JonSlaughter
New Member
My father owns a small business and his only employee was supposedly in an accident on Aug 18, 2005. The case was filed Aug 17, 2007. I'lll call the employee Joe.
He was going to work about 5am down a dirt road. The plantiff was fighting with her boyfriend and her boyfriend was beating on her while they were driving. He supposedly pulled her out the car and was beating her in the middle of the road when the Joe came by and supposedly ran over her legs and body.
Joe did hit their dog killing it so he was obviously going somewhat fast(well, atleast 15-20mph I suppose). Joe says he stopped to see what happened and all that and the boyfriend pulled a gun on him so he left. The police came and filed a report and talked to him. He says he did not run over her(and I'm assuming if he did then he would have been arrested for failure to render aid and leaving the scene of an accident. If he was going fast enough to kill a dog then he would have severly injured the plaintiff).
I do not know all the details yet as my father was just served yesterday and he did not know anything about it before about a week ago. Joe did mention this to my father when the incident occured.
The insurance company talked to my father and said that this woman field an insurance claim for a similar issue the very next day of the incident. She also has many alias's and several other cases. She did have surgery on her leg before then. The case she filed the next day had something to do with some other similar incident involving her legs.
The Attorny for the plaintiff claims that Joe is a negligent driver and claims the following:
Failing to keep such lookout as a person of ordinary prudence whould have kept under same circumstances, failing to timely apply brakes, failing to try and avoid collision, driving at a high rate of speed, failing to observe the incapacitated person.
The papers also state that the plaintiff did see Joe comming and "The occurrence made the basis of the suit, refered to the above paragraph, and the resulting injuries and damages were proximately caused by the negligent conduct of the [boyfriend]".
... in the following respects:
1. In assaulting the Plaintiff and throwing her into the roadway, and
2. In placing Plaintiff in a position of imminent peril.
---------------------------------------
Now thats pretty much all the details I have at the moment.
First off I cannot see how my father could be held liable in any way since it wouldn't matter what vehicle Joe was using if he is a negligent driver... if he wasn't driving my dads van then he would have driven his own car and the accident still would have occured(in most probability). Essentially my father is being punished for being kind.
Second, Joe is not that negligent of a driver as claimed in the papers as I have driven with him many times when we worked together.
Third, If the injuries were as severe as the plaintiff claims then she could not have filed a completely different suite the very next day... she would have been in the hospital. We know that the injuries would have been extremely serious because it was enough to kill a dog. Of course he could have just ran over her toes or something but since she was laying down chances are it would have hit her ankles and crushed them.
The case was filed just 1 days before the statute of limitations would have ran out. The plantiff has a bad reputation in her home town for similar incidences and my fathers insurance company has found that she had used several aliases to file similar claims. There are no witnesses to the incident except the 3 people involved... so its a he said/she said.
Joe used to live next door tot he plaintiff. Also, this was at 5am. If you are approaching a car down the road at 5am then you cannot relaly tell if its stoped or going or if people are out of it or not in many cases. Specially if it has its brights on.
In any case, I'm very worried that this will cost my father a lot of money to defend and even more if its successful. I do believe that with all the information that I have this case is frivolous. There is not one shread of evidence to suggest that Joe even came within 5 feet of her. Problem is, with some juries you never know what will happen... and just to defend will cost a lot of money. My father does not make that much so its a pretty big problem.
What I feel is happening is that the plaintiff feels she can get some money either through scare tactics or just luck. In either case my father looses... and all because he let Joe use his truck instead of having him drive his own car.
My father does have insurance and I believe they are also being sued. It sounds like the attorney just filed against as many people as possible to try and get lucky. Its also possible that the plantiff , Joe, and/or the boyfriend are all in it to gether to get money from my father(even though he actually doesn't have any). Joe quit working for my father because he believed that my father should have paid him more and supplied him with bonuses and other things. This may or may not be the case but it leads to the potential that he was mad and wanted to somehow get what he thought my father owed him and show created this scheme. I seriously doubt this is the case though.
Does anyone know of any way I can help my father out to minimize his loss? Unfortunately its a very serious issue for my family and my father. Its also unfortunate that if this is a frivolous case that theres not much in the way to punish those that deserve it.
Thanks for any help,
Jon
He was going to work about 5am down a dirt road. The plantiff was fighting with her boyfriend and her boyfriend was beating on her while they were driving. He supposedly pulled her out the car and was beating her in the middle of the road when the Joe came by and supposedly ran over her legs and body.
Joe did hit their dog killing it so he was obviously going somewhat fast(well, atleast 15-20mph I suppose). Joe says he stopped to see what happened and all that and the boyfriend pulled a gun on him so he left. The police came and filed a report and talked to him. He says he did not run over her(and I'm assuming if he did then he would have been arrested for failure to render aid and leaving the scene of an accident. If he was going fast enough to kill a dog then he would have severly injured the plaintiff).
I do not know all the details yet as my father was just served yesterday and he did not know anything about it before about a week ago. Joe did mention this to my father when the incident occured.
The insurance company talked to my father and said that this woman field an insurance claim for a similar issue the very next day of the incident. She also has many alias's and several other cases. She did have surgery on her leg before then. The case she filed the next day had something to do with some other similar incident involving her legs.
The Attorny for the plaintiff claims that Joe is a negligent driver and claims the following:
Failing to keep such lookout as a person of ordinary prudence whould have kept under same circumstances, failing to timely apply brakes, failing to try and avoid collision, driving at a high rate of speed, failing to observe the incapacitated person.
The papers also state that the plaintiff did see Joe comming and "The occurrence made the basis of the suit, refered to the above paragraph, and the resulting injuries and damages were proximately caused by the negligent conduct of the [boyfriend]".
... in the following respects:
1. In assaulting the Plaintiff and throwing her into the roadway, and
2. In placing Plaintiff in a position of imminent peril.
---------------------------------------
Now thats pretty much all the details I have at the moment.
First off I cannot see how my father could be held liable in any way since it wouldn't matter what vehicle Joe was using if he is a negligent driver... if he wasn't driving my dads van then he would have driven his own car and the accident still would have occured(in most probability). Essentially my father is being punished for being kind.
Second, Joe is not that negligent of a driver as claimed in the papers as I have driven with him many times when we worked together.
Third, If the injuries were as severe as the plaintiff claims then she could not have filed a completely different suite the very next day... she would have been in the hospital. We know that the injuries would have been extremely serious because it was enough to kill a dog. Of course he could have just ran over her toes or something but since she was laying down chances are it would have hit her ankles and crushed them.
The case was filed just 1 days before the statute of limitations would have ran out. The plantiff has a bad reputation in her home town for similar incidences and my fathers insurance company has found that she had used several aliases to file similar claims. There are no witnesses to the incident except the 3 people involved... so its a he said/she said.
Joe used to live next door tot he plaintiff. Also, this was at 5am. If you are approaching a car down the road at 5am then you cannot relaly tell if its stoped or going or if people are out of it or not in many cases. Specially if it has its brights on.
In any case, I'm very worried that this will cost my father a lot of money to defend and even more if its successful. I do believe that with all the information that I have this case is frivolous. There is not one shread of evidence to suggest that Joe even came within 5 feet of her. Problem is, with some juries you never know what will happen... and just to defend will cost a lot of money. My father does not make that much so its a pretty big problem.
What I feel is happening is that the plaintiff feels she can get some money either through scare tactics or just luck. In either case my father looses... and all because he let Joe use his truck instead of having him drive his own car.
My father does have insurance and I believe they are also being sued. It sounds like the attorney just filed against as many people as possible to try and get lucky. Its also possible that the plantiff , Joe, and/or the boyfriend are all in it to gether to get money from my father(even though he actually doesn't have any). Joe quit working for my father because he believed that my father should have paid him more and supplied him with bonuses and other things. This may or may not be the case but it leads to the potential that he was mad and wanted to somehow get what he thought my father owed him and show created this scheme. I seriously doubt this is the case though.
Does anyone know of any way I can help my father out to minimize his loss? Unfortunately its a very serious issue for my family and my father. Its also unfortunate that if this is a frivolous case that theres not much in the way to punish those that deserve it.
Thanks for any help,
Jon
I think as long as its not all or nothing and each person has to pay a percentage proportional to how negligent they are then my dad shouldn't have to pay much if he looses... and hopefully all that will be covered by insurance. 