jason
07-31-2007, 08:20 AM
http://www.onpointnews.com/070718.asp
Boy Hurt in Car Crash Wins $100K by Suing Parents
A Minnesota couple whose 3-year-old son suffered brain injuries in a car accident has won a $100,000 settlement from their auto insurer by having the child sue them for negligent installation of his car seat.
The Minnesota Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Teddy Harrison, now 9, finding that the state's “seat belt gag rule” does not apply to his suit against his parents. The child was thrown from his mother's SUV when it was struck by an uninsured motorist driving another vehicle in April 2001.
“[T]he plain language of [the gag rule exception] permits an action to be made against a child’s parents for negligent installation and maintenance of a child passenger restraint system,” the court said in a decision that required the Harrison family's insurer to settle Teddy's claim for the full limit of its policy.
Teddy sued his parents –- with their support –- to collect from Progressive Auto Insurance after settling a separate case against the manufacturer of his car seat. Progressive invoked the gag rule, which bars the introduction of any evidence of “the installation or failure of installation of seat belts or a child passenger restraint system” in auto accident cases.
Minn. Stat. § 169.685, subd. 4(a) –- one of the few laws of its kind in the country -- was intended to stop an at-fault driver from blaming the “innocent” party for not wearing a seat belt. At the time it was enacted in 1963, wearing a seat belt was optional.
An exception to the law allows an “action for damages arising out of an incident that involves a defectively designed, manufactured, installed, or operating seat belt or child passenger restraint system.”
According to Progressive, the use of the word “defectively” indicates that the exception only applies to products liability cases against designers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of car seats. But the Supreme Court rejected such a “limited, technical” interpretation, saying that “in general usage, 'defective' simply means 'faulty.'”
Justice Helen M. Meyer, writing for a 6-1 majority, also disagreed with the insurer that the ruling would encourage a glut of claims by minors trying to collect from their parents' policies.
“We agree with the court of appeals that 'not all litigation that involves the use of a child passenger restraint system also involves a claim that the child passenger restraint system was defectively designed, manufactured, installed, or operated,'” she said.
The dissenter, Justice Paul H. Anderson, said the word “'installed' in Minn. Stat. § 169.685, subd. 4(b), should not be read to include the installation of a car seat or a seat belt into a car by an end-use consumer—in this case Ted Harrison, Jr.’s parents. Instead, I conclude that subdivision 4(b) applies only to products-liability actions.”
Teddy's brain injuries left him a quadriplegic. The settlement from Progressive will go toward his medical care.
“This case was a test of the gag rule,” Teddy's attorney said. “Although it’s a highly unusual case, the only sound strategic legal recourse the family had was the one they pursued in order to ensure funds to provide the best quality of life for their child.”
By Matthew Heller
7/18/07
Boy Hurt in Car Crash Wins $100K by Suing Parents
A Minnesota couple whose 3-year-old son suffered brain injuries in a car accident has won a $100,000 settlement from their auto insurer by having the child sue them for negligent installation of his car seat.
The Minnesota Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Teddy Harrison, now 9, finding that the state's “seat belt gag rule” does not apply to his suit against his parents. The child was thrown from his mother's SUV when it was struck by an uninsured motorist driving another vehicle in April 2001.
“[T]he plain language of [the gag rule exception] permits an action to be made against a child’s parents for negligent installation and maintenance of a child passenger restraint system,” the court said in a decision that required the Harrison family's insurer to settle Teddy's claim for the full limit of its policy.
Teddy sued his parents –- with their support –- to collect from Progressive Auto Insurance after settling a separate case against the manufacturer of his car seat. Progressive invoked the gag rule, which bars the introduction of any evidence of “the installation or failure of installation of seat belts or a child passenger restraint system” in auto accident cases.
Minn. Stat. § 169.685, subd. 4(a) –- one of the few laws of its kind in the country -- was intended to stop an at-fault driver from blaming the “innocent” party for not wearing a seat belt. At the time it was enacted in 1963, wearing a seat belt was optional.
An exception to the law allows an “action for damages arising out of an incident that involves a defectively designed, manufactured, installed, or operating seat belt or child passenger restraint system.”
According to Progressive, the use of the word “defectively” indicates that the exception only applies to products liability cases against designers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of car seats. But the Supreme Court rejected such a “limited, technical” interpretation, saying that “in general usage, 'defective' simply means 'faulty.'”
Justice Helen M. Meyer, writing for a 6-1 majority, also disagreed with the insurer that the ruling would encourage a glut of claims by minors trying to collect from their parents' policies.
“We agree with the court of appeals that 'not all litigation that involves the use of a child passenger restraint system also involves a claim that the child passenger restraint system was defectively designed, manufactured, installed, or operated,'” she said.
The dissenter, Justice Paul H. Anderson, said the word “'installed' in Minn. Stat. § 169.685, subd. 4(b), should not be read to include the installation of a car seat or a seat belt into a car by an end-use consumer—in this case Ted Harrison, Jr.’s parents. Instead, I conclude that subdivision 4(b) applies only to products-liability actions.”
Teddy's brain injuries left him a quadriplegic. The settlement from Progressive will go toward his medical care.
“This case was a test of the gag rule,” Teddy's attorney said. “Although it’s a highly unusual case, the only sound strategic legal recourse the family had was the one they pursued in order to ensure funds to provide the best quality of life for their child.”
By Matthew Heller
7/18/07