Why can't I sue?

What is the name of your state? PA

I was involved in a car accident 3 years ago to which I rear ended another car. It has been in the discovery stages all this time. The plaintiff and I both drove our cars away, he said he was fine, my brother was a witness to the fact that he was fine who was a police officer, the officer who came to the accident did not cite me with the accident. I had no accidents prior to this (30 years of clean driving record). A year later I get served papers that he is suing me for injuries claiming he was and has been in excruciating pain since. He had prior health problems that relate to the claims he is making with doctor and tests revealing this. The insurance companies are the same. He had limited tort on a brand new car, I had full tort. My question is this: If they win my case, why can't I sue him for purgery, for putting me through such grief and stress and to make him a model for those who do this on a regular basis which makes our insurance costs sky rocket? I admit I hit him, even though we believe he stopped on purpose as he had just settled on a prior law suit for a slip and fall a month before this where he makes the same injury claims, but how can he get away with making such outrageous claims? The 4 lawyers involved tell me I can't.

sunshinee50 said:

What is the name of your state? PA

I was involved in a car accident 3 years ago to which I rear ended another car. It has been in the discovery stages all this time. The plaintiff and I both drove our cars away, he said he was fine, my brother was a witness to the fact that he was fine who was a police officer, the officer who came to the accident did not cite me with the accident. I had no accidents prior to this (30 years of clean driving record). A year later I get served papers that he is suing me for injuries claiming he was and has been in excruciating pain since. He had prior health problems that relate to the claims he is making with doctor and tests revealing this. The insurance companies are the same. He had limited tort on a brand new car, I had full tort. My question is this: If they win my case, why can't I sue him for purgery, for putting me through such grief and stress and to make him a model for those who do this on a regular basis which makes our insurance costs sky rocket? I admit I hit him, even though we believe he stopped on purpose as he had just settled on a prior law suit for a slip and fall a month before this where he makes the same injury claims, but how can he get away with making such outrageous claims? The 4 lawyers involved tell me I can't.

Click to expand...

Four lawyers have told you you cannot sue him, and you're here asking us if you can sue him?

I don't mean to waste anyones time. It's just that someone can spill a cup of hot coffee on themselves and sue for millions, people can sue for getting cancer because they smoked when no one was forcing them to and the warnings told them they could get cancer but they didn't quit, but there are people out there who are causing accidents on purpose to get peoples insurance money and I can't beleive that there is a law that says I can't sue them for these lies. There is even a commercial that deals with this very issue asking us to help stop it. Have you seen the law that says I can't? I haven't. The lawyers say no but no one has shown me any documentation that says I can't. We sue for ridiculous things these days but the serious things that make the rest of the world pay through their noses has limits. I'm sorry but you are an insurance person so I would expect a comment like this from someone who is in the business of selling policies and making money. You want the insurance costs to go up, but wouldn't it even help YOU because these people are suing for insurance money, money that your company has to pay out?! There are new lawsuits for things unheard of everyday. I say, change the law if there is one, so that these kinds of people can't get away with getting through the system because of technical issues.

As learned in "driver's Education"...keep a safe distance from the car infront of you. Obviously, you were following too close. Come on....as if you wouldn't sue if you were rear-ended. You're just upset that the oder of vehicles wasn't reversed. I don't blame the guy. Unless you can prove that he stopped his vehicle on purpose....seems like your out of luck..Remember, it's not about the law's that are not in place......we have to follow the ones that are. Injuries can often be latent. Have you ever been rear-ended. Let's see how you feel the next morning.

sunshinee50 said:

If they win my case, why can't I sue him for purgery, for putting me through such grief and stress and to make him a model for those who do this on a regular basis which makes our insurance costs sky rocket?

Click to expand...

Lets start with the beginning.
First, perjury is a CRIMINAL action... and not civil. You can certainly attempt to file a criminal complaint.... but it won't go anywhere.

Second, the act of lying (if he did) is not perjury. He would have to have been under oath at the time of the statement.

Third, even if you did have a cause of action against him (you don't), would you really want to spend several thousand dollars to bring it??

To set the records straight, I was not following too close, we were at a yield sign (not a stop sign) and we were stopped because he was stopped. He moved forward, I moved forward keeping 3-4 feet between us. He moved forward twice and stopped and so did I. The third time he moved forward he was going at a faster speed than previously. There was no traffic coming. When I moved forward, stopped, turned my head to check traffic, started turning my head back and giving my car gas at the same time believing in my mind that he had gone, that is when I hit him. His car was 3-4 feet into the lane of traffic. I did not push him there as there were no tire marks, noted on the police report. He had no reason to stop. He is claiming injuries that he also claimed in a previous lawsuit that he had just settled on a month before our accident along with just 3 months ago adding his wife to the suit, making claims that he can't be a "husband", but it was clear that he pulled this one out of his hat when he realized he wasn't going to be able to sue for the large amount he originally asked for. He has changed the amount 3 times, lowering it each time, until he added his wife. I think it stinks that people like this can keep making our insurance premiums sky rocket. My insurance company wants this to go to court because they know he is lying. I come from a family of police officers and I have lived by the "golden rule" all my life but I guess it is the honest person who always loses in this world as long as we have people like him who use the laws to make themselves rich. He is suing because the law says if someone rear ends you, you can sue for more if there are injuries sustained. He didn't make claim to any injuries until a year later, which happens to be the statute of limitations to file suit. No, I would not sue someone that rear ends me if I did not get hurt. I abhore liars. If I thought I could take him to court I would and it would be worth paying the money just to get one creep like this to learn his lesson. I take responsibility for hitting him but It sucks that I have to be in the hot seat for claims that don't exist.

Since you feel sooo passionate about this and confident of your story....then take it to court. You obviously feel you are correct and maybe a judge will agree.

As for the injuries he supposedly sustained. Did you just find out about them a year later, or did he not claim any injury until a year later. There is a difference.

sunshinee50 said:

When I moved forward, stopped, turned my head to check traffic, started turning my head back and giving my car gas at the same time believing in my mind that he had gone, that is when I hit him.

Click to expand...

And THAT, my dear... is where you were at fault. You have an obligation to make SURE that the traffic in front of you is safe for you to proceed.... you didn't.

His car was 3-4 feet into the lane of traffic. I did not push him there as there were no tire marks, noted on the police report. He had no reason to stop.

Click to expand...

And guess what... he doesn't need a reason. He has the right to stop at his will. And if his doing so is a hindrance to traffic flow, he can be given a citation. However, his stopping is NOT an invitation for you to hit him with your car.

He is claiming injuries that he also claimed in a previous lawsuit that he had just settled on a month before our accident along with just 3 months ago adding his wife to the suit, making claims that he can't be a "husband", but it was clear that he pulled this one out of his hat when he realized he wasn't going to be able to sue for the large amount he originally asked for. He has changed the amount 3 times, lowering it each time, until he added his wife.

Click to expand...

From your post, the issue of your being liable for the accident is clear (at least to me).
The issue of his claims for personal injury may or may not be valid. It is up to the court to determine that.

purjery is why you lie under oath in a court room, not when you say "i am fine" after being in a car accident and then go home and you are not fine.

any time you REAR END someone its your fault.

dynomight77 said:

purjery is why you lie under oath in a court room

Click to expand...

No it is NOT!!! There is no such word in the English language. Of course, unless you mean PERJURY.....

perjury
n. the crime of intentionally lying after being duly sworn (to tell the truth) by a notary public, court clerk or other official. This false statement may be made in testimony in court, administrative hearings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, as well as by signing or acknowledging a written legal document (such as affidavit, declaration under penalty of perjury, deed, license application, tax return) known to contain false information. Although it is a crime, prosecutions for perjury are rare, because a defendant will argue he/she merely made a mistake or misunderstood.

any time you REAR END someone its your fault.

Click to expand...

Again, NOT TRUE!!
There are some unusual circumstances where a person who hits another car in the rear is NOT at fault. Improper tail/stop lighting for example.

JETX said:

Again, NOT TRUE!!
There are some unusual circumstances where a person who hits another car in the rear is NOT at fault. Improper tail/stop lighting for example.

Click to expand...

Yep, a very good circumstance called stop and swoop.

Thanks so much for all your posts. I do clearly admit that I am at fault for hitting him. I have a 30 year clean driving record and since I was not cited with this accident I assume I still do and I should be proud of that. This was clearly an accident that might have been prevented if I would have turned my head one second longer and then I would have seen him in front of me. I also wish now that I would have insisted that our cars remain where they were so the police officer could have seen how far in the lane of traffic he was when I hit him. Hindsight. As far as him perjuring himself under oath, he did have a deposition where he was sworn as I was. It will be up to the courts now. I am passionate about my beliefs. I do apologize for making you guys listen to my rantings. All of your posts have been a great help to me and I am alot calmer now. Off my soap box.

BelizeBreeze said:

Yep, a very good circumstance called stop and swoop.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing!!
Clearly, you have been watching too much of that idiot commercial where they 'warn' people of accident fraud... claiming to be your favorite insurance company.

The incident he describes is called the 'swoop and SQUAT'!!
"Swoop and Squat
When a perpetrator abruptly swoops in front of a car and quickly squats or stops. An accomplice moves to the side of the targeted victim to prevent the trapped car from swerving out of the way. The passengers of the squat car all report injuries that are supported later by a doctor or a chiropractor that are in the scam."
http://www.superiorcarinsurance.com/CarBuyingGuide/autoscams.html

Swoop and Squat — An unsuspecting driver follows two vehicles driven by a pair of perpetrators. The first vehicle, the swoop vehicle, suddenly cuts in front, stops or slows down in front of the second squat vehicle, forcing it to abruptly stop to avoid a collision. The innocent driver of the third vehicle has little or no time to react and a collision between the squat car and the innocent motorist occurs. The rear-end leaves the unsuspecting motorist at fault.
http://www.dmdisney.com/recognizing_insurance_fraud.htm