Legal Question in Personal Injury in Maryland

The lift equipped van that we used for our severely disabled daughter was totaled almost three years ago. The insurance company did not want to pay enough to get a comparably equipped van and we have not had use of such a vehicle for all this time. We sued, with one of the counts being for the loss of the use of the van by my daughter for the elapsed time, even though she was not in the van at the time of the accident. The opposing attorney is filing a motion to remove my daughter as a plaintiff since she was not in the vehicle at the time of the accident asserting that she is too distant from the accident to be a plaintiff. I understand that there is such a principle regarding emotional distress caused to an observer of an accident; however I simply cannot believe that a driver cannot be presumed to know that if he damages a vehicle, that the loss of use of that vehicle by the people dependent upon it is not direct enough a loss to be awarded damages. Could someone please help me understand this or provide a legal citation that addresses this situation?


Asked on 12/14/10, 1:08 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys
Phillip M. Cook Cook Legal Services, LLC

The torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress caused to an observer of an accident will not be good causes of action for you to pursue -- you will lose. If the contents of the van were well documented, and you had enough coverage, there should be no problem in getting the entire contents of the van included in the cost of your insurance pay-out. It sounds like your problem is that you don't have an attorney representing you therefore you are getting no movement. Consult a plaintiff's attorney about your case.

Best of luck.******The above is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client privilege.*******

Read more
Answered on 12/20/10, 6:33 am


Related Questions & Answers

More Personal Injury Law and Tort Law questions and answers in Maryland