Low Speed Collisions

Some collisions happen at high speed. Some happen at low speed.

We end up seeing people who have been injured. So it's not a perfect cross sample. But based on our observations, it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference how fast the cars were traveling.

(You don't see a lot of long-bones like femurs fractured in low-speed collisions; but you see about every other type of injury.)

A lot of attorneys shy away from low speed collisions. But I think that if there's a legitimate injury there's no reason to take your foot off the gas.

The best way to move forward in low-speed cases is incrementally.

Here's what defendants ultimately have to admit (or risk looking pretty foolish):

• There was some injury caused by the collision (so we’re just arguing about extent of injury).

• It's biologically possible for the type of collision involved to cause the claimed injuries.

• Property damage photos and estimates are not used to diagnose patients.

• Property damage photos do not show all of the damage to a vehicle.

• The way someone is affected by the same forces involved in a collision has a lot to do with positioning, body composition, gender, age, medical history, etc.

• There are some collisions where the property damage is horrific and no one gets hurt and some collisions where there is very little visible property damage and someone dies.

Biological possibility is really the only one where there can be legitimate pushback and, if we're doing a good job screening cases, even that question isn't going to be in legitimate dispute.

So even with a low speed collision, all we're really arguing about is what made the injured person susceptible to significant injury when other people may not have been hurt.