Jump to content

Legal question - but not about credit...car insurance..


Gibson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Legal question.

My daughter is 17 with a full PA drivers license.

Her best friend was out of town. The best friend has a car - not hers, but its one of her parents, but she drives it all the time. Friend says to my kid, "you can borrow my car this weekend if you want, I'm out of town". I have no knowledge of this, neither does the other parents.

Well, my kid borrows the car, picks up a friend, and gets into an accident at a dangerous intersection. Both cars are totalled - the other cars driver and passenger request to go to the hospital. My kid and her friend decline, they were ok. My kid got a ticket. Police report shows it was her fault.

After thanking God everyone is ok, I call my insurance agent. He says that the insurance follows the vehicle, not the driver, so unfortunately, its up to BFF's dad to deal with all this. I call him and we have a cordial talk - he's really not sounding too upset, more concerned about the kids being ok.

Once I get my kid home, I give her the hug, the tears flow from her, then she gets the lecture. Grounded till forever and don't even think about driving again for at least 6 months. Not letting us know she's driving someone else's car? WTF was she thinking?

A day later, I'm talking to the dad again. I tell him about the insurance issue and I'll cover any deductible on his policy. He's still cool about it, his biggest worry now is being without the car. So I'm telling him that he needs to check his insurance, it should cover rentals. He says he has collision, which should cover the cost of the vehicle.

This is all two weeks ago. What I find out is that his deductible is 1000!! I'm floored, I'm thinking maybe 500 max. I simply don't have that, unless I pull a cash advance. I tell him I had no idea it was that much, would he be willing to split the difference since both parties were kinda at fault. He says, "I'll discuss with my wife".

Ok, wife calls, and reams me a new one. Says my offer of half is tantamount to paying nothing. That she's been without a car for two weeks, juggling cars, her work is affected, missing work. Apparently they have no rental insurance. She got a check for 3k for the car, but she can't find a good used car for that much, she's crying the blues that she's going to have to put out her own money in addition to my 1k (if I decide to pay). Yeah, her princess is at fault for lending out the car, but thats besides the point, I made an agreement to pay the deductible. I told her that was BEFORE I knew the amount....my insurance agent says, "the problem is if she takes you to court, she'll no doubt add a bunch of crap, like rental fees, missed work, plus lawyer fees...God knows what else...." My insurance won't get involved since there's been some kind of initial verbal agreement, and I do feel somewhat morally responsible due to my kids dumb decision, but holy hell...nothing like a woman scorned.

So do I pony up the 1k, draw up an agreement stating that this exonerates our family from any and all future litigation, or tell her to take me to court?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

pay and make the kid work it off, better than what could happen.. and Yes get something in writing saying they release you forever..

Thats been about the consensus I've been seeing online. Looking for a good legal release form now, in exchange for the MORAL, not legal responsibility (since technically I have no legal responsibility). Just have us completely exonerated of all future contact concerning said case.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your best bet is to pay the $1000 - get a release so no additional charges can be added at another time.

Thank your lucky stars that the kids are ok - and hope the other driver doesn't haul you and your daughter into court for injuries (real or not).

As another poster said, make your daughter repay you....even if it takes her a year.:shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of I am glad your daughter and her friend are both OK, that is the real important thing here.

I am probably going to be on in the minority with my view on the situation but that has never stopped me putting in my two cents worth before so here goes :p

It is up to you what you do but bear in mind that you have no legal or contractual responsibility whatsoever.

Your daughter was the driver and is the person responsible for the accident. that does not necessarily mean however that she is automatically responsible for their consequential losses.

Any cause of action he may or may not have is purely against her. There are not many 17 year olds in this world that it is worth suing.

They chose to save money on their premium by not electing to have rental cover and now they are bleating because they made a bad choice? Likewise it was their insurance company that valued their vehicle. All they are entitled to is a fair market value. If they dispute the valuation then they need to take it up with their insurance company. That part of their claim is never going anywhere.

They knew what their deductible was when they made a proposal for cover yet choose not to let you in the amount?

I may sound cold but I know from many years experience that friendship will go out the window no matter what you do here. I would not fall over in shock if I were to find out that an "injury" has developed next.

Your daughter had permissive use of the vehicle from what you have told us and as such is covered under the terms of the policy. From the way you have described the daughters use of the vehicle there is a possibility that the car in fact is primarily used by the daughter and not the parents in reality? Have they made full disclosure of this to their insurance company, have they even advised their insurance company that the daughter exists prior to this claim? Ooops we have a possible case of insurance fraud if they haven't. Guess which side of the bet I would place my money on?

Do not construct a contractual liability upon yourself that at present does not exist. As soon as you contract with him you are creating a legal liability on yourself and it has the potential to escalate out of control. DO NOT do it.

You are not responsible for their failure to adequately insure themselves against loss.

You will not win in this whichever way you go with regard to the friendship so bury it and move it. Tell them to go pound sand, morality has no standing in court only legality does.

Let him sue you all he wants then have it dismissed. He may think twice before spending more on filing fees to go after your daughter.

Which do you think you should value most, your friendship with the other side or the relationship with and duty to protect the interests of your daughter? :dunno:

Edit to ask the age of the other girl? If she is a minor then forget relying upon any release to protect you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of I am glad your daughter and her friend are both OK, that is the real important thing here.

Thank you. It gives you a different perspective on life now - I used to get annoyed picking her up from school, now I'm glad I get to do it every day. Beats putting flowers on a grave.

I am probably going to be on in the minority with my view on the situation but that has never stopped me putting in my two cents worth before so here goes :p

It is up to you what you do but bear in mind that you have no legal or contractual responsibility whatsoever.

I am aware of this. The responsibility I had was purely moral.

Your daughter was the driver and is the person responsible for the accident. that does not necessarily mean however that she is automatically responsible for their consequential losses.

This is correct. Insurance follows the car, not the driver. Its all on their policy.

Any cause of action he may or may not have is purely against her. There are not many 17 year olds in this world that it is worth suing.

However, do I want to subject my kid to a courtroom and judge and all this sudden hostility from them? And, what are my parental rights, since she's a minor...am I legally responsible for her?

They chose to save money on their premium by not electing to have rental cover and now they are bleating because they made a bad choice? Likewise it was their insurance company that valued their vehicle. All they are entitled to is a fair market value. If they dispute the valuation then they need to take it up with their insurance company. That part of their claim is never going anywhere.

They knew what their deductible was when they made a proposal for cover yet choose not to let you in the amount?

That is what I said. I'm insured up the wazoo, I can rent an Escalade if I lose my car. They let me know the deductible several days before...and I was shocked. They had no idea what it was until they researched it more thoroughly.

I may sound cold but I know from many years experience that friendship will go out the window no matter what you do here. I would not fall over in shock if I were to find out that an "injury" has developed next.

Thats why I want this behind me. I'd be happy to pay them, as long as they won't come after me later on, hence finding some legal agreement.

Your daughter had permissive use of the vehicle from what you have told us and as such is covered under the terms of the policy. From the way you have described the daughters use of the vehicle there is a possibility that the car in fact is primarily used by the daughter and not the parents in reality? Have they made full disclosure of this to their insurance company, have they even advised their insurance company that the daughter exists prior to this claim? Ooops we have a possible case of insurance fraud if they haven't. Guess which side of the bet I would place my money on?

No, none of that happened. I did speak with one of the adjusters from their company, who confirmed the daughter was on the policy and is a secondary driver.

Do not construct a contractual liability upon yourself that at present does not exist. As soon as you contract with him you are creating a legal liability on yourself and it has the potential to escalate out of control. DO NOT do it.

How is that so? Creating a contract exonerating me of all future legal and liable actions should keep me out of the woods, right?

You are not responsible for their failure to adequately insure themselves against loss.

I agree. The sticky problem is now I have verbal contact with owners of vehicle and I have offered payment for half the deductible. That puts me in a bind.

You will not win in this whichever way you go with regard to the friendship so bury it and move it. Tell them to go pound sand, morality has no standing in court only legality does.

Well, we were never really friends with them - its the teens that are friends. Unfortunately, the legality issue here lies in my willing to reimburse them SOMETHING for all this going down. Thats what opened the can of worms. I discussed with my insurance agent who said that there's potential now for them to sue me for lost wages due to not having the car, legal fees, court fees, what if she rents a car and now adds that...what the hell else could she add, y'know?

Let him sue you all he wants then have it dismissed. He may think twice before spending more on filing fees to go after your daughter.

How would this be dismissed?

Which do you think you should value most, your friendship with the other side or the relationship with and duty to protect the interests of your daughter? :dunno:

Good point. Like I said earlier, I'm not really friendly with them anyway - I'm just worried that they'll get some big shot lawyer who will say, "well, since he agreed to pay SOMETHING, thats enough to go after him for much more...". Do I want to take that chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably wouldn't be good enough - unfortunately I need to know for sure. I could be stuck with everything.

your daughter is a minor, you are on the hook , you can find a good

release of claims form online, this will ONLY stop the other parents from suing

* when a insurance claim is paid all rights are usually assigned to the insurance company, as the claimant is paid off for the loss, they are your biggest worry..

I would worry a bit that the insurance company may come after you for the cost of the damages.she was at fault , you may have to pay for Both cars.. See a good Lawyer asap..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, do I want to subject my kid to a courtroom and judge and all this sudden hostility from them? And, what are my parental rights, since she's a minor...am I legally responsible for her?

Your legal responsibilities in this instance are none.

Thats why I want this behind me. I'd be happy to pay them, as long as they won't come after me later on, hence finding some legal agreement.

I understand and indeed applaud your wish to do "the right thing" However, the problem will be that having created a contract you have created an opportunity for a creative lawyer to find fault in it. Is it worth the risk? The 100% watertight contract does not exist, if it did there would be a lot of underemployed lawyers and very few posts on this forum. My concern is the indications that the other side are not as reasonable as you appear to be and have already shown they are willing to escalate in the pursuit of money. Such is the nature of the human beast in these circumstances. I have been around insurance claims for over 25 years and nothing surprises me anymore.

No, none of that happened. I did speak with one of the adjusters from their company, who confirmed the daughter was on the policy and is a secondary driver.

Well they got something right then. Too often people try to save cash on premium and come unstuck at the point of claim.

How is that so? Creating a contract exonerating me of all future legal and liable actions should keep me out of the woods, right?

Not necessarily. The parents can not contract away the rights of a minor. Likewise a court may choose to negate any contract with the minor because of no other fact than she is a minor. They may of course not do this but it remains a distinct possibility. That is what I would be particularly aware of in your situation.

I agree. The sticky problem is now I have verbal contact with owners of vehicle and I have offered payment for half the deductible. That puts me in a bind.

Not necessarily. Any contract has to have 3 basic elements to make it a contract. Offer acceptance and consideration. From what you have told us here those are not complete yet so no contract exists. It is up to them to prove the existence of a contract if they wish to sue on it. They have several difficulties with regard to that

Well, we were never really friends with them - its the teens that are friends. Unfortunately, the legality issue here lies in my willing to reimburse them SOMETHING for all this going down. Thats what opened the can of worms. I discussed with my insurance agent who said that there's potential now for them to sue me for lost wages due to not having the car, legal fees, court fees, what if she rents a car and now adds that...what the hell else could she add, y'know?

They can sue anyone for anything, getting a judgement on the other hand is another matter entirely and lawyers are not cheap. Given the attitude they have displayed so far do you think they are really likely to put out the cash to pursue a claim. Likewise if they did issue are they in it for the long term once a defence and other motions are filed? Common sense tells me no. "It's not the money it's the principle of the thing" makes for a good soundbite in the bar on a Friday evening but is rarely if ever true.

How would this be dismissed?

It depends on what they sue for and who they sue.There are many possibilities. However I was basing my statement on " Do not create a contract and they have no grounds to sue you on."

Good point. Like I said earlier, I'm not really friendly with them anyway - I'm just worried that they'll get some big shot lawyer who will say, "well, since he agreed to pay SOMETHING, thats enough to go after him for much more...". Do I want to take that chance?

Big shot lawyers come with big shot fees. This is a small matter that will not attract a no won no fee attorney. Unless they want to waste time and money that is disproportionate to the amount at stake any reasonable attorney should advise them to attempt top settle out of court and point out they risk being awarded less than they spend to get judgement. I would use that knowledge to tell them go pound sand. Entering into a contract with them increase rather than decreases the likelihood of your fear being realised in my opinion and it is just that "an opinion" rather than a fact.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do. its your call at the end of the day - I am merely saying beware for bear traps that you don't see at this point.

Deny Dissuade Defend and the Devil is in the Detail is my mantra - others find this view offensive. But I have very thick skin :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your daughter is a minor, you are on the hook , you can find a good

release of claims form online, this will ONLY stop the other parents from suing

* when a insurance claim is paid all rights are usually assigned to the insurance company, as the claimant is paid off for the loss, they are your biggest worry..

I would worry a bit that the insurance company may come after you for the cost of the damages.she was at fault , you may have to pay for Both cars.. See a good Lawyer asap..

I've been assured that if they decided to subrogate the claim, my policy will cover it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your questions are better answered by an attorney who specializes in this sort of thing, and for what its worth, I would not pay anyone anything or agree to anything before talking to one.

Your "promise" to pay the deductible is not enforceable, and it would take some work on behalf of the other side to hold you personally liable for any other expenses.

You will need be prepared for the other party's insurance company to come looking for their 3K. They might try to recover that from your daughter, and if possible, vicariously through you.

In addition to that, the owner of the car probably has a civil claim for conversion against your daughter, and same as above, ultimately from you. That's not to say that you don't have a boatload of defenses, not foremost of which is the fact that the insurance company has already paid the claim.

It's unfortunate that your daughter got into the accident, but thankfully, she wasn't hurt - which is really all that matters. In any case, the more adversarial this thing gets, the more you might consider stepping away from it an letting an attorney act on your behalf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your legal responsibilities in this instance are none.

I'm not responsible for my minor?

I understand and indeed applaud your wish to do "the right thing" However, the problem will be that having created a contract you have created an opportunity for a creative lawyer to find fault in it. Is it worth the risk? The 100% watertight contract does not exist, if it did there would be a lot of underemployed lawyers and very few posts on this forum. My concern is the indications that the other side are not as reasonable as you appear to be and have already shown they are willing to escalate in the pursuit of money. Such is the nature of the human beast in these circumstances. I have been around insurance claims for over 25 years and nothing surprises me anymore.

So do I take the risk and avoid a contract and just pay them? Or is that a bad move, since I can now see true colors...

Not necessarily. The parents can not contract away the rights of a minor. Likewise a court may choose to negate any contract with the minor because of no other fact than she is a minor. They may of course not do this but it remains a distinct possibility. That is what I would be particularly aware of in your situation.

Good point, contract would cover me and W, not kid.

Not necessarily. Any contract has to have 3 basic elements to make it a contract. Offer acceptance and consideration. From what you have told us here those are not complete yet so no contract exists. It is up to them to prove the existence of a contract if they wish to sue on it. They have several difficulties with regard to that

So what do I say in court? Yeah, I offered to pay half...its not like I can completely deny this now, they both heard me willing to make an offer. Slam goes the gavel against me.

They can sue anyone for anything, getting a judgement on the other hand is another matter entirely and lawyers are not cheap. Given the attitude they have displayed so far do you think they are really likely to put out the cash to pursue a claim. Likewise if they did issue are they in it for the long term once a defence and other motions are filed? Common sense tells me no. "It's not the money it's the principle of the thing" makes for a good soundbite in the bar on a Friday evening but is rarely if ever true.

Yeah, but my issue is: Can they tack on all those lawyers fees? My 1k settlement offer could possibly balloon into legal fees - even the cheapest lawyers charge about 250/hour, right? So wouldn't they be likely to sue, and claim a few extra grand in lawyers fees as well?

Big shot lawyers come with big shot fees. This is a small matter that will not attract a no won no fee attorney. Unless they want to waste time and money that is disproportionate to the amount at stake any reasonable attorney should advise them to attempt top settle out of court and point out they risk being awarded less than they spend to get judgement. I would use that knowledge to tell them go pound sand.

What if they get a lawyer that says, ok, we can add lost wages, car rental expenses, throw in a few extra expenses....

Good luck with whatever you decide to do. its your call at the end of the day - I am merely saying beware for bear traps that you don't see at this point.

Thanks for all your opinions. I am taking everything into consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your daughter is a minor, you are on the hook , you can find a good

release of claims form online, this will ONLY stop the other parents from suing

* when a insurance claim is paid all rights are usually assigned to the insurance company, as the claimant is paid off for the loss, they are your biggest worry..

I would worry a bit that the insurance company may come after you for the cost of the damages.she was at fault , you may have to pay for Both cars.. See a good Lawyer asap..

On what do you base this? His daughter is licensed to drive in the state of PA and doing so independently. How do you construct a liability on the parent here? I worked outside of PA would be interested to learn if you have a specific reference that applies here.

His daughter is the insured person here. What on earth makes you think they can recover their outlay from their own insured? In the event of a subrogation claim the fathers policy would normally cover it anyway.

In some states such as FL an individual who signs a contract with the state to permit a minor to receive a driver’s license is absolutely responsible for the minor’s negligence. I am not aware that this is automatically the case in PA. The form the parent signs for a minor to obtain a DL has no such contract in PA

The other driver will have been dealt with by the insurer of his daughter. Any claims for personal injury etc will be indemnified by that insurer. The owner of an automobile is responsible for a permissive driver’s negligence - subject to certain limitations. There has been no suggestion that the driver was acting without permissive use.

The driver of the other vehicle may well come after the daughter for their uninsured losses and she is pretty much without a defence on that one. It is one to settle if that situation arises. It may even be that there is an insurance policy in place which is held by the OP that would cover this eventuality or LEI cover may exist.

There is a danger of getting too involved with what ifs here when the reality is it is probably better to wait and see how the other side plays it first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your questions are better answered by an attorney who specializes in this sort of thing, and for what its worth, I would not pay anyone anything or agree to anything before talking to one.

We're scrambling some friends we know that are attorneys as I type.

Your "promise" to pay the deductible is not enforceable, and it would take some work on behalf of the other side to hold you personally liable for any other expenses.

So what happens when I'm in court and they ask me, "didn't you say you'd pay?"

You will need be prepared for the other party's insurance company to come looking for their 3K. They might try to recover that from your daughter, and if possible, vicariously through you.

Well, my agent assures me that subrogation is possible, in which event we're covered.

In addition to that, the owner of the car probably has a civil claim for conversion against your daughter, and same as above, ultimately from you. That's not to say that you don't have a boatload of defenses, not foremost of which is the fact that the insurance company has already paid the claim.

What is conversion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of I am glad your daughter and her friend are both OK, that is the real important thing here.

I am probably going to be on in the minority with my view on the situation but that has never stopped me putting in my two cents worth before so here goes :p

It is up to you what you do but bear in mind that you have no legal or contractual responsibility whatsoever.

Your daughter was the driver and is the person responsible for the accident. that does not necessarily mean however that she is automatically responsible for their consequential losses.

Any cause of action he may or may not have is purely against her. There are not many 17 year olds in this world that it is worth suing.

They chose to save money on their premium by not electing to have rental cover and now they are bleating because they made a bad choice? Likewise it was their insurance company that valued their vehicle. All they are entitled to is a fair market value. If they dispute the valuation then they need to take it up with their insurance company. That part of their claim is never going anywhere.

They knew what their deductible was when they made a proposal for cover yet choose not to let you in the amount?

I may sound cold but I know from many years experience that friendship will go out the window no matter what you do here. I would not fall over in shock if I were to find out that an "injury" has developed next.

Your daughter had permissive use of the vehicle from what you have told us and as such is covered under the terms of the policy. From the way you have described the daughters use of the vehicle there is a possibility that the car in fact is primarily used by the daughter and not the parents in reality? Have they made full disclosure of this to their insurance company, have they even advised their insurance company that the daughter exists prior to this claim? Ooops we have a possible case of insurance fraud if they haven't. Guess which side of the bet I would place my money on?

Do not construct a contractual liability upon yourself that at present does not exist. As soon as you contract with him you are creating a legal liability on yourself and it has the potential to escalate out of control. DO NOT do it.

You are not responsible for their failure to adequately insure themselves against loss.

You will not win in this whichever way you go with regard to the friendship so bury it and move it. Tell them to go pound sand, morality has no standing in court only legality does.

Let him sue you all he wants then have it dismissed. He may think twice before spending more on filing fees to go after your daughter.

Which do you think you should value most, your friendship with the other side or the relationship with and duty to protect the interests of your daughter? :dunno:

Edit to ask the age of the other girl? If she is a minor then forget relying upon any release to protect you.

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On what do you base this? His daughter is licensed to drive in the state of PA and doing so independently. How do you construct a liability on the parent here? I worked outside of PA would be interested to learn if you have a specific reference that applies here.

His daughter is the insured person here. What on earth makes you think they can recover their outlay from their own insured? In the event of a subrogation claim the fathers policy would normally cover it anyway.

In some states such as FL an individual who signs a contract with the state to permit a minor to receive a driver’s license is absolutely responsible for the minor’s negligence. I am not aware that this is automatically the case in PA. The form the parent signs for a minor to obtain a DL has no such contract in PA

The other driver will have been dealt with by the insurer of his daughter. Any claims for personal injury etc will be indemnified by that insurer. The owner of an automobile is responsible for a permissive driver’s negligence - subject to certain limitations. There has been no suggestion that the driver was acting without permissive use.

The driver of the other vehicle may well come after the daughter for their uninsured losses and she is pretty much without a defence on that one. It is one to settle if that situation arises. It may even be that there is an insurance policy in place which is held by the OP that would cover this eventuality or LEI cover may exist.

There is a danger of getting too involved with what ifs here when the reality is it is probably better to wait and see how the other side plays it first.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

When minors assume the role of a plaintiff into a civil proceeding, a modification to the statute of limitations occurs. Specifically, this statute of limitations does not be in to go into effect until the minor has reached the age of 18 PROVIDED the minor is not emancipated from his parents. However, if a plaintiff is an emancipated minor (no longer under the care of parental authority due to court ruling) then the minor's suit will be subject to the same statute of limitations that an adult would be subject to unless otherwise provided an exception under the law.

http://www.pa-statute-of-limitations.com/minors_tolling_statute.php

lets not forget there was some Physical/ personal injury damages as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not responsible for my minor?

I am not convinced you are in this particular case; another poster disagrees with me. I would be interested in his response. One of us may or may not be right :p

So do I take the risk and avoid a contract and just pay them? Or is that a bad move, since I can now see true colors...

I would avoid entering into a contractual arrangement that did not afford me as much protection as possible. A 100% fireproofing doesn't exist however. It is a question of how you view the risk/reward scenario. Only you know your personal comfort level.

Good point, contract would cover me and W, not kid.

So what do I say in court? Yeah, I offered to pay half...its not like I can completely deny this now, they both heard me willing to make an offer. Slam goes the gavel against me.

Not quite. An offer is just that, an offer. It is not an admission of liability but part of a negotiation process that requires acceptance and consideration before a contract is complete. Anyone can contract to settle without admission of liability. A refusal to accept your offer by the other side is not necessarily prejudicial to your position.

Yeah, but my issue is: Can they tack on all those lawyers fees? My 1k settlement offer could possibly balloon into legal fees - even the cheapest lawyers charge about 250/hour, right? So wouldn't they be likely to sue, and claim a few extra grand in lawyers fees as well?

Attorney fees are not always automatically recoverable as a separate item in PA. There are variables that set the test on this.

What if they get a lawyer that says, ok, we can add lost wages, car rental expenses, throw in a few extra expenses....

An attorney can say what he wants. Whether he can obtain judgement is another matter.

Thanks for all your opinions. I am taking everything into consideration

I think it is all pretty much speculative at this stage until the other side move it forward. It is only then you will really be aware of how they want to proceed and on what basis. I don't see that waiting will necessarily harm you.

Again some people are saying consult an attorney. That is always an option but given the cost of an attorney I would rather consult him with something concrete rather than a what if scenario. His advice is going to be much more specific when he knows what he is dealing with. Again just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

When minors assume the role of a plaintiff into a civil proceeding, a modification to the statute of limitations occurs. Specifically, this statute of limitations does not be in to go into effect until the minor has reached the age of 18 PROVIDED the minor is not emancipated from his parents. However, if a plaintiff is an emancipated minor (no longer under the care of parental authority due to court ruling) then the minor's suit will be subject to the same statute of limitations that an adult would be subject to unless otherwise provided an exception under the law.

http://www.pa-statute-of-limitations.com/minors_tolling_statute.php

lets not forget there was some Physical/ personal injury damages as well

Yes that deals with SOL. How does it impose a tort liability on the parent for the minors act? I am not being argumentative if you have something that shows there is such a statutory imposition I would be genuinely interested to see it.

Did i miss the personal injury in the OP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is all pretty much speculative at this stage until the other side move it forward. It is only then you will really be aware of how they want to proceed and on what basis. I don't see that waiting will necessarily harm you.

Again some people are saying consult an attorney. That is always an option but given the cost of an attorney I would rather consult him with something concrete rather than a what if scenario. His advice is going to be much more specific when he knows what he is dealing with. Again just my opinion.

They want an answer by tomorrow, on whether I will pay them or not.

Edit: Driver that lent out car is 18.

An attorney can say what he wants. Whether he can obtain judgement is another matter.

Thats my worry. Losing the judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An action against a minor is begun in the same manner as an action against an adult, although by Rule 2034, infra, as under prior practice, the subsequent appointment of a guardian to represent the minor is essential to the rendition of a valid judgment against the minor.

You appear to be mingling certain elements of criminal proceedings against minors into your discussion. Minors are subject to civil actions for intentional torts or negligence just the same as adults. Case law is full of cases where judgments have been obtained against minors. I would suspect that's the reason why the rule of sevens was developed in common law.

However, we're talking about a vehicle here so, minors who commit intentional torts or negligent acts are held to the same standard as adults who commit the same torts or acts since driving is considered to be an activity typically undertaken by adults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yup two people where injured

Rule 2028. Actions By and Against Minors. Averments in Plaintiff’s Pleading.

(a) An action in which a minor is plaintiff shall be entitled ‘‘A, a Minor, by B, Guardian,’’ against the party defendant.

Official Note

Under the above rule the representative of a minor plaintiff is termed a ‘‘guardian’’ regardless of whether under prior practice he or she would be termed a legal guardian or a next friend.

(B) The initial pleading filed in behalf of a minor plaintiff shall state the name and address of his or her guardian and the guardian’s relationship, if any, to the subject matter of the action or to any of the parties thereto. In case the person selected as guardian is a guardian appointed by any court of competent jurisdiction or by a will duly probated, the initial pleading shall contain a reference to the record of the appointment.

© An action in which a minor is the defendant shall be commenced against the minor by name in the manner in which a like action is commenced against an adult.

231.pa code rule 20

Official Note

An action against a minor is begun in the same manner as an action against an adult, although by Rule 2034, infra, as under prior practice, the subsequent appointment of a guardian to represent the minor is essential to the rendition of a valid judgment against the minor.

The appointment of a guardian or in my part of the world where it is known as a "litigants friend" is to protect the interests of the minor. It does NOT impose a tort liability on the guardian. If it did then there would be no one willing to stand as guardian and the state would have to appoint an employee perhaps from child protection to act as guardian. How many applications do you think they would get for that position? :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Pennsylvania Civil Procedures law in Pennsylvania:

In order to bring a civil suit, the plaintiff must have a "cause of action," or a legal basis for bringing the action. The plaintiff must allege that the defendant (or defendants if there are a number of different people being sued by the plaintiff) acted, or failed to act, in such a way that violates some rule of law.

I didn't break any laws, so how can they even threaten me with court?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They want an answer by tomorrow, on whether I will pay them or not.

And I want a Bentley Continental convertible. :dunno:

There is nothing that gets my back up more than someone attempting to put undue pressure on me. Tomorrow is Saturday what are they going to do run to the closed court and then what?

Window and kitchen salesmen like to tell you about the urgency of the situation to pressure you into closing on a deal that you may later regret. Basically they do this because they are aware the chances are that should they leave your house without a signed contract you will not do the same deal when you have slept on it and taken your time to reach a rational decision. Amazingly their price often drops at this point.

Think a similar thing could be happening here? Who knows. I do know however that money does not have a sell by date or go bad and nothing is so urgent in this case that it cant wait a while.

I will be with 2 licensed PA personal injury attorneys later this evening and will ask them to clarify the situation. I may be wrong I was once before :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.