Motor Vehicle Accidents

Motor vehicle accidents that result in bodily injury are a very common occurrence in today's society. Before the advent and increase of automobile insurance laws, which often contain a provision that makes anyone operating a motor vehicle with the owner's permission an additional insured, special tort laws were developed to deal with liability for automobile accidents. For the most part, these laws are rarely used in present disputes or litigation due to the pervasive nature of modern automobile liability insurance. However, the special laws do still arise on occasion in motor vehicle accident cases.

One theory that is used, on occasion, is that of joint enterprise that holds that individuals engaged in a joint enterprise are liable to third parties for the negligence of the other parties engaged in the joint enterprise. This serves as a method for the plaintiff to proceed against more than one individual in order to obtain damages for injuries. In some states, there is a presumption that a driver of a vehicle, who is not its owner, is an agent of the actual owner if the owner is a passenger in the car at the time of the accident.

In the absence of a specific statute or a family purpose, an owner who permits another to use his vehicle is not liable for the acts of that individual unless the driver of the vehicle was acting as the owner's agent within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. A number of states have adopted a family-purpose doctrine in which the owner of an automobile is vicariously liable for its negligent operation by members of the family who are authorized, expressly or impliedly, to use the vehicle. In some states, automobiles have been referred to as dangerous instrumentalities when in operation, not in the sense of imposing absolute liability upon owners or operators for injuries caused to others, but in the sense that those operating them must exercise a high degree of care. Many states have additional laws that may apply to limit, or increase, liability of an individual in an automobile case and the theories mentioned here are not meant to be exhaustive of the possibilities.

Today, many states operate on a system of no-fault insurance for automobile accidents. At their hearts, these systems are set up to provide some type of compensation to injured individuals (or dependents of deceased individuals) regardless of fault. Most of these systems are funded by private first-party insurance, commonly known as PIP (personal injury payments) coverage. In other words, once injured, a party is compensated by his own insurance company, rather than the insurance company of the other driver or a third party who was actually responsible for the accident.

Benefits that are available usually include medical and hospital expenses including physical rehabilitation, reimbursement for funeral expenses, and lost wages. Most no-fault benefit plans contain a maximum, or a cap, on the amount of damages that may be received. Many plans also require that every driver obtain a certain minimum level of coverage before being allowed to operate a motor vehicle. Under some of these plans, purchasers have the option of obtaining additional insurance, such as coverage for non-economic losses like pain and suffering. Some plans also require, in an attempt to prevent double recoveries, that individuals who receive benefits from other sources, such as disability insurance or workers' compensation, credit the no-fault carrier for the amount that was received from these alternative sources.

In keeping with the desire to limit double recoveries, no-fault benefit plans generally contain some sort of provision limiting the right of an individual receiving benefits under the plan to seek a traditional tort recovery. Most plans expressly abolish this right, thereby making the no-fault system the sole method of available recovery to the extent that the loss does not exceed a minimum threshold. In other words, a tort recovery is prohibited unless the individual's medical bills exceed a certain amount. In some cases, particular types of injuries such as death, dismemberment, and permanent disfigurement are exempted from the prohibition.

Other states have no-fault plans that do not contain any prohibition on tort recoveries. However, these same plans generally require that an individual who has received a tort recovery reimburse the no-fault carrier for any benefits that it has paid, thereby preventing a double recovery.

Worksheet: Keeping Track of Your Business's Insurance Coverage

To read and printout the Worksheet please click below.

Keeping Track of Your Business's Insurance Coverage

You can download a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader here.

Copyright © 1994-2006 FindLaw, a Thomson business

DISCLAIMER: This site and any information contained herein are intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek competent legal counsel for advice on any legal matter.

View Previous Months' Selections