Understanding the Law in CO and Driver Responsibility

by Victoria C. Swanson

Colorado Springs Auto Accidents and Traffic Laws
Auto accident lawyers in Colorado Springs at Sears & Swanson, P.C., know the laws of Colorado's roads.  If you are involved in an accident in which certain traffic laws were violated by the party in involved in the crash, you may be entitled to receive compensation for your injuries and the associated costs of those injuries.
Traffic laws are designed to make the roads safe for everybody.  Drivers have a special duty to behave responsibly when behind the wheel in order to ensure the safety of themselves, passengers, other automobiles, and also pedestrians and bicyclists.
Every state has traffic laws which govern how people should act on the roads, who is allowed to drive, and the consequences for not obeying the rules. A sample of some of the topics covered in the Colorado state statutes shows their breadth:

• Requirements for driver's licenses and permits
• Rules for reporting accidents
• Registration and inspection requirements
• Restrictions on the use of equipment (horns, lamps, etc)
• Speed limits
• Rules for driving in school zones
• Driving under the influence of alcohol

Determining Fault for Accidents
Car accidents happen for many different reasons, including intoxication, distraction, inattention, reckless driving, and bad weather. If you are the victim of a Colorado Springs car accident, contact lawyers at Sears & Swanson to see if you could be entitled to compensation.
In order to receive compensation, you may need to prove that the other party is at fault for the accident. In some cases, such as driving under the influence of alcohol, this can be very clear. In other cases, an injured victim's attorney may have to provide convincing evidence—either to the other party's insurance company or to the court if a settlement cannot be reached—that the other party was negligent.
Determining negligence in Colorado is largely based on the principle of duty of care, which demands that drivers act reasonably. To collect from an injury, a victim of an accident has to prove that the driver did not exercise duty of care (i.e., the driver was careless) and that this carelessness caused the injuries
Modified Comparative Negligence in Colorado
Colorado state law institutes comparative negligence. Comparative negligence acknowledges that sometimes, both parties contributed to the cause of an accident or injury. In comparative negligence, the amount paid is proportional to the judgment of who is at-fault. Colorado follows a modified version of this principle by precluding parties who are more than 49% responsible for an injury from recovering any damages.
Sears & Swanson, P.C. - Colorado Springs car accident lawyers
First Bank Building
2 North Cascade Avenue
Suite 1250
Colorado Springs, Colorado 8090

Herbert Smith bolsters Asia arbitration with Hong Kong move

By Julia Berris

Herbert Smith is ramping up its Asian arbitration practice, relocating partner Justin D'Agostino to Hong Kong.

The London-based partner is moving to the Hong Kong office next week to bulk up the firm's disputes practice in the region.
D'Agostino was based in Herbert Smith's Singapore and Bangkok offices in 2004 and 2005.
Herbert Smith is also relocating London-based arbitration senior associate May Tai to the Shanghai office in October as well as hiring local Chinese arbitration lawyer Patrick Zheng from local arbitration committee CIETAC in Beijing.
D'Agostino said: "These moves we will be covered in these three major areas for arbitration. Chinese corporates now want international arbitration specialists on the ground and Western clients are very interested in lawyers with local expertise."
The moves are the latest by Herbert Smith aimed at advancing its Asia litigation practice. In January this year the firm relocated Nicholas Peacock to its Singapore office.
A number of US and UK firms are continuing to underscore their commitment to the region. Yesterday The Lawyer reported on Kirkland & Ellis launching its second Asian office in Shanghai.

Anonymous Lawyer

Jones Day apparently thinks it's better than we are. Or at least one of their partners wrote a memo claiming so. Didn't name us personally, but I'm sure we're one of the firms he's referring to. "[P]rotecting partners' incomes on the corpses of associates and staff," "slash[ing] and burn[ing]" -- I'm pretty sure that's us. Describes our behavior in this economic downturn pretty accurately.

I'd like to argue in our defense. What's wrong with firing staff and associates? What's wrong with protecting partners' incomes? What's wrong with using the recession as an excuse to trim the dead weight and put the firm in the best position to thrive not only when the economy recovers, but right now?

Why not protect our partnership above all else?

Our value is in our partnership, entirely-- sad to say, but staff and associates are fungible. No firm in the top 50 can stand up and say its associates are any better or any different from anyone else's. No matter how discerning the hiring partner wants to think he is, no matter how many times you read a resume or how carefully you evaluate a second-year law student's ability to eat lunch at a fancy restaurant without choking, we're all interviewing the same pool of students and making offers based on four or five twenty-minute interviews and a cursory glance at a transcript.

We're all making the same offers to the same students, and they're choosing us based on whatever intangibles they can pretend set one firm apart from the next, but, really, if you switched our first year associate class with Latham's or Jones Day's or any of the top firms, it's a crapshoot. And once the economy recovers, we'll be able to go out and pluck a whole new batch-- a whole new, younger, cheaper, hungrier batch-- of associates to do the scut work. You think law students are going to be in a position where they're turning down offers anytime soon? You think they're going to care which firms laid people off and which didn't? They're going to be grateful for the jobs. And it's not like they all can't do this work. We're not asking our associates to do rocket science. Any graduate of a decent law school can do everything we ask them to. That's why offer rates for summer associates are 95%+, everywhere. And that's why in good economic times, no one ever gets fired. We can pretend we have the best associates, the best training, the best whatever-- but it doesn't matter even if we do. We just need bodies. Bodies to bill out to clients, bodies to do document review, bodies to burn out and throw away when we're done with them.

So if the associates don't matter-- and, sorry to say, they don't-- why not dump them when we don't need them, save the money, and hire some new ones back later?

The alternative is a fair bit worse. Jones Day may be proud of lowering partners' incomes to save associates, but how happy are the partners about it? How many wouldn't be just as happy keeping their old salaries, or even getting bigger ones after we cut expenses by 30% by firing the idiots we don't need anymore? Truth is, not everyone is so giving. For a lot of us, there's a number we're waiting for-- a number in the bank account that tells us we can finally leave and not worry about our future. The faster you can get me to that number, the more I'm willing to stick around. So why not move over to a firm that's willing to fire people to protect my partner income?

And as far as clients? What do they care? We're service providers. We provide good service, what difference does it make whether or not we're laying off staff and cutting summer programs? In fact, we lower our overhead enough to trim 10% off the bill, and I think they'd be mighty happy with that trade-off.

Associates felt no loyalty to us when times were good. They left in the middle of projects, they went in-house, they switched firms at will. Why do we need to be loyal to them now? How about we reward the people who make the business run, who bring in clients, who actually add value through their own competence and hard work? Partner vs. associate, I choose the partner, every time.

Take that, Jones Day.