Personal Injury Law

May 11, 2016

Workplace Accidents in Virginia

When an employee is injured while on the job, the most common remedy is workers’ compensation. In fact, in most cases of Virginia workplace injuries, workers’ compensation will be the sole means by which the injured employee can recover compensation. This can, and often does, act to limit a negligent employer’s liability in the case of the serious injury or death of one of its employees.

However, workers’ compensation may not be the only remedy that an accident victim can pursue. For example, if the employer has not properly set up and paid for workers’ compensation insurance, the company may not be covered under the program. Alternatively, if the negligent act resulting in the worker’s injuries was not the fault of the employer, the injured employee may be able to file a claim against the at-fault party, even if the injured party was at work at the time the injury occurred.

A Recent Example of a Nearly Non-Compliant Employer

In a recent case out of Utah brought by an employee against his employer, the lower court found that the employer was not covered by workers’ compensation. In the case, Nichols v. Jacobsen, the plaintiff was injured while disassembling some scaffolding at a work site. He filed a traditional negligence lawsuit against his employer. The employer asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, based on the fact that workers’ compensation was the employee’s sole remedy, and the employee had failed to pursue it.

April 26, 2016

State Supreme Court Finds Restrictions on Seat Belt Evidence Unconstitutional

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

The Arkansas Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that struck down a state statute restricting the admissibility of seat-belt non-use evidence in an auto accident lawsuit, finding the rule was unconstitutional under the Arkansas constitution. The Arkansas ruling is demonstrative of recent changes in several states, where courts are moving toward admitting such evidence in civil negligence lawsuits, although the laws continue to vary between states and based on the nature of the proposed evidence.

The plaintiff in the case of Mendoza vs. WIS International was a passenger in a vehicle that was being driven by the defendant when the defendant allegedly fell asleep at the wheel, causing an accident resulting in the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant and his employer, seeking damages for the injuries that were suffered in the crash. Once the case was filed, the defendant attempted to admit evidence that the plaintiff had not been wearing her seat belt when the crash occurred, thus contributing to the cause of her injuries and barring her recovery as a matter of law.

Comparative Negligence May Prevent a Plaintiff From Recovering Damages

Many jurisdictions, including Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, have laws that can prevent an accident victim from recovering damages against a negligent driver if the victim’s negligence contributed to the cause of their injuries. These “contributory negligence” statutes are used to prevent victims from recovering damages in situations in which both the victim and the defendant were negligent and contributed to the cause of the accident or the injuries to the plaintiff. In states that have modified comparative negligence statutes, a plaintiff may not be able to recover any damages if it is found that they are over 50% responsible for their injuries.

April 18, 2016

Court Allows Plaintiff to Rely Solely on Circumstantial Evidence in Lead-Based Paint Lawsuit

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, a Maryland Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a case brought by a woman who claimed that she was exposed to lead in dangerous amounts as a child when she lived in a property owned by the defendant. In the case, Rowhomes, Inc. v. Smith, the court ultimately determined that, although there was no physical or direct evidence that the defendant’s property contained lead, the evidence was sufficient to survive a summary judgment motion.

Summary Judgment Motions in Personal Injury Cases

Before a case is submitted to a jury, either party can ask the court to rule on the evidence presented, in hopes of obtaining a summary judgment. If a court determines that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, still requires a verdict in favor of the moving party, summary judgment is appropriate. If summary judgment is granted, the case is over, essentially before it even began. A summary judgment motion is a common way for a defendant to “test the waters” in personal injury cases, getting a feel for how the judge will view the evidence before proceeding to trial.

Rowhomes, Inc. v. Smith: The Facts of the Case

In Rowhomes, the issue for the court to decide was whether the plaintiff could survive a summary judgment motion without any direct evidence that the defendant’s property contained lead-based paint at the time when the plaintiff lived there. This was an issue because the home had been demolished since the plaintiff moved out, and it was never tested for lead-based paint prior to its demolition.

April 11, 2016

$4.5 Million Auto Accident Award Reversed Because Expert Witness Requirement Was Applied Incorrectly

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

The Nevada Supreme Court recently reversed a lower court’s ruling that awarded a personal injury plaintiff nearly $4.5 million for an auto accident claim. The initial ruling, which was entered by default against the defendant as a sanction for violating several pretrial orders against presenting a low-impact accident defense, will be set aside, and the plaintiff will be required to try the case again or agree to a settlement with the defendant.

The Plaintiff and Defendant Were Involved in an Accident that Appeared Relatively Minor

The case, Rish v. Simao, involved an auto accident that , according to the Nevada Supreme Court’s opinion, occurred in relatively slow-moving, stop-and-go traffic. Although the plaintiff in the case refused medical treatment at the scene of the crash and claimed that he was not injured at the time, serious injuries allegedly developed in the days or weeks following the accident. Some time after the crash occurred, the plaintiff retained counsel and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that the defendant’s negligence resulted in serious and ongoing injuries that required significant medical treatment.

The Plaintiff Files a Pretrial Motion to Exclude Specific Defense Testimony

Relying on an interpretation of a prior Nevada case, the plaintiff successfully argued before trial that the defendant should not be permitted to argue that the crash was a low-impact crash, which couldn’t have caused the alleged injuries, without retaining a biomechanical engineer as an expert witness first. Agreeing with the plaintiff and finding that the defendant had not retained such an expert, the judge granted the plaintiff’s motion. The judge also ruled that the defendant would not be permitted to discuss the nature of the accident or show pictures from the accident scene to the jury at trial. This ruling left little room for the defendant to give a defense at trial without such an expert, but the case moved on.

March 25, 2016

West Virginia Court Finds in Favor of Plaintiff in Road Rage Accident Case

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia handed down an opinion in a case that was based on a truck accident caused by another driver’s dangerous and aggressive driving. In the case Phillips v. Stear, the appellate court reversed a jury’s verdict that the plaintiff failed to prove his case. The court did so based on the defendant’s failure to admit that he was recently issued a citation for reckless driving after testifying that he was a safe and cautious driver by nature.

Phillips v. Stear: The Facts

The plaintiff was injured as a result of an accident involving the defendant. According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff was cut off by the defendant, who had pulled in front of the plaintiff and slammed on his brakes. The plaintiff lost control and crashed his truck. He sued the defendant, seeking compensation for his injuries.

At trial, the defendant took the witness stand to testify to his own good character and record of safe driving. On cross examination, the plaintiff asked the defendant about a recent reckless driving citation, but the defendant failed to admit to the citation and told the court he “did not recall the event.”

March 18, 2016

Plaintiff Victorious in Uninsured Motorist Claim Insurer, But Awarded Zero Dollars by Jury

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Juries are one of, if not the single most, unpredictable variable in any personal injury case. While a skilled attorney will do everything they can to ensure that their client is left with a fair jury, there is no way to read the minds of potential jurors and foresee how they will view certain issues that may come up at trial. It is therefore critically important that personal injury attorneys prepare a solid legal argument on behalf of their client, and also present it in a polished, professional manner.

Jury Awards Plaintiff Zero Dollars in Recent Personal Injury Case

Earlier this month, a Nebraska jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, but awarded the plaintiff a zero-dollar verdict. In the case, Lowman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, the plaintiff was injured when he was struck by an underinsured motorist. Because the motorist was underinsured, the plaintiff looked to his own insurance carrier to help make up the difference.

State Farm admitted that the underinsured motorist was responsible for the accident, but contested whether the driver’s negligence resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries. Because the plaintiff’s medical bills had already been paid, the only claim she was making was for the pain and suffering she sustained as a result of the accident.

March 11, 2016

Potential Employer Liability in Personal Injury Cases

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Many serious auto accidents involve a truck driver or another motorist who is working as a paid driver when the accident occurs. These commercial drivers are held to a high standard when driving, and they are assumed to have the training necessary to be able to safely operate their vehicles in all types of circumstances. Often, when a commercial driver is found to be at fault, it is because they lack the necessary training or support that should have been provided by their employer. In such cases, the driver’s employer may also be held liable by anyone injured as a result of the driver’s negligence.

Employer liability will not automatically be present in all cases involving a paid driver. There must be some act of negligence on the employer’s part. For instance, this could be a failure to train the negligent driver, or a failure to maintain the truck in a safe working condition. It could also result from an employer’s failure to provide the necessary support for the driver. In each of these cases, a court may determine that both the driver and their employer are at fault in the accident.

Court Upholds Employer Liability in Fatal Truck Accident

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a case against a trucking company owner. The court determined that the employer was also at fault in the fatal accident, and that the jury’s verdict in the amount of $3 million should be applied against the employer as well as the truck’s driver.

February 10, 2016

Courts Affirm Verdict Against Plaintiff in Traction-Control Lawsuit Against Automaker

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

The Supreme Court of California recently released a ruling that affirmed a verdict for the defendant in a lawsuit filed against a vehicle manufacturer that had not included electronic traction control on a standard model truck that was being driven by the plaintiff when he was involved in a crash. The plaintiff in the case of Kim v. Toyota Motors was in a crash, and he claimed that it would have been prevented by an electronic traction control (or ESC) system that was included on more expensive models of Toyota trucks but not the standard model involved in the accident. The plaintiff argued that the manufacturer’s failure to include the option on the truck he was driving constituted a design defect, and he requested damages as a result.

The Plaintiff’s Allegation that ESC Would Have Prevented His Injuries

In April 2010, the plaintiff was driving a 2005 Toyota Tundra on a two-way road in California when he claims that he was forced to drive into the gravel median to avoid crashing into an oncoming driver who had entered his lane. According to the Court’s recitation of the facts, the plaintiff lost traction and oversteered the vehicle after entering the gravel median, eventually losing control and rolling the vehicle into an embankment. The plaintiff suffered serious injuries in the crash.

While presenting the case, the plaintiff argued that Toyota was able to include traction control on the vehicle involved, and if there were a traction control system included on his vehicle, he would have avoided the accident and injuries that were suffered.

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.

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.