Specifically, Ind. Code 27-4-1.5-8 states that a vehicle’s owner has a right to have their vehicle repaired with new factory authorized parts if the vehicle is not more than 5 years and the vehicle has insurance that will pay for property damage to that vehicle. This policy of insurance would be either a collision or comprehensive insurance policy. Thus, for example, if my car was damaged in a crash, the car was 5 years old or less, and I had a policy of insurance that insured the car for property damage, I would have the right to have the vehicle repaired by my own insurance company with new factory authorized parts.

Unfortunately, this statute does not apply to the liability insurance of a negligent person who causes damage to someone else’s car or truck. In those circumstances, the liability insurer for the negligent person does not have a legal obligation to use new factory authorized parts, but only to pay for “reasonable repairs.”

Surprisingly, there is no Indiana case that has defined exactly what is a “reasonable repair.” This is probably because most people assume that their vehicle is being fixed with new factory authorized parts, when in fact it may not be! As a practical matter, if the damaged vehicle is 5 years old or less, I would argue that “reasonable repairs” still means the use of new factory authorized parts, even if another person’s insurance company is paying for the repair. For older vehicles, this may be more difficult.

The moral of the story is to make sure you have a good understanding of exactly what coverage is provided by your own insurance policy, and to carefully read a repair estimate to see what parts are being used to fix your vehicle. If in doubt, call my office for a free consultation to make sure you’re being treated fairly.

Under Indiana law, specifically Indiana Code 9-22-3-3, if the cost of repairs to a vehicle is more than 70% of its fair market retail value before it was damaged, then the vehicle must be declared a total loss.  If the vehicle is a total loss, then the owner is entitled to receive the retail value of their vehicle before it was damaged, plus state sales tax.

As a practical matter, if the repair estimate is close to but slightly less than 70% of the vehicle’s retail value, the owner can often convince the insurer to still total the vehicle by pointing out that the insurer also owes compensation for the diminished value of their vehicle because of collision damage.  When a vehicle has significant property damage, the diminished value of the vehicle can be substantial.  I have written a blog article previously regarding diminished value claims that you can read for more information.

If you have a significant property damage or personal injury claim, call the office of James F. Ludlow, Attorney at Law, P.C. to discuss your legal rights. My firm can be reached toll-free at (877) 897-9466 or by filling out the simple form on the Contact Us page.

One of the main reasons given by proponents of a “loser pays” system is that it would stop frivolous lawsuits.   However, many people don’t know that Indiana already has a law which says that if a judge finds that someone filed a lawsuit that was frivolous, or made a frivolous defense to a lawsuit that did have merit, that person has to pay the other side’s attorney fees. Under this statute which is found at Indiana Code 34-52-1-1, a judge may award attorney fees to the winner of a lawsuit when the loser:

(1)  brought the action or defense on a claim or defense that is frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless;

(2)  continued to litigate the action or defense after the party’s claim or defense clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; or

(3)  litigated the action in bad faith.

In fact, Indiana judges have utilized this statute many times to award attorney fees when a lawsuit or a defense to a lawsuit was found to be frivolous or in bad faith.

For example, in a case known as Kahn v. Cundiff[1], the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld an award for attorney fees against an attorney for filing and refusing to dismiss a frivolous lawsuit until the day of trial.  The attorney was representing two women who were injured in an automobile accident and had filed a lawsuit against both the driver of a car who had caused an accident and against the owner of the car who had given permission to the driver to use his car.  The lawsuit alleged that the owner should have known that the person he loaned the car to was incompetent to drive a car.

The problem was that there was no evidence that the person who was driving the car was incompetent or otherwise unfit to drive, and thus there was no evidence to support any type of claim against the car’s owner as compared to the driver of the car.  The trial court judge thus awarded over $8,000 in attorney fees to the owner of the car because the attorney had filed a frivolous claim, and then refused to dismiss it when it became clear there was no evidence to support such a claim.

In another case which illustrates that even an insurance company may have to pay attorney fees when its defense of a legitimate claim was frivolous, in United Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Ira, a customer of Farm Bureau Ins. Co. was injured in an auto accident.  Farm Bureau and their insured Mr. Ira reached an agreement that required Farm Bureau to pay all future medical expenses that were incurred for treatment of his extensive injuries.  However, Farm Bureau later refused to pay for some of these expenses.  After Mr. Ira sued to enforce their agreement, Farm Bureau changed its mind but still only offered to pay a portion of these expenses.  After a trial, a judge ordered Farm Bureau to pay the disputed medical expenses, plus all the fees of Mr. Ira’s attorney.  The judge based his decision on his finding that Farm Bureau’s defense to Mr. Ira’s claim was frivolous.

In upholding the trial judge’s decision, the Court of Appeals wrote that Farm Bureau “had doggedly pursued its defense even after it had proof to the contrary and no substantial evidence supporting its position.”  In fact, the Court of Appeals considered Farm Bureau’s defense to be so frivolous that it increased the trial judge’s damage award to Mr. Ira by ten percent!

These cases show that Indiana courts already have the ability and willingness to punish and deter frivolous lawsuits and defenses.  However, if a Loser Pay’s rule became law, an insurance company like Mr. Ira’s could threaten to bankrupt this fellow if he sued them, lost at trial, and then would have to pay the insurance company’s attorney fees.

One could also easily imagine someone with a hail damage claim to their home and their insurance company then offering to pay only one-half of the cost for a new roof because the damaged roof was old, or that there was no proof their home was damaged despite the falling of golf ball sized hail!  The homeowner could sue for the cost of a new roof, but the insurer would point out that if the homeowner lost, the insurer could take their home to pay for attorney fees. Even if the dispute was legitimate and pursued in good faith, the homeowner could end up being responsible for the insurance company’s attorney fees if they lost.  This would give the rich and powerful in our society an unfair advantage.

Such a change would also have the practical effect of closing the courthouse doors to legitimate claims, in violation of Indiana’s Constitution.   Specifically, Article 1 Section 12 of our State Constitution that was enacted in 1851 states:

All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay.  

In assuming that these words mean what they say, let’s keep Indiana’s courts open for our citizens.  If you need help with a motorcycle, semi-truck, automobile, or insurance claim, give me a call to discuss your legal rights.  The consultation is free, and there is never a fee unless I make a recovery for you.

Sorting out the cause of a multi-vehicle crash can be extremely complex.  Because of the multiple vehicles that are involved, it can be much more difficult to pinpoint who did what to cause the pile-up to commence, and therefore more difficult to prove who is legally responsible for the crash in a personal injury case.   The factors involved in a multi-car crash are often the same as those in any kind of motor vehicle accident. Distraction is the leading cause of car accidents with drivers talking on cell phones, texting, talking to passengers, or even daydreaming, all while traveling at 70 mph or faster.   Bad weather, not allowing sufficient distance between vehicles, and sometimes even aggressive driving can also be factors that cause a multi-vehicle crash to commence.

Because semi-trucks that travel on interstate highways often weigh 60,000 pounds or more, the mass of these semi-trucks means that it takes a semi-truck a much longer distance to stop or even slow down as compared to a normal passenger or truck.  For this reason, if a semi-truck must suddenly stop or slow down, it is much more likely to collide with the vehicle in front of it.   All the more reason to be nervous if a semi-truck is following too close to your car!

Eyewitness accounts of who caused a multi-vehicle crash can vary widely.  Each driver is likely to have a different version of how the crash occurred because it happened so quickly.  Unlike crashes involving only one or two vehicles, the police may also decide not to assign fault for such a crash in their official report because it is difficult to determine who was primarily responsible.  In order to sort out a complicated crash, accident reconstruction specialists may be called in and significant amounts of investigation required.

For experienced help after an auto accident or to talk to me about your injury, contact James F. Ludlow, Attorney at Law, P.C.  My firm can be reached toll-free at (877) 897-9466 or by filling out the simple form on the Contact Us page.

While the media is focused on whether gun ownership should be restricted, there is different gun law in Indiana that I’m more worried about.  To illustrate my concern, imagine going to a liquor store and waiting in line to buy a six-pack of beer for an upcoming basketball game on television.  You then notice that someone walks up to the check-out clerk, pulls out a gun, and demands the contents of the cash register.   In response, however, the clerk pulls out a pistol and there is an exchange of gunfire.  Because the clerk is more skilled in operating a cash register than with using a gun, unfortunately he accidently shoots a customer while the robber escapes.

Is the liquor store legally responsible for the injured customer?  Not in Indiana.  Rather, if the liquor store employee had a good faith belief that they were at risk of “great bodily harm”, as is usually the case with every armed robbery, the employee has the right to attempt to stop the robbery by using a gun, even if this creates an increased risk of harm for customers.  The practical result is that if an innocent customer gets shot by mistake, the business has no legal responsibility.

This is in stark contrast with the recommendations of law enforcement agencies and security experts who advise that  in the event of a robbery the best procedure is for store employees to give the robbers the cash they are demanding and to offer no resistance. This is because studies have shown that in the vast majority of cases thieves will take whatever cash is immediately available and run out the door without hurting anyone.  For this reason, most businesses instruct their employees not to resist a robbery attempt.

This is a sensible approach, since the alternative is to place the decision of forcibly resisting an armed robbery in the hands of retail employees, managers, waitresses, or bartenders.  Good hard working people to be sure, but they usually have no training regarding how to use a gun, especially when innocent customers may be in the line of fire.  Most importantly, while property or cash is usually insured and can be replaced, people cannot.  Unfortunately, Indiana courts have overlooked this distinction.  To illustrate this point, I will summarize two cases that describe existing Indiana law.

The first case, Yingst v. Pratt (1966), involved a tavern where an armed robber was demanding the contents of a cash register.   Instead of handing over the contents of the register, the tavern owner tried to grab the robber’s gun.  The owner and robber then wrestled over the gun and eventually rolled onto a floor near a table where several customers were hiding.  The gun discharged and unfortunately one of the customers was shot and seriously wounded.  The robber was eventually subdued and arrested.

The wounded customer later sued the tavern owner, claiming that the owner was negligent for attempting to disarm the robber rather than simply giving him the small sum of cash that was in the cash register, especially since the tavern was full of customers.

After a trial, a jury found that the tavern owner was negligent and awarded compensation for his injuries.  However, the tavern owner appealed this verdict and argued that his actions were excused as an act of self-defense to protect his property and to stop a crime in progress.  The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed, throwing out the jury verdict and ruling that the tavern owner and his insurer owed no compensation to the injured customer.

In its decision, the Court of Appeals noted that there is a “great public interest in the prevention of crime” and therefore a victim of a crime is excused from acts of resistance that might otherwise create liability to an injured person.  The court also stated that a victim who is resisting a crime has no obligation to protect others around him.  In other words, the tavern owner had no legal obligation to consider the safety of his customers when he decided to resist the robbery.

A second and more recent case, Carbo vs. Lowe (1988), involved the attempted robbery of a liquor store.  In that case, two robbers who were wearing ski masks and had handguns entered a store.  Unfortunately, a city bus driver who was an innocent customer and wearing a public transportation uniform was also in the store.  Upon seeing the robbers, the clerk pulled out a .357 Magnum revolver.

When the robbers saw the clerk raise his gun, there was an exchange of gunfire.  While this shooting was taking place, the innocent customer dove over a counter to take cover.  Unfortunately, the clerk thought he was one of the robbers and shot him.  Meanwhile, the robbers ran from the store and were never apprehended.  However, the bus driver, who was married and had several children, later died.

The widow of the bus driver then filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the liquor store, claiming that the store’s employee was negligent in shooting her husband.   After a trial, the jury ruled that the liquor store employee was negligent and awarded the widow and her children a verdict of $500,000. The liquor store appealed, with the result that the Indiana Court of Appeals vacated the jury’s verdict and ruled that no compensation was owed to the bus driver’s family.

In making this ruling, the Court of Appeals stated that it was undisputed that the clerk was acting in self-defense to stop a robbery, and that therefore the employee and the store could not be held liable for the accidental shooting of the customer.  Rather, the Court stated that “the [clerk’s] actions were excused just as they would have been had he fired at one of the actual robbers and the bullet had struck [the innocent customer] by accident.”

While I am fully supportive of the right of business owners and their employees to defend themselves and their property, the shooting of an innocent customer should have some legal consequence if the employee’s acts were negligent.  Most businesses claim that nothing is more important than the safety of their customers and would never argue, at least in a public forum, that they should be excused from accidently killing an innocent customer.   As people can never be replaced, Indiana law should be changed to reflect this policy.  If you agree, call your state representative and tell them so!

If you would like to discuss this or any topic that I have mentioned in these blog articles, or if you or a loved one has been seriously injured or killed in any type of accident, call or e-mail James Ludlow to discuss your case. My firm can be reached toll-free at (877) 897-9466 or by filling out the simple form on the Contact Us page.

A case is point is a lawsuit that I recently concluded against an aquatic center in Plainfield, Indiana for injuries that a client suffered when he fell onto a short narrow concrete wall that separated two areas of an indoor pool.  One area of the pool was only a few inches deep and was designed for small children.   However, the pool area on the opposite side of this wall was 4 feet deep, and there were no signs that warned of this abrupt change in depth.

As my adult client had never been to this pool before, he did not realize that there was such a significant difference in depth between these two areas and stepped over this short narrow wall.  Because one foot couldn’t touch bottom, he fell onto this wall sustaining what is known as a straddle type injury.  As a consequence, my client sustained a severe injury to his urethra that prevented him from urinating.  As this medical condition could eventually cause a bladder rupture, my client had to undergo a complicated surgery to reconstruct his urethra.

While accidents can happen even with the best of care, what I found disturbing regarding this case was that there had been two other significant injuries that had occurred before my client’s fall when someone attempted to step over the narrow wall from the shallow pool area into the adjacent deeper pool area, and yet no corrective action had been taken by the aquatic center to investigate these incidents and consider corrective action — until a lawsuit was filed in my client’s case.

I also discovered during this lawsuit that Indiana state public pool safety regulations actually do require the presence of a physical barrier between these two pool areas to prevent the exact type of injury that my client suffered.  Somehow, the management of this aquatic center had overlooked the requirements of this law. However, after this lawsuit, a proper rope barrier was erected that should prevent this type of pool accident from ever happening again.

So why did it take a lawsuit to make the aquatic center take these corrective changes despite two other people being hurt in the same way as my client?  Perhaps the reason is that neither of the two other individuals made a legal claim for their injuries.  Consequently, those prior pool accidents cost the aquatic center nothing, other than the time to fill out a two page accident report.

However, my client’s lawsuit resulted in a settlement of $122,500 plus some negative publicity from a local newspaper that wrote an article about the settlement.  Perhaps the old saying is true that “pain can be an excellent teacher.”
If you are seeking compensation after an accident that resulted in a serious injury, contact James Ludlow, Attorney at Law toll-free at (877) 897-9466.

LIABILITY

Simply stated, liability is a determination that a person or company either did something wrong, or failed to do something that they should have, that caused an accident to occur.  This is also known as negligence, which is defined as doing something that a reasonable person would not have done under the same or similar circumstances, or the failure to do something that a reasonable person would have done under the same or similar circumstances.  If liability or negligence on behalf of a person or company does exist to some degree, an attorney will then assesses the strength or weakness of liability using the facts of the specific claim.

For example, imagine a situation where a commercial strip mall has a large crack in their sidewalk and one side has bulged several inches above the other. A person then comes along and trips over that edge, falling and breaking their hip or arm. Is this a strong or a weak liability case? The answer is – it depends.

It may be a strong case of liability if the crack has been present for several months and tenants and guests have reported it to the property owner before the fall.  It may be even stronger if the fall occurred in the evening and the area was not properly lit, or if other people had fallen over this crack previously.  Conversely, the liability case is weaker if the victim was aware of the crack and had seen it numerous times; or if the mall had posted a warning near the crack.  The strength of the liability claim might also diminish further if the crack had just occurred and the property management had no notice of it.

In contrast, a case where the victim is waiting in their car at a red traffic light when they are rear-ended by a drunk driver is one where liability or negligence on behalf of the drunk driver is obvious and often is never disputed by the wayward driver’s insurance company.

DAMAGES

The second important criteria in evaluating a personal injury case is a consideration of what damages were caused by the accident in question. “Damages” is a legal term for categories of losses that an injured party is entitled to recover under Indiana law for their injury.  These are often divided into two categories.

“Special Damages” include things that are subject to being calculated to a specific number, such as medical expenses, lost wages, and damaged property.  Conversely, the term “general damages” is used to describe those items of loss that are more abstract or intangible in nature, such as compensation for items such as pain and suffering, loss of function, inconvenience, and any permanency that may be involved with the specific injury.  In claims involving serious injuries, general damages typically have a far higher value than special damages.

For example, in a recent case in which a client was required to undergo an extensive surgical fusion of their neck after being rear-ended by a truck with defective brakes, the client’s medical bills and lost income were approximately $250,000.  However, the case settled shortly before trial for $1,625,000.  Thus, the majority of the settlement was for general damages such as pain and suffering that the client had and was going to experience over their remaining lifetime because of their injury.

Both general and special damages can vary greatly depending upon who is evaluating the claim. Insurance adjusters typically attempt to minimize compensation for pain and suffering, and instead prefer to add up medical expenses, lost income, and then allow only a small amount for the pain and inconvenience that a victim has experienced.  Most claims adjustors are rewarded by their employer based upon how little they can pay to settle a claim, rather than whether the victim was fairly compensated.  Like most corporations, insurers attempt to minimize costs, and they view what is paid on claims as just another cost that should be minimized as much as possible.

In contrast, an experienced personal injury attorney attempts to ensure that all losses are fairly considered and compensated, including items such as pain and suffering and any possible long term complications from an injury.

A RANGE OF VALUE

After considering both the strength and weakness of the liability case and the nature and extent of damages, an experienced attorney will then consider a range of what a jury is likely to award if the case was actually tried. For example, if the liability portion of a claim is weak, an injured person’s risk in going to trial is higher because of a possibility of a low verdict, and thus the claim’s value is less. On the other hand, if the liability case is strong, the claim is likely worth more because who was responsible for causing the accident is not an issue.  Thus, the facts of every case are very important in determining the total value of the claim.

GETTING AN EVALUATION OF YOUR CLAIM

If you or someone you know has been injured through the negligence of another person and would like to have the claim evaluated by our experienced injury attorneys, call toll free at 1-877-897-9466 or submit the simple form on the Contact Us page. The consultation is free, and having a full understanding of your legal rights is always wise.

While I consider it commendable for an insurance company to attempt to resolve property damage claims quickly since people after all do need their vehicle repaired or replaced as soon as possible, a quick settlement involving a personal injury claim may not be a good thing.

One of the most important reasons to view a personal injury settlement that is offered shortly after an accident with a good deal of caution is that not all injuries from an accident may show up right away, and may be more serious than first thought. If the severity of the injury is not fully understand at the time of settlement, the injured person will not be fairly compensated, medical expenses may go unpaid, and proper medical care may not be provided if there is no means to pay for it.

An example is a recent knee injury case that I settled for $50,000.  The potential client had been in a car accident and when he initially spoke with me for a free consultation, he told me that he had twisted his knee in the crash and still had some soreness, but that he thought he would be fine and was thinking about accepting $1,000 that had been offered for the settlement of his injury claim.

In response, I told this potential client that it was certainly possible that his knee was only sprained and that he would be fine, but that if he hadn’t yet had an MRI of his knee, he couldn’t be sure that he didn’t have something more serious such as a torn meniscus.  I thus encouraged him to wait and see how his knee did over the following month.  The potential client agreed and said that he would call me back in a couple weeks.

I then heard back from this gentleman a month later and he stated that his knee was still hurting some, but he was still thinking about taking the $1,000 settlement.  In response, I recommended that he tell his family doctor how his knee was feeling and to follow his recommendations.

Several weeks later, I heard that the family doctor wanted the potential client to see an orthopaedic surgeon to examine the knee.  An orthopaedic surgeon then examined the knee and recommended an MRI.  In making a long story short, it turned out that the client did have a meniscus tear in his knee that was caused by the accident and that required surgery.

When the full extent of the client’s injury became known, I was then able to then settle the case for the liability insurance policy limits of $50,000 that were available from the person’s insurance company who caused this crash, or 50 times more than what the client had been offered initially.  So while a quick personal injury settlement may was tempting, it wouldn’t have worked out very well in the end.

If you’ve been involved in an accident that was someone else’s fault, and an insurance adjustor is offering you a quick settlement on your personal injury claim, the best advice is to do what my former client did—call an experienced personal injury attorney at Ludlow Law to discuss your claim and how I can help. Call me toll-free at (877) 897-9466 or submit the simple form on the Contact Us page.

As of Oct 6, 2012 there have been 47 fungal meningitis cases reported to the Center For Disease Control in 75 facilities and seven states. Five of the reported cases have been have been fatal.  In Indiana, there have been three people diagnosed with this infection after having received steroid injections for back pain.

Six Indiana health care facilities in Elkhart, Evansville, Fort Wayne, South Bend, Terre Haute and Columbus have reportedly received batches of a contaminated steroid medication called methylprednisolone acetate that is produced and distributed by the New England Compounding Center in Framingham, Massachusetts. The facility in Massachusetts has shut down operations as of October 3, 2012.

The Indiana health care facilities that are known to have received shipments of steroid injections that have been recalled because of possible contamination with fungal meningitis are the following:

•  Wellspring Pain Solutions; Columbus, Indiana
•  Ambulatory Care Center, LLC; Evansville, Indiana
•  Ft. Wayne Physical Medicine; Ft. Wayne, Indiana
•  OSMC Outpatient Surgery Center: Elkhart, Indiana
•  South Bend Clinic; South Bend, Indiana
•  Union Hospital; Terre Haute, Indiana

If you have recently received a steroid injection at any of these facilities, you should contact the facility immediately to find out if you should have testing to ensure that you have not infected by a contaminated vial of this steroid medication.  In addition, if you have recently had a steroid injection at any of these facilities and are experiencing symptoms of severe headache, fever, dizziness, nausea, significant neck stiffness, pain at the injection site, or slurred speech, you should seek medical attention immediately.

The Center For Disease Control (CDC) is coordinating a multistate investigation of meningitis among patients who received epidural steroid injections into the spine. For more information regarding this fungal meningitis outbreak, you may also visit CDC’s website http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/outbreaks/meningitis.html

If you have been injured because of a contaminated steroid medication, contact Indiana Personal Injury Lawyer James Ludlow to discuss your legal rights. Visit our website at www.ludlowlaw.com.

In one such case, an elderly man became angry  when he thought that another motorist deliberately pulled out in front of him from a gas station. Although elderly drivers usually don’t engage in road rage incidents, this particular fellow followed my client very closely from the back while beeping the horn of his pickup truck and waiving his arms. My client noticed the truck behind him, saw that an elderly individual was driving, and thought that he was have having a medical emergency and required assistance. My client then stopped his car, got out, and walked back to the man’s truck to see if he needed an ambulance. Unfortunately, when my client walked back to the other vehicle, the elderly driver hit him with his truck and knocked him to the ground causing a serious shoulder injury called a rotator cuff tear. While one might expect elderly drivers to be somewhat docile and cautious, it turned out that this fellow had a long mental health history of anger control issues because he thought people were making fun of him!

In another case, my client was traveling on I-465 when another motorist pulled in front of him and slammed on their brakes. The other motorist was apparently angry because they thought my client was driving too slowly. To avoid a certain rear-end collision, my client had to swerve into a median, lost control of his car, and then crashed into a concrete wall. The impact caused serious injuries, including a badly fractured hand that required reconstructive surgery. In both cases, I was able to obtain a substantial settlement from the insurers for these wayward motorists.

While most people may return a rude hand gesture and think nothing further of it, keep in mind that the person in the other car or truck may be a criminal, be on drugs or alcohol, be mentally ill, or a combination of all three! Because such individuals don’t wear a sign that says they are dangerous, it may be impossible to tell who is simply frustrated because they are late to work rather than someone who may try to cause a crash.

Indiana’s Online Driver Improvement Manual recommends the following tips to avoid becoming a road rage victim:

1. Ignore the other motorist, avoid direct eye contact, don’t respond to any provocation action such as hand gestures or yelling, and do your best to get away from the other motorist.
2. If the other motorist is following you, call 911 on your cell phone and make it very obvious to the other motorist that you are using your cell phone-they will hopefully realize that you’re calling the police and will leave you.
3. Pull into a gas station, restaurant, or other public place, go inside right away and ask for help-never go home if another motorist is following you.
4. Never get out of your vehicle and approach the other motorist, even if you think they are in distress. Instead, call the police and let them do their job.

While one can’t prevent other people from getting angry, these guidelines may help prevent you from becoming a statistic!

If you were injured in a road rage incident, contact Indianapolis Personal Injury Attorney James F. Ludlow to discuss your rights and find out how I may help. Call me toll free at (877) 897-9466 or submit the simple form on the Contact Us page. The consultation is free, and having a full understanding of your legal rights is always wise.