Typical Liability for injury

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Connecticut.

My id is MassResident, but I was living in CT at the time of the accident.

I rear ended some guy. We get out of our cars, he says he is fine, police come file a report, I get a ticket, I am at fault nothing really untypical.

There is minimal damage and his car had a "quarter" sized dent in the bumper. My car went under his bumper and the hood was crinkled. It was an old car, owned by my father, the damage was more then the car was worth so it was junked. I was going maybe 10 MPH when I impacted his vehicle.

Maybe 3 months later I get a letter that the guy is suing. I get a lawyer from the insurance company. I don't really care, but I think it is obviously fraud. I have insurance, about 300K liability, 50K property. I am not worried about my personal liability, the case.

His claim - soft tissue damage in his back, he has physical therapy. His medical bills are $4000. He also drives to the doctor and has an excel spreadsheet that has ~2000K in mileage. OK whatever, I'm basically thinking the guy will settle. This is like 4 months latter.

I hear from my appointed lawyer that they offered 10K and the guy DECLINED. They want to take this to court and are asking for 60K. I hear this because now I have to go to a deposition. I am in Mass now, and he wants me to go to CT. But I say I cant because of work, so they have it close to where I live.

I go to the deposition, and get to to talk to my lawyer, ask him a bunch of questions, it is kind of interesting in a way, but I cant help thinking that this is wrong, fraudulent, and a complete waste of our tax dollars. I hear from my lawyer that they have a "pre-trial" where the judge gives an estimate of the settlement, it is 9K. I can't really figure out why the guy wouldn't just settle, why go to court it doesn't make any sense. I asked my lawyer he was this kind of cool guy and seemed a little put off and bewildered by the whole situation. But he seemed to think it was ridiculous. The other lawyer is young in his mid thirties maybe he is just inexperienced.

The courts are so backed up in CT that the trial is scheduled for Jan 1, 2012. I have a couple questions maybe experienced people could comment on.

1. What is the likely settlement that this person could expect to get? Logically if you would expect to get 10-15K, why would you not accept 9K, why take this to court?

2. Do I have to go to any of the court hearings, do I have to testify? What can happen to me if I just skip it, my testimony seems kind of irreverent, since I am not disputing that I was at fault.

3. My dad was also asked to give a deposition because he owned the car and saw its damages after the accident. But does he HAVE to give a deposition, is he legally required. What happens if he refuses to give the deposition. it seems like a waste of his time and if he can I am going to tell him to skip it.

Thanks for reading

You and the owner of the vehicle need to cooperate with the insurance company, if you don't want to end up holding the bag on an award.

Sounds as if you were at fault and he was injured. You don't tell us whether he is fully recovered and that's really important. You don't tell us how long he was out of work. You don't tell us enough to hazard a guess on damages

Good luck

1. What is the likely settlement that this person could expect to get? Logically if you would expect to get 10-15K, why would you not accept 9K, why take this to court?

Click to expand...

I know of a situation where there was actually less damage to either car, the speed was less and the person in the front car had over $100k in actual damages. If the damages are supported by medical pro's, it is what it is.

2. Do I have to go to any of the court hearings, do I have to testify? What can happen to me if I just skip it, my testimony seems kind of irreverent, since I am not disputing that I was at fault.

Click to expand...

If you refuse to testify, there is a good chance your insurance company can step aside and leave everything to you.

3. My dad was also asked to give a deposition because he owned the car and saw its damages after the accident. But does he HAVE to give a deposition, is he legally required. What happens if he refuses to give the deposition. it seems like a waste of his time and if he can I am going to tell him to skip it.

Click to expand...

It's your fathers car and presumably his insurance. He has the same requirements to assist in his and your defense. If he refuses, then his insurance company can likely step aside and let you fend for yourself.

Dave1952 said:

Sounds as if you were at fault and he was injured. You don't tell us whether he is fully recovered and that's really important. You don't tell us how long he was out of work. You don't tell us enough to hazard a guess on damages
Good luck

Click to expand...

You have a bad attitude

justalayman said:

I know of a situation where there was actually less damage to either car, the speed was less and the person in the front car had over $100k in actual damages. If the damages are supported by medical pro's, it is what it is.

If you refuse to testify, there is a good chance your insurance company can step aside and leave everything to you.

It's your fathers car and presumably his insurance. He has the same requirements to assist in his and your defense. If he refuses, then his insurance company can likely step aside and let you fend for yourself.

Click to expand...

Medical costs were $4000, that is less then 60K dollars. That's what the medical pro's put the damage at. I'm not sure what other information you want. He wants 6K in punative damages (4K + 2K car milage) and 54K in pain and suffering.

What kind of injuries did the case with 100K have? I have spoken to 5 different lawyers and all of them think the payments are excessive.

I guess I was interested in your opinion as to whether taking it to trial sounds LOGICAL, or is it a dumb lawyer, who will end up with nothing.

I think they end up with nothing.

MassResident said:

You have a bad attitude

Click to expand...

Absolutely

Good luck

I think the chances of this actually proceeding to trial are still very small. Quit worrying and let your insurance handle things. If you have to testify in court someday, so be it. You do what they tell you that you need to do. Your father too. It was his car and he could be on the hook if he doesn't cooperate. All this legal posturing is just that, strategy, stalling for time, trying to intimidate your insurance company. Means nothing.

So their first offer was 10K.
The med bill is 4K and the lawyer takes a third.
Legal fees = $3,334
Med bill = 4K
Travel = 2K
That leaves the injured with about $600 minus other expenses and loss of work.
Plus if they have problems latter, they can't come back after you or the insurance company.

I hope that helps explain why they didn't jump at the settlement.

MassResident said:

You have a bad attitude

Click to expand...

So far, you are the only one to actually exhibit this symptom.

MassResident said:

What kind of injuries did the case with 100K have? I have spoken to 5 different lawyers and all of them think the payments are excessive.
g.

Click to expand...

well, when the suit initially was filed, there was a diagnoses of a frozen shoulder and a problem with the bursa of the shoulder. By the time it was all said and done, there was a shoulder replacement. seriously but that wasn't performed, or even recommended, until after the case was settled. There was a couple surgeries for the frozen shoulder by the time the case came to trial.



part of the problem you are faced with is; is the guy as healed as he can be and if not, what are his future possible costs for medical treatment? Is he now disabled (and something as simple as a herniated disc (not saying it is a herniated disc but given it is soft tissue damage in the back, it could be) can be considered severely disabling depending on all of the facts

a back injury can be very disabling for a person. Depending on what this guy does for a living, the $60k might be foolishly low.



I just recalled another case I am somewhat familiar with. Similar accident to yours. Guy ended up with a bulging disc in his neck. Settlement was around $80k-$90k (don't remember exact amount). There was no surgery. Guy had PT and some pain meds for a limited time and that was it. Damage to the car was less than $2k. (just his, don't know what the other guys damages were)

I guess I was interested in your opinion as to whether taking it to trial sounds LOGICAL, or is it a dumb lawyer, who will end up with nothing.

Click to expand...

To me, it doesn't sound overly logical for your insurance company to take this to court IMO. Their lawyer is probably on contingency so the more the case settles for, the more he makes. If the injured party walks away with nothing and with a $10k settlement, the attorney is looking at $3333. Not worth either parties time to even consider it. The guy might as well walk away with nothing and let his insurance cover his injuries.

So, if your insurance company wants to fight a case where you are obviously and admittedly at fault for $60k, that is up to them. I would guess there is a "happy number" not too much under the $60k that will be acceptable to the other party but I doubt it is a lot under the $60k.