<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <title>Indiana Injury Lawyer Blog</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/" />
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com,2007://54</id>
    <link rel="service.post" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=54" title="Indiana Injury Lawyer Blog" />
    <updated>2007-07-19T01:56:49Z</updated>
    
    <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 3.33</generator>
 
<entry>
    <title>Diminishment Statutes For Injury Cases</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/2007/07/diminishment_statutes.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=54/entry_id=3512" title="Diminishment Statutes For Injury Cases" />
    <id>tag:www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com,2007://54.3512</id>
    
    <published>2007-07-19T01:44:30Z</published>
    <updated>2007-07-19T01:56:49Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Indiana has two statutes which may diminish or reduce subrogation liens. The first is I.C. 34-53-1-2. This statutes deals with the reduction of a subrogation lien by the pro-rata share of attorney fees and costs of litigation. The second is...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Theodore F. Smith, Jr.</name>
        <uri>http://www.smithlaw.bz/</uri>
    </author>
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Indiana has two statutes which may diminish or reduce subrogation liens.  The first is I.C. 34-53-1-2.  This statutes deals with the reduction of a subrogation lien by the pro-rata share of attorney fees and costs of litigation.  The second is I.C. 34-51-2-19.  This statute mandates the reduction of a subrogation lien due to the comparative fault of the insured or by reason of uncollectability.  These two statutes are used often by Indiana attorneys to help maximize the recovery for their clients in personal injury cases.  If the case was resolved by settlement rather than by a jury trial and the fault allocation or damage amount is in dispute, the injured  party may file a declaratory judgment action against the lien holder in order to have the court make a judicial determination of the fault or amount of damages.</p>

<p>	The Indiana Supreme Court held in <em>Department of Pub. Welfare v. Couch</em>, 605 N.E.2d 165, (Ind. 1992) that I.C. 34-53-1-2 applied to cases in which the Welfare Department was asserting a lien.  This concept was reaffirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals in <em>Pedraza by Pedraza v. Grande</em> 712 N.E.2d 1007 (Ind.Ct. App. 1999). <br />
</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Fibromyalgia Often Misunderstood </title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/2007/05/fibromyalgia_often_misundersto.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=54/entry_id=1979" title="Fibromyalgia Often Misunderstood " />
    <id>tag:www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com,2007://54.1979</id>
    
    <published>2007-05-05T02:08:11Z</published>
    <updated>2007-05-05T02:21:28Z</updated>
    
    <summary>The conclusion by a Social Security Administrative Law Judge that fibromyalgia must not be a debilitating impairment when “practically all tests have been normal” is not an uncommon error. As Judge Chief Judge Posner wrote in Sarchet v. Charter, 78...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Theodore F. Smith, Jr.</name>
        <uri>http://www.smithlaw.bz/</uri>
    </author>
            <category term="Social Security Disability" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>The conclusion by a Social Security Administrative Law Judge that fibromyalgia must not be a debilitating impairment when “practically all tests have been normal” is not an uncommon error.  As Judge Chief Judge Posner wrote in <em>Sarchet v. Charter</em>, 78 F.3d 305, 306 (7th Cir. 1996), fibromyalgia is a:</p>

<p>“common, but elusive and mysterious, disease.  .  .  its cause or causes are unknown, there is no cure, and, of greatest importance to disability law, its symptoms are entirely subjective. There are no laboratory tests for the presence or severity of fibromyalgia. The principal symptoms are "pain all over," fatigue, disturbed sleep, stiffness, and--the only symptom that discriminates between it and other diseases of a rheumatic character--multiple tender spots, more precisely 18 fixed locations on the body (and the rule of thumb is that the patient must have at least 11 of them to be diagnosed as having fibromyalgia) that when pressed firmly cause the patient to flinch.”</p>

<p>Judge Posner also noted that the Administrative Law Judge in <em>Sarchet</em> exhibited a “pervasive misunderstanding of the disease” by “depreciate[ing] the gravity of Sarchet’s fibromyalgia because of the lack of any evidence of objectively discernible symptoms, such as swelling of the joints.”  </p>

<p>Some 11 years after the decision in <em>Sarchet</em> Administrative Law Judges still look, for "objective" signs and  symptoms when confronted  with a disability claimant who has  fibromyaliga.  Failing to find the requisite abnormalilties in tests, the claimant's disability clam is denied.  It is very important to help educate the Administrative Law Judge both before and during the hearing about the nature of fibromyaliga and the current state of  the law.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Defense Attorney&apos;s Arguments Constitute Misconduct</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/2007/04/defense_attorneys_arguments_co.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=54/entry_id=1635" title="Defense Attorney's Arguments Constitute Misconduct" />
    <id>tag:www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com,2007://54.1635</id>
    
    <published>2007-04-14T16:26:48Z</published>
    <updated>2007-04-14T17:18:41Z</updated>
    
    <summary>The Supreme Court of Nevada in the case of Lioce v. Cohen et al., 149 P3d 916 (Nevada 2006) held that the defense attorney&apos;s arguments based upon jury nullification, personal opinion regarding the justness of a plaintiff&apos;s case and invoking...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Theodore F. Smith, Jr.</name>
        <uri>http://www.smithlaw.bz/</uri>
    </author>
            <category term="Personal Injury" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court of Nevada in the case of <em>Lioce v. Cohen et al</em>., 149 P3d 916 (Nevada 2006) held that the defense attorney's arguments based upon <u>jury nullification</u>, <u>personal opinion regarding the justness of a plaintiff's case</u> and invoking <u>the golden rule argument</u> amounted to attorney misconduct.</p>

<p>In four different personal injury trials in Nevada, a defense attorney made similar arguments during the trial.  These arguments included an attempt at "jury nullification" [the Nevada Supreme Court defined jury nullification as "[a] jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness." Black's Law Dictionary 875 (8th ed. 2004).  Examples include arguments that these cases wasted taxpayers' money and jurors' time. The defense attorney also argued that the cases were examples of people "looking for an excuse to sue someone at the drop of a hat" and that society now believed that "Americans have become a society of blamers."</p>

<p>The Court also found that the defense attorney impermissibly injected his personal opinion about the justness of plaintiffs' causes when he said that he had "a real passion for [these] case[s] and cases like [them]," because these were the types of cases that cause people to be distrustful of lawyers and legitimate plaintiffs and lead to what the defense attorney argued was the public's negative perception of the legal system.<br />
 <br />
Finally, the Court ruled that the defense attorney's closing argument, which contained a statement to the jurors, "You send your son or daughter" to a friend's house, where he or she was injured, and questioned, "[D]oes that mean you just go out and sue[?]" (Emphasis added.) invited the jurors to make a decision as if they and their children were involved in his hypothetical situation-a situation that somewhat paralleled the scenario of the plaintiff's daughter's injuries. The Court found that this question indicated that the jury could make a decision based on the personal hypothetical designed to trivialize the daughter's injuries instead of deciding the case on negligence law and the evidence.</p>

<p>This case underscores the obligation of defense attorneys to defend cases based only on the evidence and the law.  The problem with defending against such unscrupulous tactics is the requirement of making timely objections to such argument.  Most trial lawyer do not wish to make objections during the trial.  This problem is actuated when the offending attorney makes repeated objectionable comments after an objection has been sustained.  In cases where the comments rise to the level of "plain error"  the Nevada Supreme Court created an exception of the need to object.  </p>

<p>One method to deal with this type of conduct is to address it within the context of  a motion in liminie prior  to trial.  In that way it is possible for the trial counsel and the court to be reminded of the rules before the "heat of battle".  </p>

<p></p>

<p> <br />
</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Third Party Spoliation Claims Still Alive Despite Recent Case</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/2007/04/third_party_spoliation_claims.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=54/entry_id=1488" title="Third Party Spoliation Claims Still Alive Despite Recent Case" />
    <id>tag:www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com,2007://54.1488</id>
    
    <published>2007-04-02T03:10:12Z</published>
    <updated>2007-04-02T04:07:22Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Despite the Indiana Supreme Court&apos;s recent decision in Glotzbach v. Froman, 854 N.E.2d 337 (Ind.2006), in which the Court held that there is no third party cause of action for spoliation against an employer of the injured party, Indiana still...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Theodore F. Smith, Jr.</name>
        <uri>http://www.smithlaw.bz/</uri>
    </author>
            <category term="Personal Injury" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Despite the Indiana Supreme Court's recent decision in <em>Glotzbach v. Froman</em>, 854 N.E.2d 337 (Ind.2006), in which the Court held that there is no third party cause of action for spoliation against an employer of the injured party, Indiana still recognizes the cause of action of third party spoliation cases.  The right of an injured party to bring claim for third party spoliation was first recognized by the Indiana  Court of Appeals in <em>Thompson v. Owensby</em>, 704 N.E.2d 134 (Ind.1998) <em>trans. denied</em>.  The <em>Thompson</em> case is particularly important to me because I was the attorney who argued before the Indiana Court of Appeals and then the Indiana Supreme Court that  Indiana Insurance Company, whose adjuster lost the dog leash which was the subject of a product claim, should be liable for Nicole's inability to prove her product claim against the manufacturer.</p>

<p>In <em>Thompson</em>, Nicole was severely bitten by a neighbor's dog as she rode her bike  down her street.  The dog had a history of being vicious.  That is the reason that his owners had leashed him inside a fenced yard.  The dog broke the leash, ran out of the fenced yard, onto the street and attacked Nicole.  Indiana Insurance Company, the insurer for the  dog owners, took control of the defective leash when it learned of Nicole's claim.  During the course of the investigation, it lost the leash.  We added the insurance  company to the tort action against the property owners and claimed that to the extent Nicole was unable to prove her case of a defective product against the manufacturer due to the fact that the product was no longer available, then the insurance company should be responsible for what Nicole's case would have brought had the absent leash were present.</p>

<p>The Indiana Court of Appeals found that there was a special duty on the part of the insurance company to preserve evidence.  To do so, the court found that there was a special relationship between the claimant and the insurance company, that the harm involved in loss of evidence was foreseeable and that the recognition of duty is consistent with Indiana's policy of accountability.  The court wrote "[liability insurance carriers are no strangers to litigation, and it strains credulity to posit in a motion to dismiss that a liability carrier could be unaware of the potential importance of physical evidence.."</p>

<p>The Indiana Supreme Court, has a 2-2 tie vote  on whether to accept transfer on Thompson. As a result, <em>Thompson</em> became the law in Indiana.  </p>]]>
        <![CDATA[<p>In <em>Glotzbach</em>, the Indiana Supreme Court considered whether to allow a third party claim for spoliation against an employer who lost critical evidence related to the injury.  The Court reviewed Thompson and declined to apply it to claims against employers.  This is not the first time that the Indiana Supreme Court has declined  to allow a third party claim against employer (see Murphy v. Target Products, 580 N.E.2d 687 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) <em>trans. denied</em>).  Despite some dicta within <em>Glotzbach</em> regarding the difficulty of proving a third party spoliation case, <em>Thompson</em> still remains  the law.</p>]]>
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Social Security Disability and Fibromyalgia</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/2007/03/fibromyalgia_and_social_securi.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=54/entry_id=1357" title="Social Security Disability and Fibromyalgia" />
    <id>tag:www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com,2007://54.1357</id>
    
    <published>2007-03-19T03:39:41Z</published>
    <updated>2007-03-21T19:23:08Z</updated>
    
    <summary>Fibromyalgia syndrome is a terrible disease that afflicts at least 5 million U.S. residents. It is characterized by chronic widespread pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance, stiffness, impaired memory and concentration, anxiety and depression. Even though the American College of Rheumatology recognizes...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Theodore F. Smith, Jr.</name>
        <uri>http://www.smithlaw.bz/</uri>
    </author>
            <category term="Social Security Disability" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Fibromyalgia syndrome is a terrible disease that afflicts at least 5 million U.S. residents. It is characterized by chronic widespread pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance, stiffness, impaired memory and concentration, anxiety and depression.  Even though the American College of Rheumatology recognizes the disease of fibromyalgia the Social Security Administration has been slow to accept it as justification to find a claimant disabled.</p>

<p>Chief Judge Posner of  the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court wrote in <em>Sarchet v. Charter</em>, 78 F.3d 305, 306 (7th Cir. 1996) that fibromyalgia could be the basis for an award of disability.  Judge Posner described fibromyalgia as a:</p>

<p>“common, but elusive and mysterious, disease.  .  .  its cause or causes are unknown, there is no cure, and, of greatest importance to disability law, its symptoms are entirely subjective. There are no laboratory tests for the presence or severity of fibromyalgia. The principal symptoms are "pain all over," fatigue, disturbed sleep, stiffness, and--the only symptom that discriminates between it and other diseases of a rheumatic character--multiple tender spots, more precisely 18 fixed locations on the body (and the rule of thumb is that the patient must have at least 11 of them to be diagnosed as having fibromyalgia) that when pressed firmly cause the patient to flinch.”</p>

<p>Judge Posner noted that "some people may have such a severe case of fibromyalgia as to be totally disabled from working.  .  .  but most do not and the question is whether Sarchet is one of the minority."</p>

<p>Without question, fibromyalgia is a disease which can have debilitating consequences.  It certainly can serve as the basis for a disabilty claim.  The question is how severe is the disease at the time a claimant is seeking disabilty.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Things to Do After an Accident</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/2007/03/in_addition.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=54/entry_id=1356" title="Things to Do After an Accident" />
    <id>tag:www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com,2007://54.1356</id>
    
    <published>2007-03-19T03:17:57Z</published>
    <updated>2007-03-21T18:54:45Z</updated>
    
    <summary> Call your insurance agent as soon as possible after an accident. Do not admit responsibility. Exchanging information and giving facts in not the same thing as admitting responsibility! you may think that you were responsible for the accident and...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Theodore F. Smith, Jr.</name>
        <uri>http://www.smithlaw.bz/</uri>
    </author>
            <category term="Glove Box Accident Handbook" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>  Call your insurance agent as soon as possible after an accident.</p>

<p>  Do not admit responsibility.  Exchanging information and giving facts in not the same thing as admitting responsibility!  you may think that you were responsible for the accident and later learn that the other driver caused it or that the other driver was equally at fault.</p>

<p>  See your doctor.  It is always wise to have a physical exam after an accident.  Your doctor may recognize injuries, sometimes serious, that are not apparent to you.</p>

<p>  Do not sign anything.  .  .  until you understand the full legal consequence of what you are doing.</p>

<p>  Call your lawyer.  The event of an accident has created certain legal rights and liabilities as to each driver. It is important that you know and understand what those are.  A lawyer will tell you not only what your rights and obligations are, but will tell you whether further legal help is needed on merited.</p>

<p>  If you are injured in an accident, never settle without talking with your lawyer.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Protect Yourself Before An Accident</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/2007/03/protect_yourself_before_an_acc.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=54/entry_id=1355" title="Protect Yourself Before An Accident" />
    <id>tag:www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com,2007://54.1355</id>
    
    <published>2007-03-19T03:05:08Z</published>
    <updated>2007-03-19T03:17:35Z</updated>
    
    <summary> Check with your auto insurance agent to make sure your insurance coverage is adequate (including uninsured and underinsured coverage). Buckle up! It&apos;s the law. Speed kills! Slow down. Check brakes and lights to make sure they work correctly. When...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Theodore F. Smith, Jr.</name>
        <uri>http://www.smithlaw.bz/</uri>
    </author>
            <category term="Glove Box Accident Handbook" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>  Check with your auto insurance agent to make sure your insurance coverage is adequate (including uninsured and underinsured coverage).</p>

<p>  Buckle up!  It's the law.</p>

<p>  Speed kills!  Slow down.</p>

<p>  Check brakes and lights to make sure they work correctly.</p>

<p>  When an accident happens, make sure you follow the requirements outlined in the Glove Box Accident Handbook.</p>

<p>  Be sure your children are secured in child restraints.<br />
</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Accident Which Causes Injury or Death</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/2007/03/accident_which_causes_injury_o.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=54/entry_id=1354" title="Accident Which Causes Injury or Death" />
    <id>tag:www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com,2007://54.1354</id>
    
    <published>2007-03-19T02:50:11Z</published>
    <updated>2007-03-19T03:00:54Z</updated>
    
    <summary>When an accident results in injury or death, each driver involved must: 1. Immediately stop as close to the accident scene as possible without obstructing traffic more than is necessary. 2. Remain at the scene until: a) the driver has...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Theodore F. Smith, Jr.</name>
        <uri>http://www.smithlaw.bz/</uri>
    </author>
            <category term="Glove Box Accident Handbook" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>When an accident results in injury or death, each driver involved must:</p>

<p>1.  <strong>Immediately stop</strong> as close to the accident scene as possible without obstructing traffic more than is necessary.</p>

<p>2.  <strong>Remain at the scene until</strong>: a) the driver has given his or her name and address and registration of the vehicle; b) if requested; the driver has shown his or her license to the driver or passengers of the other vehicle; and c) reasonable assistance has been given to each person injured in the accident including the removal, or making arrangements for removal, of the injured to a doctor or hospital.</p>

<p>3.  <strong>Notify the police immediately</strong>.</p>

<p>4.  <strong>File a report</strong> with the Indiana Bureau of  Motors Vehicles, PRF/Crash Report Section, P.O. Box 7169, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 within 10 days after the accident.  The written report can be  found at <a href="http://www.in.gov/icpr/webfile/formsdiv/52441.pdf">http://www.in.gov/icpr/webfile/formsdiv/52441.pdf</a></p>

<p>If the driver is physically incapable of reporting as required by law then the passenger of that vehicle must file the report.  If there is no passenger and the owner is someone other than the driver, the owner must file the report within 10 days after the accident.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Accident with an Unattended Vehicle</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/2007/03/accident_with_an_unattended_ve.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=54/entry_id=1353" title="Accident with an Unattended Vehicle" />
    <id>tag:www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com,2007://54.1353</id>
    
    <published>2007-03-19T02:42:34Z</published>
    <updated>2007-03-19T02:48:51Z</updated>
    
    <summary>When an accident occurs with an unattended vehicle, the driver must: 1. Immediately stop as close to the accident scene as possible without obstructing traffic more than is necessary. 2. Locate and notify the owner or driver of the vehicle...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Theodore F. Smith, Jr.</name>
        <uri>http://www.smithlaw.bz/</uri>
    </author>
            <category term="Glove Box Accident Handbook" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>When an accident occurs with an unattended vehicle, the driver must:</p>

<p>1.  <strong>Immediately stop</strong> as close to the accident scene as possible without obstructing traffic more than is necessary.</p>

<p>2.  <strong>Locate and notify the owner or driver</strong> of the vehicle of the name and address of the driver and owner of  the vehicle striking the unattended vehicle.</p>

<p>3.  <strong>Leave in a conspicuous place</strong> on the vehicle which was struck, a written notice giving the name and address of the driver and the owner of  the vehicle mentioned above.  In the note, include an explanation of how the accident happened.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Property Damage Other Than Vehicle</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/2007/03/property_damage_other_than_veh.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=54/entry_id=1352" title="Property Damage Other Than Vehicle" />
    <id>tag:www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com,2007://54.1352</id>
    
    <published>2007-03-19T02:30:47Z</published>
    <updated>2007-03-19T02:39:37Z</updated>
    
    <summary>When an accident results in damage to something other than another vehicle, the driver must: 1. Immediately stop as close to the accident scene as possible without obstructing traffic more than is necessary. 2. Remain at the scene until: a)...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Theodore F. Smith, Jr.</name>
        <uri>http://www.smithlaw.bz/</uri>
    </author>
            <category term="Glove Box Accident Handbook" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>When an accident results in damage to something other than another vehicle, the driver must:</p>

<p>1. <strong> Immediately stop</strong> as close to the accident scene as possible without obstructing traffic more than is necessary.</p>

<p>2.  <strong>Remain at the scene until</strong>: a) the driver has taken reasonable steps to locate and notify the owner or person in change of the property that is damaged;  b) the driver has given that person his or her name, address and registration; and c) if requested, the driver has shown his or her license to the person.</p>

<p>If the driver cannot find the owner or a person in charge of the property, then the driver must notify either the Sheriff or a member of the State Police Department and give them the information outlined above.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>
<entry>
    <title>Vehicle Property Damage</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/2007/03/vehicle_property_damage.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=54/entry_id=1331" title="Vehicle Property Damage" />
    <id>tag:www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com,2007://54.1331</id>
    
    <published>2007-03-17T22:50:53Z</published>
    <updated>2007-03-19T02:29:12Z</updated>
    
    <summary>When an accident does not result in injury or death, but does cause damage to a vehicle, each driver involved must: 1. Immediately stop as close to the accident scene as possible without obstructing traffic more than is necessary. 2....</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Theodore F. Smith, Jr.</name>
        <uri>http://www.smithlaw.bz/</uri>
    </author>
            <category term="Glove Box Accident Handbook" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.indianainjurylawyerblog.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>When an accident does not result in injury or death, but does cause damage to a vehicle, each driver involved must:</p>

<p>1.  <strong>Immediately stop</strong> as close to the accident scene as possible without obstructing traffic more than is necessary.</p>

<p>2.  <strong>Remain at the scene until</strong>: a) each driver has exchanged names and addresses and vehicle registrations; and b) if requested, the driver has shown his or her license to the driver or passengers of the other vehicle.</p>

<p>3.  <strong>Send a written report</strong> to the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, PRF/Crash Report Section, P.O. Box 7169, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 within 10 days after the accident, if the accident, if the accident results in total property damage of at least $1,000.  The written report can be  found at <a href="http://www.in.gov/icpr/webfile/formsdiv/52441.pdf">http://www.in.gov/icpr/webfile/formsdiv/52441.pdf</a></p>

<p>While $1,000 in property damage may seem like a lot, it is not.  Often times it is hard to decide, particularly after just having been involved in a crash, whether the damage it $1,000.   I believe that it is better to error on the side of caution and report the accident if there is any property damage.  If there is any question, call the police to the scene!</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

</feed> 

