Maryland Car Accident Lawyer Blog

I finally replaced my ten-year old car a few months ago, and have been happily learning about all of the new technology in modern cars. It's like a candy store, especially compared to my old vehicle which was limited to power locks and a car alarm.

One feature that I was surprised to learn about was voice to text. When a text message comes in, the car will connect to my phone and will ask permission to read it. The voice recognition software will pick up my command (yes or no), and the pronunciation, even for uncommon words in text messages, is remarkable. Then, it will extraordinarily ask me if I want to reply. I speak, and it will create a responding text message. This is also amazingly accurate.

Two things: first, this will make things a little more complicated for attorneys who are litigating distracted driving lawsuits. In Maryland, as you know, it is against the law (not to mention unsafe) for drivers to use handheld phones while driving. That means no e-mailing, no texting, and no holding the phone up to your ear. The exception is the hands-free option--right now, we are allowed to use the phone as long as it is through some sort of hands-free technology, like bluetooth. One common source of discovery in accident cases is for the negligent driver's cell phone data--was the driver receiving or sending texts at the time of the accident? If so, that is important evidence to show distracted driving. Now, however, lawyers must find out if the negligent driver's vehicle has these voice-to-text features, because those are within the boundaries of the law.

The second part of this, though is that the claim could be made that it is unsafe to use those features. One study (here's the Mashable cliffs notes, and here's the study) has found that there is no appreciable difference between manual texting (using the phone and typing out a message) and using a voice-to-text software like Siri. It sounds counter-intuitive, but it appears that the same degree of concentration is involved whether a driver is looking at the phone or not, and it yields the same amount of distraction.

Research like this hasn't really penetrated the consumer consciousness, but as it is developed it is likely that it will be recognized by the public and legislators. There are bound to be some states which will proscribe the use of a phone, even hands-free use, while driving. In a lawsuit, the standard of care is what a reasonable driver under similar circumstances would do. Could there be a day when a reasonable driver would not use hands-free?

For more information about distracted driving, or if you were hurt in an automobile accident, contact us at 443.850.4426 or online.

The Federal government wants to know whether you've been texting and driving. They have authorized grants to two states, Connecticut and Massachusetts, for anti-texting enforcement programs. Each state will get $275,000.00.

This money will be used to train police officers on how to detect texters--not only from their patrol cars, but from highway overpasses and more covert locations. I'm not sure how this will work, exactly. One police officer on a bridge, watching traffic come toward him. That officer radios to another officer on the road below, and tells him which car to pull over. Maybe it's as simple as that.

One thing is for sure--some people who flaunt Maryland's cell phone use laws are getting crafty--many keep the phones down below window-level to avoid police detection. Of course, that makes it harder to see the road, which is more likely to cause crashes.

Maryland automobile accident lawyers should have an arsenal of discovery ready to determine when illegal cell phone use may have contributed to an accident. In some cases, this involves written questions, requests for production of cell phone records, and subpoenas to cell phone companies.

See the U.S. Department of Transportation's press release and Ray LaHood's blog.

Oftentimes, pedestrian-versus-car accident cases are among the toughest to litigate. It's rare that we see that perfect liability scenario:

The pedestrian, observed by traffic cameras, dutifully waited her turn to cross from one end of the street to the other. The approaching traffic stopped, she got the white "walking man" signal, and after looking both ways, she proceeded across the cross walk to the other end. At that point, the independent and disinterested witness observed, the defendant ran the red light at twice the speed limit, hitting the pedestrian."

What we usually see is something like this:

The pedestrian, unobserved by anyone or anything, was crossing the road in the middle of the street, about 20 yards from the crosswalk. He said there was no traffic approaching at the time. When he was about 2 feet from the opposite curb, he felt the impact from a vehicle that "just came out of nowhere." Of course, he was listening to iPod at the time of the collision.

The reality is, in a state like Maryland where contributory negligence is the order of the day, plaintiff pedestrians probably lose 75% of the time (yes, this is a completely off-the-cuff and made-up-on-the-spot statistic). And, lawyers won't even take the really unlikely case. Contributory negligence is the rule that says, even if the defendant driver is 99.99% negligent, a plaintiff must lose his entire case if he is 0.01% negligent (we're hoping the Court of Appeals might change this arcane rule of law soon).

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said recently that 80% of pedestrian deaths in 2010 were due to jaywalking. A little research indicates that 79% of pedestrian deaths were at "non-intersections." Not quite the same as jaywalking, and not quite the same as "caused by." As the article states, sometimes there is no crosswalk anywhere in the area; sometimes cars jump curbs and kill people at "non-intersections."

Of course, this is all largely irrelevant. The important point that Lahood wanted to make is that pedestrians should pay attention to traffic, not their cell phones, when crossing the street. Surely that's going to save a couple of lives.

With so many accidents caused by distracted driving, it's a fair bet that, in any given accident, the negligent driver was on a handheld phone or handling e-mail or text messages while driving. In many cases, that fact is not important: if the defendant admits liability, or if liability is clear (for example, the garden variety rear-end collision).

In other cases, though, proving that the defendant was distracted can go a long way toward showing that their version of events is likely wrong (if not an outright lie). Yesterday I deposed a representative of AT&T to find out everything I could about the phone usage of an automobile accident defendant at the time of the accident.

These types of depositions take a lot of legwork. When I get the transcript, I'll post it on the website. If you have a case where you suspect illegal cell phone use at the time of an accident, here are some things to think about:

• Even before a lawsuit is filed, immediately send a preservation letter to save any cell phone owned by the defendant, and the content of any text messages on the phone at the time of the accident
Find out what cell phone carriers and cell phone numbers the defendant had at the time of the collision
• Either get the defendant to sign an authorization, or send a subpoena requesting all cell phone records (including voice, data and text messaging records) for the time of the collision
• Once you have those records, work with the cellphone carrier to set up a corporate designee deposition to decipher what the records mean--they typically come to you in spreadsheet form with various codes and abbreviations
• During the deposition, identify the meaning of every column and term generically
• During the deposition, figure out if you can verify whether there was any use of the phone during the collision

AT&T, for example, does not keep records of the content of text messages--they can only tell what time those messages were sent or received (they can't tell what time the messages were read). In a catastrophic injury case, a forensic computer specialist may be able to dissect the phone to determine that type of information. Your best bet is showing a string of text messages back and forth near the time of the accident. Even better is a phone call log. Data usage (Apps, Facebook, internet usage) from a smartphone can be more difficult--many programs run in the background, so the fact that a phone is uploading or downloading data does not mean that someone is actively using the phone.

Finally, be sure to find out in discovery whether the defendant gets e-mail on his phone. If so, request a copy of all e-mail messages sent and received near the time of the accident.

Courtesy OnlineSchools.com

The New Jersey couple who were hit by a texting driver while riding their motorcycle settled their case against the driver for $500,000. Both Mr. and Mrs. Kubert, who were on the motorcycle, lost a leg because of the motorcycle accident.

We wrote about this story in May (Distracted Driving Lawsuits: Suing the Sender, and Lawsuits Against Text-Senders: Conclusion). There, the trial judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not have a case against the person who sent the text message, only the driver who read it. The lawyer in the case is appealing that decision, though I still wonder how he will get paid if he wins.

The $500,000 settlement only applies to the driver of the car. It looks like that is the policy limit, so the driver's insurance paid everything it had.

For more on distracted driving lawsuits, see our archives.

Given the prevalence of cell phones and smartphones, the likelihood is that many if not most automobile accidents are caused by distracted driving. The NHTSA estimates about 3,000 fatal distracted driving auto accidents in 2011. One study suggests that cell phones may be the cause of 1.6 million accidents per year, which is 28% of all auto accidents. Maryland has been improving the laws year after year, but some research questions whether existing laws around the nation are good enough.

As far as punishment, some believe that higher fines will increase compliance, just as it did for seatbelt laws. New Jersey is considering a $200 fine for the first offense with a license suspension for 90 days for the third offense. Connecticut has already increased fines to $125 for a first offense. In Maryland, the fines are relatively light. Talking on a cell phone can cost $40 for a first offense and $100 for subsequent offenses. Sending or reading e-mails or texts is punishable by $70 fine for the first offense and $110 for subsequent offenses.

We should beef up the penalty provisions--larger fines and points (right now, there are no points issued for speaking on a phone for the first offense unless it causes a collision). Financial penalties provide most people with an incentive for good behavior, which will lead to safer roads.

The scourge of distracted driving is so bad that I predict many attorneys will be adding to their lawsuits complaints against employers for failure to have policies, procedures and protocols to discourage distracted driving. First, a little bit about agency.

An agent is someone who is working for someone else. When an employee gets in his car to go do something for his employer, he is the agent of the employer. When the driver negligently causes a Maryland auto accident, both the driver is responsible and the employer is responsible.

Because distracted driving is such a big deal right now, employers are jumping on the bandwagon to come up with policies about when their employees can and can't use cell phones while driving. Some companies are prohibiting the use of handheld phones; others are prohibiting all cell phone use, even hands-free conversation. Where an employer does not take the step to set a policy, they are setting themselves up for more liability in the event of an accident. Realistically, they will be on the hook for any auto accident injuries regardless of whether the company was negligent, but it gives one more reason for the judge or jury to decide that the company is responsible. Also, it puts forth negative conduct by the company, which makes a jury more likely to decide against them if the question of liability (whether the employee was negligent) is unclear.

A driving simulator called One Simple Decision, made by Virtual Driver Interactive http://www.driverinteractive.com/index.php is attempting to show driver's the short and long-term consequences of texting and driving. It starts with the driver driving, and then instructs the driver to begin texting. When the (hopefully) inevitable collision occurs, the driver goes through a first-person interrogation by police, medical personnel, and a judge in an attempt to show chronic texters the real-life consequences of distracted driving.

The allure of a simulation like this is the desire to beat it, like any videogame. I know the dangers of texting and driving, but (I suspect like most people), I think that I can do it relatively safely. So what happens when a driver beats the simulator? Is that a license to text and drive? I'd like to know the simulators statistics.

Regardless, it is clear that in a controlled situation, the driver is going to bring his or her A-game. In real life, there will be less attention to detail, and a higher likelihood of a distracted driving accident.

I did a drunk driving simulation at a museum in Colorado when I was a kid--the simulation would go through what it was like to drive when sober versus drunk. Granted, I didn't know how to drive then, but that simulator didn't work at all (I think something was wrong with the driving wheel). For $42,000 per simulator, One Simple Decision should be a little more realistic.

For More Information

• USA Today: Simulator Shows Young Drivers the Risks of Distraction
• Automobile Accident Lawyer
• Charm City Lawyer blog posts on Distracted Driving

Our last post on Distracted Driving Lawsuits: Suing the Sender ended with one question: what will happen?

As predicted, the New Jersey trial judge dismissed the sender of the text message. The judge stated that it was reasonable for text-senders to assume that text-receivers will act responsibly. He also noted that drivers must deal with numerous distractions: phones, GPS devices, and road signs, to name a few.

Were I to extend this duty to this case, in my judgment, any form of distraction could potentially serve as the basis of a liability case.

The basis for the judge's ruling is important--it rests on the premise that a text-sender has no duty of care to other drivers. Under Judge Rand's interpretation, it would not matter if the text-sender knew that the driver was driving at the time, and it would not matter if the text-sender knew that the driver would read those messages while driving. I think that's the right decision, but it would have been easier for the judge to rely on the specific evidence in this case--the receiver was himself sent the last message, so reading a message did not cause the collision.

That case will move forward to trial against the texting driver, though the lawyer for the motorcyclists indicated that he will appeal the judge's ruling as to the text-sender.

In a distracted driving lawsuit where phone use is the culprit, the recipient of the e-mail or the text message is obviously at fault, and a proper defendant. Drivers must use reasonable care, and if they are not able to pay attention to driving, and that lack of attention causes an accident, then they are responsible for any injuries or damages.

What about the sender of a text message that, when read by the driver, causes inattention long enough to lead to an accident? Does the sender have some duty toward the injured victim, and did the sender violate the standard of care expected of a reasonable texter?

One lawyer, Stephen Weinstein, thinks there might be a case here: David and Linda Kubert filed a lawsuit against text-receiving driver Kyle Best and his girlfriend, text-sender Shannon Colonna. No one can argue that the injuries aren't significant: Mr. and Mrs. Kubert, riding a motorcycle, each lost a leg in the accident.

Evidence from the New Jersey auto accident lawsuit indicates that the texting couple sent over two dozen text messages that day. The lawyer alleges that the girlfriend knew her boyfriend was driving while she was texting him. Complicating matters, the last text sent was from the driver--indicating perhaps that he crashed while he was typing. So, he wasn't reading her message at the exact time of the crash, but was sending his own message.

First, even if it is against the law to text, that law does not necessarily translate into an automatic finding of negligence. The girlfriend, while she may have known that the boyfriend was driving, likely did not know what speed he was traveling at, whether he was parked, or whether he was stopped at a red light.

Another question is one of recovery. This lawsuit isn't practical in most cases for another reason--how will Mr. and Mrs. Kubert get paid? If the driver has automobile insurance, that insurance will be used for the claim. The girlfriend's automobile insurance won't be responsible, mainly because she was not driving a car. So, unless her homeowner's insurance somehow covers this, the only source of recovery will be her personal assets (lawyers don't usually go after personal assets unless the defendant has a lot of them--one problem is that after substantial verdicts, most defendants will claim bankruptcy rather than suffer the long-term indignity of wage garnishment).

One analogy in favor of liability, though, is to dram shop liability (we don't have that in Maryland, though the law may be changing). In that case, when a bartender serves alcohol to someone who is clearly drunk and who later gets into an accident, the bartender may be responsible.

Last week the case was before a judge (Judge David Rand of the Morris County Superior Court) on a motion to dismiss the girlfriend. The ruling is pending. My bet is that the girlfriend gets dismissed. However, it's an interesting and innovative theory of liability, being raised by a smart lawyer. It will be interesting, whatever the ruling.

More on the Text-Sending Lawsuit:

• CNN Video
• Mashable: Should the Person Texting a Driver be Punished, Too?
• The Huffington Post: Shannon Colonna Sued For Sending Text Message To Kyle Best When He Caused Car Accident
• Our main automobile accident webpage

The nearly mid-year District of Columbia traffic death statistics are out (up through May 11), and D.C. is doing very well. Credit is of course going to D.C.'s safety initiatives: education, better signs, safety officers, speed cameras (Mayor Vince Gray would like one on every corner), etc.... The accident death toll is now six, compared to 14 deaths this time last year. In 2009, there were a total of 16,841 traffic collisions in the District of Columbia.
This could be the result of any number of factors, including general awareness about the dangers of distracted driving. Regardless of the cause, we're thrilled that that drivers are somehow safer.

Contact Us
If you've been injured in a District of Columbia auto accident, contact us at 443.850.4426, or online for a free consultation.
For More Information

• Auto Accident website
• District of Columbia Pedestrian Fatalities
• Metropolitan Police Department Traffic Fatalities

AT&T conducted a survey of 1,200 teenagers (ages 15-19) to learn more about driving behavior and attitudes toward texting and driving. Here are some of their conclusions:

• 97% of teens know that texting while driving is dangerous
• 70% of teens believe that texting while stopped at a red light is dangerous
• 54% of Hispanic teens admit to texting while driving
• 41% of Caucasian teens admit to texting while driving
• 42% of African-American teens admit to texting while driving
• 80% of Hispanic teens admit to using their phones while at red lights
• 71% of Caucasian teens admit to using their phones while at red lights
• 70% of African-American teens admit to using their phones while at red lights
• 46% of teens send between 21 and 100 text messages per day

AT&T's Infographic is pretty good--it highlights a lot of information designed to help promote their "Texting & Driving: It Can Wait" campaign. Two things that caught my eye:

• At 65 mph a car travels the length of a basketball court in a single second
• Texting takes your eyes off of the road for an average of 5 seconds

Like many providers, AT&T has designed a mobile app (DriveMode) to prevent text messages from reaching a driver.
For more information on distracted driving, check out our Charm City Lawyer Blog posts and past Maryland Car Accident Lawyers Blog posts. If you believe that you have been injured because another driving was driving while texting, contact us at 443.850.4426, or online for a free consultation.

None of them should be texting. We've blogged before about distracted driving and even distracted doctoring. Now, Fort Lee New Jersey is issuing tickets to pedestrians who ignore traffic signals or who jaywalk while looking down at their phones.

There were 117 tickets issued in one month, at $85.00 a pop. The question here, as with all governmental cell phone regulation, is whether the government should be taking this parental role? Opponents of regulation say that the government should just leave us alone, and that if we are stupid enough to text and walk across the street, we deserve to get run over. Proponents say that the problem does not just affect those who text--it affects the motorist who hits us, the person who hits them, and costs taxpayers money when someone isn't insured and needs medical care.

The problem is of course, widespread. A New York State Senator commented in an ABC news article on one of two deaths in Brooklyn:

A gentleman was standing on the corner ready to cross the street wired into his iPod, he crosses over and walks right into an NYC bus.

Here in Maryland, one of the problems is the law. Let's assume these facts:

1. A pedestrian texting while crossing the street at a crosswalk--he has a walk signal
2. A driver runs a red light, hitting the pedestrian

In that circumstance, the driver will undoubtedly argue that the pedestrian was contributorily negligent--that is, the pedestrian was partially responsible for his own injuries. The pedestrian would argue that, even if he was paying attention, he wouldn't have been able to get out of the way in time. However, the issue might be close enough to get to a jury (and you never know what a jury is going to do in a case like that). The pedestrian's case gets even worse if he is not crossing at a crosswalk.

Maryland's contributory negligence law is harsh--we're one of a very small number of states that still have this archaic rule. Basically, if the person filing the lawsuit was the negligent cause of his injuries, even by 0.01%, he cannot win a lawsuit. In other states, the plaintiff would be able to recover 99.99% of his damages. This makes sense, because the other guy had the most negligence.

These types of laws might bleed over into non-texting scenarios. What about runners? Almost every runner has an iPod or MP3 player plugged into their ears. If she doesn't hear a vehicle, and get hit even though the driver was speeding excessively, the runner might not be able to recover for her injuries.

Now, laws like this don't always provide evidence of what's called negligence per se. Negligence per se means that violation of the law is presumptive evidence that the lawbreaker was negligent. Whether or not that applies, the fact that the law becomes part of the public consciousness and the expectation of behavior means that an absolute defense of contributory negligence is more likely.

So, whether Maryland chooses to adopt these "distracted walking" laws, the safest course of action is to walk carefully, head up, and phone tucked away.

Contact Us
If you've been in a Maryland auto accident where cell phones, text messages, e-mails or other forms of distracted driving played a role, contact us at 443.850.4426, or online for a free consultation. You will speak directly to a lawyer from your first call. Don't let your case be handed off to a paralegal.

We've all heard about Google's research into self-driving cars. Now the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is getting into the mix, believing that 80% of automobile accidents can be prevented if vehicles are given the ability to communicate with each other (see article, Detroit Free Press).

This "vehicle-to-vehicle" communication and related technologies can be used to implement crash-warning systems, and lane departure alerts. According to the NHTSA's Administrator:

Our research shows that these technologies could help prevent a majority of the collisions that typically occur in the real world, such as rear-end collisions, intersection crashes, or collisions while switching lanes.

Actual self-driving cars aren't really on the NHTSA's radar yet, but they promised to look at the technology as it develops.