Missouri Injury Law Blog

A now former attorney was sentenced to 25 years in prison for the drunk driving wrongful death of a 31-year-old woman and injuries to two others. While driving from a football game and fueled by twice the legal amount of alcohol, Tolliver caused the car crash when he ran a red light and slammed his SUV into an oncoming cab. The impact instantly killed 31-year-old, mother of two, Shannon Brown, while the other passenger suffered severe injuries of a collapsed lung along with loss of sight in one eye and the cab driver's injuries put him in a coma for several weeks. See: St Louis Lawyer blog article: TBI and Drunk Driving Trends

This guy had 4 separate prior DWI convictions. This is not a new situation, repeat offenders severely injuring and killing innocent victims. See Missouri Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Ben Sansone Obtains St Louis County Judgment of $2.3 Million. The intoxicated driver's family members stated that he was receiving regular treatments; however, part of his probation agreement from his latest DWI conviction was that he not be allowed to drive. Though some may argue that after two convictions it should be realized the offender has no intention of obeying the law, but once again it took 4 DWI convictions, a death of a mother and permanent dismemberment and traumatic brain injury to others for a Fulton County Judge to "let the community know such behavior deserves severe punishment." As such and per a plea deal, she sentenced Tolliver to 25 years in prison. He pleaded guilty to one count of vehicular homicide and two counts of serious injury by vehicle, all while driving under the influence.

I have represented injured parties in other motor vehicle accidents involving drunk drivers. See Missouri Injury Law Blog: Drunk driving Law . While this is apparently a case of blatant intoxication with tragic results, many cases where the actions of the driver are just as egregious do not get the media attention because the driver did not kill anyone or severely harm them. But does that make their reckless actions any less reckless? I say no, we are currently pursuing five or six drunk driving cases with minor injuries.

When the driver was drunk but the injuries are minor, the insurance companies resist settlement because the injuries are not massive and therefore ignore the fact their driver was drunk. These cases must be pursued vigorously however some lawyer give up too easily on these cases . See: Illinois Drunk Driving Car Accident - My Client was Rear Ended by a Drunk Driver Going Approximately 60 MPH - Prior Illinois Personal Injury Lawyers Failed to Pursue Claim- Case Referred to Us for Trial

If you or a loved one are the victim of a reckless drunk driver, even if the injuries are minor, contact St Louis drunk driving accident lawyer Ben Sansone today for a free consultation. We aggressively pursue these cases.

"Dram Shop" cases are drunk driving injury cases pursued by the injured party, or their surviving family as a wrongful death claim, against the bar or restaurant that may have over served the intoxicated driver that caused the car accident. For more information on lawsuits against the negligent bar or restaurant for over-serving a drunk driver See Missouri Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Article: Drunk Driving Accident Lawsuits in Missouri - Making a Negligence Claim Against the Bar that Over-Served the Missouri Drunk Driver

As an injury lawyer, often specializing in drunk driving injury cases, I can tell you first hand that Dram shop cases are difficult, but winnable. Under Missouri Statute § 537.053 a Dram Shop case has three main elements to the cause of action:

1. The claim must be brought (1) "by or on behalf of any person who has suffered personal injury or death"

2. Against a "person licensed to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises . . ."

3. Clear and convincing evidence the seller "knowingly served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person"

That can be very tough case to prove, first you have to find out where the reckless drunk driver that caused the car accident came from, and they may not tell anyone where they came from or admit it to you.

The more difficult part to prove is whether or not the driver was "VISIBLY INTOXICATED" Can you find witnesses that remember seeing the intoxicated driver at the bar and remember or be willing to testify that they were visibly intoxicated? Probably not, most of these cases are proven through he police officer's observations and hopefully a blood or breath test. Then hire a toxicologist to testify what the driver's physical appearance would have likely been based on the BAC test by the police or their observations. In many cases the intoxicated driver who caused the accident may have little or no insurance, and certainly not enough to compensate an injured driver or passenger who is severely injured. Thus the possibility of pursuing the bar or restaurant is something that must be investigated in most drinking and driving car accident injury cases. See, Evidence in Missouri Drunk Driving Car Accident Injury Case: Proving the Other Driver was Intoxicated stating:

Whether a defendant is intoxicated may be proven by any witness who had a reasonable opportunity to observe him. State v. McCarty, 875 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Mo. App.1994); State v. Corum, 821 S.W.2d 890, 891 (Mo.App.1992).

[I]ntoxication is a "`physical condition usually evidenced by unsteadiness on the feet, slurring of speech, lack of body coordination and an impairment of motor reflexes.'" [State v. Ruark, 720 S.W.2d 453 (Mo.App.1986) ] at 454 (quoting State v. Blumer, 546 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Mo.App. 1977)).

The "VISIBLY INTOXICATED" portion of the dram shop law has recently been discussed by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, in Nokes v HSM Host USA LLC, WD Court App Opinion 9/13/2011. In the Nokes case, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant because the Plaintiff did not have any direct evidence that the driver was "visibly intoxicated", meaning an eye witness or videotape. The Appellate Court overruled that requirement stating:

"Nokes's evidence regarding Chiarelli's level of intoxication, taken together with the drink receipts, the police report, and the expert testimony that such a level of intoxication would produce outward manifestations of intoxication was sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Host defendants knowingly "served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person." Section 537.053."

Thus, in Missouri visible intoxication can be proven by circumstantial and indirect evidence, eye witnesses not required.

The heart of most personal injury claims, especially clear liability motor vehicle accidents, is damages. Damages being economic and non-economic; Economic damage is the amount of money required to compensate the Plaintiff for the out of pocket expenses (i.e. medical bills, future medical costs, medicine, lost wages, etc.) See St Louis Personal Injury Attorney Article: Personal Injury Trials: Proving Damages and Arguments to the Jury About Medical Testimony or Lack Thereof Non-economic damages or "pain and suffering" being the amount to make up for or at least balance the past and future harms and losses that the Plaintiff is suffering. Pain and suffering damages are the most important type of damages as they represent the real personal harms and losses an individual suffers; the daily emotional and physical pain an injury can cause. Reality is their is no magic wand available to take those harms and losses away, so money is the only way we have to compensate and make an individual whole or at least balance the harms with compensation.

In a Missouri auto accident injury claim, can the defense (the auto insurance company) argue to a jury that the victim is not hurt as bad as they say they are because the other driver or passengers in the same vehicle were not hurt as bad? I believe the answer to that is no, however depending on the circumstances, some Judges may allow that evidence in for certain purposes. As an experienced St Louis injury lawyer, I address this issue before trial even starts through a Motion in Limine with the Judge, therefore, the Judge can rule on it before trial starts and not in front of the jury, as by that time the bell has already been rung.

Recently, we dealt with a motorcycle accident head injury case, wherein we represented the hurt passenger and the insurance company tried to claim that since the driver was not injured that the passenger was not injured. Not only does this argument make no sense, the law in Illinois is clear that argument cannot be made in front of a jury. "Generally. the details about the nature and severity of personal injuries to non litigants in automobile cases are not admissible." Martin v. Sally, 341 Ill. App. 3d 308, 318 (2nd Dist. 2003) (refusing to allow testimony regarding passenger injuries) (quoting Keil v. McCormick, 5 Ill. App. 3d 523, 526 (2nd Dist. 1972), concluding that reference in opening statement and subsequent testimony to lack of injuries to the defendant the two occupants of her vehicle, and the occupant of the plaintiffs vehicle was error. The issue involved was the injury to the plaintiff not the fact that the defendant and her passengers, in a different automobile were not injured."). See also, Vujovich v. Chicago Trans. Auth, 6 Ill. App. 2d 115, 126 N.E.2d 731 (1st Dist. 1955).

In J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. v. General Motors Corp, 243 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2001), the district court excluded evidence of the minor injuries of the driver of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding in the front passenger seat. ld. at 445. The plaintiff argued that the driver's injuries proved that the seat of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding failed, given the fact that both of the vehicle's occupants were subjected to the same impact. Id. The Eighth Circuit determined that evidence of the driver's injuries was correctly excluded, explaining:

"We cannot say that [the driver's] injuries could be considered either substantially similar evidence or relevant to [the plaintiff's] injuries. First, it was undisputed that [the driver], unlike [the plaintiff], was wearing her seatbelt at the time of the accident. Second, because [the driver] was driving, she was able to anchor herself by grasping the steering wheel, which may have alleviated some of the impact. Moreover, the angle of impact differed between the two occupants leading to the varying degrees of injury."

The court noted that admitting similar-incident evidence "threatens to raise extraneous controversial issues, confuse the issues, and be more prejudicial than probative."

Continue reading "Missouri Trial Evidence in Personal Injury Car Accident Claims: Is Lack of Injury to Other Passenger or Driver Admissible to Discredit Plaintiff's Injuries? " »