Video – Attorney Spencer Freeman Discusses The Personal Injury Settlement For A Lawyer Who Had A Snowmobile Accident With A Military Helicopter.

Ray Hrdlicka - Presentador - Attorneys.Media

Hi, today we’re sitting with Spencer Freeman, a personal injury attorney in Tacoma, Washington, Pierce County, Washington. And we want to get some comments on a personal injury case that was just settled in Massachusetts. And this is interesting because one… it’s against the government and two, the plaintiff is a lawyer. So, you know, it’s interesting to see how this played out. So, let me just give a little background here to the viewer.

A federal court ruled that the U.S. government must pay this lawyer $3.3 million in damages following a 2019, so it’s been a number of years, snowmobile crash in which he collided with a Blackhawk helicopter that had been parked on a trail at night. So, now with that set in stage… the interesting thing is that the judge in the federal case found the government, and I would like you to comment on this Spencer, 60% responsible… which means… is that 40% fall on the plaintiff that he was responsible for, and how did that affect the final settlement or you know judgment etc. etc. And then talk about some of the findings… some of the information that popped out, you know, such as the area was not illuminated… was not parked… that it was essentially a snowmobile park and an open field, not for military, even though they claimed they used to, they landed that helicopter in other areas similar. It sounded like it was an uphill battle there.

So, you know, let me comment on this because it’s interesting with those two parts. The government was the defendant, and an attorney was the plaintiff.

Spencer Freeman - Abogado de Lesiones Personales - Condado de Pierce, WA

Yeah, so when it comes to your first, kind of your first question, The court found that the government was 60% liable. Yes, that means that the court held the plaintiff 40% liable. That means that they both were engaged in some negligent actions, and after hearing the evidence, the court said that the government’s 60% liable for the fact that the accident happened and that the plaintiff is 40% liable.

So, in all likelihood, what it viewed the defendant to be… was that maybe he was driving too fast. He was driving without proper illumination himself, so he couldn’t see well enough down the snowmobile trail to be able to properly protect himself and properly see the roadway.

Now, as far as the government’s concerned, yeah, they may have put helicopters in areas like this before, but that is too broad of a statement to really discuss what they did wrong. They actually put the helicopter down on a trail that snowmobiles are utilizing, and they did it at a time that they should have known, a snowmobile may not see them. It’s a camouflaged helicopter. It was getting dusk, so lighting was going to be a difficult. Snowmobiles operate at night and so if he’s going a certain speed… he’s not going to be able to see it, you know, see it in time to be able to stop before colliding with it which is exactly what happened. So, they could have put the helicopter down in that area but not over a snowmobile trail and it would have been fine. They should have been aware of where they set that down.

Ray Hrdlicka - Presentador - Attorneys.Media

Well, it’s interesting because when you read it… the author of the article, that I picked this up from… starts laying or illuminates the government’s attempts to discredit the snowmobile driver, the attorney, the plaintiff, by saying that he had alcohol in his system, and he had prescription drugs. Well, you know, there’s so many variables there. He was eating dinner. He had a beer. That’s what it comes out to be. But is that normal? Where you’re going to have defendant counsel attempt to, to use a nice word, discredit the plaintiff to that extent?

Spencer Freeman - Abogado de Lesiones Personales - Condado de Pierce, WA

Absolutely, and often even further when you talk about an extent. Defense counsel will have investigators that will not only, like in this case, the defense counsel took advantage of the fact that there was alcohol in their system, took advantage of the fact that there was some prescription medication in the system. By the way, the existence of that in his system does not mean he was under the influence to the point that his ability to operate a snowmobile was depreciated to an appreciable degree, right?

So, if you can have a beer and not have it affect how you can operate a machinery. That’s why DUI laws… doesn’t make it… it’s not illegal to get behind the wheel after having alcohol in your system. It’s when that alcohol is at a certain level, or it affects your ability to drive.

So, man, defense and defense investigators will go far further in some instances. Like, they will scour your social media accounts, and they will look for any inconsistencies. Like, maybe you’re broadcasting on social media that you went on this big bike ride and they’re going to say, well, if you went on a bike ride two years after the accident, you must not still be hurt. I mean, this gentleman in this particular case, according to the information, is still struggling to put on his socks. So, yeah, they will scour whatever they can to try to discredit any claim the plaintiff’s making.

Ray Hrdlicka - Presentador - Attorneys.Media

I guess I’m going to ask this question. Is that just because the defendant is the government or is that literally every defense counsel? You know, in a PI case.

Spencer Freeman - Abogado de Lesiones Personales - Condado de Pierce, WA

I don’t want to say literally every defense counsel, but I will tell you that insurance companies which are usually involved in these cases, in injury cases, they’ve got a war chest of money and they will spend that money and if you push as a plaintiff further into litigation, more times than not, yeah they’re going to be doing that level of investigation. And by the way, that’s not necessarily a bad thing in the sense that the courts want to get to the truth. So, sometimes those investigators undercover something and it shows that the plaintiff isn’t being honest about something but sometimes that information is used and kind of bastardized in a way to make it seem something that’s not true.

Ray Hrdlicka - Presentador - Attorneys.Media

Hence, ends up good for the plaintiff. If it’s not true and it’s being used and it obviously it discredits the defendant’s attorney. Yeah.

So, in the article, it said that the government attempted to dismiss the case, but obviously before settlement, before trial, attempted to dismiss the case several times and based upon… this is the federal tort claims act… that a policy decision was involved. But why would that allow them to dismiss it? Obviously, it didn’t. But why would they even make the case that it allowed them to dismiss the case?

Spencer Freeman - Abogado de Lesiones Personales - Condado de Pierce, WA

Well, so I mean, candidly I haven’t looked at their briefing, so I’ve got it… this has got to be with some speculation but first of all, it’s not uncommon for defense in a case, especially one of this magnitude, to take several efforts to get the court to dismiss an action. And they could ask the court to dismiss an action on a procedural ground. They could ask the court to dismiss action on an actual factual ground, something up with the case. I think here, governments often will try to impose an argument of some level of immunity. This… this policy decision or this policy could be that, hey listen we don’t want to hold our military responsible or liable in scenarios where they’re doing these trainings because it’s much more important for these trainings to occur and for them to be mindful of exactly where they’re putting that that helicopter down. So, I don’t know the exact arguments that they made on this policy decision but obviously it didn’t work.

Ray Hrdlicka - Presentador - Attorneys.Media

Right. Understandable. Well, we’re going to have you on again because the litigation involving PI, personal injury, and the end result of those cases, whether they’re successful or not, is actually interesting, and it may cause… you know, more information is good. I firmly believe that. I think online information is great as long as people can separate the wheat from the chaff. And so, we’re going to have you again on, and talk about some more PI issues.

Spencer Freeman - Abogado de Lesiones Personales - Condado de Pierce, WA

Sounds good. I appreciate it.

Ray Hrdlicka - Presentador - Attorneys.Media

Thank you.

Spencer Freeman - Abogado de Lesiones Personales - Condado de Pierce, WA

Yep. Thank you.