Car Accidents

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.

Washington DC Car Accident Lawsuit Alleges Direct Negligence and Respondeat Superior: Lewis-Shephard v. Burch, et al

November 9, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A lawsuit filed last year alleges two types of liability in a Washington DC automobile accident. The plaintiff in Lewis-Shephard v. Burch, et al filed suit against two defendants: the driver of a vehicle that allegedly struck her when she was on foot, and the owner of said vehicle. The lawsuit alleges that the driver’s negligent operation of the automobile led directly to the accident and her injuries. It also alleges that the automobile owner is liable for the plaintiff’s damages because, under D.C. law, she made the driver her agent by entrusting the vehicle to him.

The accident occurred during the afternoon of September 19, 2008. According to her complaint, the plaintiff, Kathy Lewis-Shephard, was walking east through the crosswalk on 12th Street NW, at the intersection with I Street. The vehicle driven by the defendant, Phillip Burch, Jr., was allegedly traveling west on I Street and turned right to go north on 12th Street. The plaintiff alleges that Burch failed to yield the right of way to her, and his vehicle hit her.

Lewis-Shepard filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in September 2011, asserting diversity jurisdiction between herself, a Maryland resident, and the two defendants, both New Jersey residents. She named Burch and the owner of the car Burch was allegedly driving, Agnes Dalley, as defendants.

Washington DC Ranks Last in Annual Ranking of “Best Drivers;” Surrounding Areas Also Fare Poorly

October 5, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Allstate Insurance Company released its eighth annual “Allstate America’s Best Drivers Report,” and Washington DC again ranked last among two hundred American cities. The survey examined its own data on accident claims to determine each city’s auto collision frequency. The cities with the lowest frequencies were deemed to have the “safest” drivers. Arlington and Alexandria, Virginia, along with Baltimore, also ranked very low on Allstate’s list. In general, smaller cities, such as the top-ranking Sioux Falls, South Dakota, have a lower incidence of car collisions, and Allstate discusses the factors that contribute to that trend.

According to Allstate, fatalities due to automobile crashes are currently at the lowest rate, nationwide, since 1949. Car accidents still account for about 32,000 deaths per year. To compile the “Best Drivers” report, Allstate reviewed actuarial data for the 200 largest U.S. cities for a two-year period, in this case 2009 and 2010, to estimate the likelihood of collisions for drivers in each city. The study calculated the average number of years a driver in a particular city may go without experiencing a collision, as well as the difference between a city’s likelihood of collisions and the national average. All of the data came from Allstate’s own claims data, so it may not present a truly accurate picture of national driver safety. Allstate claims that it provides roughly ten percent of all auto insurance policies in the country, and calls its report a “realistic snapshot” of the situation on American roads.

The top-ranking city in the study, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, has an average of 13.8 years between collisions for its drivers. Its likelihood of an accident is 27.6% below the national average. Drivers in the bottom-ranking city, Washington, DC, go an average of 4.7 years between accidents. The likelihood of an accident is 112.1% greater than, or more than double, the national average. Alexandria, Virginia has an average of 6.2 years between accidents and a collision likelihood 62.6% above the national average. For Arlington, the numbers are 6.5 years and 53.0%. Baltimore’s numbers are 5.3 years and 87.9%. These four cities in the greater DC area all ranked in the bottom ten in Allstate’s report.

Cars Collide with Washington DC-Area Fire Engines; Police Remind Drivers of State “Move-Over” Laws

September 13, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The city of Greenbelt, Maryland has found itself with no working fire engines as the result of two accidents in recent weeks. One accident involved a driver who failed to yield the right of way and collided with a fire engine. The other accident occurred when two cars struck the city’s remaining engine while it was blocking part of the Capital Beltway to shield emergency workers. The county fire chief, in speaking about the accidents, reminded drivers in the Maryland portion of the Washington DC area of the state’s “move-over” law, which aims to protect emergency responders helping people after automobile accidents and other crises.

On the morning of September 1, 2012, one of the Greenbelt Volunteer Fire Department’s engines was hit by a civilian vehicle while responding to a residential fire in Berwyn Heights. According to a spokesperson for the Prince George’s County Fire/EMS Department, the civilian vehicle failed to yield the right of way to the fire engine. Two firefighters sustained minor injuries in the collision. The county described the damage to the fire engine as “significant” and said that it will remain out of service for some time.

Greenbelt’s only remaining fire engine was serving as a barrier for emergency workers, who were clearing a wreck on the inner Beltway in the early morning of September 8. Firefighters sometimes position fire engines across multiple lanes of traffic to protect emergency crews who must work on busy roadways on foot. In this case, the fire engine did its job well. At about 2:45 a.m., a 2005 Lexus passed multiple warning lights and crashed into the side and rear of the parked fire engine. Maryland State Police troopers arrested the Lexus driver for multiple traffic violations. While emergency crews were still clearing the Lexus from the scene, a second vehicle barely missed several firefighters and collided with the Lexus, causing even more damage to the fire engine. That driver reportedly fled the scene, but was stopped further down the road and now faces a similar number charges for traffic offenses. The county estimates that the damage to the fire engine will exceed $30,000.

Washington DC Survey Shows Increase in Distracted Driving

May 22, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

As cell phones become more of a necessity in everyday life, they also pose a threat to road and highway safety. Distracted driving, meaning driving with only partial attention to the road because of a cell phone or other communications device, rivals drunk driving as a threat to public safety. Although the total number of injuries and deaths attributable to distracted driving has decreased in recent years, the number of drivers who admit to driving while talking or texting on a cell phone has risen. Distracted driving plays a role in as many as one in four automobile accidents nationwide. A fatal car accident in Connecticut has focused the nation’s attention on the issue of driving distraction, leading to new educational campaigns and legislative efforts.

The District of Columbia joins thirty-one U.S. states in banning the use of handheld cell phones by all drivers. D.C. and thirty-eight states ban writing or sending text messages while driving, and the District bans learner’s permit holders from all cell phone use while driving, including use of a cell phone with a hands-free device like a headset. School bus drivers are similarly prohibited from all cell phone use while working.

An accident in Norwalk, Connecticut on March 24, 2012 has put a national spotlight on distracted driving. A 16 year-old girl, who was allegedly using a handheld cell phone, struck and killed a 44 year-old jogger. Connecticut has strict prohibitions on use of cell phones by novice drivers and drivers under the age of eighteen. The girl now faces multiple criminal charges, including negligent homicide with a vehicle and violation of the cell phone ban. The jogger’s father blamed the accident on the girl’s “stupidity” and has expressed support for a total ban on cell phone use, including hands-free devices, while driving. Currently, no state bans all cell phone use. The District of Columbia, for example, may allow adults to use a cell phone with a hands-free device.

Improvements in Auto Racing Safety Mean Fewer Accidents, Less-Satisfied Fans

April 27, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

NASCAR races around the country have gone a remarkably long time without a serious crash. Some races have recently gone hundreds of laps without even a yellow caution flag, which requires drivers to exercise caution or slow down due to a hazardous condition on the track. Some observers have credited new technologies, including improvements in aerodynamics, with fewer crashes and, therefore, fewer injuries. At the same time, fans report discontent with the situation, and attendance has declined. While improvements in safety and a reduction in racing car accidents would seem to be a favorable goal, the Associated Press went so far as to call it a “fan’s nightmare.”

The AP reported last week that racers at NASCAR’s Sprint Cup had gone more than nine hundred miles without a crash. Out of the last four Sprint Cups, three were entirely free of accidents. Overall, races have had a third fewer caution flags compared to last year. All of the recent crashes reportedly occurred at one race at Martinsville Speedway in Virginia on April 1. Fans have reportedly reacted by staying at home in droves, and by complaining loudly when they do show up. The stands at Bristol Motor Speedway in Tennessee, for example, were reportedly half-empty for the race on March 18. All of this led champion racer Jimmie Johnson to note something that may have already been obvious to many fans and observers: that crashing is more important than racing for some NASCAR fans.

Racing observers have cited both technological changes and a self-perpetuating safety trend as possible causes for the recent bout of green flags, which signal safe track conditions. According to USA Today, one driver said that cautions sometimes “breed more cautions” by slowing down the overall pace and giving cars fewer chances to crash. This could mean that, over time, the amount of crashes will return to the expected level, but other factors may be in play as well.

NHTSA Delays Decision on Backup Cameras in Cars

March 22, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), an office within the U.S. Department of Transportation, has delayed a final rule regarding rear visibility requirements in cars. This is the second delay of the rule since the agency began working on it. The purpose of the rule would be to prevent “backover” accidents due to a driver’s inability to see people or objects behind the vehicle. The Secretary of Transportation has said that they expect to have final standards ready by the end of 2012.

The rule is required by the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007, passed by the U.S. Congress in early 2008. This law addresses several child safety concerns, including the risk to children of vehicles moving in reverse where the driver cannot see the child. It is named for a two year-old child who died when his father accidentally backed his car over him in their driveway. According to the NHTSA, 292 deaths and 18,000 injuries result each year from “blind zones” behind vehicles. The majority of the fatalities involve light vehicles, meaning those weighing 10,000 pounds or less. Those most vulnerable to these kinds of accidents are children and the elderly. In addition to addressing visibility issues, the law requires rules for auto-reverse in power windows and transmission systems that prevent cars from easily shifting out of “park.”

The proposed rule would require additional mirrors or even camera devices to enable drivers to see the area behind the vehicle while driving in reverse. In December 2010, the NHTSA announced that it expected to require new passenger cars, minivans, pickup trucks, and other vehicles to have “rear mounted video cameras and in-vehicle displays” to allow an expanded field of vision for drivers.

The New York Times reportedly found that backup cameras are already standard issue in forty-five percent of new vehicles, and that they are available as an option in twenty-three percent. For all other vehicles, owners would have to purchase cameras. The NHTSA reportedly estimates that, for vehicles without an embedded navigational screen, the cost to a vehicle owner would be between $159 and $203, and between $58 and $88 for cars with a screen already installed. The total annual cost for the country would be between $1.9 and $2.7 billion.

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced in February that the NHTSA would need to do further research before formally issuing the new rules. The rule has also proven to be controversial politically, considering the large price tag attached to it. The controversy persists even though it was actually President Bush who signed it into law in 2008. Bloomberg Businessweek says that it is among the five most expensive regulations still pending in the Obama administration, and it is one of many facing delays.

National Transportation Safety Board Urges Cities and States to Ban All Cell Phone Use by Drivers

December 21, 2011 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

An investigation into a car crash caused by distracted driving has led the nation’s leading governmental traffic safety advocate to urge state governments to ban all use of portable communications devices by drivers. This would include cell phones, meaning a total ban on non-emergency talking and texting while operating a vehicle. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), an independent agency of the federal government, issued this recommendation earlier this week as part of its report on a 2010 automobile accident in Missouri.

The NTSB also recommends that state and local governments follow the model of “high visibility enforcement” pioneered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), another government safety advocate. The NHTSA has run campaigns that combine vigorous enforcement of a specific traffic law with publicity campaigns in order to promote awareness of, and compliance with, such traffic laws.

The CTIA, a trade association that represents the wireless electronics communications industry, has in the past supported bans on texting behind the wheel. On the issue of banning talking on cell phones while driving, it has indicated a willingness to defer to the public and to lawmakers. The single greatest factor that would weigh against a successful ban on talking while driving is that, put simply, everyone seems to be doing it.

“Distracted driving,” which refers to driving while using some sort of electronic communications device or engaged some other activity, caused up to 3,092 deaths in traffic accidents last year, the NHTSA estimates. Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia have enacted bans on sending text messages while driving, but it does not appear to have stopped, or even slowed down, the practice. Texting while driving may have increased by as much as fifty percent in the past year, and the NHTSA estimates that one percent of drivers on the road are, at any given moment, distracted by a cell phone. Younger drivers are even more likely to drive while distracted.

Returning Veterans are at High Risk for Auto Accidents

October 19, 2011 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for veterans returning from deployment during their first year back home, according to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA). Veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan face a 75% greater probability of a fatal car accident than the general population. This continues a historical trend, but at a greater rate than prior to the deployments of the past decade. The VA’s investigation suggests that military training, psychological effects of deployment, and possible injuries all play a role in unsafe driving among veterans.

Studies by the VA and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration have shown that risky behavior accounts for many of the deaths. This includes not using seat belts or helmets, speeding, and driving under the influence of alcohol. Training in “aggressive driving” is one possible cause. People on deployment receive training for driving in combat situations, and must constantly contend with the possibility of ambush or improvised explosive devices. VA officials have described a sense of “invincibility” among many returning veterans, having survived combat, which can unwittingly lead to dangerous driving.

Psychological factors also play a significant role because of the highly stressful situations in deployment, particularly to Iraq and Afghanistan. Post-traumatic stress disorder, an all-too-common condition of returning veterans, can lead to dangerous driving back home. An Army study revealed that 50% of returning soldiers reported feeling anxiety on the road when other vehicles quickly approached them, and 20% reported feeling general anxiety whenever driving. The VA has further noted that auto accidents can lead to further PTSD, particularly in individuals already affected by PTSD or other mental health issues, which can create an ongoing problem for veterans involved in accidents.

Traumatic brain injuries can affect driving, causing a person to think they are driving normally and not noticing mistakes. Such injuries may go undetected in returning veterans, leading to unforeseen driving problems. Individuals suffering from brain injuries may not be able to recognize changes in their driving patterns, making safe driving difficult.