Ryan LLP Injury Blog

December 2011:  YORK TOWNSHIP, Ohio — Five Medina County children were injured when their school bus was struck by a car that was passing another vehicle. The State Highway Patrol said the accident occurred about 2:30 p.m. when a school bus from the Buckeye Local Schools driven by Karen Galdun, 45, of Valley City, stopped at a stop sign.  A Pontiac Aztec driven by Matthew Perkins, 23, of Medina, was driving northbound when attempting to pass another vehicle. Mr. Perkins lost control of his car and struck the bus.  At the time, the bus was carrying 20 children.  Five of these students were injured and treated for minor injuries and released.  Mr. Perkins was Life Flighted to MetroHealth Medical Center in Cleveland.  A passenger in his car, Lawrence Henderson, 36, of Medina, was treated at Medina Hospital and released.

Subrogation is a concept in injury law that can be complex and confusing.  Subrogation is usually involved when an insurance or governmental agency has paid out benefits on behalf of an individual for injuries sustained due to the negligence of another.  The insurance agency that pays an amount of money on behalf of an insured is said to “subrogate” to the rights of that insured. What this means is that the insurance company may exercise whatever rights or defenses that insured had as a result of the accident. The insurance company “steps into the shoes” of the insured, so to speak. Subrogation typically arises where one person pays on behalf of another.

Ohio law requires drivers who purchase automobile insurance to demonstrate Financial Responsibility to have at least $12,500 of Bodily Injury or Death Liability Coverage per person ($25,000 for 2 or more persons), as well as $7,500 of Property Damage Liability Coverage for any one accident. (See Ohio Revised Code Section 4509.101).  However, many times accidents result in damages that exceed those minimum coverage limits. If the at-fault driver’s insurance policy limits are exceeded, then that driver may be personally responsible to pay the difference not covered by the automobile insurance policy.
Even though it is illegal in the State of Ohio to drive without insurance, there are still many drivers out on the road without the State minimum coverage.  If you are involved in an accident, there are one of several scenarios you can choose in an attempt to recover your losses.  First, you can seek to recover the damages against the car owner personally.  Second, you can seek to recover damages against the driver personally.  And third, you can file a claim with your insurance company under a uninsured/underinsured policy, if it is available.

It is more difficult to sue a governmental agency or an individual working in their capacity as a governmental job.  This is because governments are entitled to a type of protection known as “qualified immunity.” (also known as “sovereign immunity” or “governmental immunity”).  In the State of Ohio, governments and their employees are protected by Ohio Revised Code section 2744; whereas the federal government is protected by the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals has upheld the trial court’s determination that the defendant, Tom Sobhani, was entitled to summary judgment because of the co-employee immunity rule set forth in O.R.C. 4123.741.  Because the plaintiff was precluded from recovering against Sobhani, they were not entitled to recover under their Underinsured Motorists Insurance policy.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not err when they granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the doctor-defendant and hospital.  The Appellee contended that the cognizable event was the amputation of the appellant’s leg.  The Appellants argued that because the appellee had suspicion regarding the doctor’s ability to properly treat his wound prior to the amputation that the cognizable event occurred prior to the date of the amputation.  The Court agreed and ruled that the suspicion combined with the appellant’s refusal to be treated by the doctor constituted a cognizable event that would alert a reasonable person to the need to investigate the cause of the amputation.