Car Accidents

Misplaced Construction Sign Results in $100,000 Settlement with St. Louis County

August 21, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Back in 2012, a Missouri high-school girl lost her life in a traffic accident when she was broadsided by another vehicle as she crossed a four-lane road. The four-lane road was under construction as she was attempting to cross it, and there was evidence submitted that it was difficult to see oncoming traffic because of a construction sign that had been placed there by road crews.

According to a local report, the girl’s family looked to St. Louis County, who hired the allegedly negligent crew, for answers. Just this past week, the County Attorney for St. Louis County approached the County Board and asked for them to approve a $100,000 settlement in order to avoid the ongoing cost of litigation. He claimed that it was a “reasonable amount given the facts and circumstances” of the case.

The lawsuit also named other parties, including the two construction companies who were in charge of the project. The specific theory of liability asserted that the crews were negligent for placing a road sign in the way of motorists’ view, essentially blocking their direct view of oncoming traffic. Furthermore, the suit alleged that the construction crew and the county government actually ignored warnings that the intersection was unsafe due to the placement of the sign.

Recent Report Takes a Look at DC Car Accidents

July 24, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In a city that is occupied by drivers from several surrounding states, the question often arises, “who causes most of the accidents in Washington DC?” An article by the Washington Post takes a look at a recent study released that analyzes some of the traffic and accident data in the nation’s capitol.

Although Washington DC shares a border with Maryland and Virginia, and is a popular tourist destination, the number one group involved in accidents in DC is, in fact, DC residents. In second place are Marylanders, causing about one-third of the accidents in the nation’s capitol.

Tourists and drivers from Virginia are actually responsible for very few accidents, given the high prevalence of both populations.

GM Recalls Allegedly Defective Cars, Faces Tough Questions of Liability

April 30, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A defective ignition switch in cars manufactured by General Motors (GM) has been linked to at least thirteen deaths over the past decade, and the company has recalled millions of vehicles during the first few months of 2014. The CEO of GM has been called to testify before Congress, and various public figures have called for investigations and prosecutions. Several lawsuits have been filed, including an emergency motion seeking to speed up the recall process. Individuals who have already settled with GM are reportedly considering seeking to overturn their settlement agreements.

A component of the ignition switch in many GM cars is at the center of the problem. The defective part, called a switch indent plunger, keeps pressure of the ignition switch to keep it from turning off while the car is in motion. Shutting off the ignition disables anti-lock brakes, airbags, power steering, and all other electrical components, which can be disastrous while a car is in motion. The part was not able to apply enough torque to keep the ignition from turning off if the ignition key had too much weight on it, such as if the driver had numerous other keys on a keychain. Ignition shut-offs because of this defect have resulted in multiple crashes and at least thirteen fatalities.

GM began recalling Cobalts, Ions, and other small-model cars in February 2014. The company reportedly notified its dealers about the defect in 2005. The recall affects more than 2.5 million vehicles. The company maintains that recalled vehicles are safe if the driver removes everything else from the keyring with the ignition key, minimizing the pressure on the ignition switch.

New Federal Regulations Will Require Backup Cameras in All Motor Vehicles Within Four Years

March 26, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently issued a new regulation that will require all vehicles under 10,000 pounds to have backup cameras by 2018. A lack of rear visibility causes a substantial number of pedestrian injuries and deaths every year. Children face a greater risk, simply because they tend to be smaller and therefore more difficult for a driver to see if they are directly behind a vehicle. A law passed by Congress in 2007 directed the NHTSA to develop regulations by 2011, but multiple delays have occurred since then. A lawsuit filed in September 2013 sought a court order directing the government to issue the rule mandated by the 2007 law.

The NHTSA reports that backover accidents, in which a vehicle strikes a person or another vehicle while driving in reverse, cause around 15,000 injuries and 210 deaths every year. Thirty-one percent of the deaths caused by backover accidents are children under the age of five, and twenty-six percent are adults age seventy and older. The new regulation, which will be added to Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, will require the installation of backup cameras in new vehicles beginning on May 1, 2016, with full compliance expected by May 1, 2018. Cameras must be able to display a 10-foot by 20-foot area behind the vehicle. The NTHSA estimates a maximum cost of $45 per vehicle to install a camera, or $142 to install a full system. It states that the regulation, once fully implemented, will save fifty-eight to sixty-nine lives per year.

Congress directed the NHTSA to make a rule requiring backup cameras in the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act of 2007. The bill was named for a two-year-old child who died when his father, unable to see him in the rearview or sideview mirrors of his SUV, accidentally backed over him in 2002. The bill gave the NHTSA eighteen months to issue a preliminary regulation, with a determination on a final rule required within thirty months of the bill’s enactment. The NTHSA’s final deadline was in February 2011, but it kept delaying a final determination. In its press release announcing the rule on March 31, 2014, the NHTSA stated that it delayed issuance “to ensure that the policy was right and make the rule flexible and achievable.”

Fraternity Members Face Vicarious Liability Lawsuits Over Fatal Tailgate Party Accident

February 6, 2014 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Two new lawsuits seek to hold over eighty members of a Yale University fraternity vicariously liable for an automobile accident that killed one person and injured two. A fraternity member allegedly lost control of a U-Haul truck and struck several pedestrians outside a football game. The estate of the woman who died in the accident and one of the women who was injured had previously sued the national fraternity and the university. The national fraternity disclaimed responsibility, but the new lawsuits suggest that it left the local fraternity chapter and its members exposed to vicarious liability claims. Personal injury claims against organizations lacking formal legal structure, based on actions of their members, can present difficult questions of how to determine and apportion fault.

The accident occurred on November 19, 2011 at a tailgate party hosted by the Yale chapter of Sigma Phi Epsilon (SigEp) at the annual football game against Harvard. A fraternity member was transporting beer kegs in a U-Haul truck to the tailgate, when he lost control of the vehicle. One person, thirty year-old Nancy Barry, was killed, while Yale student Sarah Short and another woman were injured. The school reportedly responded by putting new restrictions on tailgate parties and banning kegs at athletic events.

Short and Barry’s estate each filed suit in 2012 against the national SigEp organization, Yale University, U-Haul, the driver of the truck, and others. Each lawsuit claimed several million dollars in damages. They alleged that the national fraternity was liable because the members who were involved in the accident were acting as its representatives. The lawsuits reportedly foundered, however, when the Richmond, Virginia-based national SigEp organization stated that it had not officially sanctioned the tailgate party, and its insurer disclaimed all responsibility for the Yale chapter.

Volunteer Firefighter Not Entitled to Immunity from Lawsuit

August 5, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a ruling last month in the case of a volunteer firefighter who was involved in a car accident in the course of responding to an emergency call.

The man was reportedly driving on his way to answer an emergency call from a local fire department, when he neglected to stop at a red light, which resulted in his vehicle colliding into another vehicle carrying two individuals. Those two individuals then filed suit, claiming that the driver was negligent in causing their injuries.

The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that the driver was protected from suit by public officer immunity, and that none of the potential exceptions applied in the case. The state’s Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s ruling.

Responding to the arguments of the plaintiffs, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that the driver was in fact acting within the scope of his employment when the collision occurred. They discounted the argument that responding to the call was no different than any other individual commuting to work. In the case of firefighters, once the individual is responding to the call, and thus driving their vehicle, they are subject to the orders and commands of their superiors.

Supreme Court Reviews the Constitutionality of Blood Tests for Suspected Drunk Drivers

January 10, 2013 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The United States Supreme Court heard arguments this week in a case in which Missouri prosecutors asked the Court to rule that warrants are not necessary to collect blood samples from individuals suspected of driving while intoxicated. Given that alcohol can break down in the bloodstream, time is often of the essence when collecting evidence of intoxication. The Court ruled back in the 1960’s that police may only draw blood without a warrant when a suspect is involved in an injury accident. The present case, Missouri v. McNeely, No. 11-1425, asks the court to expand that ruling to cover any suspected DWI. Setting aside the arguments over constitutional rights regarding searches and seizures, this is an important case for the personal injury bar, as it may substantially affect how police collect evidence in DWI cases, and therefore what evidence may be available in a civil claim for damages.

Police arrested the defendant, Tyler McNeely, for DWI after McNeely reportedly displayed the “tell-tale signs of intoxication,” such as “bloodshot eyes” and “slurred speech.” Missouri v. McNeely, 358 S.W.3d 65, 68 (Mo. 2012). After McNeely refused to consent to a blood test or an alcohol breath test, the arresting officer, who did not have a warrant, instructed a medical professional to draw a blood sample. McNeely moved to suppress the results of the blood test at his trial, arguing that the officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search or seizure. The trial court granted the motion to suppress.

Car Accident at Washington Monument in Mount Vernon Injures Passenger

December 30, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The Baltimore Sun reports that on Thursday, December 27, a car rented in Connecticut crashed into a wall at the historic Washington Monument after the driver allegedly fell asleep. According to the article, the driver was not injured, but the sole passenger was taken to the University of Maryland Medical center with neck and back injuries. There were reportedly no other vehicles or individuals involved in this one-car accident.

Officials reported that there had been damage to the wall at the historic monument but did not describe the extent of the damage. The Washington Monument column was built in 1829 and is the most prominent structure in Washington, D.C. Made of marble, the monument honors the nation’s founding father George Washington.

According to the report, the car did not strike the monument itself, but a wall just south of the column that is part of the smaller Lafayette Monument. Honoring the Marquis de Lafayette, who served as major-general in the Continental Army under George Washington, the Lafayette Monument features a bronze sculpture of the French military officer on a horse.

Personal injury lawyers in the Washington, D.C. area are familiar with car accidents in the heavily trafficked nation’s capital. Falling asleep at the wheel is one of many of the risks of driving, and it is almost always due to negligent behavior. People are almost always aware of getting drowsy well before they actually fall asleep when driving. Sometimes they are in a hurry or perceive some other reasons not to heed the warnings of drowsiness.

Drivers have a duty of care to their passengers and other drivers that includes remaining alert and awake. A driver who experiences signs of drowsiness but does not pull over to rest or otherwise address his sleepiness is engaging in negligent conduct. The passenger in this case could seek compensation for his injuries from the negligent driver who fell asleep. Fortunately, it appears from the reporting that no party suffered significant injuries.

Drivers may experience drowsiness due to any number of factors:
– Lack of sleep
– Too many consecutive hours driving
– Overwork
– A medical condition
– Intoxication or drug use
– A prescription medication

No Higher Speed Limits on Major DC Commuter Routes After All

December 21, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

On December 18, Mayor Vincent Gray announced that several of the major commuter routes in DC would be seeing higher speed limits. While this may come as a welcome convenience for many drivers, Washington, D.C. car accident attorneys know that higher speeds also present higher risks. The D.C. Council must have agreed, as it issued a new rule prohibiting the mayor from changing the speed limits without its approval.

In making the announcement, Mayor Gray cited a study showing that higher speed limits would not affect the safety of the roads. However, even if the study’s findings suggest no impact on safety, it only makes logical sense that a higher speed of traffic would mean more significant injuries in accidents, even if not a higher incidence of accidents overall.

In overriding the mayor, the council said that instead of simply choosing four streets on which to raise the speed limits, the council would rather see more extensive research and deliberation. The mayor’s decision, a council spokesperson said, usurps the council’s authority to set speed limits. The mayor’s office responded that setting speed limits was within the purview of the mayor’s powers because it is a regulatory function, not a legislative one.

According to the latest data, which reports on accident statistics from 2007 to 2009, there are upwards of 15,000 collisions each year in D.C. Although Mayor Gray said that the speed limits were increased on roads that don’t see much if any pedestrians and carry faster moving traffic, most car accident attorneys would likely agree that there should be ample research to support raising speed limits before implementation. While it may be convenient for many commuters to be able to go five miles per hour faster on a few roads, the council has a good point that raising the speed limit on four streets may not be the best way to make change.

Statutes Allowing Fetal Wrongful Death Lawsuits Vary from State to State: Baumann et al v. Slezak et al

November 23, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A wrongful death lawsuit arising from a Nebraska automobile accident invokes that state’s fetal death statute, reportedly for the first time since the Nebraska Legislature enacted it in 2003. The plaintiffs in Baumann v. Slezak, et al are asserting multiple causes of action in relation to the deaths of a Maryland couple, their two children, and their unborn child. The unborn child was a viable fetus at the time, which is an important distinction in some jurisdictions. The right to recover damages for the wrongful death of a person requires that the law recognize the decedent as a “person.” Nebraska’s statute explicitly applies to unborn children “at any stage of gestation,” while the District of Columbia’s statute does not mention unborn children or fetuses. Case law from DC, however has established that the law may apply to a “viable” fetus.

The accident in Nebraska occurred during the early morning of September 9, 2012. A family of four, consisting of a father, a pregnant mother, and two children, were driving through western Nebraska on their way to California. Each parent was driving a separate vehicle, and the children were riding with the mother. Traffic on westbound Interstate 80 was at a standstill because of an accident between two semi-trailers about one mile further up the road. While the family’s two cars were stopped, one behind the other, at the rear of the line of traffic, another semi-trailer approached from behind at about seventy-five miles per hour. The driver allegedly did not slow before colliding with the father’s car. This caused his car to collide with the mother’s car, propelling it under the trailer in front of her, and killing the four family members and the unborn child.

The legal representatives of the two parents filed suit on behalf of the parents, the children, and the unborn child, asserting causes of action for negligence and violations of federal trucking safety regulations. They sued the truck driver, his employer, and the driver and truck companies allegedly responsible for the accident that caused the traffic jam, asserting causes of action for negligence and violations of federal safety regulations.