Personal Injury Primer

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.

In our last podcast, we discussed whether a taxi company could be held liable if a driver assaults a passenger.

In this podcast, we discuss the liability of rideshare drivers in cases of assault.

In Indiana, liability for a rideshare driver’s assault on a passenger will depend on the legal doctrines of respondeat superior and the common carrier exception.

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer (such as a rideshare company) can be held liable for the actions of its employee if those actions are committed within the scope of the employee’s employment. If the assault is outside the scope of employment, the employer may not be held liable.

The common carrier exception, which applies to entities that assume responsibility for passenger safety, imposes a non-delegable duty to protect passengers. Under this exception, the employer can be held liable for an employee’s actions, even if those actions are outside the scope of employment, because the liability is based on the carrier’s duty to ensure passenger safety. This exception has been applied broadly in Indiana, extending beyond traditional common carriers to other enterprises that assume control over a passenger’s safety.

Whether the common carrier doctrine applies to a rideshare driver in Indiana is unclear. The rideshare company will argue that the driver is not an employee, but rather an independent contractor.

If common carrier liability is applied to rideshare companies, Indiana would impose a duty on the rideshare company to protect passengers from harm, including unprovoked assaults, if the rideshare company had knowledge of a threat and sufficient time to prevent the harm.

In the context of ride-sharing, specific statutes may also apply. One statute outlines the liability of peer-to-peer vehicle sharing programs, requiring them to assume liability for bodily injury or property damage that occurs during the sharing period, except in certain situations. However, this statute does not explicitly address liability for deliberate acts like assault by a driver.

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.

If a taxi driver assaults a passenger, the taxi company may be held liable depending on the circumstances. The taxi company could also be liable if one passenger assaults another, but proving liability may be more challenging.

Taxi companies have a legal obligation to ensure the safety of their passengers, and this responsibility extends to the actions of their drivers.

If the driver’s assault is a result of the taxi company’s negligence or reckless behavior, the taxi company could be held legally responsible.

Taxi companies are considered common carriers. Common carriers owe a duty to provide for the safety of their passengers.

In Indiana, a taxi company, as a common carrier, can be held liable if a taxi driver assaults a passenger.

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is generally liable for the acts of its employees committed within the scope of their employment.

However, in the context of common carriers, liability extends further due to the carrier’s non-delegable duty to ensure the safety of its passengers. This means that the taxi company can be held responsible for the driver’s actions, even if the assault was outside the scope of employment, because the company assumes a heightened duty to protect passengers from harm.

Additionally, the duty of a common carrier includes protecting passengers from violence, whether from employees or third parties, if the carrier or its employees could have foreseen and prevented the harm through the exercise of reasonable care.

This duty is not absolute but requires the carrier to act with the highest degree of care to prevent foreseeable harm.

In our next podcast, we will discuss how rideshare companies are treated differently from common carriers.

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.

If you’re a passenger in a taxi cab that collides with another car, you’ll need to establish the fault of the taxi driver as well as the driver of the other car, and prove your injuries.

As we noted in our previous podcast episode, a taxi driver is almost always insured under a commercial liability coverage policy, commonly referred to as a fleet policy, which includes an endorsement specifically covering the business of transporting people.

In addition to the commercial liability policy carried by the taxi cab company, the taxi driver may also be covered by their personal vehicle policy, unless coverage is specifically excluded.

When there are multiple injured passengers, the total value of all injury claims may exceed the available insurance coverage.

This often happens in bus passenger injury claim situations. If there is insufficient coverage, each injured person may recover less against the negligent driver than what their case is worth.

Also, a person bringing a case against the taxi vehicle owner will likely benefit from a body of law referred to as common carrier liability.

Common carrier liability refers to the legal responsibility of a common carrier, such as a bus or airline, to ensure the safety of passengers and their goods during transportation. If a common carrier fails to exercise reasonable care and this results in injury or loss, they can be held liable for damages.

In most situations, the operation of a taxicab will be governed by common carrier law. This body of law will help establish liability if, for example, the cab was not equipped with airbags and the lack of airbags increased the severity of the injuries suffered in the crash. The same would hold if the taxi did not have seatbelts or if the seatbelts did not function correctly, resulting in more severe injuries.

In our next podcast, we will discuss the liability of taxi operators in cases where a passenger is assaulted during a ride.

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 stated that she was a passenger in a car involved in a collision with a taxicab, and she wanted to know her legal rights.

If a taxi cab hits the car that you’re driving (or a vehicle you are a passenger in), and the cab driver is at fault, you’ll likely have a claim against the cab driver and also the cab company.

A case involving injuries related to being in a vehicle involved in a collision with a taxicab, or a passenger in a car involved in the collision with a taxicab, will be slightly more complex than if the injuries occurred in a crash involving another type of vehicle.

The proof issues will involve establishing whether the cab operator was operating the vehicle within the course and scope of their employment, whether the cab operator was properly vetted before being hired, and whether the car was properly maintained.

In most situations, the taxi company will have purchased a type of insurance policy called a fleet policy. A fleet policy will cover the entire fleet of vehicles owned by the company.

The good news is that fleet policies typically have higher policy limits.

Most of the time, the limit will be $1 million. This provides significantly more coverage when the injuries sustained in a collision are severe.

The typical policy limit for most private vehicles on the highway ranges between $25,000 and $100,000 on average.

In our next podcast, we’ll discuss the situation where a passenger in a cab is injured when the taxi is involved in a collision.

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.

When attorneys interview a jury panel before a case goes to trial, they ask questions to try to determine if any of the panel members might have a bias for or against one of the parties in the case.

What do we mean by bias? Well, suppose one of the prospective jurors has a financial interest in a defendant company or plaintiff company in a lawsuit; that might constitute bias. It would be the same if that prospective juror is a friend of one of the parties in the case, or has some business dealings with one of the parties in the case, or has dealt with one of the parties in a prior lawsuit.

The primary purpose is to ensure that anyone appointed to a jury can be impartial.

The same impartiality is required of a judge.

A judge must recuse themselves from a case when their impartiality is called into question due to a conflict of interest or a personal bias. All the word recuse means is that the judge must give up the case to some other judge who does not have an issue with impartialit.

Here are some of the things that would indicate that a judge should recuse themselves from a case.

If the judge has a financial interest in the outcome of the case, or a close relative of the judge has a financial interest in the outcome of the case, the rules suggest that the judge must recuse themselves.

If the judge has previously presided over a case involving one of the parties, then recusal may be required.

If the judge has a personal bias or prejudice against one of the parties or their lawyer, or they have personal knowledge of disputed facts that would prevent them from being impartial, the ethical guidelines would require recusal.

The same would be true if the judge, their spouse, or close relatives had a relationship with a lawyer in the case or a material witness.

Another situation where recusal is necessary is when there is no direct conflict, but there is an appearance of impropriety. That would mean that the public would perceive an unfairness in the outcome of the case if the judge remained the decision-maker.

As a practical matter, where a judge owns stock in a company that is a party to a case, they must recuse themselves.

Where a judge has made public statements indicating a strong position about the subject matter of the case that may lead to a recusal.

You might think that recusal is just a matter of personal preference, but it’s not. It is a legal and ethical obligation, and if a judge who should recuse themselves fails to do so, the failure to do so could be grounds for a mistrial, may lead to a reversal on appeal, or may erode the public’s trust in the court system.

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.

We often deal with clients who have been injured as a consequence of a defendant not following health regulations.

One example is a restaurant failing to follow health regulations, which require kitchen cleanliness, as well as maintaining the food supplies at an appropriate temperature in a freezer or refrigerator, or failing to prepare and cook food to the required temperature. The types of illnesses that are often a consequence of failing to follow these types of regulations include food poisoning and associated diseases, some of which can result in serious injury or death.

Another example of an injury that can occur due to a failure to follow health regulations is the acquisition of infections as a result of a hair salon or nail salon not following the required regulations to ensure the cleanliness of combs, brushes, basins, and other utensils used on customers. Infections that can result include viral, bacterial, and fungal infections.

Another example of how people can be injured as a consequence of a business failing to follow health regulations is the manifestation of hospital-acquired infections. This may result in a patient acquiring an MRSA infection, as well as other types of antibiotic-resistant infections. A consequence of some of these infections can be serious injury or death.

A common thread that runs through these types of cases is that the party who has failed to comply with health regulations does so to save money and cut corners.

For example, in some hospital settings during the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals refused to send in cleaning staff to clean a patient’s room or bathroom. The excuse given was that they did not want to expose the workers to the virus. However, failing to clean rooms and bathrooms exposed patients to other infectious agents lurking in the hospital.

There was no valid reason under the law to disregard hospital health regulations. Cleaning crews could have been provided with hazmat-level protection or other necessary protection as required by OSHA. Neglecting patient health is never justifiable.

The health and safety regulations implemented by governments are designed to ensure that people lead healthy lives and avoid infections while engaging in everyday activities.

The reason you can go in and get a haircut safely is that most barbers and beauticians follow the regulations. You can stop at a restaurant and hopefully walk out without becoming ill because most restaurant workers follow the laws. The same is true for most hospitals that follow the regulations.

However, no matter the industry, those who disregard safety rules to save money and increase profits are knowingly putting all of us at risk.

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 was prompted by a caller whose young daughter broke her leg at a softball field due to someone’s negligence. I did not get additional details.

The caller stated that he had settled the daughter’s case with an insurance company. However, he wanted legal advice because the insurance company demanded that all the settlement funds be placed into a guardianship for the benefit of the daughter.

I’m sure every attorney receives a call like this from time to time.

Invariably, a caller with a question of this nature does not want to pay for legal advice and is not receptive to being told that what he wants to do runs counter to what the law requires.

The caller insisted that the money was his to spend and stated that he just needed an attorney to make the insurance company understand his situation.

This particular caller stated that he had already contacted five other attorneys, and none would assist him in his desire to take his child’s settlement money.

He also sounded outraged on the call and did not want to hear a word about preserving the funds for his young child. He insisted he could use the money to make car payments. He said he takes the child for rides in his car as his passenger, so she will benefit from him having a car.

He said I had to be wrong to suggest that the money needs to be put in a special account and preserved for the young child. He then disconnected the call.

Had he stayed on the line, we would have declined to advise the gentleman for several reasons. First, he was adamant that the money should be his. If he had hired us, we would have been obliged to protect the child’s interests. An attorney cannot represent a child against their parent or represent the parent against the child in the same legal matter where there is a conflict of interest between the two parties. Second, he was belligerent and figured he’d keep looking for an attorney who would help him take advantage of the child.

99.9% of parents of an injured young child realize that any money they might recover for that child’s injury must go to the benefit of the child and not the parent.

Courts require that funds collected on behalf of the minor child must be either put in a special savings account with a federally insured institution, for the benefit of the minor child exclusively, or a guardianship has to be opened, if the net amount of the settlement is over $10,000, where the court can supervise the money and make sure that the money does not go to an unscrupulous parent. There are no exceptions.

After the caller disconnected, I began to wonder if he was addicted to gambling or if someone was threatening him.

There is good reason for laws that protect injured minors when it comes time to settle their injury claim.

When a third party injures a child, the child has the right to sue that party. The right to sue belongs to them, not their parents. The parent was not injured.

A parent may have an independent action for loss of services of a child, but the injury claim belongs to the child.

Because a child is a minor, they cannot sign a written representation agreement with an attorney. The reason a child cannot sign an attorney representation agreement is the same reason the child cannot sign a contract to buy a house or buy a car. They lack the legal authority to enter into an agreement.

Though the law permits a parent to sue on behalf of a minor child, any settlement reached must be approved by a court. The parent must act as a fiduciary for the child’s benefit. The court needs to approve the settlement to ensure the parent is not taking advantage of the child.

I recall a case from a few years ago in which a court approved a settlement and ordered that the settlement funds for the child be deposited into a special savings account for the child. Several years after I withdrew my representation from the case (since the case was settled), the court found out that the mother had lied about setting aside the money and had instead taken all of the child’s money. Needless to say, the mother was in big trouble.

I don’t think she went to jail, but I believe the court ordered her to pay back all the money, with interest.

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 call from a woman who wants to sue after being thrown from an amusement park ride. She says she needed neck and low back surgery after the incident. She also says she can no longer work as a janitor, a job she had for the last 30 years. Her medical bills to date total nearly $500,000. She says her earnings loss so far is $150,000.

She wants to know if she has a good chance of successfully suing the company that operated the amusement ride. She wants to know what factors we would look at to determine her chances of winning, and she would like to know what damages she can potentially recover.

Any lawsuit would likely be based on claims that the defendant (the amusement ride company) was negligent and reckless in the operation of the amusement ride and that its actions or inactions caused the woman’s injuries.

The owner and operator of an amusement device is required to exercise reasonable and ordinary care in maintaining, operating, and supervising the device.

Key factors to consider include determining if Indiana statutes that govern amusement ride safety were violated without excuse or justification:

–  Regulations require owners to be familiar with the manufacturer’s instructions, prepare an operating fact sheet for operators, and refrain from operating devices at unsafe speeds or at speeds beyond the recommended limits.

–  Specific equipment, such as belts, bars, and footrests, must be provided to ensure safe entrance, exit, and support. This equipment must be strong enough to restrain passengers and have fastenings that cannot be inadvertently released.

–  All devices must comply with the manufacturer’s safety standards, operating manuals, and technical specifications. Additionally, daily operation and inspection logs, as well as personnel training records, must be maintained.

If the woman successfully proves her claims and her fault is 50% or less, she may recover damages to compensate her for those elements reasonably demonstrated to have resulted from the defendant’s wrongful conduct.

Damages she can potentially recover include a jury taking into account the nature and extent of the woman’s injuries, whether her injuries are temporary or permanent, physical pain and mental suffering, medical expenses, disfigurement caused by the incident, lost time and earnings, and the loss or impairment of earning capacity.

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 is prompted by a woman who called and said a service dog attacked and severely bit her young child when she and the child were at a restaurant. She was calling to find out her legal options.

Animals are not always predictable. To properly analyze the caller’s situation, we will need to know more about the dog, the child, the dog’s owner, and the restaurant.

Was the dog a trained and certified service dog? If so, did it break protocol with its training?

In other words, was it trained not to react with a bite even if provoked?

Improper training may lead to a lawsuit against the dog trainer.

Additionally, we would like to know if the dog was indeed specially trained and a genuine service dog. In other words, was it a seeing-eye dog? Or was it a so-called comfort dog designed to help relieve anxiety? What was the dog’s breed and size? Was the dog on a leash? Was the dog muzzled?

It will also be important to credibly determine what the child was doing at the time of the bite. Was the child provoking the dog in some way? Such as screaming at the dog, or touching the dog, or hitting the dog? Or did the child touch or strike the dog’s owner, causing the dog to feel protective? Was the parent monitoring the child?

Another essential factor would be to learn more about the dog’s owner. Could the dog’s owner have prevented the dog from biting?

Was the dog providing services that a medical practitioner prescribed? Or did the owner try to pass off an untrained dog as a service dog? If the dog was not a genuine service dog, the owner committed fraud against the restaurant and its staff.

Did the owner know that the dog might bite, given its history?

The law tends to grant leniency to an owner who is unaware of any violent tendencies in an animal. However, if the animal has bitten before or otherwise exhibited violent tendencies, the law is likely to be less lenient towards the owner.

Another factor is going to be the type of restaurant involved.

Did the incident occur in an outdoor setting, such as a patio or garden?

Or did the incident occur inside a building?

Did the restaurant try to prevent the dog from entering? Did the restaurant place the dog and its owner near the child?

Did the restaurant observe behavior with the dog that would have suggested a propensity to bite before it bit the child? Should the restaurant have ejected the dog and its owner before the bite could occur?

Did anybody take steps to try to prevent a foreseeable attack by the dog?

Depending on the answer to these questions, when an investigation of the incident is complete, it may be reasonable for the caller and her child to sue several potentially responsible parties.

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 woman who called saying that her bicycling husband was struck by a car when he crossed a street while riding on a bike trail. She wanted to know their legal rights.

If a car strikes a bicyclist while he crosses a street from a bike trail in Indiana, the injured cyclist may be able to sue for compensation. But it will depend on the circumstances of the crash.

In Indiana, drivers must exercise caution to avoid hitting pedestrians and cyclists.

However, cyclists also have responsibilities. A bicyclist must obey traffic laws and exercise reasonable care in operating the bicycle.

Just the other day, I encountered a cyclist NOT following the rules of the road. I was driving a car on a divided four-lane highway going eastbound, and the bicyclist was in the inside eastbound lane pedaling westbound.  I was surprised nobody struck him.

Liability in each case will depend on who was at fault for the crash.

If the car driver was distracted or impaired, they may be held fully responsible.

If the cyclist was violating traffic laws (such as crossing against a red light or without signaling) or operating their bicycle in a manner similar to the man I just described, their actions may result in a jury finding them to be at fault.

Where the car driver’s negligence contributed to causing the accident, the cyclist may be successful in filing a personal injury claim and seeking compensation for their injuries and damages.

Damage may include tangible losses, such as medical bills, lost income, and property damage. Damages may also include compensation for pain and suffering, as well as emotional distress.

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.”