Legal Questions Regarding Personal Injury

I was in a car accident last year. To my surprise, I was the one found at fault, and ticketed. On the anniversary, I was served with suit papers. You'd think, from reading them, that I was a crazed, out-of-control maniac, who shouldn't even have a driver's license, and that the other driver was the patron saint of safe driving (I am, in fact, a very careful driver). Well, they're claiming soft tissue injuries, and are suing for a lot more than the limits of my coverage.

When I told my version of events to the defense attorney hired by my insurance company, he told me that I should not admit fault (which I haven't). He said that the other driver is at least partly to blame.

My questions are:

1. Is the fact that I simply paid the ticket without contesting it an admission of fault?

2. Does the fact that my insurance company has taken full responsibility have any bearing on whether or not I was completely at fault?

3. I am poor. I live in a rented property, scraping by on a shoestring budget, with zero assets.  I have absolutely nothing.   They're never going to get the amount they want from me in this lifetime. Should I advise my attorney that I'm not worth taking to court?

4. If the other driver does drag me to court, how much bearing does the police report (which, again, claims I'm at fault) have on the case? It was just me, and the other driver. Neither of us had passengers, and there are no witnesses, so it's just my word against theirs.

kp315:

Is the fact that I simply paid the ticket without contesting it an admission of fault?

Not exactly an admission, but certainly an element that can be used against you or explained away. Depends on the details. Especially if the officer testifies in court as to what he saw and heard that resulted in his conclusion that you were at fault.

kp315:

Does the fact that my insurance company has taken full responsibility have any bearing on whether or not I was completely at fault?

Well, sort of.

Until a jury finds you at fault, all your insurance company is doing is negotiating a settlement, hopefully without exceeding policy limits, while the litigation moves forward. The insurance company is allowed by your policy to do that regardless of whether or not they consider you at fault.

kp315:

I am poor. I live in a rented property, scraping by on a shoestring budget, with zero assets.  I have absolutely nothing.   They're never going to get the amount they want from me in this lifetime. Should I advise my attorney that I'm not worth taking to court?

Haven't you done that already. Whether or not you have attachable assets might weigh heavily in the plaintiff's decision to settle within policy limits rather than get a jury award where the excess amount is uncollectible.

kp315:

If the other driver does drag me to court, how much bearing does the police report (which, again, claims I'm at fault) have on the case?

Absolutely none. A piece of paper cannot testify in court. It would be the officer's testimony that counts. The officer could testify to things like the position of the vehicles upon his arrival, road conditions, weather, skid marks, statements made by drivers, occupants, witnesses. Any or all of which could turn the tide one way or the other even though he did not see the accident.

kp315:

It was just me, and the other driver. Neither of us had passengers, and there are no witnesses, so it's just my word against theirs.

As I noted, the post accident position of the vehicle and a lot of other factors are involved that the officer can contribute to.

Feel free to post the details of how the accident happened and what you got cited for and I'll provide comments on fault.

I was sitting at a two-way stop, looking for a chance to make a left turn.  It was a busy intersection, and I had been sitting there for awhile.  There were no traffic lights, and the intersecting street did not stop.  When traffic was clear on my right, I looked to the left, where an SUV slowed down to make a right onto the street where I was sitting.  I took that chance to make my left.  When the SUV passed, that's when I saw the other driver, and realized that I was going to get hit.  They were probably about fifteen feet away, and as far as I could tell, it didn't seem like they even attempted to stop.  My car was at least halfway in the opposite lane at the point of impact.  I was hit above the driver side rear wheel.

We both moved our cars off the road, and neither of us talked about the accident.  When the police arrived, we each told our versions of the story, without disputing the other.  I was cited for failure to yield.

The weather was hot and sunny.  The road was dry, and flat.  I'm not sure about skid marks, but I don't recall whether or not the officer looked for any.

Well, you aren't going to like this, but those details put you 100% at fault.

The SUV obstructed your view of the road behind it. You had no way of knowing that there was another vehicle coming behind it and you had no way of knowing that there wasn't another vehicle coming behind it.

It wasn't the SUV driver's fault that your view was obscured. He was driving properly and legally.

It wasn't the second vehicle driver's fault that he was driving along approaching an intersection where he had the right of way and suddenly you appeare in front of him.

That leaves you at fault for moving forward without taking the time to see what was going on behind the SUV.

You had a duty to wait till the SUV completed it's turn so you could see what was going on behind it. Your failure to comply with that duty was the proximate cause of the accident since nobody else did anything wrong.

Yeah, I figured as much.

Well, thanks for your input, adjuster jack.

Still, it doesn't change the fact that they'd be trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.  They'd be better off settling.  My insurance, though minimal, covers more than twice the amount of their medical bills, and the damage to the car combined.

Should this case go to trial, who pays the fees?

kp315:

Should this case go to trial, who pays the fees?

Your insurance company pays all the fees.

I'd be willing to bet that your insurance company will end up settling for policy limits or less.

The claimant has more incentives to settle than just not being able to get blood from a turnip.

The claimant will pay his/her attorney about 30% for an out-of court settlement which could take only a few months and will pay 40% of the award if it goes to trial which could take a year or two, maybe more.

The claimant is likely to want money sooner than later and the attorney will also want a quick payday. The attorney will also be smart enough to do an asset check on you and will push his client to settle quickly once they get the results that you have no assets.

No guarantees, of course, but I don't think you need lose any sleep over this.

How long does the discovery process typically take?  I'm sure it varies from case to case.  That's what's going on with my case right now.  My attorney sent a questionnaire for the plaintiff to fill out, and is looking at previous medical records.

kp315:

How long does the discovery process typically take?

Depends on your court system and rules but typically could take as little as two months up to as much as six months.

kp315:

 I'm sure it varies from case to case.  That's what's going on with my case right now.  My attorney sent a questionnaire for the plaintiff to fill out, and is looking at previous medical records.

Since that's already been sent and your lawyer already has the claimant's medical records, the questionnaire (interrogatories is what they are called) could come back in a few weeks. Depends on how fast the claimant's attorney wants to move things along.

You noted earlier that your policy limits were minimal. That's 20/40/10, right? And that the limits were twice what the claimant's medical costs and vehicle were.

How much did the claimant demand prior to filing the lawsuit?

Has your insurance company paid on the claimant's vehicle damage yet?

My personal injury coverage is $25,000 per person/$50,000 per occurance.  The claimant's medical bills come to just under $10,000, but they are suing for $100,000.  If I remember correctly, the demand prior to the suit was $55,000.

As far as I know, the vehicle damages have already been paid.  I'm not sure how much the repairs were, but I looked at Kelly Blue Book, and Edmonds, and they both value the car at around $2,500.  It's an older vehicle.

kp315:

My personal injury coverage is $25,000 per person/$50,000 per occurance.  The claimant's medical bills come to just under $10,000, but they are suing for $100,000.  If I remember correctly, the demand prior to the suit was $55,000.

How many claimants?

What injuries are they claiming?

Any idea how much your insurance company offered after the demand was received? Any counter demand?

adjuster jack:

Especially if the officer testifies in court as to what he saw and heard that resulted in his conclusion that you were at fault.

Two things to note. First, the cop cannot render an opinion as to "fault." That is a conclusion that is left to the jury to decide. Second, the cop could opine as to how he believes the accident occurred (i.e. it is likely car X did this and car Y did that, but without opining on the ultimate issue of fault or negligence) IF he qualifies as an accident reconstruction expert. Not all cops are.  If he's not an expert, then all he can testify to is what he observed at the scene, nothing more.

adjuster jack:

The officer could testify to things like the position of the vehicles upon his arrival, road conditions, weather, skid marks, statements made by drivers, occupants, witnesses. Any or all of which could turn the tide one way or the other even though he did not see the accident.

Again if the cop is not an expert, he cannot testify to anything other than what he observed at the scene. Thus, he could testify as to things like what position the cars were when he arrived, the length of skid marks if he measured them, what the surface of the road was like, the weather when he arrived, etc. In general, however, he cannot testify as to what the drivers or witnesses told him, as that would be hearsay testimony. The rules of evidence in some jurisdictions would allow him to repeat what the drivers told him if those statements are against that driver's interests (e.g. an admission by the driver that he was speeding). The hearsay rule is also why the police report is generally inadmissible, too.

The other driver had no passengers, but the spouse is one of the plaintiffs, claiming loss of consortium.  I'm not sure of the extent of the injuries, except that they are sofe tissue, and supposedly permanent.  No lost wage claim.  I don't know what my insurance company's offer was, or if there was a counter demand.

kp315:

The other driver had no passengers, but the spouse is one of the plaintiffs, claiming loss of consortium.

Loss of consortium claims have not been favored much by the courts for a long, long time. But personal injury attorneys routinely pad the demands with everthing just to be able to negotiate downward from the highest possible level.

kp315:

I'm not sure of the extent of the injuries, except that they are sofe tissue, and supposedly permanent.

Until the claimant settles, gets the money, and enjoys a miraculous recovery.

kp315:

No lost wage claim.

Not much of an injury if he wasn't laid up from it. Although I'm sure he'll say he went to work in spite of the pain and really suffered from it.

While I cannot guarantee my analysis, the more you relate about the claimant enables me to predict that he is likely to settle for less than the $25,000 limit, possibly within the next few months, and his wife might get a token amount just to get her signature on a release.

A person who drives a $2500 car and has $10,000 in medical bills is likely desperate for money and might even have collection agencies pursuing him.

And the closer this guy comes to having to stand up in court and explain himself, the more likely he is to settle and avoid gambling on a jury.

If you're curious and want to take the time, drive by his residence and see how he lives and what other cars he owns. You can check the property records on the websites of the county assessor and recorder (if he's not renting) where you might be able to find out what he paid for it and what he owes. You can check your county court and see if he's been involved in any other lawsuits.

Thanks, adjuster jack.  That seems to be the opinion of most people.

My attorney is confident that this case will settle.  I'm not sure if he really believes that, or if he's just drawing on general statistics, but, in any case, he told me not to worry, as worrying won't do any good.

You mentioned earlier that the other attorney will probably do an asset check.  How is that done, and is it standard procedure?  I'm sort of hoping that the fact that I have nothing will convince them that settlement is the best option.

kp315:

My attorney is confident that this case will settle.  I'm not sure if he really believes that, or if he's just drawing on general statistics

Probably both.

kp315:

he told me not to worry, as worrying won't do any good.

He's right.

kp315:

You mentioned earlier that the other attorney will probably do an asset check.  How is that done,

Pretty much the same way that I suggested you do for the claimant although the attorney is likely to have more sophisticated fee based services available.

kp315:

is it standard procedure?

Yes.

Personal injury attornies have to front a lot of time and money to take a case to trial and they are loath to do that if there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

kp315:

I'm sort of hoping that the fact that I have nothing will convince them that settlement is the best option.

I'm sure that it will ultimately be a factor. Personal injury attorneys probably won't admit it, but they operate on the principle that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.