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: Helen Jhun, Esq. Editor: Janeen Koch, Esq. The issues of negligence and liability in two-vehicle rear-end motor vehicle accidents are generally straight forward. Under long established Virginia law, there is a rebuttable presumption of negligence against a driver who rear-ends a lawfully stopped vehicle. Edlow v. Arnold, 243 Va. 345, 415 S.E.2d 436 (1992), Garnot v. Johnson, 239 Va. 81, 387 S.E.2d 473 (1990). However, defending multiple vehicle rear-end accidents is unique. The issue of causation and assigning the negligence and liability to the different vehicles involved is often in dispute. Specifically, the defenses of third party negligence and contributory negligence are often asserted in rebutting the presumption of negligence against the rear-ending vehicle in “chain reaction” accidents. In the case of Maroulis v. Elliott, 207 Va. 503, 151 S.E.2d 339 (1966), the Supreme Court of Virginia discusses the issues of third party negligence and superseding causation as defenses in a multiple vehicle rear-end accident. In the Maroulis case, Defendant Maroulis was the fourth vehicle in a seven vehicle caravan. The lead car swerved left to avoid another vehicle, driving toward him in the wrong direction. The vehicle driving in the wrong direction collided head on with the second vehicle in the caravan. The third vehicle in the caravan swerved and braked, avoiding a collision with the second vehicle. Maroulis then collided with the third vehicle, and then plowed into the second vehicle. At trial, Maroulis asserted the defense of unforeseeable, intervening negligence, arguing that the negligence of the car driving in the wrong direction cut off his own negligence. The trial jury found against Maroulis. On appeal,...
by KPMLAW | Jan 18, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Chip Kalbaugh, Esq., President Welcome 2016! KPM LAW celebrated the holidays with a team building event to benefit tuition-free Saint Andrew’s Episcopal School in Richmond. The school, alma mater to Shareholder and Partner Francie Belton Georges, provides kindergarten through fifth grade students a private, Christian-based education and is part of the church’s mission to serve Richmond-area families with limited resources. Assembling the firm’s Richmond attorneys and staff just before Christmas, Georges led the team in exercises that required collaboration, creativity, and good sportsmanship, and ultimately resulted in the construction of six brand new bicycles that were donated to St. Andrew’s school physical education program. With KPM’s donation, the school has grown its bicycle fleet from 12 to 18… enough for an entire class to participate on two wheels and aid the school in it’s intent to teach every child – including those without the resources to own a bike or a safe place to ride one – to ride a bike. Having built this firm one hand-picked attorney at a time over the last 25 years, we have had the opportunity to cultivate a group of people whom we respect not only for their professional strengths, but who we genuinely like. It’s exercises like this that remind me we’ve built a firm of more than good attorneys; These are good people, doing good things, and having a good time together. Wishing you all that and more in...
