Emmanuel L. Muwonge has been practising Personal Injury law for the last 28 years. The Accident & Personal Injury Law Firm of Emmanuel L. Muwonge & Associates, LLC., handles a variety of Personal Injury claims and cases arising from Automobile & Truck Accidents, Bus Accidents, Train Accidents and Premises Liability cases. The Emmanuel L. Muwonge has successfully handled and litigated cases before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The most high-profile case of national significance handled is Antuan A. vs. Heritage Insurance Company, et.al, 224 Wis. 2d 44. The Supreme Court in Antuan A. clarified the standard of care and responsibilities and duties to tenants and frequenters of a Wisconsin residential landlord regarding lead paint poisoning.
- Personal Injury
- Insurance Claims
- Medical Malpractice
- Products Liability
- Workers' Compensation
- Asbestos & Mesothelioma
- Civil Rights
Each potential client has a 30 minute Free No Obligation Consultation either over the telephone, in the office or at home or in the hospital or healthcare facility.
Pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute § 757.36, we charge 33% of any recovery we secure for and on behalf of the client. We advance any and all costs necessary to handle a client's case. If we don't recover the client owes nothing.
Rates, Retainers and Additional Information
I provide Free Consultations at Home, Hospital or Telephonically.
- 7th Circuit
- English: Spoken, Written
- Latin: Written
- Luganda: Spoken, Written
- Swahili: Spoken
- Attorney at Law
- Emmanuel L. Muwonge & Associates, LLC
- - Current
- Personal Injury Law Practice
- Marquette University Law School
- J.D. (1987) | Law
- Wisconsin State Bar  # 1019057
- Wisconsin Bar Association  # WI 1019057
- - Current
- Accident & Personal Injury Lawyer
- How To Hire The Best Lawyer For Your Accident Case Now
- Q. Can i sue for damages for auto accident if other person was at fault
- A: Yes you may sue for damages because you were not at fault. The only issue I would be concerned about given the facts as laid out is whether or not you were speeding. That would be relevant because, when speeding, you forfeit the right of way you otherwise may have had. The right of way is not absolute. As relates to damages, it depends upon what damages they are. However, it appears to me that the insurance company wants you to bear a significant portion of the damages which they have characterized as 30%. If you sustained injuries, you may wish to consult with a personal injury lawyer in your area to determine what if any your damages might be. If it is only property damage then you need to also consider how much damage your vehicle sustained versus what they allege was caused by your negligence on their insured's vehicle. You need to consult with a practitioner in your area but based upon the limited facts I have seen, I believe that if they failed to yield the right of way and there is no credible evidence that you were speeding, they need to honor the claim or, failing which, you are entitled of course to file a lawsuit against their insured and that insurance company. Be advised that you have 3 yrs from the date of the accident within which to file any lawsuit. You must file the lawsuit before the expiration of the 3 yrs and do so within that period and serve the summons and complaint on the insurance company via their registered agent as well as personally serve the driver of their insured vehicle. You need a process server to do this. Please consult with someone as it is less likely you will get any meaningful justice without such. Thank you very much. This is not legal advice of course.
- Q. Why aren't there any federal laws that protect all animals?
- A: The Act you took issue with was not intended to regulate how animals are used for research purposes, but only to set standards for how they are obtained and maintained at a facility APHIS's Animal Care (AC) program oversees the AWA, which includes about 10,300 facilities. These AC officials make unannounced facility inspections to ensure they are in compliance with regulations, and to identify unregistered facilities. If you are interested in the enforcement of standards governing how individuals treat animals, this appears to be one such regulation. Please note that under the USDA definition of animal, you will find that most warm-blooded animals are covered although said regulations appear to exclude birds, rats and mice bred for use in research. Additionally, The Humane Slaughter Act, or the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act found at 7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) is a US Federal regulation intended to address the suffering of livestock during their slaughter. The USDA enforces this law under their Food Safety and Inspection Services. The proper treatment and humane handling of all food animals slaughtered in USDA inspected slaughter plants is the subject of this Act. As such, I would argue that it does, indeed, address the conduct of individuals which is your concern if I understood your query correctly. I am not sure if I have provided you with any meaningful information and therefore encourage you to please advise so that I may try to address what exactly you are trying to figure out. I must say that I don't do Animal Law and simply trying to provide you with the little information available to me. As such, this is not legal advice of course.
- Q. How long can a person hold a claim open on you from an auto accident?
- A: Thank you for your question. Except in cases of medical malpractice or wrongful death, a minor has two years from the date of his or her 18th birthday to file suit. If however, the victim was an adult, the statute of limitations is 3 years from the date of the accident or from the time s/he could have discovered the injuries, whichever is earlier. What you can expect is someone trying to file a lawsuit against your son because he was the driver of the offending vehicle. They may also try to sue the owner of that vehicle on the purported basis that, she should have never permitted her brother (your son) to operate her vehicle allegedly because, she knew or should have known that he was the type of driver that would cause what they will allege, happened. Such premise presupposes that your son (driver) has a record of which any reasonable car owner in your daughter's shoes knew and/or should have known not to permit him to drive said vehicle. I hope that this answer provides you with the information you were looking for.