Car Accidents

Gores v. Miller – Careful Review of Car Accident Settlements

March 1, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Most car accident claims and lawsuits are settled before they ever get to the trial phase. Such settlements should be carefully crafted and reviewed by an experienced lawyer, or else plaintiffs may risk forfeiture of rights to further action against other defendants.

One common clause sometimes tucked into these agreements is the release of “all other claims that might develop.” This phrase can be especially troublesome because it could block legal action against other defendants – even if they have yet to be identified.

This was the situation in Gores v. Miller, a case recently before the South Dakota Supreme Court. Plaintiff was the conservator of a minor, just 15-years-old, who was injured in a crash as a passenger in a vehicle driven by a friend. In her settlement with the driver’s insurance company, she signed a general release for “all other claims that might develop.” Continue reading ›

Report: Southwest Florida at Risk from Bad Drivers

February 29, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

In a recent article published in Gulfshore Life, Reporter Jennifer Reed began with the observation that, as someone who drives 60 hours a day round-trip at least five days every week, drivers in Southwest Florida “stink.”

She qualifies this by saying she used to live in Massachusetts, where drivers have a notorious less-than-stellar reputation. But here in Florida, she said, “this is one big drag race, slowed only slightly by traffic signals, when they are actually obeyed.”

Not wanting to rely solely on her own opinions, Reed took her reporter’s notebook to the Lee County Justice Center, where criminal traffic arraignments start at 8:30 a.m. on the dot. Reed described it as “the unhappiest place on earth,” with 96 people on the docket – a “light day,” explains a deputy. Continue reading ›

Foster-Naser v. Aurora County – Road Sign Maintenance

February 26, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Roadway signs are the means by which drivers learn the rules, warnings, guidance and other information necessary to safely navigate their route. Erection and maintenance of roadway signs are the responsibility of whoever owns that street, whether it’s a local township, county, city or state.

There are sometimes contracts between these entities wherein the owner of the road will sign over certain rights in exchange for maintenance duties. According to the Federal Highway Administration, signs are only effective if you can clearly see them. That’s why it’s imperative to:

Clean them;
Implement vegetation control;
Protect them from theft;
Make sure they are properly supported and adjusted.

These are all reasonable steps that governments can take to ensure the signs are visible and drivers can safely navigate. But what if a government agency doesn’t take reasonable measures? If it results in a driver being involved in an injurious crash he or she likely would have otherwise avoided, it’s plausible there are grounds for personal injury litigation. Continue reading ›

Wuthrich v. King County – Duty of Government to Control Vegetation

February 19, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

You approach an intersection and stop at a stop sign. You try to look both ways, but there is a huge bush in your away. You inch forward and still don’t see anyone, so decide to proceed. BAM! A motorcycle seemingly blasts out of nowhere and strikes your rear driver’s side door.

This is what happened to one of the defendants in Withruch v. King County, a case recently before the Washington State Supreme Court.

Central to this case was whether the county could be held at least partially liable for injuries to the motorcyclist for failure to ensure site lines at the intersection were clear. We know that a municipality’s duty to maintain roads in a reasonably safe condition for ordinary travel isn’t limited to the asphalt. So if there is vegetation by the road that is blocking one driver’s view of oncoming traffic, that is a situation where reasonable action is needed to remedy the problem. Continue reading ›

When Negligent Repair of Auto Plays a Role in Crash

February 6, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Most of us depend on our vehicles to commute to work, school, our kids’ soccer practices and more. We can’t control the way everyone drives on the road, but we can ensure our own driving habits are optimal and that our vehicle is in good working condition.

Or can we?

We rely heavily on auto mechanics to make sure our vehicles run properly. In fact, when you entrust your vehicle to the possession of a mechanic for service or repair, it establishes something known as a “bailment relationship” or contractual relationship with the mechanic. This in turn gives rise to a number of professional and legal duties owed by the mechanic. These duties include:

Inspecting the vehicle to make sure it is not a danger to any driver;
Treating the care with reasonable care;
Avoid fraud, concealment or bait-and-switch tactics;
Refrain from making unauthorized or unnecessary repairs;
Not replacing or fully repairing broken or worn parts;
Installing the wrong replacement part;
Not noticing a major repair that needs done;
Performing the wrong repair or maintenance procedure;
Altering a vehicle in a manner that makes it illegal to drive;
Causing damage to other parts of the vehicle.

Woodward v. Taylor – Jurisdiction in Crash Case

February 2, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

With most auto accidents in Fort Myers, if it happens here, the proper court in which to file it will be within the 20th Judicial Circuit Court, Civil Division.

Still, one of the first things the court will want to establish is jurisdiction, which is the official power to make legal decisions and judgments. There are generally two types of jurisdiction: Personal (over the individual involved) and Subject Matter (over the circumstances of the case). There is also a third prong sometimes mentioned called Procedural (over the specific procedures involved).

The purpose of jurisdiction is to ensure the right laws are applied and the right court is handling the case. In most cases, if a car accident happens here, it’s the local civil court that will have jurisdiction to hear the injury claims. However, there could be circumstances under which that’s not true.

Take for example the car accident lawsuit of Woodward v. Taylor, recently before the Washington State Supreme Court. Continue reading ›

Florida’s No Fault Car Insurance System to End?

January 15, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

For 40 years, Florida drivers have been compelled to purchase Personal Injury Protection auto insurance to cover a minimum of $10,000 in personal injuries occurring as a result of an auto accident – no matter who is at fault. It’s referred to as the state’s “No Fault” car insurance system. Some legislators want it gone.

Efforts to scrap PIP benefits aren’t new, of course. But they are gaining traction across the state, especially with the introduction of SB 1112, filed by state Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg.

Filed quietly on Dec. 11, 2015 for consideration by the legislature in 2016, the measure would eliminate PIP and, as Brandes argues, “force policymakers to address this important issue impacting every driver in our state.” Continue reading ›

Investigation: Train That Derailed in Truck Crash Had Flawed Parts

January 12, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

An internal investigation into a deadly train crash in Southern California, just outside of L.A., has revealed a number of the derailed passenger cars were equipped with defective parts. Specifically, two couplers and a “cow-catcher” broke when the train struck a large pickup truck and trailer that had gotten stuck on the tracks. That’s according to a recent report by the L.A. Times.

On trains, couplers are supposed to keep the cars together. The cow-catcher is affixed to the front of the train to catch cattle or other objects that may be in the train’s path and keep them from going underneath the train, which could cause it to derail.

The revelation, which came following release of an internal report by the train’s operator, Metrolink, coincides with an ongoing federal investigation into the February crash. Further, it may provide an additional avenue from which injured victims may seek compensation. The train’s engineer, age 62, died a week after the crash as a result of his injuries. A total of 28 passengers were transported to local hospitals with injuries that ranged from minor to critical. Additionally, two other crew members were hurt. Continue reading ›

Serra v. Estate of Broughton – Exchange Student to Receive UM/ UIM Benefits of Host Family

January 6, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

A foreign exchange student from Spain, seriously injured in a crash while riding in a friend’s car, was insured by her host family’s uninsured/ underinsured motorist benefits, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled.

In a case that could serve as a guide in other jurisdictions, justices reviewing the facts of Serra v. Estate of Broughton sought to clarify whether the term “ward” in the auto insurance policy should be defined as a court-ordered arrangement or as its ordinary meaning. The court chose the latter, thereby extending benefits to the injured teen.

Although every auto insurance policy may vary, most contain provisions that extend coverage to resident relatives, frequent drivers and, in some cases, “wards.” In this case, the term “ward” wasn’t defined in the policy, but the trial court decided it should be defined as it had been statutorily. That meant applying a statutory definition in which the individual had a formally-appointed guardian or conservator over his or her person or property. On appeal, plaintiff argued that “ward” should be defined as an ordinary term because the policy lacked a definition and thus was ambiguous in this regard. When insurance policies are ambiguous, courts have generally held disputes should be determined in favor of the insured. Continue reading ›

South Florida Judge Rejects Waiver as Absolution Argument by Crash Defendants

December 28, 2015 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Citing the 2015 Florida Supreme Court decision in Sanislo v. Give Kids the World, Inc., defendants in a fatal van accident lawsuit argued before Collier Circuit Judge Hugh Hayes that a liability waiver meant they weren’t liable for a 17-year-old’s death in December 2011. Hayes, though, wasn’t buying it. In rejecting a defense motion for summary judgment, Hayes determined the four-sentence waiver on its own wasn’t enough to free the company from responsibility in this wrongful death case, particularly when the alleged negligence was so egregious.

Decedent was one of eight youths in a van driven by an employee of a work camp contractor with the Department of Juvenile Justice. Plaintiffs say the 17-year-old was working to turn his life around. He and the other teens were returning from an athletic trip in Daytona Beach – one they had earned with good behavior.

The driver, a 25-year-old employee with a poor driving record who in fact should not have been working for the contractor, was talking on his cell phone when he lost control of the vehicle at a 90-degree curve on a dirt road. After sliding into a traffic sign, the van overturned and flipped into a canal. Seven of the teens got out. One 16-year-old survivor said as he pushed his way out of the van, he felt a tug on his leg. He thrust his hand into the cold water, trying to reach the other passenger, to help pull him up. But their hands slipped.

“And I knew right then, it was (him),” the survivor told The Naples Daily News. Continue reading ›