Earlier this month, we posted “Do I Have a Good Case?”, illustrating 8 inconsistent examples of how Michigan’s car accident injury laws unfairly impact real people, with identical injuries from car accidents.   All examples were based on actual cases, although one example (Gagne v. Schulte) stands out as so extreme, it has been questioned by our readers as “unrealistic”.

Sadly, that case was all too real.  Krista Gagne was 21 years old when her car was hit by a drunk driver.   Krista suffered very serious injuries, including a torn anterior cruciate ligament and medial meniscus that ultimately required reconstructive knee replacement surgery.  She lost over a year from work, had extensive physical therapy, and ultimately lost her job. 

On April 3rd, 2008, the conservative, 4-justice majority of the Michigan Supreme Court, referred to as the “Gang of Four” by many Michigan personal injury lawyers, wiped out all lawsuits and legal claims based on consortium in any car accident caused by government employees.  Parents, children and spouses are now barred from making any claim for loss of society, companionship, or consortium for the injury or death to a loved one if the car accident has been caused by a governmental employee.   This terrible decision is still limited to lawsuits against a governmental entity based upon the negligence of a governmental employee in causing a motor vehicle accident.  Michigan lawyers can still bring a loss of consortium claim for personal injury or death to a parent, spouse or child after car accidents not been caused by a governmental employee.
 
Wesche v. Mecosta County Road Commission:
The decision, Wesche v. Mecosta County Road Commission was authored by Justice Corrigan, the same justice who has ironically called herself a “champion of children,” despite authoring such previous travesties as Cameron v. ACIA.  Justice Corrigan ruled in Wesche that the parents of an unborn child killed in a car accident caused by a negligent driver employed by the government, cannot recover anything for the loss of society and companionship of their child. 

Last week, I was asked to teach a class at Cooley Law School on Michigan’s automobile accident law.   The class normally covers Michigan No Fault Law, but this class was on third-party claims – suing the insurance company of the person who causes an accident.

Below are some examples I used during the class to show law students how Michigan’s car accident threshold law of “serious impairment of body function” discriminates against different types of people, even when they have suffered identical personal injury from motor vehicle accidents.  The elderly, young children, those already disabled, and those who choose to stay at work in the home have a far more difficult time under our current automobile accident threshold law. 

Our law firm recently responded to a question submitted online from a lawyer representing a person injured in a car accident.  I am re-posting that question and answer below to educate others about Michigan Car Accidents and the “Innocent Third Party Rule” designed to protect injury victims from fraud and misrepresentation.

Here’s the scenario:  
An innocent person is injured in a car accident; it’s discovered later that the person who caused the accident committed fraud with his/her auto insurance company; that insurance company then refuses to pay for injuries caused by its own negligent insured.  

On March 5, 2008, AAA released a study revealing that car accidents kill 43,000 people every year. It is a staggering number. To put the number of car accident fatalities in perspective, it is the equivalent of two jumbo jets crashing every week, killing everyone aboard.

Car Accidents Cost Also Staggering

The cost of it is also staggering. Car accidents cost over $164 billion dollars a year. That figure is more than double the $67.6 billion in annual costs from congestion, which unfortunately, is the figure that politicians and the media usually focus on instead. Hopefully, this study will realign priorities and more effort will be placed on preventing car accidents and public safety when studying the costs of transportation. (Note: car accident cost was calculated by taking into account the crash costs, property damage, lost earnings, medical costs, emergency services, legal costs and travel delays.)

Truck accident cases must be handled very differently than car accidents, and Michigan lawyers must be familiar with the latest truck driver requirements and regulations to recover full compensation for injured clients.  An important rule change will now directly impact how attorneys litigate truck accident personal injury cases in Michigan.

New Truck Driver Requirement: “must read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public”

When a truck accident occurs in Michigan involving a Canadian truck or Canadian driver, a Michigan lawyer can file a lawsuit naming both the company and the driver.  The lawsuit can be filed in federal court (in Michigan).  But many Michigan lawyers handling truck accident cases are not aware of this recent change in federal law. 

The consequences of driving a car without auto no fault insurance in Michigan are exceptionally harsh.  A recent case, released on January 29, 2008, illustrates just how severe these consequences will be.  

Steven Gursten will be speaking on February 12, 2008 at Cooley Law School.  Steve will be speaking to the law students on future legal careers in personal injury and insurance law.  The lecture is being presented through the Career and Professional Development Office of Cooley Law School, in Lansing Michigan.