Kentucky Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

This case is about a woman and her Louisville car accident attorney that file a lawsuit claiming unfair settlement practices and the Court hearing all the evidence decides that more evidence is needed in order for this Court to determine whether or not the Plaintiff actually has a case.

In June of 2010, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky heard a case that involved a woman and her car accident and the bad faith violation (Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act) she alleged against the Defendant. (See Phelps v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2010 WL 2471845 (W.D.Ky.)).

The facts of this Kentucky car accident case are as follows. The Defendant was driving in Louisville when he pulled out from a gas station in front of the Plaintiff causing the Plaintiff’s car to strike his car. Liability is not in question. The Plaintiff was transported to a hospital and was diagnosed with herniated disc requiring surgery. Id. The Louisville car accident was in July of 2003 and Plaintiff’s surgery was on October 15, 2003. Id. Plaintiff submitted her claim to Defendant’s insurance company (State Farm) for her personal injuries and damage to her car. Id. State Farm began to investigate the claim and found in February of 2004 that Plaintiff had a preexisting back problem from a 1999 car accident. Id. After further investigation, Defendant found out that all therapy for the 1999 car accident ended in 1999 and thus decided to make an offer of $25,000 to settle this claim. Id.

Continue reading "Kentucky Car Accident Regarding UCSPA." »

In August of 2007, the Court of Appeals in Ohio heard a case that involved a car accident where an issue after trial was whether or not the jury’s award was inadequate because the Plaintiff’s car accident lawyer claimed that the awarded damages did not include pain and suffering even though it awarded medical expenses. (See Burris v. Burnworth, 2007 WL 2567720 (Ohio App. 7 Dist.)).

In Burris, the Plaintiff in this car accident case appealed his case because she felt she was entitled to more money. But, this Court reviewing the trial’s court transcript and reading the appellate briefs did not agree. “A jury can refuse to award pain and suffering, even it if does award medical damages, if there is a reason to believe that the plaintiff did not incur those damages.” Id.

Continue reading "Car Accident with Pain and Suffering Issues." »

In July of 2009, the Court of Appeals in Tennessee heard a case that involved a car accident where the Plaintiff’s vehicle was not seriously damaged and the injuries were not serious. (See Gonzales v. Long, 2009 WL 3321304 (Tenn.Ct.App).

In Gonzales, on January 2, 2004, the Defendant caused a minor car accident to the vehicle in front of her, hitting that vehicle from behind. Id. Just prior she was at a complete stop and traveled no more than 2 feet before she struck that car in the rear. The Plaintiff, a 10 year old boy, was a back seat passenger. Id. After the accident the police arrived and no one reported injuries. Id. The car Plaintiff was in was not seriously damaged, and Defendant’s car had just a fist sized dent in the bumper where it impacted the trailer hitch on Plaintiff’s car. Id. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff claimed that he was injured and that he sustained whiplash. Id. He treated with a Dr. Hellman having $2,683 worth of medical bills. Id. The car accident case went to trial on September 15, 2008. Id.

Continue reading "Car Accident Case Minor Damage and Minor Injuries." »

In December of 2007, the Court of Appeals in Ohio heard a case that involved a woman involved in an automobile accident. The automobile accident occurred in June of 2004 and went to trial in June of 2006. (See Clemens v. Gilbert, 2007 WL 3377287 (Ohio App. 7 Dist.)

In Clemens, Ms. Clemens was injured in an automobile accident on June 10, 2004. At trial, Plaintiff had the deposition testimony of her family doctor and her car accident chiropractor read into evidence. Id. The jury awarded zero damages so Plaintiff appealed. Based on the facts, this Court denied the appeal.

Continue reading "Car Accident Case Proof of Injuries at Trial." »

In October of 2007, the Court of Appeals in Kentucky heard a case that involved a woman involved in an automobile accident where she was seriously injured while a passenger in someone else’s car. (See Gersh v. Bowman, 239 S.W.3d 567 (Ky.App. 2007)).

In Gersh, Plaintiff Gersh appealed a lower court’s judgment whereby Mr. Gersh was found liable for the serious bodily injuries he caused to Ms. Bowman following an automobile accident. The jury found Plaintiff liable for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, and impairment of her power to work and earn money, as well as punitive damages. Id.

Continue reading "Car Accident Case With Serious Injuries." »

In August of 2007, the Court of Appeals in Tennessee heard a case that involved a woman involved in a car accident in July of 2003 where she claimed she injured herself but there was evidence that she had a pre-existing condition. (See Hutchison v. Rutt, 2008 WL 539062 (Tenn. Ct. App.)

In Hutchinson, the Plaintiff was involved in a car accident on July 21, 2003. Id. The car was rear-ended by the defendant as the Plaintiff waited to turn. Id. The trial judge awarded the Plaintiff over $100,000. Id. The Defendant appealed claiming not all of her injuries were from this accident. This Appellate Court modified the award by half. The reasoning is as follows.

Continue reading "Car Accident Case With Pre-Existing Condition." »

In May of 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan heard a case involving a car accident and a woman who claimed that she sustained a closed head injury. (See Barlow v. Adams, 2009 WL 1383305 (E.D.Mich.). In Barlow, the Plaintiff was injured in a car accident on October 4, 2005. Id. Plaintiff was a passenger in a pickup truck which was driven by her granddaughter. Id. Plaintiff was 54 years old when this car accident occurred. Id. As a result of the car accident, Plaintiff claimed she sustained closed head injury, depression, and neck and back injuries. Id. In Michigan, you have to have suffered a serious impairment of body function in order to prevail in a car accident where you seek non-economic tort damages. Id.

The issue of whether a person has suffered a threshold injury is one for the court as a question of law. Id. A serious impairment of body function means “an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life.” Id. The Courts look to see if the Plaintiff is able for the most part to lead a normal life. (cites omitted). Id. It has to be more than a minor interruption in life. Id. The Plaintiff’s entire life course is looked at and if that course is still on track, then one’s injuries do not meet the serious impairment of body function threshold. Id.

Continue reading "Car Accident Case With Head Injury Is It A Serious Impairment of Body Function?" »

In April of 2008, the Court of Appeals in Michigan heard a case that involved a woman involved in a car accident in October of 2003 where she claims she suffered a traumatic brain injury. (See TBCI PC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 2008 WL 4367530 (Mich.App.).

In TBCI, Ms. Shaholaa was involved in a car accident in October of 2003 where she claims she suffered a brain injury. Id. The bench trial held that she had not suffered a brain injury and she appealed. This Appellate Court sustained the trial court’s decision. Id.

Continue reading "Car Accident Case With Traumatic Brain Injury." »

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" »

The Supreme Court of Kentucky recently decided a “Coots” case in favor of the Underinsured Motorist Carrier (UIM Carrier). In June of 2009, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that a letter sent by a Plaintiff to his UIM Carrier did not satisfy the legal Coots standard and thus the dismissal by the lower court was appropriate.

In Malone v. Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., 287 S.W.3d 656 (Ky. 2009) Mr. Malone was involved in a car accident with Mr. Bruce. Mr. Malone, via his car accident lawyer, sued Mr. Bruce and then added his own UIM Carrier Kentucky Farm Bureau (KFB). In July of 2005, Mr. Bruce’s insurance company, Atlanta Casualty, offered to pay its policy limits to Mr. Malone. In Kentucky, pursuant to a well known case, Coots, in order to properly resolve a car accident case that involves a UIM carrier, the injured party must follow KRS 304.39-320 which describes what type of notification the injured party must give to his or her UIM carrier prior to settling a claim with the underlying bodily injury carrier; in this case, Mr. Bruce’s carrier.

Pursuant to KRS 304.39-320, if an injured person, or, in the case of death, the personal representative agrees to settle a claim (emphasis added) with a liability insurer and its insured, and the settlement would not fully satisfy the claim for personal injuries or wrongful death so as to create an underinsured motorist claim, then written notice of the proposed settlement must be submitted by certified or registered mail to all underinsured motorist insurers that provide coverage. The underinsured motorist insurer then has a period of thirty (30) days to consent to the settlement or retention of subrogation rights. An injured person, or in the case of death, the personal representative, may agree to settle a claim with a liability insurer and its insured for less than the underinsured motorist’s full liability policy limits. If an underinsured motorist insurer consents to settlement or fails to respond as required by subsection (4) of this section to the settlement request within the thirty (30) day period, the injured party may proceed to execute a full release in favor of the underinsured motorist’s liability insurer and its insured and finalize the proposed settlement without prejudice to any underinsured motorist claim.

In Malone’s car accident case, after it received the offer from Atlanta Casualty for the policy limits, Mr. Malone’s car accident lawyer sent a “Coots” letter to KFB and wrote in pertinent part “Atlanta Casualty has advised that they have policy limits of $25,000.00 and this amount has been offered to settle their portion of Mr. Malone’s claim. We are considering whether to accept this offer….” The letter then went on to site the “Coots” case and put in the rest of the legal language that was needed to satisfy KRS 304.39.320.

Continue reading "Louisville Car Accident Lawyer Case" »

A Federal Court in Louisville, Kentucky recently answered the question on whether evidence of numerous criminal convictions of the driver of a truck involved in an automobile accident should be allowed in at trial in a civil automobile accident case.

The facts of that case are as follows. An accident occurred on I-65 in Louisville. A car was in traffic when it was hit from the rear by a tractor-semitrailer rig owned and operated by Beelman Truck Company. The impact pushed the car into the vehicle in front of it, forcing the car partially under the semitrailer of that vehicle which was operated by Paschall and driven by a Mr. Wendell Price. Initially, Plaintiff Ms. Smith only sued Beelman Truck Company. But, Beelman brought in the Paschall vehicle claiming that it was defective in that among other things, it had an underride protection bumper that was inadequately attached to the semitrailer. Beelman also claimed that Paschall was negligent in the hiring or retention of Mr. Price because Mr. Price failed to recognized the inadequacy of the underride bumper and that he was unqualified to operated a commercial motor vehicle. (See Smith v. Beelman Truck co., 2009 WL 126590 (W.D.Ky.))

It was brought to the court’s attention that Mr. Price had prior felony and misdemeanor convictions. Paschall moved to exclude this evidence in that it contends that Mr. Price’s prior convictions are irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. And if even irrelevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. This was a very good outcome for Mr. Price’s Louisville car accident attorney.

Continue reading "Louisville Car Accident Attorney Case" »

Recently, in June of 2009 an appellate court in Kentucky sustained the lower trial court’s October 2007 rulings in a criminal case that sent a man to prison for 15 years. The Supreme Court denied reviewing it.

In Mills v. Commonwealth, 2009 WL 1705605 (Ky.App.), the following events transpired. On September 3, 2006, it was alleged that Mr. Mills, while driving drunk, was involved in a car accident that killed another man and then drove away. The accident happened around 10:45pm. A key witness testified that he saw Mr. Mills earlier that evening staggering and carrying 3 beers. Another witness says that she saw Mr. Mills around 2am (3-4 hours after the accident) and that Mr. Mills was not drunk and did not smell of alcohol. Also, there was testimony that at the accident scene it did appear Mr. Mills was staggering around, but the witness could not testify if it was as a result of being drunk or hurt. Another witness who pulled Mr. Mills out of the car testified that he did not appear to be drunk, nor did he smell of alcohol. And then, a doctor at the hospital that saw Mr. Mills 2 days after the accident did testify that he smelled of alcohol. Mr. Mills did admit that he had been drinking that day, 2 days after the accident. He also admitted to drinking on the day of the accident, but not on the night of, and that the only reason he fled the scene was because he was shaken up when he heard the sirens. Mr. Mills was charged with murder, fleeing the scene of an accident, assault, and DUI.

At trial, the state introduced evidence of 5 photographs of the scene of the accident. Two of them showed the damage to the car the victim was in, with the victim still in it, though covered up. The trial court and appellate court found no reversible error in showing these to the jury. They showed points of impact and were even used to help contradict Mr. Mills’ story that the driver of the other vehicle crossed the double yellow lines. The prosecution is permitted to prove its case by competent evidence of its own choosing, and the defendant may not stipulate away the parts of the case that he does not want the jury to see. The general rule is that relevant pictures are not rendered inadmissible simply because they are gruesome and the crime is heinous. Id.

Continue reading "Louisville Car Accident Case in a Criminal Matter" »

Recently, in a Federal Court in Louisville, Kentucky, a Federal Judge threw out a products liability case that had to do with a Louisville Car Accident. In the case at hand, a woman from Louisville took an Ambien sleeping pill before she went to bed. She applied a cosmetic facial mud mask and put curlers in her hair. About 20 minutes later she was involved in an automobile accident in which she struck a utility pole about a mile from her home. (See Gibson v. Sanofi-A Ventis U.S., LLC, 2009 WL 3490454 (W.D.Ky.)) At the time of the accident, she was dressed for bed, was not wearing her glasses and was wearing a mud mask and hair curlers. Her Louisville car accident lawyer filed a products liability case alleging negligence, strict product liability, breaches of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Kentucky Consumer Protection Act in the manufacture and sale of Ambien.

Ms. Gibson contended that she was “sleep-driving,” which is an involuntary activity and that but for her taking the Ambien this accident would not have occurred. Ms. Gibson presented the court with many specialist doctors. Dr. McCullough, a physician who treated Ms. Gibson at the hospital, concluded that she had been driving herself to the hospital for cardiac symptoms and fell asleep at the wheel due to her earlier ingestion of two Ambien. Ambien is the most widely prescribed sleep aid in the United States. A Dr. Rodger explained his basis for concluding that it is “medically probably’ that the accident was caused by sleep driving caused by Ambien. Id.

Ambien does come with warnings as to what you should or should not do after you take one. Driving a car is one of the warnings.

Kentucky does recognize product liability claims for strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. But, it does state that a common element of each is demonstration that a product was defective or unreasonably dangerous. The court held that such a product was not and that the warnings that came with the drug were sufficient.

Ms. Gibson’s Louisville car accident lawyer also argued that Ambien was defective because of a “but for” argument, that but for her the Ambien causing her to “sleep-drive” she would not have had the car accident. This is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. But, the court held that it did not apply in that the doctrine is only to be applied when the nature of the accident itself not only clearly supports the inference of negligence but excludes all others. In that Ms. Gibson could not testify as to what happened right before the car accident because she does not remember, she cannot exclude all other possible negligent acts. This is something a Louisville car accident attorney would help review with you if you were ever in a similar situation.

Continue reading "Louisville Car Accident Lawyer Case" »

Recently, in the Circuit Court of Knott County, Kentucky, a jury awarded an estate of a man who was killed after he was struck by a motor vehicle, $2 million in compensatory damages and an additional $2 million in punitive damages. An appeal was taken and the appellate court reversed the punitive damages and said that the presence of a juror whose father had been involved in a fatal car accident, did not taint the jury verdict. That is why sometimes the winning of a car accident trial can be won or lost at the outset; at the beginning when you are picking the jury. A good Louisville car accident lawyer will know what kind of juror would make the best juror for your car accident case.

In the above case, the accident occurred on November 2, 2004. A trailer overturned and spilled its cargo of coal across a dark unlit portion of Kentucky State Road 80. After 2 hours of deliberation, on December 5, 2007, the jury awarded to the plaintiff its decision. (Fuel Transport v. Gibson, 2009 WL 3047578 (Ky.App.))

Fuel Transportation argued that a juror concealed the fact that her father had been killed in an automobile accident. Fuel Transportation claimed that they only discovered this in a post trial interview. And had this information been revealed during voir dire, Fuel Transportation argued the juror would have either been struck for cause or they would have used a preemptory strike to remove her from the panel.

Continue reading "Louisville Car Accident Lawyer Case" »

Recently, a Louisville car accident case was heard in a Louisville Circuit Court. A car accident occurred in September of 2005 that was finally brought to trial in December of 2007. The facts are that a driver of a truck was rounding a blind curve when he came upon a few cars stopped for a light. Not having time to stop, he slammed on his brakes causing him to avoid the accident in front of him, but causing his trailer to swing into the opposite lane of traffic, striking the vehicle of a Ms. Carroll, significantly injuring her legs. At trial, the court allowed the jury to be given jury instructions on the sudden emergency doctrine. Ms. Carroll lost at trail and brought the appeal by her Louisville car accident lawyer.

The common-law doctrine of sudden emergency for a Louisville car accident attempts to explain to a jury how to judge the allegedly negligent conduct of a person, plaintiff or defendant, who is suddenly confronted with an emergency situation that allows no time for deliberation. The sudden emergency doctrine does not excuse fault; it defines the conduct to be expected of a prudent person in an emergency situation. (See Carroll v. Wright, 2009 WL 414064 (Ky.App.))

When a defendant is confronted with a condition he has had no reason to anticipate and has not brought on by his own fault, but which alters the duties he would otherwise have been bound to observe, then the effect of that circumstances upon these duties must be covered by the instructions. The trial court gave the normal standard of care jury instructions, but also included the sudden emergency instructions as well.

Continue reading "Louisville Car Accident Lawyer Case" »