Attorney Question???

quote:

---

If the medical injuries exceed my coverage, where do we go from there? He has no vehicle insurance.

---

Does he have health insurance? Sounds like his injuries must be pretty severe if you are asking this question.

ETA: W/o knowing more, I'd think you don't go any further. There is no other insurer who would be liable. Emergency medicaid maybe? I'm not familiar with it but I've heard the name before.

Unless your nephew was working (and "on the clock") for you at the time of the accident, you will not be sued nor will his mother, since he is 18. Your car insurance company and the nephew are the proper party defendants in this situation (and any UM carriers that may exist for the plaintiffs, but that's not relevant to your concern).

18 years of age is the important number as to whether parents can get sued for acts of their children, not 21.

Signed, a personal injury lawyer.

That's not correct - you can absolutely be named as a defendant assuming that you allowed your nephew to drive your car and he didn't just take it w/o your knowledge. How much coverage do you have?

Not sure of the exact wording or statute, but I've always thought the owner of a thing, who has custody of it, is liable for damages it causes. You may have some claim against your nephew if you end up being liable.

Put plainly, he allowed his nephew to drive a vehicle he owns. Nephew is at fault in a MVA. Uncle OP is on the hook IMV.

NEGLIGENT entrustment? Given the provided facts, how was the uncle negligent in loaning the vehicle to his adult nephew? Negligence isn't assumed in this case, it must be proven.

The fact that he simply loaned the vehicle to his adult nephew isn't negligent entrustment.

Lawyers can make up causes of action against anyone if they choose to. The question is whether their frivolous accusations will survive a MSJ (Motion For Summary Judgment).

Given the simple facts provided by uncle, I believe he is fine. Again, that is simply my opinion. If intoxication, or a pattern of reckless driving on the part of the nephew were included in the facts, my opinion may not be the same.

Dr. 3 - are you an attorney (not being rude, just curious)? If you are, under what theory do you believe uncle is automatically 'on the hook' if he simply owned the vehicle involved in a crash, while being driven by an adult and sober (I assume) adult nephew, aside from the negligent entrustment claim addressed above.

****OP - I wouldn't add additional facts to your original post, in the event someone reading this ends up representing one of the injured people in this accident. I feel certain that any experienced attorney (either plaintiff or insurance defense) will provide you the same information and opinion I provide.****

quote:

---

He's still getting named in the suit if I'm filing it (this is pretty standard practice) - so your advice that he won't a proper defendant is inaccurate.

---

I agree with this. I'd name him also. I would make sure to temper my client's expectations as to recovery from the owner. I think a small amount of research on the matter could clear up the likelihood of anything sticker to the owner of the vehicle.

quote:

---

Put plainly, he allowed his nephew to drive a vehicle he owns. Nephew is at fault in a MVA. Uncle OP is on the hook IMV.

---

But the law doesn't see it this way...

I do about 1 pecent defense work...but if I did more, and your client filed that claim against my owner, I'd be most pleased to file that MSJ, get my dismissal with an award of court cost(which we both know would exceed $1000.00 in most parishes), and I'd collect from your client's ultimate recovery. Since I do 99 percent PI work, and I don't wish to explain to a disgruntled client why he owes those costs (and I don't care to eat the expense myself), I don't sue owners without factual support. I can always add one if discovery generates the basis for amendment.

I can't state a cause of action against an owner without alleging facts that support liability. We know just stating that "Defendant X,as the owner of the subject vehicle, is obligated to Paintiffs" is not worth the ink used to print the sentence. I add owners when I can support the claim, and only when I can support the claim,whether at filing or later by amendment.