Monthly Archives: July 2018

Latest Posts

Archives

Categories

Tags Cloud

Suing Multiple Defendants for Injuries with Uncertain Causes

Suing Multiple Defendants for Injuries with Uncertain Causes

In a more perfect world, someone who is injured in an accident or by some act of negligence would always know what caused the injuries. But we don’t always see things coming. A car crash can be caused by a chain of events that is largely invisible at the point of collision. A product could become defective at any point in its commercial lifecycle, from its design to the point where it’s sold to the customer. When the cause of an injury isn’t clear, but it’s clear that someone was responsible for it, the injured person may need to sue multiple defendants.

The purpose of suing multiple defendants

When an injured plaintiff doesn’t know who should bear responsibility for an injury, suing everyone who may be at fault isn’t a mere fishing expedition. It’s good strategy. Quite often someone recovering from an injury is faced with mounting medical costs, lost work time, and pain. During such a crisis it’s important to take an aggressive position, even if potentially blameless defendants get temporarily caught up in the controversy.

Suing several defendants at once has a number of advantages:

  • Each defendant will pursue its own interests, which among other things encourages them to shift blame onto each other or identify other potential at-fault parties (through a so-called impleader).
  • Each defendant will need to put forward evidence and testimony, shedding light on details that were hidden from the plaintiff at the beginning of the case.
  • As the facts of the injury become clear it may turn out that more than one defendant bears some degree of responsibility, spreading out the liability and potentially improving the chances of collecting on a judgment.

Be aggressive, but be ethical

It’s important for both the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s lawyers that a personal injury lawsuit not be frivolous or merely harassing. Suing someone just to intimidate them into a settlement, by threatening high legal costs and an endless stream of paperwork, is unethical and unlawful. So is suing someone without having reasonable grounds for doing so.

Courts are unkind to plaintiffs who attempt to abuse the judicial system. For the plaintiff, a court that determines that a suit was an abuse of process may order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s legal costs. NRS 18.010((2)(b). The plaintiff’s attorney can also be subjected to sanctions, ranging from fines to potential disbarment (in extreme cases). NRCP Rule 11.

GGRM is a Las Vegas personal injury law firm

For more than 45 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has helped injured clients in the Las Vegas area recover compensation for their injuries. For a free attorney consultation call us at 702-388-4476 or contact us through our website.

Accidents Involving Uninsured Motorists in Nevada

Accidents Involving Uninsured Motorists in Nevada

Like every state, Nevada requires all motorists who use its roadways to carry a minimum amount of liability insurance. The DMV monitors the insurance coverage of Nevada-registered vehicles and imposes penalties, including fines and suspended registrations, upon drivers who fail to comply with minimum requirements. Unfortunately, not everyone complies with the law, and accidents with uninsured motorists do happen. When the uninsured driver is at fault, people injured in the accident may face greater challenges in seeking compensation for their injuries.

The problem of collecting

In any car accident involving serious injury the adequacy of the at-fault driver’s insurance can be a central issue. The state’s minimum coverage requirements ($25,000 for bodily injury or death of one person per accident, $50,000 for bodily injury or death of two or more persons in any one accident, and $20,000 for property damage in any one accident) are rarely enough to cover the cost of major medical treatment.

The problem of adequate compensation becomes worse when dealing with an uninsured motorist. With no insurance company around to pick up the tab, the plaintiff has to go after the defendant’s personal assets. The trouble is that few drivers will let their insurance coverage lapse unless they can’t afford the premiums. In other words, an uninsured motorist is more likely than not to have few resources to compensate an injured plaintiff. In fact, if the defendant isn’t likely to have much in the way of resources to compensate the plaintiff, there may be little reason to sue.

Protect yourself against uninsured motorists

Perhaps the most important lesson to take away from a consideration of the uninsured motorist problem is that the best response to them is preparation. Auto insurance carriers are required by law to offer uninsured motorist protection. Such insurance typically protects a driver from medical bills associated with injuries caused in accidents where the at-fault driver was not lawfully insured.

Another option in the insurance realm is coverage for events in which the at-fault driver’s insurance is inadequate to compensate for serious medical care. Because the state’s minimum insurance requirements are so low, drivers with the means to do so should strongly consider adding additional coverage to protect themselves and their passengers in the event of an accident.

GGRM is a Las Vegas accident law firm

The law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has represented injured clients in the Las Vegas area for over 45 years. If you have questions about how to protect yourself from an uninsured motorist, or if you have been in an accident and you’d like to talk through your legal options, please reach out to us today. For a free, confidential attorney consultation, call 702-388-4476, or ask us to call you through our contacts page.

Pesticides, Herbicides, and Long-Term Health Problems

Pesticides, Herbicides, and Long-Term Health Problems

In sufficient concentrations, pesticides and herbicides used in many forms of agriculture are known to cause a range of health problems, from irritated skin to hormonal imbalances, nerve problems, and cancer. Studies have found a connection between the use of the herbicide Roundup and celiac disease, also known as gluten intolerance. People who are harmed by agricultural chemicals may have legal recourse to recover compensation, but there are a range of challenges that a plaintiff must overcome.

Establishing causation can be difficult in pesticides cases

In a personal injury case the plaintiff must show, among other things, that the defendant’s negligent actions or inactions caused the plaintiff’s injury. In cases involving injuries caused by chemicals, a central question can be whether the defendant’s chemical really caused the injury, or if other intervening sources might be to blame. Putting aside the exotic situation where someone accidentally eats a huge amount of a toxic substance, the most common scenario involves health problems that are slow to develop and difficult to trace.

Highly technical evidence is usually required to establish the causal link between the defendant’s chemical and the plaintiff’s injury. Scientific studies can be useful evidence. Typically, one or more expert witnesses are asked to provide written or oral testimony. The witness, who must be properly qualified (for example, an oncologist to speak about causes of cancer), may give a professional opinion about the chemical at issue has been shown to cause the plaintiff’s injury.

Scientific evidence doesn’t always provide clear answers. Two studies of similar issues may reach different conclusions. Experts can disagree about the effectiveness of a study’s methods or its applicability to the plaintiff’s particular case. Cases involving relatively new health problems, like celiac disease, may suffer from inadequate studies. And chemical manufacturers often conduct tests of their own, with “experts” standing by to refute any claims about a chemical’s toxicity.

When? Where?

Another problem for plaintiffs is showing precisely when and where they came in contact with the defendant’s chemical. If the plaintiff cannot prove that he or she was exposed to the chemical at issue, a successful case will be hard to make. Proving exposure can be especially challenging if it happened a long time ago. On the other hand, if many people are suffering from the same problems and exposure to the same chemical can be established between them, a group of plaintiffs may be able to draw an inference that would not otherwise be available to an individual.

Questions of exposure can be different for someone who works closely with agricultural chemicals. Farm laborers, who are excluded from Nevada’s workers’ compensation system, can be exposed to extremely high levels of toxicity if not adequately protected. Someone who has been exposed to very high levels of toxic chemicals and has developed a serious illness as a result should consult with an attorney as soon as possible.

GGRM is a Las Vegas personal injury law firm

For more than 45 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has represented injured clients to help them get the compensation they deserve. If you are suffering from an illness that may have been caused by exposure to agricultural chemicals, reach out to us today for a free, confidential attorney consultation. Call us at 702-388-4476 or send us a request through our site.

Auto Safety Recalls and Products Liability

Auto Safety Recalls and Products Liability

Safety recalls are a routine part of the automotive world. Harley-Davidson recently had to recall a large number of motorcycles to address concerns that owners may not be properly maintaining their antilock braking systems, creating a risk of dangerous failure. Vehicles with the now-notorious Takata airbag system have been recalled in vast numbers to address a design flaw that has been deemed responsible for at least 15 deaths in the United States. Owners of recalled vehicles should be mindful of how such recalls can affect their ability to sue a manufacturer.

Is the manufacturer liable for injuries caused by its defective products?

Nevada’s products liability laws give consumers robust protection against defective products by making manufacturers and marketers responsible for compensating anyone injured while using them. In a nutshell, a manufacturer of a product can be liable for injuries provided that the product was actually defective at the time it left the manufacturer’s factory and the defect injured the plaintiff while the plaintiff was using it in a foreseeable way. Products liability laws are a major reason manufacturers go to the expense of issuing recalls.

Consider the Harley-Davidson brakes recall. The issue with the motorcycles’ breaks wasn’t necessarily that they were inherently defective, but rather that owners weren’t following the instructions in the owner’s manual to regularly flush and replace brake fluid. An owner who failed to follow the recommended maintenance routine could end up in an accident due to a failure in the antilock system.

The fact that the owner hadn’t followed the owner’s manual to the letter might help Harley-Davidson in court. But a jury could just as likely conclude that owners not studying their manuals is a foreseeable problem. Sure, an owner might glance through the book once or twice, but it’s hardly realistic to assume that every owner will follow recommended maintenance procedures to the letter. In fact, the opposite situation, where the owner doesn’t attend to regular maintenance at all, is probably common.

Recalls and litigation

In the context of personal injury litigation, the fact that a product was recalled to address the specific fault that caused the plaintiff’s injury can be a factor in determining liability. The recall is effectively an admission by the manufacturer that there’s a problem. But a recall doesn’t mean that the plaintiff automatically prevails. The defense can still raise a number of stout arguments, including:

  • Did the plaintiff know about the recall and ignore it?
  • Did anyone else work on the vehicle, potentially creating the specific problem that caused the plaintiff’s injury?
  • Did the issue that triggered the recall really cause the injury, or was there another cause? For example, did the motorcycle’s antilock braking system fail to work and cause the crash, or was the road slippery with spilled oil, making it unsafe even with fully working brakes?

Issues like these will invariably complicate a products liability lawsuit against an auto manufacturer. Someone who is injured needs an experienced products liability attorney to help them put together the best possible case. For over 45 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has represented personal injury clients in the Las Vegas area. Call us today for a free attorney consultation at 702-388-4476 or send us a request on our contact page.

Potential Liability for Drivers of Self-Driving Cars

Potential Liability for Drivers of Self-Driving Cars

Over the next few years self-driving cars are going to become more common on Nevada’s roads as the technology improves and vehicles become affordable for a wider swath of consumers. The convenience of letting the car do most of the driving is undeniable, but as recent events have shown, autonomous vehicles aren’t perfect. Self-driving cars have been involved in a range of accidents, including slow-speed collisions and, recently, a fatal accident involving a pedestrian in Arizona. Such accidents will raise new and interesting legal questions for insurers, lawyers, and the courts to consider. Among the important questions that must be considered is the potential liability of a “driver” of a self-driving car that is involved in an accident.

Nevada law requires operators to stay attentive

The rules governing self-driving cars in Nevada are still in their infancy. Designed to allow developers to test the technology, the rules are far from fleshed out. Aside from a few skeletal rules, like insurance and licensing requirements, there is still a lot of work to be done that will be based, in large part, on the results of current experiments.

One of the oddities about autonomous vehicles is that they don’t have “drivers” in the conventional sense. The person in the driver’s seat is neither a driver nor a passive passenger. Instead, he or she is deemed to be the car’s “operator,” with responsibilities for keeping an eye on what the car is doing. The concept of the operator is a new one with seemingly contradictory features. Even though Nevada law recognizes that an operator “is not required to actively drive an autonomous vehicle” (NRS 482A.200) an operator is still expected to be ready to take control in the event that the autonomous system fails (NRS 482A.080).

Existing law places the onus on the designers of autonomous systems to ensure that the systems will “alert the human operator to take manual control of the autonomous vehicle if a failure of the autonomous technology has been detected and such failure affects the ability of the autonomous technology to operate safely the autonomous vehicle.” This relies upon the system to recognize its own failure and alert the operator in time to prevent an accident.

Scenarios of operator liability

Accidents where a self-driving car is at fault can be sorted into several categories, each with varying degrees of potential liability for the operator/driver:

  • Accidents while the operator is in full manual control. Obviously, if the operator is driving and the car’s autonomous system disabled, the fact that the car has the system onboard won’t be relevant to the analysis.
  • Accidents that occur after the autonomous system warns the operator to take control, but before the operator can do so. It seems inevitable that cases involving this situation will come up. Expecting operators to stay alert and aware of what’s happening around the car at all times seems unrealistic at best. Operators are likely to be looking at their phones, reading a book, or even dozing. Regardless, an operator who fails to react on time to a system warning may be committing negligence and may be liable in the same way as though he or she was distracted while driving a conventional car.
  • Accidents that occur while the autonomous system is in full control. As happened in the fatal crash in Arizona, an autonomous system may not recognize its own failures in time to prevent an accident. Again, the operator is supposed to be watching what’s happening, but if the system is active, is the operator really “in control?” The answer isn’t clear, and likely will depend on the specific facts of the accident and a range of technical questions about the system itself. In these cases, the designer of the autonomous system may be at least partly responsible for the accident.

GGRM is an auto accident law firm in Las Vegas

For over 45 years the attorneys at Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez have represented clients who have been injured in auto accidents. We are closely monitoring the introduction of autonomous vehicles on Nevada’s roads. If you have questions about how a self-driving car may affect your liability, call us today for a free attorney consultation at 702-388-4476, or reach us through our contact page.

Professional Musicians and Hearing Loss

Professional Musicians and Hearing Loss

Hearing loss is a common problem among professional musicians. It isn’t just a problem for rock n’ rollers who keep their amplifiers dialed to eleven. Classical musicians also face a serious risk of long-term ear damage. Degraded hearing can affect a musician’s career, especially if it is serious enough to make playing with others too difficult.

Workers’ compensation for hearing loss

Musicians who have the benefit of working for a regular employer in Nevada should be able to rely upon their employers’ workers’ compensation insurance coverage to provide benefits in the event that work-related hearing loss requires treatment or even a career change. Coverage should be provided regardless of whether the musician is characterized as an employee or an independent contractor, provided the work is regular and the musician hasn’t signed a contract agreeing to be excluded from the broad definition of “employee” under Nevada law.

For a musician who qualifies for workers’ compensation benefits, a key question will be whether the hearing loss arose in the course and scope of employment. An insurer will require an independent evaluation intended to explore alternative sources of the hearing loss. Musicians can take a number of steps to protect their hearing and reduce the chances of a claim being denied:

  • Wear hearing protection, especially when not at work. For example, musicians who are also gun enthusiasts should wear protection while shooting.
  • Get routine hearing tests to establish a record and catch problems early.
  • Avoid performing in loud settings outside of work. For example, an orchestra trumpeter who moonlights in a jazz band probably will face questions about whether the jazz band was responsible for some or all of the hearing loss.

Not all musicians are entitled to workers’ compensation

Of course, most musicians pursue their art as a side job, without a steady employer. Under NRS 616A.110(3) workers’ compensation coverage need not cover a musician who is hired on a casual basis for a gig that doesn’t last more than two consecutive days and doesn’t recur for the same employer. The object of the rule is to carve out special events, like weddings, so their organizers aren’t on the hook for expensive insurance. On its face, the exception wouldn’t put a semi-professional setting like a community theater off the hook. But it likely covers most venues who hire musicians for one or two nights.

Musicians who don’t work for an agency but who earn a steady living doing impromptu gigs may want to consider buying insurance for themselves. The cheapest form of insurance, of course, are custom-made ear plugs designed for musicians. Although initially expensive, they are significantly cheaper than the long-term consequences of ear damage.

GGRM is a Las Vegas law firm

The law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez represents clients in the Las Vegas area in personal injury and workers’ compensation cases. If you have suffered hearing loss as a consequence of your work as a musician, our attorneys are happy to discuss your legal options with you. For a no-cost attorney consultation, call us today at 702-388-4476, or ask us to call you through our contact page.

How Attorney’s Contingency Fee Arrangements Work in Personal Injury Cases

How Attorney’s Contingency Fee Arrangements Work in Personal Injury Cases

People who are injured often enter into contingency fee arrangements with their lawyers. At the most basic level, a contingency fee arrangement provides that some or all of a law firm’s pay for representing the client will be paid only if the firm achieves a successful outcome in the case—the lawyers’ fees are contingent upon winning in court or reaching a favorable settlement. But the details of a contingency fee arrangement can be a bit more involved.

All lawyers licensed to practice law in Nevada are subject to the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules govern numerous aspects of the business of law, as well as the conduct of lawyers toward clients, courts, and each other. To be valid and enforceable a contingency fee arrangement must comply with Rule 1.5, which requires such agreements be in writing and signed by the client. Rule 1.5 also requires that contingency fee agreements spell out the following matters:

  • The method that will be used to determine the contingency fee, including the percentage or percentages that the attorney will be paid upon successful completion of litigation or settlement, or if the case is appealed.
  • Whether the attorney’s expenses will be deducted from any award the client receives, and whether expenses will come out of the award before or after calculating the lawyer’s fee.
  • Whether the client is obligated to reimburse the attorney’s expenses, regardless of outcome.
  • That the client may be responsible for paying the costs of the other party should the other party prevail and reimbursing the other side is required by law.
  • That the client may be liable for malicious prosecution or abuse of process if bringing a frivolous lawsuit only to harass or coerce a settlement.

There are two specific situations where a lawyer cannot use a contingency fee, both for public policy reasons. The first is in divorce cases where the arrangement would make the lawyer’s fee contingent upon completing a divorce or achieving a certain amount of alimony, support, or other property settlement. The second is for attorneys who represent clients in criminal defense.

The chief benefit to clients of contingency fee arrangements is the way they manage a client’s costs. The client will know from the beginning what costs—if any—will be the client’s responsibility. Instead of worrying about the cost of litigation, the injured person can instead put energy where it matters: on healing. Meanwhile, the defendant may not have the same benefit, putting pressure on them to resolve the case quickly.

The law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has served injured clients in the Las Vegas community for over 45 years. We typically work on a contingency basis so our clients can have peace of mind about what their case is costing them. If you have been injured call us today for a free attorney consultation at 702-388-4476 or send us a request through our site.

Liability for Lending Power Tools

Liability for Lending Power Tools

Lending power tools to neighbors and friends isn’t normally something that one would expect to create legal risk. In some situations, however, someone who has lent power tools can face a lawsuit from someone who is injured by the tool. In many situations such claims can be meritless, but the tool’s lender can end up spending money and time defending against a lawsuit that might have been avoided. There are a few things to consider before lending tools.

How do tools create liability risk?

No matter their safety features, power tools are inherently dangerous. They can cause very serious injuries, like amputations, or even death. There are two principal ways a tool can cause such injuries: through improper use (i.e., attempting to hand-hold a board while cutting it with a circular saw) or as a consequence of inadequate maintenance.

Liability for an injury caused by a power tool will always be a question of facts as well as law. The nature of the injury and the state of mind of the person who was using the tool at the time of the accident will be of central importance. Was the tool being used in an unreasonably dangerous way? Was the person using it under the influence of alcohol or drugs? If the person using it was a minor, was an adult providing adequate supervision?

Amidst these questions a tool’s lender may wonder why anyone would think the lender could be at fault. One answer is that lawyers for an injured person may think of a lawsuit against the lender as a way to force the lender (or the lender’s insurance provider) to settle rather than endure the expense of trial. In other words, the risk isn’t so much that an injured plaintiff can “win” but that the cost of fighting the suit is great enough to force the defendant to pay something.

Avoid practices that assume responsibility for a tool’s performance

The most common way a defendant can end up with liability for an injury is to behave like a business when lending out tools. Asking for a payment in exchange for lending is the clearest way to do this. A plaintiff could also argue that other forms of consideration were given to the lender, such as an in-kind exchange of tools. A plaintiff may even argue that a jar of homemade jam given as a “thank you” gift was in fact a form of payment. If lending, the best course is to not accept any form of payment.

A lender can create an impression of being in the tool-lending business in other ways. Taking out special insurance is an example. So is imposing nonfinancial requirements on the borrower, such as asking them to take out their own insurance.

If you’re going to lend tools, lend only well-maintained tools

A tool’s owner needs to make sure that the tool is free of dangerous defects before lending it out. Problems like a frayed power cord, loose blade guard, or improperly tightened mounting bolt could create heightened risk for anyone using the tool. Especially where the borrower doesn’t know about such dangers, the owner may be responsible if the fault causes injuries.

There are a few other steps that a lender can take:

  • Be sure to include the tool’s instruction manual with the tool.
  • Avoid lending worn out equipment, such as saw blades or drill bits.
  • Never lend “customized” tools, such as those with replacement parts or pieces missing.

When it comes to dangerous equipment, it’s important to bear in mind that a friendship is not necessarily a shield against litigation. The cost of recovery can force an injured person to look for sources of compensation wherever they can be found. If you have been injured by a borrowed tool and you would like to explore your legal options, the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez can help. For a free attorney consultation call today at 702-388-4476. We can also be reached through our contacts page.

Avoiding Social Media Mistakes After an Accident

Avoiding Social Media Mistakes After an Accident

People who are accustomed to using social media are often quick to share interesting experiences online. After an accident it can be tempting to tell friends about what happened, perhaps with pictures of smashed cars and other people who were involved. But social media posts can come back to haunt someone who ends up in litigation over an accident. Before rushing to Facebook or Twitter after an accident, there are some things to keep in mind.

Social media content can be evidence

Perhaps the most serious issue posed by social media in the context of a serious accident is that its content can be used as evidence in a trial or arbitration. An adverse party can request social media records as part of discovery, the fact-gathering phase of litigation. Here are a few ways this can matter:

  • Content can be used to prove fault. Statements that could show fault will almost certainly become central pieces of evidence in a case. For example, a driver could post an admission that he or she was distracted (“Shouldn’t have been playing Pokemon and driving!”). A driver could also post an admission of having been under the influence of drugs or alcohol (“I shouldn’t have smoked that joint before driving! LOL!”). It will be difficult to overcome such damaging statements in court.
  • Content can contradict oral testimony. Because social media posts are written, they can have an outsized importance when determining the truth of a statement. That is especially true when they are made shortly after the accident. Counteracting them with later testimony that tries to paint them as inaccurate or untrue can be difficult. “I was only kidding,” is a poor argument. Photos can be especially persuasive if they don’t line up with claims about the severity of an injury or other details.
  • Content can prove the extent of an injury. Someone who claims to be bed-ridden with a serious injury but who posts photos of themselves dancing will almost certainly struggle to convince a court that the injuries are serious.

Social media can damage important relationships and your image

Social media can have other consequences beyond establishing the facts of a case.

  • Waiving attorney-client privilege. Posts on social media can be considered public statements that are outside of the protected, confidential attorney-client relationship. Posting information about an attorney’s legal advice can waive the confidentiality of such advice, potentially making it part of court arguments when it otherwise wouldn’t be.
  • Creating an impression of bad faith. If a driver’s insurance company believes that the driver is not being truthful about the details of an accident the insurer may deny coverage.
  • Offending the fact-finders. Even if social media posts don’t raise specific legal concerns, they can make a person look bad. Posting crude or offensive remarks about the other people involved in the accident can make a judge or jury less sympathetic. Posting photos of someone who has been injured, especially children, is often seen as cruel, invasive, and inappropriate.

GGRM helps people injured in accidents in Las Vegas recover compensation

The best approach to handling social media after an accident is to simply stay off of it. At a minimum, talk to your accident attorney about what is and isn’t appropriate before making statements that could come back to haunt you. The attorneys at Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez have represented personal injury clients in the Las Vegas area for more than 45 years. If you have been injured in an accident we are happy to review your case and discuss your legal options with you. Call us today for a free attorney consultation at 702-388-4476 or request a call through our website.

Accidents During Ridesharing Trips

Accidents During Ridesharing Trips

With ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft becoming ever more common, the likelihood of being involved in an accident with one of their drivers rises as well. For someone who is injured in an accident involving a rideshare driver—whether the injured person is the passenger, a pedestrian, or in another vehicle—the involvement of the ridesharing company can have consequences for the resulting legal dispute.

Ridesharing and insurance

Ridesharing companies typically provide coverage for their drivers under commercial insurance policies similar to what conventional taxi companies carry. Nevada law requires ridesharing drivers to be covered under personal or commercial policies with limits that vary based on where the driver is in the ridesharing process (NRS 690B.400 et. seq.):

  • While waiting for a passenger (Phase 1): While a driver is cruising around with the ridesharing app active waiting for a passenger to request a ride, his or her liability insurance policy must cover at least $50,000 per injury, per person; $100,000 bodily injury per accident; and $25,000 in property damage.
  • While on the way to pick up the passenger (Phase 2) and while carrying the passenger (Phase 3): Once the driver is matched to a passenger, and until the passenger leaves the vehicle, the driver must be covered for not less than $1.5 million of liability per accident.

Ridesharing drivers can also buy additional ridesharing endorsements from their personal auto insurance providers. The main purpose of buying add-on coverage like this is to protect the driver from the coverage limitations of a typical ridesharing company’s policy. For example, a driver may want more than the minimum coverage during Phase 1 waiting. A ridesharing endorsement can also protect a driver from deductibles payable by the driver under the company’s commercial policy ($1,000 for Uber, $2,500 for Lyft).

Keeping track of details

A person injured in any car accident hopefully has an opportunity to collect essential information about the crash before the people involved leave the scene. Most of the important details are the same as for any car crash, and include:

  • Names and contact information for drivers, passengers, and witnesses.
  • Insurance policy information for everyone involved.
  • The name and contact information for the ridesharing company.

Winning the battle over fault

In any legal dispute following an accident, someone who has been injured may wish to sue both the individual driver as well as the ridesharing company. The ridesharing companies expect this and are insured to deal with it.

Insurance companies prefer to settle auto accident cases rather than take them all the way to trial. Settlement can give injured parties faster relief as well. But in an accident the insurance companies involved will try to shift the blame for the accident away from themselves. In the ridesharing context, that can mean the driver’s personal insurer and the company’s commercial insurer may end up arguing about who should pay.

GGRM is an auto accident law firm in Las Vegas

For over 45 years the attorneys at Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez have represented clients who have been injured in auto accidents. Although ridesharing has introduced novel problems onto Nevada’s roads, it hasn’t altered the basic legal framework of car accidents. If you have been injured in an accident involving a ridesharing driver, call us today for a free attorney consultation at 702-388-4476, or reach us through our contact page.