I’m not assuming anything. In fact, I’m doing quite the opposite. I am appropriately withholding judgment or advice on a matter about which I have insufficient knowledge. You are assuming–without any reason and contrary to what one would expect the average lawyer to say–that a one-line summary of a conversation is a literal reporting of what was said and using that to judge that she ought to find someone else.
I’m glad you’ve clarified your advice. I agree.
It’s called subrogation, and it’s referred to upthread. What will happen is, at some point after the treatment is complete & claims are filed, the health insurance company will send you a letter asking if anyone else was possibly responsible for the treated injury, and a form to fill out and return if so. Once they receive your information, their lawyers will leap into action …
I just want to remind people of the actual injuries my husband suffered, injuries that are very real and not particularly minor.
He has two fractured bones, one in his right wrist and one in his left leg. My husband can’t walk without great pain. And by pain I mean the sort of pain that makes a stoic grown man wince terribly and need serious pain meds just to be lucid.
My husband can’t use his right hand which is his dominant hand. He can’t sign his name. He can’t dress himself or bathe himself. He can’t pull on his own shoes because his leg aches with searing pain when he does. He looks like hell half the day pale and sweaty. He woke up twice last night in hellacious pain because he moved his leg and his arm during sleep. He tried to take a nap this afternoon but woke up from it with nightmare about the accident.
At this point in time we have no idea how long this situation will last. I have no idea when he will heal or how we’re going to get there. I have no idea when he will be back at work nor do I have any idea what the long term financial consequences will be for us. We should be okay but I am not sure. I have no idea if I have take unpaid time off to take my husband to multiple doctor’s appointments or how much time he may need before he can get back to work. The orthopod who saw him briefly today said he’s probably facing surgery of some sort and probably quite a bit of other medical interventions.
The driver was driving under snowy and slick conditions, conditions that drivers were repeatedly cautioned to be extra careful while driving under at every turn. Under those circumstances he should have been twenty times more cautious than he apparently was.
I sincerely hope that there will be consequences for the guy who did it, that he won’t just pay a fine and “be done with it.” I have no idea if the guy who did it was only in one car crash or half a dozen. Neither does anyone on this thread despite the many sympathies expressed for the person who quite literally fractured my husband’s bones.
I do know that we will be talking to many people over the next weeks. One or two of them will definitely be lawyers.
Again thanks to any one who took the time to answer my questions rather than slam me for being extremely upset over what happened to my family in the last two days.
With all due respect, we are aware. We know the extent of his injuries as you’ve relayed them to us; and I wish him the best of recoveries. No one has questioned the magnitude of your husband’s injuries, and I’m sure we all hope everything turns out alright for him. No one has tried to understate his pain or injuries. And we are very much aware of how upset, frustrated, and angry you are because someone hurt your husband.
That’s why it’s called an accident. He could have been observing every law, every caution, on a sunny, dry day and still had an accident. Finger wagging of “you should have been more careful!” isn’t really conducive to the situation. The fact is that you were not there and you do not know what the other driver was doing. You’re quick to point out how he’s probably one of the crazies that always drives recklessly through the neighborhood, or how he probably wasn’t being as cautious as he should have been. But it’s all a game of “what if?” right now, and some of us aren’t so quick to dismiss the possibility of an actual, honest to god accident.
That sort of punishment is determined by the court. He’ll pay whatever fine he needs to, get points on his license (or have it revoked, depending on his history), and his insurance company will end up paying for your husband’s injuries, as they should. You need to understand now, though, that the court isn’t going to do what you think should be done. Or what we think should be done. The court is going to look at the facts of the case and determine appropriate punishment; and in my experience, it’s not going to be “to the fullest extent of the law” unless this guy does have a history.
Really, the only people who are going to decide just how financially punished this guy gets are your lawyers and his insurance company.
The only sympathy given to the other driver is that some of us understand how we would feel if placed in a similar situation.
It seems to me that you’re more interested in converting us to your already decided course of rightenousness through empathy rather than hearing honest opinions based on facts and an objective look at the situation. No one has slammed you for being upset. Really. Look for it in the thread. Thus far, everyone has been quite understanding of your position – all we’re saying is that at this point in time, your emotions and desire to seek vengeance may be clouding your judgement a bit.
No one’s offered you legal advice in here, except that if you’re interested in suing after you hear from the insurance company, you should talk to a real life lawyer, which it sounds like you intend to do.
I would only sue if his insurance company did not pay for my medical bills and a bit for pain/suffering/lost work time etc. I can’t imagine that I would ask for anywhere close to 50K.
When I was hit (in my car) it caused about $400 damage, I had about $400 in medical bills, missed 3 days of work, and I asked the insurance company for $1500 which they agreed to and I was fine with it.
I advised LB to walk away from this thread because of the venom but she is not, so I will. I can not believe the number of people who seem to think that the only way there should be a lawsuit is if the guy was intentionally driving over people. If that were the case it would be aggrevated assault. Intent is not required. How about negligence? I am all for tort reform. I can’t stand frivolous lawsuits and I think there should be limits. This is not frivolous. LB is not what is wrong with the civil court system. This is what the court is there for. She may not have to sue if the settlement is enough but there is no reason why she shouldn’t if it comes to that. You would think by reading this thread that the courts would be empty because no one could fit their high horse through the courtroom door.
I’ve had a few accidents over the years and there was no long drawn-out process.
I agree completely with **Jodi **and Antinor01, and as I said, as tactfully as possible in post #26, consult with at least two actual PI lawyers before you make your decision. And stop talking about this to freaking everyone else (the more you talk, the better the chance a possibly contradictory statement may come back to bite you), and especially stop talking to your good friend the Obviously-Not-a-PI lawyer. (A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.) The two statements you attributed to her raised all kinds of red flags for me, but I didn’t want to trash your friend knowing nothing about what she does or what your state laws are. But really, she’s not giving you good advice, if those two statements are any indication.
Take a deep breath. Nothing moves fast in the law. Things will happen, but it takes time. As others have said, contact the driver’s insurance company. They will pay the medical bills at minimum - the rest, yes, you may have to file a lawsuit, but that issue is premature at this point. Yes, go talk to a PI lawyer to determine your rights and next steps and what may actually happen to the driver (less than you want to think). Having concrete information may help to ratchet down your anger. You will also find out what records to keep and costs to keep track of.
You are confusing “intent” with responsibility. The driver probably did not intend to hit your husband (unless he owes him money or something we don’t know) - and the fact that it was snowy, etc., supports the contention that it was an accident. The fact that it was, undoubtedly, an accident, does not mean he is not responsible for your husband’s injuries (including his pain, lost work, etc.).
Suing this one guy will do NOTHING toward making your street safer. But it can be used as an example WHY something should be done. The place to make the petition for change is at your local governmental level - the county council or whatever you have there.
Again, take a deep breath. I hope your husband feels better soon. And take your legal questions to a PI lawyer. Stop getting legal information from the uninformed and a message board. That’s just confusing the issues and riling you up more. Best of luck to you both.
An intentional tort is generally not covered by insurance. Unless a tortfeasor has lots and lots of identifiable and valuable assets with which to satisfy a judgment, suing someone for an intentional tort is just not worth it. Can’t collect. So don’t even bring up intent, and let the insurance company do it’s thing. (IMO, insurance companies look extensively for reasons to deny coverage - don’t help them.)
And in New Jersey there wouldn’t be an accident report since it wasn’t an accident. There would be an investigative report on the crime of aggrevated assault. I said the above because of those who were basically saying don’t sue, it was an accident the guy didn’t mean it. Of course he didn’t mean to do it, unless LB’s husband has a hit out against him that we don’t know about. That has nothing to do with if there should be a lawsuit. And your previous post was excellent advice.
I wouldn’t say don’t sue, what I have said is nothing that has been described so far will need a suit to take care of. Perhaps it will be needed later, but for now let the insurance system do it’s job.
I am taking her at her word for what was said, and assuming she has the basic skills to effectively convey the relevant gist of the conversation. I don’t normally spend my time wondering if people who are recounting events to me are telling me the truth, or recounting the events accurately; I respect them enough to assume that they are. Feel free to demand a transcript everytime someone recounts a conversation to you, and feel free to withhold judgment or advice until they produce one – but it is not reasonable to expect others to hew to such a rigorous standard.
Two fractured bones! Jesus fuck, you must have had some sweet life up to now that you think that is going to impress anyone as some horrible outcome. I’ll repeat, you husband is damned lucky he survived an encounter with a coupla-ton metal object and experienced no worse. And consider yourself lucky hubby didn’t break his arm and leg simply slipping on the icy sidewalk. Then who would you have directed all of your anger at?
You have all the time in the world. Right now you might be better served wiping hubby’s ass and otherwise helping him get better, than worrying about righting the world’s wrongs or wreaking vengeance.
One thing you do succeed at is pointing out the value of having good insurance. When misfortune strikes you can concentrate on what most sane people consider most important - getting better. Your insurance covers you, and in good time if they believe ANYONE out there is responsible for any of the costs, they are extremely willing and able to go after them.
And if you feel you desire to turn a profit or set an example from this accident, by all means go ahead and do so. In the meantime, every additional thing you say about desiring to impose “consequences” to the “fullest extent of the law” just makes you sound more the ass IMO. If your attitude reflects that of “a normal human being,” then I’m damned glad to be abnormal!
Well, “quite literally” it was the car that fractured your husband’s bones.
If she thought she was narrating what happened such that some other lawyer could judge her friend based on the conversation, then she likely would have written something entirely different from a sentence whose only purpose was to convey where the idea of some kind of legal action came from. You’re being totally disingenuous in suggesting that this is me calling her dishonest or inaccurate or somesuch. Perhaps you interpret every sentence you read literally, but most people read and write sentences with a sense of context and the purpose of the statement.
Perhaps it would be informative if you told us more about the injury accidents that you’ve been in, and how you dealt with them.
Is this meant to be humor?
I’m not Dins (nor do I play him on the Intranets) but I was in an accident that was my fault and my passenger was injured badly enough that he was admitted to the hospital for a day.
My insurance company paid his medical bills, his time off work, and if I recall, they tossed in a few bucks for his trouble. It didn’t take long (probably because he didn’t sue me). That’s what insurance is for.
I must confess I haven’t read all of the posts in this thread. Also IANAL. However, I am also a victim of an auto accident that was not my fault, and I also live in New Jersey so I’m somewhat familiar with how that stuff works here.
All of my medical expenses, plus the cost for my totalled car, were covered by my excellent auto insurance company. They sued the at-fault driver for their costs. When all was said and done, that subrogation resulted in the return of my deductible to me.
The bad part was that I was hit by an out-of-state driver, who had very minimal personal injury insurance. On the advice of my lawyer, I filed with my insurance company for the pain and suffering, of which there was a great deal. In NJ you cannot sue for P&S for soft-tissue damage only, but I had a cracked bone in my spine, so that qualified. We prevailed in arbitration. The lawyer did get the IIRC 30% contingency, but I still ended up with more than I would have. I certainly didn’t “get rich” from it, though.
Here’s how my lawyer explained the logic. The goal of accidental injury compensation is that the person who was at fault should make you “whole,” as in the same as you were before the accident. In the case of physical property, that’s relatively easy. In the case of harm to the body, it’s impossible. All they can do is compensate you in some way for your suffering, and money is all they’ve got.
To put it another way, for how much money would you willingly submit to whatever injury is involved? Probably no amount would suffice. In my case, besides the spinal injury I had damage to the better one of my knees. As a result, I still have knee and back problems, and will probably continue to have them for the rest of my life, despite all the professional rehab. More subtly, the enforced inactivity and continuing pain continues to be an obstacle in my efforts to be fit and healthy. So no, I would not have accepted the settlement amount in return for permitting this injury, but it was all I could get.
Remember that even after the current damages heal, there will quite possibly be continuing issues.
In New Jersey, as previously stated, you work with your own insurance company for everything up to the max that is covered by the at-fault party’s insurance. After that you attempt to collect, possibly through legal means, from your own insurance company’s PIP (Personal Injury Protection) policy.
I hope this is helpful.
You are saying you don’t know if she’s being dishonest, or inaccurate, because, geez, you don’t know what the friend said, or the context in which it was said. Speficially, you said: If it’s true that your friend jumped immediately to lawsuit, that’s one thing. . . . – and that’s exactly what she related: “One of my best friends IRL is a lawyer. She thinks we should sue the guy who did it”, this on the very day of the accident – *** But I’m guessing*** – you’re guessing based on what? – that your summary of the conversation doesn’t reflect the full nuance of what your friend said or what your friend would say upon deciding to formally represent you. What, exactly, is the basis for this guess? Your knowledge of the situation? Of the poster? Of her friend? On what basis do you read “One of my best friends IRL is a lawyer; she things we should sue” and decide that this is not really what was said?
Just because you don’t believe YOU have enough information to offer an opinion doesn’t mean everyone must agree with you, especially on a freaking message board. If in fact you feel there is insufficient information to form an opinion – then don’t offer one. But you are out of line to announce that I am “overly hasty” to take the OP’er at her word as to what occured.
No one died and made you God’s gift to sentence interpretation, or left unto you exclusively the determining of when enough information exists to offer an opinion. So you’d be much better off by offering your own assessment – or not, if you feel it unwise! – than by pronouncing mine “demonstrably unwise” based on your “guesses” and your assumption of “nuance” that the OP’er did not see fit to include.
Look, it’s a moot point. She knows what the content of the conversation actually was, and if it doesn’t match your overly hasty interpretation, then she’ll know not to follow your advice.
So I’ll say my piece and then give you the last word.
Suppose I said to you offhandedly that this morning I ate some eggs because I wanted to ask you about the nutritional content of eggs. But in fact I only ate one egg and I also had bacon. Would you claim I was lying or inaccurate in my statement? Of course not. Nor would you safely assert that I ate no bacon. Now if you asked me exactly what I had for breakfast, and my answer was incomplete, it would be a different story. There is a difference between a literal phrase and a short summary that is not literal, and that difference is not a matter of dishonesty. It is a matter of the purpose of the sentence.
I’m somewhat confident that you already know all of this because it is essential to the practice of law, so I don’t know why you continue to disingenuously assert that a literal interpretation is sound and that anything else is questioning the speaker’s honesty or accuracy.