E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAn Indiana man can sue his dad for accidentally driving into him, causing significant leg injuries, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled.
The state’s high court on Monday overturned a lower court ruling that said Robert L. Clark Jr. was prohibited by state law from suing Robert L. Clark Sr. for damages for injuries the son suffered in the Sept. 5, 2007, incident in Adams County.
According to court documents, the younger Clark, age 46, was a passenger in a car being driven by his father. When they arrived at their destination, the son got out to help his father park. He walked in front of the vehicle and motioned to his father to drive forward into a parking space.
Once the vehicle had pulled in, the son raised his hand to signal his father to stop. Instead of pressing the brake pedal, the father’s foot hit the accelerator. The car lurched forward, pinning Clark Jr. between it and the next vehicle.
The son suffered significant leg injuries. He and his wife filed a lawsuit against his father in November 2008, alleging negligence.
Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com
The Adams County trial court threw out the case, saying that under the state’s “guest statute” drivers are not liable for loss or damage arising from injuries to or the death of the drivers’ family members. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and said the son could sue.
The Supreme Court, in a 3-2 opinion, agreed with the appellate decision and overturned the trial court ruling.
The justices said:
The Indiana Guest Statute prevents certain designated passengers from recovering damages for injuries resulting from the ordinary negligence of the motor vehicle operator, where such passenger was ‘being transported without payment in or upon the motor vehicle." Ind. Code § 34-30-11-1 (emphasis added). We hold that, as to injuries inflicted when such a passenger has exited the vehicle and is standing outside of it and directing the driver's attempt to park, the passenger is not "in or upon" the vehicle and thus is not precluded from bringing a negligence action against the driver.
Read the Indiana Supreme Court decision
More content from NBCNews.com:
- String of security scares at Batman movie screenings
- Miracle baby of the Aurora tragedy
- In Aurora massacre, trial may not shed much light on motive
- Gunman on UConn campus commits suicide
- Mystery of Utah's 'goat man' is solved
- Day care video shows 9-year-old terrorizing tots
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Now there's a Thanksgiving dinner that ought to be a lot of fun!
Pass the giblet gravy. Hey mom, remember that time I sued you guys, and you had to spend most your life savings and my inheritance on lawyers?
yes those were the good old days.
TUPF
Probably will be... We know he isn't so much suing the father as the insurance company. The real winners though will be the lawyers.
mojo7
It will/should be his auto insurance that will be paying the lawyers.
If the son felt his father was not capable of parking the car without his guidance, maybe he should have not stood in front of the vehicle. And if his father was not capable of parking the vehicle by himself, why would his son ride with him in the first place? This just sounds like an accident, not negligence.
trust_verify
Insurance company's only pay up to the amount of you coverage. Everything else is out of the father's pocket.
I'm sure his father is fine with it. They probably talked about it together prior to filing. Insurance will be paying for everything, including pain and suffering, loss of work, etc...
Nothing will come out of his fathers pocket other than the deductible and raised pricing on his insurance policy.
Grumpy61
trust_verify
Quite aware of that... Sounds like so far though they have paid ZERO. And lawyers for the defendant are covered out of pocket by the insurance since they are the ones who will be paying if the son wins out. The insurance doesn't get to charge their customer for lawyer expenses towards the insurance cap. If they could do that no one would ever get a penny out of insurance except the lawyers.
Wow what is this nation coming too? Suing your father for a early payday?!! The only winners out of this deal are the lawyers and if the father wins, I hope the son isnt expecting to still be in the will..
Why assume he's looking for a "payday"? The article does say he was seriously injured - and and unless you rely on faith healing, fixing injuries costs a lot of money in hospital and medical bills.
He's not technically suing the dad - the way this stuff works is that he needs his dad's insurance money, but to get to that he has to go through the process of suing his dad in order to get that.
Lot of times in these kinds of inter-family suits, it's not even the family member who wants to sue. What happens is 1) injured family person turns to his own insurance company for medical bills and what have you. 2) His insurance company pays, but then looks for indemnity - it figures that somebody else was negligent and the costs should get passed on to that person and his or her insurance. 3) So since the insurance company's paying out of $$ to the injured family member is contingent upon his already having preauthorized them to act on his behalf to recover any payments they made that were caused by somebody else's fault, the insurance company turns around and sues the negligent relative, or the dad in this case, on behalf of and in the name of the injured family member.
The son was negligent. it is negligent to stand in front of a moving vehicle.
It is not necessary nor safe to stand in front of a vehicle to direct the driver. Instead, stand to the side and achieve same results with out the risk. Same for directing someone backing up in a vehicle.
With the information provided, and a sane jury that has average IQ, the sone will lose the case. but win the JERK award.
100% insurance payout. Nice going! I bet they're both splitting the pot!
interesting insight. you could be on to something.
Who says that this was an accident.
You must have heard of jumpers that deliberately jump in front of car for the big pay out.
Deperate time demands despate actions especially in these days when you are out of work
Ya, watch the insurance company hit them with insurance fraud and jail time! Plus attorneys cost!
This isn't about the some "suing" the dad, but the dad's insurance company refusing to pay out, thinking they were covered by that state statute. In order to get past that, he had to "sue" his father, which is really his insurance company. and the court has now decided they are liable for payment, that they can't refuse based on that rule.
Yes, but that doesn't make for a catchy headline, does it? And this is MSNBC we're talking about.
You nailed it, of course. But boring plain old truth doesn't sell newspapers.
Please point out the catchy headline. Would you have preferred, "Indiana court: Son can sue father over car accident injuries because his insurance company had a requirement for him to do so". Yeah, that's a great headline, too bad headlines aren't meant to be the whole story.
Who the hell stands in FRONT of a moving vehicle that's approaching them as they're directing it!? And with no place to evade said moving vehicle?
Stupid is as stupid does.
And yet I see a lot of people do this, all the time. Just the other day, a passenger gets out of my car as I am backing into a space. Guess where they decide to walk? BEHIND THE CAR.
They could not stand to one side, or walk in FRONT, they had to walk in my direction of travel.
People do weird things.
But this fellow paid the price for stupidity. That had to hurt - a lot.
Yes the lawsuit is just how the insurance game works... gotta make sure there is always a lawyer to take a cut.
Standing in front of a moving vehicle is beyond moronic. Son is criminally stupid, I mean negligent.
The gene pool is in dire need of some chlorine.
Yeah... those darn lawyers. Who do they think they are, making sure the insurance company has to pay what they owe??!! I say let's get rid of all lawyers and trust the insurance companies and banks to treat us right. They would never screw us, not like all of those nasty lawyers. Who needs lawyers to help us protect our intereststs, anyway? Get rid of lawyers, and the rich folks will treat us fair and square- that's what the GOP tells me and they would NEVER lie. Right?
Hey Warner, you sound like a scumbag lawyer. Pass a law that any settlement reached, the lawyer can't receive more than 10%.
Funny comment. What I see happening in most of the P.I. cases is the insurance company making a low-ball offer. If you negotiate with the insurance company, you can up that offer considerably.
Many folks, particularly poor people, see these ads on the billboards that say "we fight for you!" and they hire a P.I. attorney to "go after" the insurance company.
They get a larger settlement, of course, but the lawyers take up to 60% of this, with expenses, and leave the injured party with less than what they would have gotten if they just took the insurance company's offer or tried to negotiate directly with the insurance company.
A lot of folks think a car accident is like winning the lottery, and they are going to get millions for a minor collision. But in most cases, this doesn't work out.
So, riverman, I am guessing you didn't get the big payout you were hoping for, in that 10 mph "whiplash" case?
Lawyers may be sleazy and unethical and whatever. But every case brought, has to have a PLAINTIFF. And often it is the Plaintiff that is the one who is sleazy, unethical, and greedy.
So, pretty much, they get what they deserve, in a lot of cases.
The people of Indiana, with all good intention, voted in the Guest Statute basically to avoid the potential fraud and collusion deemed to occur when relatives and guests in your car claim to be hurt in an accident you may, or may not, have caused. So the theory goes: you naturally want to have your alledgedly injured relative or guest get some money and you shade the truth so they can, they want to get some money and they also shade the truth some more so they can get that money, additionally they (or their lawyers) might even pay you off to encourage more of the same behavior good behavior from you. The winners of this process are the trial lawyers and those who engage in the fraud and collusion. The losers here are the good people of Indiana who must pay higher premiums to the insurance companies in order to pay the trial lawyers and the fraudsters. Does a better system exist, yes it does, but I'm sure it is viewed as "socialist" by the reactionary right.
Everyone hates lawyers until you need one. Everyone hates insurance companies until you need one. Both are frankly great examples of American free enterpise in action.
Yet another situation where "the road to h3ll is paved with good intentions".
You are correct, of course.
But the court ruled very narrowly in this case - that the person OUT OF THE CAR is not a "guest".
They did not VOID the Guest Statute completely. So I doubt this will result in higher premiums for anyone in Indiana.
And I suspect the insurance company will argue for contributory negligence if they allow that in Indiana.
This is a narrow case, decided on the specific facts involved.
And if people are going to go and get crushed between two cars to "defraud" the insurance company, they are pretty foolish. No amount of money is worth having your legs crushed!
Wow, a lot of ignorance going on here.
The son is suing Dad's insurance company in effect, as that is who will pay, when this is all over.
Having your legs crushed between two cars is a seriously debilitating injury and the rehabilitation could take years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
If the "guest statute" was imposed here, the son could not go after Dad's insurance company and would be stuck with all those bills.
It seems a pretty simple thing - you hit someone with your car, you pay - or your insurance company does.
Granted, the son, standing between cars, was being pretty dumb (hint: never stand in front or behind a running car, ever, if you can avoid it). The insurance company might argue contributory negligence.
Why does Indiana have a "guest statute"? Beats me, but I suspect it is to prevent insurance fraud - people staging accidents and then claiming neck injuries (which are hard to disprove) and then filing a friendly lawsuit to collect damages.
Folks, it could be one of two scenarios. 1. The son's medical insurance company is suing the father's insurance company to recover the money they already paid in medical expenses. 2. The son is suing the father's insurance company to pay for his medical bills.
He is not actually going to get money from his father, it is his fathers insurance company that is being sued here.But without being able to sue his father, I bet he could not get the $$ from the insurance company.
The son can now be certain he will be cut completely out of the will. Completely.