Identifying The Right Defendants In Motor Vehicle Accident Cases
When we enter an intersection as a driver or even as a passenger we expect that we will be safe, as long as any controls such as traffic lights, one-way signs, and stop signs, are obeyed by us and by others approaching the intersection. People expect that an intersection onto a one-way street permitting travel from the left to the right only would either have a one-way or a no-left-hand-turn sign clearly delimiting which actions are permitted and which are not. When an intersection with limitations has no signs or controls it gives the driver a false sense of security.
Consider for example what caused a reported motor vehicle accident case in which two vehicles collided as one was traveling straight and the other was taking a left hand turn. By taking a left hand turn the vehicle turned the wrong way into a one way street. The problem: there were no controls indicating that left turns were not permitted at this intersection. So by taking the left hand turn this vehicle ended up going the wrong way right into oncoming traffic. The intersection was located close to a local parish which was having construction work done in the area. The construction company had taken down "not left turn" and "one way" signs that the city had placed to control the intersection.
The vehicle that took that left hand turn had a 35 year old woman riding in the passenger seat. As a result of the collision, the passenger suffered a cervical fracture leaving her a quadriplegic. Her initial medical expenses came to more than $435,000. She is expected to require almost $4 million for necessary future medical care. She was unable to return to work causing an estimated loss of earning capacity of approximately $500,000.
The law firm that handled this matter sued the parish, the construction contractor and the project engineers claiming that they were liable because they directly or indirectly caused the accident by removing the signs controlling the accident intersection. The law firm was able to achieve a settlement with the parish for $500,000 (the maximum amount recoverable from that defendant under the applicable state law), $1 million from the project engineers, and $2 million from the construction contractor (paid by the contractor's excess liability carrier). The law firm was thus able to report a total settlement amount of $4.5 million for the victim.
Identifying the right defendants is a critical step in positioning the case. Under the circumstances of this accident neither driver seems to have been responsible for the accident. It does not appear that they failed to follow any of the rules of the road and or violate any rules relating to the intersection. Nor was the accident caused by any apparent distraction on their part. Not surprisingly, though, at least some of the defendants reportedly originally denied liability and tried to blame the driver who took the left-hand turn.
Although it is not clear from the case report it is possible that the amount recovered may have been the full extent of available insurance. Certainly the parish settled for the maximum amount of their liability under the applicable state law. But the remaining settlement amount may have exhausted the coverage available for the other defendants. In this case it appears to have coincided with the victim's estimated future medical expenses and loss of income. The amount does not appear to cover medical expenses already incurred or any amount beyond the estimated future medical expenses and loss of income. Thus it may be all that could be reached through the insurance. Limited insurance availability is a real issue that must be carefully considered in consultation with the victim prior to settlement.
Consider for example what caused a reported motor vehicle accident case in which two vehicles collided as one was traveling straight and the other was taking a left hand turn. By taking a left hand turn the vehicle turned the wrong way into a one way street. The problem: there were no controls indicating that left turns were not permitted at this intersection. So by taking the left hand turn this vehicle ended up going the wrong way right into oncoming traffic. The intersection was located close to a local parish which was having construction work done in the area. The construction company had taken down "not left turn" and "one way" signs that the city had placed to control the intersection.
The vehicle that took that left hand turn had a 35 year old woman riding in the passenger seat. As a result of the collision, the passenger suffered a cervical fracture leaving her a quadriplegic. Her initial medical expenses came to more than $435,000. She is expected to require almost $4 million for necessary future medical care. She was unable to return to work causing an estimated loss of earning capacity of approximately $500,000.
The law firm that handled this matter sued the parish, the construction contractor and the project engineers claiming that they were liable because they directly or indirectly caused the accident by removing the signs controlling the accident intersection. The law firm was able to achieve a settlement with the parish for $500,000 (the maximum amount recoverable from that defendant under the applicable state law), $1 million from the project engineers, and $2 million from the construction contractor (paid by the contractor's excess liability carrier). The law firm was thus able to report a total settlement amount of $4.5 million for the victim.
Identifying the right defendants is a critical step in positioning the case. Under the circumstances of this accident neither driver seems to have been responsible for the accident. It does not appear that they failed to follow any of the rules of the road and or violate any rules relating to the intersection. Nor was the accident caused by any apparent distraction on their part. Not surprisingly, though, at least some of the defendants reportedly originally denied liability and tried to blame the driver who took the left-hand turn.
Although it is not clear from the case report it is possible that the amount recovered may have been the full extent of available insurance. Certainly the parish settled for the maximum amount of their liability under the applicable state law. But the remaining settlement amount may have exhausted the coverage available for the other defendants. In this case it appears to have coincided with the victim's estimated future medical expenses and loss of income. The amount does not appear to cover medical expenses already incurred or any amount beyond the estimated future medical expenses and loss of income. Thus it may be all that could be reached through the insurance. Limited insurance availability is a real issue that must be carefully considered in consultation with the victim prior to settlement.