Possibly.

Although a driver of an emergency vehicle has a privilege to violate certain traffic laws in emergency situations, those privileges are not absolute. The emergency vehicle driver must operate the emergency vehicle with due regard for the safety of all persons.

Whether the driver of a police, fire, ambulance, or other emergency vehicle violated legal duties to act with due regard for the safety of others is often far from clear.

Consult with an attorney if you have been injured in a collision with an emergency vehicle.

The primary duty to avoid a collision is on the disfavored driver.

But the right of way is not absolute. The favored driver must also exercise reasonable care for their own safety. Fault may be divided between drivers if the facts support it, even though one driver clearly had the right of way. The driver with the right of way may sometimes be held to be partly at fault.

It is important to contact an attorney as early as possible. Waiting may make it more difficult to prove the insurance company is wrong if they try to blame you.

Possibly.

Minors are held to an adult standard when operating powerful machines, such as driving a car.

Minors are otherwise usually held to the standard of a minor of similar age, experience, and maturity, such as when they are riding a bicycle or when they are a pedestrian.

Minors under age six cannot be negligent as a matter of law.

Parents are not automatically responsible for the actions of their children, but may be liable for accidents caused by minors under legal doctrines such as negligent entrustment and the family car doctrine.

For insurance coverage purposes, “using” a vehicle is not limited to driving. Sometimes when using a vehicle we get out temporarily: to change a tire; get something out of the trunk; assist another motorist; etc.

There may still be insurance coverage under Washington law if you are in close proximity to the vehicle and engaged in an activity essential to the use of the vehicle.

Consult with an attorney if you have been denied coverage, even if you were not in the vehicle.

No, is the short answer. By statute failure to wear a seat belt “does not constitute negligence, nor may failure to wear a safety belt assembly be admissible as evidence of negligence in any civil action.” RCW 46.64.688(6). Patterson v. Horton, 84 Wn. App. 531, 929 P.2d 1125 (1997)(Affirming dismissal of claims of minors injured in an auto collision against the driver for failing to adequately retrain the children in the car.).

If the driver who hit you does not own the vehicle it is possible that both the driver and the vehicle owner are liable for your injuries.

There may be vicarious liability for an auto accident in several scenarios, including:

• Employer/Employee. An employer is responsible for injury caused by the negligent driving of an employee so long as the employee was acting within the scope of employment. If the employee without permission went on a frolic and detour from job duties the employer might not be liable, though the driver still would be.
• Parent/Child. Under the family car doctrine a parent is responsible for the negligent driving of a child operating with the parent’s express or implied permission a car customarily used by family members for family purposes.
• Owner/operator. There is a rebuttable presumption that a driver of an automobile was acting as agent of the owner, making the owner liable.
• Negligent entrustment. A vehicle owner can be liable if the owner entrusts a vehicle to another driver the owner knew or should have know was reckless or incompetent to drive. For example, the owner can be liable if the owner knew or should have known that the driver was unlicensed.

These are a few of the scenarios where a vehicle owner may be responsible for injuries caused by someone else operating their vehicle. For advice about your situation contact us for a free personal injury case evaluation.  

Not necessarily.

The right of way is important, and if there is no genuine dispute about who had the right of way that is a big deal. But, it may not be the whole deal.

Washington courts hold that the right of way is “relative rather than absolute.” Both the favored driver (the one with the right of way) and the disfavored driver (the one lacking the right of way) must exercise ordinary care.

The favored driver may by law assume other drivers will yield unless and until a point a driver exercising reasonable care would realize that the disfavored driver is not going to yield.

Fault is comparative, meaning both drivers could be found partly at fault under the facts of a particular case.

Sometimes fault is cut-and-dried. Sometimes it’s not, even if you have the right of way.

Who was at fault will depend on the details of the case and the applicable rules of the road. See our failure to yield pocket brief page for a summary of the law. Contact our office for a no-cost, no obligation personal injury case evaluation.

The fault for a rear-end accident is generally on the following driver, absent unusual circumstances. See our pocket brief for a concise summary on the law of rear-end accidents.

It is always best to consult with an attorney for a no-cost, no-obilgation personal injury case evaluation.

This question comes up occasionally. The answer is generally, no.

However, there may be liability if you own, provide, or maintain the automobile for a senior parent, and/or you allow a senior parent drive your vehicle and know or should know that the senior parent’s ability to operate a motor vehicle is diminished.

This is a short and simple answer, not a substitute for legal advice. Contact an attorney for advice about your circumstances.

In a perfect world you would be fully compensated for your losses by the other driver’s insurance and/or your auto insurance. Insurance companies are for-profit businesses, not non-profit charities. Paying claims is a big expense. Insurance companies routinely resits claims in various ways.

Insurance companies often question medical bills, even if you are just following your doctor’s medical advice.

Insurance companies often question the impact an injury has had on someone, even though their doctors and their family corroborate the claims.

An insurance company may claim you are at fault in whole or in part in an effort to reduce your claim.

Insurance companies retain attorneys, medical experts, accident reconstructionists, and other experts to avoid paying injury claims. You need someone in your corner fighting for you. The initial case evaluation is at no cost.

An experienced South Carolina car accident attorney, such as ours at Joye Law Firm, can work to compel the insurance companies involved in your accident to provide proper payments. Our work would include investigating how your accident happened, calculating all of your costs, and addressing any comparative fault on your part – or ensuring that none is found where it does not exist.