by douglaskauwe » Sat Mar 20, 2010 05:12 am
If I get in an accident and it is my fault and one of my passengers is injuried due to him not wearing a seatbelt and is 20 years old am I still liable for his medical bills if his injury goes over what my insurance covers?
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 05:35 am Post Subject:
In order for this person to collect from your carrier he is going to need to sign a release. If his injuries are worth your limits or more, they are still going to require that he sign a release which means that is all that he gets. If he does not want to take that, he would need to get an attorney who would be willing to go through court, win, and then get a judgment. Do you have an extra home, boat, or a million in the bank that they can take? Attorneys don't file suits for excess of policy limits unless they knew a judgement is going to get then some quick cash from someone's assets.
BTW - you are responsible for making sure someone is wearing their seatbelt in your vehicle. Want to now why that is a good idea?
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 09:09 am Post Subject:
BTW - you are responsible for making sure someone is wearing their seatbelt in your vehicle. Want to now why that is a good idea?
Yes... I'd like to know.
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 09:59 am Post Subject: insurance
...For 1..it's aqainst the law NOT to wear one. 2..exactly THAT will happen..the driver and/or passenger will get hurt. I never let anyone ride in my car without a seatbelt. I wear one all the time.
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:14 pm Post Subject:
I agree thats a good idea, but implying that the OP is responsible if his passanger gets hurt because they chose not to wear a seat belt, is false. The passanger would be covered under his policy (limits) but thats poor judgement on the side of the passanger. I doubt an atty would want to challange this. But then again, it's possible that a carrier could deny the claim due to the fact the passanger was not restrained, "free will".
I had a an ATV claim awhile back (not really similar), but passanger on the ATV was injured because she was not wearing a helmet. The owner's carrier denied her claim because she chose not wear the helmet, so I guess the same thing could be said about the passanger in the car.
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 05:01 pm Post Subject:
I agree thats a good idea, but implying that the OP is responsible if his passanger gets hurt because they chose not to wear a seat belt, is false
The OP could very well have allowed the passenger to become injured because he/she did not require them to wear a seatbelt...seat belts go a _long_ way in preventing injury. What I'm saying is that wearing a seat belt can either reduce someone's injury or prevent it all together. If the OP would have made the passenger wear his/her seatbelt, as required by law, then the passengers injuries very well could have been far less and the OP would not have to worry as much about the settlement exceeding his/her policy limits. I see this as a textbook example of _exactly_ why the driver needs to enforce this requirement.Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 05:35 pm Post Subject:
I see this as a textbook example of _exactly_ why the driver needs to enforce this requirement.
I agree, but if a passanger refuses to wear a seat belt and gets injured, the driver isn't held responsible. Look at the current seat belt laws in many states. If a driver and a passager is pulled over for whatever reason, and the passanger is not wearing his/her belt, they get cited. Nothing happens to the driver.
OP would not have to worry as much about the settlement exceeding his/her policy limits.
I wouldn't worry about it. It's no fault but their own for being stupid.
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 06:41 pm Post Subject:
Nothing happens to the driver.
It's difficult to look at every states laws but I do know that _many_ make it the drivers responsibility and the driver is the one cited. It makes sense... the driver is in control of the vehicle and responsible for it's use. So it should be the drivers responsibility to operate the vehicle in a safe manner. Also, it's difficult to cite passengers as they many not have a DL. The driver will.Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 07:32 pm Post Subject:
Also, it's difficult to cite passengers as they many not have a DL. The driver will.
Doesn't matter. In MO & KS, you will as a passanger recieve a ticket for not wearing one.
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:15 pm Post Subject: insurance
PA is the same way....the driver can be fined for the passenger not wearing a seat belt. So....is it possible the passenger would NOT be 'covered' because of the choice he/she had made, NOT to wear a seatbelt?
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:18 pm Post Subject:
PA is the same way....the driver can be fined for the passenger not wearing a seat belt.
The current law does not affect the driver in MO/KS. Which IMO, should not.
Add your comment