Sentences with phrase «defendant driver»

Very generally speaking, more serious accidents, injuries and treatments, and higher lost wages, coupled with higher insurance policies from defendant drivers, equal the highest value cases.

Client's daughter was riding her motorcycle on a public street when defendant driver made an illegal u-turn in front of the motorcycle causing motorcycle to broadside the vehicle, killing Client's daughter.

Under cl 13, for failing to request insurance information from the defendant driver or for failing to use all reasonable endeavours to obtain this information or to report the failure to provide that information to the police.

In Codner v. Goss, the defendant driver rear - ended a vehicle, but their defense was that they suffered a blackout and were not at fault for the car accident.

GJEL accident attorney Jim Larsen successfully obtained the full limits of the defendant driver's insurance policy with AAA.

For example, in a motor vehicle accident case, a defendant driver owes all other drivers on the road to act as a reasonably prudent and careful driver would act under the same or similar circumstances.

Our accident attorneys were able to show that the defendant driver was driving at a speed too high for conditions, and recovered $ 150,000 for our client from AAA.

Our expert concluded that our client was visible at a distance that was more than sufficient for the defendant driver to apply his brakes and stop his vehicle.

The insurance adjuster conceded that the defendant driver was on notice that our client was intoxicated and in the vicinity where the accident occurred.

During the litigation that ensued, we obtained copies of the defendant driver's cell phone records which indicated that he had made calls close in time to estimated time of the accident.

During the deposition of the defendant driver, we learned for the first time that the defendant had passed through that same area where the accident occurred, only minutes before, and noticed that our client was staggering in the road.

The Defendant driver will then give the lawsuit to his or her insurance company, which will either hire a lawyer for their client or have their own in - house lawyers handle the case.

If the defendant driver fails to act reasonably, and, as a result, causes an accident and injures someone, then the defendant driver may be deemed negligent of providing the proper duty of care.

This is an objective test that takes into consideration both the experience of the average bus driver and anything the defendant driver knew or should have known: Wang v. Horrod (1998), 48 B.C.L.R. (3d) 199 at para. 39 (C.A.); Patoma v. Clarke, 2009 BCSC 1069 at para. 6.

In Johnson v. Carter, the defendant driver moved into an oncoming lane and crashed into an oncoming car, killing one of the passengers in the vehicle.

To address these concerns, we hired an expert on vehicle lighting and visibility to determine the distance that the defendant driver could have seen our client in the road had he been paying attention and driving at the speed limit (as he claimed).

The insurance adjuster also grudgingly conceded that the defendant driver should have been more careful as he drove back through the area and should have been on the lookout for our client.

$ 75,000 — DUI / Automobile Negligence — settlement after mediation for 50 year old client who sustained neck and back soft tissue injuries after after a series of related collisions started by a defendant driver who had no driver's license and was DUI.

The defendant driver crossed over the center line of the road as he attempted to turn into his driveway and broadsided our client.

The defendant driver involved in the collision was uninsured and so the Motor Insurers» Bureau (MIB) was appointed as the defendant.

The Plaintiff appealed, with counsel for the Plaintiff arguing that the trial judge failed to take into consideration numerous statutory provisions under the Motor Vehicle Act with respect to whether or not the Defendant driver breached the standard of care.

The defendant driver backed his own truck into our client's vehicle, crushing the pedestrian «s arm as it was pinned between the two vehicles.

Accident attorney Luke Ellis obtained testimony from a number of eyewitnesses which placed the fault 100 % on the defendant driver and discovered that the driver was without a permanent license, having been hired by the trucking company only recently.

The trial judge also did not review the expert evidence as it related to the speed of the Defendant driver.

[10] The Defendant driver, Mr. Marzec, did not participate.

In short, a bad faith claim in this context usually arises when an auto accident victim files a claim against the defendant driver and there is a reasonable probability that the recovery will be in excess of the insurance policy.

Moreover, the Defendant Driver was also driving a Ford F - 350 which helps further the argument that Plaintiff suffered injuries in the accident.

It probably did not hurt that the Defendant Driver was driving a commercial vehicle which allowed the Plaintiff's lawyer to point to a concrete company instead of just the driver.

I have recommended that people file a lawsuit against the defendant driver in several situations.

GJEL successfully obtained the full policy limits of the defendant driver's insurance policy.

A defendant driver may be held responsible in this context if he or she acted negligently, recklessly, or intentionally, and thereby «proximately caused» the motorcyclist's death.

809 (1994) is a 1994 Court of Appeals decision that says that when the defendant driver has official immunity that makes them uninsured and allows you to proceed against your own Georgia uninsured motorist coverage.

In the recent case of Whitehead (A Protected Party Proceedings by Her Litigation Friend, Amy English) v Bruce and others [2013] EWCA Civ 229, [2013] All ER (D) 209 (Mar), the Court of Appeal held that a defendant driver «dawdled» when she passed a car obstructing the road and came in to the path of an oncoming motorcyclist and pillion passenger.

The plaintiff sued the defendant driver, his brother and CAA (uninsured automobile coverage).

The trucking company also argued the trial court erred in finding the defendant driver owed a duty to warn other motorists not only of his stopped truck but also of the deer, that the plaintiff failed to prove the negligence of the driver was the cause of her injuries, and that the jurors» award of damages wasn't supported by evidence presented at trial.

The gross verdict was $ 872,691.09 for the plaintiff against the defendant driver.

BC 610177, the defendant driver attempted to make the argument that the plaintiff was at fault for the accident that injured her because she was speeding.

It occurred in August 2012 while the defendant driver, while working for a franchise of a national pizza chain, was operating her own vehicle when she struck the back of a scooter operated by the decedent.

The plaintiff in the case was traveling along Highway 101 in the first lane of traffic on his motorcycle directly behind the defendant driver at 9:00 a.m. on a Monday morning.

The very hazard of falling off into the snow and the sensation of risk is part of the thrills that add to the attractiveness and popularity of the sport...» This argument was not accepted, and the defendant driver was held liable as he had been traveling too fast to allow him to react responsibly to the hazard of the ditch.

The Plaintiff presented evidence that several years earlier, the defendant driver had previously parked his truck in the exact same location, which resulted in a similar accident under almost exactly the same circumstances.

The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant driver was negligent in parking the truck on the street in front of his home, considering the prior accident.

The defendant driver was not paying attention and negligently rear - ended the plaintiff's stalled car killing her.

The plaintiff driver was stopped on the highway intending to turn left when she was struck from behind by the defendant driver, who had been going approximately 100 km / h.

The defendant driver argued at trial that he should not be liable for the damages of the passenger as the passenger had voluntarily accepted the risk inherent in snowmobiling.

Therefore, the court found, when the evidence was viewed in favor of the plaintiff, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant driver failed to exercise ordinary care (the standard for Georgia ordinary negligence cases) in parking his truck in front of his home and was therefore potentially negligent.

The defendant driver nevertheless continued to park his truck in the same location, claiming he could not park the truck in his driveway for logistical reasons.