The Virginian-Pilot
©
PORTSMOUTH
Antoinette Bowser didn't need to be told she failed her driving test.
She had just started it when she backed into a parked car in the lot of the Department of Motor Vehicles.
It could have been one of those mortifying moments that one laughs about much later. But for Bowser, it has become the driving-test nightmare without end.
Two years later, the Portsmouth woman learned that the state is coming after her for $75,000 to cover the costs of medical expenses and lost wages for the DMV employee who was in the vehicle administering the test for her.
That examiner is one of about 70 Virginia DMV employees who have filed workers' compensation claims because of road test accidents since January 2007, according to Melanie Stokes, a department spokeswoman.
The attorney general's office did not have information on the number of lawsuits related to such accidents. David Clementson, a spokesman for the office, declined to comment on the suit against Bowser.
In the lawsuit, the state says Bowser hit the car with such "force and violence" that the employee, Geralynn P. Banks, suffered "great pain of body and mind." Reached by phone Tuesday, Banks declined to comment.
Bowser recalls the incident as a fender-bender.
"I know I walked away. And I know she walked away," she said.
She thought it was over.
Bowser, a single mother, said she was shocked when she discovered she was being sued. "I was in tears," she said. "I don't have $75,000 laying around. I'm just making it like everybody else."
Just hiring an attorney was a hardship, she said. She went to Norfolk lawyer Allan Zaleski because his office is close to where she works.
The state is seeking compensation for past and future lost wages and medical bills for Banks. The attorney general's office is asking for attorney's costs and for interest on the $75,000 going back to March 2006, when the accident occurred.
Zaleski said he has yet to receive information about the nature of medical problems and expenses that the state is claiming on behalf of the employee.
Normally, a driver's insurance company would be fighting the suit, he said. But Bowser was driving her boyfriend's car that day and only later learned he did not have insurance.
She never did get her driver's license. She rides two buses to work now.
It has its advantages, she said.
Janie Bryant, (757) 446-2453, janie.bryant@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Follow Up
Just to clarify: the student driver was cited for failure to yield not the driver of the truck. The tractor trailer driver drove into a ditch to ease the impact. Kudos to well-trained truckers who are prepared for such emergencies!
I used to work for the DMV.
I used to work for the DMV. In April 2005, I was conducting a road test in Fredericksburg and we got hit head on by a tractor trailer. Nobody expected to find me alive when they got to the car...I got pried out and the driver walked away after being cited for failure to yield. Slogging through the workers' comp system was more hellish than the accident. I took it upon myself to sue, settled(for a lot less than $75,000, that's for sure)and had to reimburse the commonwealth for whatever it cost them for me to be absent from the job.
When I was doing road tests, we were required to do a safety inspection of the car(brakes,lights, seat belts, tire tread, etc.)and see a valid inspection sticker. There was no requirement for a driver's side airbag(which is what saved my life)and we took out a number of cars without them. The driver was responsible for knowing if the car was insured. I left the agency in January, 2007 and I don't know if any of this has changed.
If there have been 70 workers' comp claims due to road road test accidents since January 2007, perhaps someone needs to review the format. I sure asked a number of times before I left!
Absurd!!!
I can only know what its like to open a letter that says "Congratulations! You're being sued for $75,000!!!!!" What a day that must have been for that poor girl. Why, now, so many years later, is this DMV worker all of a sudden wanting to sue? Two years worth of interest, that for one shouldn't even be charged because the girl is JUST NOW being informed something was wrong and for two is ridicilous anyway because of the fact that the DMV obvisiouly didn't follow proper procedure. Personally, that right there would be cause enough for me to say "Sorry about your luck man, should have DONE YOUR JOB and maybe just maybe you wouldn't be doing this now.." So. What happens if this DMV worker wins? This poor girl has to spend the rest of her life, making up for an accident that occured in her younger years? Whoever said something about a vacation was right. The person doing the suing is looking for a pay out, for what, we probably will never know. May be broke, may have gotten fired for not following proper procedures when teaching kids to drive! Ugh. This just makes me sick that this poor girl is the one who has to suffer because, once again, state workers are proven to be
It's possible . . .
That the DMV workmen's comp fund won't pay out unless Ms. Banks first tries to collect the money from the citizen who caused the accident.
That already said, too bad this didn't happen in Virginia Beach where things like this go to a jury trial. We're known as the least likely place to successfully sue someone. I was on a personal injury jury and we managed to find out, though we had to get it via indirect questioning, that the victim of the small fender-bender who was attempting to sue a poor old man for a kings' ransom had been in two subsequent accidents, for which she was also suing. A professional victim! We denied her everything, even a penny, because we said we could not be certain *which* accident gave her fibromyalgia, etc., etc. We said it in a nice way, but basically, she left there owing lawyer's fees. Cheers, MGM
Really Now
The job at DMV is to test new drivers. The very act implies that drivers may be inexperinced and that accidents may result. Okay, so now you sue the driver that caused the accident, an accident caused by an act that you were in the car to test them to see if they would avoid. Who failed whom?
BTW... does this mean the next time someone rear-ends me I can sue DMV because the person doing the testing must not have done a proper job or else that accident wouldn't have happened?
A few things to think about
I've heard of people who go in for tests after feeling something, and wind up with $16,000 in test bills. So it *is* possible that there was some issue during the accident, as we don't know details on speed. While it does seem steep, so are many medical bills, so perhaps it's just "stuff" rolling downhill. I try to drive as defensive as possible.
Taking a road test.....
I thought all vehicles involved in road tests, prior to going out on the test had to be checked for registration and insurance. Sounds to me like DMV has two issues here. Not following procedure prior to road tests and what has already been stated...shoddy workers. Shame on the state to try to capitalize on this poor woman. I hope she gets reimbursment for any expenses she has had to shell out for her lawyer and court fees.
Fault
Geralynn P. Banks, I feel so sorry for you. Trying to steal money from a child. A lawyer will have fun with you. Investigate your employment, health history, previous claims, bank accounts, life style, whether or not you were qualified for the job. Then again your required to inspect the car prior to entering it and you did so willingly. Were the police called, did you ride in an ambulance, did you get into another accident a little later and blame it on this child? If I was this child I would counter sue for a little more. A few million. The state has insurance on it’s property. The state failed to provide a safe environment for driving. The state endangered it’s customers and employees by not running said test vehicles license plate prior to commencing test. This would have revealed lack of insurance.
A job for Mythbusters
Someone should run some Mythbusters experiments to see if it's even remotely possible to get a car in reverse up to enough speed in the few feet backing out of a parking spot to obtain a forceful and violent collision. Are we supposed to buy that this person absolutely floored it backing out?
This doesn't make any sense
and to add insult to injury, they want the lady to pay interest retroactive two years and attorney fees?
Well, which ever way this goes, I hope justice prevails. If I remember correctly, I think my DMV examiner when I got my license in the 90's asked if my car was insured and asked for proof. You'd think that's be part of policy to help mitigate WC claims and payouts...