Automobile Accidents

Published on: March 19, 2012

More on Mandatory Back-up Cameras

Rear Backup Camera.jpg We posted on March 6 about Mandatory Back-Up Cameras: Worth the Cost? It seems that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has been getting a lot of criticism for his delay in acting on the proposal.

The Tampa Bay Times has an editorial pointing out that the cost of backup cameras ranges from $58 to $203 per car (in our post, we only had data about the higher-end dollar figure).

But, is this even a worthy issue? Apparently, back-up cameras are already standard on 45% of all 2012 models. Based on that, it might appear that this is something the public is demanding. If so, why the delay in implementing the rule? And why is the automobile industry fighting back so hard? It appears that there is no objection to back-up cameras, just the nuances of the camera. From USA Today:

Published on: March 9, 2012

Data on Life-Saving Cell Phone Laws

By Posner & Cord, LLC

Distracted Driving Lawsuits.jpg California has a new law on cell phones. There, hand-held cell phone use was banned for drivers in July, 2008. According to data kept by the University of California, Berkeley, overall traffic deaths decreased by 22%, and hand-held driver cell-phone related deaths went down by 47%.

Certainly, it can’t all be related to the law, but some of these saved lives are because of the public perception that driving while using a cell phone is just dangerous. But, California offers a big stick–in 2011, there were 460,487 Californian convictions for hand-held cell phone use. The data and the California press release are visible here.

In Maryland, it is illegal to talk on a cell phone (unless it is hands-free), and to text or e-mail from a cell phone while driving. These are all primary offenses, and a police officer can give a citation to any driver who engages in this activity without evidence of other offenses. It will be interesting to track the Maryland conviction statistics, to see how aggressive our police officers are. Anecdotally, it doesn’t take long to see someone driving down the road, talking on a cell phone without the hands-free device.

Published on: March 6, 2012

Mandatory Back-up Cameras: Worth the Cost?

By Posner & Cord, LLC

Backup Camera.jpg I am fortunate that I’ve never had to litigate a case involving a driver who backed up into a child or a person. Statistically, about 16,000 of these accidents happen every year, with about 300 deaths. The drivers are most often (70%) the parents or family members of children who are injured.

There have been proposals since at least 2008 to require all cars to feature backup cameras. Many thought the rule on rear visibility standards was going to pass this year, but it has been delayed once again. The automobile wants lawmakers to consider other alternatives.

One proponent likens backup cameras to airbags–prevailing wisdom was that the public didn’t want them, but they did. Now, we accept that the cost of an airbag is built into the car, and if it increases the price a bit, that’s the price for safety. Backup cameras could increase the costs of cars by $200.

Published on: March 2, 2012

More On School Bus Accidents

By Posner & Cord, LLC

Chesterfield Bus Accident.jpg Max Kennerly of the Pennsylvania-based Beasley Firm writes about school bus accidents in the context of the recent Chesterfield, New Jersey tragedy. There, a dump truck slammed into a school bus, killing one child and injuring many. The dump truck had a flashing yellow light, and the school bus driver failed to stop for a stop sign.

Mr. Kennerly’s post is well-written (as are all of his posts), and brings some context to the complexities of automobile negligence litigation. My office is in Timonium, I live in Baltimore, and I try auto accident cases all over Maryland, but it never ceases to surprise me how frequently new fact patterns emerge. There is rarely a truly simple case, especially when the damages and injuries are severe. As Mr. Kennerly points out, the issues in this case include:

driver distraction
driver experience
poor road design (defects including the road, surrounding trees and lights)
bus crashworthiness (ability of bus to withstand crashes

Part of the last issue, crashworthiness, has to do with seatbelts on buses. We discussed bus seatbelts in a prior post. This New Jersey bus apparently had seatbelts, as required by New Jersey law. However, it is unclear what kind of seatbelts the bus had (two-point or three-point). Did the seatbelts prevent injuries or cause them?

These issues require serious consideration, and they crop up time and time again in auto accident cases. The other tragedy is that there is a time limit–because a governmental entity may be at fault, the victims must give proper notice to the state or city within 90 days of the accident. Nevermind that the state and city are obviously well aware of the accident. Failure to give proper notice within those 90 days (when families are trying to grieve for their loved ones, care for their injured, and move back to a place of normalcy) means that those families may be forever barred from recovering in a lawsuit.

Published on: February 29, 2012

Why You Need Better Car Insurance

By Posner & Cord, LLC

Happy MAIF driver.JPG I don’t work for the insurance industry. Sometimes, I don’t like the insurance industry. We disagree about a lot of things, like to what extent my clients are hurt because of the negligence of their drivers, and what they should pay for it.

But even with its problems, car insurance is important. It is important for all drivers to have insurance to pay claims if they make a mistake–run a red light, fail to see a pedestrian in a crosswalk, or make a left-hand turn before it is really safe to do so. I want insurance so that if I hurt someone, they can recover without having to pay for their own medical bills. It’s just personal responsibility–I’m responsible for the damage I cause (it’s “you break it, you buy it” applied to the road).

There is at least one other reason to have good insurance. The other drivers. Take this excerpt from the The MAIF Agent Blog:

Published on: February 20, 2012

Proving The Other Driver Was At Fault In A Maryland Auto Accident

By Posner & Cord, LLC

Maryland Car Accident Lane Signs.png Maryland automobile injury lawsuits come in three types:

One driver was clearly at fault (for example, the average rear-end collision);
It’s uncertain which driver was at fault, but the rules are clear (for example, a “lane change” case where one driver, we don’t have any outside evidence, merged into the other driver); and
Someone is at fault, but it’s hard to know who.

Let’s talk about No. 3, today. The auto accident rules of the road are usually pretty easy–most of them are “common sense” acquired by most of us drivers over the years. Many rules on the “standard of care” owed by drivers to one another have been lovingly written by the Maryland legislature, mostly in the Transportation Code.

But sometimes, a client comes in and tells you what happened. It might sound okay, but some of the details are fuzzy. Technology is a wonderful thing, so I frequently visit Google Earth for a bird’s eye view and street view of the accident.

Unfortunately, not all rules are laid out in the Maryland Transportation Code. Sure, there is some discussion of traffic control devices, flashing signals and the like (see here). But what about the actual rules regarding when you can cross a double yellow line? There are a lot of road signs and other marking rules, and they are not always obvious.

Published on: February 14, 2012

Punishing Drunk Drivers For Maryland Car Accidents

By Posner & Cord, LLC

I'm Just a Bill, Part 2 In the spirit of our most recent post on raising the insurance coverage in Maryland for certain MAIF claims, let’s talk about another proposed bill before the Maryland legislature, one seeking to impose punitive damages on some drunk drivers.

First, you should know that punitive damages in Maryland are nearly impossible to get in car accident lawsuits. By nearly impossible, I mean impossible. By impossible, I mean it pretty much has to be intentional murder. Lawyers have tried, but even the driver who has been arrested three times for drunk driving, has been in two accidents while driving drunk, and finally kills an entire family, does not get punitive damages.

Punitive damages are damages unrelated to the actual injuries in a case. In most cases, judges and juries pronounce a verdict of compensatory damages, which is meant to replace losses suffered in a Maryland car accident–medical expenses, lost wages, mental anguish, inconvenience, and the like. Punitive damages are linked directly to the person who caused the harm–the worse the behavior of that person, the more punitive damages a judge or jury could impose. Punitives are meant to punish the wrongdoer.

Published on: February 13, 2012

Not Fair: Maryland Law Makes You Carry $30,000 Auto Insurance, But You Might Have a Maximum $20,000 Recovery

By Posner & Cord, LLC

I'm Just a Bill In 2011, the Maryland Legislature decided that the minimum limits for automobile insurance, which were over 35 years old, needed to be increased. The limits were $20,000 per person/$40,000 per occurrence. They were increased to $30,000/$60,000. Not quite a cost-of-living adjustment (one inflation calculator told me that $20,000 in 1972 would be $107,626 in 2011 dollars). But, it’s something, anyway.

The goal of the 2011 legislation was further protect Maryland drivers. Healthcare costs and lost wages following a Maryland automobile accident can be high. The increase eases the pain a little bit. The problem with the 2011 change was that it did not include the uninsured division of the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund (MAIF).

Not only does MAIF insure (the otherwise uninsurable) drivers of Maryland (who are now required to have $30,000/$60,000), but it also provides protection to people who are in accidents with uninsured motorists, when the victims have no other source of insurance. For example, pedestrians hit by uninsured drivers; and people in bus accidents or taxi accidents who are injured in hit-and-run accidents. In order to pay those claims, MAIF collects a little bit of money from other insurance policies. So, a portion of my Allstate insurance premium goes to the MAIF fund.

Published on: February 6, 2012

Cutting Bigger Big Rigs Off At The Pass

By Posner & Cord, LLC

We recently reported about the Transportation Industry’s bright idea to make behemoth trucks even more monstrous (Big Rigs Getting Even Bigger?). If approved, it would not be uncommon to see 100-foot long triple-tractor-trailers sharing our roads with family vans, smart cars and Mini Coopers. To put it in perspective, two basketball courts side-by-side have a width of 100 feet.

The trucking industry is now asking Congress to permit them to increase the national weight limit on tractor-trailer trucks almost 20% from 80,000 to 97,000 pounds.

Well, the House committee on Transportation and Infrastructure said no, for now, at least. They are stalling the request, and mandating that trucks stay the same size, for now. Over the next three years they will study the costs associated with increased truck sizes. The committee was primarily concerned with the costs of repairing and replacing beat up roads (especially those costs to local governments and taxpayers). However, many people who are against the increase for safety reasons will take this opportunity to rally their forces for the next time this request is made.

Part of my problem with increasing truck sizes is certainly visceral. Those things scare me, sometimes. But my other problem is, as a Maryland trucking accident lawyer, I’ve witnessed not only the devastation that can be caused by a tractor-trailer accident, but I’ve seen the shoddy maintenance for our nation’s fleets of trucks. One of the biggest factors in trucking accidents is velocity–heavier trucks will often have a higher velocity. I’ve seen trucks that have failed brake inspections, and were put back on the road. Giving trucking companies license to use bigger trucks just puts us all in more danger.

Published on: January 31, 2012

Phantom Vehicles: Is Help As Fictional As Ghostbusters?

By Posner & Cord, LLC

Phantom Vehicle.jpg Many people come to us because they’ve been in an accident, but they are unsure what their options are. This is rarely more true than in the phantom vehicle case. This is where there is an accident, but no sign of the person who caused the accident. These cases are sometimes hit-and-run accidents, though phantom vehicle cases can happen where the phantom vehicle takes the right-of-way from another motorist, causing that motorist to hit a third motorist (while the phantom vehicle goes merrily along its way). In many cases, these are pedestrian hit-and-runs.

What can be done? Fortunately, Ghostbusters aren’t needed. There are usually two options.

First, if you have uninsured motorist (UM) protection on your automobile insurance policy, you can file a claim against your insurance company, which will stand in the place of the phantom vehicle. You will have to prove your claim, either to the insurance company’s satisfaction or to a judge/jury. In some cases, though, your testimony alone may be sufficient proof (independent witnesses who saw the phantom vehicle wouldn’t hurt your case, however).