Vehicle hits child

[adjusterjack]

I child darting out from behind a parked vehicle is a great example of one of those situations,

Exactly. At 20 mph the stopping distance is 63 feet including reaction time. The kid was lucky he got away with just bruises and some bleeding. There's no liability on the part of the driver.

 

[Ohiogal]

Exactly. At 20 mph the stopping distance is 63 feet including reaction time. The kid was lucky he got away with just bruises and some bleeding. There's no liability on the part of the driver.

You cannot say that there is NO liability on the part of the driver.

 

[adjusterjack]

You cannot say that there is NO liability on the part of the driver.

I can and did say it. Should be obvious that's my opinion based on the description of the accident.

How do you see liability on the part of the driver?

 

[quincy]

I can and did say it. Should be obvious that's my opinion based on the description of the accident.

How do you see liability on the part of the driver?

Apparently the driver saw the basketball net and the child and the ball hitting the curb. The 20 mph might have been too fast or the driver not cautious enough given those observations, this despite the police report of the incident.

The driver could also have been on a cell phone or otherwise distracted.

While the facts as presented here appear to relieve the driver of liability, we don’t have all facts - certainly not enough for any definitive answers.

 

[Taxing Matters]

You cannot say that there is NO liability on the part of the driver.

I can and did say it. Should be obvious that's my opinion based on the description of the accident.

How do you see liability on the part of the driver?

There is not enough information here to make a definite conclusion either way. While a pedestrian has the right of way in at least some circumstances in Ohio (and for more on that the OHIO DOT has a short summary of pedestrian rights and responsibilities), that does not mean that all incidents involving a vehicle hitting a pedestrian are the result of negligence on the part of the driver. A child dashing out in front of a car so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop before hitting the child is the classic example of this. In every state in that situation the driver is not negligent and thus not responsible for the harm caused the child.

All we have here is a third party account of the accident based on what a biased person — the driver — apparently told the OP. We have no information on the other evidence that may be available, and particular nothing has been said of the potential plaintiff's position and evidence. As you should know from your years of work with insurance companies, Jack, simply the statement of your own insured often isn't all there is, and often the insured leaves out damning evidence hoping to avoid liability. In other words, simply relying on the statements and evidence from one side may well lead you to the wrong conclusion. I'd want to hear all the evidence before asserting where the fault lies here. Certainly it is possible that the driver was not at fault. That's about all I think anyone here can really say about this incident with confidence.

 

[LdiJ]

There is not enough information here to make a definite conclusion either way. While a pedestrian has the right of way in at least some circumstances in Ohio (and for more on that the OHIO DOT has a short summary of pedestrian rights and responsibilities), that does not mean that all incidents involving a vehicle hitting a pedestrian are the result of negligence on the part of the driver. A child dashing out in front of a car so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop before hitting the child is the classic example of this. In every state in that situation the driver is not negligent and thus not responsible for the harm caused the child.

All we have here is a third party account of the accident based on what a biased person — the driver — apparently told the OP. We have no information on the other evidence that may be available, and particular nothing has been said of the potential plaintiff's position and evidence. As you should know from your years of work with insurance companies, Jack, simply the statement of your own insured often isn't all there is, and often the insured leaves out damning evidence hoping to avoid liability. In other words, simply relying on the statements and evidence from one side may well lead you to the wrong conclusion. I'd want to hear all the evidence before asserting where the fault lies here. Certainly it is possible that the driver was not at fault. That's about all I think anyone here can really say about this incident with confidence.

I agree with you in general, but in this specific instance the police officer and the accident investigator found her not at fault, and there also appears to be video of the accident. The OP's wife will want the insurance company to know that, so that the video is preserved.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I agree with you in general, but in this specific instance the police officer and the accident investigator found her not at fault, and there also appears to be video of the accident. The OP's wife will want the insurance company to know that, so that the video is preserved.

But we can't see the video. And the police officer does not determine civil liability. All he/she does is determine if he or she believes any laws were broken. There are plenty of accidents that occur in which no law was violated, but still someone has legal liability for it.

 

[Ohiogal]

There is not enough information here to make a definite conclusion either way. While a pedestrian has the right of way in at least some circumstances in Ohio (and for more on that the OHIO DOT has a short summary of pedestrian rights and responsibilities), that does not mean that all incidents involving a vehicle hitting a pedestrian are the result of negligence on the part of the driver. A child dashing out in front of a car so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop before hitting the child is the classic example of this. In every state in that situation the driver is not negligent and thus not responsible for the harm caused the child.

All we have here is a third party account of the accident based on what a biased person — the driver — apparently told the OP. We have no information on the other evidence that may be available, and particular nothing has been said of the potential plaintiff's position and evidence. As you should know from your years of work with insurance companies, Jack, simply the statement of your own insured often isn't all there is, and often the insured leaves out damning evidence hoping to avoid liability. In other words, simply relying on the statements and evidence from one side may well lead you to the wrong conclusion. I'd want to hear all the evidence before asserting where the fault lies here. Certainly it is possible that the driver was not at fault. That's about all I think anyone here can really say about this incident with confidence.

Again, I said NORMALLY... That does not mean in every situation. But we cannot say that a court would not hold the OP's wife liable to some degree.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Again, I said NORMALLY... That does not mean in every situation. But we cannot say that a court would not hold the OP's wife liable to some degree.

However, given the minimal injuries, the monetary damages should be limited.

 

[Ohiogal]

However, given the minimal injuries, the monetary damages should be limited.

And they most likely would be limited. More of a small claims case than anything.

 

[adjusterjack]

However, given the minimal injuries, the monetary damages should be limited.

Not only by the minimal injuries but by Ohio's comparative negligence law. Even if some fault could be applied to the driver, most of the fault would be on the teenager who suddenly ran out in front of the car.

 

[quincy]

“Minimal” injuries often become “major” injuries when claimed for the purposes of a lawsuit.

I certainly would not be confident that the driver would not be held at least partially responsible, if the parents of the injured child hire a good personal injury attorney.

It is fortunate the driver is insured.

 

[ALawyer]

In any situation where a child is injured it is more likely than not that the parents will retain a personal injury lawyer. Given that the insurance company involved would incur expense for defense counsel and investigation, and that there always is a potential for significant damages if the case goes to court and a jury decides the driver was primarily at fault, some settlement is very possible if for no other reason than for the insurers involved to save defense costs and remove the possibility of a significant damage verdict.

 

[quincy]

In any situation where a child is injured it is more likely than not that the parents will retain a personal injury lawyer. Given that the insurance company involved would incur expense for defense counsel and investigation, and that there always is a potential for significant damages if the case goes to court and a jury decides the driver was primarily at fault, some settlement is very possible if for no other reason than for the insurers involved to save defense costs and remove the possibility of a significant damage verdict.

Settlements are more likely than jury trials but if a plaintiff believes that a jury is apt to award more in damages than the amount offered as a settlement figure, the case goes to trial. The plaintiff drives the legal action.

A lot here depends on what sort of injury to the child is being claimed.