The following blog entry is written to illustrate how a car accident lawsuit might follow. Reviewing this kind of case should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
Summary of Facts:
In April 2001 Jim Mire and his wife, Dallas Mire, were traveling east on A Road in Sacramento, CA. Mire said he stopped at the stop sign at the intersection of A and B Street and then proceeded through the intersection and entered a construction project, which he claimed was inadequately marked and unlighted. While maneuvering around the construction cones, his vehicle hit a gravel pile and became airborne and rolled over. Dallas Mire, who was seated in the front passenger seat, was ejected from the car and killed when the vehicle landed on her. She was pronounced dead at the scene. Mire testified at his criminal trial regarding the accident that he had had two beers prior to the accident.
According to Dr. Tent, Mire “sustained a significant de-gloving injury to his right thigh, requiring numerous surgeries.” Tent also said Mire reported losing consciousness at the scene of the accident and said there were changes in his brain as a result of the accident. Mire said he had significant pain in his thigh and hands and had difficulty sleeping.
According to XYZ Construction, Inc., it was the prime contractor for a park expansion project that was the scene of the accident. XYZ subcontracted with 123 Enterprises to construct the site preparation and 987 Barricade to install bumpers, cones and signage in accordance with a barricade plan.
Mire filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County District Court against the city and the three construction companies. Janice Penn, acting as the Administratrix of the Estate of Dallas Mire, sued the same defendants and also sued Mire. Mire and Penn’s cases were consolidated.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Defendant Sacramento County moved for summary judgment because it did not participate in the construction project, which was run by the City of Sacramento. The motion was unopposed and was granted in October 2006.
The defendants contended that Mire failed to heed warning devices that directed traffic away from the construction site; that Mire’s drinking contributed to the accident; and that Dallas Mire was not wearing a seatbelt.
In November 2006 the parties settled and the cases were unconsolidated. The Estate of Dallas Mire and Ann Lew, heir of Dallas Mire, settled their claims for $15,000, the limits of an insurance policy, and an additional $750,000 to be paid by the construction companies. The Estate was to receive $15,000, and Lew was to receive $750,000.
In December 2006 the parties settled. Defendant 987’s insurance carrier, Traveler’s Insurance, agreed to pay Mire $125,000, and defendant 123 agreed to pay Mire $25,000.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.