states have begun to abandon these distinctions
in favor of a single reasonable care standard.
1. Trespassers
A trespasser is one who enters or remains upon the land without the landowner's
consent. An example of a trespasser would be one who hunts on a landowner's property
without permission or simply hikes across the property without permission.31 A trespasser is
also one who enters upon a landowner's property to commit a crime, such as theft.
The duty of care owed by the landowner to a trespasser is slight, but it is not non-existent. The
duty also varies depending upon whether the trespasser is an adult or child.
29 DAVIDS, supra note 21.
30 Sweeny v. Old Colony & Newport R.R., 92 Mass (10 Allen) 368 (1865).
31 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 329 (1965).
16
a. Trespassers in General
A landowner cannot intentionally injure a trespasser and cannot use more force than is
reasonably necessary to eject him from the property. The landowner also cannot engage in
conduct which recklessly endangers a trespasser, even if the trespasser is engaged in criminal
conduct. In Kato v. Briney32 a farmer who became frustrated with trespassing thieves who kept
breaking into an uninhabited house on his premises rigged up a 20-gauge spring shotgun. A
trespasser, who was injured by the discharging shotgun when he broke into the house, sued the
farm owner for the injuries the trespasser received. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the
trespasser for $20,000 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.33
Another example of Reckless Endangerment would be the stretching of a cable or piece
of rope across a path used by trespassing dirtbikers or four wheelers. If the obstruction were
difficult to see it could be viewed by a court as an act of reckless endangerment.
What a landowner must understand is that the law places a greater emphasis on the
safety of human life than it does on the protection of private property. In fact, if a landowner
knows that a trespasser is upon the property and that a dangerous situation exists that could
injure the trespasser, such as a bull that has a tendency to attack people, then the landowner
probably has a duty to warn the trespasser of the danger. In such a situation, it is even possible
that the landowner's failure to act could be viewed as a matter of strict liability rather than
negligence.
b. Child Trespassers
Where a child is a trespasser, a landowner may be held liable for the trespasser's
injuries in a situation where the landowner would not have been liable if the trespasser had
been an adult The law recognizes that children do not possess the same judgment as adults,
and the younger the child the greater the landowner's obligation to safeguard a trespassing
child against injury.
Several legal theories have developed to clarify a landowner's obligation to trespassing
children. One is the attractive nuisance theory. Children are naturally curious. There are many
objects on rural property to attract the interest of children and to encourage children to
32 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971).
33 Id.
17
explore them to satisfy their curiosity. Examples of attractive nuisances include barns, farm
machinery, animals (especially young animals), and farm ponds.
As to farm ponds, however, some courts distinguish between natural and artificial
bodies of water, with only man-made bodies of water constituting attractive nuisances. A
natural body of water on a landowner's property can become an attractive nuisance, however,
if the landowner adds some artificial improvement to it, such as a floating fishing dock, bridge,
or diving board. Fortunately for landowners, a number of states refuse to apply the attractive
nuisance doctrine to any bodies of water.
Instead of applying the attractive nuisance theory to trespassing children, some states
apply the rule found in section 339 of the Second Restatement of Torts. Section 339 provides
that a landowner is liable for physical injury to a trespassing child caused by an artificial
condition upon the land if: (a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the
landowner knows or has reason to know a child is likely to trespass; (b) the condition is one
which the landowner knows or has reason to know will involve an unreasonable risk of death or
seriously bodily harm to the child; (c) the child's age is such that she or he cannot discover the
dangerous condition or risk involved; (d) the utility to the landowner of maintaining the
condition and the burden of eliminating it are slight as compared with the risk to the child
involved; and (e) the landowner fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or
otherwise protect the child.34
Most states have adopted either the attractive nuisance doctrine or the Restatement
rule. A few states apply the usual common law trespass rules to both children and adults.35
2. Licensees
The second category of land entrant is the licensee. The licensee is a person who enters
upon the land with the landowner's permission, but for th· licensee's own purpose or business
interest instead of the landowner's interest. Social guests and unsolicited sales persons are
examples of licensees.
34 JOHN C. BECKER, ET AL., WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICE, LEGAL ISSUES (Anthony Ferrise &
William N. Grafton eds., Natural Resources Management and Income Opportunity Series, R.D. No. 744, 1990), at
18.
35 Id.
18
A hunter permitted to hunt on property without paying the landowner a fee is also a
licensee. Property owners need to remember that in some states the failure to post land
against hunting constitutes implied permission for anyone to enter the property for hunting
purposes and such a person is also a licensee.36
Landowners owe licensees a higher duty of care than that owed to trespassers. Besides
refraining from intentionally injuring a licensee or recklessly endangering a licensee, the
landowner must take measures to warn the licensee of any dangerous conditions on the land.37
This is especially true for concealed dangers about which the landowner has knowledge. As a
general rule, however, the landowner is under no obligation to inspect his or her property to
discover concealed dangers previously unknown to the property owner and then warn an
invitee as to those discovered dangers.
Traditionally, landowners have been generous in permitting licensees to enter upon
private property for recreational purposes. However, with the increasing threat of litigation
from licensees injured during recreational activities, there has come a great reluctance on the
part of landowners to freely permit the recreational use of private property. Recreational use
statutes, which are explained in Section III of this publication, have been passed by an
overwhelming majority of states to encourage landowners to open private lands to recreational
use.38
3. Invitees
It is to the third category of land entrants, invitees, that landowners owe the greatest
duty of care. An invitee is a person who comes onto the land at the express or implied invitation
of the landowner for the landowner's financial benefit. A landowner who charges a fee for the
recreational use of his or her property, such as hunting, fishing, or camping, or who charges
entrants a fee to pick fruit, or runs a bed and breakfast operation, or conducts any other type of
recreational activity for a fee, owes special legal duties to his or her invitee.39
36 John J. Rademacher, Protective Legal Measures and Concerns of Private Landowners, in LEGAL ISSUES, supra
note 34, at 37.
37 Id.
38 Id. at 38.
39 Id.
19
An invitee enters upon the land with the implied representation that the landowner has
taken reasonable care to make the premises safe for its intended recreational use. In making
the premises safe for recreational use, the landowner must take into consideration the nature
of the land, the use to which it will be put, and the nature of the person who will be using the
premises.40
The landowner must not only warn the invitee recreational user of known concealed
dangers, but carefully inspect the premises for dangers currently unknown to the landowner. In
response to these dangers, the landowner must eliminate the dangers, or if elimination is
impossible, clearly mark the dangers or make them inaccessible to an invitee, depending on the
nature of the recreational use and the invitee.41
For example, a landowner who charges hunters a fee for hunting on the property would
need to inspect the premises for any holes or precipices on the land not likely to be readily
apparent to a hunter intent on finding game. Adequate warning signs would need to be posted
as to such hazards and it might even be necessary to make certain parts of the property
inaccessible to recreational users.
A landowner who charges land entrants a fee to come onto the property to pick
produce would need to warn the entrants of any recent use of chemicals, such as pesticides,
that could be hazardous to an entrant's health, especially if there is the possibility that an
entrant might be allergic to certain chemicals. Again, a landowner would probably need to post
warning signs as to the type of chemical used on the property and what date it was used. Some
areas would probably need to be made inaccessible to land entrants.
If the landowner furnishes equipment to recreational users, such as ladders to fruit
pickers, then the landowner has a duty to make sure that the equipment is safe and adequate
for its intended use. The landowner not only needs to conduct his own activities in a safe and
reasonable manner, but needs to make sure his or her employees do the same.
4. Reasonable Care Standard
Some jurisdictions have now abandoned the common law distinctions between the
duties of care owed to entrants by landowners. Instead of applying different standards of care
40 Id. at 39.
41 Id.
20
based on an entrant's status, courts in some jurisdictions apply a single standard of reasonable
care under the circumstances.
One of the earliest jurisdictions to abandon the common law treatment of trespassers,
licensees, and invitees was California. In the influential 1968 case of Rowland v. Christian,42 the
California Supreme Court articulated the single standard of reasonable care.
The single standard of care follows ordinary principles of negligence. Whether a
landowner is liable for injuries suffered by an entrant depends on the foreseeability of the
entrant's presence, likelihood and seriousness of the injury, and the landowner's burden of
avoiding the risk of injury. In determining the landowner's liability, all relevant circumstances
are taken into consideration, including the reasonableness of the landowner's actions and the
injured entrant's contributory negligence.43
At least eight states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Louisiana, New Hampshire,
New York, and Rhode Island) and the District of Columbia have abandoned the common law
distinctions between entrants in favor of a single standard of "reasonable care under the
circumstances.”44
In some states, such as North Dakota, courts have eliminated the distinction between
licensees and invitees, but have retained a lesser standard of care for trespassers.45
Some
jurisdictions, such as Illinois, have passed premises liability acts which abolish the distinctions
between invitees and licensees as to a landowner's duty.46
III. RECREATIONAL USE STATUTES AND LAND ENTRANTS
A. In General
A large majority of states have enacted recreational use statutes. These statutes give
landowners immunity from personal injury lawsuits filed by persons negligently injured on the
land so long as certain statutory conditions are met. To qualify for immunity under a
42 69 Cal.2d 108, 70 Cal. Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561 (1968).
43 33 ARK. L REv. 194 (1979).
44 XXXXX XXXXX, Outdoor Sports and Torts: An Analysis of Utah's Recreational Use Act, 47 UTAH L REV. 47, at n. 16
(1988).
45 Id. at note 17.
46 See Northrup v. Allister Constr. Co. 163 Ill. App.3d 221,114 Ill. Dec. 431, 516 N.E.2d 586 (1987).
21
recreational use statute, a landowner must have permitted the injured party free access to the
land for recreational purposes.47
Recreational use statutes have been attacked on the constitutional grounds of denial of
equal protection, denial of equal access to the courts, and denial of due process. In every
instance, the courts have upheld the statutes' constitutionality.
In claims of equal protection violations, the courts have held that recreational use
statutes do not affect a suspect class or fundamental right. As a result, recreational use statutes
need only be rationally related to a governmental purpose. The opening up of private lands to
general public recreational use by means of granting landowners limited liability is a rational
means of achieving a legitimate stated objective.48
Also, recreational use statutes do not restrict access to state courts or deny injured
persons due process of law. Although the right of redress for injury is constitutional in nature,
the compensability of a specific injury is derived from state common law. Recreational use
statutes merely redefine the injury or class of persons to which the constitutional right of
redress attaches.49
B. Model Acts
Many recreational use statutes are patterned after the Council of State Governments' 1965
Model Act.50
Other states pattern their laws after the 1979 Model Act proposed by the National
Association of Conservation Districts, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, the National Rifle Association, the National Wildlife

1. Yes. you can add a claim but you have to notify the other side; get medical reports on those claims; give the other side the opportunity to examine you (they're entitled to that); explain to the mediator, you need an adjournment because of new claims.

2. The only way to combat this is getting an analysis and report from a reconstruction expert yourself ABSOLUTEY ESSENTIAL. Just google OK reconstruction experts and you'll find dozens with resumes. Interview a few. Make sure they feel strongly about your position and strong provable positions as to why the other expert is just plain wrong.

3. You don't need cases. You have to prove:

1. Cost of past care.
2. Cost of and need for future care.
3. Permanency of the injury, if any, AS ESTABLISHED IN A WRITTEN REPORT FROM A MEDICAL SPECIALIST.
4. Reduction in life expectancy.
5. Reduction in work life expectancy. (but see below)
6 The age and kind of work the injured person does.(but see below)
7. Past and future work disability and lost wages.(but see below)
8. Past and future pain and suffering.

4. I have had this hundreds of times in my long career. When there's a client in your position YOU MUST GIVE UP THAT CLAIM OR RISK IRS TROUBLE. No wording will get you around that. And if you ask for future earnings reductions due to your accident, they'll ask you what you made for wages for the past X years. And here we are back with the IRS problem.

5. Strategy: Order of testimony

a. you first

b. reconstruction experts

c. doctors saving the one who gives you the strongest opinions on the most serious injuries.

A great alternative:

Call the other driver first to testify as a hostile witness. Then you can ask him leading questions. If you need more help with that advantage, let me know.

NOTE: DON'T GET UPSET IF THE OTHER SIDE TRIES TO CONVINCE THE MEDIATOR THAT YOU WERE PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE IF YOU GO BEFOR A JURY YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT CAN HAPPEN.

Please press 3 or 4 or 5 below so that I may get credit for assisting you.
Please do NOT press 1 or 2 since that will result in a negative rating for me
which you may not have intended. If you want further information or
clarification, just ask before you give a rating.

I ask you to be fair in your rating. For instance, in these actual examples , the expert should not have received a negative rating:
1. A customer says "I ALREADY KNEW THAT".....but the expert didn't know what the customer knew or didn't know.
2. A customer wants to hear "YES YOU CAN".....but the certified legal expert says "LEGALLY NO YOU CAN'T".
3. The answer is short, but ACCURATE. A customer simply wants a longer answer.

Thank you for reading this and for your consideration. I'm always ready to help further.

rich