Posts Tagged ‘driver’

Jen and Tom were headed out of Waymart on Route 6 towards the Casey Highway. Tom was driving and the weather conditions were ideal. As Tom approached the entrance to the Casey Highway, he was suddenly struck broadside by Ernie who had been traveling up old Route 6 from Carbondale. Ernie was unfamiliar with the intersection and did not notice the stop sign. One of the things that reduced Ernie’s awareness was the fact that Ernie had been drinking most of the afternoon. It would later be revealed that Ernie was intoxicated and his blood alcohol level was over three times the legal limit.

ISSUE: Jen and Tom sustained moderate injuries but nothing significant enough that would ordinarily get them over the limited tort threshold which would allow them to bring suit to recover for their damages.

ANSWER: The couple made inquiry with an attorney and were correctly advised that because of the fact that Ernie was intoxicated, that the limited tort restriction no longer applied and both Jen and Tom would be allowed to proceed and make a claim against Ernie’s insurance company.

While the limited tort option does disallow law suits in many cases, unless there is serious bodily injury or impairment, there are exceptions. One is if the individual that caused the accident is intoxicated. Another would be if the negligent driver was licensed out of state or if the individual that is injured is a pedestrian.

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.

Bad Bart and his friend Sticky Fingers Fred were walking down Main Street Hawley when they observed a pizza delivery truck unattended with the motor running. Bart and Fred figured they would have a little fun and jumped into the car with Sticky Fingers Fred driving. Sticky Fingers Fred had previously had his driver’s license revoked because of numerous convictions of reckless driving. Consistent with previous conduct, Fred commenced to drive the stolen vehicle up onto the sidewalk crashing into a utility pole.

Both men were convicted of multiple counts and sent to the local prison. Sticky Fingers Fred considered himself a jailhouse lawyer and convinced Bad Bart to sue for the injuries Bart sustained at the time of the collision. Bart decided to sue the delivery driver based upon the fact that the driver left the vehicle unattended with the engine running as well as the delivery driver’s employer.

Question: Does Bart have any case?

Answer: There exists a “No Felony Conviction Recovery” rule. This rule bars a felon as a matter of public policy from benefiting from his own criminal acts. It exists to discourage courts from assisting convicted felons from collecting damages that would not have occurred absent the criminal conviction. Bad Bart was not only injured because of Sticky Fingers Fred but also got some bad advice 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.

June and Ward were on their way up Route 191 towards Hancock to visit June’s mother. About a mile before Equinunk, Ward noticed a car coming in the opposite direction at a high rate of speed traveling in the middle of the road.

June became extremely agitated and started to yell at Ward to pull off the road. Ward was able to move his vehicle off on the side of the road as much as possible but part of his vehicle remained on the macadam. As the vehicle approached, Ward realized that, in all likelihood, there was going to be an impact with the vehicle and extended his right arm sideways to try to protect his wife. Sure enough, the oncoming vehicle sideswiped Ward’s vehicle shaking it violently. Fortunately, neither Ward or June were seriously injured but the impact was significant enough that both of them sprained their necks and low backs.

The state police were quick to respond as the other vehicle did pull over eventually. The driver of the other vehicle was rendered a breathalyzer test by the state trooper, and it became readily apparent that the other driver was visibly intoxicated. The state trooper would cite the other driver on the investigative report. As it turned out, the other driver had a 2.4 alcohol blood level or three times the legal limit.

Neither Ward nor June had serious injuries, and Ward’s coverage on his vehicle was for limited tort which means he could not sue the other driver unless he sustained a serious and permanent injury.

Question: Will Ward and June have any recourse against the drunk driver?

Answer: Yes, despite the fact that Ward has limited tort, because the accident did involve a driver who was found to be driving under the influence, both Ward and June will be able to bring suits against the drunk driver’s insurance company. This is one of the exceptions and was meant to be another factor in trying to convince people not to drive while intoxicated.