Skip to main content
Michael David Maurer Jr.
Avvo
Pro

Michael Maurer’s Answers

8 total

  • DUI charges

    I was arrested for a DUI on the 27th/28th of September. My BAC was .08. I was not held in prison and released after going to the magistrate. I am taking this case to court and will do everything I can to fight it. Other than hiring a lawyer, is th...

    Michael’s Answer

    AA meetings are never a bad idea with a pending DWI charge. You should go ahead and get an alcohol assessment now and complete any recommended treatment. A lawyer can help you with that. The assessment and treatment (if recommended) will be very important things to have under your belt while your case slowly works its way through the system. As far as the merits of your DWI case, an .08 is right there on the line and a good attorney can help explore technical issues related to that. Also, there are things to look at with regard to the arrest itself (i.e. after a wreck, traffic stop, checkpoint, etc.). Every case is different and most of the time there are issues to attack to some degree. DWI is a rather complicated and frequently changing area of the law. You would be wise to consult with a qualified DWI attorney whether on Avvo or anywhere else. Do your homework.

    See question 
  • Car accident and statue of limitation and changing lawyer.

    while I was in the red light I was hit in the back of my car and the car was totaled and received money from insurance company.I had an attorney for two years and never filled the case because he was so busy and other staff. I told him I will take...

    Michael’s Answer

    Yes, you should worry. But don't switch attorneys again if you can avoid it. A quick e-mail, fax, certified letter (or some other provable method of delivery) reminding the attorney of the statute of limitations and your desire to file the case immediately ought to do the trick. Your lawyer would be wise to drop what he is working on and file the darned thing. He will know exactly what you are doing.

    See question 
  • Slip and fall at Walmart. they deny liability. I gave an honest recorded statement , can I sue?

    slipped and fell Walmart in Asheboro NC .July 26 on milk. no witness, taken to hospital by ambulance. Thought it was knee, turned out I broke my left hip. Surgery the next day. Gave a recorded statement and now they are denying liability. still ...

    Michael’s Answer

    Wal-Mart is notorious for fighting these slip and fall claims hard and then only paying when they absolutely have to, usually close to trial. It will be especially difficult in NC given the harsh contributory negligence law. Much depends on what is on the video and what you said in your recorded statement. You should consult with an attorney as soon as possible to discuss these and other issues regarding your situation.

    See question 
  • If I was sleeping at home when arrested for dwi can I win the case?

    I had an accident trying to avoid a deer. i walked home and got drunk because i was mad at myself. An officer came almost 3 hrs later and had me do a breathalizer test. i blew a .11 and was charged with a dwi

    Michael’s Answer

    Based on these facts, I would say you've got a number of issues which could be explored to defend against this charge. You should hire an attorney immediately.

    See question 
  • Daughter was a victim of hit and run accident. Her car a total loss. Perpetrator came forward 3 days later.

    What are my legal rights here. I am unlikely to appropriate reimbursement for the car. She has missed work but no major injuries. She was lucky. How to proceed or just leave it alone and let insurance handle it?

    Michael’s Answer

    If the at fault party came forward and has insurance (as required by law), then that insurer would be the first source of recovery. If there is no insurance, or if your daughter's injuries turned out to be more serious, then you would look to the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage under her own policy, as well as any other policies which might apply. Everything depends on the particular facts of the case and every case is different. Your daughter should consult with an attorney. Most offer free consultations.

    See question 
  • Would hiring a lawyer instead of court appointed help me if I just got ticket for 3rd DWI but 2nd was 7+ years ago

    Not a blow number on ticket and papers said I refused to blow while at the jail, but it was that I could not blow as I was so upset crying and hyperventilating and I did not physically say that I refused test.

    Michael’s Answer

    There are multiple issues that are apparent just on the limited information in your question. There could be serious consequences for your 3rd DWI--especially for your driver's license. You should hire private counsel asap to explore the issues and plan a defense.

    See question 
  • McD's coffee spilled on lap while being handed at drive thru resulting in 2nd degree burns. Pursue compensation?

    Yesterday AM, my wife ordered coffee at McDonalds and while being handed her coffee at the drive thru the lid was loose and the coffee spilled on her lap resulting in second degree burns to her upper thighs bilaterally. Wife currently admitted to ...

    Michael’s Answer

    Assuming that there is no provable negligence on your wife's part, there would seem to be a viable negligence claim against McDonalds. However, much will depend on the outcome of your wife's injuries: scarring, etc. The cost and hassle of litigation may not be worth it unless the injuries are rather serious.

    See question 
  • Is lack of auto liability insurance and expired registration grounds for a pure contributory negligence defense?

    I am the plaintiff in a case where another driver hit me. All of my driving actions were safe, legal, and prudent. However at the time of the accident my insurance and vehicle's registration had expired. Since the accident was not my fault, the ...

    Michael’s Answer

    While your question and thought process is certainly a common sense approach, the only thing that matters is that you were not actively negligent. A jury would never hear about the insurance/registration issues because it simply is not relevant to the issue of liability. The law does not want juries deciding things on irrelevant issues because the danger is that, if they heard about these things, they would make the same logical thought you did and that would be deciding the case on something other than the "real" issue: your liability or lack thereof.

    See question