Dallas Fort Worth Insurance Lawyer Blog

Residents of Weatherford, Aledo, Azle, Hudson Oaks, Millsap, Brock, Willow Park, Mineral Wells, Springtown, Cool, Peaster, Poolville, and other places in Parker County would be surprised by the fact that driving without a drivers license and being involved in a wreck does not mean the unlicensed driver is at fault.
The Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case in 1959, that is still good law today and is interesting reading. The style of the case is, James Eugene Flanigan et al v. Jack Carswell et al. The issues and the facts in the case are kinda complicated and confusing but we will focus on the part dealing with a drivers license.
Carswell was the owner and operator of an ambulance which had been issued a permit as an emergency ambulance by the Texas State Board of Health. At trial, a jury found that at the time of the collision Carswell was on an authorized run, and that the ambulance was traveling at a rate of speed in excess of 30 MPH, but less than 40MPH. It was undisputed that Carswell had only an ordinary Texas operator's license while driving the ambulance. Flanagan and the other plaintiffs argued that because Carswell was operating the vehicle with only an ordinary license rather than a chauffeur's license when he was exceeding the 30 MPH speed limit, that his actions were negligence per se. So the jury had no choice but to find as a matter of law that Carswell's action in exceeding the 30 MPH limit was negligence. Understand the argument by Flanigan was that as an ambulance driver Carswell could have been operating legally up to 40 MPH. But because he did not have the chauffeurs license, he was breaking the law and negligent per se.
In ruling on this case the court could not agree with the plaintiff's argument. In discussion the court said this contention would lead to a holding either (1) that an ambulance meeting the statutory definition of an "emergency vehicle" in all respects, but which at the time of the collision was being driven by Carswell, who was not licensed as a chauffeur, was not an "emergency vehicle" within the purview of the statute permitting an "emergency vehicle" to exceed ordinary speed limits, or (2) that, even though the ambulance was an emergency vehicle and could lawfully travel at a speed of 40 MPH, the nonchauffeur-licensed driver of that ambulance could not accelerate its speed faster than 30 MPH. The contention would thus be reduced to the narrow proposition that the status of an emergency vehicle operated on an emergency run is dependent upon the driver's license, at least in so far as the vehicle is authorized to exceed the ordinary speed limits.
The court stated it is unimportant to their decision whether or not an ambulance driver is required to be licensed as a chauffeur. Therefore, for the purposes of the case, they assumed that Carswell should have had such a license, and that his driving without a proper license was a violation of the penal code. But they held that an ambulance was an "emergency ambulance" and that the failure of Carswell to have a chauffeur's license did not render his driving negligence per se.
Important to the ruling was the fact that Carswell was driving the emergency ambulance without securing a valid driver's license would not absolve Flanigan of negligence as the operator of the other motor vehicle.
The important thing to realize from this case is that a person who is violating the law while operating a motor vehicle is not automatically at fault for any resulting accident. A victim would have to show that the violation of the law was a contributing factor to the accident. Here is a good example. Suppose an unlicensed, drunk driver, with an expired inspection sticker and license plate is legally stopped at a red light. Then suppose that another driver runs into this stopped driver. Who's fault is the accident? Hopefully you will agree that the driver who drove into the rear of the driver who was legally stopped at the red light was the one at fault.
For the driver who was legally stopped at the red light to be at fault there would have to be proof that some of the illegal things he was doing caused the accident. In the scenario as described there is simply no fault to be put on him.

A lot of people in Fort Worth, Arlington, Colleyville, North Richland Hills, Keller, Roanoke, Azle, Aledo, Weatherford, Dallas, Grand Prairie, and other places in Texas own dogs. So, what does it matter?
Here is one answer to that question. It could result in your homeowners insurance being cancelled or at the least, it might result in increased premiums for your homeowners insurance policy unless you get rid of the dog. The type of dog will also make a difference in whether or not it affects you.
The Palm Beach Post ran an article back on August 6, 2010. The article was written by Laura Green and is titled, "Insurers Turning Down Coverge For Homeowners With 'Bully' Dog Breeds."
The article reports that every year, more than 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs, and nearly 900,000 of them, half of whom are children, require medical care. This according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The relevance of these statistics for the homeowners who want homeowners insurance is that when a dog bite victim needs to pay medical bills, he often seeks payment from the dog owner's homeowners policy. Taking this into account, the total amount of claims paid out nationally has risen nearly 20 percent between 2003 and 2008.
The Palm Beach Post writer tells us that dog bites account for a third of all homeowners insurance liability claims, costing $387 million in 2008, according to the Insurance Information Institute. Also, more than half of bites occur on the dog owners property.
Owners of Pit Bulls, including Staffordshire Terriers, Dobermans, Rottweilers, Chows, Presa Canarios, Akitas, Huskies, and Wolf hybrids cannot get homeowners, condo and renters policies through the Allstate subsidiary, Castle Key, who writes policies in Florida. This situation is the same in many other states. The company United Property & Casualty Insurance excludes the same dogs as Castle Key plus German Sheperds, American Eskimos or any mixed breed that is half or more of any of the banned breeds.
The insurance company, State Farm Insurance, ignores breed and focuses on a survey dog owners must fill out before they are approved. The form asks whether their dog has a history of bites and if so what measures the owner has taken, such as obedience classes or a fence, to prevent the animal from attacking again.
Many insurance companies think it is a mistake and short-sighted to single out a breed of dog and take the approach of State Farm Insurance. They focus on the dog's history and the owners rather than a breed of dog. A great example of this would be some of the dogs that most people consider dangerous such as Pit Bulls, German Shepherds, etc., which are trained as service dogs or therapy dogs. These dogs can be great companions and represent minimal threat or no threat to others.
The concern for homeowners insurance companies is the costs associated with claims related to dog bites. According to statistics the average payout on a dog bite is $24,461. Jury awards and high medical costs can carry a serious bite case to $1 million, obviously a high risk to these insurers.
The general scenario in a dog bite case is one where the dog who has never bitten anyone before, bites a visitor to the house. The visitor could be a service man such as a plumber or a neighbor or a relative who is at the house. Occasionally the dog bite results from a kid or kids teasing the dog. In any event, the owner of a dog who bites who does not have a previous history of bites or danger to others will be liable for medical bills, lost wages, disfigurement, impairment, plus mental and physical pain and suffering.
The owner of a dog who has a history of bites or aggression will be liable for the above plus may be liable for punitive or exemplary damages. In Texas the standard for recovery of exemplary damages is found in the Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code, Chapter 41.
Exemplary damages can be very costly for an insurer.
Because of the dollar costs that can result from dog bites, it is very important that a homeowner or any owner of a dog be insured. Read the insurance policy and make sure it covers dog bites and that the policy does not exclude coverage for the type of dog you may own.
Consulting with an experienced Insurance Law Attorney whenever you find yourself the victim of a dog bite or the owner of a dog who has bitten is vital to making sure your rights are protected, regardless of what the insurance policy may say.