Articles Tagged with Car Accidents

Despite its dangers, many people continue to go to their phones when driving. This is the case here in New York and throughout the country. Now, most states ban at least some types of cellphone use while driving, like texting. Additionally, some states, like New York, prohibit all types of handheld phone use behind the wheel. However, there are things that can make enforcing such laws difficult.

One big one is that this dangerous conduct can be hard for law enforcement officials to spot. There are various things distracted drivers might try to do to conceal their cellphone use. This includes holding their cellphone down low or putting their cellphone away the second they spot anything that looks like law enforcement.

These challenges have led some police departments to go to out-of-the-box methods for trying to catch distracted drivers. Examples include:

It’s that time of year again, school is about to start. There are all kinds of things that could be on a kid’s mind and on their plate as the school year begins, especially if they are at a new school. One thing one would hope a student would never have to deal with during this eventful time of the year or any other point in the year is getting struck by a car and the injuries that come out of such accidents. Unfortunately, that is exactly what students here in the Syracuse area and the rest of New York state could be subjected to if the state’s drivers aren’t acting properly as the school year begins.

During the school year, there can be a particularly high number of child pedestrians out and about around the time of day school starts up and the time of day school lets out. For one, there can be lots of students walking to and from locations where school buses pick up and let off passengers, such as school bus stops, school zones and school parking lots. Also, student pedestrian traffic is not limited to just these areas, as there are still a fair number of students in the U.S., around 13 percent, who bike or walk to school.

So, with the school year starting up, it is important for drivers to remember to watch out for students when driving, particularly during the times of the day when kids are arriving at or leaving school. It is also critical for drivers to avoid conduct which could endanger student pedestrians, such as using a cellphone or doing other distracting activities behind the wheel, speeding, not fully obeying stop signs or being careless when backing up. When students are harmed by driver negligence, their parents may want a skilled lawyer’s guidance on what legal steps to take in response to the incident.

Staying safe on the road extends beyond being a conscientious driver behind the wheel. There are many things that go into maintaining your vehicle and keeping it in the best condition for safe driving. Keeping your tires properly inflated at the their optimum pressure is one way to decrease risk of tire failure and other problems that can result in a car accident.

Contrary to popular belief, the maximum PSI (pound of pressure per square inch) listed on the sidewall of your tire is not necessarily the best pressure to inflate it to. This number actually refers to the maximum cold pressure that the tire is rated for. Cold pressure is indicated because it is ideal to fill your tires when they are cold. Inflating your tires to the maximum PSI listed will change how they handle — a vehicle with tires which are overinflated is at greater risk of fishtailing the back end in a sharp turn, for instance. Over inflated tires are also more likely to exhibit balding at the very center of the tire tread, which increases the risk of an unexpected blowout while driving.

The optimum pressure for your tires can usually be located in your owner’s manual or on a sticker that is usually placed in the doorjamb, inside the gas tank door or on the trunk lid. Usually, ideal tire pressure is somewhere between 30 and 35 PSI. Keeping the tires properly inflated not only improves your fuel economy, but also improves handling, which may make the difference between a close call and a costly car accident.

In our last couple posts, we looked at a recent spate of pedestrian and cyclist deaths in New York City, noting that three of the four accidents were hit-and-run incidents. As we pointed out, pedestrians and cyclists have rights and should not assume that they have no possibility of recovering damages after an accident, despite the occasional bias they may encounter with law enforcement.

That being said, pedestrians and cyclists should be aware that, in seeking compensation for damages caused by a negligent motorist, they may themselves be subjected to allegations of negligence. This can occur when the pedestrian or cyclist may have taken some sort of unsafe action that ended up contributing to the accident. This is known as the doctrine of comparative negligence. 

A fair number of states recognize some form of comparative negligence. The basic idea is that a plaintiff may have his or her damages reduced in proportion to his or her degree of fault for the injuries. Under New York’s comparative negligence law, an injured party may recover damages in cases where he or she is deemed to have been negligent, even if the individual is 99 percent at fault. This is known as pure comparative fault. In other states, a plaintiff may only have the ability to recover damages if he or he is less than 50 percent of 51 percent at fault.

Last time, we mentioned a spate of pedestrian and cyclist accident in New York City, pointing out that three of the four accidents were hit-and-run incidents. As we noted last time, pedestrians and cyclists sometimes face challenges with the criminal justice system in having accidents fairly investigated.

In some cases, law enforcement officers have been known to make incorrect assumptions about fault when investigating an accident. When offices are afflicted with bias against cyclists, and sometimes pedestrians, to it can translate into a failure to cite an at-fault party for a violation or failure to take more widespread action to address unsafe driving practices that put pedestrians and cyclists at risk. 

Cyclists, in particular, face a fair amount of mistreatment and bias from motorists and law enforcement. Part of the problem, of course, is that some cyclists habitually and blatantly violate basic traffic laws. Running red lights and stop signs, failing to move to the shoulder of the road when it is safe and possible to do so, failing to alert motorists about turns, and so on. When a cyclist violates traffic rules, it is fairly obvious and has a way of generating anger among motorists.

Four individuals were killed by motorists in New York City last weekend, a powerful reminder of the serious risks pedestrians and cyclists face on the road and of the need to continue to improve roadway safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

One of the victims was a pedestrian, while two were cyclists. Sources weren’t clear about the fourth victim, but did say that three of the crashes were hit-and-runs. Hit-and-run, of course, is a serious crime, not only because it puts an accident victim at increased risk of fatality, but also because it represents a failure to take responsibility for harm done to another human being. 

Neither were sources clear about the circumstances of all the crashes, though at least one of the crashes occurred while the victim had the right of way. Different cities have different local laws, but New York City’s Right of Way Law imposes punishments on motorists who harm pedestrians and cyclists who are abiding by all traffic regulations at the time of the accident. Cab drivers, under another law, can have their license revoked for killing walkers or bikers who have the right of way. As some commentators have pointed out, though, these laws are not consistently enforced or pursued by prosecutors.

We’ve been looking at the issue of teens and distracted driving in recent posts, discussing first of all a recent study highlighting the extent of the problem and then some of the state laws seeking to address the problem. As we pointed out last time, laws addressing the issue of distracted driving are intended not only to keep highways safer, but also to serve as a basis for liability when accidents do occur.

Victims of teen driving accidents can and should seek compensation to cover their injuries and losses. The first place to look for this is with insurance. Teens who are covered by their parents’ insurance should be able to recover at least some costs that way. In cases where the teen driver is not covered or is inadequately covered by his or her parent’s insurance, for whatever reason, it may still be possible to pursue compensation from the teen’s parents, or the owner of the vehicle as the case may be, under a theory of owner’s liability or negligent entrustment. 

Under New York law, vehicle owners can be held liable for deaths and injuries resulting from the negligent use or operation of their vehicle, whether or not they were operating the vehicle at the time of the accident. In order to be liable, the vehicle owner—whether a parent or another individual—must have given permission to the driver to use the vehicle.

Last time, we began looking at the issue of distracted driving and recent research underscoring the extent of the problem among teen drivers. As we noted, states have sought to address the problem not only by passing laws limiting cell phone use among drivers, particularly novice drivers, but also by limiting teen driver’s freedom to have peer passengers in the vehicle with them.

According to Distraction.gov, New York prohibits both texting while driving and all handheld use of a cell phone while driving. Both of these laws are primary laws, meaning they can be enforced without a police officer witnessing any other violations. 

New York law is actually stricter than many states, where handheld use of a cell phone is not banned or perhaps is only banned for certain classes of drivers. This means it is still legal for drivers in New York to talk while driving, provided they are using voice-operated system. The fact that it is legal, of course, does not make it safe.

Distracted driving is among the biggest issues in roadway safety nowadays, accounting for a significant number of crashes and fatalities. No age group is immune, particularly given the fact that so many Americans own smartphones, which are a significant source of distracted driving. That being said, young drivers are probably at a heightened risk given what some studies have shown.

According to a recent AAA study, almost 60 percent of teen crashes are a result of distracted driving. The study is a follow-up to previous research showing that the 100 days beginning on Memorial Day are the deadliest for teen drivers. 

That research also shows that over the past five years, an average of 1,022 people have died annually in crashes involving teenage drivers. Accidents involving teenage drivers between the ages of 16 and 19 increase by 16 percent per day compared to the rest of the year.

This is the fifth post in a series dealing with the topic of third party lawsuits in motor vehicle accident cases, by which we mean liability for parties who were not directly involved in the accident. Last time, we looked at truck accident cases and the possibility of vicarious liability for failure to properly supervise trucking employees to ensure compliance with federal and state safety rules.

Another possibility for pursuing third party liability in motor vehicle accident cases arises when product defects contribute to the accident. When an accident is caused by vehicle defects or malfunctions, or a failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions, it is important to work with an experienced attorney to seek compensation from responsible parties, including manufacturers, distributors and sellers. 

There are several legal theories upon which product liability cases may be based. With negligence claims, an accident victim sues a manufacturer or retailer for failure to exercise reasonable care in the design or manufacture of the motor vehicle. Distributors and retailers may also be sued for failure to take reasonable care in the inspection of the vehicle or failure to provide the purchaser adequate warnings or instructions about the product. Product liability cases based on strict liability do not require proof of fault, but do require proof that the manufacturer caused the victim’s injury. Product liability cases may also be based on breach of warranty claims.