In 1998, Tom Benson & John Case combined their 55 years of legal experience to form a Denver law firm to help individuals, families and business owners. While guiding our clients through the legal process, we have built relationships with them, their families, and our community. Today, our team of eight experienced lawyers offers you solutions in a wide range of services, including:

Personal Injury Auto Accidents Motorcycle Accidents Truck Accidents Slip and Fall cases Defective Products cases Unsafe Products cases Wrongful Death cases Property Accidents

Land Accidents Traffic cases DUI / DWAI Speeding Careless Driving Criminal cases Civil Trials Criminal Trials Appeals

We have helped hundreds of clients achieve the satisfaction proving their case through litigation and obtain fair and full compensation after suffering a personal injury.

Top 4 Reasons You Should Work With Us

• Experience. Our attorneys have a combined 184 years of experience and are uniquely qualified to represent you in their respective practice area.
• Involvement. Our client’s involvement is a vital part of making the case successful. You will know what is happening with your case at all times.
• Efficiency. We save expense through the use of technology and teamwork.
• Team Approach. When you retain an attorney at Benson & Case, you are hiring the entire team of experienced attorneys and staff including legal researchers and paralegals. Delivering great service is not about being the biggest, it’s about being accessible, being committed and caring about what we do – one client at a time.

What does "personal injury" mean?
Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property. The term is most commonly used to refer to a type of tort lawsuit alleging that the plaintiff's injury has been caused by the negligence of another. The most common types of personal injury claims are road traffic accidents, accidents at work, tripping accidents, assault claims, accidents in the home, product defect accidents (product liability) and holiday accidents. The term personal injury also incorporates medical and dental accidents (which lead to numerous medical negligence claims every year) and conditions that are often classified as industrial disease cases, including asbestosis and mesothelioma, chest diseases (e.g., emphysema, pneumoconiosis, silicosis, chronic bronchitis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic obstructive airways disease), vibration white finger, occupational deafness, occupational stress, contact dermititis, and repetitive strain injury cases. If the negligence of another party can be proved, the injured party may be entitled to monetary compensation from that party. In the United States, this system is complex and controversial, with critics calling for various forms of tort reform. Attorneys often represent clients on a "contingency basis," in which the attorney's fee is a percentage of the plaintiff's eventual compensation, payable when the case is resolved. Oftentimes, having an attorney becomes essential because cases become extremely complex, such as in medical malpratice cases. This is differentiated between damage to vehicles, homes, or anyother inanimate thing of value. The official legal term is "tort", and the most common type of legal action involves another actor committing "negligence" against the person which results in the personal injury to that person. Negligence means that someone did not use the appropriate degree of care in their actions.

Credit for this article is due to Wikipedia, and sources cited within.

Motorcycle Accidents:
Motorcycles have a higher fatality rate per unit of distance travelled when compared with automobiles. According to the NHTSA, in 2006 18.06 cars out of 100,000 ended up in fatal crashes. The rate for motorcycles is 55.82 per 100,000.[1] In 2004, figures from the UK Department for Transport indicated that motorcycles have 16 times the rate of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle kilometers compared to cars, and double the rate of bicycles.[2] A national study by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATS) found that: * Motorcycle rider death rates increased among all rider age groups between 1998 and 2000 * Motorcycle rider deaths were nearly 30 times more than drivers of other vehicles * Motorcycle riders aged below 40 are 36 times more likely to be killed than other vehicle operators of the same age. * Motorcycle riders aged 40 years and over are around 20 times more likely to be killed than other drivers of that same age.[3] According to 2005 data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA, 4,008 motorcycle occupants were killed on United States roads in 2004, an 8% increase from 2003.[4] During that same period, drivers of automobiles showed a 10% increase in fatalities, and cyclists showed an 8% increase in fatalities. Pedestrians also showed a 10% increase in fatalities. A total of 37,304 automobile occupants were killed on U.S. roads in 2004.[5] Additional data from the United States reveals that there are over four million motorcycles registered in the United States. Motorcycle fatalities represent approximately five percent of all highway fatalities each year, yet motorcycles represent just two percent of all registered vehicles in the United States. One of the main reasons motorcyclists are killed in crashes is because the motorcycle itself provides virtually no protection in a crash. For example, approximately 80 percent of reported motorcycle crashes result in injury or death; a comparable figure for automobiles is about 20 percent.[6] [edit] Research Two major scientific research studies into the causes of motorcycle accidents have been conducted in North America and Europe: the Hurt Report and the MAIDS report. [edit] Hurt Report Main article: Hurt Report The only major work done on this subject in the USA is the Hurt Report, published in 1981 with data collected in Los Angeles and the surrounding rural areas.[7] There have been longstanding calls for a new safety study in the US, and Congress has provided the seed money for such a project, but as yet the remainder of the funding has not all been pledged.[8] The Hurt Report concluded with a list of 55 findings, as well as several major recommendations for law enforcement and legislation. Among these, 75% of motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, usually a car. In the MAIDS report, the figure is 60%. Other notable findings in the Hurt report (quoted below) were:[9] * 75% of accidents were found to involve a motorcycle and a passenger vehicle, while the remaining 25% of accidents were single motorcycle accidents. * "In the single vehicle accidents, motorcycle rider error was present as the accident precipitating factor in about two-thirds of the cases, with the typical error being a slide-out and fall due to overbraking or running wide on a curve due to excess speed or under-cornering." * "Almost half of the fatal accidents show alcohol involvement" and "injury severity increases with speed, alcohol involvement and motorcycle size." * In the multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents. * The report's additional findings show that the wearing of appropriate gear, specifically, helmets and durable garment, mitigates crash injuries substantially. * "Vehicle failure accounted for less than 3% of these motorcycle accidents, and most of those were single vehicle accidents where control was lost due to a puncture flat" and "Weather is not a factor in 98% of motorcycle accidents." * "The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents... Conspicuity of the motorcycle is a critical factor in the multiple vehicle accidents, and accident involvement is significantly reduced by the use of motorcycle headlamps-on In daylight and the wearing of high visibility yellow, orange or bright red jackets." [edit] MAIDS report Main article: MAIDS report The most recent large-scale study of motorcycle accidents is the MAIDS report carried out in five European countries in 1999-2000, using the rigorous OECD standards, including a statistically significant sample size of over 900 crash incidents and over 900 control cases. The MAIDS report tends to support most of the Hurt Report findings, for example that "69% of the OV [other vehicle] drivers attempted no collision avoidance manoeuvre," suggesting they did not see the motorcycle. And further that, "the largest number of PTW [powered two-wheeler] accidents is due to a perception failure on the part of the OV driver or the PTW rider." And "The data indicates that in 68.7% of all cases, the helmet was capable of preventing or reducing the head injury sustained by the rider (i.e., 33.2% + 35.5%). In 3.6% of all cases, the helmet was found to have no effect upon head injury" and "There were no reported cases in which the helmet was identified as the contact code for a serious or maximum neck injury."[10] [edit] Conflicting findings on conspicuity A New Zealand study supported the Hurt Report's call for increased rider conspicuity, claiming fluorescent clothing, white or light colored helmets, and daytime headlights may reduce motorcycle injuries and death. The study found that wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing reduced the risk of a crash injury by 37%, a white helmet by 24%, and riding with headlights on by 27%.[11] However, the MAIDS report did not back up the claims that helmet color makes any difference in accident frequency, and that in fact motorcycles painted white were actually over-represented in the accident sample compared to the exposure data.[12] While recognizing how much riders need to be seen, the MAIDS report documented that riders' clothing usually fails to do so, saying that "in 65.3% of all cases, the clothing made no contribution to the conspicuity of the rider or the PTW [powered two-wheeler, i.e. motorcycle]. There were very few cases found in which the bright clothing of the PTW rider enhanced the PTW’s overall conspicuity (46 cases).There were more cases in which the use of dark clothing decreased the conspicuity of the rider and the PTW (120 cases)." The MAIDS report was unable to recommend specific items of clothing or colors to make riders better seen.[13] In 2007, a report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety claimed that "supersport" motorcycles were four times more likely to be involved in highway crashes than other types. When reprinting this press release as a news report, USA Today omitted the word "insurance" from the "Insurance Institute for Highway Safety", giving a false impression the IIHS is a governmental agency, not a private corporation with a conflict of interest.[14] According to the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA), the IIHS report was an attempt to either ban entire categories of motorcycles, or a covert attempt to legislate requirement for speed governors in all vehicles.[15] The IIHS report was not a new study, being an analysis of existing data from the national Fatal Accident Reporting System. The methodology consisted of a comparison of fatalities for different styles of motorcycles based on a rate per 10,000 registrations. The report did not incorporate key factors, such as the number of miles the bike was ridden, the traffic environment in which it was used, along with the age and experience of the rider, among others.[15] In an attempt to sort through this confusion, the AMA requested a copy of the classification system the IIHS used in its analysis and found several significant anomalies. For instance, although the IIHS report focused on speed and acceleration as the factors that make its "supersport" category so dangerous, the two most powerful motorcycles that were available at the time in the United States, the Kawasaki ZX-14 and Suzuki Hayabusa, are placed in the Sport category, which are rated considerably less dangerous. And they share that category with the Honda ST1300 and Yamaha FJR1300, two bikes that define the sport-touring class. The AMA thought the timing of the IIHS report was unusual. The National Transportation Safety Board specifically asked the Federal Highway Administration to work with states to develop uniform data-collection procedures that will result in better information about the number of miles traveled by motorcycles, one of the most important factors in evaluating crash statistics. As a result, this could be one of the final reports to use registration data exclusively, which is less accurate in reflecting actual motorcycle use.[15] This new IIHS report is remarkably similar to a study the group financed 20 years ago that also purported to show higher fatality rates among sportbikes. At that time, the IIHS used its study as the springboard for a well-orchestrated campaign that included ready-made news footage it fed to TV news operations across the country. That campaign culminated in the introduction of a bill in the U.S. Senate to impose a horsepower limit on all motorcycles sold in the U.S. In response to that previous attempt by the IIHS to ban sportbikes, the AMA conducted an analysis of the study and raised questions that the Association submitted to Harry Hurt, lead researcher on the most comprehensive study of motorcycle crashes ever conducted. Hurt reviewed the research and declared it "fatally flawed" for exactly the kind of methodology problems seen in the new IIHS report. The Association then coordinated a campaign among motorcyclists across the country that eventually led the senator to withdraw his proposed legislation.[15] The new IIHS report came out just as the AMA and the motorcycling community was successful in getting federal funding for the first comprehensive motorcycle safety study since the Hurt Report.[15] Once the collision has occurred, or the rider has lost control through some other mishap, several common types of injury occur when the bike falls: * Collision with less forgiving protective barriers, or badly placed roadside "furniture" (lampposts, signs, fences etc.) This is often simply a result of poor road design, and can be engineered out to a large degree. Note that when one falls off a motorcycle in the middle of a curve, lamps and signs create a "wall" of sorts with little chance to avoid slamming against a pole. * Concussion and brain damage, as the head violently contacts other vehicles or objects. Riders wearing an approved helmet reduce the risk of death by 37 percent.[16] * Breakage of joints (elbows, shoulders, hips, knees and wrists), fingers, spine and neck, for the same reason. The most common breakages are the shoulder and the pelvis. * Soft tissue (skin and muscle) damage (road rash) as the body slides across the surface at speed. This can be prevented entirely with the proper use of motorcycle-specific protective apparel such as a leather jacket or reinforced denim and textile pants. * There is also a condition known as biker's arm, where the nerves in the upper arm are damaged during the fall, causing a permanent paralysis of arm movement. * Facial disfigurement, if in the absence of a full-face helmet, the unprotected face slides across the ground or smashes into an object. Thirty-five percent of all crashes show major impact on the chin-bar area.[17] The Hurt Report also commented on injuries after an accident stating that the likelihood of injury is extremely high in these motorcycle accidents - 98% of the multiple vehicle collisions and 96% of the single vehicle accidents resulted in some kind of injury to the motorcycle rider; 45% resulted in more than a minor injury.[9]

Credit for this article is due to Wikipedia, and sources cited within.

Call us today! 303-757-8300