700k settlement from bike dooring accident.
Can someone please help me understand how the bike rental company had to pay anything, let alone more than 2x what the motorist who doored him did.
Views: 1947
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michelle on
-
This sounds terrible but its the student loan debt talking: Ill get doored, for $700,000.
-
Permalink Reply by Duppie on
-
They went for the full value of the driver's insurance policy ($100,000), then the full value of the captain's automobile insurance UI/UIM policy ($150,000), then the full value of the stoker's insurance UI/UIM policy ($100,000), and then the bike rental company, which has likely a higher liability insurance. They may have maxed this out too, but I don't know what their requirements are.
Seems like standard personal injury lawsuit approach to me.
-
-
The rider's settlement was likely (in the neighborhood of) half of that, the rest goes to his lawyer and paying medical costs.
So you accept permanent head and leg injury for $350K?
Michelle said:This sounds terrible but its the student loan debt talking: Ill get doored, for $700,000.
-
Permalink Reply by Rich S on
-
I'm going to guess that rental company's insurance decided to settle rather go to court. I'm confused as to why the driver of the tandem bike's insurance had to pay anything. From the article it seems the fault in this accident rests with the driver of the car that open their door. That person's insurance should bear the full brunt of liability.
-
Permalink Reply by Tim S on
-
That is what I thought too Rich. Why is a company that has nothing to do with the negligence of the motorist and possible cyclist have any liability?
Horrible precedent when it comes to Divvy, no?
-
-
See my reply a little earlier. It explains how personal injury lawyers work.
Basically, the lawyer determines the value of the case (medical costs * a multiplier for pain and suffering) and then looks at all the insurance policies that might be a party in this case until he has received that value.
It looks like in this case the rental company did not provide them with required instructions, hence the liability.
Rich S said:I'm going to guess that rental company's insurance decided to settle rather go to court. I'm confused as to why the driver of the tandem bike's insurance had to pay anything. From the article it seems the fault in this accident rests with the driver of the car that open their door. That person's insurance should bear the full brunt of liability.
-
Permalink Reply by djm on
-
[Disclaimer: Im not a lawyer] Civil litigation works on the principle of the "deep pocket". The rental company was likely to be assigned some culpability because their "employees...did not give him a helmet or school him in safe cycling on Chicago's busy streets" and they probably had the highest liability coverage limit. If they are judged to be 10% culpable and the damage to the cyclist was valued at $5 million, they could be liable for $500K of the judgment.
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on
-
The Divvy precedent crossed my mind as well. Going after the rental company doesn't seem right to me either, if the rental bike had issues with the brakes or something that would be one thing, but this sounds like a textbook case of exploiting a loophole. The fault should be squarely on the driver who opened the door.
Tim S said:That is what I thought too Rich. Why is a company that has nothing to do with the negligence of the motorist and possible cyclist have any liability?
Horrible precedent when it comes to Divvy, no?
-
-
For whatever it's worth, a settlement doesn't create any sort of binding precedent. If Divvy were to be sued in a comparable situation, the plaintiff's lawyer could point to this settlement to try to pursuade Divvy to settle, but the settlement's existence would have no bearing on Divvy's actual liability.
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on
-
Never underestimate the value of full cognitive and motor function.
Michelle said:This sounds terrible but its the student loan debt talking: Ill get doored, for $700,000.
-
-
In which case the settlement would have been $100,000, the likely limit on the drivers policy.
Remember, this is not about what is right (or wrong), but about getting the highest possible compensation for your client. Any insurance of any party involved is a potential source of money.
Carter O'Brien said:The Divvy precedent crossed my mind as well. Going after the rental company doesn't seem right to me either, if the rental bike had issues with the brakes or something that would be one thing, but this sounds like a textbook case of exploiting a loophole. The fault should be squarely on the driver who opened the door.
Tim S said:That is what I thought too Rich. Why is a company that has nothing to do with the negligence of the motorist and possible cyclist have any liability?
Horrible precedent when it comes to Divvy, no?
-
-
Quite frankly, I'd sell my kidney if it were legal. I'm so done with my loans.
Duppie said:The rider's settlement was likely (in the neighborhood of) half of that, the rest goes to his lawyer and paying medical costs.
So you accept permanent head and leg injury for $350K?
Michelle said:This sounds terrible but its the student loan debt talking: Ill get doored, for $700,000.
Groups
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
-
British Bicycles of Chic…
172 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
