Automobile Accidents

August 22, 2018

The Importance of Following the Procedural Requirements in Virginia Personal Injury Lawsuits Naming Government Defendants

For nearly the first two hundred years of the nation’s history, state and federal governments could not be held liable in a lawsuit brought by a citizen unless the government entity being named as a defendant specifically consented to being sued. In effect, this insulated the government from acts of its employees, leaving those who were injured as a result of a government worker’s negligence without any real means of recourse.

In the mid-20th century that began to change with the passage of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The FTCA provided a legal mechanism for those who had been injured due to the negligent or wrongful act of a government employee to seek compensation for their injuries. In the wake of the FTCA, states began to follow, passing their own versions of the law. The Virginia Tort Claims Act was passed in its current form in 1981, and is contained in Virginia Code, Title 8.01 sections 195.1 to 195.12.

In order to bring a lawsuit against a government entity under a tort claims act, the conditions of the act must be followed. In most cases, tort claims acts require plaintiffs to provide adequate notice to the government entity being sued and pursue their case in a timely manner. A plaintiff’s failure to file these rules precisely will almost certainly result in the dismissal of their lawsuit. A recent case illustrates how courts strictly interpret the procedural requirements of tort claims acts.

July 18, 2018

Court Discusses Defendant’s Liability in Multi-Vehicle Road Rage Accident

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Recently, a state appellate court handed down an opinion in a personal injury case discussing an issue that will be of interest to many Virginia car accident victims. The case required the court to discuss one defendant’s potential liability in a multi-vehicle accident that began with an instance of road rage. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant was not liable based on his reaction to another driver’s road-rage induced erratic driving.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was on a highway on-ramp about to get onto the highway when a driver quickly came up from behind her, passed her, and made an obscene gesture as he did so. The plaintiff changed lanes to get behind the car that had just passed her, and as she did that car slammed on its brakes. To avoid what would have been a certain collision, the plaintiff also slammed on her brakes. The driver behind her did the same.

The defendant was two cars behind the plaintiff. As the vehicle behind the plaintiff applied the brakes, the defendant braked as well. However, because his truck was fully loaded with cargo, he was unable to stop in time and ran into the back of car in front of him. That vehicle was pushed into the plaintiff’s car, injuring the plaintiff.

July 10, 2018

The Difficulties of Dealing with Insurance Companies Following a Virginia Car Accident

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Virginia law requires that all driver maintain a certain level of insurance coverage in order to legally drive on the state’s public roads. Indeed, car insurance is very important in the event of a Virginia car accident, especially those that result in serious bodily injury. These accidents often result in significant expenses, including medical bills and lost wages, not to mention the emotional toll that being involved in a serious accident can take.

In theory, car insurance should help with these issues by compensating motorists for their injuries. However, in practice, insurance companies often tend to view claims with an eye toward denial or low-ball settlements. This can result in a major headache for accident victims.

Given the realities of insurance coverage, it is important that accident victims do everything they can to comply with all the requirements contained in their policy. A recent case illustrates the difficulties that an accident victim may encounter when filing a claim with an insurance company.

May 29, 2018

Appellate Court Determines Concealing Past Injuries Was Grounds for Dismissal in Recent Personal Injury Case

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case that presents an issue that is relevant to Virginia car accident victims considering filing a personal injury lawsuit. The case required the court to determine whether the plaintiff’s case should have been dismissed based on the dishonest answers he provided during the discovery process.

The Facts of the Case

About seven years ago, the plaintiff was involved in a collision with the defendant. After the accident, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that the accident caused various injuries to his shoulder, back, and neck, and that the other driver should be liable for the accident and damages.

After the complaint was filed, the parties engaged in the discovery process. Discovery is part of the pre-trial procedure that allows each party to obtain evidence from the opposing party. Some common forms of discovery are requests for medical documentation, depositions, and interrogatories.

May 15, 2018

Fourth Circuit Rules in Favor of Insurance Company in Recent Virginia Car Accident Case

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a written opinion in a Virginia car accident case discussing whether a third party’s insurance policy covered the plaintiffs’ accident. Ultimately, the court concluded that the insurance company was acting within its right to deny coverage and dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit, based on the fact that the vehicle the plaintiffs were operating was not a “covered auto” under the third party’s insurance policy.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were independent contractors who agreed to deliver furniture for a local furniture company. However, since the plaintiffs did not have their own vehicle, the furniture company allowed the plaintiffs to deliver the furniture using a Penske truck that it had rented.

During the delivery, the plaintiffs pulled over, and one of the plaintiffs got out of the truck to check that the load of furniture was secure. At this time, another vehicle crashed into the truck, killing one plaintiff and seriously injuring the other.

May 4, 2018

Court Discusses the Doctrine of Imputed Negligence in Recent Car Accident Case

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing an issue that may have increasing importance in Virginia car accident cases. The case required the court to determine if a defendant can assert an imputed negligence defense against an owner-passenger who is injured due to the alleged negligence of someone whom she allowed to use her car.

Although this defense was historically permitted, the court held that recent changes in the law and how insurance policies are written no longer provide support for the defense. Thus, the court held that the defense was not valid.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a woman who was waiting in the front-passenger seat of a car she owned while her husband – the driver – ran into a restaurant to grab the couple’s order. The plaintiff’s husband had parked the vehicle in a lane that was perpendicular to the defendant’s truck. As the defendant backed out of the parking space, he crashed into the plaintiff’s vehicle.

February 26, 2018

Bad-Faith Insurance Claims Following Virginia Car Accidents

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Every motorist in Virginia is required to obtain a certain amount of car insurance. The idea behind this requirement is to ensure that anyone injured in a Virginia car accident will have a means of recovering compensation to help them cover the costs of the injuries they sustained in the accident.

Car insurance companies, however, operate on a for-profit basis and rely on taking in more money in monthly premiums than they pay out in approved claims. Thus, it is not uncommon for an insurance company to deny borderline cases in hopes that the accident victim will not file a personal injury lawsuit.

Virginia lawmakers have enacted a law to discourage insurance companies from acting in bad faith, contained in the Code of Virginia section 8.01-66.1. Under section 8.01-66.1, an insurance company that is found to have denied “a claim of $3,500 or less in excess of the deductible” in bad faith is liable to the insured for double the amount otherwise due. This law applies both to the insured that is named in the policy as well as to any third parties injured by the insured’s negligence.

December 27, 2017

Court Rejects Argument That Non-Signing Party Was Bound by Arbitration Agreement

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Arbitration agreements have become more and more common over the years, especially in certain contexts. For example, many companies are beginning to include arbitration clauses into their contracts that are provided in advance of the service the company provides. For example, it is very common to see issues involving arbitration clauses come up in Virginia nursing home cases as well as Virginia car accident cases.

Arbitration agreements, if valid, are generally enforceable. However, before a court will hold a party to their obligation to arbitrate a claim, the court must determine that the party was bound by the agreement. Obviously, signing an agreement is usually sufficient. However, in some cases, a non-signing party may be bound by an arbitration agreement as well. A recent case discusses a rental truck company’s attempts to compel a non-signing party to arbitrate a claim against the company.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a warehouse worker. One day, the plaintiff’s employer rented a truck and asked that the plaintiff deliver some merchandise to the state fair. The employee had not performed delivery services for the employer in the past, but he agreed to do so on this occasion.

December 5, 2017

Court Discusses Landowner Liability Relating to Injuries Occurring Off Premises

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion in a personal injury case that required the court to discuss an issue that often arises in Virginia premises liability cases. The case involved a plaintiff who was injured while crossing the street from an off-site parking lot to the church that owned the lot. The court had to determine if the church could be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries despite the fact that the accident occurred on a public street that was not controlled by the church.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a member of the defendant church. One evening, the plaintiff planned on attending an evening service at the church. He drove to the church and upon his arrival found that the church’s regular parking lot was full. A volunteer parking attendant directed the plaintiff to the church’s off-site parking lot across a five-lane road.

The plaintiff entered the off-site lot and parked his car. The parking lot was located mid-block, about 100 feet away from either intersection. The plaintiff exited the parking lot and, rather than walk over to the intersection to cross the street, crossed the street mid-block. As the plaintiff was crossing, he was struck by a passing motorist and seriously injured.

October 25, 2017

“Fireman’s Rule” Prevents Police Officer from Pursuing Personal Injury Case

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

When someone is injured in a Virginia car accident, they may pursue compensation for the injuries they sustained through a personal injury lawsuit. Depending on the type of accident and the relationship between the parties, there may be one or more defenses that can prevent the defendant from being found liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. One defense, called the “fireman’s rule,” is discussed in a recent appellate opinion involving a police officer who was injured in a car accident while responding to the scene of an accident.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was on duty as a police officer when he received a radio call dispatching him to the scene of an accident where a motorist slid off the roadway, rolled, and ended up in a nearby field. The evidence presented showed that the motorist lost control of his vehicle when it encountered a patch of grass clippings. The clippings had been left behind when an employee of a nearby used car dealership mowed the grass and failed to clean up the clippings. A subsequent rain storm wet the clippings, which made a slick spot on the road.

As the plaintiff was responding to the scene, he encountered the area of the roadway with the wet grass clippings. The plaintiff lost control of his patrol car and ended up veering off the side of the road and into a tree, sustaining serious injuries as a result.