Personal Injury Primer

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 whether he can sue for an injury he suffered when the Amtrak train he was a passenger on derailed.

A railway company has a duty to ensure passenger safety as the train operator. If operator negligence or a breach of safety standards contributed to the derailment, the company may be held liable for injuries sustained.

When the train is an Amtrak train, a Federal Tort Claim Act (FTCA) notice must be filed on time since Amtrak is operated under the guidance of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. A timely notice of a claim is a pre-suit requirement for filing a suit. The United States government created Amtrak, which receives significant taxpayer funding. Because it is taxpayer-funded, congress has also granted Amtrak a liability damage cap protection.

So yes, the caller may sue if injured or if a family member was injured or killed due to an Amtrak train derailing.

If an Amtrak train derails, there may also be other potential wrongdoers to sue besides Amtrak. Frequently, though Amtrak is the name on the train that derailed, other rail companies may own or maintain the tracks that Amtrak trains run on (companies owning tracks include BNSF, CSX, and Union Pacific). If poor track maintenance contributed to a derailment, the rail owner or maintenance provider may also need to be sued.

Another issue may impact a lawsuit against Amtrak. Often, Amtrak ticket agreements contain a “forced arbitration clause.” This means that when a passenger buys a ticket, they agree that they will not sue in court and that their claim will be handled by an arbitrator that Amtrak chooses.

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 with questions regarding a car-train crash that took the life of the caller’s relative.

Car-train crashes can result in severe injuries and fatalities.

In a car-train crash, liability will often be hotly contested by the railroad company.

At properly maintained grade crossings, the railroad will contend that its locomotive had the right of way and that the car or truck struck at the crossing failed to yield when it attempted to cross the tracks.

Train litigation will require lawyers to be familiar with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) guidelines. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will investigate many such crashes. However, in most cases, private accident reconstruction experts will need to be retained to analyze a crash.

Here is a list of the type of conduct important to determining railroad operator negligence:

There are close to ¼ million grade crossing in the USA.  Many drivers each day encounter railway crossings.

If you or a loved one is injured in a collision with a train, seek the advice of knowledgeable legal counsel as soon as possible. Most cases of this type will require a trial.

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 was hit by a car being test-driven by a man considering purchasing it. A dealership salesman was in the car with the man.

The caller wanted to know if the dealer or insurance carrier could be liable for the crash.

These situations are relatively rare, but they do happen.

Many dealerships try to limit liability by having test drivers sign liability waivers before getting behind the wheel. Such waivers aim to transfer any liability that would otherwise rest on the dealership to the test driver.

Dealership liability will focus on whether the dealer failed to use proper care to prevent a foreseeable crash. Consider these factors:

Did the dealer inspect the vehicle before allowing a test drive?

Did the dealer check to see if the driver had a valid license?

Did the dealer provide supervision during the test drive?

Did the dealer confirm that the test driver had valid insurance before giving them the keys to the vehicle?

When a dealership is under a duty during a test drive, fails to use proper care, and breaches that duty and a crash occurs, the dealer may be liable for damage.

Where a test driver is responsible for the crash, their own car insurance policy typically provides primary coverage, similar to an accident involving a rental car.

In cases where a dealer is deemed liable, their insurance company may find itself having to cover the damage.

In the caller’s case, the test driver was speeding. The salesman (an agent acting on behalf of the dealer) encouraged the man to speed and even timed the car’s 0 to 60 mph speed during the test drive.

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 a truck-car accident occurs, a thorough investigation is crucial to determine what happened and the parties responsible for the crash. Hiring an experienced attorney to handle such cases is critical in such a situation.

Having an attorney to manage Evidence Collection is critical.

Police officers collect and document physical evidence in every crash, but more needs to be done when a truck-car crash results in serious injury.

Photographing damage to vehicles and the crash scene is essential.

Photos of skid marks and scene debris can help reconstruct what happened.

Photos showing weather and road conditions can also help.

Hiring an accident reconstructionist to come to the scene can be critical to establish precisely what happened from the physical and scene evidence.

It is likewise important to inspect the truck and trailer. Did equipment fail or malfunction? Did the brake system work as designed? Was the cargo adequately secured?

Did the driver and carrier comply with regulations? For example, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) requires the short-term keeping of driver logs and hours of service records, driver qualification records, vehicle maintenance records, cargo manifests, and shipping documents. Such documents can be destroyed, however, if copies are not promptly requested.

In sum, having an attorney working on your behalf soon after a car-truck crash can mean the difference between success at trial or failure.

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.

Innocent motorists are often injured during high-speed police chases.

Sometimes, there are valid reasons for a chase, such as pursuing a bank robber. But all too frequently, police departments without proper training and supervision will initiate a high-speed chase where a motorist is simply observed making a turn without issuing a proper signal.

Innocent bystander injuries are at risk of occurring whenever there is a high-speed police chase.

High-speed police chases can be prevented or avoided in most situations. Many police departments have implemented restrictive pursuit policies to reduce the number of high-speed chases.

These policies prioritize officer and public safety and may involve de-escalation techniques or emphasize alternative methods of apprehending suspects. De-escalation techniques seek to calm a situation and find alternative methods to apprehend suspects rather than engage in a high-speed chase.

Here are examples of alternative methods to apprehend suspects while prioritizing officer safety and public safety:

These methods demonstrate effective and safe alternatives to the high-speed chase.

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 concern from a client about unsolicited calls he has been receiving asking him about his auto accident.

If you receive a call about an auto accident claim, be cautious and verify the caller’s legitimacy. Scammers may pose as representatives from insurance companies, medical offices, or legal firms, trying to obtain personal information or payment.

Red Flags:

What to Do:

We recommend that you err on the side of caution when dealing with unsolicited calls about auto accident claims.

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 is prompted by a call from a client.

A physical therapist persuaded a client to sign a form directing the therapist not to bill his health insurance but to authorize the provider instead to assert a lien on his personal injury claim.

We thought we’d bring this to your attention because it’s a common scam, and many people do not know how to handle it.

Here is what the patient was asked to sign:

I, the patient, hereby instruct my treater to submit my charges to any liable third-party insurance company and file a lien on my personal injury case instead of billing my health insurance company. I am aware that by doing this, my health insurance company may later deny the claim for untimely filing under their guidelines for claim billing. I am also aware that I will be personally liable for any balance remaining on my account should the third-party coverage not be sufficient to pay the full cost of my treatment. A representative of my treater has explained all of this to me, and I am directing my treater not to bill my health insurance carrier.

By agreeing to this directive, the patient is potentially giving up their health insurance benefit.

The patient has most likely paid premiums for health insurance so that their bills will be paid. There is no reason to give up insurance benefits that you’ve paid hard-earned dollars to purchase.

Here’s what fuels the scam.

Most medical providers have agreements with health insurance carriers to accept a lower dollar amount in payment on any bill that they submit.

In other words, when the provider bills $1000, they likely have an agreement with the health insurance carrier to accept $330 in full payment.

Of course, if you issued a bill for a thousand dollars and you had an agreement that you would accept $330 in full payment, you’d probably look for ways to bypass the agreement and get the full $1000.

But by signing such a document, the patient is essentially agreeing to pay the full $1000 bill. Unless they take steps on their own to file a timely claim with their health insurance, they will have wasted their money buying health insurance.

This means they not only have to pay the bill in full themselves, but they also lose the benefit of having the bill deemed paid in full had the health insurance carrier paid the negotiated rate.

So, the injury victim who falls for this scam is victimized by their treater as well as the wrongdoer who injured them.

Instead of getting the treatment that they need at a reasonable price covered through their own health insurance, which they paid for, by the way, they are now left with having to pay full freight for treatment.

Moreover, any treater who tries to pull this scam is raising a big red flag that they cannot be trusted as to treatment and care and should be fired immediately.

If you have an attorney and a medical provider requests that you sign such a document, immediately bring it to the attention of your attorney. Do not sign it. Instead, insist that the medical provider bill your insurance company. If the provider refuses, fire the provider.

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 a relative who was hit by a drunk driver who had no car insurance. She said the family knows the drunk was served at a local bar. She wanted to know if the bar could be sued for serving alcohol to someone who others at the bar said was clearly intoxicated before he got behind the wheel.

The victim of a drunk driver cannot only sue the drunk driver, but the victim may also have a civil claim for damages against the party that served alcohol to the drunk driver.

A lawsuit against the party who served alcohol to an intoxicated person is called a dram shop case.

In Indiana, there is a dram shop statute that imposes liability for furnishing alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person.

The statute provides that someone who sells, provides, delivers, or otherwise furnishes alcohol to someone else is liable for damages caused by that person’s impairment or intoxication only if the person who furnished the alcohol actually knew that the person to whom they furnished it was visibly intoxicated at the time.

The statute also provides that the intoxication of the person to whom the alcohol was furnished must have been a proximate cause of the injuries or damage suffered by the plaintiff.

Indiana Courts have confirmed that the requirement of actual knowledge of visible intoxication applies even to cases involving minors.

The statute applies to social hosts, such as family members, friends, or acquaintances, serving intoxicated people.

If a victim is successful in making a case under the dram shop statute, the victim may be able to recover expenses like medical bills, the costs of future medical care, and lost income and earning capacity, as well as compensation for subjective harm like pain and suffering and emotional distress, even if the drunk driver has no insurance.

As part of the licensing requirement to serve alcohol, the operators of a bar, restaurant, or other business must have a procedure in place to ensure that visibly intoxicated individuals are not served alcohol.

Often, it is difficult to prove that someone was already intoxicated when they were at the bar or other business seeking to be served more alcohol.

The proof was a bit easy in one case we handled years ago. The deceased drunk driver’s phone had a message on it from a bartender who served him. The message said: just checking that you made it home ok, Bob. You were pretty much out of it when I served you before locking up last night.

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 client asking out of curiosity if the City of Baltimore would be able to successfully sue the companies involved in the Frances Scott Key Bridge collapse that occurred not long ago.

The ship that struck the bridge killed several workers and caused significant economic damage to the bridge itself and commerce in general.

The city has lost tax revenue due to the slowdown in business generated by the use of the bridge, as well as revenue generated by the port authority.

In a case such as that described, long-established principles of negligence would apply.

The city likely will have a solid case against the owner of the ship, any company that chartered the ship, perhaps the shippers of the cargo, any entity operating the ship, the manufacturer of the cargo ship, and perhaps others. Most likely, all the listed entities have insurance.

No question that the bridge collapse had inflicted a financial loss on the city and likely other regional governmental entities, as well as the state.

Predicting the outcome of such a lawsuit is beyond the scope of this episode.

But some things to consider include, examining evidence of the value of the loss. What was the value of the bridge before it collapsed? What was the expected useful life of the bridge? What will it cost to replace the bridge?

These questions may seem simple but they are not. The bridge had value of course before it was destroyed, but what value? There is no market for used bridges. Another city could not have stepped in and purchased the bridge before it collapsed, for example.

But of course, states have constructed and then sold or leased toll roads to private companies for millions if not billions of dollars.

What if the ship owner and operator have insufficient insurance to cover all of the damage? The families of the workers killed will be suing for damages as well.

Might the ship owner and operator file for bankruptcy to limit their responsibility for damages?

Suppose there is sufficient insurance, will insurance carriers be driven out of business as a result of this event?

Will insurance carriers and re-insurers seek to pool coverage?

Will certain losses be able to be prioritized?

As one can see, setting aside questions about fault, the question of damage is quite complex.

As just another example, suppose a bridge maintenance company had a contract to paint the bridge. That company may now have no way to stay in business if compensation is not available.

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.

Not too long ago there was a news report of a person injured when a costumed character at an amusement park knocked him over. The injured party sued and alleged that while he was bent over, tying his child’s shoelaces, a park employee dressed in a costume knocked him to a concrete sidewalk leading to broken teeth and a neck injury.

This type of injury is not as unusual as it might seem.

A person has a legal duty to use reasonable care to control their body movements to avoid slamming into another person and knocking them down.

The duty is similar to the obligation to use reasonable care to control a motor vehicle to avoid colliding with someone.

A person moving about near other people as a pedestrian must use similar due care to avoid striking another person and knocking them to the ground or otherwise hurting them.

A person employed by an amusement park to walk around in a costume and entertain has no less of a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid colliding with and harming others in their immediate vicinity.

Wearing a costume, especially one that might interfere with the wearer’s vision, is not an excuse to injure someone.

Quite likely in the case described in the news, the amusement park that employed the costumed character would have an equal duty to manage the person employed to wear a costume.

That duty would include the obligation to train the individual wearing the costume and to make sure that they can see their surroundings (or supply someone to act as a spotter for them) so that they do not inadvertently strike others, or bump into them, or knock them over accidentally.

Frequently amusement parks will have a non-costumed individual spot for a costumed individual. The spotter will be tasked with assisting the employee in the costume to keep aware of his or her surroundings and help them avoid hurting someone. If the spotter fails to prevent an injury, the spotter might also be held responsible for injuries caused by the person in the costume.

The obligation to use reasonable care would apply not only in the setting of an amusement park but also in cases where, for example, a restaurant chain might choose to have someone dress up as a chicken and walk around holding a sign suggesting that customers should eat more beef or fish.

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.”