A car wreck lawsuit is one of the most common types of personal injury cases. It’s also one of the most contentious. It can be surprisingly difficult to prove that a car accident caused injuries, especially if you have what insurance companies like to call a “pre-existing condition.”
This case study examines a real car wreck lawsuit that we won at Schneider Williamson, and will show you the importance of collecting the right evidence for your case.
About Schneider Williamson
Schneider Williamson is a personal injury litigation firm based in Atlanta, Georgia. The firm handles litigation, discovery, and mediation for a wide variety of personal injury cases, including slip and fall accidents, car accidents, traumatic brain injury, and more.
The Accident
Disclaimer: Names have been changed to maintain confidentiality.
Kathy worked at a bank and was driving home from work when she was involved in a car accident.
A construction worker had been driving to a job site. He missed a turn, so he took an illegal left-hand turn and collided with the side of Kathy’s vehicle.
“It didn’t look like much of a wreck,” says Campbell Williamson, a founding partner at Schneider Williamson. “It was enough to break the hub on the wheel, but it wasn’t visually impressive.”
However, the accident did injure Kathy. She had already been dealing with a chronic back problem, and the collision aggravated that health condition, resulting in worsened back pain in the days and weeks following the accident.
Kathy’s doctors encouraged her to have surgery, but she was reluctant; surgeries are expensive, and the back surgery she needed had known risk factors.
Despite putting off the surgery for a while, Kathy finally agreed to it — and that’s when the second accident happened.
The Second Accident
Nearly a year after the first accident, Kathy was involved in a second car wreck; once again, she was not at fault for the accident. But this second wreck complicated her efforts to get fair compensation from insurance providers.
Visually, the second wreck looked much worse than the first wreck. However, Kathy’s aggravated back pain had started after the first wreck, not the second wreck.
The insurance companies, representing each of the two drivers that had caused the car accidents, pointed fingers at one another.
- Insurance for the first driver claimed that Kathy received her injuries from the second wreck.
- Insurance for the second driver claimed that Kathy received her injuries from the first wreck.
- Both companies claimed that since Kathy was dealing with pre-existing back problems, there was a possibility she was feigning injuries to get insurance companies to pay for her medical treatment.
Although the circumstances of the car accidents were not in dispute, it had suddenly become much more difficult for Kathy to get a fair settlement.
Insurance vs. Insurance
When our team took on Kathy’s case, we first had to determine which accident had caused her most severe injuries.
“When we took this case from a referral partner, we asked the client about it very pointedly,” says Campbell. “The pain that you’ve been feeling throughout this entire course of events—when did that start? And Kathy said it was right after the first wreck. Nothing really changed after the second wreck.”
However, the insurance company involved in the first wreck pushed back.
“There was a strong counterargument that it was the second wreck that caused the injuries,” says Jason Schneider, a founding partner at Schneider Williamson. “They said, just look at the pictures. The second wreck was visually more impressive.
“Most car wreck cases are not about fault. Most of the time, they’re about, which injury was caused by this incident?”
“We had medical evidence that it was the first wreck,” says Campbell. “Kathy got three different opinions from medical professionals. There were recommendations she had surgery before the second wreck happened.”
Respondeat Superior
The construction worker who had caused the first wreck had been hired through a temp agency, so it was unclear who would be held liable: the construction company or the temp agency.
Our team analyzed the contracts made between the construction company and the temp agency, as well as between the temp agency and the workers they hired.
“We found that the temp agency’s contract was poorly crafted,” says Campbell. “When they placed someone on a job, there were strict rules on what they could do for the temporary employer.”
Our team abided by the legal principle of respondeat superior; let the master be responsible.
“If an employee on the job commits an act of negligence, then the employer is responsible for that,” says Campbell. “The theory behind that is the employer is drawing a benefit from what the employee is doing, so the employer should be accountable.”
The Car Wreck Settlement
The temp agency filed a motion to dismiss the case, but the judge denied it, and our team was able to secure a large confidential settlement from the defendants that not only paid for Kathy’s medical bills but also compensated Kathy for all her injuries, including a post surgery infection which put her back in the hospital after the surgery. “Of course, the insurance company did not want to pay for that either”, says Campbell.
“She got an awesome settlement,” says Jason. “The infection was more expensive than the initial surgery. So her settlement was able to pay for all of that and more.”
This case demonstrates how defendants in car wreck lawsuits often find ways to deny their liability even when the circumstances of the accident are undisputed, which is why it’s so important to enlist experienced personal injury litigators who can collect evidence and prevent negligent parties from wriggling out of their legal obligations.
Need help with a car wreck lawsuit? Contact Schneider Williamson today and set up a free consultation, or learn about referring cases to us.
