Father at fault died in accident, other driver driving with suspended license

[butler5]

My father was killed in an auto accident and was found to be at fault. Only my fathers and one other vehicle was involved. The driver of the other vehicle was driving with a suspended license. Is there any recourse I have considering the fact that the other vehicle should not have even been there due to the drivers license being suspended. Even though my father made a mistake it may not have been a fatal one if the other vehicle was not there which should have been the case due to the fact the other drivers license had been suspended. The accident happened in Buffalo, NY.

Driving me crazy, please help!

 

[lawrat]

You need to find out what type of rules New York follows as far as Negligence is concerned.

Is it comparative or contributory negligence?

If it is contributory negligence and the driver of the other car sues your father's estate/insurance company, he will be possibly barred from recovering if he was contributorily negligent by driving with a suspended license. However, there is a little catch to this. If it is found that your father had the last chance to prevent the accident, then the other driver is not barred from recovery. Confusing I know.

If it is a comparative negligence state, the percentage of fault falling on each party (as determined by the court) will determine if the other driver can recover. 50 or less? 51% or more?

This is the law I found for New York:

ARTICLE 14-A
DAMAGE ACTIONS: EFFECT OF CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK
1411. Damages recoverable when contributory negligence or assumption of
risk is established.
1412. Burden of pleading; burden of proof.
1413. Applicability.

Sec. 1411. Damages recoverable when contributory negligence
or assumption of risk is established. In any action to recover
damages for personal injury, injury to property, or wrongful
death, the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant or to
the decedent, including contributory negligence or assumption of
risk, shall not bar recovery, but the amount of damages otherwise
recoverable shall be diminished in the proportion which the
culpable conduct attributable to the claimant or decedent bears
to the culpable conduct which caused the damages.

Sec. 1412. Burden of pleading; burden of proof. Culpable
conduct claimed in diminution of damages, in accordance with
section fourteen hundred eleven, shall be an affirmative defense
to be pleaded and proved by the party asserting the defense.

Sec. 1413. Applicability. This article shall apply to all
causes of action accruing on or after September first, nineteen
hundred seventy-five.

 

[LawScott]

On the basis that you say, forget it. You speak of a "but for" causation. "But for" the presence of, let's say, just about anything, the accident would not have occurred. The problem with "but for" causation is that it can never end. If only the other car was not there. If only the driver of the other car had not been approved for the car loan. If only the driver of the other car had not run a red light six blocks earlier then he would not have been at the accident scene and the accident could not have occurred. A "but for" argument, as in your case, is always correct. So "but for" the fact that the other guy disobeyed the law and operated a motor vehicle in spite of a license suspension, the accident would not have happened.

True enough but it is not so simple in the law. The law looks to "proximate cause" the conduct of the other driver must have contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Also, that conduct must have been negligent. Let's say he ran a red light. Or was trying to tie his shoes. Or was speeding. Or was distracted by use of a cell phone. The conduct of driving with a suspended license in and of itself, is not negligent. Now if that other driver had in fact engaged in negligent conduct then I would sure try to bring in the fact that the license was suspended.

Drving on a suspended license is a police matter. Now it seems that the police might be able to bring up the involvement in an accident. But the defense would surely point out that he had not engaged in any negligent conduct.

All of this changes of course if it turns out that this driver was actually at fault. How do you know that your father was at fault?

 

[butler5]

I base it on the fact that the police report says the driver of the card was ticketed for driving with a suspended license. My father pulled out of a parking lot accross the northbound lane to make a left turn and the driver in the northbound lane broad sided him claiming he couldn't stop in time.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face=" Arial, Verdana, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LawScott:
On the basis that you say, forget it. You speak of a "but for" causation. "But for" the presence of, let's say, just about anything, the accident would not have occurred. The problem with "but for" causation is that it can never end. If only the other car was not there. If only the driver of the other car had not been approved for the car loan. If only the driver of the other car had not run a red light six blocks earlier then he would not have been at the accident scene and the accident could not have occurred. A "but for" argument, as in your case, is always correct. So "but for" the fact that the other guy disobeyed the law and operated a motor vehicle in spite of a license suspension, the accident would not have happened.

True enough but it is not so simple in the law. The law looks to "proximate cause" the conduct of the other driver must have contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Also, that conduct must have been negligent. Let's say he ran a red light. Or was trying to tie his shoes. Or was speeding. Or was distracted by use of a cell phone. The conduct of driving with a suspended license in and of itself, is not negligent. Now if that other driver had in fact engaged in negligent conduct then I would sure try to bring in the fact that the license was suspended.

Drving on a suspended license is a police matter. Now it seems that the police might be able to bring up the involvement in an accident. But the defense would surely point out that he had not engaged in any negligent conduct.

All of this changes of course if it turns out that this driver was actually at fault. How do you know that your father was at fault? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[LawScott]

I do not want to get your hopes up, but considering the seriousness, maybe you should investigate the facts of this crash. Is the police report based on the statement of the suspended driver? What does the crush damage on your father's car look like? That is, how fast was the other guy going at impact? How much slowing did he do before impact? Go look at the scene. Could it have happened as in the police report? Could it have happened another way? What secondary evidence is there to support your father as being at fault?