wrecks

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial after evidence was improperly excluded in a bike accident case. In Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Thacker, a Pikeville, Kentucky resident was struck by a motor vehicle while riding her bicycle near Palm Beach, Florida. As a result of the crash, the woman endured multiple broken bones and a traumatic head injury. The woman also apparently required psychiatric treatment following the bike accident. After the driver’s liability insurer paid the woman the full policy limits of $20,000 for her accident injuries, she filed a lawsuit in Pike County Circuit Court seeking underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from her own auto insurance company. Following a trial, a jury returned a $3.9 million verdict against the woman’s UIM insurer. The jurors also found that the woman was 50 percent responsible for her injuries. The trial court offset the financial compensation the woman received from the motorist’s liability carrier before awarding her more than $1.9 million. The UIM insurer then appealed the jury’s verdict to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Read More

In Helton v. Lelion, a couple sued a driver who was operating a vehicle in which a tire became loose and hit their vehicle. The couple initially filed a negligence lawsuit in Wolfe County Circuit Court against the driver who lost her tire. The allegedly negligent motorist with the loose tire apparently did not carry liability insurance when the accident occurred. Because of this, the injured driver also demanded the full policy limits of her uninsured motorist coverage from her own auto insurer, as well as attorneys’ fees and interest. The defendants removed the uninsured motorist case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in Lexington based on diversity of citizenship. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), a federal court may exercise such jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. In response, the couple filed a motion to remand the case back to a Kentucky state court. Although the plaintiffs agreed that the parties were diverse, they claimed that federal jurisdiction was improper because the amount in controversy did not exceed the statutory minimum. The injured driver also signed a stipulation that the entirety of the damages she sought were less than $75,000. Read More

The Kentucky Motor Vehicles Reparations Act allows a policyholder to recover damages for an auto insurer’s denial of basic reparation benefits following a Kentucky car crash. In Risner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. , a man sued his insurance company for payment of benefits after he was apparently injured in a Lexington, Kentucky motor vehicle collision. Following the traffic accident, the man was treated by a local chiropractor. The injured man then sought reimbursement for his associated medical expenses from his auto insurer. About six months later, the insurance company notified the policyholder that it was denying coverage for certain medical bills he incurred as a result of the crash. In Kentucky, basic reparation benefits are typically used to pay the medical bills and certain other expenses of an individual who was hurt in a car accident, regardless of fault. After the man’s auto insurer discontinued his no-fault benefits, the injured man filed a lawsuit against the company in Rowan County Circuit Court. According to the man’s complaint, the motor vehicle insurer violated the Kentucky Motor Vehicles Reparations Act and the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. In addition, the hurt man accused his insurance company of negligence, breach of contract, fraud, and numerous other claims. As a result, the policyholder asked the court to award him both compensatory and punitive damages. In general, punitive damages are only appropriate when a court seeks to punish a party and deter similar conduct in the future. Read More

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has overturned a circuit court’s decision to affirm a Kentucky Board of Claims’ final order in a motorcycle accident case. In Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Bunch, a man sued after suffering multiple injuries when he crashed his motorcycle on Greenbelt Highway in Louisville. According to the man, he lost control of his motorcycle and suffered permanent harm when his tires hit an improperly patched and uneven pothole in the roadway. Following the accident, the man argued before the Kentucky Board of Claims that his accident occurred because the roadway where the pothole was patched was significantly elevated. The man also stated the condition of the road made it impossible for him to safely navigate the highway. Testimony offered before a hearing officer indicated that potholes were a recurring problem in the area where the accident occurred, due to a defect in the concrete roadway. In addition, evidence suggested the pothole in question was repaired multiple times. Still, the Kentucky Department of Highways maintained that it had no record of receiving any complaints about the patched pothole during the four-month period preceding the man’s motorcycle collision. Additionally, there was no record of other motor vehicle accidents occurring in the area during that time. After testimony concluded, the hearing officer recommended denying the injured man’s claim for damages because he failed to establish that the patch was unreasonably dangerous, that the Department of Highways maintained the roadway in a negligent manner, or that it had notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. Despite the hearing officer’s recommendation, the Board of Claims found that the Department of Highways created an unreasonable risk of harm to drivers and remanded the action back to the hearing officer to determine comparative fault and damages. Finally, the Board of Claims awarded the man nearly $90,000 in damages. The Jefferson Circuit Court affirmed the Board’s decision, and the Department of Highways filed an appeal with the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Read More

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision in favor of an automobile insurer in a motorcycle wreck case. In Black v. Nationwide General Insurance Co., a woman was hurt in a crash while riding as a passenger on her husband’s motorcycle in 2010. The same motorcycle was apparently damaged in a 2008 collision and placed in storage. Between 2008 and 2010, the couple allowed both the registration and insurance on the vehicle to lapse. About two weeks before the woman was hurt, her husband repaired the motorcycle, but he did not register it or resume insurance coverage. On the date of the accident, the couple reportedly rode the motorcycle around the block. While doing so, the motorcycle collided with another vehicle that allegedly drove into the path of the couple. Following the crash, the woman was treated for spinal cord injuries. At the time of the motorcycle accident, the couple carried an automobile insurance policy on two other passenger vehicles. The policy included both underinsured motorist and personal injury protection coverage. Nearly two years after the motorcycle crash, the woman filed a lawsuit against her automobile insurer, seeking to collect compensation for her damages in excess of those paid by the at-fault motorist’s insurance company. The woman’s insurer countered that the couple’s insurance policy did not cover the motorcycle. In addition, the insurer claimed the clear and unambiguous terms of the auto policy excluded coverage for injuries sustained while using any vehicle owned by or available for the regular use of the couple that was not insured by the company. Next, the insurance company filed a motion for summary judgment with the Jefferson Circuit Court. A motion for summary judgment is filed when there is no material issue of fact in dispute, and the moving party believes it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Normally, a court must consider such a motion in the light that is most favorable to the non-moving party. After reviewing the facts of the case, the Circuit Court granted the insurer’s motion and dismissed the woman’s lawsuit. In response, she filed an appeal with the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Read More

On Monday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a report indicating that motorists who drive vehicles with airbags made by Takata could be in grave danger. The airbags are designed to inflate and protect motorists in the event of an injury, but instead, they can explode, causing the death of the driver. In at least four instances, motorists have been killed in accidents in which their airbag exploded, covering them in shrapnel. Others have been severely injured. The problems are so dangerous the NHTSA is asking people not to carry passengers in the front seats of the recalled vehicles - but you may not even want to drive these vehicles after reading about these problems. Most of the vehicles are older models, some going back to 2001. Motorists should check their vehicles as soon as possible. The NHTSA recall affects about 4.7 million vehicles throughout the U.S., though safety experts have put the number at 12 million world wide. The recall includes vehicles made by  Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, BMW and General Motors. If you are unsure if your car has been affected by the recall, you can enter the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) on your registration paperwork and enter it at this web site to check: http://www.safercar.gov/. All drivers nationally can use this, including drivers in Kentucky and Tennessee who are concerned with this product recall. You can read the full report and find specifics on the recall here. Read More

It's no secret that tractor trailer drivers are often on tight deadlines to move freight fast. In some cases, the items they're carrying are perishable foods and if the cargo isn't on time, the trucking company risks spoilage. Trucking companies sometimes make unreasonable demands of drivers as well, forcing some of them to drive without the sleep they need to stay alert and drive safely. The news program 20/20, which is part of ABC News, aired a report recently on the dangers of expecting truck drivers to operate an 80,000 pound vehicle with very little sleep. This eight minute news story exposes the dangers of driving too fast and driving while exhausted. The ABC News crew spent time with the Ohio State Highway Patrol, spotting truck drivers violating the law by helicopter and advising patrol officers on the road to pull truckers over. In one case, a truck driver was going nearly 80 miles an hour and driving far too close behind a passenger car. If the car had stopped suddenly, the accident could have been catastrophic. Read More

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court’s Order granting summary judgment in a car accident insurance dispute. In Embry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., two women were involved in a traffic wreck that resulted in injuries. Following the accident, one of the drivers filed a claim for medical and other damages from her automobile insurer. The insurer paid the claim and proceeded to file a lawsuit to recover the money it paid to its insured from the other driver in Jefferson Circuit Court. According to the insurer, the defendant’s negligent actions caused the car crash and all resulting damage. Although the defendant repeatedly denied responsibility for the collision, the insurer filed a motion for summary judgment with the circuit court. A motion for summary judgment asks a court to rule in favor of one party to a lawsuit without proceeding to trial because no genuine issues of material fact exists for a jury to decide. Normally, a court is required to consider all of the evidence offered prior to the filing of such a motion in favor of the non-moving party. In its motion, the insurer claimed the defendant caused the crash and asserted that the amount of damages paid to its insured was reasonable. The defendant opposed the insurer’s motion by stating her alleged liability was unclear and the financial compensation sought by the insurer was excessive based upon the severity of the wreck. In addition, the defendant argued that her answers to the insurer’s complaint demonstrated that the facts of the case were disputed. The circuit court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and ruled in favor of the company. After the Jefferson Circuit Court denied the defendant’s motion, she filed an appeal with the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Read More

In Kentucky, personal injury cases where negligence is alleged, a plaintiff must establish (1) a duty owed to the plaintiff, (2) breach of the duty, (3) that proximately causes injuries, and (4) actual damages. Negligence, including the element of causation, is never presumed in Kentucky. What happens, however, if some surprising act occurs to cause an accident that is not related to a defendant's otherwise negligent conduct? A "superseding cause" can absolve a defendant if it is extraordinary and independent — that is not arising out of a negligently created condition. In a recent unpublished opinion that illustrates how Kentucky looks at the issue of superseding causes, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky considered a case involving two accidents on opposite sides of an interstate highway. The first accident involved the defendant's car, which she had driven into the median and hit the base of the eastbound bridge under the roadway. The second accident happened when the plaintiffs were driving eastbound. They had come to a total stop in a traffic jam after the defendant's car's accident. A tractor-trailer rear-ended their vehicle, killing a family member and injuring another. The plaintiffs sued the defendant, claiming that her first accident directly and proximately caused their injuries and damages. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that her accident had happened more than a mile away and that the traffic jam was the result of the emergency personnel's response and the negligence of the tractor-trailer driver, not her driving. The defendant argued that both of these events were superseding causes of the plaintiffs' injuries. The trial court agreed, ruling that the first responders had stopped traffic and the  tractor-trailer's negligence were both superseding causes. Read More

A 2013 Tennessee motor vehicle accident case involved a collision between a car driven by plaintiff Ramey Long and an 18-wheeler owned by a trucking company. The plaintiff was driving around 5 a.m. in the left lane on Interstate 40. As she tried to pass it, the 18-wheeler and her car collided. Her car stopped in the left lane and stayed smashed and unable to be operated after the collision.The front left brake booster and tire of the truck were also damaged. Another truck driver stopped at the scene and came over to help. The plaintiff got out of her car and crossed the interstate to get in the emergency lane. At the same time Ms. Adair was traveling alone the same route in an SUV. They came to the accident and she brought the SUV to a stop in the right lane. However, a Greyhound bus rear-ended it, sending it into the emergency lane and an adjacent grassy area. The SUV hit the plaintiff, dragging her into a ditch. She suffered spinal fractures. Read More