I was in a catastrophe, 4 cars involved, the car in front of me say I hit them first which is not true, a 18 wheeler hit me from behind and caused me to hit the vehicle in front of me and the car within front of me hit a 18 wheeler. Okay my question is what would be a lawyers root for dropping my case? (They say they hold a statement from the car in front of me stating I hit that sports car first.) Is this a viable reason, I thought a lawyer be to prove who is right? not just by your word against their word.
I got near dude's first answer too, but more so because it would really be too hard for the lawyer to guard you against three other people all next to a different story.
But in your crust, know matter what the circumstances were, if you hit someone from bringing up the rear, you be also be considered at fault.
The reason be is short and simple. Had you not own been that close to the vehicle, then you would not be at guiltiness.
Stupid as this sounds, that would be the rational the courts would use.
In other words, they(the lawyers) see it that "you" were to close within the first place, so why even get involved when it will be a moot point.
I got near dude's first answer too, but more so because it would really be too hard for the lawyer to guard you against three other people all next to a different story.
Answers: The main reason that lawyers don't take cases close to this and others is because no one was seriously injured and it is not worth their time, they are basically bottom feeders looking for a quick buck.
But in your crust, know matter what the circumstances were, if you hit someone from bringing up the rear, you be also be considered at fault.
The reason be is short and simple. Had you not own been that close to the vehicle, then you would not be at guiltiness.
Stupid as this sounds, that would be the rational the courts would use.
In other words, they(the lawyers) see it that "you" were to close within the first place, so why even get involved when it will be a moot point.
I got near dude's first answer too, but more so because it would really be too hard for the lawyer to guard you against three other people all next to a different story.
What the hell happen to my motor?...
I got near dude's first answer too, but more so because it would really be too hard for the lawyer to guard you against three other people all next to a different story.
But in your crust, know matter what the circumstances were, if you hit someone from bringing up the rear, you be also be considered at fault.
The reason be is short and simple. Had you not own been that close to the vehicle, then you would not be at guiltiness.
Stupid as this sounds, that would be the rational the courts would use.
In other words, they(the lawyers) see it that "you" were to close within the first place, so why even get involved when it will be a moot point.
I got near dude's first answer too, but more so because it would really be too hard for the lawyer to guard you against three other people all next to a different story.
I get into a motor wreck, how...
Answers: The main reason that lawyers don't take cases close to this and others is because no one was seriously injured and it is not worth their time, they are basically bottom feeders looking for a quick buck.
But in your crust, know matter what the circumstances were, if you hit someone from bringing up the rear, you be also be considered at fault.
The reason be is short and simple. Had you not own been that close to the vehicle, then you would not be at guiltiness.
Stupid as this sounds, that would be the rational the courts would use.
In other words, they(the lawyers) see it that "you" were to close within the first place, so why even get involved when it will be a moot point.
I got near dude's first answer too, but more so because it would really be too hard for the lawyer to guard you against three other people all next to a different story.
What is the allowed definition of a...
Resolved Questions
- How several relations can a short bus...
- Did a plane really crash into tennessee...
- Driving interrogate: when turning gone at a...
- When parallel parking ____________.?
- Which is more precarious?
- Why would you angle the speed define...
- Emergency traffic?
- If a vehicle fail to afford the...
- What are your view on drunk driving?
- At what age and freight does a...