If someone hits you from behind, the accident is virtually always that driver's fault, regardless of the reason you stopped. A basic rule of the road requires that a driver be able to stop safely if a vehicle stops ahead of the driver. If the driver cannot stop, he is not driving as safely as the person in front of him.

The other surefire part of rear-end accident claims is that the vehicle damage proves how the accident happened. If the other car's front end and your car's rear end are both damaged, there can be no doubt that you were struck from the rear.

In some situations, both you and the car behind you will be hit when a third car runs into the car behind you and pushes it into the rear of your car. In that case, it is the driver of the third car who is at fault and against whose liability insurance you would file a claim.

Takes notes. The most important thing you can do is to document the entire situation by taking careful notes soon after your accident. This step can help make the entire claim process easier on you -- and increase your chances of receiving all the compensation to which you are entitled. Having notes to remind you of all the details of what happened, and what you went through, is far easier and far more accurate than relying on your memory.

Write things down as soon as you can: Begin with what you were doing and where you were going, the people you were with, the time, and the weather. Include every detail of what you saw, heard, and felt. Be sure to add anything you remember hearing anyone -- a person involved in the accident or a witness -- say about the accident.

Finally, make daily notes of the effects of your injuries. You may suffer pain, discomfort, anxiety, loss of sleep, or other problems which are not as visible or serious as another injury, but for which you should demand additional compensation.

Report the accident. Many states have laws requiring that people involved in a vehicle accident report that accident in writing to the state's department of motor vehicles. This usually only applies to accidents resulting in physical injury or a certain amount of property damage. Check with your insurance agent or your local department of motor vehicles to find out the time limits for filing this report; you often have just a few days.

If you must file a report, and the report asks for a statement about how the accident occurred, give only a very brief statement -- and admit no responsibility for the accident. Similarly, if the official form asks what your injuries are, list every injury and not just the most serious or obvious. An insurance company could later have access to the report, and, if you have admitted some fault in it or failed to mention an injury, you might run into some trouble.

The laws are frequently weak, city budgets for animal control is too low, and enforcement policies too soft to get dangerous dogs off our streets. However, you do not have to accept the current status quo.

First, demand that your representatives in city government pass the right laws and put teeth in them. That includes tougher laws and strict enforcement policies. Every city needs to have a leash law (i.e., dogs have to be on a leash at all times unless they are securely fenced upon the owner's property) and a dangerous dog law that (a) gives the animal control department the authority to euthanize dangerous dogs and (b) applies to dogs that bite people or other animals or requires a person to take defensive action.

Second, use the small claims court to make the wrongdoer pay for damage caused to other dogs.

Third, be the squeaky wheel -- complain to the bad dog owner's landlord, the police, the homeowner's association, neighborhood watch, animal control, the city council and everyone else. He might be forced to change his behavior or a landlord or another of those organizations might succeed in pressuring him to do so.

Finally, you can retain an attorney to analyze your local animal control laws, and write a strong letter to the authorities that will remind them of their duties. The letter also can be used to communicate to the mayor, the police, the city council, and the county board, not to mention the press.

No, because you will probably just be making an insurance claim. 99 out of 100 of these cases are settled out of court just as soon as the doctors are ready to make a solid "prognosis." That is usually about one year from the date of the accident. So this is not going to be like what you see in movies and on TV.

Some fear that getting an attorney will make people angry and lead to bad relationships with friends, neighbors and family members. That also is not true; an experienced lawyer knows how to press a dog bite claim without even making accusations in most cases, without taking money out of anyone's pocket, and without destroying relationships.

Dog lovers sometimes fear that their attorney will have the attacking dog put down. That is not true; you are entitled to tell the lawyer to take no such action, and he or she is required to obey your wish.
Another fear is that the legal fees will make the victim's net settlement a lot smaller. That also is not true. A person who tries to act like a lawyer will end up leaving 80-90% of the settlement "on the table." This will "cost" the victim that 80-90%. A "real" lawyer will cost only 25-33% of the settlement. So getting a lawyer is actually cheaper than trying to do it yourself.

Finally, people fear having to pay legal costs out of their own pockets. That doesn't ever happen. Lawyers who represent dog bite victims usually do not charge the victims anything up front. When the case is over, the lawyer is paid out of the settlement or judgment.

You deserve to be adequately compensated for your injuries, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other recoverable damages. But mistakes or delays in the investigation, preparation or handling of your case may be detrimental to your case, decreasing your recovery or, even worse, causing you to lose your case entirely. Time is of the essence.

In addition, a recent Allstate Insurance Company report stated that settlements paid to individuals who are represented by counsel are generally "three times" that which is paid to individuals not represented by counsel.

This year, even in cases where liability is clear and undisputed, insurance companies are denying claims and individuals are finding it increasing difficult to resolve even their property damage claims or just getting their medical bills paid by insurance companies. This "hard line" settlement strategy makes getting an experienced attorney on your side, early on, even more important.

To be legally responsible for the injuries you suffered from slipping or tripping and falling on someone else's property, one of the following must be true:

The owner of the premises or an employee must have caused the spill, worn, or torn spot, or other slippery or dangerous surface or item, to be underfoot.
The owner of the premises or an employee must have known of the dangerous surface but done nothing about it.
The owner of the premises or an employee should have known of the dangerous surface because a "reasonable" person taking care of the property would have discovered and removed or repaired it.
The third situation is the most common, but is also less clear-cut than the first two because of those pesky words "should have known." Liability in these cases is often decided by common sense. Judges and juries determine whether the owner or occupier of property was careful by deciding if the steps the owner or occupier took to keep the property safe were reasonable.

A slip and fall action is a type of personal injury lawsuit filed by a plaintiff who has been injured by a slip and fall, usually on the defendant's property. Examples of very common slip and fall plaintiffs include the grocery store patron who slips on a liquid or a piece of food laying on the floor, and falls, causing injury to himself; and a hotel guest who slips in the shower and injures her back in the process.

The plaintiff in slip and fall cases must usually show that the owner of the property had notice or knowledge of the condition, and failed to clean it up and rectify it within a reasonable amount of time. If the plaintiff slipped on a grape that had been lying on the floor for two hours, and the manager of the store had walked past it and seen it five times before asking someone to clean it up, liability is likely.

If the plaintiff has knowingly encountered a hazard, then he or she may have trouble holding the defendant liable. For example, if a hotel guest squirts baby oil onto the floor of the shower; steps into the shower and attempts to do the jitterbug; and then falls and breaks an ankle, liability on the part of the hotel is highly doubtful. However, if the cleaning staff in the hotel repeatedly tells management that the non-skid treads in the bathtub for room 212 are missing and the hotel fails to replace them, the hotel will probably be liable for damages to a guest who is injured.

An owner of property has a duty to protect members of the public from injury that may occur upon the property. The injured person may be able to recover money for those injuries if he or she can prove that the property owner failed to meet that duty. The hurdle plaintiff faces is that the nature and extent of the property owner's duty will vary depending upon the facts of the situation and the jurisdiction in question.

Some states focus upon, solely, the status of the injured visitor to the property. These states divide the potential status into three separate categories: invitee, licensee, and trespasser. An invitee is someone who has been invited onto the land because that person will confer some advantage to the property owner, such as a store patron. An owner of property is required to exercise reasonable care for the safety of the invitee. A licensee is someone who enters upon the land for his or her own purpose, and is present at the consent, but not the invitation, of the owner. For example, a door-to-door salesman who enters the property and stays to chat with the owner about the product that he is selling is a licensee. The owner's duty to a licensee is only to warn of hidden dangers. For example, if the owner knew the front step was rotten and did not warn the salesman, the salesman may be able to recover if he thereafter falls through the step and injures himself. Finally, a trespasser is an individual who enters onto the property without the knowledge or consent of the owner and who remains there without any right or permission. Trespassers have difficulty suing property owners because property owners' duty towards trespassers is not to place traps and hazards on their property. In some cases, the owner must also warn trespassers of the hazards if they are unlikely to be discovered by the trespasser and could cause serious injury or death.

In California and other states focus upon the condition of the property and the activities of both the visitor and owner, rather than considering only the status of the visitor. In these states, a uniform standard that requires the owner of the property to exercise reasonable care to ensure the safety of invitees and licensees is generally applied. The plaintiff must prove that the duty of care has not been met, through an examination of the circumstances surrounding the entry on the property, the use to which the property is put, the foreseeability of the plaintiff's injury, and the reasonableness of placing a warning or repairing the condition. Obviously, whether reasonable care has been rendered depends greatly upon the particular circumstances.

The property owner's duty of care toward children is greater than the duty owed to adults. Even if the children are trespassers or engage in dangerous behavior, the property owner must still take precautions to prevent foreseeable harm to children. The classic example of a property owner's greater duty of care to children arises in the context of backyard swimming pools. Owners must fence, gate, and lock their pools in a manner that keeps children out and if they fail to do so, they will be found liable for injuries to children, even if the children were trespassers that were warned to stay off the property.

Is an owner of property liable for using deadly force to defend their property?

Generally speaking, an owner of property may not use deadly force to defend the property. Society values human life and bodily integrity much more than property. Therefore, the life, health and safety of an individual, even an intruder, is considered to be more valuable than the china or stereo which that individual is trying to steal.

An owner is not prohibited, however, from invoking self-help methods in defending property from another. An owner of property is entitled to use reasonable force to prevent someone, or something, from entering onto her property or to remove something from her property. What, under normal circumstances, may constitute a battery, assault, or other intentional tort, will not be considered unlawful in situations where it is performed as a reasonable use of self-help in defense of property. However, the use of force calculated to do great bodily harm, or cause death, is not permitted.

One narrow limitation upon the use of deadly force is authorized. Where an intruder threatens personal safety, as well as a threat to property, or where the intruder is committing a forcible felony, deadly force may be appropriate. For example, if a robber enters a home and, while stealing items, attempts to rape the homeowner, the owner may be justified in shooting the robber. However, an owner who witnesses a neighborhood child stealing a bicycle from the owner's garage, without any threat of bodily harm, is not justified in shooting that child.