Sentences with phrase «defendant drivers»

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

[25] Counsel for the plaintiff argued that, even if there was no collision, the defendant driver's own evidence shows that he was negligent and that a sudden stop was capable of causing the plaintiff's soft tissue injuries.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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 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.

So, typically what you need to prove in a truck accident claim is that the defendant driver failed to use ordinary care in driving and caused an accident, which resulted in damages to the injured person.

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.

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.

The defendant driver had claimed the motorcyclist was negligent and thus at least partly liable for the accident.

The defendant driver swerved around 2 cars stopped behind the bus, ran onto the curb and past the cars, past the bus and ran the girl down 2 feet from her mother.

In the following year, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the allegedly negligent driver and his own insurer, alleging that the defendant driver negligently caused his injuries and that the defendant was uninsured at the time of the crash, based on the denial of coverage by ACCC.

The IIGA argued before the appellate court that the defendant driver wasn't uninsured, and therefore the plaintiff had no actionable claim against Affirmative (and therefore no claim against IIGA) from which he could recover damages.

I accept the plaintiff's submission that in order to prove that a plaintiff pedestrian was contributorily negligent, the defendant driver bears the onus of establishing not only inadequate attention on the part of the pedestrian but also must show that by the time the pedestrian realized the driver was not going to yield the right - of - way to the pedestrian, that it would at that point have been possible for the pedestrian to avoid the driver's car.

The denial of coverage means that even though the defendant driver's vehicle technically has insurance, the defendant is still without insurance that can actually cover any claimed damages.

The deceased was a passenger in her own car when the defendant driver of the vehicle lost control and rolled over.

The Defendant driver did not defend the action, however ICBC did, originally denying liability and alleging contributory negligence against the Plaintiff.

On December 21, 2001, the plaintiff suffered serious personal injury when he was struck by a car operated by the defendant driver.

I have had several cases where the defendant driver is an illegal immigrant and they simply are untraceable after the car crash.

It seemed that the defendant driver's biggest concern at her deposition was that her license not be taken away for her careless driving.

In Georgia in normal car accident cases, you must sue the defendant driver but not their insurance company.