Posts Tagged ‘car’

               Paul and Lois decided to take their two children out for some ice cream. Lois had often reprehended Paul for texting while he was driving but it was a habit Paul simply could not break. Paul received a text and was in the process of answering it at the same time that he was driving. In the blink of an eye, the car in front of Paul came to an unexpected stop because of a deer crossing the road. Paul slammed his car into the back of the stopped car causing a violent collision. Fortunately Paul and the driver that Paul struck were uninjured. However, Paul’s wife suffered serious injuries as did one of Paul’s two children.

ISSUE:          Does Paul’s wife and his child have a claim against Paul for his negligence?

ANSWER:     Yes. Despite the family relationship here, Paul’s wife and child will be able to bring an action against Paul’s insurance company to recover for their pain and suffering as well as medical coverage above and beyond that which is already contracted for under Paul’s insurance policy. This will be important because both Paul’s wife and his one child will have medical bills far in excess of the $5,000.00 coverage that Paul has.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive.  Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column. 

            Carol and Dave had just finished a wonderful dinner in Hawley and were traveling on Route 590 back to their home in the Hamlin area. Jim and Sue, who had accompanied Carol and Dave for dinner, were in the back seat. It was approximately 9:30 PM. It was dark but the road was dry. From what seemed out of nowhere, a car came through a stop sign quite violently striking Carol and Dave’s car broadside. Unfortunately all four occupants of Carol and Dave’s car suffered serious injuries.

            As it turned out, the car that struck Carol and Dave’s vehicle had minimum insurance with only $15,000.00 in coverage. That amount would have been grossly inadequate to cover the injuries of any one of the victims let alone all four. It was also unfortunate that neither Carol and Dave nor Jim and Sue had underinsurance on their own vehicles. Thus the four injured victims would have to split up the $15,000.00.

ISSUE:          How will the money be split?

ANSWER:     The insurance company for the negligent driver will simply pay the money into court and allow the court to divide up the money. Unfortunately, no matter how the division occurs, none of the four victims will be compensated even closely for the amount of damages that they sustained physically and economically. Every insured driver should make sure they have adequate underinsurance coverage on their policy and carry at least $100,000.00 in coverage.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive.  Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column. 

            Cathy was traveling towards Scranton on the Casey highway in a very thick fog with heavy rain. Cathy was going well under the speed limit but began to approach a vehicle in front of her that was only going about thirty miles per hour. Cathy put her blinkers on and started to pull out into the passing lane when she was impacted by Tom heading in the same direction. Tom had his windshield wipers on, but despite the poor visibility conditions, he had not bothered to put his headlights on.

            Tom suffered some injuries in the accident and bought a suit against Cathy. The attorney representing Cathy alleged that Tom was at least equally at fault for causing the accident because Tom did not put his lights on despite the weather conditions.

ISSUE:          Does Cathy’s attorney have a point?

ANSWER:     Yes. The law in Pennsylvania is that if you have your windshield wipers on, you must have your headlights on. The reason behind the law is clear: to make your car as visible as possible during times of poor visibility. In this case, not only was it raining, but it was also foggy outside. Had Tom put his lights on, in all likelihood Cathy would have been able to see his car before attempting to pass the car that was in front of her.

            Ultimately it will be up to a jury to decide the percentages of negligence, but it is quite possible that Tom will be found more negligent than Cathy under the circumstances.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive.  Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column. 

                        Tammy had just arrived at her employer’s parking lot,  parked her car, and started walking towards the entrance to the building where she worked. Unfortunately there was some black ice and Tammy slipped and fell forward, breaking her right wrist as a result of trying to break her fall. Tammy was not scheduled to start working until 9:00 a.m. and she fell at approximately 8:50 a.m.

ISSUE:          Should Tammy submit her medical bills to her health care insurance or through her employer’s Workers’ Compensation insurance?

ANSWER:     Tammy’s employer’s Workers’ Compensation carrier will be responsible to pay all of Tammy’s bills as well as her lost time benefits. The fact that Tammy had not actually started working makes no difference. Since Tammy fell in her employer’s parking lot on her way into work, she would be covered. Likewise, if Tammy was in a car accident on her employer’s property when she was arriving at or leaving work, she would be covered as well.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive.  Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column. 

            John came to a stop at the intersection but, because of a large mound of snow left by a  city plow, he was not able to see to his right. John decided he had to pull into the intersection a little to be able to see around the mound of snow which had been deposited by the snow plow. Unfortunately, Tammy was coming from John’s right and struck John’s car on the right front passenger corner.

            John said that he did everything he could in a cautious manner and that the accident was unpreventable. Tammy stated that she was minding her own business and just driving when John pulled partially out in front of her through the stop sign.

ISSUE:          Would the municipality have any responsibility for the damage to Tammy’s car?

ANSWER:     No.  A municipality is not responsible for the temporary accumulation of snow at the corners of intersections caused by plowing. The only time a municipality would have liability for conditions of the road is for the actual construction of the road and/or maintenance. There would be liability for potholes, but the municipal government that is responsible for the road must be given notice of the same and given a reasonable time to fix the pothole.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive.  Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column. 

Jeff and Joe were all dressed up for Halloween and stopped in at their friend Marty’s house for a party. Jeff and Joe were both 18 years old. Marty’s parents were home and the boys, at their request, were served three or four beers over a one and one half hour period. Then the boys decided to leave and go to another party with Jeff driving the car. Jeff only felt he had a “buzz” but was not drunk. Unfortunately Jeff ran a red light and was hit broadside. Both boys suffered severe injuries. Both boys also had alcohol levels more than twice the legal limit even if they had been over 21 years old.

ISSUE: Who is liable?

ANSWER: Marty’s parents, who served alcohol to minors, would be liable both civilly and criminally for the injuries to both boys. If the boys were adults, 21 years of age or older, than there would have been no liability on the part of the parents. Joe can also bring an action against Jeff since Jeff was the driver. Jeff’s attorney will counter that Joe should not have accepted a ride with an individual that may have appeared to be visibly intoxicated and was thus comparatively negligent for his own injuries.

The main lesson though is that parents that serve alcohol will be liable for the results if an accident does occur.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

Carolyn worked at a local fast-food restaurant. Carolyn had recently broken up with her boyfriend and her boyfriend was not taking it very well. Carolyn’s boyfriend started stalking her as well as calling her at all hours of the night. Carolyn was working a night shift and after she punched out and was on her way to her car in the employer’s parking lot, her boyfriend drove his car into her causing her serious injury.

ISSUE: Is Carolyn entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits?

ANSWER: No. Normally injuries incurred while one is on an employer’s premises, including parking lots, are compensable. In this case though, Carolyn’s injuries were caused by her boyfriend and his personal animosity towards her and thus did not in any way arise out of her scope of course of employment.

Carolyn will obviously have a law suit against her boyfriend, although the insurance coverage on her boyfriend’s car will be denied since her injuries were caused by an intentional act. Carolyn may have a cause of action against her employer for failure to provide a safe work place, although this would be a difficult theory to prove, unless the employer was aware of her boyfriend’s dangerous propensities and likelihood that he would strike out at her on the work premises.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

Katie was in the parking lot of the local supermarket and had just finished loading her groceries into her car. Across from Katie in another line of cars, Barry had gotten into his car and started to back out. For whatever reason, neither saw the other, and a collision ensued.

Both drivers accused the other of having caused the accident for not keeping a proper look out while they were backing up. Fortunately, the property damage to both vehicles was not severe and nobody was injured. Neither party though had collision coverage and both decided to take the case to the local magistrate.

Issue: How will the magistrate likely decide?

Answer: Mostly likely, both parties will be found to be fifty percent negligent and thus each will be entitled to collect fifty percent of their respective damages. Should the magistrate find for some reason that one party is fifty-one percent negligent, that party will not be allowed to recover anything and the other party will be entitled to fifty-one percent of their cost of repairs. In Pennsylvania this is what is called “comparative negligence.”

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

Casey was parked at the light at Hamlin corners waiting for the light to change. Kelly was traveling in the same direction as Casey and was busy on her cell phone and didn’t notice that Casey had stopped. When Kelly finally realized the position of Casey’s car and that the light was red, it was too late and she rear ended Casey. Substantial damage was done to Casey’s car by the impact. Casey contacted Kelly’s insurance company seeking payment for the damage to his car as well as rental fees for a replacement car while he waited for his car to get fixed.

Kelly’s insurance company stated that since Casey had limited tort, he had no right to any property damages or any loss of wages which he may have incurred because of the car accident.

Issue: Is Casey entitled to full payment of his damages on his car as well as his rental expenses, and finally, his lost wages?

Answer: Yes. Whether one has full tort or limited tort makes no difference in matters that involve the property claims between two drivers. The issue of full tort versus limited tort only comes into play when bodily injuries are involved in the accident. Casey will get full reimbursement from Kelly’s insurance company for his economic losses.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

Katherine was an extremely independent individual, even though she was now 77 years old. Katherine enjoyed her privacy and lived in her own small house. Every Saturday, she would go to the grocery store where she would shop. While it took her a little longer to do things, she was in good physical shape and was able to take care of herself.

Katherine had just finished her shopping at a local Hamlin market and was heading home. Upon arriving at her driveway, she slowed down and turned the wheel to go into her garage, which opened automatically. Suddenly, and without explanation, Katherine’s Toyota Camry started to accelerate, despite the fact that Katherine was not even pushing down on the gas pedal. Katherine tried to apply the brakes as hard as she could, but to no avail, and the car crashed inside her garage.

Fortunately, Katherine’s injuries were minor, but the damage to both her car and her garage were quite extensive. Katherine’s children were upset and believed that their mother should no longer be entrusted with driving a motor vehicle. Her children simply did not believe that the car took off on its own, despite Katherine’s insistence otherwise.

Katherine sought the assistance of an attorney and, after a close inspection of the vehicle by a mechanical automotive expert; it became clear that there was a defect in the acceleration mechanism of the car, causing it to accelerate unexpectedly.

Issue: Does Katherine have any cause for a legal action against the manufacturer of the vehicle?

Answer: Yes. All car manufacturers warrant that when their vehicles are used in the correct manner, that they are safe and road worthy. In this particular case, Katherine was in no way at fault. But for the mechanical defect in the car, the accident never would have happened. The manufacturer will be responsible for the property damage to both Katherine’s vehicle and to her home as well. Katherine will also, of course, and equally important, get an apology from her children. Katherine will be able to maintain her independence and continue to be a safe driver as she had always been.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.