Kentucky Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Sometime prior to July of 2009, a rear-end car accident occurred in Bowling Green, Kentucky that lead to a lawsuit between Mr. Norman Peters and Ms. Katherine Wooten. As a result of the rear-end car accident, Mr. Peters sued Ms. Wooten. (See Peters v. Wooten, 297 S.W.3d 55 (Ky.App.2009)). In Peters, Mr. Peters was rear-ended by Ms. Wooten in a car accident. Mr. Peters’ head hit the glass in back of the truck cab and paramedics arrive on the scene. Mr. Peters refused treatment and was able to drive home. Id. Ms. Wooten’s vehicle was totaled. Id. A short while after, Mr. Peters claimed he began to suffer severe headaches and neck pain. Id. So, two days after the accident he went to a doctor and had x-rays taken and an MRI. Id. Then, Mr. Peters had no more medical treatment for 3 months, though he said he complained of neck and headaches from the car accident. Id.

At trial, Mr. Peters had two doctors testify via video depositions wherein both stated that the injuries were as a result of the accident and where one said that Mr. Peters had a degenerative disc disease and that though the accident did not cause that, it may have caused aggravation to a preexisting condition. Id. Neither doctor reviewed Mr. Peters’ prior medical history before the accident. Id. Further, at trial, Mr. Peter’s wife testified as to how injured he was and that she knew something bad was wrong with him. So, on cross examination, Ms. Wooten’s car accident attorney asked Mr. Peter’s wife why her husband did not go to therapy in 3 months if he was so injured, and to that she responded that they could not afford it. Id. But, when she was asked why he did not use the $10,000 in medical benefits coverage available to him, she finally relented and responded that there were monies available but that she did not know the amount. Id. Mr. Peters’ car accident lawyer objected as improper reference to collateral source benefits, but the trial court overruled. Id.

The below video is not a video of the rear-end car acciden involving Mr. Peters and Ms. Wooten, but is just an interesting video showing a rear-end car accident for my blog readers.

Continue reading " Louisville Car Accident Lawyer Case – Pre-existing condition – Rear-end car accident " »

In a Knox Circuit Court in the state of Kentucky, a trial was held in May of 2008 involving a car accident. In that car accident case, Mr. Harmon was hit by a car driven by Mr. Steele. It was established that both vehicles were going no more than 10 mph and neither went to the hospital. Mr. Harmon was later diagnosed with whiplash. Based on those injuries he sued Mr. Steele who had a $25,000 auto policy. Further, at trial, he also brought in and sued his under insured policy which was with Occidental Fire & Casualty (OFC). At trial, OFC made motions to be let out, but the trial judge denied these motions and the case went to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in excess of $250,000. The jury awarded Mr. Harmon $120,000 to be paid by OFC as per their UIM contract. (See Occidental Fire & Casualty Company v. Harmon, 2009 WL 4406065 (Ky.App.)). Both sides had Kentucky car accident attorneys representing their interests.

Accordingly, OFC appealed. The appellate court reversed stating that it was improper to have OCF involved in this trial as there was no Coots settlement. Id. OFC constantly objected at trial stating that it should not be a named party to the action as its relationship in this matter was purely contractual. Id. In an earlier Kentucky Supreme Court case, the Court did hold that identification of the UIM carrier at trial was required only in situations where the UIM carrier had protected its subrogation rights with a Coots procedure. Id. But, what about a situation like the case at hand where the UIM carrier had no Coots agreement? In another Kentucky Supreme Court case, this exact situation was decided. Under that fact pattern, the Court ruled that the UIM carrier did not have to be identified at trial. Id. It stated that when the UIM carrier has not reached a Coots settlement with the tortfeasor, the tortfeasor remains primarily liable to the plaintiff. Id. The UIM carrier is only potentially liable, contingent upon a judgment in excess of the tortfeasor’s own liability coverage. Id. (A Kentucky car accident attorney can assist in explaining a Coots settlement.) Without a Coots settlement, the UIM carrier is not a real party in interest but is only potentially liable by contract if the tortfeasor is found liable. Id.

The appellate court then looked at whether naming the UIM carrier at trial was an abuse of discretion and something that could cause the case to be reversed. In deciding that issue, the court looked at the long standing rule that liability insurance is not to be mentioned at trial. Id. The basis of that policy decision has long been that inherent prejudice results from a jury knowing of the existence of liability insurance. Accordingly, in that OCF was not a real party in interest, it was wrong for the trial court to not exclude OCF from the jury. Id. Accordingly the case was reversed and remanded back to Knox Circuit Court for a new trail. Id. (Andrew Alitowski is a Kentucky car accident attorney that can explain this case for you.)

If you have been the subject of a Louisville car accident matter, please call and speak to a Louisville car accident lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew S. Alitowski at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637) or contact us online. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!

In a recent Kentucky Court of Appeals case, “An airport employee who sustained shoulder injuries in a car accident while traveling home from the airport, after attending a required out-of-state training session for work, fell under an exception to the “coming and going” rule and therefore was injured in the course and scope of her employment. The employee’s main place of work was the airport and the “coming and going” rule maintained that injuries sustained by workers when going to or returning from the place where they generally perform their employment are not deemed to be in a part of their employment. However, the employee fell under the exception because she was not just traveling to and from her regular place of employment but had been on a special mission for her employer.” Barry v. US Airways Group, Inc., 2009 WL 684821 (Ky.App.). She hired a Louisville car accident lawyer to assist her.

Ms. Barry was hired by US Airways in October of 2004 to work as a customer service representative at the Louisville International Airport. Her main job duties was to issue tickets, check baggage, assign seat and work the counter and gate areas. But, she was also required to attend infrequent out of state training programs. Id. Ms. Barry injured herself in December of 2006 after she attended a required 3 day computer training program in Charlotte, N.C. . On that day, she returned to the Louisville airport and after picking up her luggage and checking the schedule, Ms. Barry got into her car and left the airport. While on I-264, on her way home, Ms. Barry was involved in a Louisville car accident that caused her to sustain a torn rotator cuff and two ruptured cervical discs. Her vehicle was hit in the rear.

Continue reading " Louisville Car Accident Lawyer Case - Going and Coming " »

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky recently decided a car accident case that involved the issue of insurance coverage. Angela Richardson was involved in a car accident in Kentucky. She was injured as a result of the car accident. The accident occurred in April of 2003. At trial, the judge dismissed the case on summary judgment in favor of progressive Northern Insurance Company. Ms. Richardson appealed. And the appellate court held that the trial court was right. (See Richardson v. Progressive Northern Insurance co., 2009 WL 103167 (Ky.App)).

In Richardson, Ms. Richardson was seriously injured in a car accident when a truck driven by Gene Boes and owned by Terry Stanton d/b/a Rock bottom Trucking turned in front of her car, causing the accident. Ms. Richardson sued Mr. Boes and Mr. Stanton and in the suit named Progressive as Mr. Stanton’s insurance carrier. Progressive filed a declaratory action seeking a ruling as to whether it was obligated to provide coverage. A default was entered in the declaratory action after Mr. Boes and Mr. Stanton failed to answer. In other words, Progressive won in the declaratory matter which basically proved that Progressive did not have to put up a defense for Mr. Boes or Mr. Stanton in the main case because Progressive did not insure either party at the time of the accident. Thus, Progressive filed a motion to get out of the main trial and it was granted. At the main trial, Progressive showed that it did not insure the defendants from November 7, 2002 through May 7, 2003. T he accident was in April 2003. Progressive showed proof that it mailed out a “notice of cancellation due to non-payment of premium” to the defendants and that they never responded. Ms. Richardson's car accident lawyer was behind the eight ball in trying to keep Progressive in.

At the main case, Mr. Boes and Mr. Stanton indicated that they believed that the insurance was in place, but offered no proof. And so Ms. Richardson appealed claiming that there were issues of material facts that could not be dismissed and had to go to a jury. But, the appellate court did not agree stating basically that there were no issues of material fact. The Progressive policy was clearly not in effect at the time of the accident and thus Progressive could not be held liable for this car accident. And thus Ms. Richardson's car accident attorney had no way of recovering from Progressive for this car accident.

If you have been the subject of a Louisville car accident matter, please call and speak to a Louisville car accident lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew S. Alitowski at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637) or contact us online. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!

The Court of Appeal of Kentucky recently decided a case that involved a car accident and an employee who drove in his car and later was involved in a car accident. This case was decided in July of 2009. In July of 2004, Christopher Gordon drove an uninsured car that hit a car driven by James Butler that also had a passenger in it. Mr. Butler was a former employee of Levee Lift, Inc.. After a 3 day trial, the trial court dismissed the law suit against Mr. Gordon’s employer Levee and dismissed the case against Mr. Gordon’s wife for letting him drive her car uninsured. A jury ultimately found no liability against Levee and awarded Butler and his passenger approximately $2 million in total. After motions were filed, the trial court did change its earlier ruling as with regard to Mrs. Gordon stating that she did in fact have a statutory duty not to knowingly permit the vehicle which she co-owned to be driven by an unlicensed driver. (See West v. Levee Lift, Inc., 2009 WL 2192746 (Ky.App. 2009)).

Mr. Gordon on the day of the accident went to work and worked until approximately 4pm. He left and went home and approximately 2 hours later, drove his car on a trip with his wife to Alabama. That is when the accident happened. While at work, Mr. Gordon was alone with only one co-employee. At trial, that co-employee testified that he did not see Mr. Gordon drink any alcohol. Mr. Gordon did testify that he drank a little at work, but that he was not intoxicated. He also admitted to consuming about 8-12 shots of vodka on the drive home from work. Further, evidence at trial came out that his employer Levee knew he did not possess a valid driver’s license but that they had admonished him previously not to drive to and from work and in fact paid him $250 per month for travel expenses. These are all facts that the car accident attorney for the defense brought out at trial.

Continue reading " Louisville Car Accident Lawyer Case - Employer Liability " »