Automobile Accidents

February 17, 2016

State Supreme Court Reverses Dismissal of Widow’s Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Department of Transportation

In a decision recently released by the Supreme Court of Iowa, the dismissal of a woman’s wrongful death lawsuit against the state was reversed. The plaintiff in the case of McFadden v. Iowa Department of Transportation alleged that her husband was killed in a crash while driving his motorcycle on a state road that had not been maintained to an adequate standard. She also claimed that the Department of Transportation’s negligence in failing to maintain the road should result in the state government’s liability for his wrongful death.

The Plaintiff’s Husband Dies in a Tragic Accident

The accident that resulted in the filing of the lawsuit occurred on April 25, 2012 in Warren County, Iowa. According to the initial complaint, the man was driving his motorcycle on the highway when he encountered unsafe road conditions while negotiating a curve. The plaintiff claims that her husband was then forced to drive onto the shoulder, where a steep drop off between the roadway and the shoulder caused him to lose control of his motorcycle, after which he was killed. After her husband’s death, the woman sued the Department of Transportation for negligence and wrongful death for failing to maintain the road to a safe standard.

The Trial Court Rejected Her Claim as Improperly Filed, But the State Supreme Court Disagreed

Since the plaintiff was making a claim against a state agency, she was required to follow strict procedures that the legislature established for victims of governmental negligence to collect damages from the state. Generally, the same rules of liability do not apply to governments and their subdivisions as to members of the public, since governments have traditionally been immune from negligence lawsuits under a legal doctrine known as “sovereign immunity.” Iowa passed laws limiting the state’s sovereign immunity but enacted strict procedures that must be followed for a plaintiff to have an injury or wrongful death case heard by the court.

January 27, 2016

Court Denies Request for Punitive Damages and Imposes Sanctions Against Plaintiffs

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, an appellate court affirmed a lower court’s denial of a request for punitive damages and actually sanctioned the plaintiffs for pushing for the damages despite no good-faith reason for doing so. The case illustrates that, while punitive damages may be appropriate in some cases, it is not wise to seek them in every case without a basis for doing so.

The Facts of Smizer v. Drey

In the case, Smizer v. Drey, the plaintiff was injured after being involved in an accident with the defendant. According to the court’s written opinion, the defendant failed to yield at an intersection and collided with the plaintiffs’ vehicle. After the collision, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Regarding the punitive damages, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant “engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct in operating her motor vehicle in conscious disregard of the traffic laws of this State.”

From the outset, the defendant admitted that she was at fault for failing to yield at the intersection, but she contested the plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages. The defendant claimed that there was no basis for the punitive damages claim, and the plaintiffs were only seeking punitive damages because they hoped to use the threat of punitive damages as a bargaining chip to get the defendant to settle the lawsuit.

January 13, 2016

The Dangers of Fatigued Driving in Virginia

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Whenever anyone gets behind the wheel of a car, the potential for harm is always present. Whether it be another driver’s mistake, a pedestrian who crosses at an unmarked intersection, or a truck driver who was not paying attention to the road ahead of them, the bottom line is that driving can be a very dangerous activity, one that requires the complete attention of the person in control of the vehicle.

However, despite the dangers inherent in driving a car, truck, or motorcycle, motorists continue to push their own physical limits by trying to stay awake in order to “make good time” or avoid the cost of a hotel. In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that there are about 100,000 accidents caused each year by drowsy driving. This results in approximately 1,550 fatalities annually. One startling statistic revealed that approximately 37% of drivers admitted to falling asleep behind the wheel at one time or another.

Given the dangers involved with drowsy driving, those who get behind the wheel when they are too tired to safely operate a vehicle may be considered legally negligent. When such negligence causes an injury to another motorist or pedestrian, the drowsy driver may be held liable through a civil negligence lawsuit brought by the injured party or their loved ones.

December 28, 2015

Court Finds Jury’s Pain-and-Suffering Damages Award Inconsistent with Its Medical Expenses Award

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, a state supreme court decided a case that required the court to examine the two types of awards that are available in personal injury cases and determine if the two were consistent. In the case, Bryant v. Rimrodt, the court ultimately determined that the jury’s determination that the plaintiff was entitled to $1 for his pain and suffering was inconsistent with the finding that he sustained almost $17,000 in medical expenses.

The Facts of the Case

In the case, Bryant v. Rimrodt, the plaintiff was a car salesman who was injured while riding as a passenger in a test-drive with a customer. According to the court’s written opinion, the customer made an illegal left-hand turn and collided with another vehicle. As a result of the accident, the salesperson briefly lost consciousness and was taken to the hospital. He was treated by numerous physicians, with varying diagnoses, none of which was particularly serious. In fact, several treating physicians told the plaintiff that there was no physiological reason for his pain. However, he continued to suffer from back, neck, and shoulder pain. In the following year, the salesman filed a lawsuit against the customer.

After a jury trial, the customer driving the car was found to be at fault, and the plaintiff was awarded roughly $17,000 for medical expenses he had already incurred. However, when it came to damages for his pain and suffering, the jury awarded the plaintiff nothing. Both parties agreed that there had to have been some amount of pain and suffering, given the medical treatment the plaintiff sought. Therefore, the judge sent the jury back into deliberations with instructions to reconcile the verdict. The jury then returned a nominal damages award of $1. Not satisfied with the verdict, the plaintiff asked for a new trial. The judge denied the plaintiff’s request, and then he appealed.

December 21, 2015

Hospital Doctors May Be Liable to Third Parties for Failing to Warn Their Patients that the Drugs They Were Given May Affect Their Driving

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in New York issued an opinion in a case that discussed the liability that may arise when a doctor at a hospital administers medication to a patient and then releases the patient without any warning that the medication provided may affect their driving. In the case, Davis v. South Nassau Communities Hospital, the plaintiff was not the patient of the doctor but was a third party who was injured in a car accident involving the patient.

The Facts of the Case

A woman (“the Patient”) went to the hospital for treatment. As part of her treatment, she was given opioid pain medication and a benzodiazepine. Less than two hours later, the doctors discharged the Patient. On her way home, the Patient crossed a double-yellow line and collided with a bus being driven by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed suit against the treating physicians as well as the hospital that employs them, arguing that the defendants were negligent in failing to warn the Patient that the medication she recently ingested could affect her driving. In an pre-trial proceeding, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the case against them, arguing that the only duty they had was to the Patient, and that duty did not extend to third parties such as the plaintiff.

May 11, 2014

Drunk driving crash victim to receive $2M from family of “Affluenza” teen Ethan Couch

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Young drivers should expect to held accountable for their driving behavior regardless of their socio-economic status and their parents’ child raising style. This was a hard lesson Ethan Couch learned when his insurance carrier agreed to pay a substantial settlement in a car crash caused by his drinking and driving.

The North Texas teenager who killed four people and injured 12 in a June 2013 drunken-driving wreck has reached a settlement of more than $2 million with the family of a teenage boy left disabled.

Tarrant County, Texas court documents show that the liability insurer of Ethan Couch’s parents agreed to pay $1.64 million in cash to a trust established for Sergio E. Molina.The Couches’ insurer also will buy two annuities to make payments to the trust.

May 4, 2014

Charles B. Roberts Settles Death Case for $1,125,000.00

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

The verdicts and settlements listed below are a representative sample of the hundreds of cases our law firm has handled. Please be advised that the case results reported below depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case and do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case undertaken by the lawyer.

In 2013, The Schupak Law Firm. was retained to handle a matter involving the wrongful death of a pedestrian who was struck by a vehicle driven by an 18 year old who, at the time of the crash, was involved in a road rage altercation with another driver. The case was challenging since our client was jaywalking at night and was allegedly not watching where he was crossing because he was wearing headphones and listening to music at the time he was fatally struck. Charles B. Roberts successfully obtained a settlement for his client’s family in the sum of $1,125,000,000 after the parties agreed to mediation and all the evidence was presented to the insurance companies.

January 25, 2013

The Schupak Law Firm, Personal Injury Attorneys

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Please visit the website of our law firm at charlesrobertslaw.com or robertsinjurylaw.com if you are in need of highly skilled and successful personal injury lawyers. The following is an excerpt from those websites which sets out the general qualifications of our personal injury law firm.

The attorneys associated with The Schupak Law Firm and I are proud to adhere to the “The Diamond Standard” in the practice of law. This standard is exemplified by the highest level of preparation and hard work in every case combined with the intelligent pursuit of victory.We accept cases in Virginia, Maryland and in Washington D.C.

Our uncompromising adherence to excellence has resulted in numerous $1,000,000.00 plus victories in the area of personal injury law, and thousands of completely satisfied clients in the fields of divorce, criminal, traffic, bankruptcy, wrongful death, medical malpractice, nursing home neglect and elder law.