Seattle Personal Injury Attorney

Archive for the ‘Auto Accidents’ Category

Our law firm did not participate in the lawsuit described in this article.

A woman was injured in an automobile accident on August 2, 2006. Her attorney filed a lawsuit on her behalf on July 30, 2009, a mere four days prior to the running of the statute of limitations.[1]  [2]

The injured plaintiff then had by statute 90 days in which to serve the complaint. As is often the case when waiting until the statute has almost run, there were problems serving within the 90-day window of time.

The attorney was not able to have the defendant driver served at the address supplied by the driver’s insurance company. The address was out of date.

The attorney improperly a subpoena on the insurance company seeking a current address.  The company provided the same out of date address and a post office box.

The attorney brought a motion to serve by mail at the post office box address. The trial court denied the motion for two reasons. One was that the court found the attorney produces no evidence of efforts made to locate the defendant, a showing required before service by mail can be authorized. Second, service by mail to a post office box is not authorized. A street address is required.

The trial court awarded attorney fees to defendants and their insurance company for having to respond to the motion.

The attorney for the injured woman appealed. The Washington Court of Appeals upheld the trial court.

This is another example of what can happen if an injury claimant waits until the last minute to file a lawsuit. A lot of things can happen in three years. People move, and/or change insurance companies, for instance.

The injured woman’s attorney argued that the insurance company was refusing to provide a current address in an effort to intentionally frustrate efforts at service. Perhaps. Perhaps not. It is just as possible that the information was all the company had.

Ninety days is not a lot of time to assure proper service, as this case and many others like it illustrate. Yet too often an attorney will wait until the statute is about to run to file the case.

When it comes to the statute of limitations, bad things come to those who wait.

Our firm was not involved in the litigation discussed in this article.

A man smoked methamphetamine at 5:00 a.m.  At about 2:00 p.m. he rented a truck from Budget. The following afternoon he ran over a woman in a crosswalk. At the scene an officer observed the driver exhibiting symptoms of methamphetamine use: fast heart rate, bloodshot eyes, droopy eyelids, little to no pupil reaction to light, and “two fresh, red injection marks” on his left arm. Results of a blood draw performed around 3:20 p.m. showed methamphetamine and amphetamine in his system. The woman sued Budget alleging negligent entrustment.[1]

The woman’s expert testified that given the amount of methamphetamine in the driver’s system at the time of his arrest, it was probable that he exhibited “characteristic effects” of methamphetamine intoxication when he rented the truck.

The trial court found that there is no evidence that the driver appeared impaired or otherwise incompetent at the time he rented the vehicle from Budget Truck Rental. The Court of Appeals agreed and upheld dismissal.

A person entrusting a vehicle to another in Washington may be liable under a theory of negligent entrustment only if that person knew, or should have known in the exercise of ordinary care, that the person to whom the vehicle was entrusted is reckless, heedless, or incompetent.

None of the three Budget agents who interacted with Turner noticed any unusual behavior or signs of intoxication.

The drug use on the day of the rental was nine hours prior to renting the truck. The driver testified that he is “high” for between two and eight hours after he uses methamphetamine, an assertion generally supported by the injured woman’s expert forensic toxicologist.

The driver testified that he had “been doing drugs for so long, I can function. I’m not completely out of it when I’m on drugs.”

The Court of Appeals noted that under dram shop case law the injured party must produce evidence that the impaired person was ‘apparently under the influence’ by direct, observational evidence at the time of the alleged overservice or by reasonable inference deduced from observation shortly thereafter. Under this rule, jurors are not permitted to make an inferential leap of the ‘driver’s BAC was X, so he must have appeared drunk’ type.”

By analogy the Court noted that the accident occurred about 24 hours after the truck was rented. Therefore the Court held that the expert testimony is insufficient to create a question of fact for trial.

This is the result of one Court of Appeals opinion. It is not a substitute for legal advice about your particular circumstances. Our firm was not involved in the case.

You may contact us for a free personal injury case evaluation.

According to a recent study the rate of auto accident fatalities is measurably higher than normal on tax day.[1]

The researches looked at 30 years of data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and determined that there is a six percent increase in roadway fatalities on tax day.

According to an article in the Daily News, the fact there are more motorists on the road and that drivers are taking routes that are not in their everyday routines might make Tax Day riskier.  These factors might also help explain in traffic deaths on other days, including Super Bowl Sunday, July 4 and Election Day.

We hope everyone had a safe tax day.

Our personal injury law firm was not involved in the case described.

A woman who was eight months pregnant lost consciousness while driving to work in her truck. She rear ended one car and then hit a parked car. She was traveling at over 30 miles per hour when her truck crashed into the parked car. The car was demolished and its occupant was injured.

The woman asserted the affirmative defense of sudden illness. A driver who is suddenly stricken by an unforeseen loss of consciousness, and is unable to control the vehicle, is not negligent. [1] However, the testimony of the pregnant woman’s expert witnesses was excluded by the trial court because her attorney’s failed to properly disclose the witnesses in discovery and as required by the case schedule and pre-trial court orders.

Local court rules require a party to identify the witness’s name, address, and phone number, along with a brief description of relevant knowledge for lay witnesses or a brief description of qualifications and a summary of opinion for experts.  There is no dispute that the defendant did not include phone numbers for her experts, and did not provide a brief description of their relevant knowledge. Nor did she provide a summary of expert qualifications and opinion.

Her attorneys argued that the experts were disclosed in medical records. The trial court ruled that “the court rule does not contemplate that a party needs to comb through medical records to determine what witness is going to be called, it would simply be too expensive and too timely to expect a party to do that.” The trial court also noted that the medical records do not indicate that her experts would have been able to testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

A trial court does not abuse its discretion not abuse its discretion by excluding a defense witness not disclosed under court rules and in the absence of good cause.[2] Therefore the exclusion of the experts from testifying was upheld by the Washington Court of Appeals.[3]

[1] Kaiser v. Suburban Transp. Sys., 65 Wn.2d 461, 466, 398 P.2d 14 (1965), amended by 401 P.2d 350 (1965).

[2] Lancaster v. Perry, 127 Wn. App. 826, 830, 113 P.3d 1 (2005).

[3] Arero v. Bazley, No. 64123-9-I (UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: October 25, 2010).

Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit described in this article.

A woman injured in a motor vehicle accident served the Washington Secretary of State because she was unable to locate the other driver to effect personal service.  The trial court entered a default judgment.  The court awarded $12,000 in general damages, $9,163.15 for past medical damages, $1,890.72 for property damage, $28,600 for future medical damages, $23,346.13 for past lost wages and future earning capacity, and $1,244.91 for statutory costs, for a total of $76,244.91.

The other driver’s insurance company, Farmers Insurance Company, was notified of the default judgment and promptly located their insured and filed a motion to vacate the default judgment.

The court vacated the default judgment finding that the defendant acted diligently in pursuing the motion to vacate, that the failure to appear was reasonable, and that she established substantial evidence of a prima facie defense to damages.

The plaintiff appealed. Read the rest of this entry »

Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit described in this article.

The Washington Court of Appeals ruled on a case in which it was alleged that an oil slick from a truck on the interstate highway caused a vehicle to loose control and leave the highway, rolling over several times.[1]

A truck driver for an oil company drove northbound for several miles on Interstate-5  before noticing that a suction hose had broken loose from its compartment and dragged on the ground behind the truck. At the time, a motorist driving on I-5 with her two children in the backseat hit a “slick” area and began “sliding all over the freeway”, lost control, and slid off a steep embankment and rolled three or four times causing injuries.

The motorist filed a complaint in Pierce County Superior Court asserting a claim of negligence against the petroleum company and the driver requesting damages for past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, physical and mental pain and suffering, past and future physical disabilities, loss of capacity to enjoy life, prejudgment interest, and “all items of special damages.”

Each party moved for summary judgment. Read the rest of this entry »

In a recent decision the Washington Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of a personal injury claim as time barred.[1] The plaintiff’s attorney named and served Elizabeth Loeliger rather than Elisabeth Loeliger. Read the rest of this entry »

This question comes up occasionally. The answer is generally, no. Read the rest of this entry »

Many assume that a driver involved in an automobile accident who is cited by police is automatically liable.  Under Washington tort law this is not true. Read the rest of this entry »

A parent is liable for injury caused by a family member driver (typically a minor) if

1. The vehicle is owned, provided, or maintained by a parent
2. for the general use, pleasure, and convenience of family members
3. a family member for whom the vehicle is maintained was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, and
4. the vehicle was operated with express or implied consent of the parent.[1]

Even if the vehicle is being used in an unauthorized manner at the time of the accident the parent may still be liable. [2]

The parent may also be liable for a third person operating such a vehicle if a family member entrusted the vehicle to the third person, such as a non-family member driving the vehicle to run an errand for the family. [3]

[1] Gotcher v. Rowell, 2 Wn.App. 615 (1970); WPI 72.05.

[2] Cameron v. Downs, 32 Wn.App. 875 (1982).

[3] Cameron v. Downs; Davis v. Browne, 20 Wn.2d 219 (1944).