Wrongful Death Claims in Indiana

We read it about it constantly: a motorist killed in a car crash, a motorcyclist killed in a crash, a construction worker killed on the job site, a child dies because a toy becomes lodged in her throat or his head becomes wedged between the bars of his crib.  As we have said before the purpose of the tort law (The law which helps people who have been hurt or killed by another person’s negligence) is accident, injury and death prevention.  It is only when the law fails in its original purpose that we turn to its secondary purpose, compensation for the harmed or killed individual.  When a person has been negligent (a person fails to use reasonable care when, for example they run a stop sign or a stop light, or fail to follow safety guidelines on the work site like OSHA rules and regulations.  A person can be negligent and not mean the harm.) and injures or kills another person the negligent person is responsible for making up the harm to the injured or killed person.  That’s what compensation means, to make up for.

In the case of the person who is killed because of the negligence of another, the law provides compensation through the “Wrongful Death Act”.  This is a set of statutes (laws enacted by the legislature) which creates the ability of the killed person’s family to be compensated for that person’s death.  Before this set of statutes was passed, there was no compensation for the death of a family member.  If the breadwinner was killed, the family either made do, or they suffered economically.  The law gave no remedy at all for the loss of the love the deceased person gave.  The law used to be that if a child was negligently killed, the parents were entitled to nothing.  In fact the law considered the parents lucky because they no longer had to pay for raising the child.

Recently, (in the law recently was within the last 50 years)  the people of Indiana spoke out against the injustice of these laws.  The Indiana legislature listened and passed the wrongful death act.  The statutes can be found in title 34 of the Indiana Code.  These statutes allow, as compensation for the death of a family member, the recovery of the medical bills for the dead persons last injury or illness, funeral and burial costs, lost support to the family the person would have provided in the way of lost wages or other support, finally the family is entitled to recover for the loss of affection love and guidance the person would have given the family.  Take for example the preteen girl, who has all kinds of questions about becoming a woman.  Her mother guides her, and teaches her, and helps her through the anxiety of that awkward time.  The mother’s guidance has real value and her loss causes a real loss.  The negligent person is responsible for making up for all those harms.  Remember what your parents taught you, and what you teach your children, if you break something, you take responsibility and see that it is repaired.  Asking the negligent person to do that is right and just.

A child’s loss for love and affection has been capped, In Indiana, at $300,000.00.  This is an arbitrary amount set by the legislature.  Look at your child, imagine the worst and tell me $300,000.00 is not insulting.  However, that is the current state of the law. The statute allows for compensation for the adult without dependents.  An adult, who dies without dependents (No children or spouse or other person who depends on him financially), the persons parents or non dependent children may be compensated for the loss of the deceased person’s love and affection.  This is limited to $300,000.00.

Our office has more than 55 years of experience handling wrongful death cases.  Please call us for advice in your time of need.

Drive Like a Reasonable Person

In the Indianapolis Star, Monday December 14, 2009, a story describes the charges brought against a school bus driver who, allegedly, did not extend the stop sign on the bus when dropping off a child. The bus driver is facing potential jail time for her actions. The school bus is the most iconic transport for our children. It is equipped with stop signs to make the travels of the children, to and from the bus as safe as possible. The bus stops at all railroad crossings and has extended mirrors for safety. Those who refuse to stop for the bus stop sign or proceed with caution when a bus begins to slow or accelerate are not acting reasonably. A reasonable person knows that children do not always use good sense and do things which will put them in danger. Therefore, the reasonable person moves more slowly and cautiously around a school bus.

The reasonable person also behaves the same way when driving in a residential neighborhood or near a school. Children live and play in these areas. Children will do silly things, like run into a street without looking. We see all the time the “Kids Dart” signs. The reasonable person will treat a child like a stop sign, i.e. when there is a child, or children, present the reasonable person will be able to come to a complete stop in an instant to save the child. I tell my driving children that it makes no matter who’s fault the collision might be, if you strike and injure or kill a child, you will be haunted by it for the rest of your life. Getting to practice or the game or the party five minutes later is a small price to pay to live without that weight on your conscience.

The reasonable person is also always scanning for kids in the residential neighborhood. Kids are small and can be blocked by a car or a tree or other things. If there are children present, the reasonable person knows they can run into the street, and drives more carefully because of that knowledge. The reasonable driver knows that children sometimes sled down hills that lead into the street and that such a child will not be able to stop. The reasonable driver drivers more cautiously in residential neighborhoods because of this knowledge.

We all must live together. We must use caution to protect the lives of the precious children who cannot protect themselves. The reasonable driver does this by driving at reduced speeds in residential neighborhoods, and evermore cautiously when children are present.

Tiger Woods was Lucky in SUV Rollover

Tiger Woods drove out of his drive way at a high speed and lost control of his SUV.  Apparently the SUV hit a fire hydrant, and during this, Tiger Woods over corrected and the SUV rolled over.  Fortunately for Tiger Woods, the world’s greatest golfer and first billionaire athlete, he was not seriously injured.  To be sure, he suffered minor cuts and bruises, and his reputation is taking a beating, but he can still walk, and swing a club.  Many of our fellow citizens are not so lucky.

One reason for the SUV roll over is that it has a higher center of gravity.  The auto companies have placed a passenger compartment on top of a truck chassis.  This raises the weight of the vehicle and makes it just that much more unstable.  When the vehicle is involved in turning, the higher center of gravity may cause the vehicle to lift onto two wheels.  This causes or contributes to cause the roll over effect.

It has been thought that most rollovers resulting in death, paraplegia or quadriplegia were the result of the roof crushing down in the roll over and striking the driver or passenger causing a fractured cervical (neck) injury.  Depending on how high in the neck the fracture might result, the person is either killed or paralyzed.  Much study has gone into this issue.  One response is to strengthen the posts holding up the roof.  Other solutions have focused on the passenger restraint system (Seatbelts).  One theory has it that the person in the vehicle is thrown upwards toward the roof, causing the injury.  If the person can be held in place, on the seat, head impact with the roof is reduced or eliminated, as is the risk of death or paralysis.

Currently all vehicles have a three point restraint system for front seat passengers.  This consists of a lap belt and a shoulder strap.  Testing demonstrates this system is more effective in preventing ejection (being thrown out of the car) than the lap belt alone, but it is not effective in keeping the person firmly in their seat.  The three point system allows the rider to move about, side to side and up and down, while preventing ejection.  An alternative to the three point system is the five point system.  This system is modeled on racing restraint systems.  The five point system is excellent at keeping the passenger firmly in the seat.

The key to making this system work for a passenger vehicle is cost and comfort.  After, all if a passenger will not wear it, it is worse than the obsolete single point restraint (lap belt).   I hope that the auto industry does everything a reasonable person would do to make sure its SUVs and trucks are safe on the road, for every family driving one.

NOTICE: No face-to-face meeting needed. You can remain safely in your home from case signup to settlement.

X