Hitting an Illegally Parked Car

Posted on

To be “negligent” is to act (or fail to act) in a way that violates a duty you owe to another individual. In a situation where a driver hits an illegally parked car, both parties have been negligent. The parker had a duty to follow regulation and park the car in a legal spot to avoid danger; the driver had a duty to drive diligently to avoid such collisions. Since both parties are at fault for the collision, “comparative fault” or “contributory negligence” formulas are used to look at facts and circumstances leading up to a collision.

Who Is at Fault?

 

Comparative fault law allows the court to assess fault by apportioning negligence among multiple parties who share in the liability for the collision. Hitting a parked car is negligent; however, parking a car illegally is also negligent. That negligence may have been partial cause of the collision. The concept of comparative fault divides the total amount of damaged between the party who parked illegally and the driver who hit the parked car. The amount for which each party is liable depends on the proportion of fault for which each party is found liable.

 

Different states have different laws. In some states, contributory negligence is the law.

 

“Contributory negligence” is conduct on the part of the injured party that contributes to the negligence of the defendant in causing the injury or damage. The pure contributory negligence rule is a defense which says that a damaged party cannot recover any damages if even one percent at fault.

 

Missouri: Comparative Fault

 

In other states, like Missouri, comparative fault is the formula for assessing liability. The term “comparative fault” refers to a system of apportioning damages between negligent parties based on their proportionate shares of fault. Under a comparative fault system, a plaintiff’s negligence will reduce the amount of damages the plaintiff can recover based on the plaintiff’s percentage of fault. For example, if the injured party is found to be 10 percent liable for the incident, the defendant will only have to compensate the plaintiff 90 percent of the damages awarded.

Kansas: Modified Comparative Fault

 

Lastly, the remaining states (including Kansas) implement the modified comparative fault system. Under this system, each party is held responsible for damages in proportion to their own percentage of fault, unless the plaintiff’s negligence reaches a certain designated percentage (e.g., 50%). If the plaintiff’s own negligence reaches this percentage bar, then the plaintiff cannot recover any damages. So, for example, in the example above the plaintiff was 10 percent at fault and would be able to recover 90 percent of the damage award. However, if the plaintiff was found to be 60 percent liable, he or she would not receive any damages.

 

What to Do After an Accident

 

If you have hit an illegally parked car, contact an experienced car accident attorney today to discuss your options. Just because no one was in the car, does not mean you are completely at fault. Contact a Kansas City car accident attorney at the Krause & Kinsman Law Firm today for a free consultation.

Our Reputation

The Krause & Kinsman Law Firm is made up of some of the nation’s foremost legal minds in the mass-tort field. That’s why our clients & co-counsel partners choose us.

Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, and Co-Chair of the Law & Briefing Committee in MDL 2846:

In Re: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation

Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in MDL 2974:

In Re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation

Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in MDL 2924:

In Re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation

Along with the aforementioned MDLs,

Plaintiff’s Counsel has prosecuted thousands of cases across other Multi-District Litigations and Mass-Torts, including:

MDL No. 3043:

Acetaminophen ASD/ADHD Product Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2753:

Atrium Medical Corp. C-Qur Mesh Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2782:

Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation

MCL No. 627:

In Re: Physiomesh Litigation, MCL

MCL No. 633:

In Re: Prolene Hernia System Mesh Litigation

MDL No. 2750:

Cook Medical, Inc., IVC Filters Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2641:

Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2326:

In Re: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2606:

Benicar (Olmesartan) Product Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2666:

In Re: Forced Air Warming Devices Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2591:

Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation

MDL No. 2936:

In Re: Smity’s/CAM2303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

MCL No. 630:

In Re: Proceed Mesh Litigation

MDL No. 2543:

In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation

MDL No. 2004:

In Re: Mentor Corp. ObTape Transobturator Sling Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2187:

In Re: C. R. Bard, Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2325:

In Re: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2327:

In Re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 2387:

In Re: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation

MDL No. 251:

In Re: Neomedic Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation

Highly Awarded Trial Attorneys

The Krause & Kinsman Law Firm is one of the nation’s leading mass-tort & personal-injury law firms. The founding partners, Adam & Robert, have been selected to serve on steering committees for some of the largest pharmaceutical mass-tort cases.

Working With Us

Partnering with Krause & Kinsman is easy. When you partner with Krause & Kinsman, you can be sure that our mutual clients’ complex matters are handled with the utmost care and dedication. In addition to our top-notch representation, we will ensure our mutual clients receive frequent communication about the status of their cases.

Partner With Us

Why Us?

Recognized leaders in mass-torts with vast experience in complex litigation.

Your clients will appreciate the high-quality representation provided.

Your clients will consistently real-time updates on the status of their case via video, email, text, and phone.

Get real-time updates on the status of our mutual clients while their cases progress.

Collaborate on the case together and receive co-counsel fees.