Virginia Injury Lawyers Blog

Maryland falls in line with other states and requires motorists to carry minimum car insurance coverage. Driving without car insurance in Maryland can result in various consequences to the at-fault driver and any accident victims. While the law prohibits motorists from driving without insurance, that does not deter many people from engaging in this illegal conduct. Getting into an accident with an uninsured or underinsured motorist can create long-term medical and financial consequences for an accident victim.

The most recent accident data from Maryland shows that there were nearly 116,000 total car crashes in 2019. Approximately 33,000 of those accidents resulted in bodily injury, and over 82,000 accidents caused property damage. Maryland is an at-fault state, which means that drivers are liable for the damages they cause in an accident. However, while the state requires motorists to carry appropriate coverage, about 14% of the drivers in the accidents mentioned above were uninsured. These startling facts reveal that a significant number of accident victims likely did not recover adequate damages through an insurance claim.

While Maryland insurance laws require drivers to carry liability insurance, it is essential to note that this coverage only applies to at-fault drivers who cause injuries to others in an accident. The coverage does not protect a driver for the injuries or damages they suffered in an accident. Some motorists opt to add on additional coverage, such as collision, comprehensive, or medical coverage. However, these are optional and do not apply in every accident case and are not always beneficial to the party who needs coverage. For example, medical payments coverage covers the insured motorist and their passengers, regardless of fault, but does not apply to the other driver or their passengers.

As the world begins to reopen, more people have been out and about on the streets. With more vehicles on the road, however, it also means there are more pedestrians. Because there is more traffic on our roads and crosswalks, the risk of a potential Virginia pedestrian accident is higher than it has been in recent months—and drivers and pedestrians must both exercise the necessary precautions to remain safe.

In a recent news article, a vehicle hit a pedestrian at a Virginia intersection. According to authorities, the pedestrian was transported to a local hospital with moderate injuries. The accident remains under investigation, and law enforcement is still examining who is at fault since it was not immediately clear following the collision.

Virginia, similar to other states, has specific laws pertaining to pedestrian safety. In Virginia, pedestrians are expected to always use crosswalks and adhere to proper safety procedures when crossing, if available. Motorists in Virginia are further expected to ensure the safety of pedestrians by yielding to them on marked and unmarked crosswalks.

When it comes to determining whether an injured person can pursue a Virginia personal injury claim after an accident, Virginia relies on the doctrine of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is a harsh rule, that prohibits any injured person from bringing a claim against any other at-fault party, if the accident victim shares any blame for causing the accident. Thus, if a motorist is found to be only five percent at fault for a car accident, they could not file a Virginia car accident lawsuit against the other driver who was 95 percent responsible.

Clearly, the contributory negligence rule can lead to some very unfair results. And despite years of efforts from personal injury attorneys and some politicians, state lawmakers refuse to adjust the doctrine. Notably, Virginia is one of only a few states that still use contributory negligence. Most other states rely on a doctrine called comparative fault, in which an at-fault accident victim can still recover for their injuries, but will only recover a reduced amount. Specifically, the accident victim’s damages award is reduced by their own percentage of fault.

However, there is a very important exception to Virginia’s contributory negligence rule in accidents involving common carriers. A common carrier is an individual or business that transports people for a fee. For example, buses, taxis, and Uber and Lyft drivers are all common carriers.

The Supreme Court of Virginia recently issued an opinion addressing the nexus requirement for injuries a victim suffered on a school bus. The case arose after a special needs child suffered abuse while riding a school bus. The victim, who was ten years old at the time of the incident, has autism and cannot communicate verbally. The bus driver and aide were aware of the boy’s special needs and used a harness to secure him into his seat. While the boy was strapped to his seat, two other children repeatedly beat the boy, slapped his head, choked him, and sprayed chemicals in his face. The victim’s mother filed a claim under her uninsured motorist coverage, for damages the boy suffered due to the attack. The insurance company argued that the policy did not cover this situation because no nexus existed between the boy’s injuries and the school bus’s use as a means of transportation.

In Virginia, when courts analyze the application of an insurance policy coverage concerning the “ownership, maintenance, or use” of a vehicle, they place significant consideration on the intention of the parties to the agreement. Under the law, “ownership, maintenance, or use” should be evaluated under the terms’ ordinary meaning. The primary inquiry is whether there is a causal relationship between the incident and the use of the vehicle, as a vehicle. Although, the vehicle’s use does not need to be the actual or proximate cause of the injury, there should be a causal connection. In other words, for coverage to apply, the use of the vehicle cannot be incidental or tangential. Courts look to what the victim was doing when he suffered injuries, and what role the vehicle played in the incident.

In this case, the court found that his mother’s uninsured motorist provision did not cover the victim’s injuries. The insurance company’s provision provides that the company pay damages for bodily injuries that “arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use” of the uninsured vehicle. Here, the court reasoned that the assailants abused the boy on the bus; however, the bus was used as a means of transportation. Further, the physical abuse the boy suffered was not typically contemplated by the policyholders to a car insurance policy. Therefore, because the conduct was “foreign” to the school bus’s purposes, the court found no nexus existed.