Relationship of Both the Plaintiff and Defendant to the Accident Location Can Impact Legal Liability
The scene of an accident can not only reveal its causes and resulting legal liabilities to investigators, it also provides the legal basis for any future personal injury claims that may be pursued by the accident victim and his or her loved ones. For instance, someone who lives and works in Indianapolis but has an auto accident on Chicago’s Kennedy Expressway will have to seek justice under Illinois law based upon the Illinois accident site, even if they rarely cross the state line. This is because, absent special legislation, most personal injury accident claims are covered by the state law governing the site where the injuries happened. See, e.g., Work Injuries and On-the-Job Accidents in Indiana and Illinois With Federal Law Protections: FELA, Jones Act, LHWCA, DBA.
However, the circumstances surrounding accident site location can become much more legally complex, depending upon the legal bases for the injury claim. The extent of liability for an accident claim, for instance, may be determined by the state’s premises liability law.
Additionally, among these location complications are jurisdictional due process challenges that can be asserted by defendants such as Ford Motor Company in a recent Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision.
Location of the Accident: Challenges to Jurisdiction of the State Court
Last week, SCOTUS issued its opinion arising out of two consolidated cases based upon accidents in Montana and Minnesota, in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court et. al. (March 25, 2021).
In this vital new High Court precedent, the car maker failed in its attempts to use the location of two car crashes to avoid legal liability for their aftermath.
Read, “No Facebook Ruling Today – But Interesting Specific Jurisdiction Case Worth a Read,” published by the National Law Review on March 25, 2021.
These two cases were filed by accident victims who had been involved in severe motor vehicle accidents involving a Ford product. The Montana case was a wrongful death action alleging the fatal injuries sustained by Markkaya Gullett were caused by a malfunction in a 1996 Ford Explorer. The Minnesota case involved allegations by accident victim Adam Bandemer that he had suffered serious bodily injuries caused by a defective 1994 Ford Crown Victoria.
Ford failed in its attempts to have these two accident cases dismissed outright in an argument based upon location. Ford Motor Company argued that since it could not be proven by either accident victim that Ford had either designed, manufactured, or sold these vehicles in either Montana or Minnesota, the locations where these accidents occurred, then the state courts could not exercise jurisdictional power over the car maker.
Location was key to Ford’s argument. The company asserted that the location of the place where both the Cherokee and the Crown Victoria was designed, as well as where both motor vehicles were manufactured, was outside of Montana and Minnesota. Moreover, while Ford Motor Company had originally sold the two products, those initial sales were located in states other than Montana and Minnesota. “Only later resales and relocations by consumers had brought the vehicles to Montana and Minnesota,” Ford argued.
Nevertheless, SCOTUS ruled, “when a company cultivates a market for a product in the forum State and the product malfunctions there…” jurisdiction attaches. The location of the accidents allows the two victims’ claims to continue as filed in their respective state courts.
This new March 2021 SCOTUS decision makes it clear the accident site’s location can form the basis of a bodily injury or wrongful death claim under the state law of the state accident scene in a product liability case even if the manufacturer did not design, manufacture, or sell its product in the state where the particular vehicle was involved in the accident.
Location of the Accident and Premises Liability
Another critical aspect of the accident location is determining if the owner of that specific property site has a legal responsibility to answer for the accident and its damaging consequences. In both Indiana and Illinois, “premises liability” laws exist that can make business owners and operators, as well as home and condo owners, liable for an accident victim’s bodily injuries that are sustained on their property.
Invitee, Licensee, Trespasser
Generally, the state premises liability laws will consider the reasons for the accident victim being at that particular location at the time of the incident. For instance, Illinois lawmakers have passed the Illinois Premises Liability Act (740 ILCS 130) that defines three different types of victims who are hurt on property. Indiana’s jurisprudence also considers these three different kinds of accident victims to decide legal liability for the property owner.
1] Invitees
Invitees are accident victims who were on the location for the benefit of the property owner (e.g., customers, clients), and they are owed the highest duty of care by the owner and operator of that location. This is true in both Indiana and Illinois.
2] Licensees
Licensees are accident victims who are on the location with the property’s owner permission, usually for the benefit of both the licensee and the land owner. Examples of licensees include friends who are attending a party at someone’s home. Illinois places the same legal duty of care on property owners for licensees as for invitees. Indiana lessens the duty somewhat: licensees are owed a duty of care to be warned of hidden dangers and/or for hidden dangers to be fixed that the owner of the location knew about or should have known were there.
3] Trespassers
Trespassers are accident victims hurt on a location where they entered without authority or permission. They are on the location illegally at the time of the accident. Under both Illinois and Indiana law, the owner of that property location owes no duty of care to keep a trespasser safe other than not undertaking willful, intentional conduct that could likely harm the trespasser.
Justice for Accident Victims and Scene of Accident Location
In a wide variety of accidents, from on-the-job accidents to those injuries that happen in motor vehicle collisions, sporting events, or at home or work, the location of the accident itself may play a critical role in determining the legal recourse for that accident victim and their loved ones.
For instance, the new SCOTUS decision establishes the ability of an accident victim to file their injury claims in state court in a product liability lawsuit or defective products case even if the manufacturer did not sell, deliver, or manufacture the product in that state.
Additionally, the location of an accident may define the extent of liability for a particular property owner. If someone is a guest of a hotel or an employee at a plant or mill, they can expect a high duty of care to keep them safe at that location — whereas someone trespassing on those premises may have little if any expectation that the owner of the premises has any legal liability should they be hurt in an accident while illegally on the property.
For more, read:
- Liable for Drunk Driving Accidents in Indiana and Illinois: Social Party Hosts, Bars, Restaurants
- Duty of Businesses to Protect You from Active Shooter in Indiana or Illinois
- Fell Down, Seriously Hurt: Slip and Fall Accidents in Indiana and Illinois
- Roof Strength in Rollover Accidents: Deadly Risk of Roof Crush in Cars, Vans, SUVs, Pickups
- Car Crashes and Automated Car Technology: The Changing Focus of Auto Accident Claims in Illinois and Indiana
- Defective Car Parts – Liability for Fatal Crashes and Serious Injuries in Illinois and Indiana.
Accident victims and their loved ones may benefit from an investigation into the scene of the accident to determine how the location itself may impact their legal rights and remedies under state and federal law. Please be careful out there!
