Each issue, Claims CE provides several continuingeducation-based questions designed to test claim professionals ontheir knowledge of a particular topic. This is in an effort to helpeducate and inform adjusters and supervisors on appropriateclaim-handling techniques. For this edition, we take a look at AutoLiability Doctrines. Previous quizzes looked at the Homeowners 3--Special Form, AdjusterLicensing, and Ethics.

The question-and-answer format is meant to be general in natureand does not necessarily account for the differences in law andpractice in different venues. The authors of this question-answercolumn are not attorneys; content should not be construed as legaladvice for the unique circumstances of any particular claim.

Question #1: Driver has a Stroke

Jim, a 42-year-old man with no significant medical history, wasdriving his pickup truck downtown when he suddenly started shakingviolently. When Jim lost consciousness, his vehicle crossed thecenter line into the path of Jane, who was in the oncoming lane.Upon seeing the pickup, Jane quickly jerked her steering wheel andwas just barely able to avoid a head-on collision. However, Jane'svehicle jumped the curb and struck several individuals seated at asidewalk caf?. Damages from the accident included multiple injuriesand significant property damage to the caf? itself.

Who is responsible for the injuries to the patrons of thecaf??

A. Jim

B. Jane

C. Both drivers jointly

D. Neither driver

Click to the next page for the answer andexplanation!

Answer and explanation

The best answer is "d," neither driver.

Jim is likely free from liability for the loss due to his suddenincapacitation. Also known as a medical emergency, this doctrineholds that an individual is not liable for damages that result froma sudden incapacitation that was unforeseeable in nature. SinceJane was acting in response to a sudden emergency, it is unlikelythat she would be held liable for the injuries, either. Althoughthe outcome of this accident would be unfortunate for all partiesinvolved, it is unlikely that anyone would be held legallyliable.

Click the next page for Question 2!

Question #2: No Parking Zone

Ernie, the local town drunk, parked his motorcycle in front of afire hydrant in an area clearly marked as a no-parking zone. Theback end of Ernie's bike jutted out into the lane and obstructedthe flow of traffic in a grocery store parking lot. After loadingup her car with groceries, Amanda backed into Ernie's motorcycleand knocked it to the ground. While Amanda's car sustained minordamage to the rear bumper, Ernie's motorcycle had significantdamage along the entire left side. When the investigating officergave Ernie a ticket for illegal parking, he became very loud andirate and was subsequently arrested for public drunkenness anddisorderly conduct.

Assuming a pure comparative venue, who would be liable for thedamages in this loss?

A. Ernie

B. Amanda

C. Both Ernie and Amanda

D. Neither Ernie nor Amanda

Click to the next page for the answer andexplanation!

Answer and explanation

The best answer is "b," Amanda.

Even though Ernie is guilty of a parking infraction (among otherthings!), his vehicle was parked when the loss occurred and theproximate cause of the damage rests with Amanda. Amanda not onlyhad the last clear chance to avoid the loss, but also the losswould not have occurred at all if not for her inattention andimproper backing.

Click the next page for Question 3!

Question #3: Disputed Facts

While operating their vehicles, Rick and Marty collided in thecenter of an intersection. Both drivers had a stop sign; there wereno witnesses to the loss.

During the claim adjustment process, Rick's adjuster discoversthat Marty had two recent convictions pertaining to dishonest acts.Marty's adjuster asserts that criminal records here are irrelevant,that checking for them was an unethical breach of privacy, and thatthis is simply a matter of one person's word against another.

Assuming a pure comparative venue, who should pay for thedamages?

A. Marty's insurer only

B. Rick's insurer only

C. Both Marty's and Rick's insurer should pay 50 percent of theother party's damages

D. Neither insurer should pay for the adverse party'sdamages

Click to the next page for the answer andexplanation!

Answer and explanation

The best answer is "a," Marty's insureronly.

An individual must have a preponderance of evidence in order tobe able to collect any damages from another party. Although in thisgeneral type of fact scenario it is common for neither party toprevail, the issues pertaining to Marty's credibility add a furtherdimension here. If one party's testimony is deemed to lackcredibility, the other party's testimony may indeed constitute apreponderance of evidence even in the absence of corroboratingphysical evidence. It is important to note that criminal recordsare often a matter of public record; in any case, an adjuster cannormally check for such records without any adverse ethicalimplications.

Click the next page for Question 4!

Question #4: Grabbing a Soda

While traveling in opposite directions on a two-lane highway,two vehicles collided because one of them went left of center. Theinvestigating officer, who arrived at the scene five minutes afterthe loss occurred, could not determine fault based on the areas ofdamage to the vehicles or the debris in the roadway. Despite thelack of physical evidence, the officer wrote up his report toindicate that Erin was solely responsible because she told him thatshe was leaning over to pick up a soda on the passenger side floorand went left of center. Sydney, the other driver in the loss,stated that she never left her lane of travel.

During the claim adjustment process, Erin denied that she hadever admitted fault and placed the blame solely on Sydney. IfSydney sued Erin for damages, who would likely prevail?

A. Erin

B. Sydney

C. Neither driver

Click to the next page for the answer andexplanation!

Answer and explanation

The best answer is "b," Sydney.

Generally speaking, hearsay is the content of a statement madeby a party out of court. However, since Erin made her comments atthe scene of the accident while still under the stress andexcitement of the event, her words would likely be considered ares gestae statement and therefore constitute an exceptionto the hearsay rule.

Barrett Evans, CPCU, AIC, is a regional claims manager withInsurance House in Winston-Salem, NC. He is a certified NorthCarolina Property and Liability CE Instructor and may be reachedat [email protected],www.linkedin.com/pub/barrett-evans/18/93a/4a1.