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 a minor crash that occurred on a roundabout.

A roundabout is a circular intersection or junction in which road traffic flows almost continuously in one direction around a central island.

A vehicle passing around a roundabout shall be driven only to the right of the roundabout’s central island.

When approaching or driving through a roundabout, a person driving a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to the driver of a vehicle that is driving through the roundabout at the same time or so closely as to present an immediate hazard and shall slow down or stop if necessary to yield.

The Indiana BMV Driver’s Manual provides:

Common causes of roundabout crashes include:

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 struck by an SUV going the wrong way on the Indiana Toll Road.

A wrong-way crash results when one vehicle travels in the opposite direction of the legal flow of traffic on the roadway and collides with a vehicle traveling on the same roadway in the correct direction.

This often results in a head-on collision. Head-on collisions are characterized by head trauma, spinal cord injuries, organ damage, neck, chest, and abdominal injuries, as well as pelvic and extremity injuries.

The Indiana Toll Road has a Wrong-Way Driver Detection and Alert System.

The detection system utilizes three zones.

An initial detection zone, a self-correction zone, and an alert zone.

The system uses thermal detectors and high-speed cameras to ascertain when a driver is going the wrong way on an entry or exit ramp and this automatically activates a self-correction warning.

A self-correction warning is a flashing warning light to alert the driver that they may be inadvertently approaching a ramp from the wrong direction. At the same time, Indiana State Police are immediately notified about the driver. Also, live video is sent to the traffic management center of the company that manages the toll road.

The Indiana Toll Road currently has WWD detection systems on four ramps at three locations.

In 2022, this system detected 97 wrong-way drivers on the toll road and alerted them they were about to enter lanes of travel in the wrong direction. Of those 97 drivers, 95 of them self-corrected and avoided driving the wrong way on the Toll Road.

The company that manages the toll road alerted law enforcement and other drivers (through the toll road’s dynamic message signs) on the road about the 2 drivers who didn’t self-correct.

Common characteristics of wrong-way drivers include drivers who are unfamiliar with the toll road, intoxicated and distracted drivers, fatigued drivers, as well as elderly drivers, and drivers who have poor eyesight, or who become confused.

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 an injury that happened when he was sitting at a lateral pull weight machine at a fitness center. The belt connecting the weight to the machine’s handle snapped, causing the caller to fall and seriously injure his back. The injuries resulted in back surgery.

He wanted to know his legal options.

A first liability focus would look toward an investigation of the owner of the fitness center. Did the fitness center maintain the equipment, or hire a contractor to maintain its machines?

Was the belt on the machine replaced as frequently as the manufacturer recommended? Was the belt that snapped an inferior component that was not up to manufacturer standards?

Another area of liability to investigate would be the manufacturer of the machine. Was the machine shipped with a defective belt? Did the manufacturer know that the belt was dangerous, but fail to warn of the danger?

Of course, a manufacturer if sued can be expected to argue that the machine was misused, or poorly maintained.

Lastly, it will be important to find out if the caller signed a waiver when he joined the fitness center.

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 how to prove a case she is thinking about pursuing. She wanted to know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. She wouldn’t say what conduct she was concerned about.

Ordinarily, we would not indulge such a caller as we find it difficult to discuss concepts involving legal proof divorced from concrete facts.

But, we hear these terms being used a lot in the media. Often people use the terms incorrectly to suggest that circumstantial evidence is not admissible evidence. That’s not true.

Both direct and circumstantial evidence can be admitted into evidence and can be used by a jury to reach a conclusion.

So what is the difference between direct and circumstantial?

Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact.

Circumstantial evidence is indirect proof of a fact.

For example, direct evidence that a person acted in a particular way might be the testimony of someone who actually saw the person act in such a way. – This would include testimony by Bob that he saw Sally texting while driving.

On the other hand, circumstantial evidence that Sally was texting while driving might be the testimony of Sally’s cell phone provider explaining that the data shows that at the time of the crash, Sally was sending a text.

It is not necessary that any fact be proved by direct evidence.

A jury may consider both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence as proof.

Of course, it depends on which side of an issue the media are supporting when the terms are used, but often the public is left with the impression that circumstantial evidence constitutes evidence that is inadequate.

But, that is simply not the case.

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 says she was renovating her house and a plumbing subcontractor installed an oil-fired boiler to heat and supply hot water to her home, but that the water caused 2nd degree burns to a family member after reaching temperatures above 170 degrees Fahrenheit.

The injured party required hospitalization, debridement procedures, and tissue grafts, and has resulted in permanent scarring.

Since the burn injuries were very serious she wanted to know the family’s legal options.

The first option we mentioned to the caller is the option to sue the plumbing contractor who installed the boiler for negligently installing it without a tempering valve. A tempering valve mixes hot and cold water to create water at the perfect temperature to distribute to sinks and showers.

Another option might be to sue the manufacturer of the boiler for failing to warn of the need to install a tempering valve. This of course presumes that no warnings were given. If a warning was provided, but the plumber disregarded the warning, it may be difficult to hold the manufacturer at fault.

Depending on the contractual arrangements between the general contractor and the plumbing subcontractor, another option might be to sue the general contractor under vicarious liability theory for the subcontractor’s negligence.

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 an injury her son suffered while skateboarding at a park.

The injury occurred on a portion of a state park created to give skateboards a place to train and compete.

Nearby was an area created for BMX use, and another nearby area set aside for inline skating.

For skateboarders and BMX bikers, park creators typically use wood or poured concrete to create ramps with dips and hills. Sometimes the ramps will have stairs with railings. Some areas are limited to the practice of moves and maneuvers. Other areas are set aside for beginners.

Her son was a beginner, but somehow he was working out in an area geared to highly advanced skateboarders.

The park was privately owned. Many such parks are publicly owned, and to sue a public park notice of intent to sue typically must be given within 180 days of an injury incident in Indiana. Here a notice likely will not be required since the boy was in a private park and paid an entrance fee.

The boy’s mother said there were no signs warning of any dangers.

The boys’ father took photos of the park and the photos readily show that the park was not properly maintained. It is in a broken and deteriorated condition. The injury happened at dusk and the park is not illuminated by street lamps or other lighting. Moreover, the boy was leaning on a railing at the top of a run, when the railing gave way causing the boy to fall and break his arm.

Of course, the lack of warning signs, a deteriorated railing, and poor illumination suggest that the park operator may have been negligent.

However, the park will likely defend the case claiming that the boy assumed the inherent risks of skateboarding.

Assumption of risk applies when an injured party knows of a specific danger, understands the risk, and voluntarily exposes themselves to the danger.

To make an assumption of risk defense, the park will need to establish that the boy knew and appreciated the specific risk that led to the injury and that he voluntarily accepted the risk.

The defense might succeed with the assumption of risk defense if the boy was hurt on a ramp doing a skateboard maneuver. However, the boy fell when a railing gave way. So to prevail the park will need to show the boy knew the railing had deteriorated and used it anyway.

The problem for the park will be who was in a better position to know that the railing was weak, the boy or the park?

If the park operators knew the railing was weak, why was it not repaired? And, why did the park issue no warning that the railing was weak?

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 his knee which he fractured trying to connect the second trailer in a tandem rig to the first trailer he was already towing.

Turns out that as he stepped up onto the hitch, the lift crank handle on the dolly broke loose causing him to fall and land with his kneecap against hard concrete.

For a commercial motor vehicle operator, the workplace is the tractor and trailer and all of the equipment that goes with it.

Some drivers have to manipulate tarps to cover a load.

Tandem trailers, like the caller was using, are rather complex.

A single trailer usually connects to a tractor with a device called a fifth wheel. This hookup often does not require the driver to do much other than line up correctly and back up correctly.

Connecting a tandem trailer requires the driver to back up the tractor and first trailer to the second trailer. There is a device called a dolly that can be raised and lowered by hand crank. The dolly can be moved left or right too. It is a complex system requiring much work by the driver. The dolly is required to move left to right and up and down to match up with the back of the first trailer.

Upon discussing the issue a bit more with the caller we learned that the trailer he was connecting to was owned by a company different from the commercial trucking company he was employed with.

This would mean that in addition to a worker’s compensation claim against his employer, he might have a basis to sue the hitch manufacturer the trailer owner, or both.

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 the doctor they were sent to for medical care following a work injury. The caller wanted to know if he could choose his own doctor in a worker’s compensation case.

The answer is generally, no. The employer normally directs the employee where to go for medical treatment of a work-related injury under the worker’s compensation laws and the employer’s insurance carrier pays for the treatment.

However, the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act provides that:

If the employer fails to provide “reasonable and necessary” medical treatment, the employee may go to any physician. Ind. Code §22-3-3-4(d).

If the employer/carrier refuses to pay for the treatment, the employee or the medical provider may have to file with the Board to seek reimbursement.

Indiana courts have held that generally, a person is required to seek Board approval or approval from the WC carrier before undergoing medical treatment outside the authorized WC medical providers.

However, there are three circumstances provided by statute in which an employee can get medical treatment without prior approval: (1) in an emergency; (2) if the employer fails to provide needed medical care; or (3) for other good reasons.

Indiana courts have adopted the following test for evaluating the existence of “good reason”:

If it is shown to the Board that the treatment provided by the employer was inadequate treatment for the employee’s condition and the unauthorized treatment received by the claimant was medically reasonable and necessary treatment, then the employer should be responsible, despite the lack of prior approval by the employer.

One way to show inadequate treatment is by showing continual suffering and pain despite following treatment orders by the worker’s compensation-supplied med provider.

Importantly, the employee always has the right to seek medical treatment and medical opinions at the employee’s own expense.

Any time that an employee seeks medical treatment outside of the direction of the employer/carrier, the employee risks incurring liability for the medical bills. However, if the employee files an application for benefits with the Board, medical providers are to refrain from attempting to collect payment from the employee until it is determined who is liable for payment.

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 whether a non-citizen can file a personal injury lawsuit.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution extends the right to seek due process while in the U.S. to U.S. citizens, legally admitted residents, and undocumented immigrants.

Thus, citizenship is not a requirement for filing a personal injury claim.

A person who is in an accident in Indiana, can bring a personal injury lawsuit in Indiana, regardless of their country of origin or citizenship status.

That said, will a person’s immigration status be admissible in court?

Indiana Evidence Rule 401 deems evidence relevant when it “has any tendency to make a [consequential] fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

Generally, relevant evidence is admissible.

However, relevant evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Rule 403.

In 2017, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that an unauthorized immigrant was permitted to file a lawsuit against a general contractor seeking damages based on a work-related injury under the Indiana Constitution’s Open Courts Clause in Ind. Const. art. I, Sect. 12 which provides:

All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase, completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay.

In that case, the plaintiff’s immigration status was deemed to be relevant, but due to a danger of confusion and unfair prejudice, the immigration status was excluded from evidence.

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 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.”