In many vehicle accident cases, the basic misconduct that has led to the injured person’s harm is negligence. The wrongful conduct that is to blame for most vehicle crashes is merely negligent and is not intentional. However, there may be many different negligent missteps made, and these may allow you, as an injured plaintiff, to assert many different causes of action in your injury lawsuit. Asserting multiple different causes of action is often beneficial to your case. The more different bases you can give the jury (or the judge in a non-jury trial) to hold the people you’ve sued to be responsible and liable for your damages, the better your chances of obtaining a full and fair compensation award. For advice and strategies for pursuing compensation in your auto accident case, be sure to talk to an experienced California car accident attorney.
A recent example of how an injured plaintiff may bring multiple different negligence causes of action was the case of two brothers injured by a trucker. This was a result of a horrific highway crash. Hector was driving his semi-truck through a construction zone when the commercial truck allegedly crossed the center line and slammed into a private vehicle carrying two men, Michael (an off-duty law enforcement officer) and his brother, Matthew.
The accident caused extremely extensive harm to the brothers, including, according to a livetrucking.com report, shattered vertebrae (Michael), fractured ribs (Matthew), and traumatic brain injuries (both). The injured brothers sued Hector and his employer. In the brothers’ case, they accused Hector of being negligent in his operation of the truck. This is a common claim and essentially argued that, if the truck driver had driven his vehicle in a sufficiently safe manner, the accident wouldn’t have happened. This claim frequently relies upon a combination of witness testimony, document evidence (like accident scene photos and accident reports), and, in some cases, the opinion testimony of an expert (like an accident reconstruction specialist).
The brothers also asserted that the employer was negligent in its hiring, retention, and supervision of Hector. This claim basically argues that the at-fault driver should not have been behind the wheel of one of the trucking company’s vehicles. This claim often relies upon proof that the employer knew, or reasonably should have known, that a problem existed with the driver who eventually caused the accident, but the company kept him on the road anyway. In the brothers’ case, they had evidence that, they argued, demonstrated that the employer did not do a proper background check and did not remove Hector from the road despite four accidents prior to this one.
Cases like this may also involve additional negligence claims. The brothers asserted seven in all, including negligent infliction of emotional distress (against Hector) and negligent entrustment (against the employer).
At the end of the trial, the brothers’ counsel’s work yielded a jury verdict of nearly $53 million, with $33.6 million going to Matthew and $19.6 million going to Michael.
For advice and representation upon which you can confidently rely, talk to the skilled San Mateo truck accident attorneys at the Law Offices of Galine, Frye, Fitting & Frangos. Our attorneys have been helping injured passengers and drivers pursue appropriate compensation for their injuries for many years. To set up a free consultation with one of our experienced attorneys, contact us at 650-345-8484 or through our website.
More Blog Posts:
Avoiding Mandatory Arbitration of Your California Injury Claim, San Mateo Injury Lawyers Blog, published January 5, 2018
A Trio of Authoritative Expert Witnesses Help Injured Driver Secure $750K Settlement in Monterey County, San Mateo Injury Lawyers Blog, published December 21, 2017