Michigan Injury Lawyer Blog

June 19, 2019

Police Investigations in Michigan Car Accidents May Be Lacking

by Neumann Law Group

Photo credit: monticello / Shutterstock.com

While the duty of responding police officers is primarily to make sure that anyone who was injured in an accident receives the medical attention they need in a timely manner, law enforcement is also responsible for investigating the crash. Of course, detectives investigate Michigan car accidents to determine whether any of the parties involved broke the law. The question often arises whether a law enforcement investigation is sufficient in a personal injury case.

Police officers are humans and, as a result, can make mistakes. In addition, officers are subject to biases and are not typically experts in car accident cases. Thus, many personal injury victims realize that the investigation conducted by police officers was not as thorough as they would like. In some cases, an officer may fail to photograph the scene or record all the necessary information. However, in some cases, an officer’s conduct goes beyond a small oversight. A recent cas e acts as a good example of a situation where responding police officers failed to conduct a fair and complete investigation.

June 12, 2019

Michigan Accident Involving Amish Carriage Claims Three Lives

by Neumann Law Group

Photo credit: Paul Brady Photography / Shutterstock.com

Earlier this month, three children were killed when another motorist rear-ended the carriage that was carrying the children and several other family members. According to a local news report covering the tragic accident, the accident occurred in southeastern Branch County.

Evidently, the carriage was traveling along the side of the road when a driver crashed into the back of the carriage at a high rate of speed. The carriage contained seven people; two adults and five children. All seven passengers were thrown from the carriage upon impact. Two of the young children, ages six and two, were pronounced dead at the scene by emergency responders. A four-year-old child was taken to the hospital, and later succumbed to his injuries.

May 28, 2019

Michigan Court Considers Timeliness of Claim After Employer Stops Paying PIP Benefits

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: Freedomz / Shutterstock.com

In a recent case, an appeals court considered a Michigan personal injury claim involving an employer’s refusal to pay personal insurance protection (PIP) benefits. The issue before the appeals court was whether the claim was timely filed after the employer stopped paying the claimant’s PIP benefits.

In May 2015, the plaintiff was in a car accident while she was driving a state vehicle as she was a state employee. She sought PIP benefits for her injuries from the state, her employer, and received them for almost two years. In August 2017, the state stopped making payments, and stated that it would no longer pay the plaintiff PIP benefits because the state believed she was not disabled. The plaintiff filed a complaint against the state in December 2017, alleging she was entitled to PIP benefits and that the state unreasonably refused to pay her.

May 9, 2019

Michigan Supreme Court Discusses Amending Complaints to Add Nonparty at Fault

by Neumann Law Group

photo credit: Shutterstock.com/Nirat.pix

In a recent Michigan slip-and-fall case, a state appellate court considered whether a plaintiff’s amended complaint adding a nonparty at fault relates back to the original filing. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s amended complaint did relate back to the original filing date of the complaint. Thus, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff’s case was time-barred.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff purchased a new refrigerator at Best Buy. Evidently, the plaintiff’s new refrigerator unexpectedly sprayed water out of its dispenser onto the floor, causing the plaintiff to slip and fall. The plaintiff filed a claim against Best Buy, which sold and installed the plaintiff’s fridge, alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and breach of contract. Best Buy filed a notice identifying Samsung as a nonparty at fault, as the fridge’s manufacturer. Essentially, Best Buy was claiming that Samsung should be a party to the lawsuit because Samsung was likely at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff then amended her complaint, adding a claim against Samsung.

April 26, 2019

Michigan Court Hears Residential Slip-and-Fall Case Involving Uneven Flooring

by Neumann Law Group

Photo credit: Arcady / Shutterstock.com

In a recent Michigan premises liability opinion, the appellate court allowed the plaintiff’s case to proceed to trial based on the property owner’s failure to warn the plaintiff of a dangerous condition in their home. The plaintiff alleged that she fell when entering a mudroom in the defendant’s home where she was a guest. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that her injuries were caused by an eight-inch drop-off between the hallway and the mudroom, which was not visible to the plaintiff.

In Michigan premises liability cases, there are varying degrees of care owed to the plaintiff, depending on the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. A plaintiff can generally be categorized as an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser. An invitee is someone who is invited to enter or remain on the premises for a commercial benefit to the premises owner. A licensee is someone who is invited to enter or remain on the premises for any reason other than a business or commercial one. Finally, a trespasser is someone who enters the premises without an express or implied invitation.

April 12, 2019

Michigan Court Discusses PIP Insurance Claims in Recent Multi-Vehicle Car Accident Case

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: tommaso79 / Shutterstock.com

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a Michigan car accident case discussing the state’s personal protection insurance (benefits) system. The case is important for all Michigan accident victims because it shows how the PIP system works, and under what circumstances an injury victim may not be covered.

As a general matter, Michigan’s PIP framework is a no-fault system, meaning that an injury victim does not need to show that the other driver was at fault to recover PIP benefits. However, questions can come up regarding whether a person is covered under a PIP policy. In situations involving multiple vehicles and multiple insurance policies, issues may also arise regarding which insurance policy has “priority,” or is responsible for covering the claim.

March 26, 2019

Establishing Liability in a Michigan Truck Accident

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: Olivier Le Queinec / Shutterstock.com

Due to Michigan’s location in the center of the country, the state gets a high volume of semi-truck traffic. While most of these Michigan truck drivers are professionals who take their job – as well as the safety of their fellow motorists – very seriously, that is not always the case. Indeed, according to the most recent government statistics, there were over 14,000 Michigan truck accidents in 2017 alone. These accidents resulted in nearly 2,500 injuries and almost 100 deaths.

What is perhaps more startling than the raw numbers is the fact that the majority of these Michigan truck accidents are preventable. According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, vehicle problems and environmental factors account for only 13% of all truck accidents, and a shocking 87% of all truck accidents can be attributed to driver error. Most commonly, these accidents are the result of poor decision making or a truck driver’s failure to recognize imminent hazards, turns, and vehicles.

Those who have been injured in a Michigan truck accident can pursue a claim for compensation against a truck driver. In many cases, the accident victim can also name the driver’s employer as a defendant. To establish liability, an accident victim must be able to show that the truck driver violated a duty of care that was owed to the accident victim, and that the violation of that duty was the cause of the accident victim’s injuries.

March 12, 2019

Pursuing a Claim for Compensation Following a Michigan Bicycle Accident

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: Stav kriks / Shutterstock.com

Under Michigan law, bicyclists have an absolute right to ride on public roads and are entitled to all the same rights as those operating motorized vehicles. At the same time, bicyclists must obey the rules of the road, including both generally applicable laws as well as bicycle-specific laws. The most important rule for Michigan bicyclists to remember is that they are required to ride as close to the right side of the road as practicable.

While bicyclists are responsible for exercising due care while riding on public roads, motorists must respect cyclists’ right to use the road. Thus, motorists must yield to bicyclists when it would be appropriate to yield to another motorist. When a driver causes a Michigan bicycle accident, they may be held liable for any injuries occurring as a result of their negligence.

Motorist Charged in Recent Fatal Michigan Bicycle Accident

Recently, a bicyclist was killed while he was on the way to his mother’s home to watch the Super Bowl. According to a local news report, the bicyclist was struck by a motorist near the intersection of Groesbeck Highway and 10 Mile Road in Warren, Michigan. The exact circumstances surrounding the accident are not known; however, law enforcement estimates that the motorist was traveling at approximately 70 miles per hour when he struck the bicyclist. After the collision, the driver fled the scene, leaving the bicyclist seriously injured and alone on the side of the road.

February 21, 2019

Drunk Driving Continues to Rank Among Top Causes of Michigan Car Accidents

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: Paul Biryukov / Shutterstock.com

For years, the top causes of Michigan car accidents have been speeding, distracted driving, and drunk driving. According to the most recent data from the Michigan State Police, of the 937 auto accident fatalities that occurred in Georgia in 2017, alcohol was involved in 320 accidents. Almost a third of those fatal Michigan DUI accidents occurred in Wayne County, Oakland County, or Kent County.

While driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol has long been against the law in Michigan, motorists continue to get behind the wheel after they have had too much to drink. If someone causes an accident while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, they may face criminal charges. However, even a successful criminal prosecution against a drunk driver will not likely result in any significant restitution being paid to the accident victims. If a victim of a Michigan DUI accident hopes to recover financial compensation for their injuries, they can pursue a Michigan personal injury or wrongful death case against the at-fault driver.

In either a personal injury or wrongful death case, a plaintiff must be able to establish that the defendant violated a duty of care that was owed to them, and that the defendant’s violation of that duty resulted in their injury or the death of their loved one. Because there is a criminal statute that prohibits drunk driving, personal injury plaintiffs may be able to more easily prove their case of negligence against an alleged drunk driver. Thus, a plaintiff may be left only with the need to establish that the defendant’s actions were the legal cause of their injury.

February 12, 2019

Michigan Court Develops New Standard in Accidents Involving Recreational Activities

by Neumann Law Group

Photo Credit: BLACKWHITEPAILYN / Shutterstock.com

Last year, the state supreme court issued an opinion in a Michigan personal injury case requiring the court to determine the appropriate analysis to use in cases involving injuries that were obtained while engaging in a recreational activity.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s recitation of the facts, the plaintiff was playing a game of golf with the defendant. During the game, the defendant allegedly ran over the plaintiff’s foot with the golf cart the two were using to navigate the course. Both the plaintiff and the defendant offered very different versions of the facts.

The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, claiming that the defendant’s negligence caused his injuries. The plaintiff asked the trial court to hold that the defendant was liable as a matter of law. The defendant argued that, because the two were engaged in a recreational activity, he could only be held responsible if he was found to have engaged in “reckless misconduct.” Because the plaintiff did not claim that the defendant was reckless, the defendant argued that the case should be dismissed.