Who is responsible for the injuries to the patrons of the caf??

A. Jim

B. Jane

C. Both drivers jointly

D. Neither driver

Click to the next page for the answer and explanation!

Answer and explanation

The best answer is "d," neither driver.

Jim is likely free from liability for the loss due to his sudden incapacitation. Also known as a medical emergency, this doctrine holds that an individual is not liable for damages that result from a sudden incapacitation that was unforeseeable in nature. Since Jane was acting in response to a sudden emergency, it is unlikely that she would be held liable for the injuries, either. Although the outcome of this accident would be unfortunate for all parties involved, it is unlikely that anyone would be held legally liable.

Click the next page for Question 2!

Question #2: No Parking Zone

Ernie, the local town drunk, parked his motorcycle in front of a fire hydrant in an area clearly marked as a no-parking zone. The back end of Ernie's bike jutted out into the lane and obstructed the flow of traffic in a grocery store parking lot. After loading up her car with groceries, Amanda backed into Ernie's motorcycle and knocked it to the ground. While Amanda's car sustained minor damage to the rear bumper, Ernie's motorcycle had significant damage along the entire left side. When the investigating officer gave Ernie a ticket for illegal parking, he became very loud and irate and was subsequently arrested for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct.

Assuming a pure comparative venue, who would be liable for the damages in this loss?

A. Ernie

B. Amanda

C. Both Ernie and Amanda

D. Neither Ernie nor Amanda

Click to the next page for the answer and explanation!

Answer and explanation

The best answer is "b," Amanda.

Even though Ernie is guilty of a parking infraction (among other things!), his vehicle was parked when the loss occurred and the proximate cause of the damage rests with Amanda. Amanda not only had the last clear chance to avoid the loss, but also the loss would not have occurred at all if not for her inattention and improper backing.

Click the next page for Question 3!

Question #3: Disputed Facts

While operating their vehicles, Rick and Marty collided in the center of an intersection. Both drivers had a stop sign; there were no witnesses to the loss.

During the claim adjustment process, Rick's adjuster discovers that Marty had two recent convictions pertaining to dishonest acts. Marty's adjuster asserts that criminal records here are irrelevant, that checking for them was an unethical breach of privacy, and that this is simply a matter of one person's word against another.

Assuming a pure comparative venue, who should pay for the damages?

A. Marty's insurer only

B. Rick's insurer only

C. Both Marty's and Rick's insurer should pay 50 percent of the other party's damages

D. Neither insurer should pay for the adverse party's damages

Click to the next page for the answer and explanation!

Answer and explanation

The best answer is "a," Marty's insurer only.

An individual must have a preponderance of evidence in order to be able to collect any damages from another party. Although in this general type of fact scenario it is common for neither party to prevail, the issues pertaining to Marty's credibility add a further dimension here. If one party's testimony is deemed to lack credibility, the other party's testimony may indeed constitute a preponderance of evidence even in the absence of corroborating physical evidence. It is important to note that criminal records are often a matter of public record; in any case, an adjuster can normally check for such records without any adverse ethical implications.

Click the next page for Question 4!

Question #4: Grabbing a Soda

While traveling in opposite directions on a two-lane highway, two vehicles collided because one of them went left of center. The investigating officer, who arrived at the scene five minutes after the loss occurred, could not determine fault based on the areas of damage to the vehicles or the debris in the roadway. Despite the lack of physical evidence, the officer wrote up his report to indicate that Erin was solely responsible because she told him that she was leaning over to pick up a soda on the passenger side floor and went left of center. Sydney, the other driver in the loss, stated that she never left her lane of travel.

During the claim adjustment process, Erin denied that she had ever admitted fault and placed the blame solely on Sydney. If Sydney sued Erin for damages, who would likely prevail?

A. Erin

B. Sydney

C. Neither driver

Click to the next page for the answer and explanation!

Answer and explanation

The best answer is "b," Sydney.

Generally speaking, hearsay is the content of a statement made by a party out of court. However, since Erin made her comments at the scene of the accident while still under the stress and excitement of the event, her words would likely be considered a res gestae statement and therefore constitute an exception to the hearsay rule.

Barrett Evans, CPCU, AIC, is a regional claims manager with Insurance House in Winston-Salem, NC. He is a certified North Carolina Property and Liability CE Instructor and may be reached at [email protected], www.linkedin.com/pub/barrett-evans/18/93a/4a1.