A friend of mine looked up Mr. Grossman on the internet and he drove out to Longview, TX, which is a couple hour drive, to see me while I was pretty much on my death bed. He came out there and it's been a situation where I wouldn't have been able to do what I've done without him.

-C. Arguetta
Automobile Accident Case

Liability for Negligent Entrustment

Does the owner of the car share liability with the driver in an accident?

When a reckless driver causes a car accident, the driver may not be the only one responsible.

Do you have a legal question?
Enter your phone number below and let's talk.
--

A victim in the accident might be able to seek compensation from the reckless driver’s employer if the driver was acting on behalf of his or her employer at the time of the accident. This is called vicarious liability. If, on the other hand, the reckless driver was not the owner of the vehicle that he or she was driving, a victim may be able to sue the vehicle’s owner if the vehicle’s safety was not properly maintained or if the owner knew the driver was reckless and loaned the vehicle anyway. This is called liability for negligent entrustment.

If you or someone in your family has been in a Houston auto accident, the personal injury attorneys at Grossman Law Offices can help you build a strong case. These lawsuits are often more difficult than they might appear. It can be difficult to even determine who is responsible for an accident – proving their responsibility may be even more complicated. Without the help of an experienced Houston attorney, you may receive a completely inadequate settlement. Fortunately, our Texas lawyers have been helping car accident victims for twenty years and we know how to overcome the unique legal difficulties that these cases present. If you or someone you love has been hurt in a Houston Texas car crash, contact a Houston whiplash lawyer at Grossman Law Offices and make sure your family gets the compensation it deserves.


Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$48,800.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Knee and Back Injury)
(policy limits + secondary claim) Recovery for victim who suffered knee and back injury due to a car accident.
Total Recovery:
$48,800.00
Attorney Fees:
$15,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,188.00
$200,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Closed Head Injury)
Recovered for car accident victim who suffered a closed head injury.
Total Recovery:
$200,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$66,666.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,500.00
$100,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries)
Recovery for client injured in an automobile accident.
Total Recovery:
$100,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$33,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$500.00
$187,500.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back Injury Requiring Surgery)
Our firm was hired by a young woman who was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler when she slowed for traffic in a construction zone. Initially, she attempted to represent herself and the insurance carrier offered roughly $1,000 to settle her case. She then contacted our firm and we filed suit soon after our initial investigation. The case was successfully resolved in litigation.
Total Recovery:
$187,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$61,875.00
Litigation Expenses:
$2,500.00
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an underide 18-wheeler accident. In addition to being a decorated veteran, the decedent worked both professionally and on a voluntary basis to establish numerous learning institutions and vocational programs for at risk youths. The accident occurred as the decedent was traveling on a rural highway when an 18-wheeler failed to yield the right of way and made a rolling stop through a stop sign.

This placed the trailer of the 18-wheeler in a position whereby it blocked the entire roadway and shoulder, leaving the decedent no option but to collide with the trailer. Witnesses on the scene attempted to revive him but to no avail. Furthermore, while two female eye witnesses struggled to pry open the decedent's door to provide emergency care, the truck driver stayed in his truck and offered no assistance. Despite what appeared to be an incredibly apparent case of negligence on behalf of the defendant, defense counsel refused to accept liability resulting in rather lengthy litigation.

The defendants initially denied the claim based on the allegation that the decedent was speeding and the truck driver therefore could not adequately gauge the amount of time he had to pause at the stop sign. The physical evidence contradicted this notion entirely, notwithstanding the fact that even if the decedent had been contributorily negligent, that would not have outweighed the severe degree of negligence on the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, our attorneys were able to conclusively refute this argument based on eye-witness testimony and the testimony from police investigators who calculated the decedent's speed to be precisely at the posted speed limit. In a desperate and largely unprecedented move, the defendants then designated the state as a responsible third party.

Generally speaking, a defendant will often threaten to designate a third party in order to leverage their position but it is rare that such an arbitrary and arguably frivolous designation is actually carried out. However, that is precisely what occurred and the state was thusly incorporated into the lawsuit by the defendants. The basis of the defendant's argument was that the state erected a large street sign that obstructed the truck driver's view of approaching traffic.

Several months of intense litigation were required to before the defendant finally acquiesced in regard to this argument. The argument was finally abandoned by the defendants when in the first mediation our attorneys presented video footage shot (in a controlled setting) from the perspective of an 18-wheeler driver which showed that the sign simply did not obstruct enough of the roadway in order to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
$102,500.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Both Legs Broken)
Recovery for client who suffered injuries to both legs in a truck accident.
Total Recovery:
$102,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$40,833.00
Litigation Expenses:
$19,984.00
$100,000.00 Recovery - Third-Party Dram Shop Accident (Broken Arm)
Recovered for client injured in a liquor liability accident.
Total Recovery:
$100,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$40,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,000.00
$100,000.00 Recovery - Motorcycle Accident (Neck, Back, and Knee Injury)
Recovery for a client who suffered neck, back, and knee injuries in a motor cycle accident.
Total Recovery:
$100,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$33,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$627.00
$550,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / First Party Dram Shop
A young woman lost her life after a bar over served her to more than three times the legal limit resulting in her burning to death in a single-vehicle accident. Witnesses stated that she was so intoxicated that she could barely make it to her vehicle without assistance. Through litigation, our attorneys ascertained the necessary evidence to prove that the establishment provided alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person, thus resulting in her ultimate demise.
Total Recovery:
$550,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$220,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$25,000.00
$1,000,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) A husband and father of three was killed when the driver of an 18-wheeler veered into oncoming traffic, striking the young man's vehicle and several others. The defendant was employed by a small construction company that operated only a single 18-wheeler. As such, the defendants were largely underinsured and were not financially solvent.

Furthermore, the defendants had an eroding insurance policy and numerous other parties were intent upon filing claims of their own since the 18-wheeler struck multiple other vehicles. This created the need for an aggressive and rapid response before the other claimants could erode the policy.

Defense counsel made it clear that they wished to litigate the case despite the insurmountable liability arguments that our attorneys presented. They intended to designate a third party as a responsible defendant since the accident happened in a construction zone, even though it was abundantly clear that the construction zone played no role in the crash.

Additonally, the defendants made it clear that they wished to downplay the extent of the damages by virtue of a character assasination on the decedent. Fortunately for our clients, our firm has successfully litigated against the defendant's insurer in nearly a dozen cases, so the carrier was quite aware of our courtroom capabilities. We presented a sample lawsuit to the defendant's insurance carrier and informed them that the lawsuit was to be filed the moment that they refused to settle.

Additionally, our attorneys submitted a Stowers' Demand with a brief window of time for the defendants to respond. We made it abundantly clear that we intended to seek punitive damages and that we would assert the full limits of the carrier's exposure under the Stowers' Demand should the carrier not offer policy limits.

The defendant's attorney adamantly persuaded the carrier to litigate, however, our attorney's threats of litigation, past track record, and incredibly aggressive pre-litigation actions convinced the insurance carrier to disregard their own attorney's advice and to settle the case, lest they face our attorneys in court.

Had our clients been represented by virtually any other firm who did not have our specific track record or who would have not recognized that this case required special and immediate attention coupled with an abnormally aggressive stance, the client's would have certainly been tied up in litigation for years, with the limited supply of funds rapidly depleting since the other claimants who did not need to litigate would have essentially had right of first refusal.
Total Recovery:
$1,000,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$333,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$0

"When I Lost My Daughter..."

Get Adobe Flash player

Our Cases in the News

Get Adobe Flash player

Contact Us

Full Name:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Comments or Questions:

Related Articles

Click to Call

--
Enter your phone number above and
click "Call Me" to talk to one of our
lawyers about your potential case.

What Our Clients Say

Successes