A freeway accident occured when I was rear ended by another driver. I do not have insurance. She does. Can her insurance company deny car repair and medical costs because I do not have insurance?
The primary duty to avoid a collision is with a following driver. In most circumstances if someone rear ends you it is their fault. However there are circumstances in which someone stops for no valid reason or without fair warning and it could take the responsibility off of the following driver. The fact that you do not have insurance does not change that fact that someone else may be negligent. Simply stated, the insurance company cannot deny car repairs and medical costs because you do not have insurance. By state law you are required to carry insurance and you may be ticketed for not having insurance.See question
I was hit from behind while stopped at a stoplight March 3, 2009. The other driver accepted full responsibilty. I went to the E.R. that night to be seen for neck and back pain. Had CT scan and was sent home with pain killers. Felt ok, just a l...
You indicate in your question that "the insurance has paid the limit". I assume you mean your PIP coverage. PIP stands for Personal Injury Protection coverage. If this is what you mean and the coverage is exhausted you can begin to use your medical coverage. This area can get a little complicated, especially if you do not have medical coverage.
Nevertheless the most important thing for you to do is make sure you get proper care. Sometimes neck and back pain do not resolve with conservative medical care. In any event you have the right to recover for your medical bills, wage loss, pain suffering and inconvenience. I am a personal injury attorney in Spokane and would be happy to talk with you regarding your claim. This discussion is free and no cost to you. Sometimes a quick call to a lawyer can get you pointed in the right direction. I can be reached at 509-926-4900.See question
Upon turn 18 can a child sue his parent for pain and suffering from physical abuse and mental cruelty?
Yes. In Washington, a child reaches the age of majority upon turning 18. At that point, he or she can sue someone (even parents) without needing a guardian ad litem. It is important for the child to be aware of the statute of limitations covering such an action. Generally, if a child’s cause of action occurred prior to him or her turning 18, the statute of limitations will not begin to run until the child has reached majority.See question
I was in an accident where the other driver ran a red light and I hit him. He has insurance and I don't. His insurance company is saying I'm 75% at fault and have to pay $4,000 because I didn't let him proceed through the intersection.
Hello my name is Robert Crary and I am attorney who specializes in automobile collision cases. All to often in clear liability cases (someone running a red light) the opposing insurance company will try and find fault with the none fault party. This is especially so when the none fault party does not have an insurance adjuster or attorney representing their interest. If the other party was charged with running a red light and there are witnesses to prove this, than you should not share and responsibility for the collision. In my opinion they are trying to bully you into accepting a lesser amount than you are entitled to.
As to you second question, the fact that the case gets dismissed or found to be not committed in a district court can, but probably will not have adverse affects on the question of liability. The answer gets a little complicated but essenitally if the case is fully litigated than it may be binding but if it is summarily dismissed without an actual trial on the issue than is will probably not be binding. I would need to know more information before I could give a more solid opinion.See question
I had breast reduction surgery and the results are unsatisfactory. My doctor told me to come back in 24 months and we may be able to update and revise the surgery. Can I sue this doctor for malpractice?
A mere bad result is not enough for malpractice. To sue for malpractice you must show negligent on the part of the doctor. In order for the result to be negligent it must be a result that falls below a certain standard of care. If someone is simply unhappy with the result that does not rise to the level of negligence than you may not have a case. One would have to have an expert opinion to make this determination.
In order to prove that doctor performed in a negligent manner it would be necessary to hire an expert to review the records and conduct an examination. If the examining doctor believe that the doctor who performed the initial surgery performed below the standard of care the community you could have a claim. The measure of damages would be the cost to repair the damage, any lost income and the pain suffering of going through the experience.See question
I am about to have major surgery and want to check up on my surgeon. Is there any way that I can view records at a state of country level if I have the surgeon's name?
If you go to the Washington Dept. of Health website, and go to licensing/certification, and then to physicians, you can find out what credentials a surgeon/physician has if you click on the provider credential search. Under that search you can search by credential number or by the physician’s name.See question
I had a vasectomy 10 years ago after fathering two children. Last month my wife became pregnant. After being tested it was determined that my vasectomy 'came undone'. Can I sue the doctor who performed my vasectomy for not doing a good job?
The law does recognize an action for wrongful birth. Parents of a healthy normal child born after an unsuccessful sterilization operation may not recover the child-rearing costs against the physician, but may recover the expense, pain and suffering, and loss of consortium associated with the failed sterilization, pregnancy, and childbirth, since damages may be established with reasonable certainty, and do not invite disparagement of the child involved. However, the parents of an unplanned, but healthy, child may not recover child-rearing costs from the physician who performed the unsuccessful sterilization procedure.See question
Three years ago I had surgery on my leg to remove a cyst. It seemed like a small matter at the time. The wound got infected and then required two more surgeries to fix. I am now living with pain in my leg. Is there anything I can do to gain fin...
It depends on whether the physician or a nurse was negligent in their actions. If the physician was negligent then he may be liable, if a nurse was negligent the physician may liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. However, a bad result is not in itself evidence of negligence. In order to show negligence one must show that the physician breached a duty that fell below the standard of care for the type of treatment performed. In the facts of this case it is not known if the infection was the result of an act performed by the doctor or from some act performed by the hospital.
Where malpractice results in an injury for which a physician is liable, risk created includes that of additional medical treatment and, additional harm; there is no special exception to rule of liability for harm which is foreseeable and within scope of risk merely because a tort-feasor is a physician. If a general practitioner is not negligent, they will bear no liability for injury or exacerbation of condition resulting from treatment by specialist, to whom patient had been referred for reason that physicians acting independently of one another are liable only for their own wrong.
Physicians are subject to the general rule that a tort-feasor is liable for not only the injuries he causes, but is "also subject to liability for any additional bodily harm resulting from normal efforts of third persons in rendering aid which the other's injury reasonably requires, irrespective of whether such acts are done in a proper or negligent manner. The rationale of the rule as applied to medical treatment is that negligent or harmful medical treatment is within the scope of the risk created by the original negligent conduct. But where malpractice results in an injury for which a physician is liable, the risk created includes that of additional medical treatment and, perhaps, additional harm
In the performance of her professional duties, a nurse must exercise reasonable care to see that no unnecessary harm comes to her patient. On principles of respondeat superior, hospital and doctor may each be liable for acts of the hospital nurse. If, however, the nurse is not negligent, we do not reach the question of vicarious liability of the hospital or doctor for the nurse's acts. The facts here suggest that further information would be needed to make a proper evaluation of the case.See question
I went to a fast food restaurant and found something in my hamburger. It was some kind of metal. Can I sue them for this?
It depends on whether you were injured by the metal. If you were injured by the metal in the hamburger then you could bring an action under several theories including breach of implied warranty, strict liability, and negligence.
As in any other negligence action, the plaintiff in an unwholesome food case must plead and prove existence of a duty of care on the part of the defendant manufacturer, producer, packer, bottler, or retailer; a breach of that duty; and a cognizable injury proximately caused by the breach.
Despite the relatively higher burden of proof on the plaintiff in a negligence action, as compared to a strict liability or breach of warranty action, a negligence action may offer certain advantages. Although privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant may be required in warranty actions, it is not a prerequisite to recovery in negligence actions. Thus, a person injured or made ill by a deleterious food or beverage product may recover from a remote party, such as the manufacturer. And, the plaintiff in a negligence action may be able to take advantage of a more favorable statute of limitations.
Under a strict liability action in a tort for physical harm caused by the consumption of a dangerous or contaminated food or beverage product any person suffering physical harm from eating or drinking the product may recover. However, for strict liability they must be able to prove that the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous product was defective when it left the fast food restaurant’s control, was in a substantially unchanged condition when it reached you, and consumption of the product caused you to suffer physical harm.
Under a breach of implied warranty action, persons who are reasonably expected to eat or drink the product generally may recover. In this situation, you need to be able to prove that product was unwholesome or unfit for human consumption, and therefore breached the warranty; and the failure of the product to conform to the warranty was the proximate cause of the physical harm you suffered.
Simply finding a piece of metal alone is not something you can recover for unless you can show some injury or damage.See question