Car Accident

State Appellate Court Reverses Jury Verdict, Granting Immunity to City in Wrongful Death Case

Published on: January 12, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A panel of the California Court of Appeals recently published an opinion reversing a jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiffs after a trial was held over a fatal auto-pedestrian accident that occurred in 2010. The jury had decided that the city was 100% responsible for the death of the plaintiffs’ loved one, a pedestrian who was hit in an intersection by a driver making a left turn. The city’s claim to be protected from liability by “design immunity” was rejected by the trial court because the city approved changes to the intersection where the accident occurred in 2004 but never followed through with the construction, leaving a gap in their immunity. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the state court of appeals interpreted the law differently from the trial court, ultimately granting the city immunity from the plaintiff’s claim.The Jury Finds the City Liable After a 15-Day Trial

The plaintiffs in the case of Gonzalez v. City of Atwater are the surviving family members of a 72-year-old woman who was struck and killed in an intersection administered by the defendant while on foot in December 2010. The driver who hit the woman was making a left-hand turn into a shopping center and stated that she didn’t see the woman walking with the right of way across the crosswalk before she was hit. The plaintiffs sued both the driver and the city, alleging that the city had notice of the danger presented to pedestrians by that specific intersection and had approved modifications to the traffic lights to address the problem, but the changes were never put into effect.

Plaintiff in Defective Tire Wrongful Death Case Will Not Have Evidence Excluded for Spoliation

Published on: January 4, 2017 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The plaintiff in a wrongful death case that had been filed after the death of her husband received some good news last month when an appellate court affirmed a district court’s ruling not to bar the plaintiff from introducing certain evidence at trial. Because of the recent appellate ruling, the case will be remanded to the district court to proceed toward a settlement or trial.

The Plaintiff’s Husband Dies from a Tragic Accident

The plaintiff in the case of Cooper v. Koch is a woman whose husband died in the intensive care unit of a hospital from injuries he suffered about three months before in a single-vehicle accident that was allegedly caused by a catastrophic tread separation involving tires made by the defendant. The vehicle driven by the plaintiff’s husband was totaled. It was towed from the scene of the accident by a towing company that was storing the vehicle for a daily fee. The plaintiff agreed to give the vehicle to a scrapyard after removing the blown tire to keep for evidence in the event of legal action against the defendant. The three other tires and remaining parts of the vehicle were broken up and scrapped or destroyed. At the time, the plaintiff had not filed a case against the defendant.

Court Upholds Judgment for Defendants in Chain-Reaction Truck Accident Case

Published on: December 1, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Mississippi recently published an opinion affirming a state district court’s ruling that granted summary judgment to two defendants in a lawsuit based on a semi-truck accident. The high court rejected the plaintiff’s claim for damages against the driver of the truck, who caused a separate accident that occurred before the accident that injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed suit against this particular defendant in an attempt to hold him responsible for an accident that was caused in part by the slowdown and traffic jam that resulted from the initial accident.By affirming the district court’s granting of summary judgment to the defendant in this case, the court showed how a defendant may not be legally responsible for the result of his or her negligence if there is an intervening or superseding cause between the initial act of negligence and the alleged injury.

Two Accidents on a Busy Highway

The accident that injured the plaintiff in the case of Ready v. RWI Transportation, Inc. was the second of two closely linked crashes that were the subject of this litigation. According to the facts as discussed by the appellate court, the defendant was driving a semi-truck and negligently caused an accident with a pickup truck that was driven by a man who was not a party to this lawsuit.

After Two Appeals and a Six-Year Wait, Accident Victim Will Receive the Full Amount of Jury Award

Published on: November 21, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Colorado recently published an opinion reversing a lower court’s decision permitting the trial judge hearing an auto accident case to reduce the plaintiff’s award after the jury returned a verdict in his favor. The plaintiff was initially forced to sue his own insurance company after he was injured in an accident with an uninsured driver, and his claim for damages under his uninsured motorist coverage was denied.After a jury found that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief he requested, his insurance company successfully asked the trial court to reduce the judgment by an amount he had received from the company through a different type of coverage. In reversing the lower court’s decisions, the court held that coverage for uninsured or underinsured motorists in that state cannot be reduced by a setoff from any other coverage. As a result of the recent ruling, the plaintiff will receive the entire amount that was awarded to him by the jury.

The Plaintiff Is Injured in an Accident with an Uninsured Motorist

The plaintiff in the case of Calderon v. American Family Insurance was involved in an auto accident with a negligent and uninsured motorist in August 2010. The plaintiff carried an auto insurance policy though the defendant insurance company, which included $5,000 in no-fault coverage for medical expenses as well as $300,000 in coverage for damages incurred in the event of an accident with an uninsured or underinsured driver. After receiving medical treatment, the plaintiff had incurred over $40,000 in medical expenses. He then made a claim for those damages and others to his insurance company. The insurance company had previously paid out $5,000 directly to the medical providers pursuant to the no fault medical coverage, but it disputed the remaining amount of damages that the plaintiff requested.

Smart Phone Use by Teens While Driving Indicates an Increased Risk of Other Dangerous Behaviors

Published on: October 27, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A recently published news report discussing an insurance industry study of teen driving behaviors indicated the unsurprising finding that teen drivers who use their smart phones while driving are more likely to engage in other dangerous driving behaviors as well as be involved in an accident. According to a survey conducted nationwide by State Farm on teens aged 16 to 19 years, over 80% of those surveyed admitted to using their smart phone to make calls, send or read text messages, or even watch videos while behind the wheel. Although a large majority of teen drivers admitted to at least some smart phone use while driving, those who admitted to using their phones the most often also reported being involved in the most accidents.

The Link Between Smart Phone Use and Other Dangerous Driving Behaviors

One interesting finding mentioned in the article is the correlation between teen drivers who use their smart phones while driving and other risky or dangerous driving behaviors that may lead to accidents. Many of the teens who have been involved in an accident and admit to using their phones while driving got into an accident due to causes unrelated to cell phone use.

Notably, the article discusses the results of a self-reported survey, and the respondents may not have been completely forthcoming about their smart phone use while driving or the details of any previous accidents, but a clear and significant pattern remains. Teen drivers who tend to use their smart phones while behind the wheel are also more likely to speed, drive while impaired, and drive without wearing a seatbelt.

Appellate Court Rejects $885,000 Verdict Against Educational Institution in Auto-Pedestrian Accident Case

Published on: October 19, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The California Court of Appeals recently published an opinion reversing a jury’s verdict in favor of a 14-year-old boy who was injured in a 2012 auto-pedestrian accident involving an instructor employed by the defendant who was driving home from work when the accident occurred. The lawsuit, which was originally filed against both the driver and his employer, alleged that the employer was liable for the injuries caused by the driver because he was acting within the course of his employment when the crash occurred. Although the verdict against the employer was reversed, the pretrial settlement that the plaintiff reached with the driver of the vehicle will remain in effect to help compensate him for the injuries that were suffered in the crash.

Teen Plaintiff Is Struck by Culinary Instructor as He Returns From Work

The plaintiff in the case of Jorge v. Culinary Institute of America was a boy who was 14 years old when he was struck by a vehicle while walking with his girlfriend and suffered serious injuries. The driver of the car that hit the boy was employed as an instructor at a culinary institute that was operated by the defendant, and he was returning to his home after his workday when he injured the plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed an auto-pedestrian accident claim against both the driver and his employer, arguing that the driver was returning from work “in service of the employer” when the accident occurred. After the jury found that the driver was negligent in causing the accident, his auto insurance company negotiated a $30,000 settlement with the plaintiff before the jury determined the total amount of damages to which the teen was entitled. After the partial settlement was reached, the Culinary Institute was the only remaining defendant in the case and was unable to have the claim against them dismissed.

State Appellate Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Claim of Bad Faith Against Insurance Company in Auto Accident Case

Published on: October 11, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

One state’s supreme court recently published a decision affirming a district court’s ruling in favor of the defendant in a personal injury claim. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, an insurance company that represented the other driver involved in an accident, had unreasonably rejected her initial claim for damages related to injuries that she suffered in an auto accident. The state supreme court ultimately decided that the defendant had reasonable grounds to challenge the plaintiff’s claim because there were conflicting accounts of the accident itself, as well as the source of the injuries the plaintiff claimed to have suffered in the crash. Although the high court affirmed the ruling favoring the defendant concerning the plaintiff’s bad-faith claim, the plaintiff may still be entitled to compensation from the defendant for her injuries.

The Plaintiff’s Vehicle Is Struck by Another in the Parking Lot of an Apartment Complex

The plaintiff in the case of Holloway v. Direct General Insurance Company is a woman who was involved in an accident with a driver who was insured by the defendant. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff and the other driver gave conflicting accounts of the accident, and police were never called to report on the crash. Although the accident occurred at a low speed, and the damage to the vehicles was relatively minor, the plaintiff allegedly suffered serious injuries from the crash. The plaintiff made a claim with the defendant for $125,000 in damages suffered in the accident.

The Defendant Disputed the Insured Was Responsible for the Collision and Denied the Plaintiff’s Claim

Based on the conflicting accounts of the accident, the defendant denied that the driver it insured was legally responsible for the injuries allegedly suffered by the plaintiff in the crash and eventually denied the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant to obtain the compensation requested in her initial claim, and she also requested additional damages from the defendant, alleging that the defendant unreasonably denied her claim and acted with bad faith.

Court Upholds Verdict in Icy Road Car Accident Case

Published on: September 23, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The Supreme Court of Alaska recently decided to uphold a jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant in a personal injury claim. The plaintiff had sought damages from the defendant as compensation for injuries that she allegedly suffered in an auto accident caused by the defendant’s failure to stop on an icy road. As a result of the court’s ruling, the plaintiff is unlikely to receive compensation for her personal injury claim.

The Plaintiff’s Vehicle Was Struck From Behind by the Defendant

The plaintiff in the case of Marshall v. Peter is a woman who was allegedly injured when her vehicle was hit by the defendant’s while she waited to perform a left turn. The defendant responded to the complaint and denied that he acted negligently, testifying that he had left adequate space between his vehicle and the plaintiff’s vehicle and that the accident was caused by the icy road conditions. The jury considered the plaintiff’s claims and testimony at trial and decided the defendant was not negligent or responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries.

The Plaintiff Appeals to the Alaska Supreme Court

The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s rulings to the state supreme court, arguing that the claim should not have been rejected by the jury as a matter of law. The appellate court favored the defendant’s arguments, noting that the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant was exercising due care when operating his vehicle and was not negligent in failing to prevent the accident. The Court additionally entered a judgment against the plaintiff for part of the defendant’s attorneys fees after the plaintiff failed to reasonably consider a settlement offer made by the defendant during pre-trial negotiations.

Court Ruling Favors Accident Plaintiff Who Initially Sued the Wrong Defendant

Published on: September 13, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

One state’s supreme court recently published a decision reversing two lower court rulings that had thrown out a car accident case initially filed against the wrong defendant and later amended by the plaintiff to include the actual driver of the other vehicle, but only after the statute of limitations for a personal injury claim had expired. The most recent appellate opinion interpreted the state procedural rules to allow the plaintiff’s claim to proceed against the actual driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident because the plaintiff was reasonably mistaken as to who was in control of the vehicle at the time of the crash. Since the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case has been reversed, the plaintiff’s negligence claim against the driver of the other vehicle will proceed toward a trial or the settlement of the plaintiff’s claim.

The Plaintiff Suffered Injuries After Being Rear-Ended by a Vehicle with Several Occupants

The plaintiff in the case of Sellers v. Kurdilla is a woman who was injured after her vehicle was rear-ended by a pickup truck in January 2010. According to the facts discussed in the recent appellate opinion, the truck contained at least three occupants when the accident occurred. Based on the identification and insurance information that the vehicle’s driver furnished to the plaintiff after the accident, an attorney filed a personal injury claim on her behalf against the vehicle’s owner shortly before the statute of limitations for such a claim expired.

In response to the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the truck’s owner claimed that he was not driving when the accident occurred, although he was riding in the truck. The plaintiff then amended her claim to add the man who was driving the truck as a defendant to her lawsuit, although the amended claim was not filed until after the statute of limitations had expired.

Federal Court Awards Additional Damages to Plaintiff Based On Insurance Company’s Bad Faith

Published on: September 9, 2016 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently published an opinion affirming a federal district court’s ruling awarding a plaintiff triple damages in a breach of contract case filed against his insurance company. The plaintiff sued his insurer after the defendant refused to honor an underinsured motorist claim made by the plaintiff after another driver caused a car accident, resulting in injuries to the plaintiff. In addition to the damages initially requested by the plaintiff, the trial jury also awarded him $1.5 million in special damages because of the defendant’s unreasonable delay and denial of his initial claim. Based on the Tenth Circuit ruling affirming the jury’s award, the defendant will be required to pay the full amount to the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff Suffered a Back Injury in an Accident with an Underinsured Driver

The plaintiff in the case of Etherton v. Owners Insurance Company is a Colorado man who was injured in an auto accident in 2009. The at-fault driver was insured with $250,000 worth of liability coverage, although the plaintiff claimed to have suffered at least $1 million in damages from the crash. The plaintiff filed a claim with the defendant, his own insurance company, seeking compensation through his underinsured motorist policy for the $750,000 deficiency between the accident expenses and the other driver’s policy limit. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim, noting “serious questions of causation” in the plaintiff’s claim and offering only a $150,000 settlement to handle the issue. After subsequent negotiations failed, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant to enforce the insurance policy.