Ask Me Help Desk - Auto vs bus accident leaves injured without case or claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottGem

...
You aren't going to like this either. One rule in accidents such as you describe is to NOT remove victims from the vehicles, to leave that EMTs and rescue people. Had you done that you wouldn't be in this situation. Especially given the nature of the injuries as described you could have made them worse and probably did.

As far as suing the bus company, have you talked to your insurance carrier? Your coverage may include the services of an attorney to fight this. If not, you need to assemble all the testimony and physical evidence and take that around to attorneys to show them what type of case you have.

Yes. SG, I would have given you a greenie on this but I'm out of them.

Good point: why remove accident victims before the EMTs can get there? Might be water under the bridge, but could also be grounds for suit against these well-meaning good Samaritans, unfortunately.

I was assuming that OP had explored this possibility. Normally I believe auto insurance policies only cover the cost of defending a suit, not that of an action against the other party (when the other party is not suing you), but it wouldn't hurt to look into it.

Boggles the mind, now that I think about it. OP's insurance carrier funding a suit by OP's daughter and son-in-law against the first vehicle owner, the bus company, and OP! The carrier might have to pay for two lawyers.:eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

No they wouldn't. The doctors' expert testimony, based upon the nature of the injuries would "rebuke (or rebut) the claim that the bus didn't hit them."
Read Sangreaal's comment on my post, made at 1:33 today (post #10).

Ok.. I can accept that... and its another good reason the Developers need to get rid of the comment feature here... if it have been answered and quoted rather then commented on it would have been easier to follow.

Who got them out of the vechile finally ? That would be your witness. The kids are also witness of what happened to them.

And I will assume you want an attorney who will take the case on a percentage, and not one that you are going to write a check to, the difference, one who works on a percentae will need a large case to be worth taking, where there is no split liability often.

So you can always just hire one by paying them, few ever turn down a check.

I was referring to this: "I heard the first collision and ran to the highway (my home is 800ft off the highway). I could clearly see from my yard that my Xterra was hit and disabled."

I have no idea at what point it was clear that the Xterra was hit and disabled. I realize it's somewhere between 800 feet and 50 feet but I would certainly "hang my hat" on this one if the argument is that the other vehicle SHOULD have been using headlights but was not.

Apparently it was not dark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

I was referring to this: "I heard the first collision and ran to the highway (my home is 800ft off the highway). I could clearly see from my yard that my Xterra was hit and disabled."

I have no idea at what point it was clear that the Xterra was hit and disabled. I realize it's somewhere between 800 feet and 50 feet but I would certainly "hang my hat" on this one if the argument is that the other vehicle SHOULD have been using headlights but was not.

Apparently it was not dark.

And all this points to why eye witness testimony is generally considered unreliable.

I think the physician's testimony that the injuries occurred from two separate incidents would be more compelling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

I was referring to this: "I heard the first collision and ran to the highway (my home is 800ft off the highway). I could clearly see from my yard that my Xterra was hit and disabled."

I have no idea at what point it was clear that the Xterra was hit and disabled. I realize it's somewhere between 800 feet and 50 feet but I would certainly "hang my hat" on this one if the argument is that the other vehicle SHOULD have been using headlights but was not.

Apparently it was not dark.

Yes. This is one example of the saying "a picture is worth 1,000 words."

Here is a "SketchUp" of how I picture the scene:
http://images3a.snapfish.com/2323232...7%3A8348nu0mrj
But I think her argument is not about whether the first vehicle's lights were on or off. She doesn't say that she was looking when the first collision happened.

Anyway, she hasn't returned to this thread for a while. In the mean time we are sort of shooting in the dark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

Yes. This is one example of the saying "a picture is worth 1,000 words."

If you're ever interested in working in NY, call me! (I also sketched it out, by the way.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

If you're ever interested in working in NY, call me! (I also sketched it out, by the way.)

:)
Sure, any time.

Something in this situation just doesn't add up. What state are you in? With these types of injuries you should have attorneys beating down your door to take this case. Whether they were in the car or not at the time of impact is a question of fact for a jury. No insurer is going to want to roll the dice with injuries of this magnitude on a "he said she said".