Areche sued the City of Indianapolis and other defendants for the injuries he suffered in the Indianapolis electric scooter crash. Indianapolis filed a motion to dismiss, which was eventually converted to a motion for summary judgment, based upon an Indianapolis ordinance prohibiting the operation of electric scooters on Indianapolis sidewalks. The Indianapolis ordinance, Indianapolis Revised Code § 441-320.1, provides: “It shall be unlawful for any person to operate an electric foot scooter on (1) A sidewalk, (2) A greenway, or (3) Any pedestrian or multimodal path [which does not include a path set aside for exclusive use of bicycles] that is paved or unpaved in the city.” The City of Indianapolis argued Areche was negligent per se for violating the scooter ordinance and was, therefore, contributorily negligent as a matter of law, thus barring his personal injury claim against Indianapolis.

Negligence arises from (1) a duty owed to the claimant/plaintiff, (2) breach of that duty by a failure to comply with the applicable standard of care, and (3) injury proximately caused by the failure. Negligence per se, which satisfies the second element, breach of duty, is the unexcused violation of a statute or ordinance if the statute or ordinance protects (1) the class of persons in which the claimant is included (2) against the type of harm that has occurred as a result of the violation. Importantly, while comparative fault applies to many Indiana lawsuits, for tort claims against governmental entities in Indiana, the common-law defense of contributory negligence applies, which bars any recovery when claimants have any fault at all.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the City of Indianapolis finding Areche negligent per se for violating the scooter ordinance and thus contributorily negligent as a matter of law, barring his claim. While not denying he violated the ordinance, Areche argued on appeal that (1) he did not owe any duty to himself, (2) he was not part of the class of persons the ordinance was meant to protect, and (3) he did not suffer the type of harm the ordinance was meant to protect.

The Indiana Court of Appeals quickly dispensed with Areche’s first argument. The Court noted that all claimants owe a duty of reasonable care to themselves—if that were not the case, no one could ever be contributorily negligent. As for Areche’s second argument, the Court found the ordinance protected, not only pedestrians, but also scooter operators, based upon the plain language of the ordinance and as a matter of common sense in protecting against foreseeable accidents. Lastly, the Court found the ordinance protected against the type of harm here, that is, a single scooter hitting a pothole (or any other obstacle such as a sign, bench, or stand) in the sidewalk, and not just the risk of harm occasioned by scooter-pedestrian collisions. 

Judge Scheele dissented with a separate opinion. He disagreed the ordinance protected against the type of harm Areche suffered: hitting a large hole with gravel while riding his electric scooter on the sidewalk. He felt the majority interpreted the ordinance too broadly to encompass a type of harm not contemplated by the ordinance. He distinguished foreseeable obstacles, like pedestrians, signs, benches, and stands, from the unforeseeable obstacle presented by the hole. 

You can read the full opinion here.

Barsumian Armiger Injury Lawyers advocates for clients in Indianapolis accident cases, including crashes and accidents involving motorized and electric scooters.

To prove negligence in Indiana, a plaintiff must show the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, and the breach proximately caused injuries to the plaintiff. Whether one party owes another party a duty is generally a question of law for the court to decide. If there is no duty owed by the defendant, there can be no breach and therefore no negligence. Although Moistner certainly owed Reece a duty under the rules of the road applicable to motorists, whether a landowner owes a motorist operating a vehicle on a public roadway presents an interesting question for auto accident attorneys and the courts.

Under well-established Indiana law, a landowner owes a duty to the traveling public to exercise reasonable care in the use of his property so as not to interfere with the safety of public travelers on adjacent roadways. Courts have, for instance, found a duty of care on behalf of a railroad when its employees started a fire that caused smoke to blow over a nearby road obstructing the view of motorists, on behalf of a manufacturing plant that created a congestion of vehicles exiting the plant resulting in a collision, and on behalf of a landowner whose tree fell on a roadway. However, there is generally no liability for harm caused outside land by a natural condition on the land, except for unreasonable risks of harm from trees in urban areas, and even with respect to artificial conditions, there is no liability except for the creation of hazardous conditions that intrude upon a roadway. Thus, there is no duty where the activity is wholly contained on a landowner’s property.

Here, the Court of Appeals found the alleged dangerous condition created by the tall grass on Tyson’s property was confined to the property, and therefore, Tyson owed no duty to travelers as a result of the grass growth. The Court also rejected Reece’s argument that Tyson assumed a duty of care, which can occur when one is negligent in undertaking to perform services for another because one of Tyson’s employees had mowed the grass for many years prior to retiring, which occurred two years before the incident. The Court noted there was no evidence the employee’s mowing was for motorists and in any case, the employee had ceased mowing when he retired and therefore was not undertaking to provide any services in the two years prior to the incident. Lastly, the Court rejected Reece’s argument that the trial court erred in two evidentiary rulings excluding an interrogatory response from Moister that was duplicative of other evidence and a part of Reece’s expert’s affidavit that was speculative given the testimony of a single eyewitness.

You can read the full opinion here.

“Do not hold or use your phone while driving in Indiana” is the new law in Indiana as of July 1, 2020. Under the law, a person operating a motor vehicle in Indiana may no longer hold or use their phone while driving unless that person has hands free or voice operated technology or is calling 911 to report a bona fide emergency. The new law, which went into effect July 1, 2020 and which can be found in Indiana Code § 9-21-8-59, provides as follows:

(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), a person may not hold or use a telecommunications device while operating a moving motor vehicle. (b) A telecommunications device may be used in conjunction with hands free or voice operated technology. (c) A telecommunications device may be used or held to call 911 to report a bona fide emergency. (d) A police officer may not, without the consent of the person: (1) confiscate a telecommunications device for the purpose of determining compliance with this section; (2) confiscate a telecommunications device and retain it as evidence pending trial for a violation of this section; or (3) extract or otherwise download information from a telecommunications device for a violation of this section unless: (A) the police officer has probable cause to believe that the telecommunications device has been used in the commission of a crime; (B) the information is extracted or otherwise downloaded under a valid search warrant; or (C) otherwise authorized by law. (e) The bureau may not assess points under the point system for a violation of this section occurring before July 1, 2021.

According to the recent statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more than 2,800 persons were killed, and 400,000 people injured, in 2018 alone due to distracted driving. Barsumian Armiger applauds the efforts of Indiana’s government to try and help save lives from distracted driving in Indiana.

An Indiana Officer’s Standard Crash Report must be completed by the investigating police officer when a car accident causes an injury or death or property damage greater than $1000. The most significant portions of the crash report for personal injury cases are the check-the-box section on contributing circumstances and the section where the officer is to provide a narrative/diagram of the incident.

The check-the-box section on contributing circumstances includes a variety of options for the investigating officer to list for the “Primary Cause” and for the other vehicle(s) involved. Options for the officer include such human factors as alcoholic beverages, illegal drugs, prescription drugs, unsafe speed, failure to yield, disregarding a signal, improper turning, using a cell phone, passenger distraction and pedestrian’s actions. Options also include mechanical factors such as brake failure, accelerator failure, tire failure, and tow hitch failure. Finally, the options include environmental factors such as glare, roadway surface, severe crosswinds, roadway construction, an animal or object in the roadway, utility work, or the view was obstructed. The primary cause is the officer’s strongest suspicion as to what caused the accident. Contributing factors are other issues that may have caused or contributed to the accident.

The narrative/diagram requirement of the report gives the officer a chance to explain the matter in more detail. Here the officer often lists the basis for the check-box conclusions, such as witness observations, skid-marks, gouge marks, damage, or other available information, assuming the officer was not an eyewitness, which does happen on occasion.

Although a police report stating that the other driver was the “primary cause” can go a long way to persuading a liability insurer or trucking company that their insured or driver will ultimately be found to be at fault in a legal case, it does not end the question as an evidentiary matter in a legal case. When it comes to an actual fault determination in a legal case, there is no check-the-box approach. The Indiana Code defines fault much more generally as follows:

IC 34-6-2-45 “Fault”

(a) “Fault”, for purposes of IC 34-20, means an act or omission that is negligent, willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional toward the person or property of others. The term includes the following: (1) Unreasonable failure to avoid an injury or to mitigate damages. (2) A finding under IC 34-20-2 (or IC 33-1-1.5-3 before its repeal) that a person is subject to liability for physical harm caused by a product, notwithstanding the lack of negligence or willful, wanton, or reckless conduct by the manufacturer or seller. (b) “Fault”, for purposes of IC 34-51-2, includes any act or omission that is negligent, willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional toward the person or property of others. The term also includes unreasonable assumption of risk not constituting an enforceable express consent, incurred risk, and unreasonable failure to avoid an injury or to mitigate damages.

Comparing the detailed options available to the police officer investigating a motor vehicle injury and the more general notions of legal “fault” leads many to wonder whether the officer’s more detailed findings in the report can simply be placed before the court or jury in the form of an exhibit. Indiana law, embodied by the hearsay doctrine, generally prohibits admission of the police report itself in most cases for the reason that, unless the officer was a witness to the accident, the officer’s conclusions were most likely based upon the statements of others.

Hearsay is an evidentiary doctrine that provides that a statement not made by the person testifying which is offered for the truth of the statement is not admissible unless it falls under an exception to the hearsay rule. One such exception is for public records. However, even though a police report is a public record, the exception itself provides that “investigative reports by police and other law enforcement personnel, except when offered by an accused in a criminal case” are not excepted from the hearsay rule. Some offering police reports into evidence in a case have argued that the report is yet admissible for the reason it involves a “routine, ministerial, objective nonevaluative matter.” The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected this argument in the 2014 case of Averitt Express, Inc. v. State of Indiana. The Averitt Court also rejected the argument that the officer’s affidavit opinion about the cause of the accident was admissible as an opinion of a skilled witness for the reason that a skilled witness opinion may not be based upon “information received from others or a hypothetical question.” As such, and as explained more thoroughly by the concurring opinion in Averitt, when an officer develops an opinion only from a post-accident investigation into the statements of others and is not otherwise qualified as an expert witness, the officer’s opinion as to causation will not be admissible.

In conclusion, a police report may be a likely indicator of how a case may play out in court. However, if a dispute arises over the conclusions in the report itself, there will be plenty of legal legwork to perform to prove up the case.

Under Indiana law, the amount of an automobile insurer’s subrogation claim for medical expenses paid on behalf of an injured party is diminished in the same proportion as a personal injury claimant’s recovery is diminished by comparative fault, or by reason of the uncollectability of the full value of the claim for personal injuries or death resulting from limited liability insurance. Ind. Code § 34-51-2-19. The amount of the automobile insurer’s subrogation claim is also reduced by a pro-rata share of the claimant’s attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. Id.

In this case, the personal injury lawsuit against the at-fault party was settled in the client’s favor. The client’s attorney and the automobile insurer were unable to reach an agreement as to the reimbursement amount due the automobile insurer from the personal injury settlement. More than two (2) years after the Indiana attorney and the automobile insurer reached an impasse and communication ceased between them concerning the medical payments subrogation lien, the automobile insurer filed a lawsuit in state court in Indiana against the Indiana attorney. While the trial court initially found in favor of the automobile insurer, the Indiana attorney appealed the decision, and the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court, finding in favor of the Indiana attorney based upon a two (2) year statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty.

You can read the full Indiana Court of Appeals decision here:

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08281801jgb.pdf.

Barsumian Armiger is a full-service personal injury and medical malpractice law firm with offices in Newburgh, Indiana, Evansville, Indiana and Fishers, Indiana, serving the greater Evansville and Indianapolis areas. Barsumian Armiger and its injury lawyers handle cases arising from car accidents, truck accidents, motorcycle accidents, defective products, premise liability, nursing home negligence, and medical malpractice. You can reach Barsumian Armiger by visiting its website at www.barsumianlaw.com or by calling (812) 490-0820.

If the cars collide, could you be found negligent for having given the courtesy wave? In Key v. Hamilton, the Indiana Court of Appeals explored this legal issue. Hamilton was seriously injured when his motorcycle struck a vehicle Key had waved through traffic. The trial court ruled that Key owed Hamilton a duty, determining that a jury should be allowed to decide whether Key had been negligent in extending a courtesy wave. The jury returned a verdict in Hamilton’s favor, finding Key was 45% at fault, the driver who Hamilton had waved through 50% at fault, and Hamilton 5% at fault. The jury found Hamilton’s damages to be $2.2 million and reduced this award after applying Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act to $990,000, entering judgment against Hamilton. Hamilton appealed.

The trial court found Key’s duty to Hamilton was grounded in a principle of law embodied by the Restatement (Second) of Torts 324A (1965). That legal concept provides that “[o]ne who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or (c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking.”

The Court of Appeals was mindful to note that Key had done more than merely waving the other driver through traffic. Key had left an opening, had looked into his rear-view mirrors, got out of his truck, stood on the doorsill and looked north before he finally waved and signaled it was clear.

In upholding the trial court’s finding that Key’s actions could be considered negligent, the Court of Appeals recognized that public policy “demands that we hold an individual responsible for the reasonably foreseeable results of his behavior; allowing an individual to escape liability for damage he causes would fly in the face of the normal expectations of our civil society.” However, the Court went to great pains to explain that the simple act of a “courtesy wave will never be sufficient to create a duty on the part of the signaling driver. It is only where a driver engages in such a thorough examination of traffic in order to ensure another driver’s safety and gives an “all clear” signal, as was the case here, that a duty can be found.”

The Court was not concerned with a dissenting judge’s opinion that there should be no duty because imposing a duty would lead to discourteous behavior on our roads and lessen the responsibility of signaled drivers. It noted its decision “will not generate liability for the courteous driver who, for example, allows someone to pass through an intersection with a four-way stop sign ahead of him.”

The dissent emphasized that “our neighbors in Ohio and Michigan–hold, as would I, that a signaling driver owes no duty to a third-party motorist because a signaling driver does not and should not share in the duty of the signaled driver to operate his vehicle in a safe manner and in accordance with all applicable law.”

After the smoke clears and you get sued for your role in waving the driver through, your insurance company hires an attorney to defend you. You ask her the question you have long wondered, “Can I really be sued for being courteous.” Your attorney looks you squarely in the eye and says in a very straightforward manner, “That depends.”

Until the Indiana Supreme Court has the final say, this thoughtful opinion by the Indiana Court of Appeals on unique facts provides some guidance in this otherwise murky area of the law.

If you have been injured in a traffic accident, your injury claim is time sensitive. You should allow ample time for an investigation into the circumstances and the persons who may be at fault for causing your injuries. Our office offers a free consultation for the injured.

If you found this article interesting or helpful, please feel free to like our Facebook page.

Commercial truck drivers have a duty to ensure the safety of their cargo and equipment. Federal regulations provide that commercial truck drivers must perform a safety inspection. No shipper can force a driver to accept a load the driver believes is unsafe. Nonetheless, a shipper may face liability if a defect in the load could not be uncovered by the driver through ordinary observation.

Careless loading and hauling of cargo and equipment can cause chipped paint, dents and broken windshields. However, sometimes serious and catastrophic injuries and even death can occur when a a vehicle is struck by unsecured cargo or equipment, such as a crane boom, or must leave the road to avoid such dangers. Because many companies and their insurers will seek to shift the blame to the victim for purportedly following too closely or not taking equally dangerous evasive maneuvers, the only recourse in such situations may be to seek a legal remedy.

If you or a loved one becomes a victim of a truck accident causing significant property damage or personal injury, it is important to document and safely photograph the location of the incident, damages caused and the offending cargo or equipment, exchange insurance information, and report the incident to the proper authorities. If the offending vehicle does not stop, try to safely obtain or photograph license plate and ownership information of the offending vehicle and report the incident to the authorities, owner and your insurer.

In addition to contacting your insurer, it is critical to pin down the precise manner in which the incident took place as soon as possible and to exercise your legal rights in a timely manner to avoid the loss of a civil remedy. An attorney experienced in motor vehicle negligence can help gather evidence, hire accident reconstruction, motor vehicle safety and electronic control module experts, and present your claim for settlement or file a civil action in a court of law if necessary.

The multi-vehicle accident happened around 6:30 p.m. on a Saturday evening. According to an initial assessment of the accident, a pickup truck was westbound and hit several cars that were at an intersection. Then, the same pickup truck is believed to have hit another vehicle that was southbound at the time, although there is no word for sure as to what exactly unfolded.

Authorities said a van was pushed over a curb and a red pickup truck was in the center of the intersection when the incident was assessed. Two vehicles were also said to be smashed together in front of a service station. The crash in being investigated, and four people were injured in the melee. There was no word as to exact nature or severity of any injuries suffered.

Once police or investigators get the full scope of what occurred, authorities may be able to definitively assign some form of culpability. The victims in these types of multi-vehicle car accidents may have to deal with mounting and unmanageable medical bills, rehabilitation bills, lost wages and damaged vehicles or property. If a victim pursues a personal injury case in an Indiana court room, that victim may be able to garner damages that will ease the financial strain the car accident and any resulting injuries may have caused.

Source: nwtimes.com, ” Four injured in six-car crash in Munster“, July 11, 2015

The accident occurred on a Sunday night as a man drove a Hummer through a red light. His vehicle struck another vehicle operated by a 32-year-old man. The victim suffered critical injuries as his vehicle was pushed into a ditch, causing him to be trapped in his vehicle until help arrived at the scene.

The driver of the Hummer left the scene. Witnesses said the Hummer was going roughly 80 mph. Police are currently working to track down the owner of the vehicle. The family of the man who was seriously injured have stated it hopes someone with information comes forward.

The critical injuries suffered in car accidents of this nature can lead to massive hospital bills, expensive rehabilitative therapies and can impact if or when a victim is able to return to work or even continue to work in a given field. When the authorities in Indiana are successful in tracking down the driver who caused this accident, the injured party will likely have legal recourse to file a personal injury suit against that individual. A suit of that nature could help the injured driver avoid financial ruin from mounting medical bills or other monetary losses sustained as a result of the car accident.

Source: fox59.com, ” Indianapolis man fighting for his life after hit-and-run crash“, Alexis McAdams, July 23, 2015

The accident occurred on a Sunday night, roughly around 9:30 p.m. A 61-year-old man was driving north on the highway. For some reason, his car drove left of the center line and hit another vehicle head-on. That vehicle was driven by the 57-year-old woman.

That woman was pronounced dead at the scene of the accident. The man who hit her vehicle was air lifted from the crash. He was being treated for serious injuries. There is currently an investigation into the accident, but police indicate they do not yet know if alcohol or drugs played a role in the car accident.

When head-on car accidents cause injury or worse to innocent drivers or passengers sharing the road, those injured parties have legal rights and may have cause to seek damages in an Indiana civil court. The woman who died in this tragic accident may have family who can pursue a wrongful death suit. Damages awarded in a successful wrongful death suit can help family left behind deal with funeral costs, medical bills or other expenses they have incurred due to the unexpected and negligent loss of a loved one.

Source: 14news.com, ” Coroner releases name of woman killed in Posey Co. wreck“, Sean Edmondson and Deanna Allbrittin, Aug. 3, 2015

The accident occurred just after noon on a Sunday. A 44-year-old man and his 32-year-old passenger were hit by a Pontiac. According to reports, the Pontiac driver was about to make a left turn onto another road. Then, that driver apparently pulled back into traffic upon realizing it was the wrong road; this lead to the collision.

The 44-year-old motorcyclist died at the scene of the accident. The passenger was transported to a medical facility by helicopter. The driver who hit the motorcycle suffered cuts on his hands and needed medical treatment also.

Once an investigation into car accidents of this nature is complete, victims who have suffered injuries or family members of victims who lost their lives have certain rights under the law. Those individuals affected by a car accident due to the recklessness or negligence of another may pursue damages in an Indiana civil court. For some victims, the successful pursuit of damages may be the only way to deal with mounting medical bills, the financial impact of lost wages and funeral costs for loved ones who were lost in an unexpected accident.

Source: fox59.com, ” Motorcyclist killed, passenger injured in crash with car“, Jim Scott, Sept. 13, 2015

The accident happened as a passenger car was headed westbound. That vehicle apparently pulled out in front of a motorcycle that was headed southbound. The collision occurred around 11 p.m. The intersection is regulated by stop signs on one road and none for the other road. The Honda was traveling on the stretch of road that contains the stop signs.

The motorcyclist was taken by ambulance to a nearby medical facility. That individual was reported to be in critical condition. The 18-year-old Honda driver was also transported by ambulance for treatment of injuries. Two passengers needed medical treatment; one was transported for care and another was treated and released at the scene of the accident. Authorities have said they are unable to rule out intoxication as a possible factor in the car accident.

Car accidents that result in critical injuries can lead to high medical bills, lost wages and other monetary losses for victims. The motorcyclist in this accident may have costly medical care and other financial consequences due to the critical injuries suffered. That individual and the other injured parties may be able to pursue claims for damages in an Indiana civil court by choosing to file personal injury claims against the driver who caused the car accident.

Source: wthr.com, ” Motorcycle driver critically injured in Noblesville crash“, Sept. 27, 2015

The first thing he recommends is conducting preventative maintenance inspection. While it is always a good idea to do this before heading out or a ride, it is particularly important when it has not been used for a period of time—such as during winter. Cables, mirrors, fluid levels, chain, brakes turn signals and lights should all be inspected both visually as well as operationally.

Next, riders should keep in mind that road conditions may have changed as a result of the winter. The cold temperatures can lead to pot holes and salt and sand may still be on the road. All of these factors can make travelling on these roads more perilous for motorcyclists.

As always, motorcyclists should be aware that they are often not seen by other drivers on the road. To compensate for that, wearing bright colors is a good idea. So too is operating the motorcycle with its lights on and in a defensive manner.

If a crash does occur, being outfitted in a helmet, clothing that covers one’s limbs and boots can help to mitigate the injuries suffered.

Following a motorcycle accident the immediate focus should of course be getting the necessary medical care. Individuals might also want to explore whether legal action is appropriate. A personal injury lawyer can be of assistance with that.

Living in a state with cold winters isn’t just an inconvenience for motorcyclists. It also makes the riding season more dangerous. Some motorcyclists get out of practice, and just as importantly, drivers of cars and trucks forget to keep an eye out for riders that they haven’t seen all winter. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration notes that across the United States, 62 percent of fatal motorcycle accidents occur between May and September.

Perhaps it is fitting, then, that May has been designated Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month in Indiana and other states. Various events and educational campaigns will be held throughout the month to prepare all motorists for the months ahead.

Motorcycle safety is a shared responsibility between motorcyclists and car/truck drivers. For their part, riders should take basic precautions like wearing a helmet and other appropriate safety gear. It’s also a good idea to take a formal training course in riding safety, even if you don’t think you need one. Certain studies have shown that nine out of 10 motorcycle accident victims taught themselves how to ride.

For other motorists, motorcycle safety is largely dependent upon motorcycle awareness. Too many injurious and fatal accidents occur each year because drivers of cars and trucks fail to keep a lookout for motorcyclists. Dangerous left turns, sudden lane changes and driving too close to motorcyclists can and do lead to serious accidents.

If you want to observe Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month, the easiest way to do so is to show others that you are willing to share the road. We all have to work together to prevent motorcycle accidents, and courteous driving/riding is a good start.

When police initially responded to the accident call, there was the impression that the motorcyclist simply lost control. Surveillance video has since been found and has cast the accident in an entirely different light. It is now believed that an SUV cut into the path of the motorcyclist and caused him to wreck the bike. That SUV then left the scene.

The 25-year-old motorcyclist died at the scene of the crash. The police are actively searching for the SUV that left him there. It is believed to be a white SUV, possibly a Chevrolet or GMC Tahoe, Yukon or Suburban. It is believed to have damage to the driver’s side rear taillight.

When the driver of the SUV is found, there is the possibility that criminal charges can be filed related to causing the car accident and leaving the scene. Regardless of whether criminal charges are filed and the outcome of the criminal court case, the man’s family members may still be able to pursue their own legal actions in an Indiana civil court. In car accidents in which one driver’s negligence caused the death of another, surviving family members have the right to pursue wrongful death compensation.

Source: indystar.com, ” Motorcyclist’s death ruled a hit-and-run“, Michael Anthony Adams, May 12, 2015

The accident occurred as a bus from a camp, filled with campers and counselors, was making a left turn. A motorcycle was traveling south at the same time. The bus hit the motorcycle, and the accident was called in to authorities just after 2 a.m.

The 38-year-old motorcyclist lost his life as a result of the collision. The bus driver and bus occupants were uninjured in the crash. While authorities stated weather may have played a role, possible factors such as alcohol, drugs or speed were being investigated at the time the accident made news. There was also a reconstruction team investigating the accident.

A bus can cause serious injuries as it is larger than most other vehicles on the road. Car accidents of this sort that result in the death of a motorcyclist can be devastating and leave a family with medical bills, funeral costs or other unexpected expenses. The family of the motorcyclist who died in this Indiana crash may have legal recourse to seek monetary damages in a civil court. If successful, those damages could help that family deal with those unexpected expenses as they mourn the loss of their loved one.

Source: journalreview.com, ” Motorcyclist dies in collision with bus“, June 21, 2015

The accident happened just after noon on a Friday. An 80-year-old man was behind the wheel of a Buick and was in the process of making a left turn. He reportedly drove into the path of a motorcycle that was being operated by a 32-year-old man.

The motorcyclist died from severe head trauma after being transported to an area hospital. The Buick driver was not injured in the crash. Toxicology tests were conducted but police do not think alcohol or drugs played a role in the accident. The investigation into the accident was said to be ongoing.

If the Buick driver is deemed culpable for the accident after an investigation, the family of the deceased motorcyclist can pursue civil action in an Indiana civil court. For those who have been victims in car accidents, this process may seem overwhelming but could prove quite beneficial. A successful civil suit can lead to the awarding of monetary damages that could help a victim or a family left behind deal with medical bills, lost wages, funeral costs or other expenses caused by a car or motorcycle accident.

Source: jconline.com, ” One dead after Friday crash on McCarty Lane“, Domenica Bongiovanni, July 4, 2015