MINNESOTA TRUCK CRASH LAW OVERVIEW

Transcription

1 The TLG State Survey Project was edited and compiled by JJ Burns. If this particular document requires an update, addition or modification, please contact him at or (816) MINNESOTA TRUCK CRASH LAW OVERVIEW Peter J. Kestner McEwen & Kestner, PLLC 5854 Blackshire Path Inver Grove Heights, MN (651) The Basics a. Statutes of Limitations and Required Notices. i. Injuries not resulting in death: 6 years. Minn. Stat (10). ii. Wrongful death: within three (3) years of after the date of death provided that the action must be commenced within six years after the act or omission. Minn. Stat iii. Claims against state entities: Generally the above stated limitations will apply. However, there is requirement that a party seeking tort damages for personal injury from the state or any municipality deliver a notice to the state or municipality within 180 of the occurrence of the injury. Minn. Stat ; Minn. Stat , Subd. 1. The time for giving notice does not include the time during which the person injured is incapacitated due to the injury. Id. The notice provided to the state or municipality needs to include the time, place and circumstances of the injury, the names of any municipal employees known to be involved, and the amount of compensation or other relief demanded. Id. In a wrongful death case the notice provided to the municipality must be provided within one (1) year after the injury or loss resulting in death. Minn. Stat , Subd. 6; Minn. Stat , Subd. 2. However, if the person for whose death the claim is made presented a notice that would have been sufficient had the person lived an action for wrongful death may be brought without any additional notice. Id. iv. Commencement of an action occurs when the Defendant is served with a Summons and Complaint in compliance with the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedures or other statute. Doerr v. Warner, 76 N.W.2d 505, 511 (Minn. 1956). b. Mechanics, Procedures and Damages Under the Wrongful Death Statute. Minnesota s wrongful death statute can be found at Minn. Stat Minn. Stat provides that all personal injury claims, except those allowed by Minn. Stat die with the injured person. Minn. Stat allows for the trustee to bring suit seeking damages for pecuniary loss resulting from the death, proportionate to the pecuniary loss suffered by the surviving spouse and 1

2 next of kin as a result of the death. Pecuniary includes the value of the loss of counsel and guidance, advice, comfort, assistance, and protection the decedent would have provided had he or she survived. Cummins v. Rachner, 257 N.W.2d 808, 814 (Minn. 1977). Pain and suffering damages are not recoverable in a wrongful death action, even if the action started as a personal injury claim and the injured party dies while the personal injury claim is pending. Beaudry v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 518 N.W.2d 11, 12 (Minn. 1994). Where the injured party dies from a cause unrelated to the injuries, the trustee can maintain an action for special damages incurred by the decedent. Minn. Stat , Subd. 2. The wrongful death claim is brought by the trustee appointed as provided in subdivision 3 who may maintain an action therefor if the decedent might have maintained an action, had the decedent lived, for an injury caused the wrongful act or omission. Minn. Stat , Subd. 1. The trustee for the next of kin of the decedent is appointed by a district court upon filing the filing of a written petition by the party seeking to act as trustee. Minn. Stat , Subd. 3. In a wrongful death proceeding, the person, or persons, authorized to bring an action for wrongful death are court appointed trustees. Minn. Stat Because of this, before the wrongful death claims can be settled, the district court which appointed the trustees must approve the settlement pursuant to Minn. Stat. 501B.24. c. Joint and Several Liability. A defendant is only jointly and severally liable for all damages if that defendant is more than 50% responsible for the crash, where the defendant was part of two or more persons acting in a common scheme or plan that results in injury, or where the defendant commits an intentional tort. Minn. Stat d. Comparative Fault. Minnesota follows modified comparative fault rules. Contributory fault does not bar recovery unless the plaintiff s comparative fault is greater than the fault of the person against whom recovery is sought. Minn. Stat , Subd. 1. However, even where the plaintiff s comparative fault is less than the person against whom recovery is sought, any damages allowed to the plaintiff must be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributed to the plaintiff. Id. Generally where there is more than one defendant the plaintiff can recovery only from those defendants whose fault exceeds the fault attributed to the plaintiff. Cambren v. Sioux Tools, Inc., 323 N.W.2d 795, 798 (Minn. 1982). e. Availability of Direct Claim Against Employer When Employer Admits Scope of Employment. Minnesota does not follow the rule that once an employer admits the existence of an agency relationship with an employee it is no longer proper to allow a plaintiff to pursue other theories of derivative or dependent liability. Courts will allow an injured party to proceed under other theories of recovery in addition to vicarious liability. Lim v. Interstate Sys. Steel Div., Inc., 435 N.W.2d 830, (Minn Ct. App. 1989); Jones v. Fleischhacker, 325 N.W.2d 633, 640 2

3 (Minn. 1982). f. Punitive Damages. Punitive damages shall be allowed in civil actions only upon clear and convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others. Minn. Stat , Subd. 1. A defendant acts with deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of others if the defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the rights or safety of others and: (1) deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high degree of probability of injury to the rights or safety of others; or (2) deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the rights or safety of others. Punitive damages are allowed in a wrongful death case as in any other civil case. Minn. Stat , Subd. 1. A master or principal can be held vicariously liable for punitive damages only if the four following qualifications are present: (a) the principal authorized the doing and the manner of the act; (b) the agent was unfit and the principal deliberately disregarded a high probability that the agent was unfit; (c) the agent was employed in a managerial capacity with authority to establish policy and make planning level decisions for the principal and was acting in the scope of that employment; or (d) the principal or a managerial agent of the principal, described in clause (c), ratified or approved the act while knowing of its character and probable consequences. Minn. Stat , Subd. 2. Generally, punitive damages are not insurable, even if the policy of insurance purports to cover the award of punitive damages. See Wojciak v. Northern Package Corp, 310 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. 1981); Perl v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 345 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 1984); Rosenbloom v. Flygare, 501 N.W.2d 597 (Minn. 1993). Punitive damages may, however, be insured against by those who may be vicariously liable for those punitive damages. Minn. Stat ; Lake Cable Partners v. Interstate Power Co., 563 N.W.2d 81, 86 (Minn.App. 1997). The existence of coverage for a party vicariously liable for punitive damages depends on whether such coverage is provided in that party s insurance policy. Perl, 345 N.W.2d at 216. g. Adoption of Federal Regulations: Minn. Stat provides that commercial motor vehicles operating in intrastate commerce must comply with certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations while operating in Minnesota. Minn. Stat provides that all interstate motor carriers must comply with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. h. Tort Reform. In 2003 Minnesota amended its joint and several liability statute. Prior to 2003, a party was jointly and severally liable for 100% of the damages if that party was more than 15% at fault. Minn. Stat (2000). A party 15% or less at fault could be held liable for up to four (4) times the amount of their fault. Id. In 2003 Minn. Stat was amended a stated in section 5 above. 3

4 2. Other Evidentiary Issues a. Violation of FMCSR as Negligence Per Se. Violation of a statute which imposes a duty of care is negligence per se unless the statute imposing the duty states otherwise. Scott v. Independent School Dist. No. 709, 256 N.W.2d 485, 488 (Minn. 1977). For example, Minn. Stat states that violation of a traffic statute is not negligence per se but is prima facie evidence of negligence only. Minn. Stat While the FMCSRs do not contain such a limitation, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has declined to treat the FMCSRs any different from other traffic regulations, stating that violations of the FMCSRs are only to be treated as prima facie evidence of negligence. See Iacona v. Schrupp, 509 N.W.2d 185, 188 (Minn.App. 1993); Ruhland v. Smith, 1991 Minn.App.Lexis 1157 (1991)(citing Brandes v. Burbank, 613 F.2d 658, 668 (7 th Cir. 1980)). However, once a violation of a traffic statute is established, the violating party has the burden of producing evidence of an excuse or justification to negate the negligence. Krafft v. Hirt, 110 N.W.2d 14, 18 (Minn. 1961). b. Impeachment. Any witness may be impeached by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a felony or a felony or misdemeanor conviction which involved dishonesty or false statement. Minn.R.Evid. 609(a). c. Expert Witnesses. The admission to testimony by expert witnesses is governed by Minnesota Rule of Evidence 702 and has two parts. First, the district court, in its discretion, must determine if the opinion of the expert is helpful to the trier of fact. Id. Second, the court must decide if the expert is sufficiently qualified in a given subject area to justify allowing the expert to give testimony in the form of an opinion. The qualifications of an expert may include knowledge, skill, or experience that would provide the background necessary for a meaningful opinion on the subject. Id. d. Evidence of Medical Bills. A plaintiff s full medical bills are presented to the trier of fact during trial. However, following trial and a finding of liability when damages include past medical expenses, a party may file a motion, within ten (10) days of entry of the verdict, requesting a determination of collateral sources. Minn. Stat , Subd. 2. Upon making a determination regarding collateral sources, the district must reduce the amount of the plaintiff s award by the amount of the collateral sources paid to plaintiff or on his behalf. Collateral sources include payments made to plaintiff or on his behalf by his health insurers and various others obligated to make payments on plaintiff s behalf. Minn. Stat , Subd. 1. Discounts that health insurers secure through their agreements with medical providers are collateral sources which must be used to reduce the plaintiff s recovery. Swanson v. Brewster, 784 N.W.2d 264, 276 (Minn. 2010). 4

5 e. Spoliation. Courts in Minnesota have considerable inherent judicial authority to deliver remedies for wrongs where spoliation of evidence has occurred. Patton v. Newmar Corp., 538 N.W.2d 116, (Minn. 1995). In deciding what, if any, remedy to provide to a party harmed by spoliation of evidence the district court needs to take into consideration the prejudice suffered by the opposing party in fashioning an appropriate remedy. Id. The decision of the district court regarding sanctions for spoliation will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Id. 3. Other Procedural Issues a. Venue. The proper venue for a motor vehicle accident is the district court of the county where the accident occurred or in the county of residence of the defendant or a majority of the defendants reside when the action is commenced. Minn. Stat b. Service of Process. By operating on a public highway in interstate commerce in Minnesota a motor carrier deems the Minnesota Secretary of State to be the carrier s true and lawful attorney upon whom all legal process in any action may be served. Minn. Stat Such service has the same legal force and validity as personal service upon the motor carrier. Id. In other situations service must be made in compliance with Rule 4 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. c. Local Rules. The General Rules of Practice apply to all trial courts in the State of Minnesota. Minn.Gen.R. Prac However, the Second, Fourth, and Tenth Judicial Districts have Special Rules of Practice which may apply to tort cases. 4. Insurance a. Insurance Issues. Where an insurer takes control of the defense of a suit against its insured and does not give a notice of reservation of rights, the insurer is later estopped from denying coverage. Oehme v. Johnson, 231 N.W. 817 (Minn. 1930). In cases where the insurer contests coverage but has not brought a prior declaratory action, the insurer has an obligation to pay for its insured to hire his or her own independent counsel. Praham v. Rupp, 277 N.W.2d 389, (Minn. 1979). b. Bad Faith. The current leading case for 3 rd party bad faith is Short v. Dairyland, 334 N.W2d 384 (Minn. 1983). Minnesota has also adopted statutory 1 st party bad faith on claims made against the insured s own coverages. See Minn. Stat c. Agreements Not to Execute. This vehicle for settlement was first approved by the Minnesota Supreme Court in the case of Miller V. Shugart, 316 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 1982). This type of agreement will only be validated when there has been a denial of coverage. Furthermore, the settlement needs to reasonable, which often requires a Judge s approval of the settlement or an arbitrator s finding. 5

6 5. Trial Matters a. Jury Instructions. Minnesota has adopted civil jury instructions that can be found in the Minnesota Jury Instruction Guides. Contact the author for a sample set of jury instructions in a trucking case. b. Trial. i. Minnesota Statutes states: Before challenging a juror, either party may examine the juror in reference to the qualifications to sit as a juror in the case. In addition, Rule of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure provides: The court may permit the parties or their attorneys to conduct the examination of prospective jurors or may itself conduct the examination. In the latter event, the court shall permit the parties or their attorneys to supplement the examination by such further inquiry as it deems proper. ii. The court has not imposed a time limit on opening statements. iii. Minnesota has codified its Rules of Evidence which can be found in the Minnesota Rules of Court. 6. Ethical Matters a. Contingent Fees. Contingent Fee agreements are governed by the Minnesota Rules of Profession Conduct, Rule 1.5. b. Sharing/Dividing Fees & Referrals. See above. c. Contact of Employees of Defendant. Once a defendant is represented by counsel plaintiff s counsel cannot make contact with a constituent of the organization who supervises, directs or regularly consults with the organization s lawyer concerning the matter or has authority to obligate the organization with respect to the matter or whose act or omission in connection with the matter may be imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability. MRPC Other Issues a. Sovereign Immunity. Sovereign immunity is governed by statute. The state and its municipalities will pay compensation for loss of property or personal injury or death caused by an act or omission of an employee acting within the scope of employment and acting in good faith. Minn. Stat ; Minn. Stat Despite providing for state and municipality liability for the action of their employees, the Minnesota Legislature put caps on the amount of recovery, including a $500, limit for any single wrongful death or injury for claim arising on or after July 1, Minn. Stat , Subd 4; Minn. Stat , 6

7 Subd. 1. Common law sovereign immunity has been abolished in Minnesota. Nieting v. Blondell, 235 N.W.2d 597 (Minn. 1975). b. Choice of Law. Minn. Stat governs conflicts of law regarding application of statutes of limitations and states if a claim is based upon the laws of another state, the limitation period of that other state applies or that if the claim is based on the law of more than one state that the limitation period of one of the state s upon whose law the claim relies will apply as determined by law. Minn. Stat , Subd. 1(a). The limitation period of Minnesota applies to all other claims. For causes of action that arise outside Minnesota where the action would be barred in that other state, the action can be maintained in Minnesota if the plaintiff is resident of Minnesota and the claim is not barred by Minnesota law. Minn. Stat , Subd. 1(b). For other choice of law issues not addressed by Minn. Stat , where there is a conflict between the laws of two or more states, Minnesota court will employ a five part test to determine which state s law should be applied. Jepson v. General Casualty Co., 513 N.W.2d 467, 470 (Minn. 1994) The five factors are: (1) predictability of result; (2) maintenance of interstate and international order; (3) simplification of the judicial task; (4) advancement of the forum's governmental interest; and (5) application of the better rule of law. Id. The Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated that in each case the district courts should look at the facts of the present case and apply the above factors anew to each case based upon its unique facts. c. Liens. Minnesota provides for all the normal liens. In the healthcare context, a plan founded under Minnesota law must follow the full recovery rule found at Minn. Stat. 62A.095. Liens pursuant to state run healthcare programs are governed by a variety of statutes most of which provide for a one-third reduction plus collection costs. Worker s Compensation recovery and lien rights are governed by a formula adopted by as statute found at Minn. Stat d. Pre-Judgment Interest & Offers of Judgment. Minnesota s pre-judgment interest is governed by statute and can be found at Minn. Stat Minnesota has adopted a formal offer of judgment mechanism which can be found at Minn. Rule of Civ. Procedure 68. If the offer is not beat t trial by your opponent, the prevailing party can tax double their costs from the time of filing the offer. 7

8 8