Lost wages-no injury

[dmsmall]

North Carolina-On November 10, 2004, I was struck by a Hit and Run driver. Fortunately, they caught her and charged her for the offense. I was not injured in the accident. And her insurance company is paying for the repairs to my car. I, however, have loss of wages for a second job. My car has been out of commission since 11/10 and I am not eligible for a rental due to restricted driving privileges. I can only drive with a ignition interlock system installed on my car. Therefore, a rental is out of the question. I feel I must add that I am almost 4 years sober and have paid restitution for trouble I once got into. How can I be reimbursed for time lost at work?

 

[Raisinette]

North Carolina-On November 10, 2004, I was struck by a Hit and Run driver. Fortunately, they caught her and charged her for the offense. I was not injured in the accident. And her insurance company is paying for the repairs to my car. I, however, have loss of wages for a second job. My car has been out of commission since 11/10 and I am not eligible for a rental due to restricted driving privileges. I can only drive with a ignition interlock system installed on my car. Therefore, a rental is out of the question. I feel I must add that I am almost 4 years sober and have paid restitution for trouble I once got into. How can I be reimbursed for time lost at work?

That's a good question. If you had been injured, you could "wrap" these damages into a settlement for your injury claim. Have you requested compensation straight out? How much damages are you talking about? Would you be willing to take it to small claims court? Are your neck & back starting to hurt?


I hate to see nice guys finishing last.

 

[dmsmall]

The damage to my car is almost $4000.00, lost wages are approaching $1000.00-It will be another 2 weeks before my car is repaired, at the point, it will be over a month that I will be without transportation. My lower back has been giving me some trouble...but is it not too late to do anything about that? I thought I had so many hours from the time of the accident to report injury. And, yes, I am willing to take it to court...I feel that I am really being "screwed" (for lack of a better word). If that person did not hit me, none of this would have taken place. It's not my fault and I am the one suffering the consequences. This has been a tremendous hardship for me.

 

[JETX]

How can I be reimbursed for time lost at work?

And now for an ACCURATE answer..... you can't.
The problem here is that the other driver is not the cause of your 'damages' (the lost wages due to YOUR inability to find/arrange transportation due to YOUR previous actions).

 

[dmsmall]

Jetx-My "previous actions" have nothing to do with the incident.

 

[JETX]

Jetx-My "previous actions" have nothing to do with the incident.

Agreed. But they have EVERYTHING to do with your claim of damages.

 

[Raisinette]

Agreed. But they have EVERYTHING to do with your claim of damages.

Disagree. The proximate cause of loss is this crash. You are attributing too much to a prior condition. Negligence that results in injury becomes responsible for taking someone as they were found, be it their car or their pre-existing medical conditions, if either are aggravated.

He had been responsible, in both meanings, for remedying both, and now through no negligence of his own has been impaired.

It's a good question, but I would not be ready to accept your answer as the last word.

 

[JETX]

Disagree.

So what?? Your posts have already shown that you have no legal knowledge or experience.

Let me give you the LEGAL facts:
1) The 'damages' claimed are due to the OP's previous conduct/condition. They are NOT due to the accident, nor are the damages related in any way with the accident.
2) The OP has the OBLIGATION to mitigate his/her damages. We have yet to see ANY evidence that the OP has done so.
3) There is NO direct relationship between the CLAIM of damages to the accident.

It's a good question, but I would not be ready to accept your answer as the last word.

As I said before, who cares what you are ready to accept or not?? Simply, you have NO standing in this.... nor are your posts of benefit to the OP or anyone else.

As I see it, the OP has the following REAL options:
1) To accept the settlement as offered by the 'at fault' driver (or his/her insurance), or
2) To reject it and pursue his/her claim in court. It is this option that I feel will NOT prevail if/when brought to trial.

And of course, the OP has the right to follow the advice or ignore it. Simply, I have 'no dog in that fight', other than to offer my (correct) opinion.

 

[Raisinette]

So what?? Your posts have already shown that you have no legal knowledge or experience.

Let me give you the LEGAL facts:
1) The 'damages' claimed are due to the OP's previous conduct/condition. They are NOT due to the accident, nor are the damages related in any way with the accident.
2) The OP has the OBLIGATION to mitigate his/her damages. We have yet to see ANY evidence that the OP has done so.
3) There is NO direct relationship between the CLAIM of damages to the accident.


As I said before, who cares what you are ready to accept or not?? Simply, you have NO standing in this.... nor are your posts of benefit to the OP or anyone else.

As I see it, the OP has the following REAL options:
1) To accept the settlement as offered by the 'at fault' driver (or his/her insurance), or
2) To reject it and pursue his/her claim in court. It is this option that I feel will NOT prevail if/when brought to trial.

And of course, the OP has the right to follow the advice or ignore it. Simply, I have 'no dog in that fight', other than to offer my (correct) opinion.

Well, that's one thing we agree about. Everyone thinks "their opinion" is correct; otherwise they would not hold it.

Piece by piece:

(1) If you are responsible for a "tap" rear-ender that injures a person because that person has pre-existing condition that renders them extraordinarily susceptible to injury, the injury is your responsibility nonetheless.

(2) You have no "evidence" OP has failed to mitigate damages. You are bringing in a new contention here, while information supplied indicates he has.

(3) And the damage would be direct. He had a car equipeed with the equipment he needed for transportation to his second job. He has lost use of that car. He has therefore lost use of transport to second job.

As I see it, OP can accept the settlement offer; counter; or pursue it as I originally queried in court. It appears also that he has an injury claim he has not yet made and still has all rights to.

And why make a point to attack me personally? Does ad hominem bolster your ("correct") opinion, or is it primarily what you've got?

 

[JETX]

Clearly, trying to discuss legal FACTS with you is useless. However, I will provide a little insight....

If you are responsible for a "tap" rear-ender that injures a person because that person has pre-existing condition that renders them extraordinarily susceptible to injury, the injury is your responsibility nonetheless.

Agreed, but that is NOT the case in this thread.

You have no "evidence" OP has failed to mitigate damages. You are bringing in a new contention here, while information supplied indicates he has.

And how did he attempt to mitigate his damages (other than find he couldn't find a comparable equipped rental vehicle)??? Did he try to get a ride from family members, friends or co-workers?? How about renting a 'regular' car and getting someone else to to drive (someone ON the rental app)?? Clearly, the OP has NO exhausted all reasonable efforts.

And the damage would be direct. He had a car equipeed with the equipment he needed for transportation to his second job. He has lost use of that car. He has therefore lost use of transport to second job.

Again.... the loss of his 'special condition' (as a result of his OWN conduct) is not 'directly', or even indirectly related to the accident. Simply, the at fault driver is not liable to provide a 'specially equipped' vehicle for the OP.

In any case, this issue is moot. The court will simply NOT grant an award in this case.... even if it got to court.

BTW, his injury claim doesn't open the door to this issue either. Personal injury and property damage are two completely separate issues.

 

[Raisinette]

Clearly, trying to discuss legal FACTS with you is useless. However, I will provide a little insight....

Why don't you try discussing FACTS (and ideas, and opinions) without the personal ATTACKS? Because, much more rightfully, Jetx, that is what I can say ... about you.

And you can bet a (bonafide) injury claim opens, if not the door, to the issue, a window.

EOD.

 

[JETX]

I am through wasting my time on you and this thread. Trying to explain LEGAL facts to you is like talking to a rock!!!

 

[ALawyer]

If a claimant sees an auto accident specialst or any personal injury lawyer and explains all injury and damages sustained, and IF the accident was not in a "no fault state", if there was any pain suffered (even without immediately going to a doctor) initially or afterwards, or any psychological impacts of the accident, etc. and the other driver has insurance, there will be a settlement if there is any possibility of a more serious case later.

Sure, this driver's credibility is somewhat diminished because he did not rush to see a doctor or lawyer and document the pain, and the bills are low, so it is not a big case, but you do not have to break or loose a leg or rack up big bills to be able to sue in traditional (NOT no fault) states.

If it is solely for property damage, it's a small claims matter and on the lost income, claimant is and should be, out of luck.

 

[Raisinette]

I am through wasting my time on you and this thread. Trying to explain LEGAL facts to you is like talking to a rock!!!

I'll take that....

Why don't you try discussing FACTS (and ideas, and opinions) without the personal ATTACKS?

....for a "No."

You made your point -- and that is the one you made.

 

[dmsmall]

Wow! I did not mean to start such a heated debate. By the way, the he is a she! I see an attorney tomorrow. Raisinette, thanks for understanding and trying to help--I really appreciate it...I'll let you know the outcome. ALawyer, I appreciate the facts!