Showing posts with label Car Accidents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Car Accidents. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

The Rear of a Rear-Ender is NOT Always at Fault


A recent tragedy on Highway 34 just east of Mount Pleasant involving a semi-truck and passenger vehicle, reported on KCCI.com, highlights the dangers of illegally operated semi-trucks as well as a common misconception among the drivers on Iowa Highways.  There is a common belief that the person at the back of a rear-end collision is always at fault.  This is not always the case.

While all motorists must maintain a proper lookout for other traffic and follow vehicles at a distance sufficient to ensure that they can bring their vehicle to a stop in a timely manner when necessary, there are circumstances where a rear vehicle may not be at fault for rear-ending another vehicle.  All motorists have the right to assume that the other drivers on the road will comply with traffic regulations.  Consequently, when a driver in forward traffic does something that is either illegal or unexpected, approaching drivers are not always able to react in enough time to avoid a collision even if they are doing absolutely nothing wrong and are being completely attentive.

Take for example the case where GRLLaw was able to obtain a substantial verdict for victims of an accident with a slow moving semi-truck.  In that case, it was proved that the semi-truck involved in that accident was actually at fault even though the plaintiff’s vehicle struck it from the rear.  This was because witnesses established that the semi-truck was initially parked illegally on the side of Highway 218 before it attempted to re-enter traffic without first ensuring that the movement could be made be made safely.  Add to that the fact that the semi-truck’s rear clearance lights were not working properly and the driver failed to signal or warn approaching traffic that she was pulling out and traveling well below the posted speed limit and one can understand how the jury found the semi-driver to be 90% at fault for the accident.

There are a number of specific legal basis for the lead vehicle in a rear-end collision to be legally liable in a rear-end collision.  They can include the following violations of Iowa’s rules of the road, among other things.

1.    Stopping on a road or highway;
2.    Unsafe starting of a stopped vehicle;
3.    Failing to maintain a proper lookout to the rear;
4.    Failure to yield to oncoming traffic;
5.    Illegally stopping on the side of a highway;
6.    Driving too slowly;
7.    Improper lighting;
8.    Unsafe stopping or sudden slowing of a vehicle;
9.    Failure to signal intent to stop or slow;
10. Failure to signal an intent to turn;
11. Failure to use emergency signals (“Flashers”) when necessary.

Many of these problems are made even worse when lead vehicles commit these traffic violations at night or in areas with poor forward visibility. Obviously, motorists cannot avoid what they cannot see in a timely manner.  Consequently, the rear vehicle is not always at fault for a rear-end collision.  Always keep in mind that there are circumstances where accidents are caused due to the negligence of the lead vehicle.  A thorough investigation must always be conducted before an accurate conclusion can be made.  Don’t make the mistake of thinking that just because a vehicle hit another vehicle from the rear that the rear vehicle must be at fault.  The law and science may prove otherwise.

Have a SAFE and Happy Independence Day!

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Along for the Ride - Who is responsible for a passenger's injuries in a car accident?

The driver of a vehicle is oftentimes not the only one injured in a car accident. In fact, in many instances, a passenger is hurt worse than the driver. Situations like these often cause Iowans to wonder if and against whom a claim can be made given that he or she was not even driving. The answer, while not the same in every situation, is that the passenger sometimes has an even greater ability to recover than does a driver. To begin with a driver who causes an accident is responsible to those who may be injured as a result of his negligence. This extends not only to other drivers but to any passengers of another car that is involved in the accident. Criminal charges were recently filed against a man that is alleged to have caused an accident with a van driven by the Dejoode family from Ankeny. Tragically, two of the children Carson, 5, and his sister Claire, 5 months were killed. The mother, Heather and her other son Chase were severely hurt. For more the KCCI story on the charges filed as a result, click here. In this case, if the alleged driver, Kevin Dalasta of Ankeny, is found to be civilly liable, he will not only be responsible for the injuries caused to the driver, Heather, but to the injuries and deaths of the 3 children as well. However, civil liability for causing an accident does not stop at those injured in other vehicles. In fact a negligent driver is generally responsible for injuries sustained by all who were hurt, including those in his own car as well. So if Mr. Dalasta were to be found responsible for the wreck and he had two passengers of his own that were injured, he would also generally be responsible for those injuries as well. There do exist some exceptions to passenger injury claims as well as some interesting and sometimes unforeseen applications. First, if the injured passenger that is riding with a negligent driver is a family member, that family member is often (but not always) excluded by the insurance policy. This makes some sense too because, as many believe, it would be against public policy for, say, a wife to file a lawsuit against her husband to compel their auto insurance company to pay for injuries sustained due to her husband’s negligence. This exclusion oftentimes only applies to immediate family members though. Further, it can have some odd results such as if a family member is severely injured in an accident while a driver’s friend walks away with just scratches. The severe injuries may not be covered while the minor abrasions of the friend may indeed be. However, when a family exclusion clause applies, this may result in uninsured or underinsured insurance policies may apply to provide some compensation that otherwise would not be covered. Also, passengers oftentimes have a better legal ability to secure compensation for their injuries as the questions of who is at fault does not necessarily make a difference regarding whether or not the passenger will be compensated. This is because the concept of comparative fault does not apply to passengers unless they specifically engage in conduct that may have contributed to the accident. For example, if Driver A with Passenger P gets into an accident with Driver B and both A and P are injured, the responsible party is generally responsible for those injuries. If A and P believe the responsible party to be B, they can both make a claim against B. However, if B claims it is primarily A’s fault and that turns out to be correct, A would generally be precluded from getting compensation. This would not be the case for P though as A, or more likely, his insurance, would then be responsible for P’s injuries. In this way, a Passenger is often in better position to make a claim because no matter who is at ultimately fault they are owed compensation given that they could not have been to blame, they were just “along for the ride.” The dynamics of a potential claim against a driver can place a passenger in the uncomfortable position of being forced to make a claim against a friend or someone close to you. However, in most cases, the passenger is merely proceeding against her friend’s insurance company, not the friend’s personal money or assets. In fact this is what we have insurance for and if it is there for strangers should it also not be there to protect friends as well? As you can see there can be many unforeseen implications of a passenger being injured in a car accident. However, very often, the passenger can be in a better position to recover than a driver given that a passenger can rarely be attributed fault. Regardless, even if you are just along for the ride, you have rights too and it is important to be aware of them.

Monday, January 24, 2011

How much time does a person have to seek medical treatment?

A common question by those injured in car accidents is: "how much time does a person have to seek medical treatment following a car accident?"

The short answer is that there is no certain time frame within which Iowa law requires an accident victim to seek medical treatment. Theoretically, a person could be hit by a car, not go to the doctor for a year, and the insurance company would still be responsible for your medical bills and other damages. However, there are time frames within which claims have to be filed.

Generally a person has two years from the date of an accident to file a lawsuit. This is called the statute of limitations. So while there is not technically a period within which a person must seek treatment, if an individual discovered an injury after two years, the claim would be denied outright by the insurance company and could not be filed. Luckily, it would be highly unlikely that symptoms from an injury would start to be noticed more than two years after an accident. Regardless, it is certainly advisable to seek medical attention as soon as is practical following an accident.

The most important reason to promptly seek medical attention following an injury is obviously for the person's health. Many injuries require immediate attention to minimize the pain and effects on the body. In certain circumstances, injuries can become life threatening if not treated immediately. Also, in the worst scenarios, a person, often one that is in shock, simply does not realize the severity of an injury. For these reasons, it is advisable to be checked out by a physician following an accident even if the person thinks they are not seriously hurt.

Another effect of delaying treatment is an insurance company’s treatment of medical expenses. If another driver causes an accident that results in injuries, that driver’s insurance company is generally responsible for the injured individual's medical expenses and other damages. However, the longer the time period between the accident and the treatment, the more likely the insurance company will resist or at least delay paying for treatment. Insurance companies often try many tactics to avoid paying an injured party. One is to claim that the injury was not related to the accident. This claim is difficult to make if the treatment was received immediately following the accident. However, if there is no treatment for say, six months, it is much more likely that an insurance company tries to relate the symptoms to another cause such as work, exercising, or another factor. This is yet another reason to seek medical treatment sooner rather than later.

In summary, if you are in an accident, it is always a good idea to get checked out by a doctor to be safe. Even if time has gone by since the accident, if a problem arises, definitely seek medical attention. While a delay can complicate the claims process, it definitely does not does not preclude recovery. Lastly, once you are aware of a problem, do not delay. This can hurt you and your recovery and your health is paramount regardless of whether or not a claim is ever necessary.

Helpful Information: Iowa Statute of Limitations Lost Wages Financials & Accidents Insurance Claims Claims Against Estates How long does a lawsuit take? Notify Insurance Company Accident Checklist

Friday, October 9, 2009

Apportionment of Fault When Injuries Are Enhanced Due To Defective Products

What happens when a victim of a car accident suffers a more serious injury because the airbag did not deploy or the vehicle was otherwise defective?

That is the question that the Iowa Supreme Court was asked to decide in the case of Jahn v. Hyundai Motor Company, decided this morning.

While the path by which the Iowa Supreme Court answered the question is full of complex legal analysis and considerations, the answer is quite simple.

If the enhanced injury can sufficiently be separated and attributed to each particular defendant (if it is "divisible") than the manufacturer of the vehicle is only liable for the amount of damages resulting from the enhanced injury proximately caused by the vehicle defect. If the enhanced injury is not divisible but the plaintiff can establish that an enhanced injury did indeed occur due to a design defect, it is for the jury to apportion fault between the applicable defendants. If one defendant is determined to be more than 50% at fault than that defendant will be considered jointly and severally liable for the full extent of the damages.

The true meaning of this case is best described by way of an example.

Assume that a plaintiff is injured through no fault of his own, in a motor vehicle accident wherein the air bag did not deploy. The plaintiff sues both the defendant driver and the manufacturer of the vehicle he was driving. The accident is such that had the airbags been functioning properly they would have deployed and the plaintiff would not have been as severely injured. It cannot be particularly established how much more damage was caused by failure of the airbag to deploy but it is proven that the plaintiff suffered a more severe injury as a result. The entire issue of liability and damages goes to the jury and it is the jury's duty to apportion the percentage of fault attributable to each particular defendant.

In these situations each defendant will be responsible and liable to pay for the percentage of damages attributed to that particular defendant. However, if one defendant is found to be more than 50% at fault, they can be held responsible for the full amount of damages in the event that the other defendant has already settled or is unable to pay their share. This is most important in serious injury accidents where one defendant has settled already and the case proceeds to trial against the one single defendant.

If, for example, the plaintiff settles with the at fault defendant who was driving the other vehicle, say for the insurance policy limits of $100,000, but the total amount of damages are determined to be $1 Million dollars, if the manufacturer of the defective vehicle is determined to be more than 50% at fault, they will be responsible for the remaining $900,000.00. If they were less than 50% at fault they would simply have to pay their percentage of the damages.

This ruling is sensible and follows the majority of most other States and adopts the Restatement 2nd of Torts position on this issue. It ensures that plaintiffs will be fully compensated and fault will be fairly attributed to each potential responsible party.

Helpful Relative Information: Opinion: http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20091009/07-1595.pdf Damages Who can sue for injuries? What can be recovered in a lawsuit? Insurance Company Claims

Thursday, October 16, 2008

IowaCarAccident.com Launches

IowaCarAccident.com is a new destination point on the world wide web offering vitally important information to Iowans that have been injured in a motor vehicle accident in the state of Iowa. The most informative injury and law library on the net includes:

Each of those topics are covered in great detail, and more topics will be added as we hear from our clients regarding the things that they want to learn about from our website. As always, the disclaimer reads - no website or BLOG can replace a consultation with an attorney who can then ask questions and provide you with sound advice that you can act upon.

If you have been in an accident in the state of Iowa or lost someone dear to you, please contact the personal injury attorneys at Gourley, Rehkemper & Lindholm for a professional assessment of your accident case. The initial consultation is free and without obligation.