Accident Liability
Author | Jeffrey Wilson |
Pages | 49-55 |
Page 49
All fifty states and the District of Columbia provide "drivers' licenses" for their residents, permitting them to operate motor vehicles upon public roads. Once individuals have been licensed by a state, they are presumed qualified and competent to operate a motor vehicle for the period of time covered by the license. By far, the vast majority of automobile accidents are caused by persons well qualified to drive under state criteria but who are careless and/or reckless in their operation of motor vehicles at the time of an accident. Moreover, a high number of accidents are the result of intentional misconduct, such as alcohol consumption or excessive speeding.
The determination of fault in an automobile accident may or may not establish the person or party liable for payment of the damages or injuries. This fact is wholly the result of legislative lobbying over the years by automobile liability insurance carriers, who have devised and promoted various alternative strategies to the common law concept that persons at fault pay for the damages. Under such legislative schemes, common law recovery for damages has been totally or partially abolished. In its place is a statutory reapportionment of liability for payment of damages. This arrangement does not mean that there is a statutory re-defining of actual "fault" per se. It simply means that many states have reapportioned the liability for fault, at least for purposes of automobile accident liability insurance. In all states, persons who fail to maintain liability insurance and who cause accidents may be personally sued, and their assets seized to satisfy any judgment against them.
In its purest form, "fault" for causing an accident is either created by statute or defined by common law. Common law recognizes four basic levels of fault: negligence, recklessness or wanton conduct,
Page 50
intentional misconduct, and strict liability (irrespective of fault).
Negligence generally means careless or inadvertent conduct that results in harm or damage. It is a recurring factor in an aggregate majority of automobile accidents. It encompasses both active and passive forms of fault. That is to say, failing or omitting to do something (e.g., yielding a right-of-way) may result in liability just as much as actively doing something wrong (e.g., running a red light). Reckless or wanton conduct generally refers to a willful disregard for whether harm may result and/or a disregard for the safety and welfare of others. Strict liability may be imposed, even in the absence of fault, for accidents involving certain defective products or extra hazardous activities (such as the transporting of explosive chemicals).
Under common law, individuals who have caused an automobile accident have committed a "tort," a private wrong against another, not founded in "contract," and generally not constituting a crime. Those who have committed torts are referred to as "tortfeasors" under the law. Many automobile insurance policies continue to use the word "tortfeasor" to refer to people who are at least partly "at fault" or responsible for an accident.
There is rarely a question of fault when the tortfeasor has engaged in intentional or reckless misconduct, such as drunk driving. But when it comes to something less than intentional misconduct, e.g., general negligence, establishing fault for an automobile accident becomes more complex. Moreover, it is often the case that more than one driver or person is negligent and/or has played a role (even inadvertently) in the resulting accident. When there are multiple tortfeasors involved in an accident, state law dictates who must pay for both damage to property and injuries to the occupants of vehicles.
Every state has passed multiple laws which dictate the manner in which drivers must operate their vehicles upon public roads. Many of these statutes are actually codified versions of the common law, while others are the result of legislative initiative.
The important point to remember is that a violation of any of these statutes generally creates a presumption of negligence as a matter of law. Thus, "fault" in an accident may be established merely by citing a statute that has been violated. A tortfeasor who is presumed to have caused an accident by virtue of a statutory violation must bear the burden, in any legal dispute, of proving that he or she was not negligent, or (in the alternative) that his or her negligence was not a proximate cause in the accident. The simplest way to apply the concept of proximate cause to an automobile accident is to ask whether it would be true that, "but for" the violation, the accident would not have occurred.
The federal McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 USC 1011, contains the basic provisions which give states the power to regulate the insurance industry. This power particularly applies to in the automobile insurance industry, where there is very little federal interest, excepting matters involving interstate commerce in general.
State law dictates not only what form of negligence law applies to automobile accidents but also what form of liability insurance individuals must maintain in order to lawfully operate a motor vehicle. The liability insurance that they purchase generally parallels the form of negligence law found in their particular state.
In general, liability for accidents can be affected by any of the following:
Contributory Negligence: A minority of states have maintained the common law defense of contributory negligence. Its significance to automobile accident liability is that individuals cannot sue another for injuries or damages if they also contributed to the accident by his or their own negligence. For example, if they are making a left-hand turn in their vehicle and are struck by an oncoming vehicle that is traveling 10 mph over the speed limit, they cannot sue the motorist for damages if they failed to have their turn signal on and the speeding motorist did not know that they were going to turn in front of them. Under such a theory, their own negligence contributed to the accident, and, therefore, bars their right to recover from the other motorist. This situation is referred to as "pure contributory negligence." Some states have maintained a version referred to as "modified contributory negligence" in which individuals may file suit against another tortfeasor only if their own negligence contributed...
To continue reading
Request your trial