Opinion ID: 2076416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Was there a conflict of interest between Smiley and Michael on the one hand and Crooks I on the other?

Text: Respondents argue that Michael consistently related the same facts regarding the accident, i.e. asserting that Crooks I had been drinking, appeared drunk, but did not drive in a drunken manner, was preparing to make a left turn to take Michael home, at Michael's request, observed the marshall's vehicle approaching at a high rate of speed without lights on the wrong side of the road and thereupon blinked his lights and swerved to the left to avoid the oncoming vehicle. They further assert that no other facts brought to light by their own investigation contradict this version of the incident. Therefore they advised their clients, Smiley and Michael, that there was no cause of action against Crooks I, pointing out that mere negligence would be insufficient to support a guest case; and that to win a guest case against Crooks I, willful and wanton misconduct would have to be proven. Respondents thus concluded that Michael's own testimony which he could not, in good conscience, ever repudiate would show that Crooks I wasn't negligent, let alone prove willful and wanton misconduct. They then argued that since Michael's own testimony would foreclose any recovery against Crooks I, that there could be no possible conflict of interest and hence no possible ethical misconduct. This Hearing Officer does not agree. While the legal conclusion was fairly determined by Respondents, this did not obviate the fact that a conflict of interest between Crooks I and Michael did exist. Counsel's advice regarding strategy in pursuing Michael's claim did not change the factum of existence or nonexistence of a possible claim. A host driver is always in a position of exposure to a claim by a guest if an accident occurs. Michael's version of the accident, while weakening his guest claim, did not utterly destroy it. There were too many other elements pointing to possible liability as to Crooks I. These include: 1. Michael's age and maturity as well as his grievous injuries which might well have impaired his memory or judgment as to the facts surrounding the accident. 2. The subsequent indictment and conviction of Crooks I on the Criminal charges. 3. The presence of .17% blood alcohol in Crooks I. 4. The physical facts surrounding the accident, i.e. its occurrence on the right-hand side of the highway for the Marshall's vehicle. 5. The explosive emotional factors present in the case such as Crooks I's prior driving record, and his propensity for strong drink as suggested in the many reports made to Farm Bureau by Respondent Farr. 6. Michael's statement that Crooks I `appeared drunk.' 7. The presence of beer in the Crooks I auto. 8. Michael's statement confirmed by Crooks I that he asked to be let out. Therefore, there was a conflict of interest between Michael and Crooks I.