Hit by a drunk 16 year old

RobertGeorgia · #1 03-23-2007, 09:26 PM

Georgia

On Jan 13, I was hit head on by a 16 year old girl driving a Lexus LS400, I was in my Porsche Cayenne Turbo SUV. My car flipped over and was totalled. I already have around $50,000 in medical bills and the medical bills will be more than $100,000 by the time treatment is done because I have a pretty bad head injury. I was reimbursed by my insurance company for the FMV of my car, and a rental car, thats it. The airbags in my car did not deploy, and I might go after Porsche for my head injury. I have $25,000 in uninsured motorist protection on my policy, but no medical reimbursement.

The owner of the car that hit me, the girls grandparents, said she stole the car from them out of their garage. The girl was cited for DUI, failure to maintain lane, and driving under a suspended license. The grandparents insurance company told me they are not liable because she stole the car.

Who to sue? The grandparents? Their insurance company? The juvie? Her parents? Porsche? My lawyer has been very little help.

ecmst12 · #2 03-24-2007, 02:58 PM

I don't think the grandparents are going to get very far with the "she stole it" argument....if they left the keys where she could get to them, that's called "implied consent". You can sue them and the girl. Not the parents, they had nothing to do with it.

I don't think you'll be able to go after Porche because you would have to let them inspect the car to determine if the airbags were defective, and since you've already accepted payment for your car from your insurance company, they now own the vehicle so you can't turn it over to porche. And just because they didn't go off doesn't mean they were defective, if the crash wasn't at a high enough speed.

racer72 · #3 03-24-2007, 03:08 PM

No automobile manufacturer guarantees airbag deployment in every accident situation. You would have to prove Porsche was negligent in the design and manufacture of the vehicle to have a slim chance of winning, do you have a stack of cash and a couple years to invest in such a lawsuit? Negligence for the accident and lawsuit lie solely with the teen and her grandparents, they should be the target of your legal action.

JBK in Georgia · #4 03-26-2007, 08:29 AM

If your attorney cannot answer these questions for you, it's time for a new attorney.

ForFun · #5 03-26-2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBK in Georgia

If your attorney cannot answer these questions for you, it's time for a new attorney.

I agree with that.

As for my opinion...

You obviously have a case against the teen, but you cannot win a suit against her parents based on their maternity/paternity alone, nor can you win a suit against the grandparents based upon their mere ownership of the vehicle.

That's not to say that you cannot successfully sue the parents and grandparents, but you'll need some sort of theory that either (1) makes them vicariously liable for the teen's negligence, or (2) makes them negligent themselves.

"It must be remembered that there is more than one way to impose liability upon A for B's conduct. Possibilities for doing so, recognized in varying degrees in various jurisdictions, are agency, negligent entrustment of a chattel to an incompetent, conspiracy, the family-purpose doctrine, joint enterprise, and ownership liability statutes." Willis v. Hill, 159 S.E.2d 145, 116 Ga.App. 848 (Ga. App., 1967).

You may have a case against Porsche through Georgia's strict liability statute, OCGA § 51-1-11(b)(1), which provides:

"The manufacturer of any personal property sold as new property directly or through a dealer or any other person shall be liable in tort, irrespective of privity, to any natural person who may use, consume, or reasonably be affected by the property and who suffers injury to his person or property because the property when sold by the manufacturer was not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended, and its condition when sold is the proximate cause of the injury sustained.

Under this statute, the plaintiff is not required to show negligence by the manufacturer, but must show that the product, when sold, was not merchantable and reasonably suited to the use intended and its condition when sold is the proximate cause of the injury sustained. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to specify precisely the nature of the defect. He must show that the device did not operate as intended and this was the proximate cause of his injuries."

[W]hile the company asserts in its brief that the technician "failed to opine that any component of the belt and bag system was defectively manufactured," the witness did opine that neither the seat belt nor the air bag sensor worked properly." Owens v. General Motors Corp., 613 S.E.2d 651 (Ga, 2005)

The above are just some things to think about. Hopefully your attorney will fully research the topic and give you competent advice. Good luck.

teflon_jones · #6 03-26-2007, 10:01 PM

Unless the grandparents are willing to have their granddaughter prosecuted for felony auto theft, they can't claim she stole the car.

File a claim with your insurance company and let them go after the grandparents auto insurance. You can also sue the girl's parents and grandparents. Both share some liability in this situation.

ForFun · #7 03-26-2007, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teflon_jones

Unless the grandparents are willing to have their granddaughter prosecuted for felony auto theft, they can't claim she stole the car.

File a claim with your insurance company and let them go after the grandparents auto insurance. You can also sue the girl's parents and grandparents. Both share some liability in this situation.

What's the basis for your opinion? How can you claim that both the parents and grandparents share liability without more info?

moburkes · #8 03-27-2007, 08:46 AM

The only thing that I have to add, is that it makes NO SENSE to have the lowest possible uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. None whatsoever. First, if you are hit by someone who has insurance, your underinsured motorist coverage is void, because they will at least have the state minimum coverage. Also, it has never made sense to me to have more coverage in case you cause an accident, and less coverage if someone else causes it, and you are injured. You're not driving around in a big SUV that will protect you in the event of a hard hit.

Please, for future (in case you are able to continue to drive), raise your coverages.

ecmst12 · #9 03-27-2007, 09:56 AM

At least in PA, 25K IS more then the minimum. And you can't have more uninsured/underinsured then you have collision coverage, and raising collision is expensive (at least if you have an imperfect driving record). So I can understand not raising it higher then OP has (I'll be honest, those are my limits too, I couldn't afford to raise it more then one level over the minimum right now). I definitely do NOT understand not getting med pay though. I have health insurance as a backup but I still took 10k in PIP just so I don't have to worry about copays or subrogation out of a settlement or anything like that.

You can sue the grandparents BOTH as the owners of the car AND because they allowed their GD access to it (with a suspended license and drunk, at that). I will reiterate that the parents have no responsibility for the accident and while you can sue them, it will be a waste of money. But unless the GD was excluded from the policy or lived in the same household with the grandparents and not named on the policy, the GP's insurance should cover the accident.

moburkes · #10 03-27-2007, 09:58 AM

In GA it is the minimum

Whoa, ecmst. What are you talking about? Uninsured motorist is MEDICAL coverage, and collision covers damage to your vehicle. HUH? Uninsured motorist cannot be higher than liability. But, any person who can afford an expensive vehicle, should be looking to protect their assets, which means higher liability limits.

Your assumption about coverage is wrong. They can, and did, deny coverage, based on the grandparents not giving permission. If the grandparents change their story, that is different.

Anybody can be sued. That doesn't mean an automatic win.

ecmst12 · #11 03-27-2007, 10:24 AM

I know uninsured is medical, I just knew it was tied to one of the other coverages (guess I got it wrong which one though) from when I looked at increasing it the other day. It still follows that if you have to increase one, you have to increase others, and it adds up. But I forgot that OP was driving a Porche, so he should be able to afford more!

moburkes · #12 03-27-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecmst12

I know uninsured is medical, I just knew it was tied to one of the other coverages (guess I got it wrong which one though) from when I looked at increasing it the other day. It still follows that if you have to increase one, you have to increase others, and it adds up. But I forgot that OP was driving a Porche, so he should be able to afford more!

You may have been thinking about uninsured motorist property damage, which, with a deductible, pays to repair your vehicle if you are hit by an at fault uninsured driver.

I'm saying that oftentimes people will have liability to others at 100/300, for example, but medical coverage for themselves in an uninusred/underinsured motorist situation as 25/50. It doesn't cost much to increase this coverage, since it only applies in a very specific situation. And, it never fails, that people learn why they should have bought coverage, AFTER the accident happens.