Missouri Injury Law Blog

Injuries to cyclist happen all too often as a result of driver inattention. See Common Causes of Bike Accidents. Typically, the negligent driver will immediately claim they did not see the cyclist and claim that as their defense, basically shifting blame to a cyclist for not being seen by the driver, despite adequate lighting, visible clothing, and no violation of the law or negligence by the biker.

To be clear, negligence law in Missouri and just about every state in the US, requires unintentional breach of a duty, not intentional breach of a duty. Intentional breach of a duty, i.e. intentionally hitting a cyclist, is criminal assault and battery, and on the civil side is an intentional tort, such as assault, not negligence. Negligence is inadvertently or recklessly causing a collision. Examples of negligence: failing to hit your brakes in time and hitting the rear of another car, not seeing another cyclist or motorist and turning into their path of travel and casuing a collision, inadvertently cutting a cyclist off, inadvertently running a red light because you are looking at your cell phone, etc ... Therefore, the "I did not see them" defense and therefore "I did not do it on purpose" defense is not a defense at all.

I know this seems to be an obvious distinction, but in order to sway juries, defense lawyers try to mix up concepts of negligence and intentional acts as part of their defense, you cannot let that happen. Attempts to improperly influence the jury with the argument that because the bike injury or other accident was not caused by an intentional action, then the victim should not be compensated fully, because by fully compensating the victim you are somehow punishing the defendant who did not do anything on purpose.

Why is the negligence versus intentional act distinction important in bike injury and other personal injury cases?

This is a very important mindset you have to be prepared to deal with when going into a jury trial. During "voir dire", commonly know as jury selection, the victim's lawyer must discuss with the jury that the burden on the Plaintiff (victim) is to show negligence, not intentional conduct; but even more importantly, through jury selection and throughout the trial, the injury victim's lawyer must emphasize with the jury that the juries' job is to award money or compensate the Plaintiff for the harms and losses suffered, that is it! It is improper for them to consider impact on the defendant, their insurance company, or other factors, because once the jury determines the defendant was negligent then the only thing to consider is what amount of money will make up for the victim's harms and losses. The award of money damages is solely about past, present, and future harms and losses suffered by the victim. See Calculation of Damages in Injury Claims

See Also:

Bicycling.com article: The "Ignorance is Bliss" Defense

Continue reading "The "I did not see the cyclist" Defense and dealing with it at Trial" »

In 2010 a reported 57 pedestrian deaths occurred in Missouri, many of them giving rise to wrongful death claims or general personal injury claims. See Missouri Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Ben Sansone Obtains St Louis County Judgment of $2.3 Million. This case involved a drunk driver in St Louis that injured a pedestrian when fleeing the police. Also, see St Louis Pedestrian Injury claim and settlement. . These are just 2 examples of pedestrian and motor vehicle injuries we have handled. It is a serious problem that these types of injuries are on the rise in Missouri. See Post Dispatch Article: "Pedestrian Deaths Increasing in Missouri".

As a St Louis injury lawyer handling pedestrian accidents and death cases, I have investigated first hand the situations that lead to the pedestrian accidents and how to avoid them.

If your car breaks down or you need to pull over to the side of the road, make sure you are in a well lighted and not heavy traffic area. Avoid stopping on the side of a busy highway at night. If you must, stay on the outside side of your vehicle. Changing a tire on the traffic side of a vehicle at night and on the highway is very dangerous. Turn on your hazard lights and leave your parking lights and headlights on as well.

Use crosswalks and when using crosswalks do not rely on drivers to obey traffic lights. Visually verify that traffic is clear or than oncoming vehicles have stopped and are not attempting to turn across your pathway. Never assume vehicles will obey crosswalk signals.

In Missouri you can dial " *55 " to get roadside help, may be a very good idea to stay in your vehicle until help arrives.

Be aware of traffic when walking on the side of the road, pedestrian on the side of the road and people changing tires on the side of the highway are the most common type of pedestrian injury.

Additionally, whenever talking about pedestrian safety, bicyclist safety tips are often very similar. Never assume vehicular traffic will obey traffic signals, wear bright clothes, use strobe or flashing lights on your bike, and try to avoid cycling at night, not only is it harder for vehicle drivers to see you, but debris and problems in the roadway are harder to see as well. See Avoiding Bike Injuries & Legal Liability at Intersections: Right of Way at Unmarked Intersections

http://www.missouriinjurylawblog.com/2011/07/avoiding-bike-injuries-legal-l.html

Continue reading "Pedestrian Deaths in Missouri on the Rise: How to be Safe and Avoid an Accident " »

As discussed in a previous St Louis bike accident lawyer article: "Avoiding Bike Injuries & Legal Liability at Intersections: Right of Way at Unmarked Intersections", bicycle accidents and injuries often occur at unmarked intersections. Bike accidents often occur at intersections controlled by electric signals as well. Having been a St Louis bike accident attorney now for about 10 years, I almost have never seen a situation where a cyclist blatantly ran a red light and caused a collision. Typically they have already entered the intersection and the drivers are anxious to go and do not see them.

Now some new laws give a much needed affirmative defense to cyclists accused of running red lights. But I caution my cycling friends, be careful at these intersections and use this privilege cautiously. Motorcyclists, bicyclists, and anyone operating a vehicle with 2 wheels, may have experienced the everlasting red light. That is because many electric signals in St Louis and throughout Missouri and Illinois are set off by pressure sensors, thereby allowing the light to remain green on the heavier traveled road until a vehicle approaches on the intersecting road and triggers the pressure sensor, changing the light from red to green. These pressure sensors often cannot be tripped by a motorcycle and almost never by a bicycle.

So is a bicycle rider doomed to sit at a red light until a car come up and trips the sensor? Until 2009, In Missouri at least, the answer was yes. There was no legal defense for a cyclist to run a red light, even if there is absolutely no traffic around and they have sat at a red light that was not going to change. In 2009, Missouri Bicycle Law was changed by Missouri Statute 304.285, "Red light violations by motorcycles or bicycles, affirmative defense, when", which states:

"304.285. Any person operating a motorcycle or bicycle who violates the provisions of section 304.281 or section 304.301 by entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal against a red light shall have an affirmative defense to that charge if the person establishes all of the following conditions:

(1) The motorcycle or bicycle has been brought to a complete stop;

(2) The traffic control signal continues to show a red light for an unreasonable time;

(3) The traffic control is apparently malfunctioning or, if programmed or engineered to change to a green light only after detecting the approach of a motor vehicle, the signal has apparently failed to detect the arrival of the motorcycle; and

(4) No motor vehicle or person is approaching on the street or highway to be crossed or entered or is so far away from the intersection that it does not constitute an immediate hazard."

As a St Louis bike injury lawyer, I believe this a fair law. The only part left for interpretation is what is considered an "unreasonable time"? I believe one could successfully argue to a Judge or jury that a unreasonable amount of time is once you realize the light is not going to cycle and there is no traffic in sight.

Another state, Illinois, is currently proposing a new law that would also allow cyclists (motorcycle, bicycle, scooter) the option of riding through a red light after waiting a reasonable time for the light to change.

Continue reading "Missouri Bicycling Law, Biker (Bike and Motorcycle) can go through Red Light Under Cirtain Circumstances, Illinois May Adopt Similar Bike Law. " »

Not only am I a bike accident injury lawyer, but I have also spent hundreds of hours and thousands of miles on a bicycle around the St Louis area. I have clients that come to me after being hit by a car while on a bike and I have friends and people I ride with who tell me stories about close calls and some about being hit by cars as well. There are a few common ways drivers hit cyclists unintentionally; see St Louis Injury Attorney Article: Common Causes of Bike Accidents and How to Avoid Them.

Right-of-way at intersections is commonly misunderstood and one of the legal issues of who is at fault when dealing with bicycle accident cases. More accidents occur at intersections not monitored by traffic signals. Keenly aware that most of us snoozed during our driver's education class, here is a refresher course on proper intersection protocol. When two or more vehicles (bicycles included) arrive at an intersection at the same time and there is neither person nor sign in place to indicate whose turn it is to go; the person to the right always has the right of way. When two or more vehicles arrive at an intersection at separate occasions, whoever gets there first gets to go first.

Bicycle accidents involving intersections represent a small majority of personal injury lawsuits. But when they do arise, several of the same defenses are used: cyclist failure to yield, unable to see cyclist because of too dark of clothing, disregard of right-of-ways, speeding through intersections, rolling stops, and riding in the wrong lane or wrong part of the lane. All of these things create comparative negligence or full negligence on behalf of the cyclist. Thus properly yielding at intersections is required not only to hopefully avoid injury, but also to have a strong case against a negligent driver in case you are injured in a bike crash.

Do not give the negligent driver's defense team any excuse to blame you for the accident. Cyclists have enough trouble with juries as most people on a jury drive cars and a few ride bicycles. And as most cyclists know, drivers are sometimes reckless or hostile towards a cyclists right to use a road, those jurors are no different and there cannot be any accusation that the cyclist ran a stop sign or did not follow the rules of the road that drivers of cars are required to follow. I have personally seen it at a trial, one time I even had the reporting officer throw in a comment about cyclists causing problems by not obeying the rules of the road or wearing bright clothing. Under Missouri law, this was an improper comment and the trial judge properly struck the comment from the record and advised the jury to disregard the comment, however, you cannot unring the bell.

Continue reading "Avoiding Bike Injuries & Legal Liability at Intersections: Right of Way at Unmarked Intersections " »

Working for a cyclist and a personal injury attorney I have become well aware of the dangers of bicycling on the roadways and the risk of being injured by inattentive drivers. See St Louis Bike Accident Lawyer Article, discussing common causes of bike accidents.

People toss around the phrase "this is my right" so heedlessly, that they not only forget what it actually means to have a right, but in doing so they have managed to squander the very conviction of the word. Furthermore, it appears that a strong belief in one's right primarily manifests itself when filing a personal injury lawsuit. At that time, everyone clamors about to prove their rights have been violated in some way which, in turn, caused injuries and pain and suffering so severe that it can only be healed with a Band-Aid generally made of dollar bills. Indeed, compensation may be, and typically is, the correct solution. However, having a clear understanding of one's rights is crucial to any motorist wishing to have a better chance of survival on the roads - I believe more specifically applicable to cyclists - as well as a better chance of winning your bicycle accident case.

I've been reading a great book on the legalities of bicycling, aptly named Bicycling & The Law, by Bob Mionske, J.D. In fact, Mr. Mionske summarizes this thought completely in a chapter wholly dedicated to the rights and duties of the cyclist. He states, "...duties are the flip side of rights; with rights come duties", and "your right to the road is not absolute, nor is theirs - you owe a corresponding duty to every other person not to infringe upon their right to the road, just as every person owes you the same duty."

You should know exactly what your rights and duties as a fellow driver are. You have a duty of care. This is to say that you, as a cyclist, will not impose an unreasonable risk of harm onto another person/driver. You have the duty to allow other drivers to conceivably assume that you will obey all traffic laws and not intentionally put them at risk of injury; just as you have the right to assume the same from those same drivers. As a part of this right, if another driver violates this duty of care, you may hold them liable by filing a bike injury lawsuit.

As stated in a previous blog, another principal of cycling is to know your state's laws. You can easily find Missouri's bicycle laws (http://mobikefed.org/statutes) on the web. This is only a general overview, but it is important to hire an experienced attorney when discussing specific issues such as: assumption of risk; following too closely; proper stops; intersection crashes; and bike crashes involving suspected DWI offenders, just to name a few.

When involved in a bicycle accident St Louis injury lawyer Ben Sansone has a few pointers to follow to ensure that you are covered should you need to pursue a personal injury lawsuit. See Also, St Louis Injury Law Article: Common Causes of Bike Accidents.

First, you must know the Missouri bicycle statutes. As a cyclist, it is important to follow the laws set in place just as motorist should. There are a lot of activist groups working to place stricter laws on motorists, more lenient laws on cyclists, and road compensations to benefit bikers. However grand the motivations are, we all know you cannot regulate or legalize common sense into people. Sometimes motorists and cyclist alike just don't pay attention for a split second and an accident occurs. If planning on riding a bike on a main road, having knowledge of what you can and cannot do on a bicycle should be a necessity before even purchasing a bike for that purpose.

Even spandex clad, serious bikers have a place to carry their identification and medical insurance cards. If you are involved in a crash, it is smart to have this information readily available to exchange with the police, other driver, or medical provider - should you be injured.

As with a motor vehicle crashes, do not discuss the whys and wherefores of the accident with anyone other than the police. Do not admit blame or blame the other driver. Contact a personal injury bike accident attorney. We have a lot of clients that call us to handle their cases after trying to negotiate with the responsible party's insurance company themselves. More times than not, statements made by the injured client, however flippantly made, are used by the insurance company against the cyclist to deny payment. In the same sense though, any statements made by the negligent driver can be used to benefit your claim.

Try to get names and contact information of any witnesses, as these may be needed during your lawsuit if a question of responsibility arises - which it undoubtedly will.
Follow up with a medical provider. Even if you are not in need of immediate ambulance transportation, go to the ER or your primary care doctor for a follow up visit. You may not feel the full effect of the crash until 24 to 48 hours after the accident. It is important to determine if there has been any internal damage done that will become problematic later.

Continue reading "Common Causes of Bike Accidents and Tips from a St Louis Injury Lawyer of What to do After a Bike Accident" »

A few years back I took a St Louis bike accident claim through a jury trial in St Louis County. The case arose from a "right hook" by the driver of the car. See facts of the St Louis bike accident here.

The jury returned a verdict after a few hours of deliberation and found the driver 100% at fault, however, the jury awarded less than the total medical bills submitted, even more baffling was that the medical bills submitted were undisputed. Any skilled St Louis injury trial lawyer would immediately object that the bike injury verdict is inconsistent. How can you find the driver 100% at fault and yet award less then the undisputed damages?

In Douglass v. Safire, 712 S.W.2d 373 (Mo. banc 1986), which involved a Missouri motorcycle collision and injury, the Missouri Supreme Court explicitly held that an inconsistent verdict must be brought to the attention of the trial court before the jury is discharged or the claim of inconsistency is waived. Id. at 374.

We now hold that a claim that a verdict is inconsistent to the point of being self-destructive must be presented to the trial court before the jury is discharged. Otherwise the claim of inconsistency will be held to have been waived. The reason is that, if the point is raised as soon as the verdict is returned, any error is capable of correction by ordering the jury to return for further deliberation. Our holding is in accord with the usual rule that the trial court must be given the opportunity to correct error while correction is still possible.

Being a St Louis area personal injury attorney that has also gone through phases of being an avid cyclist, I have witnessed first hand the hostility towards cyclists on the roads as well as the dislike for cyclists by juries. After the bike accident trial above was over I questioned a few of the jurors and they said the reason they gave less than the undisputed damages was that they felt the cyclist should not have been on the road during that time of day (dawn) or that somehow it was her fault just because she was on the road as a cyclist; remember the jury did find the truck driver 100% at fault. So drivers' general dislike of cyclists did come through in this verdict, a fact a bicycle accident lawyer must be keenly aware of.

The bike accident verdict above was appealed on that ground as well as others, and the case settled during the appeal process.

Continue reading "Making the Proper Objections if a Jury Returns an Inconsistent Verdict - Example from a St Louis Bike Accident Case " »

As a bicyclist myself and a St Louis Missouri bike accident injury lawyer, I have handled dozens of bike injury cases and spoke with many cyclists I ride with about being hit by cars and who were lucky enough not to be thrown off their bike or injured. See St Louis bike injury lawyer discusses common causes of bike accidents and injury

Most commonly, personal injury to bike riders being hit by cars is the result of driver inattention and negligence. A close second however, is bike riders being struck in the summer evenings by drunk drivers. See Missouri bike rider struck by drunk driver and suffers extensive personal injury

In the above mentioned St Louis drunk driving bike accident, the police did an excellent job investigating the accident and making sure they tested the driver for intoxication. Police investigation of a potential Missouri drunk driving accident is critical to a personal injury lawsuit because if the police do not investigate immediately it is almost impossible to later prove the driver was intoxicated; unless they admit it (good luck!) or there is credible observation and evidence from a witness proving intoxication. See Missouri Personal Injury Trial Evidence - Proving Driver was drunk with Lay Witness Testimony

Fortunately, a distant third, are bike accidents and injuries intentionally caused by the driver, these types of situations have recently gotten some national attention as some prosecutors and law enforcement are starting to investigate these cases more thoroughly and look into to prosecution. See the following:

Bike Accident and Injury Intentionally Caused by Doctor?

Bike Accident and Injury Caused by Road Rage

Also see Missouri Injury Law Blog - Missouri Bicycle Accident and Injury Cases

Previously, I discussed recovery by 3rd parties against Missouri wrongful death settlements or judgments regarding medicare and also health care providers.

How about cases not involving wrongful death? Lets say you are involved in a Missouri auto accident with injuries and your health insurance, that you pay for, covers your medical expenses. Can that heath insurer now demand you pay them back from the proceeds of your auto accident settlement or judgment against the at fault driver? Absolutely not - but they try all the time.

As a St Louis Missouri lawyer with my primary practice focusing on all personal injury cases, I run in to this issue from time to time. Just recently, I had Blue Cross Blue Shield try and claim a lien and subrogation right against my client's money damages recovery against an at fault driver in a St Louis car collision lawsuit.

Under Missouri injury law it is clear that a lien or subrogation claim by a health insurer is against public policy. This standard under Missouri injury law has held since 1965 in the case of Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Chumbley, 394, S.W.2d 418, 425 (Mo.App.1965).

"It is also clear that a health care insurer may not be subrogated to its insured's right to recover from a third party tort-feasor because it would constitute an impermissible partial assignment of the insured's action for damages for bodily injury"

Also see Missouri injury lawsuit - Scroggins v. Red Lobster, No. SD 30214 Court of Appeals, Southern Dist 2010 stating:

“The Participant paid for health care coverage. The Insurer was obligated to provide those benefits regardless of whether the Participant pursued her personal injury claim. Missouri courts have never allowed a provider to be reimbursed for medical expenses that the insured recovers in a settlement from a liable third party under a lien theory, and we decline to do so now.”

Continue reading "Personal Injury Settlement in Missouri: Can Your Health Insurer Demand Payback for Medical Expenses?" »

Missouri Personal Injury Attorney, Benjamin Sansone, has been recently retained as a St Louis bicycle lawyer to represent a St. Charles County cyclist who was struck by a drunk driver and thrown from his bike, causing severe personal injuries.

Both the drunk driver and the bicyclist were traveling west on the south service road. The drunk and negligent driver of the truck rear-ended the back tire of the bicycle, sending the cyclist over his handlebars and landing 35 feet from the initial impact site. The at fault and negligent driver stated that he never saw the Missouri cyclist prior to colliding with him. The injured cyclist was taken to St. Joseph’s Hospital in critical condition and the drunk driver, who was suspected of intoxication, was taken to jail.

The personal injury victim and cyclist suffers from multiple fractures in his back, a head injury – which caused him to lose consciousness for several hours, debilitating knee injuries, abrasions down his arms and legs, along with many other injuries that he has not been officially diagnosed with yet .

Once the injured cyclist has reached his maximum medical improvement, Sansone Law will be filing a Missouri personal injury negligence claim against the driver if his insurance company is not willing to settle the personal injury claim for the full value of his severe personal injuries, pain and suffering, and disabilities that will affect the injured biker the rest of his life. Additionally, after filing the negligence claim, personal injury lawyer Ben Sansone will pursue punitive damages against the Missouri drunk driver.

Personal Injury lawyer, Benjamin Sansone, is an avid cyclist and which, combined with his legal experience and personal injury lawsuit results, makes him an excellent Missouri bicycle attorney. Whether it is a recent accident or a case that a previous law firm has dropped, contact experienced bike personal injury attorney Benjamin Sansone to represent you and your interests.

St Louis Personal Injury Lawyerr Ben Sansone represents the victim of a motor vehicle and bicycle accident wherein the driver of the car failed to yield to the cyclist in a designated bicycle lane and hit him with the front end of her truck.

The St Louis bicyclist suffered from bruises and abrasions and a dislocated shoulder. He received medial treatment at the emergency room and had to undergo shoulder surgery to repair a torn labium.

The cyclist's total medical bills we about $40,000 and he missed several months of work causing about $20,000 in lost wages.

In this case, St Louis personal injury lawyer Ben Sansone was able to make claims under multiple insurance policies which allowed him to secure several settlements for the personal injury victim of the St Louis bike accident totaling in excess of $200,000.00.

Extensive experience in the Personal injury field in crucial for investigating and seeking out all potential insurance policies that may cover an injury. Oftentimes many people stop with just the first policy. CONTACT: St Louis Missouri Personal Injury Law Firm - Sansone Law at (314) 726-1817

Staff Article by Erin Mace.

July 2008, a California ER doctor was driving to work and apparently caused two cyclists to wreck their bikes, seriously injuring them. One biker had to have 90 stitches to put his face back together and the other one also had to undergo surgery for his injuries. Bicycle accident attorneys and cyclists all over the globe have been chiming in on this case since it began. I have read countless articles and blogs on this case and it seems to come down to two questions....did he have road rage and did he “slam on his brakes”? Intention. The good doctor says he did not – on both accounts – though his 911 call kinda says otherwise.

As usual, a couple of points bother me about this case. One: because of either the idiot doctor or the idiot cyclists – or a combination of the two - we are all now going to have even more laws crammed down our throats. Superior Court Judge Scott T. Millington described this as “a wake-up call” and suggested that the “Government must be made aware of the dangerous conditions existing in our city streets and the threat of injury to cyclists”. Government is aware – that is why we have the laws we do such as mayhem, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. By the way, these are the same charges Dr. Thompson was convicted of. If the doctor did in fact “slam on his breaks” to “teach them a lesson” (a quote he later denies saying) then he should have been convicted of assault with a deadly weapon etc. – as California law states. If he was simply aggravated because, once again, cyclist were not following the laws - ultimately putting drivers and their passengers lives at stake - and decided to stop to obtain names/photographs, by which causing a horrible accident – with no malice - does that merit 5 years in prison? I’m not going to bring in drug dealers and OJ at this point. The prosecutor in this case dramatically ended her examination of Thompson by stating, “you could have drove on, but you didn’t”. Even I can think of a thousand counterarguments as to why that really has nothing to do with the situation – other than for a dramatic feel good effect – but she does have a point on the “be a responsible grown up” argument.

Two: “share the road” does not only apply to drivers of motor vehicles. It is supposed to include all transportation devices. The fact that “pedestrians have the right away” does not give me greater freedom to walk whenever and wherever I please. I still have to be cautious and abide by the rules, a.k.a. laws. Unfortunately, some cyclists’ sense of entitlement, which enrages most vehiclists’ sense of driving, has tainted the injured parties claim. They admittedly were not obeying the laws. They ticked off a guy who, at least in the beginning, was obeying the laws, and a horrible accident was the outcome. Are the cyclists not just a bit responsible simply because they were injured?

I drove a motorcycle for years. It was a love/hate thing. I loved the bike but hated the motorist that thought since they were bigger, they could push me around. Most drivers just do not pay attention. In fact, they believe that it is mainly the responsibility of the two-wheelers to watch out for everyone else. Most drivers think that because it is on two wheels, as opposed to four, it can move out of the way faster. Not necessarily true – nor necessarily the point. Most drivers are more likely to exhibit road rage against bikers rather than vice versa. This is ironic, considering bikers are more likely to die when they get hit by drivers rather than vice versa. Ultimately, vehicles do not “share the road” either. Every day, driving to and from work, we see evidence of this. Again, the childish entitlement and arrogance that says you have more of a right to get home faster, be in that lane first and are more important than someone on two wheels yields devastating results.

As a two-wheelin member of society, you have rights. You have access to an experienced bike accident personal injury attorney when those rights are violated. You also have to obey the laws. Vehicles – mind your P’s and Q’s. When you bump a biker, it hurts them and ultimately you a lot more than having to patiently wait an extra minute or two, to pass.

In May 2008 my client was struck by a Hummer H2 while legally traveling on his bicycle in a designated bike lane in the Soulard area of St Louis MO. He proceeded through an intersection that had no stop sign for his direction of travel, however, the cross traffic had a stop sign and the other driver went through the stop sign and violated my client cyclist's right of way and causing a collision which resulted in serious personal injury. (See police report diagram of St Louis Bike Accident)

This type of vehicle and bicycle collision is referred to as the right cross. As a Missouri and Illinois personal injury lawyer, I represent multiple bike accident and injury clients, two I am currently handling were a result of the above mentioned "right cross". Both were legally and properly either traveling in a bike lane, legally on the shoulder of the road as allowed by Missouri bike law, or properly crossing a pedestrian crosswalk on their bike.

In this case, we recovered $100,000.00 policy limit for our bike accident personal injury client. This amount represents the full policy limit the owner of the vehicle had through GEICO Insurance. However, in this case, the driver did not own the vehicle, therefore, we are also pursuing the driver's insurance policy limit of $50,000.00 as excess insurance coverage.

A few legal hoops need to be hopped through prior to settling the primary personal injury liability insurance coverage, as in this case, the primary insurer (GEICO) has a duty to get all potential liable parties released. Therefore, we entered into a Missouri personal injury release agreement completely releasing the owner of the vehcile from liability and releasing the driver for nay amount of a judgement over and above the additional $50,000.00 policy limit through her personal auto insurance policy.

This Missouri personal injury settlement arrangment keeps the door cracked for recovery in excess of the bodily injury liability insurance policy limits, this is done if the excess carrier refuses to settle within policy limits, if a judgment is then obtained against the driver in excess of the policy limits, then the driver assigns to my client any right for bad faith refusal to settle against the injury insurer, which can potentially make the personal injury insurer liable beyond its bodily injury policy limits. That is the heart of the agreement entered into to settle the primary personal injury auto insurance coverage and still have the potential to still pursue the Missouri bike accident personal injury case against the at fault party. We have done this in several other cases with much success, it is called a covenant not to enforce judgment - See Illinois Drunk Driving Accident - Covenant not to Enforce. This is an example of the injury release we used in this case but it is from another case we handled that involved an Illinois drunk driving personal injury lawsuit that stemmed from a high speed rear end collision that caused a severe head and brain injury to my client as well as multiple other injuries. That case settled for just under $750,000.00 with another $250,000.00 of insurance we are still pursuing.

Recently, a cyclist that was injured due to a dangerous condition on the roadway almost had her case dismissed based on assumption of risk claim by the Defendant. The court of appeals ruled that cycling on the roadway is not assumption of the risk. In their case their was a dangerous "lip" in the roadway due to new asphalt and old asphalt coming together, however, the dangerous part about it was that there was not warning and the lip is not seen until the last second by cyclists. See - Bike Accident Lawyer Article - Refusal to Dismiss based on Assumption of the Risk Arguments.

the primary reasons I discuss this are that I am a bike accident personal injury lawyer and am currently representing an injured cyclist in St Louis Missouri that was injured under similar circumstances. As posted in a previous blog, my client was injured as the result of a a large fire hose laid across the road in spot that is not seen till the last second, at the bottom of a steep hill, and without any warning signs. See - St Louis Missouri Bike Accident Injury Lawyer Case.

As a personal injury lawyer based in St Louis, I know first hand that one of my clients' top concerns is insurance liability coverage usually stated to me as "what or whose insurance applies to cover my injury?" There are several types of insurance coverage to indemnify an injured victim in a Missouri car accident. The primary one every driver is supposed to have under Missouri law is liability coverage, which Missouri state law requires a minimum of 25/50. This 25/50 means $25,000 per individual or $50,000 limit if 2 or more individuals are injured.

Oftentimes this 25/50 coverage this is not enough, thus it is a very good idea to have Missouri under insured motorist coverage (commonly referred to as "UIM" coverage") to protect yourself if another driver carrying the state minimum of $25,000 causes injury to you or a family member that justifies a Missouri injury or insurance claim in excess of $25,000. Therefore, if you carry a $100,000 Missouri under insured policy then there is an additional $75,000 an injured victim can recover if the at fault driver only carried state minimums or an amount less then your under insured coverage.

What if the other driver had no insurance or fled the scene? Then that would usually be a claim under Missouri Uninsured Motorist coverage (commonly referred to as "UM"coverage"). Everyone that is insured in Missouri automatically carries a minimum of $25,000 of uninsured motorist coverage in Missouri as this is required by Missouri state law. It is based on the view that it is against public policy to carry the minimum liability coverage and not have a minimum uninsured motorist coverage. However, as a Missouri personal injury lawyer, I have seen countless situations where clients wished they carried more than $25,0000 of uninsured motorist coverage, I recommend to anyone to carry the maximum of both uninsured motorist coverage and under insured motorist coverage.

Here are a few fact examples from Missouri and Illinois injury cases I am currently handling.

Jefferson county personal injury client allows her friend to drive her car, the friend loses control, runs off the road and crashes into a tree. What policy covers my client for her injuries? In most cases her insurance policy that she had on the car because by allowing her friend to drive it is a "permissive use" thus the policy on the car applies. Now, this is not true in every situation and sometimes specific facts may change which Missouri insurance policy coverage applies.

Different situation, I currently am handling a St Louis city motorcycle accident case that arose from an uninsured motorist striking a motorcyclist and his passenger. Both the driver of the motorcycle and the passenger have their own insurance policies on different vehicles including the motorcycle for the driver only. Usually, under this scenario the Missouri Uninsured Motorist policy for each one of their vehicle applies. Therefore the driver makes a UM claim under his motorcycle policy as well as under his UM policy coverage for his other vehicles, as UM coverage also covers the named insured. The passenger is making a Missouri uninsured motorist claim under the drivers motorcycle policy as well as the policy on her primary vehicle. This brings up many other issues such as stacking, anti-stacking clauses, set off clauses, and other exclusionary clauses the insurance companies use to limit their exposure in cases such as these.

Often clients don't understand exactly why coverage for a car or vehicle that was not involved in a Missouri car collision could apply. Simple example clears that up. Say you are crossing the street and a driver runs a red light, hits you, and flees the scene. No one gets any type of identification on the driver or the vehicle. This is a Missouri uninsured motorist claim and the coverage you have on your vehicle or vehicles will apply for your to make a claim against as if they represented the driver himself. Cars are not covered by Missouri uninsured motorist policies, people are. The property damage portion of the Missouri insurance policy covers damage to cars or other vehicles.