I would sue in a heartbeat, and it would be whoever my attorney advised me we should be suing. I don't care if it's MB/DB or nanny or insurance or whatever.

Anonymous wrote:This is a wonderful example as to why having a legal forum would be super-awesome!!

I would think the nanny driving would be at fault for your injuries, but everything here would boil down to whether or not her employers put her on their car insurance or not.

Not really. I don't know of any attorney who would identify themselves on a public forum and give advice for free based on the facts given in anonymous postings. People are giving you their opinions here, some of which may be based on their expertise or experience.

High and run? Yes. You sue,

Anonymous wrote:If I found out my nanny was involved in a hit and run, I would fire her. That shows a serious lack of judgement and morality. We have our nanny drive our car so we can make sure the limits are high enough. She has her own insurance but she would be driving under our employ so we would be liable.

This of course you should sue her insurance company, and she should be arrested.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is a troll post.

It definitely is. How could a pedestrian that was hit by a car, that then immediately drove.off without stopping know 1) That the person was a nanny, and 2) That the nanny wasn't driving her own car?

Most of us have read the full thread. There was a police report. With all of the cameras in DC, it would be easy to get the license plate, find out whose car it is, and figure out who was driving.

Allegedly there was a police report.

I also think this is a troll, though I can't imagine the purpose, other than boredom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is a troll post.

It definitely is. How could a pedestrian that was hit by a car, that then immediately drove.off without stopping know 1) That the person was a nanny, and 2) That the nanny wasn't driving her own car?

Most of us have read the full thread. There was a police report. With all of the cameras in DC, it would be easy to get the license plate, find out whose car it is, and figure out who was driving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would it matter at all whos car it was. This isn't like someone driving a Verizon truck. The nanny does not represent the MB. Unfortunately you will have to sue the nanny and she surely won't have any money.

Insurance pays, not the person. Nanny was driving MB's car, so if Nanny was included in MB's insurance and didn't have her own insurance, only MB's insurance gets hit, and rates go up. If Nanny is on MB's insurance and has her own, her insurance takes the first hit, but both policies will go up. If she wasn't on MB's insurance, that's when it gets dicey, especially if she doesn't have a vehicle of her own, so doesn't have her own insurance.

You don't ensure a car for things the car does. Nanny is at fault and should pay the medical bills, if she has insurance to cover that so be it. But MB having insurance on her car means it will be repaired, but just because she has insurance doesn't mean that they will pay the medical bills of some other person that an uninsured driver hit.

The way OP wrote things was that she wanted to sue MB ( presumably because she has more money) simple because she owned the car.

Actually, your insurance does cover what your car does, not just damage to your car. Especially in situations of authorized employer/employee relationships and continuous use of the car.

Nanny here, and the PP who said insurance pays. I don't have my own car, and I don't pay for insurance. If my employer wants me to drive their vehicle, they add me as an authorized user on the insurance, or I don't drive. Insurance is two-fold. PL/PD is minimum insurance, no coverage for damage to the insured's vehicle or the vehicles occupants; when the driver causes an accident (as in this case), the insurance covers the damage and injury that the driver causes with the vehicle. All insurance starts with PL/PD and adds to it, you can't get coverage for your own injuries or damage to your own vehicle without also having coverage if you do something to cause an accident.

The question are whether the nanny was an authorized user for the car, and whether the nanny had her own insurance. Reiterating above: If nanny had her own insurance, it picks up first. If the nanny was an authorized user on the employer's vehicle, their insurance will pay. If the nanny was not listed on the employer's insurance, there will be massive issues for both the nanny and the employer. None of that matters to OP, the person who was hit. Nanny caused an accident, yes, OP needs to retain a lawyer and sue for medical bills.

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is a troll post.

It definitely is. How could a pedestrian that was hit by a car, that then immediately drove.off without stopping know 1) That the person was a nanny, and 2) That the nanny wasn't driving her own car?

I feel like this is a troll post.

Of course has nothing to do with her being a nanny but irresponsible. She is def liable

MB here - if this were my nanny, I would be upset with her for the hit and run, not you for suing me to cover the damages and to pay for the injuries to your knee, etc that were her fault.

Nanny won't have money to pay a judgment. Rule #1 of injury litigation is sue the one with the deepest pockets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would it matter at all whos car it was. This isn't like someone driving a Verizon truck. The nanny does not represent the MB. Unfortunately you will have to sue the nanny and she surely won't have any money.

Insurance pays, not the person. Nanny was driving MB's car, so if Nanny was included in MB's insurance and didn't have her own insurance, only MB's insurance gets hit, and rates go up. If Nanny is on MB's insurance and has her own, her insurance takes the first hit, but both policies will go up. If she wasn't on MB's insurance, that's when it gets dicey, especially if she doesn't have a vehicle of her own, so doesn't have her own insurance.

You don't ensure a car for things the car does. Nanny is at fault and should pay the medical bills, if she has insurance to cover that so be it. But MB having insurance on her car means it will be repaired, but just because she has insurance doesn't mean that they will pay the medical bills of some other person that an uninsured driver hit.

The way OP wrote things was that she wanted to sue MB ( presumably because she has more money) simple because she owned the car.

Actually, your insurance does cover what your car does, not just damage to your car. Especially in situations of authorized employer/employee relationships and continuous use of the car.

Anonymous wrote:If I found out my nanny was involved in a hit and run, I would fire her. That shows a serious lack of judgement and morality. We have our nanny drive our car so we can make sure the limits are high enough. She has her own insurance but she would be driving under our employ so we would be liable.

X100

There are people who would keep a nanny who had a hit and run with a pedestrian who rolled onto the hood that would keep the nanny?!?! Getting into an accident, doing the right thing and staying, then yes, you can examine the situation from a larger viewpoint, but hit and run- no.

OP, I would absolutely go forward with filing with your insurance, who will then go after the other parties' insurances. It is not your problem if the maps rents tried to cheap out and not put their nanny on their insurance. And, this is an employer/employee relationship, view it that way. You were injured by a hit and run driver! The owners took the risk of allowing their nanny to drive their car.

I hope you don't have permanent injuries you should absolutely get your knees checked out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would it matter at all whos car it was. This isn't like someone driving a Verizon truck. The nanny does not represent the MB. Unfortunately you will have to sue the nanny and she surely won't have any money.

Insurance pays, not the person. Nanny was driving MB's car, so if Nanny was included in MB's insurance and didn't have her own insurance, only MB's insurance gets hit, and rates go up. If Nanny is on MB's insurance and has her own, her insurance takes the first hit, but both policies will go up. If she wasn't on MB's insurance, that's when it gets dicey, especially if she doesn't have a vehicle of her own, so doesn't have her own insurance.

You don't ensure a car for things the car does. Nanny is at fault and should pay the medical bills, if she has insurance to cover that so be it. But MB having insurance on her car means it will be repaired, but just because she has insurance doesn't mean that they will pay the medical bills of some other person that an uninsured driver hit.

The way OP wrote things was that she wanted to sue MB ( presumably because she has more money) simple because she owned the car.