Contents

78

Court: Expert Testimony Not Required

in Cases Where Causation Is ‘Obvious’

T

he U.S. District Court for the Middle District of

Pennsylvania recently held in

Bixler v. Lamendola

that expert medical testimony was not required to

prove the causal relationship between a trauma and an

alleged resulting injury in cases where the relationship

between the trauma and injury was “obvious” to an

average fact-finder.

The ruling is significant, according to an article

by attorney Christian T. Merlino and posted on the

website of Forry Ullman, a qualified member in Best’s

Recommended Insurance Attorneys-General Defense

.

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment

and argued that the plaintiff’s case—involving a motor

vehicle accident—should be dismissed for a lack of expert

evidence linking the collision to the plaintiff’s injury. The

plaintiff testified that his body was tossed about the cab

of a tractor-trailer he was driving, resulting in multiple

bumps and bruises to his head, knees and arms. Two

days later, the plaintiff began to experience numbness

in his left hand and, later, neck stiffness. It was later

determined by a treating neurologist that the plaintiff’s

symptoms were caused by a bulging disc and pinched

nerve in his neck. There was no evidence indicating the

plaintiff had previously experienced similar symptoms or

had been diagnosed with a similar condition.

Bixler

followed a line of prior Pennsylvania cases

holding that expert medical testimony is not necessary

to prove causation when the connection between the

event and the injury or condition is sufficiently obvious

to the average person. It pointed out that these cases

typically possess two traits: one, the injury is apparent

or begins to produce symptoms within a relatively

short time following the event; and two, the injury is

the type one would reasonably expect to result from

the event in question.

Bixler

is significant because the connection

between the injury and the trauma sustained may

not be as clear as a broken bone or other obvious

injury related to the accident. Despite that, the

court found that Bixler’s injury and its relationship

to the accident was not so complex as to require an

expert to make that connection. The court noted

the accident involved trauma to the plaintiff’s head,

symptoms originated from a bulging disc in the neck,

the symptoms arose fairly soon after the accident

(two days), and there was no indication that the

plaintiff had any similar injury or condition prior to this

accident. The court stated “a jury could easily find

[Mr.] Bixler’s injuries were the ‘natural and probable’

consequence of the accident.”

BEST’S REVIEW

•

JULY 

Insurance Professional Resources

For Drivers, Even the Cutest Pet Passengers Could Create

Potentially Deadly Distractions

Recent insurance company survey results show the impact of unrestrained

animals on vehicle safety.

by Anthony Bellano

80

W

e’ve all seen it. Maybe even said “aww” as the

car rolls by, big furry dog head sticking out

of the passenger side window, nose sniffing

the breeze that’s blowing his fluffy ears back as he’s

cruising down the block, living, well, a dog’s life.

Until the brakes screech and the

pup becomes a projectile when the

car stops but he keeps moving.

Sadly, what may look cute can

actually be unsafe—even deadly—

for an unrestrained pooch or the

car’s human passengers. Some

insurers are taking steps to reduce

this hazard for all involved.

“Some people will actually have

their dog in their lap while they’re

driving,” said Shelly Gallagher,

vice president of personal lines for

Selective Insurance Company of America. “When

I drive around where I live, I see people with their

pet hanging out the side car window. This is very

distracting and presents a danger to the driver and

the pet, and it could cause an accident.”

In a recent survey commissioned by Selective and

conducted online by The Harris Poll, 91% of drivers

admitted that over the previous 12 months, they had

interacted with their dogs while driving. Many of these

interactions required the driver to take their hands off

the wheel or eyes off the road, Selective said in a release.

This included taking a photo or video of their dog

while driving. Of this group, 40% admitted this caused

them to drive recklessly, with 9% saying it caused them

to get into an accident.

A Progressive Corp. survey found 47% of pet

parents let their pets roam freely in the vehicle, and

76% rely on driving slowly to keep pets safe.

But beyond the dangers, this isn’t exactly legal.

Several states have laws or are considering legislation

BEST’S REVIEW

•

JULY 

Anthony Bellano

is an associate editor. He can be reached at

anthony.bellano@ambest.com.

that addresses the issue in some way. Rhode Island, for

example, has a law clearly stating that dogs traveling

in any kind of vehicle must be restrained, while

Connecticut requires dogs be in a crate or cage if

transported in an open truck bed. And in New Jersey,

carrying an animal in a “cruel or

inhumane” manner is illegal.

Gallagher said she doesn’t think

many people are aware of these

laws. That, coupled with a lack of

awareness of the dangers, could

lead people to drive with their

pets unrestrained.

Selective offered 1,000 free dog

seat belts to interested drivers to

help promote safe driving with a

dog, Gallagher said, and all were

claimed within a few hours. The

insurer also rolled out coverage in 2015 that includes

“reasonable and customary vet fees up to $700 if a

pet is injured in a covered loss.”

“All companies handle this type of coverage

differently. Some include it, [and with others] you have

to purchase the additional coverage,” Gallagher said.

“Ours is a coverage you can add to your auto policy.”

Besides pets, other factors such as children and

cell phones can pull a driver’s attention away from

the road.

“Distracted driving continues to play a significant

role in loss trends and should remain an issue in the

near term,” according to the March Best’s Market

Segment Report,

Market Segment Outlook: US

Commercial Auto Insurance

.

“The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

reports a notable increase in motor vehicle deaths

in which distraction was a contributing factor,” the

report said.

“I think as a society, and as an industry, we’re trying

to put forth tools and resources to make roads safer,”

Gallagher said. “That’s the biggest incentive, to keep

your pets safe, keep your family safe.”

The Last Word

MORE

IMAGINATION.

MORE TO LOVE

FROM APPLIED.

®

Workers’ Compensation • Transportation – Liability & Physical Damage • Construction Liability • Fine Art & Collections

Homeowners – Including California Wildfire & Gulf Region Hurricane • Structured Insurance • Financial Lines • Surety

Aviation & Space • Environmental & Pollution Liability • Real Estate • Reinsurance • Warranty & Contractual Liability

Infrastructure • Entertainment & Sports

...And More To Come.

It Pays To Get A Quote From Applied.

®

Learn more at auw.com/MoreToLove

or call sales (877) 234-4450

©2023 Applied Underwriters, Inc. The seven insurance companies collectively referred to as North American Casualty Group

(AMB #: 018683) each have an AM Best Financial Strength Rating of A-. Insurance plans protected U.S. Patent No. 7,908,157.