Doug Baier - Senior Counsel

Denver, CO: (720) 726-5893

Ft. Lauderdale, FL: (954) 315-0175

Doug Baier is Senior Counsel in Tyson & Mendes’ Denver office. Mr. Baier’s practice focuses primarily on complex personal injury matters, including catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases.

Prior to joining Tyson & Mendes, Mr. Baier resolved numerous litigated matters including workers’ compensation, personal injury and criminal cases. He has successfully briefed matters in both state and federal court, and achieved success in numerous jury and bench trials. Additionally, he was named a 2016 and 2017 Washington State Super Lawyers Rising Star.

Mr. Baier graduated cum laude from the University of Miami School of Law in 2010. While in law school, Mr. Baier was awarded the Dean’s Certificate of Achievement for his work in the Health and Elder Law Clinic. In 2007, Mr. Baier graduated from Kansas State University summa cum laude with a B.S. in Business Administration and a minor in Leadership Studies. Mr. Baier is licensed to practice law in California, Washington, and Florida.

In his free time, Mr. Baier enjoys traveling, running and playing volleyball.

Recent Posts

Colorado and the Seat Belt Defense

What was the intent of the Colorado Legislature?

Colorado Revised Statute Section 42.4.237(7) provides that evidence of seat belt non-use “shall be admissible to mitigate pain and suffering damages with respect to any person who was involved in a motor accident and who seeks any subsequent litigation to recover damages for injuries resulting from the accident.”[1] The Supreme Court of Colorado has held the use of the world “shall” signifies the legislature intended for seat belt non-use to be admissible, if the non-use is supported by competent, sufficient evidence.[2] The General Assembly of Colorado enacted the Mandatory Seat Belt Act to promote seat belt use.[3] In the Act, the amount of pain and suffering damages[4] is decreased in proportion to injuries attributable to seat belt non-use.[5] Thus, the legislature’s intent is clear and the non-use of a seat belt is an affirmative defense and is admissible.[6]

Reduction of Damages to Present Value in Florida

In personal injury or wrongful death cases, plaintiffs are often awarded a monetary award as compensation for future loss of earnings or medical care. However, determining the value of such award is often a difficult task. In Florida, a standard instruction in a person injury case is 415.14 Reduction of Damages to Present Value.[1] This instruction reads:

Does Washington State have a Seat Belt Defense?

Seat Belt Law RCW 46.61.688

In Washington State, state statute 46.61.688 requires the use of safety belts. According to the statute, “every person sixteen years of age or older operating or riding in a motor vehicle shall wear the safety belt assembly in a properly adjusted and securely fastened manner.”[1] Furthermore, no person may operate a motor vehicle unless all child passengers under the age of sixteen years are either (1) earing a safety belt assembly or (2) are securely fastened into an approved child restraint device.[2] A person who violates this section shall be issued a notice of traffic infraction under chapter 46.63 RCW.[3] If there is a finding a person committed this infraction, it shall be contained in the driver’s abstract but shall not be available to insurance companies or employers.[4]

A Look at SB1146/HB911: Proposed Changes to Florida’s Statute on Construction Defects

In Florida, State Statue 558 covers Construction Defects. This statute requires before a party brings any legal action for an alleged construction defect, 60 days prior, the party must deliver to the other party to the contract a written notice, referring Chapter 558, of any construction conditions you allege are defective and provide such person the opportunity to inspect the alleged construction defects and to consider making an offer to repair or pay for the alleged construction defects.

When an Accident is Unavoidable, is the Driver Still Liable in Florida?

When a driver is confronted with a sudden emergency, he is not held to the same standard of care, which would otherwise be expected. However, neither is he excused from not acting in a reasonable and prudent manner.[1] This is considered the Sudden Emergency Doctrine. Under this doctrine, once the emergency arises, a driver “is not negligent, provided he has used due care to avoid meeting such an emergency and, after it arises, he exercises such case as a reasonably prudent and capable driver would use under the unusual circumstances.” [2]

Overbilling and Liability Insurance: Is a Law Firm Covered?

A look at Evanston Ins. Co. v. Law Office of Michael P. Medved, P.C.

890 F.3d 1195

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Overview of Case

Defendant, Michael Medved, is a Colorado attorney who handled foreclosures. When foreclosing on properties, he billed his attorney fees and costs to clients, which were lenders and investors. However, the attorney fees and costs were ultimately passed on to the property owners (or buyers, if the property was resold). In 2010, the Colorado Attorney General began investigating defendant and other foreclosure attorneys, questioning whether they had overbilled. When the investigation became public, property owners brought a class action against defendant and his firm for overbilling.

You Got Mail! Is Electronic Delivery of Policy Documents Enforceable in Washington State?

A look at Jackson v. Esurance Ins. Co., 2 Wash.App.2d 470 (2017)


Under Washington State law, an insurance carrier must deliver an original insurance policy to the insured “within a reasonable period of time after its issuance.”[1] Before amending or modifying an insurance contract, an insurer must give the policyholder notice and obtain the policyholder’s consent.[2] Washington law does not dictate the manner in which insurers are to deliver notice of changes or amendments to the insured.[3]

Spoliation Claims in Washington State

What is spoliation?

Spoliation is defined as the “destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence in pending or future litigation once the duty to do so has been triggered.[1] A party seeking sanctions for spoliation first bears the burden of establishing the opposing party destroyed relevant evidence.[2] To determine whether spoliation occurred, the majority of courts use some variation of a three-part test.[3] This test includes (1) the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) the records were destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and (3) the evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense.[4]

Fair Value for Loss of Earnings

Compensable damages are categorized as either “general” or “special.”[1] General damages are those damages that “necessarily result from the act complained of.”[2] General damages include pain and suffering, emotional distress, and other forms of detriment that are sometimes characterized as subjective or not directly quantifiable.[3] Special damages do not necessarily arise from the typical infliction of the injury and are instead the “out-of-pocket losses peculiar to the infliction of each respective injury.”[4] Special damages include medical and related expenses as well as lost income.[5]

Social Legislation, Collateral Source Rule and Limiting Future Damages

What is the Collateral Source Rule?

Generally, any compensation a plaintiff has received from a source other than the person who is found to be legally responsible is considered a “collateral source.” These payments may not be introduced into evidence at trial and they will not reduce the amount of damages recoverable from defendant. Today, the effect and extent of the Collateral Source Rule varies state to state.

Copyright © 2019 Tyson & Mendes LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Big Behavior.