Spofford, TX Personal Injury Law Firms & Lawyers

A person can sue the owner of the vehicle even if he or she was not driving the vehicle under certain circumstances. There are several legal theories under which you can sue, including, but not limited to: employment; agency; family purpose doctrine; and negligent entrustment. For the first two, employment and agency, the employer or principal is liable for the acts of their employees or agents. So, if the accident occuring while the person was working then the owner of the vehicle can be sued. The family purpose doctrine applies, generally, to family members lending out their vehicle to family members for "family purposes." The last, which you mention in your Question, is negligent entrustment. An owner of a vehicle can be sued and be held liable for lending out his or her vehicle if you can prove the following: (1) that the owner permitted the unlicensed driver to drive his or her vehicle; (2) that, at the time the owner permitted the unlicensed driver to drive the vehicle, the owner either knew, or in the exercise of reasonably care should have known, that the unlicensed driver was so inexperienced, incompetent, etc. that he or she was unable to operate the vehicle properly; and (3) that the unlicensed driver's negligence caused the accident. The issue posed in your Question is whether the owner knew or should have known that the unlicensed driver was unable to drive the vehicle properly. This issue is partially answered if you know why the driver did not have a license. Was it taken away for multiple traffic offenses? Did the person never take the driver's test? If the driver being unlicensed had to do with his or her ability to drive a car safely then you may have a claim against the owner. Relatedly, in almost all vehicle accident lawsuits, you sue the driver and/or the owner of the vehicle; you cannot not sue the insurance company. If the vehicle the unlicensed driver was insured, and the unlicensed driver had permission to drive the vehicle and was not an "excluded" driver under the policy, the owner's insurance policy should pay, up to its limits for any injuries or damages you sustained. A vehicle's insurance is primary; the driver's insurance, if any, is secondary. You may want to discuss your case with an attorney to determine more about your rights and who you can sue. Most automobile accident attorneys offer a free initial consultation so it will not cost you anything to get more information. DISCLAIMER: This response should be considered general in nature, for information purposes only and should be used only as a starting point for addressing legal questions and issues. It is based on the limited information provided and, in some instances, makes certain assumptions. It is intended only for cases involving Nebraska and Nebraska law and is not applicable to any other state or jurisdiction. The author does not warrant the accuracy or validity of the information contained within this response, and hereby disclaims any liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions. In addition, this response is not a substitute for professional legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship, nor should it be considered a solicitation for additional legal advice or legal representation. If you ignore this warning and convey confidential information in a private message or comment, there is no duty to keep that information confidential or forego representation adverse to your interests. You should seek the advice of a licensed attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction to fully discuss your case. You should be aware that there are Statute of Limitations (the deadline imposed by law within which you may bring a lawsuit) as well as other requirements and/or limitations that limit the time you have to file any potential claims you may have. This response may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions under any and all applicable laws and ethical rules. The listing of any area of pr

There are unlimited reasons for filing a motion for continuance. Having to switch attorneys in the middle of a case is a good reason. As long as you can show the court that you are making every effort to find a new attorney as quickly as possible, they should grant the motion. The last thing the court wants is to force you to go to trial without counsel. Your attorney can file the motion in conjunction with a motion to withdraw, and probably get the other side to agree without having to appear before the court to argue the continuance.