Frivolous Michigan Accident Case Settled for $47,000
A settlement has been reach in a controversial case of a Michigan man who lost control of his pickup, slammed into the back of a fire truck at an accident scene, and then sued. The 2009 accident occurred in Frenchtown Township where the driver, Nick Otter, had to be extricated from his pickup truck and transported by helicopter to a trauma center.
Many were shocked last year when Otter sued Frenchtown Township and one of the firefighters who helped save his life. A TV news station exposed Otter feigning injuries, harboring a horrendous driving record, and having drugs in his system at the time of the crash. Yet rather than incurring the expense of taking the case to trial, the Township and its insurer have decided to settle the case for $47,000.
According to news reports, Otter himself will not receive any of the $47,000. $20,000 will be placed in a trust fund for his children and $27,000 will go to his attorneys.
It is absolutely ridiculous that his lawyers or family get a dime. The insurance company’s “business decision” just guaranteed that more dirtbags will sue. How could the judge not throw this out? How can his being under the influence, poor driving record, driving on a suspended license, and drug abuse ALL be irrelevant to the case? This is a case study for what is wrong with the legal system.
John
I can’t disagree with you. It really is not up to the judge to throw out the settlement – if the parties agree to a settlement the judge is stuck with it unlike a criminal case where he can impose his own sentence if he disagrees with a plea agreement.
The problem is the plaintiff is judgment proof. He should be forced to repay the Township not only for all the costs associated with the accident, but the township’s legal costs as well… but it won’t happen because he’s got nothing. So should the Township be forced to incur $50k, $60k, $100k in legal bills just to prove a point? Would you want to be forced to incur those kinds of expenses knowing you will never be able to recoup your losses… just to deter someone else from filing suit in the future?
I think there needs to be a greater scrutiny of attorneys who file these kinds of cases. It is possible for an attorney to be sanctioned for filing a frivilous lawsuit – and perhaps that is where the focus should be.
Curt,
I didn’t realize the settlement came before a judge had a chance to rule on it. I agree with you-place the onus on the attorneys who take these cases.
John
Its one of the differences between civil and criminal law. In a criminal case – the judge might say – fine you can plead guilty, but I am not bound by the state’s offer.
As for the attorneys – there is a rule (Rule 11 to be exact) that allows a court to sanction attorneys who file frivilous claims/pleadings. It would certainly seem like this case would be a candidate for such a sanction – for the reasons you list … but the settlement kind of makes that a harder case to prove… how frivilous can it be if the defendant is willing to pay $47k to settle it…. and round and round it goes.