Medical Malpractice

Why such a tragic title above?

I should admit that it is an exaggeration to call the victim of any type of accident, negligence or malpractice "liable". But there are many tragic life events when the diseased person has become a cause of pain and suffering for others. A good understanding of the "liability" terminology is very, sometimes, important in both simple accident cases and tragic ones.

Liability in plain English

Today liability insurance covers virtually everything: be that your home, your work place, subway train you're riding in, or your vehicle. Talking especially about our roads that are so crowded already, there is a real big chance of being involved in automobile accident virtually for everyone in our society. Hopefully in a minor one, but who knows.

When the accident occurs you have a right to file a claim with an insurance company of someone to blame in the accident. If, for example, your car has been hit from behind, a person to blame is obvious - the driver of the hitting vehicle. You are entitled for a full compensation for damages that have been created by a negligent driver from behind. But wait - sometimes this is not that simple.

Imagine that now you are the driver of the hitting vehicle. You've hit another car from behind in spite of being cautious and keeping a distance between both automobiles. The car in front of you has just stopped short, you even have not seen brake lights of that car. You just jammed on your brakes, but it was too late already. Now, police report will notice that indeed the brake lights of another car have been off.

What we have here is a real life example when a person to blame is not 100% liable for what has happened. Because the driver of the car that you've hit hasn't taken care of the brake lights he or she is considered to be a negligent, like you. It might cost from 10% to 25% of the total damages claimed in this case.

Here is a real life example with calculations. Mike was in a car accident. He stopped short because a dog ran in front of his car. A car from behind, that Dean was in, hit Mike's vehicle. Both drivers sustained injuries, had to see a doctor, took days off from work.

Now, police reported that Mike's car had dysfunctional brake lights. That fact was used by Dean's insurance company to point out some negligence from Mike's side. It created situation when both drivers are liable, just not equally, but both.

Mike's medical bill and lost income was about $2000, Dean ended up with about $1000 of claimed damages. If Dean had been 100% at fault, Mike would be entitled to $2000 check from Dean's insurance company. But the fact that Mike did not make sure that his car met a local Vehicle Code requirements, i.e. did not fix his brake lights, made him partially at fault for what had happened. This made Make between 10% to 25% negligent. Dean is now liable for only a part of Mike's damages - between $1500 and $1800.

On the other hand Dean is eligible to collect from Mike an amount equal to Mike's negligence, which is between $100 and $250 from total $1000 of Dean's damages.

Again, why such a tragic title above?

Unfortunately, a negligent person can die in an accident. That makes things very complicated, but still an estate of the deceased is liable for damages created by the dead man. Legal language uses "wrongful death" terminology to broadly cover all cases of death that is caused by fault of another.

Let's modify the example above. Imagine the situation where Mike's injuries caused him to die. Now we have a typical wrongful death case where dead person is still liable. Mike's estate is now eligible to request compensation from Dean. This will eventually lead to wrongful death lawsuit award from Dean's insurance company to Mike's estate And in spite of Dean's guilt, he still has to pay his bills too. Dean's potential damages in this tragic event are now way different. Justice is blind, isn't it?