Fort Myers car accident lawsuit Tag Archives

Entila v. Cook – Workers’ Compensation and Claim Against Co-Worker

January 27, 2017 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Typically when someone is injured at work, the exclusive remedy they will have from their employer is workers’ compensation. This is true even if it was the wrongdoing of the company or the co-worker who caused the accident that resulted in serious injury.

There are some very narrow exceptions in which the law will allow workers to go outside these bounds and seek additional compensation from these parties. One of those involves some type of intentional harm or actions that the company knew would likely cause the worker to be injured. This is often very difficult to prove. However, a case out of Washington State recently carves out another interesting exception. It won’t apply to every case in which a co-worker is negligent in causing a work-related injury, but it may be worth considering when weighing whether to take legal action.

The case is Entila v. Cook, and it was decided recently by the Washington Supreme Court. This was a case where plaintiff was on his way in to work, crossing an access road on company property, when he was struck by a car driven by a co-worker and seriously injured. The injured worker was able to obtain workers’ compensation benefits. Normally, this would mean his co-worker would be immune from any liability. However, plaintiff alleged his co-worker was not immune from a third-party liability claim because the co-worker was not acting in the course and scope of employment at the time of the crash. Continue reading ›

Trotter v. Harleysville Ins. Co. – Auto Insurance Policy Limits Per Person, Vehicle

May 27, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Auto insurance policies all carry limits, which specify the maximum insurer will pay per person who is injured and how much it will pay for the entire accident.

So for example, a policy with a $125,000 per person limit and a $250,000 per accident limit will pay a maximum of $250,000 – no matter how many people get hurt. So the fewer victims there are, the more they stand to receive – up to the per-person limit of $125,000. However, if three people are injured and each of their injuries are equal and exceed $125,000, the most each stands to receive under that policy would be $83,333.

But as in any policy or contract, the language must not be ambiguous. Any ambiguity in a policy should be skewed in favor of the plaintiff. Continue reading ›

Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Winton – Garage Liability Insurance for Auto Dealerships

April 24, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

A night of fun in Oklahoma turned tragic when a 48-year-old driver caused a motor vehicle accident that killed five people – including herself – and severely injured two others. Aside from the driver, those killed were between the ages of 18 and 23. The two injured were 17 and 22.

The families of two decedents (one of whom was a young mother) and two survivors sought compensation from the estate of decedent. But she only had a bodily injury liability coverage of $50,000 – hardly enough to compensate even one of the victims for their losses. Indeed, the estate settled the cases for $3 million per each survivor and $5 million for each family whose loved one died. The problem was who would pay those amounts. Decedent’s insurance was only $50,000 – and that was paid.

The approved settlement indicated collection of damages would be limited to applicable insurance policies. Soon after the settlement was approved, three insurance carriers sued the victims for a declaratory judgment that would assert they were not liable to pay the insurance settlement. In the case of Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Winton, plaintiffs argued either that one of the insurers was liable under garage and umbrella policies because the dealership still owned the vehicle, or alternatively that another dealership still owned the car and therefore a different two insurance policies covered the accident. Continue reading ›

Rish v. Simao – Low-Impact Defense in Car Accident Lawsuit

March 18, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

In some Fort Myers car accident lawsuits, defendants will allege injuries or damages incurred by plaintiff were not as serious as he or she has stated because the crash was low-impact.

However, just because a crash happened at a relatively low speed does not mean serious injury is an impossibility. Consider that:

A typical automobile weighs about 2,000 pounds;
A collision at 10 miles-per-hour is going to result in an average impact force of 3.7 tons;
A 3,000-pound vehicle striking at 10 mph is going to result in a force of impact of about 5.6 tons.

The force of impact to one’s back and neck is significant. Plus, when a person is involved in a rear-end accident, it’ s important to understand a physics principle known as “magnification of acceleration.” What that means is the occupants of a vehicle are going to accelerate a lot faster than the car that is impacted, which means they are going to absorb much more of the force. So even a low-impact crash can result in substantial injuries. Continue reading ›

Foster-Naser v. Aurora County – Road Sign Maintenance

February 26, 2016 | Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner

Roadway signs are the means by which drivers learn the rules, warnings, guidance and other information necessary to safely navigate their route. Erection and maintenance of roadway signs are the responsibility of whoever owns that street, whether it’s a local township, county, city or state.

There are sometimes contracts between these entities wherein the owner of the road will sign over certain rights in exchange for maintenance duties. According to the Federal Highway Administration, signs are only effective if you can clearly see them. That’s why it’s imperative to:

Clean them;
Implement vegetation control;
Protect them from theft;
Make sure they are properly supported and adjusted.

These are all reasonable steps that governments can take to ensure the signs are visible and drivers can safely navigate. But what if a government agency doesn’t take reasonable measures? If it results in a driver being involved in an injurious crash he or she likely would have otherwise avoided, it’s plausible there are grounds for personal injury litigation. Continue reading ›