This is a motorcycle accident that clearly could have been avoided on many levels. A man employed by and operating the employer's truck was driving in the right hand lane of a two lane road. A motorcycle was following the truck but was in the left hand lane of the two lane road. The driver of the truck abruptly made a left hand turn across two lanes causing the motorcycle to crash into the driver side of the truck.

The driver of the truck was 53 year old David Kostelecky. Mr. Kostelecky was cited for driving under revocation and for making an illegal turn. There is a concept in the law named respondeat superior which in Latin means "let the master respond." There is a responsibility on the part of employers to ensure that their employees are licensed and capable to do the job assigned. Furthermore, an employer will be held responsible for the negligence of their employee as long as that employee was operating within the scope of his employment.

Here the employer should have performed a background check on Mr. Kostelecky and they are negligent if they did not. Had the employer done the proper background check they would have discovered that Mr. Kostelecky had a suspended license. They may have uncovered other past offenses and decided not to hire him and in essence possibly have prevented this accident.

If this accident had occurred in Utah the case would be subject to comparative negligence. Comparative negligence is a method of allocating liability for an accident such as this one. This doctrine states that an injured party may be partly responsible for their own damages up to the amount that their own negligence contributed to the outcome. As long as the injured person's comparative negligence is no greater than 50% the injured person can receive compensation from the offending party. If the injured person's negligence is greater than 50% then the injured person can claim nothing from the other party. An example might be better. Assume a verdict of $500,000 and comparative negligence of 30%. The $500,000 verdict would be reduced by $150,000 making the final verdict $350,000. However, if the comparative negligence was determined to be 51% no money would be awarded at all to the injured person.

In the accident discussed above the defense lawyers will argue that the motorcycle rider was travelingin in the blind spot of the truck driver. They will also probably argue that the motorcycle driver was speeding and in the process of passing the truck. The defense argues this so that a jury might allocate some degree of negligence to the motorcycle driver in an attempt to reduce the ultimate verdict that this offending employer will ultimately have to pay.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/hide comments

Show/hide comment form

Email

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment Preview