This time, the Jolly Old Elf did not come right down Santa Claus Lane. Instead, the incident happened on an anonymous street in an anonymous town which was in the midst of a silent night and a white Christmas. And, Santa was not just toting toys and goodies in his sleigh. He is also the prime suspect in a hit-and-run that killed Grandma.
Things look bad fro Santa. There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence against him. However, there were no witnesses. Is this circumstantial evidence alone enough to send Santa to the stony lonesome? More importantly for our purposes, is there enough evidence to hold Santa legally responsible for damages? Inquiring minds want to know.
As mentioned, most of the evidence in Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer points to Santa. However, he is not the only suspect, at least according to some.
Conspiracy theorists often point the finger of blame at Grandpa. According to the song, Grandpa is not in mourning over the sudden loss of his wife. In fact, the opposite is true. He is "watching football, drinking beer, and playing cards with Cousin Belle."
Quite possibly, Grandpa is simply resilient. However, some questions should be asked. Does Grandpa have an alibi for the time of the accident? Has he ever filed a fraudulent insurance claim or had a similar misstep? Perhaps most importantly, how much life insurance did he have on Grandma, and when did he buy the policy?
But there is no evidence in the song to support such allegations. Instead, all the evidence recovered at the scene points to Santa. There were "hoof prints on her forehead and incriminating Claus marks on her back."
Things look bad. However, the case against Santa is far from open and shut. Grandma got run over by a reindeer on Christmas Eve. Investigators didn't arrive on scene until the next morning. The psychical evidence would have degraded significantly, especially if it snowed. Furthermore, everyone knows the real Santa Claus files in the air and lands on rooftops. Only those cheap shopping mall Santa impersonators travel by ground.
If Santa was arrested and charged with hit-and-run, this evidence might not hold up in court. The burden of proof in criminal court is beyond any reasonable doubt. Based ont eh above analysis, there's definitely some doubt. Whether that doubt is "reasonable" or not is probably up to a jury.
Civil court is different. The burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). There are some questions regarding Santa's responsibility. But it's certainly more likely than not that Grandma was, in fact, run over by a reindeer.
Evidence is the most important component of a civil claim. But it's not the only component. Legal theories, such as comparative fault, often apply.
Briefly, comparative fault, or contributory negligence, is a legal doctrine that shifts blame for an accident from the tortfeasor (negligent driver, or Santa in this case) to the victim (Grandma). If evidence indicates that both parties were at fault, jurors must divide responsibility between them (e.g. 50-50, 80-20, etc.).
In many states, the victim must be no more than 50 percent responsible in order to receive compensation. But New York is a pure comparative fault state. Even if the tortfeasor was only 1 percent responsible for the wreck, the victim is entitled to a proportionate share fo damages.
These damages usually include compensation for economic losses, such as medical bills, and noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering.
What evidence of comparative fault is in Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer? We're glad you asked.
We do not know if Grandma crossed the street at a corner while she had the right-of-way. However, it's safe to assume she did not do so. Statistically, most pedestrian accidents occur in non-crosswalks and at non-intersections.
We do know that Grandma had been "drinking too much eggnog" when she "stumbled out the door into the snow." That description sounds like Grandma was intoxicated, or at least impaired.
What's the difference between intoxication and impairment? Once again, we're glad you asked.
Legally, intoxication is a BAC above the legal limit or a loss of the normal use of one's mental or physical faculties. Generally, people are intoxicated after they consume three or four drinks. Impairment begins with the first drink. One sip of eggnog not only affects motor skills, causing people to stumble. It also affects judgment ability. So, impaired individuals take unnecessary risks. That could include stepping in front of an oncoming sleigh.
Grandma's alcohol use could invoke the comparative fault rule. Additionally, the song says Grandma "forgot her medication." However, her medical condition is most likely irrelevant on this point. The eggshell skull rule prevents insurance companies or other defendants from using victims' physical vulnerabilities against them in court.
It's hard to predict what a jury would do. Both Santa and Grandma are sympathetic figures. The division might come down to Grandma's alcohol consumption. If she was six sheets to the wind at the time of the wreck, a jury might do 50-50.
Establishing liability is most of the battle. But it's not all of the battle. A judgment is only a piece of paper if the victim cannot collect on it.
Most people, including Santa, are effectively judgement proof. That usually does not matter in car wreck claims. The insurance company, and not the individual, is financially responsible for damages. But was Santa's sleigh insured? We're pretty sure that State Farm does not cover non-motorized vehicles powered by magical flying creatures.
A victim's UM/UIM coverage often applies in these situations. Uninsured and underinsured Motorist protection is usually cheap. The policy pays damages if the tortfeasor was underinsured or uninsured, up to the policy limits. If there is a dispute, it usually settles quickly, and on victim-friendly terms. Insurance companies want to keep their paying customers happy. Furthermore, the insurance company cannot use a UM/UIM claim to justify a rate hike, at least in most cases.
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. If you ever need a free consultation with an experienced personal injury attorney in New York, contact the Pianko Law Group, PLLC. We are available 24/7/365.