I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller concerned about the financial responsibility of parents for a child driver under age 18. She says she is concerned about letting her 16-year-old daughter ride with a 17-year-old friend.

Teen drivers are frequently categorized as high-risk drivers because of their limited driving experience, and as a group, teen drivers are the most likely to cause car accidents, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. When crashes happen, parents can be held financially responsible for their minor child’s negligence while behind the wheel.

In Indiana, parents may be held financially liable for a child under the age of 18. Where a parent signs an application for a permit or driver’s license for someone under age 18, they agree to be responsible jointly and severally with the minor applicant for any injury or damage that the minor applicant causes by reason of the operation of a motor vehicle if the minor applicant is liable in damages.

When a minor applicant becomes 18 years of age, the individual who signed the minor’s application is relieved from the liability for the child.

Under Indiana law, a parent’s financial liability for damages caused by his or her minor child hinges on whether the actions of the minor were done “knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly,” – in which case Indiana statute provides that a parent may only be held liable up to $5,000—or whether the minor’s actions were negligent, in which case a parent may be financially liable without a maximum, statutorily-set ceiling.

A typical car crash case is usually the result of someone’s negligence, rather than intentional harm. In negligence-based car crash situations, liability for damages and injury caused by the minor child is statutorily imputed to the parent. It’s automatically imputed to the parent without consideration of the specific facts of what a parent did or didn’t do.

Additional things to consider include a legal concept called “negligent entrustment,” where the owner of a vehicle (such as a parent) is aware (or should be aware) that the minor driver poses a danger to others. In such a case, a parent can share some of the liability for the minor driver’s actions. For example, say a teen is known to be reckless, yet the parent still allows the teen to operate the parent’s car. That could open the parent up to liability for the minor’s actions under the legal doctrine of “negligent entrustment.”  Liability under this theory is different from the kind of automatic statutory liability discussed earlier because “negligent entrustment” looks to the specific facts about whether what the parent did or failed to do was reasonable in connection with the minor driver’s car crash.

Practically speaking, a parent’s financial responsibility for their minor child’s accident depends a lot on car insurance. Car insurance usually covers a vehicle, including anyone who has permission to drive that vehicle. If the minor child was using the parent’s vehicle with permission and wasn’t specifically listed as a driver excluded from coverage, then the parent’s car insurance on that vehicle typically extends to cover the teen driver. It’s also important to mention that some car insurance policies are set up to cover individual policyholders and named drivers. In such situations, the insurance policy on the vehicle should be set up to provide coverage for the child as a listed driver under the policy up to maximum policy limits.

Here, the caller should inquire from the parents of the 17-year-old friend who will be driving her daughter about the coverage for the vehicle being operated, and confirm that the child driver is listed as insured on the policy.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s topic is about proving “non-economic” damages, such as an injury’s impact on a person’s quality of life.

Often people who suffer an injury as a result of another person’s negligence will find that they cannot engage in certain activities (essential tasks, hobbies, social activities, etc.) as did before the injury incident.

These losses are recoverable, but there must be proof to causally relate the loss to the injury incident.

In other words, just saying that you can no longer go grocery shopping, walk the dog, play golf, ski, or ride a bike, will not be enough to prevail in court.

In addition to the plaintiff’s testimony, a doctor will be needed to explain how the injury impacts the ability to do the things the plaintiff says they can no longer do.

Such testimony may come from a medical doctor. It also may come from a psychiatrist or psychologist who may testify about PTSD, anxiety, panic attacks, etc., and the limiting and debilitating impact of these conditions.

Friends and family may also testify to how the injured party was before the incident, and how the person is after the injury incident.

Pre and post-injury photos and videos may also be helpful in establishing the lasting impact of an injury.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – While there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller who said she lost control of her car on ice and went into a ditch. During the wreck, her driver-side airbag deployed and shot off pieces of metal into the occupant compartment. It was like shrapnel from an improvised explosive device she said. She suffered fairly serious injuries.

She wanted to know her legal options.

There have been quite a few cases over the past several years involving defective Takata airbags.

The car she was driving had a Takata programmable smokeless driver’s inflator.

It is a dual-stage inflator that utilizes a propellant that as it ages is susceptible to moisture and thermal cycling, resulting in a rapid and defective inflation of the airbag.

It is the type of airbag that has been shown to produce excessive internal pressure. Excessive pressure can cause metal fragments to pass through the airbag and strike an occupant.

In the caller’s case she may qualify for compensation through the Takata Individual Restitution Fund established under a Restitution Order entered against the Takata Corporation in connection with Takata’s Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization.

The caller may also have a potential claim against the vehicle manufacturer based upon strict product liability, failure to warn, and negligent recall.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller concerned about being able to sue for injuries sustained in a car crash. She said she was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash, and the police cited her for not wearing her seatbelt.

The answer is generally yes, the caller could sue but may be found to be partially at fault for the injuries suffered, which could reduce how much money she is able to recover.

In the caller’s situation, the defense will likely argue that the failure to wear a seat belt made her injuries far worse than they would have been if she had buckled up.

The defense will argue the caller had the duty to wear a seat belt and acted unreasonably in failing to wear her seat belt.

Of course, the defense team will have the burden to prove that the caller’s failure to wear a seat belt caused or aggravated her injuries.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – While there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller concerned about the fact that her elderly father was given a chemotherapy drug without his consent, or the consent of the family.

Under the law, a patient must consent to the treatment they receive. A patient’s decision to undergo a particular treatment must be an informed choice.

Healthcare providers must tell a patient the important facts about possible treatments. Before making a choice, a patient has a right to know the nature of a proposed treatment, other available treatments, and the risks involved in the treatment.

To recover damages against a medical provider when the issue is a failure to obtain informed consent, a plaintiff must use expert testimony to prove that a medical provider, using reasonable care and skill under the circumstances, would have informed the patient of the nature of a proposed treatment, other available treatments, and the risks to the patient involved in the treatment.

Keep in mind, that a patient’s consent may be expressed or implied.

“Express consent” means actual, direct, or explicit permission, whether oral or written.

“Implied consent” means permission that is not expressly given, but which the medical provider would reasonably understand from the patient’s conduct and surrounding circumstances.

The caller mentioned that her father was elderly. When the patient is unable to consent to treatment because the patient is a child, is unconscious or is not mentally competent, a medical provider must obtain consent from someone authorized to give consent for the patient.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – While there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller concerned that her complications from a recent medical procedure were due to her doctor failing to refer her to a specialist.

She wanted to know her rights.

What lay people think of when using the term medical specialist is not necessarily the same as the legal definition of the term.

Under the law, a medical specialist is one who focuses their practice on diagnosing and treating a particular medical condition, consistent with the state of scientific knowledge at the time of treatment for that particular condition.

Where physicians hold themselves out as having special knowledge and skill in the field of medicine, they are bound to bring to the discharge of their duty to a patient, not merely the average degree of skill possessed by general practitioners, but that special degree of skill and knowledge possessed by physicians who are specialists in the treatment of such conditions.

In the caller’s case, she was concerned that all her medical issues flowed from a failure of her general practitioner to refer her to a specialist.

Under the law, a health care provider who is not qualified to treat a patient because he does not practice in a specialty, or lacks the necessary training or facilities, must advise the patient to consult a specialist.

While the caller may have a difficult time proving that her general practitioner was not qualified to treat her condition, if she can prove a lack of qualification, then yes, it may be that her doctor breached a duty to refer her to a specialist.

Nevertheless, to prevail in such as situation, the caller still would have to prove that her outcome would have been different had the referral been made.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller concerned about her child who was hurt in a school bus crash.

Thankfully, the injuries were not too serious.

But, the bus rolled on its side. Even at low speed, there were moving objects inside the bus which could have caused serious injury had they struck a child. Though no one was thrown from the bus, if they had been, the injuries could have been quite serious or fatal.

When you consider dangers associated with school buses, you have to include dangers beyond those associated with a collision.

For example, an occupant can get caught in the door mechanism when either entering or exiting the bus. A passenger can fall down the stairs trying to get off the bus or trying to step up onto the bus.

Poor driver training and poor driver supervision have been linked to many bus injuries. A school district can fail to do a proper background check on a bus driver, or negligently do a background check, both of which circumstances can increase the likelihood of injury.

Poor bus maintenance by a school district can also lead to injury. Mechanical issues, like worn or defective brakes, can lead to a mechanical failure, which in turn can lead to injury.

One thing to keep in mind, when investigating a public school bus-related injury is that the school will be considered a branch of the government, and will be subject to governmental immunity. This means that special notice of intent to sue must be given within a short few months following an injury incident.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m Katelyn Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller concerned about her child who was hit by a car while walking to the school bus.

Motorists always have a duty to look out for pedestrians.

Child pedestrians often, despite our best efforts to protect them, are placed in danger as they walk to and from school, or to and from a school bus stop.

Any pedestrian who is struck by a moving vehicle will likely suffer serious injury, but the risk of serious injury is even greater for a small child.

The reason a child is likely to suffer greater injury when struck by a car includes the fact that a pedestrian child hit by a motor vehicle will likely be shorter than an adult. Thus, the chance of a blow to the head for smaller, younger, and shorter children is increased.

One of the reasons school zones have a very low speed limit, in most cases a 20 mph limit, is because a child is not as cognitively developed as an adult. The child isn’t able to recognize potential traffic hazards like an adult would.

Consequently, a motorist has a duty to be more careful when driving in an area frequented by children.

Distracted driving (including texting, or phone use) always is dangerous. Driving under the influence, again, is always dangerous. However, the consequences of such reckless behavior are magnified when a vehicle is operated in a school zone or residential area.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m Katelyn Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Today’s question comes from a caller who said her 12-year-old daughter was seriously hurt while operating a go-kart at an amusement park. She wanted to discuss her legal options.

Upon questioning, the mother revealed that her daughter was operating a go-kart which was struck by another go-kart being operated by a 20-year-old man. The man said that the brakes did not work and that he hit a pothole on the track when he was going too fast, and it caused him to lose control. And, when the brakes failed to work he struck the go-kart the woman’s daughter was operating. He apologized for the incident.

In considering the situation several things point to liability of the 20-year-old man, and other things point to the liability of the amusement park operator.

As to the 20-year-old man, he admitted going too fast for the conditions, which conditions included a track with potholes. Certainly, his conduct could be considered unreasonable under the circumstances. If the man has a driver’s license and a motor vehicle with insurance coverage, the insurance policy possibly would apply to cover his operation of the go-cart. The policy language would have to be checked.

As to the amusement park, it is concerning that they supplied a go-kart without functioning brakes.

It is also concerning that the track the amusement park supplied to those renting go-karts was itself defective and had potholes.

Also of concern is that the man was operating too fast for track conditions. The park should be enforcing speed limits on the track or adjusting the go-karts so as to limit the maximum speed for the go-karts.

While much additional investigation will be required, the caller and her daughter certainly appear to have several options available to them to recover damages suffered by the daughter in this unfortunate situation.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

I’m Katelyn Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

Have you noticed that the cost of repairing modern cars is getting higher and higher?

While we rarely take on a case involving only property damage, where there is no injury claim resulting from a crash, we have noticed over the years that repair costs are skyrocketing.

Also, we have noted that a big factor in high vehicle repair costs is associated with the computer components of a vehicle.

There is also a trend in people keeping older vehicles longer for a variety of reasons.

Older vehicles without computers cost less to repair, license plate fees are often lower, and insurance rates are often lower.

As we mentioned in an earlier episode, Indiana is known to be a farm state.

Farmers have also found that keeping and repairing older equipment can be a way to save money.

For example, when a brand-new tractor breaks down, you need a computer to fix it.

When a tractor manufactured in the 1970s and 1980s breaks down, you can repair it yourself or buy another old tractor.

New farming equipment, containing computers, often comes with digital rights management software. This makes simple repairs very expensive.

Instead of farmers being able to fix equipment on their own, they now have to pay to plug a computer into the onboard computer of the newest machinery and then pay a big diagnostic fee.

Keep in mind that older farm tractors manufactured in the late 1970s and 1980s look and run like modern tractors. They lack the computer components, however, which keeps repair costs low.

But, as we have discussed in another episode if someone is injured as a result of a defect in an older vehicle, whether it be a farm tractor or automobile, Indiana has a 10-year statute of repose.

This means, that if the manufacturer sold the product more than 10 years before a defect or failure to warn led to an injury, it may be too late to sue the manufacturer.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – While there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”