Long story--3 vehicle accident

[davidcarlhill1]

Missouri

My wife and I were in an accident on 12/28/07 as follows:

Wife was driving, I was passenger, two line highway; it had snowed some the night before, light snow that morning; she was going approximately 60 mph when I heard her yell "oh, God"...I looked up to see an oncoming semi (still in his own lane) about to go by us (he was throwing up a moderate amount of slush)--when a car BEHIND the semi crossed the center line, and hit us pretty much head on.

Air bags deployed, we start to head towards the ditch, and about the time I thought the worst was over, we got hit from behind by a delivery/panel truck--TWICE. The first time it hit us in the hatchback (we had a Subaru wagon); the second impact was when he hit us in the driver's fender.

Wife's injuries were the worst--broken knee/tibia; mine were abrasions from air bag and bruises from seatbelt (both healed). Guy that crossed over and guy behind us sustained no injuries.

We haven't gotten an attorney yet--but I suspect that will come Monday, due to the following:

I started having left rib pain 2 days after the accident that is still there--been to the ambulatory clinic and my own dr. twice so far--pain's decreased from 8-9 scale to 2-3 constant.

Wife missed most of January from work--she gets paid monthly, and the first less-than-full-time paycheck was devastating to say the least.

We requested a copy of the accident report (had to pay for it--nice); 3 errors jumped out immediately--1) My airbag didn't deploy (it did); 2) the semi was in FRONT OF US throwing slush (it wasn't), and 3) the road was "snow covered" (it wasn't).

The guy who crossed over got a ticket (excessive speed for weather conditions or what-not); the guy behind us got no ticket (the highway patrol has since said that MO law states that if a vehicle following another vehicle becomes invovled in an accident that's already an accident-in-progress (so to speak), he has no fault.

I sent a demand letter to insurance co. of driver that crossed over. I have no guilt over what I've asked for in terms of medical/pain/suffering--my biggest fear is being low-balled due to no bone breaks (soft tissue injury). I can't exercise/work-out to the capacity I was prior to the accident, and the pain may never leave--who knows.

Wife's injuries are obviously more "apparent".

Our insurance co totalled out our car, and paid us for that already.

My concerns:

The accident report and the errors. Wife just talked to state patrol who worked the scene, he's changing the air bag deployment issue, but nothing else. He says he talked to the one witness (that's listed) that wasn't involved, and witness says semi was in front of us, not in front of car that crossed over--further, highway patrol says "it doesn't really matter" (I contend that all facts matter).

The guy behind us--to me, he was following too closely--period.

Next: should I try to settle my own end of claim--or just go ahead and get an attorney as well?

Oh, and we've received NOTHING from his insurance co other than the car rental--we went a full week before contact from the adjuster, with ME trying to determine if the other guy even HAD insurance.

It just seems like my wife and I are really getting the short end of the stick thus far--hence, an attorney on Monday.

Any insights are appreciated.What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?

 

[ecmst12]

The "errors" on the police report are immaterial. The driver that crossed the center line was correctly assigned fault - that is the most important part. In another state, the truck that hit you from behind might have gotten assessed with a percentage of the fault, but that's not the way the law in YOUR state works. Don't complain - this makes things a HECK of a lot simpler for you.

 

[alnorth]

I agree with the cop in that the position of the semi doesnt really matter. The car that crossed over has full liability in either case.

As far as payments from the other insurance company, they are probably not going to pay a dime for injuries until everyone agrees on a fair settlement or the other driver loses in court and gets hit with a judgement. This is normal, the insurance company generally only wants to write one check and be done with it.

If you have bodily injury that you and your wife are still receiving treatment for, then you need a Personal Injury attorney. They will take a chunk of the settlement, but for a decent injury, the amount of money you would receive with the help of a good attorney will likely be larger even after paying off the attorney than what you would likely be able to negotiate on your own.

 

[davidcarlhill1]

The "errors" on the police report are immaterial. The driver that crossed the center line was correctly assigned fault - that is the most important part. In another state, the truck that hit you from behind might have gotten assessed with a percentage of the fault, but that's not the way the law in YOUR state works. Don't complain - this makes things a HECK of a lot simpler for you.

I'm not going to argue--suffice it to say, when it's someone else that's damn near taken out on the highway on their way to work--then maybe factual errors are immaterial--and who can hit who and not take any responsibility IS simple.

When it's me--I happen to care when facts are mis-stated.

Maybe that's me.

 

[Zigner]

I'm not going to argue--suffice it to say, when it's someone else that's damn near taken out on the highway on their way to work--then maybe factual errors are immaterial--and who can hit who and not take any responsibility IS simple.

When it's me--I happen to care when facts are mis-stated.

Maybe that's me.

Maybe it IS you - but think about it from an outside viewpoint. The cause of the accident was the vehicle crossing over the line and running in to you head on. That driver has FULL liability for the accident. The rest does not matter. And, the reason it's simpler is because you only have to deal with ONE other party.

You know the facts and you are entitled to compensation. Does it really matter WHERE said compensation comes from?

(You have my sympathy - having an accident like this is not a good thing.)

 

[Perky]

I have a question, and maybe this is what concerns the OP. If the car that crossed the line is fully at fault, then does that mean that the insurance company could never claim that the injuries were caused by the second and third impact if the OP sued them?

 

[ecmst12]

It doesn't matter which impact caused the injuries. The center-line-crosser is responsible for the ENTIRE accident - all the impacts to OP, as well as those to the truck.

 

[davidcarlhill1]

When falsehoods are misrepresented as facts, they need to be corrected--or, at the very least, when facts are disagreed upon--addressed as disagreed upon within the context of the accident--REGARDLESS OF THE CHANGE OF THE OUTCOME.

That's good, common sense 101.

But for argument's sake (yeah, I wasn't going to argue--ha ha)--let's say it's "OK" for the report to be wrong on one--oh wait, I'm sorry, it's two, hang on, hang on--three facts.

So on the *slippery* slope we're now on--is it the FOURTH error that stops everyone--or are you allowed up to five--maybe less than ten--before it's addressed? Heck, maybe I'M wrong--maybe it was noon, not 7:30 in the morning, and I was driving, not my wife, and I we were in our Durgango, not our Subaru, and it was a Saturday, not a Friday.

None of these errors would change the fact that the guy crossed over, would it?

I know it's sounds like melodrama, but my point is: facts need to be adhered to--if they didn't matter, then there would be no need for accident reports or statements from those involved, would there?

And to answer one other question: yes it does matter where the compensation comes from, not that we just "get it". For if the driver from behind is not held accountable at all, then the message he receives is that "I wasn't following too closely for driving conditions, and I should maintain that same distance for all my future driving".

The entire "it doesn't matter/it doesn't change anything" only speaks of someone's lack of concern for truth and accuracy--let's hope anyone here who has an advocate working on their behalf (be it a lawyer, state patrol, adjuster) is guided by a standard that is more stringent.

 

[ecmst12]

My point is that the errors you mention don't materially change anything - the correct driver was still cited as at fault, the accident as a whole was still assessed correctly. And if the LAW IN YOUR STATE says one driver has to be at fault for the whole accident, then that's the law and you're not going to change that. Besides, he might NOT have been following too closely - you would have been pushed BACK towards him from the impact of the other car.

 

[Zigner]

David -

Don't make your life more difficult. The point is not "how many" errors...the point is that the errors don't matter.

 

[davidcarlhill1]

David -

Don't make your life more difficult. The point is not "how many" errors...the point is that the errors don't matter.

At the end of the day--it's about standards and integrity--who has 'em, who adheres to them, and who could care less--again, regardless of the outcome.

And if fighting for what's right, and what represents the truth, inflicts any more difficulty on us than what I'm/we're currently experiencing--the price is negligible.

I for one don't think we live in a society (yet) where such standards are disregarded outright on a daily basis.

Hopefully, we will find an attorney that agrees.

I'll update after our consultation this week.

 

[ecmst12]

You are not going to find an attorney that will think he can get around the law.

You can certainly try to have the PR corrected, however it will not change the outcome. You may or may not be successful but it will definitely be a waste of your time and energy that would be better spent recovering from your injuries.

 

[alnorth]

david, what makes you think the rear car had any liability at all even without this law apparently clearing them?

Normally it is true that if someone slams on the brakes and gets rear-ended, the rear driver is at fault. We get that question all the time, and we generally tell them it doesnt matter why the driver in front braked, you must be prepared to avoid a driver who makes a panic stop.

You did not brake to a stop, you went from basically highway speed to nearly zero instantaneously. No braking distance, no slowing time, just moving to stopped. It is not reasonable to expect a driver following at a safe distance to avoid a car in front who is stopped from a head-on collision, and without some solid proof that the guy was tailgating you (so would not have avoided you if you had braked), then its hard to blame a car for hitting you from the rear when someone slams into you from front. Without that evidence, the driver who crossed, and only that driver, is at fault.

Now as to the facts in the report. If you want to complain to the police, knock yourself out. If you want to make it your mission in life to make sure every single irrelevant detail in the police report is 100% accurate, go right ahead if you have the free time to waste on this. If the police have witnesses which say the semi was in front of you, they dont have to just take your word for it. If the cop believes someone else and puts that in his report, then thats just the way it is. The police report is only one piece of evidence, it is not the unquestioned authoritative record of the accident, and the courts and insurance companies frequently choose to disagree with and disregard parts of a police report. More importantly, the position of the semi DOES...NOT...MATTER. Period. There is no "slippery slope", no greater noble cause or injustice for you to fight on. The cop simply didnt believe you, but it didnt change the liability of the accident, so you shouldnt be worrying about it this much.

 

[las365]

The police report is only one piece of evidence, it is not the unquestioned authoritative record of the accident, and the courts and insurance companies frequently choose to disagree with and disregard parts of a police report.

This is what OP needs to know, and what I was going to write until alnorth did it so well!

OP, I sympathize with what happened to your wife and you, but your situation is pretty ordinary as far as car accidents and insurance carrier responsiveness go. This isn't the moral / legal battle of the century.

You'd do well to get that lawyer you speak of, relax and let him or her handle your case. Make sure you understand the attorney-client agreement so you don't have a similar crisis when it comes time to pay your attorney fees and case expenses.

 

[spallanzani]

OP, you know what you saw and you know The Truth. However, the police officer wasn't there, didn't see the accident, has NO reason to believe your word over the word of the witness s/he interviewed. Since it isn't going to make a difference in they end, the police are not going to spend time and resources trying to figure it out for sure (nor should they).

Don't sweat the small stuff!