|
Post by leftturnonly on Oct 16, 2015 18:34:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cadoodlebug on Oct 16, 2015 19:51:39 GMT
The original cause for the accident was a blown tire? Was the company negligent for not maintaining their vehicles; ie the tire was worn and should have been replaced? Or was there a default in the tire? That's an accident that could happen to anyone with a bad tire. If it was a default in the tire, wouldn't the tire company be responsible?SMH over a paralegal asking your son for an amount. As to whether the transport company attributes the accident to a faulty tire or not is independent of personal injury claims by the passengers. As far as OP’s son is concerned, the liability rests on the transport company. The passengers do not have to contend and prove that the tire or any part of the van was faulty, even if they were 100% positive that it was, simply because they did not own and operate the vehicle; they were merely passengers. The only thing the passengers have to prove is that they suffered damages as a result of the accident and were not party to the cause of it. The transport company is counter suing the tire company. The tires were supposedly only 8 months old.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Oct 16, 2015 20:04:20 GMT
As to whether the transport company attributes the accident to a faulty tire or not is independent of personal injury claims by the passengers. As far as OP’s son is concerned, the liability rests on the transport company. The passengers do not have to contend and prove that the tire or any part of the van was faulty, even if they were 100% positive that it was, simply because they did not own and operate the vehicle; they were merely passengers. The only thing the passengers have to prove is that they suffered damages as a result of the accident and were not party to the cause of it. The transport company is counter suing the tire company. The tires were supposedly only 8 months old. Good to know. The tire manufacturer will most likely settle with the transport co as I can't imagine them wanting to spend more on a lengthy trial, especially with recent cases of Firestone and Cooper Tire that were hit with millions in verdicts.
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Oct 16, 2015 21:11:50 GMT
She's thinking she can get them to name a figure (that's probably less than they should get) and he will be stuck with it. That doesn't make sense, though, because she's on their side. She has no vested interest in settling for less. Just because she shouldn't have a vested interest doesn't always mean she doesn't. Who knows. TBH a vested interest is better than being incompetent, but neither is painting a flattering picture of this paralegal's professional abilities.
|
|
|
Post by originalvanillabean on Oct 16, 2015 21:41:06 GMT
Oh my. What a miracle. Nothing to add on the attorney situation but I am glad your son is ok.
|
|
|
Post by CarolinaGirl71 on Oct 17, 2015 0:42:25 GMT
She's thinking she can get them to name a figure (that's probably less than they should get) and he will be stuck with it. That doesn't make sense, though, because she's on their side. She has no vested interest in settling for less. I thought the paralegal was from the other side. ETA - I've had a stressful two weeks, and my brain is on overload, decreasing my reading comprehension. When I have time I'll tell the story of the flood of 2015. I'm just checking in from time to time for quick stress-relieving breaks!
|
|