Car Crash Conundrum

[Drew1776]

So I’m in a position I haven’t been in before and I’m not quite sure what principle I should follow. At this point I’m interested in the principle (not the law necessarily).

The pertinent facts:

Recently my wife got into a car crash. A young driver pulled out right in front of her and she T-boned him at 35-40mph. He then fled the scene though the cops caught up with him. Thankfully, my wife wasn’t seriously injured. We did go to the hospital so she could get checked out because her neck hurt and she had a headache. The car was worth ~$5,000 and will likely be totaled. Now my question is what recompense should be sought from the antagonist?

Clearly he’ll have to pay the value of the car and associated medical bills but what about something over that?

On one hand, assuming we may obtain the “value” of the car it likely wouldn’t be enough to buy a replacement used car. We knew how this car ran it was doing just fine and I’m doubtful we’ll be able to find an equal replacement for the price. If we did find the exact car for the same price there are no guarantees. It could break down a year later and we weren’t in the market for a new used car. So now we’re going to have to jump through some hoops and take on extra risk (dealing with an unknown car). We were placed in this position by a careless driver. Given all this I think the other driver has the obligation to make us “whole” and I don’t think that would occur if we only received the value of the car plus other discreet bills.

Another way of looking at it is that he wrecked a car of X value and caused bills of X value so that is all he should have to pay.

My specific questions are:

Should the antagonist be on the hook for discreet monetary looses (medical bills, towing, value of car, etc.) or for these discreet costs plus something extra?

If you agree with the second option how would one quantify in dollar terms that extra amount?

The reason why I ask is several people have suggested looking into a lawyer to ensure we can recoup our losses. I’m having trouble figuring out the proper moral course of action.

[TuringAI]

So I’m in a position I haven’t been in before and I’m not quite sure what principle I should follow. At this point I’m interested in the principle (not the law necessarily).

The pertinent facts:

Recently my wife got into a car crash. A young driver pulled out right in front of her and she T-boned him at 35-40mph. He then fled the scene though the cops caught up with him. Thankfully, my wife wasn’t seriously injured. We did go to the hospital so she could get checked out because her neck hurt and she had a headache. The car was worth ~$5,000 and will likely be totaled. Now my question is what recompense should be sought from the antagonist?

Clearly he’ll have to pay the value of the car and associated medical bills but what about something over that?

On one hand, assuming we may obtain the “value” of the car it likely wouldn’t be enough to buy a replacement used car. We knew how this car ran it was doing just fine and I’m doubtful we’ll be able to find an equal replacement for the price. If we did find the exact car for the same price there are no guarantees. It could break down a year later and we weren’t in the market for a new used car. So now we’re going to have to jump through some hoops and take on extra risk (dealing with an unknown car). We were placed in this position by a careless driver. Given all this I think the other driver has the obligation to make us “whole” and I don’t think that would occur if we only received the value of the car plus other discreet bills.

Another way of looking at it is that he wrecked a car of X value and caused bills of X value so that is all he should have to pay.

My specific questions are:

Should the antagonist be on the hook for discreet monetary looses (medical bills, towing, value of car, etc.) or for these discreet costs plus something extra?

If you agree with the second option how would one quantify in dollar terms that extra amount?

The reason why I ask is several people have suggested looking into a lawyer to ensure we can recoup our losses. I’m having trouble figuring out the proper moral course of action.

There are non enumerated costs to consider, such as the cost of your time, the cost of the worry, and so on. I'd say go over, but also use sound judgment in determining how much more it is just to have him pay. The dollar cost in retributive cases should reflect the difference in your life that the event has made, not just how much of that difference exists in the form of exchangeable goods.

[DavidOdden]

So I’m in a position I haven’t been in before and I’m not quite sure what principle I should follow.

The principle is that you should be restored to your original position, or its closest approximation.

The car was worth ~$5,000 and will likely be totaled. Now my question is what recompense should be sought from the antagonist?

If you're interested in the principle and this isn't just a practical or a legal question, determine what the car was really worth. What I mean is, don't assume that whatever they declare the insurance value to be is the actual value. What would it cost to replace the car with a "basically identical" vehicle? Shop the want ads for the same make and model and general condition, and talk to car professionals. Ideally, the test would be "If I offered you $N for your car, at what lowest value of N would you sell it to me?", but of course you can't do that test now. The obvious problem is finding a "basically identical" vehicle, since you probably don't know how many more years of life the shocks had, when the starter was doomed to fail etc.

Given all this I think the other driver has the obligation to make us “whole” and I don’t think that would occur if we only received the value of the car plus other discreet bills.

I think you're right.

Should the antagonist be on the hook for discreet monetary looses (medical bills, towing, value of car, etc.) or for these discreet costs plus something extra?

In principle that is wrong (that is, it looks like you're profiting). The problem stems from the computation of your loss. If you've treated your car well and your car was in above-average shape, you will take a loss since compensation is aimed at the average, and because the higher risk of getting a worse car (with negligible chance of getting a better car). If you could document particular facts about the car to show that it was objectively worth more than the 5K that the books suggest, that would be a basis for "something extra", but that isn't really extra, it is a correction in an otherwise automatic calculation of your loss.

Imagine that you had really beat the car up and it was in much worse shape than most others of that make and model; then the standard payment would be measurably higher than the objective value of your particular car. Would you still want "something extra" if you were being overpaid? If you do, then I think you're looking for punishment and not restoration.

[gags]

Would you still want "something extra" if you were being overpaid? If you do, then I think you're looking for punishment and not restoration.

Let's assume that his wife had lasting injuries that continued to affect her quality of life, say ongoing headaches for example. Would she be entitled to Hedonic damages?

[DavidOdden]

Let's assume that his wife had lasting injuries that continued to affect her quality of life, say ongoing headaches for example. Would she be entitled to Hedonic damages?

Yes; I was assuming that it was clear that there were no significant physical injuries or long-term effects. I didn't mention inconvenience either (translatable into cash if you have to rent a replacement car). A lawyer could be useful, but he might just say that it will be difficult to get the insurance company to budge too far in your (his) direction.

[gags]

I wonder how far one goes with damages that are difficult to objectively determine and may be highly dependent on the individual? We're moving beyond principles here into the practical difficulties associated with quantifying the monetary value of the enjoyment of life. Not an easy thing to do.

[John Link]

Given all this I think the other driver has the obligation to make us “whole” and I don’t think that would occur if we only received the value of the car plus other discreet bills.

This isn't what you asked about but you misused the word "discreet" twice in your post so I hope you find this useful (from www.dictionary.com):

Discreet: judicious in one's conduct or speech, esp. with regard to respecting privacy or maintaining silence about something of a delicate nature; prudent; circumspect.

Discrete: apart or detached from others; separate; distinct.

I think a more appropriate word would be "specific". Or maybe just eliminate "discreet". Good luck getting compensated.

John Link

Edited March 31, 2009 by John Link

[DavidOdden]

I wonder how far one goes with damages that are difficult to objectively determine and may be highly dependent on the individual?

The difficulty, I think, arises from the prevailing legal rule. All objective determinations of outcome under the law should involve the objective application of a rule to the facts of an individual case. For example if there is a rule that says "plaintiff may recover in the amount of actual replacement cost", the amount of the award is dependent on the individual facts. The non-legal principle ("make the plaintiff whole") is, IMO, the correct abstract concept, but relating that to a concrete legal rule ("amount of actual replacement cost" or whatever may be the case) is the hard part. You have distinguish "how far one goes" from "how far one is allowed to go"; I don't think one should be overly cautious in reaching for the moral principle of making yourself whole. The courts will / should correct you if you are mistaken about what constitutes making yourself whole.

[Space Patroller]

There are non enumerated costs to consider, such as the cost of your time, the cost of the worry, and so on. I'd say go over, but also use sound judgment in determining how much more it is just to have him pay. The dollar cost in retributive cases should reflect the difference in your life that the event has made, not just how much of that difference exists in the form of exchangeable goods.

Get what you can. If the dufus had been minding the store then he'd not be in the fix. the fact that he fled just adds to the appearance of malice and certainly is irresponsible. Getting whacked for a princely sum may teach the dumb schmuck a lesson that will stick. Ayn Rand said. "The aggressor is responsible for the consequences of his action" and the consequences here were life-threatening so he's all yours.

[DavidOdden]

"The aggressor is responsible for the consequences of his action" and the consequences here were life-threatening so he's all yours.

I assume then that you agree with the $2.86 million jury award in Liebeck v. McDonalds.

[JMeganSnow]

Get what you can. If the dufus had been minding the store then he'd not be in the fix. the fact that he fled just adds to the appearance of malice and certainly is irresponsible. Getting whacked for a princely sum may teach the dumb schmuck a lesson that will stick. Ayn Rand said. "The aggressor is responsible for the consequences of his action" and the consequences here were life-threatening so he's all yours.

That's just disgusting. Personally, I have no problem with objective compensation based on objective values (i.e. bills). This is what I got when I broke my arm at work. They sent me to a doctor and paid my bills (minor given the injury). I got a (paid) day off because my arm was hurting a bit at first, and then they found me non-strenuous work to do until the doctor cleared me to return to my regular tasks. That was plenty of compensation for me--these things happen. I, frankly, view it as a bit of luck that I didn't slip and break my arm at *HOME* where I'd be the one having to find money to pay for it.

Generally, in car accidents, the same paradigm applies. Someone pulled out in front of you? Did you slam on the brakes and reduce the damage? Did you steer into the other vehicle so you weren't hitting them head-on? Or did you panic and inadvertently make things worse? I've failed to be in accidents MANY times because I'm good about surveying the situation and knowing whether someone's about to pull out in front of me. Good judgment and good reflexes have prevented me from getting sideswiped on the highway when someone shifted lanes directly into my car. This is also why I don't have a lot of patience for people who claim that they're at the "mercy" of other idiots on the road.

It is rare when anyone can make the claim that they did absolutely nothing that contributed to the gravity of the situation. Dealing with inconveniences caused by the confusion/panic of self and others is part of the price we pay for living in society. We don't get compensated for inconvenience--otherwise I'd be suing someone every time the police block half the road pulling someone over and make me late for work.

Edit: Inconvenience that can't be objectively valued, that is. If it's a major-enough inconvenience that you can actually attribute a direct monetary value to it (instead of an ephemeral "maybe we won't be able to get a car that will be as reliable as the one we had"), you can seek compensation. Otherwise, get over it. That makes me think that maybe you can request compensation for tax, title, and registration of new vehicle, though--that's certainly an expense you wouldn't have had. Could you logically request additional compensation if your insurance rates go up (since you're legally required to have a certain amount of insurance). Things like THAT would make sense to me and might cover you for the additional expense of replacing the vehicle.

Edited March 31, 2009 by JMeganSnow

[K-Mac]

Well, think of it this way...the kid is paying essentially nothing, less his inevitably higher insurance premiums. The more claims there are, the more we all pay in premiums. Keeping that in mind should keep people in check when making reasonable/legitimate insurance claims. We all pay for the "get what you can" excessive claims.

It is difficult when an older, reliable car gets damaged. My father had a 12 year old El Camino (and it was so cool) back in the early 90s. He kept in in immaculate condition and loved that car. When someone wrecked it, the insurance company wanted to give him $500 for it. (The blue book value.) We didn't have much money and my dad knew he could not replace that car for $500. Somehow, he ended up getting $2000 for it, which was enough to put down on a reliable used car and he had some small, short term car payments. No, he didn't get his cool El Camino back, but he got more than it was technically worth and was able to get on with his life. (And, there was no guarantee his El Camino wouldn't have broken down a day, a week or a year later...that's a risk you take when you drive an older car.)

Anyway, my point is, the insurance company did take into consideration that he could not replace the car with only the $500 it was actually worth, so I think there is some hope for you getting what you need. Unfortunately, I was in high school and not in on the details of how they got the claim increased, but basically, if the insurance company is not meeting your reasonable demands, get a lawyer.

[intellectualammo]

Recently my wife got into a car crash. A young driver pulled out right in front of her and she T-boned him at 35-40mph. He then fled the scene though the cops caught up with him. Thankfully, my wife wasn’t seriously injured. We did go to the hospital so she could get checked out because her neck hurt and she had a headache. The car was worth ~$5,000 and will likely be totaled. Now my question is what recompense should be sought from the antagonist?

Do you have liability? You can try to sue if something medical or other wise could be found as being caused by the accident.

About six or seven years ago, my ex wife was driving one of our vehicles to a nursing home where she worked at, and was hit at about the same speed your wife was, but it was judged to be 80% my ex-wife's fault. Our truck suffered a little bit above $9,000.00, the truck bed dropped, wheel came off, frame bent, all the sand bags we had in the bed flew out into a Ski shop's lot across the road from where she worked. It was a mess, but it wasn't enough to consider the truck as being totalled. Now, at the time she and I were trying to have a baby, planting the seeds in the garden of marriage, and so when I took her to the hospital to be checked out, they ran all kinds of tests, including a pregnancy one. Luckily she wasn't hurt, just shaken up considerably, and had aches and pains, that often come hours afterwards, or the next days following an accident. All that was covered under car insurance, if I remember right, according to her. Now, I would think that if something happened majorly to her, something that could effect her lifestyle, or whatnot, if you have liability you can sue, find an atty, etc. But luckily we did not have to go that far. I wonder if you can sue even if you don't have liability? I really don't know much about it, actually. I guess it would be like getting a settlement for what happened or something.

Clearly he’ll have to pay the value of the car and associated medical bills but what about something over that?

Insurance will pay for that if he is insured and depending on the coverage he has, might have to pay deductible or more if police issue citations, or if you sue, etc. Contacting insurance about it and an atty would certainly aid in this area.

Edited March 31, 2009 by intellectualammo

[intellectualammo]

Do you have liability?

I should have said "tort" (full or limited) not liability. Also insurance policies have a limit on the amount they pay out for accidents (injury to car and/or people involved). If sued, I guess one would have to pick up the rest of the amount somehow, if it's over the limit. I don't know how it works too well (obviously).