Posts Tagged ‘vehicle’

Pam’s best friend Paula always seemed to be on the wrong side of luck. Paula had recently had her license suspended because of a D.U.I. conviction. Paula was pretty much dependent upon Pam to take her wherever she needed to go.

On one occasion though, Paula had to go downtown to pick up some medication and asked Pam to loan her the car to take her on this very short trip. Pam knew that Paula’s license had been suspended but for some reason, since it was such a short trip, she said it was ok.

Unfortunately for both ladies, Paula’s bad luck continued and she rear ended another vehicle on Main Street. A law suit ensued and Pam’s insurance company denied coverage.

ISSUE: Is Pam’s insurance company obligated to defend with the auto accident that Paula was involved in?

ANSWER: No. Insurance policies on automobiles almost always have a provision that if the owner of the policy allows a non-licensed or impaired driver to drive their vehicle, then that insurance company will no longer be responsible if an accident occurs. Under no circumstances should an owner or family member of an auto ever allow an individual to drive a vehicle who is not legally allowed to do so.

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.

Sandy was seriously hurt in a motor vehicle accident which was not her fault. Sandy went to an attorney recommended to her by one of her friends. The attorney promised to represent her and attempt to settle her case and, if necessary, file suit. As months passed by Sandy became very frustrated as the attorney neither returned her calls or kept telling her that he was keeping track of things and was attempting to settle her case. Finally, Sandy had enough with the delay and found out that the attorney that she had gone to had never filed a suit within the two years in which she was allowed, under the law, to bring the suit. Sandy was furious and decided she was going to sue her lawyer.

ISSUE: Sandy quickly found out that her lawyer had no legal malpractice insurance and she wondered if a lawyer can practice without legal malpractice insurance.

ANSWER: Yes. Legal malpractice insurance is not required in Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, a lawyer that does not carry professional liability insurance, is required to inform all new clients, in writing, that he or she does not have professional liability insurance or at least $100,000.00 per occurrence or $300,000.00 total. This is required under the rules of professional conduct. It has also been in effect for about three years.

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, along with a bunch of her friends, decided to take a limousine into New York City for a day of shopping. For whatever reason, the limousine driver was busy texting one of his friends and didn’t notice the traffic was stopped on Route 80 in front of him. Once he did realize it, it was too late. Despite the fact that he slammed on his brakes, he rear-ended a truck in front of him. Tammy and some of her friends were hurt.

Tammy sought legal advice to see if she could bring an action against the limousine company because she had broken her arm in the accident, as well as sustaining some other deep bruises. The insurance company for the limousine company took the position that since Tammy had only limited tort on her own insurance, she could not bring a lawsuit.

Issue: Is the limousine company correct?

Answer: No. Since Tammy was in a commercial vehicle at the time of the accident, regardless of what type of personal coverage she has on her own vehicle be it full tort or limited tort, she would be allowed to bring a lawsuit against any party that caused her injuries.

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.

A Lackawanna County Jury decided that General Motors Corp. owes a Scranton man $693,000.00 as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff, John Lance, suffered injuries after crashing into a tree while pulling into a driveway. Legal papers filed by personal injury Attorney Joseph Price of the DLP Law Firm alleged that the accident resulted from an improperly installed crank shaft on the plaintiff’s Chevrolet vehicle. The crash resulted in injuries throughout Mr. Lance’s spine that prevented him from working for several years.

The jury award granted $620,000.00 to Mr. Lance for pain and suffering. The remainder of the award was for medical expenses and lost wages.

The Complaint stated that the steering failed because a bolt in the crank shaft’s pulley broke causing the pulley and the harmonic balancer to fall from the front of the engine. A report prepared by General Motors subsequent to the accident appeared to confirm this contention. Attorney Price indicated “The jury was able to decide from the facts presented that there was an obvious flaw with the vehicle. This flaw caused severe injury to my client. I’m pleased that the jury saw this for what it was and issued a verdict in favor of Mr. Lance”.

Sam had just had a fine meal in Lake Ariel and was heading towards Hamlin on Route 191. Sam was in somewhat of a rush to get home and, despite the fact that it was now 6:30 and dark, he left the parking lot without putting his lights on for some reason. Poor Molly was pulling out of her driveway and, despite the fact that she looked in both directions, did not see Sam whose dark-colored pickup truck would have been virtually impossible to see without lights being turned on.

Sam broad-sided Molly, causing Molly to have serious injuries that resulted in a long hospitalization. Sam complained that Molly pulled out right in front of him and was basically responsible for the accident.

Issue: Is Sam correct?

Answer: No. Sam is in big trouble here. He violated a statute which mandates that he have his lights on so that his vehicle would have been observable in the dark. In all likelihood, a jury would find Sam 100% responsible for this accident, despite the fact that Molly did pull out in front of him. Molly could not be expected to observe a vehicle in an area that is not lit when that vehicle does not have its headlights on.

As a general matter of safety, one should turn their headlights on at the beginning of dusk. Also drivers are supposed to have their lights on if their windshield wipers are being used, even in the daytime.

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.

Ward and June were taking a leisurely drive between Honesdale and Hawley on Route 6 when a large pickup truck heading in the opposite direction entered their lane of travel. Ward had no option but to steer as hard as he could to the right, causing the vehicle to go off the road and eventually impacting with a tree. Unfortunately, both Ward and June suffered severe injuries.

The operator of the vehicle that caused the accident never stopped nor were the police ever able to identify it.

Issue: Do Ward and his wife, June, have any recourse?

Answer: Yes. Fortunately, Ward was wise enough to cover uninsured motorist protection on his own vehicle.

In cases such as this where there is an accident caused by a phantom vehicle, Ward will be able to make a claim against his own insurance policy for his pain and suffering as well as June’s. The amount that Ward will be able to claim up to will depend upon how much coverage Ward paid for. This type of coverage is very inexpensive and all drivers should obtain at least $100,000 for uninsured motorist 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.

Jennifer was a passenger in a car being driven by her friend, Carol. While going down Main Street in Hawley, a car came out of one of the side roads being driven by Madison. Madison ran a stop sign and drove her vehicle directly in front of Carol’s vehicle, resulting in an accident. Jennifer was injured in the accident and suffered a broken shoulder as well as a bad neck sprain.

When Jennifer brought suit against Madison, Madison’s lawyer joined Carol as an additional defendant in the lawsuit, stating Carol was also partially to blame because Carol did not keep an adequate lookout at the time of the accident.

The case went to trial, and Jennifer was awarded $150,000. Madison was found to be 95% negligent and Carol only 5%. Unfortunately, Madison only had $15,000 in coverage, while Carol had $100,000 in coverage.

Issue: How much can Jennifer collect from Carol’s insurance company?

Answer: While it seems unfair, Jennifer is entitled to collect the entire $100,000 from Carol’s policy. She will have collected $115,000 out of the total verdict of $150,000. Carol’s insurance company will have a right to try to recoup some of the monies directly from Madison, but the likelihood of that happening is very unlikely.

This is referred to as joint and several liability that allows these types of outcomes. It is still the law in Pennsylvania and, as mentioned before, has resulted in many unfair outcomes where people that are found only slightly negligent bear the greater the cost of covering judgments.

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.

It was a beautiful, sunny day in Hawley, and Amos McCoy decided to take out his prize 1922 Ford Model T touring car for a little ride up Route 6 towards Milford. Amos cranked up the car and his wife, Sweetpea, joined him in the front seat, and they started on their way.

Unfortunately, “In A Rush Ron” flew through the stop sign at Routes 402 and 6 and caused a collision with Amos’ vehicle. Fortunately, no one was injured but Amos’ vehicle was severely damaged. Before the accident Amos’ vehicle was 100% original parts and was in mint condition. It was estimated that the cost to repair the vehicle would be around $15,000 and Amos’ insurance company offered him that amount. Because of the fact that the vehicle before the accident was in absolute pristine shape with all the original parts, the car was valued well over $60,000. Even if Amos had the vehicle repaired, because of the fact that many of the replacement parts would not be original, the value of the car would be greatly reduced to around $25,000.

Amos’ insurance company took the position that they would only owe the amount to repair the vehicle and nothing else. Amos felt that he was owed both the costs to repair the vehicle as well as the difference between what the vehicle would be worth after it was repaired, which was about $25,000, compared to what it was worth before the accident which was about $60,000.

Question: Who is right?

Answer: In this case, Amos would get his full recovery. Amos’ vehicle was a classic, and the insurance company would be liable for the difference for not only the repair costs, but also the loss of value of the antique automobile.

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.