by KPMLAW | Feb 23, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Gary Reinhardt, Esq. Have you used a Transportation Network Company (TNC) yet? That is the fancy, statutory name for “ride share” companies such as Uber and Lyft. As most are aware, a TNC relies on its drivers to use their personal vehicle. The prospective passenger contacts a TNC driver through the use of a smartphone app. From there, the driver acts as a typical taxicab although personal experience has shown these cars to be cleaner and the driver to be nicer. Payment for the ride is made via credit or debit card already entered into the TNC’s digital platform. The TNC concept is fairly new and courts have yet to sort out the morass of legal and insuring issues these ride shares cause. State statutes set out a comprehensive regulatory framework for these companies, including requirements that essentially label these TNC vehicles and require minimum insurance limits. Starting with Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-2099.48, the Virginia legislature sets out what a TNC and its driver must do to operate in the Commonwealth. This statute requires that all TNC drivers carry “proof of coverage under each in-force TNC insurance policy, which may be displayed as part of the digital platform, and each in-force personal automobile insurance policy covering the vehicle.” This same statute limits a driver from driving more than 13 hours during any 24 hour period. The statute also requires that a TNC vehicle have a different color decal on the license plate, the year decal that shows you have renewed the vehicle registration. Virginia TNC vehicles will have a black decal with yellow “VA” letters and...
by KPMLAW | Feb 23, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Lauren Gibbons, Esq. Edited by Janeen Koch, Esq. Although the autonomous vehicle was merely a cartoon concept when “The Jetsons” aired on television over 50 years ago, the time of the autonomous vehicle has finally arrived. While fully autonomous vehicles are not a common mode of transportation just yet, their operation is not far into the future. Currently, several major car manufacturers have implemented automated features (i.e. automated parking and automatic emergency braking) which puts technology well on the road to fully autonomous vehicle operation. These technological developments pose major questions for liability analysis in motor vehicle collision cases. There are countless motor tort cases filed, settled, and/or litigated every year. These cases generally center around the legal theories of driver negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of the risk, which are all dependent on human perception, acts, and/or omissions. Based on the evolution of fully human-operated vehicles to computer-controlled vehicles, it is inevitable that the auto tort litigation process will drastically change from the current system we have now. Several states, including California, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, and Tennessee, and Washington, D.C., have already enacted legislation addressing the use of autonomous vehicles. These laws, however, seem to avoid acknowledging partially autonomous vehicles and the liability implications that stem from hybrid human-machine operated vehicles. On May 30, 2013, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a preliminary report about automated vehicles. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles (2013). The NHTSA is constantly updating this Statement as a guide for development of standards and regulations...
by KPMLAW | Feb 23, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Jessica Gorman, Esq. Edited by Rachel Riordan, Esq. What additional injuries an employer and carrier may be responsible for under the compensable consequence doctrine or chain of causation rule You have an accepted accident for which an injured worker has injured his left ankle. While recuperating from surgery on his left ankle, his ankle gave way causing a right knee injury. Are you responsible for the right knee injury? The answer is yes. Subsequently, that right knee injury causes the injured worker to fall causing a new injury to the right knee. Are you responsible for that new knee injury? The answer may be no as a consequence of a compensable consequence, which is not covered under the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act. In Virginia, the doctrine of compensable consequence “is well established and has been in existence for many years.” Williams Indus., v. Wagoner, 24 Va. App. 181, 186, 480 S.E.2d 788, 790 (1997). This doctrine provides the standard that “when a primary injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act is shown to have arisen out of the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows from the injury is compensable if it is a direct and natural result of a primary injury.” Leonard v. Arnold, 218 Va. 210, 237 S.E.2d 97 (1977). Specifically, any such secondary injury is related as it if occurred in the course of and arising out of the injured workers’ employment. Bartholow Drywall Co. v. Hill, 12 Va. App. 790, 794, 407 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1991). This doctrine is also known as the chain of causation rule and provides and states somewhat differently...
by KPMLAW | Feb 23, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Author: Brian Cafritz, Esq. By law, most states require restaurants or retailers to provide suitable restrooms for its guests. But which guest is permitted to use which restroom is becoming an issue that restaurants and retailers must ask themselves to avoid legal action related to discrimination or privacy violations. If your guest is transgender, what obligation does the restaurant or retailer have to provide a facility for that guest? What duty does the business have to protect its other guests from what may be an invasion of privacy? What should the business’ employees do when speaking to the transgender guest to resolve any confusion? While the issues of transgender equality, anti-discrimination, and privacy are currently focused on state-run government properties, public restrooms found in Retail and Restaurant establishments must take notice. Absent legislative enactment, what is a restaurant or retailer to do? The easy answer for restaurants and retailers is that single occupancy restrooms are preferred and should be made gender neutral. Indeed, this is legislated in some jurisdictions already (See the District of Columbia). For buildings that only have multiple occupancy restrooms, they can often be easily retrofitted for more privacy. Urinary dividers and/or stall doors and walls can be extended from ceiling to floor. Regardless of the physical layout of the restroom, employees of restaurants and retailers should be trained on handling this sensitive issue. The best practice is to allow guests to use restrooms of their sexual identification, rather than biologic gender. Employees should not openly prevent guests from using a restroom consistent with the guest’s sexual identity. Moreover, under no circumstances, should the employee take...
by KPMLAW | Jan 18, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Author: Chris Bergin, Esq. Editor: Brian Cafritz, Esq. In today’s specialized society, hiring independent contractors is a necessity. As demonstrated in the recent September 2015 Virginia circuit court decision, Cherry v. Palace on Plume St., how one executes the master-servant relationship is a key issue that directly impacts one’s liability. The widely accepted general rule is that employers are vicariously liable for the torts of their employees, but not for the torts of their independent contractors. In today’s environment where road rage, random violence, and binge drinking are commonplace, business owners have a greater burden to provide a safe haven for its patrons. Using independent contractors to perform security service allows the premises owner the benefit of security services, but greatly limits his risk of liability for any torts the independent contractor might commit while performing those services—assault, battery, false imprisonment, and negligence, to name a few. Hiring an independent contractor, however, is not a panacea. A business can still be held vicariously liable for the torts of its independent contractors when certain factors exist. Those factors include scenarios where the independent contractor was hired to conduct work that was: (1) unlawful, (2) a nuisance, (3) inherently dangerous, or (4) likely to produce injury “in the natural course of events,” unless special precautions were taken. Fortunately, the Supreme Court of Virginia has held that security guard work generally does not fall into any of these categories. See Broaddus v. Standard Drug Co., 211 Va. 645, 179 S.E.2d 497 (1971). Yet another boon for the restaurant and retail owner. However, the court may find that the contractor’s negligence is imputed...
