South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

Ford Avoids Major Punitive Damages in SUV Rollover Case

This past week, a jury in Middlesex County, New Jersey returned a sizeable verdict for a woman who was left paralyzed after her Ford Explorer rolled over.  The suit claimed that the 2000 accident was caused by a defective throttle design in the 1997 Ford Explorer that made its accelerator stick in the closed position and by the design of the vehicle's suspension, brakes, and geometry gave it a heightened propensity to tip over.

The woman's right hand was nearly severed in the crash, but doctors were able to reattach it in surgery. She also suffered torn nerves in her brachial plexus, leaving her with only 10 percent use of her right arm, and  rendering her unable to work as a cosmetics salesperson.

The jury's verdict included actual/compensatory damages of $8.5 million for pain and suffering, $1.5 million for medical expenses, and $1 million for lost wages.       However, the jury reduced the award by 28 percent, the proportion by which it found Zakrocki responsible for the crash, and the jury deducted another $2 million because the woman was not wearing a seatbelt.

Most notably in this case, the jury only awarded $42,500 in punitive damages after a lawyer for Ford was allowed to tell jurors (over the woman's lawyers' objections) of the company's dire financial straits and mass layoffs.  Ford's attorney referred to the automaker's net loss of $12.7 billion in 2006 and its plan announced in January to eliminate 25,000 to 30,000 jobs in North America and close 14 plants by 2012.

Source:  "Ford Motor Co. Ducks Major Punitive Damages in SUV Rollover Suit" by Charles Toutant of the New Jersey Law Journal, published at Law.com.

U-Haul Must Pay Damages For Rollover Crash

A woman who was badly injured in a rollover crash involving a U-Haul trailer will receive $2.6 million in damages.  Her lawsuit claimed U-Haul failed to warn customers of the perils of pulling a trailer. The woman was one of three passengers injured in the rollover accident. 

Source:  "Jury Orders U-Haul to Pay $2.6M" by James McNair, published in The Cincinnati Enquirer.

Auto Accidents Are Leading Cause of Teenage Deaths

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, motor vehicle accidents contribute to the deaths of 5,500 teenage drivers or passengers each year. The crash rate among 16-year-olds per million miles driven is almost nine times the rate of the general population. The academy has recommended that parents implement a strict driving contract until teenagers demonstrate an ability to drive responsibly. 

Source:  "For Teenagers, the Car is the Danger Zone" by Jane E. Brody, published in The New York Times.

Driving Safety :: Cell Phones and Children

The following article was published several months ago at the Southern California Injury Law Blog:

Have you recently been driving on the road and a driver inexplicably changes lanes, or slows or drives in a manner that gives you very little predictability of their next move or action. When you pulled up to their car or saw the person in the window, were you appalled buy the fact that they were oblivious to you and the danger they posed on the road, talking on their cell phone without a care in the world.

Auto cell phone usage has climbed remarkably in the last several years. So destructive can be the accident or injury when these people are distracted, that recent legislation banned certain behavior and requires more use of earpieces and hand free devices. If it gets bad enough, usage in the automobile might be banned altogether.

But driver distraction is not new to most of us. Have you had the same experience as above, but seen the driver turned, looking at or attending to a child in the back seat of their car. Remember, when I was young I could ride in the front seat, within easy reach of my mother’s backhand. Children and air bags do not mix and we now relegate the back of the car as the child’s playground. Which scenario is worse, the cell phone user focused on nothing but their lovely afternoon discussion or the parent distracted by the unruly child.

They both can be damaging and deadly by our experience representing victims of accidents and as reported in the LA times recently. Mr. Frankie Glass was the victim of a head-on collision with a parent, preoccupied and distracted by children in the car. See the article Unruly kids driving parents to deadly distraction, By Ralph Vartabedian.

Shall we legislate that no person can talk to their child while driving, or that all vehicles occupied by children must have a back seat communication device installed, that allows for hands free and forward facing communication?

I suggest that what we really need is a good dose of common sense. But we feel that is not enough. How do we enforce such a simple requirement of other drivers? We feel better if a random number of people get a ticket for being on their cell phone, but no ticket if distracted by their child.

So what shall we do? My experience is that the penalty for injury is too easily washed away by insurance payments. Oh sorry, I have good insurance, does not get the message to others in similar situations. However, suppose that the penalty for causing an accident when distracted on a cell phone or by a child was twice the amount the victim would be entitled to receive, and the penalty would have to be paid from the personal assets of the wrongdoer, and enforced by automatic attachment to a home, a car or job earnings. Sure it gives the victim a windfall but they are the one suffering, not us.

We do this with drunk drivers, revoke their license, heavily fine and revoke insurance, order restitution and the like. The difference is that many of those people are subject to addictions; I bet the average person would get a high dose of common sense when the bite comes upon them.

Until someone agrees, we will simply watch as the number of injuries rises.

Source:  "Cell Phones and Children Are Causing More Auto Accidents Than You Think" by Jim Ballidis, published at the Southern California Injury Law Blog.

Safety Group Seeks Restrictions Against Using Hands-Free Devices While Driving

The Center for Auto Safety has asked federal regulators to restrict the use of systems that carmakers are building into their vehicles so motorists can't make phone calls or fiddle with other interactive gear while they drive. The nonprofit group filed a petition yesterday with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration asking the agency to write rules prohibiting the use of such built-in systems while a vehicle is in motion. The group said traffic accidents will increase if drivers pay more attention to their personal affairs than to the road.

Source:  "Safety Group Wants Automakers to Steer Clear of Hands-Free Devices" by Cindy Skrzycki, published in the Washington Post.

Top Ten Causes of Trucking Accidents

According to a 2006 report by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, about one in 20 professional truck drivers will be involved in an accident.  The study also shows that there are roughly 141,000 truck crashes every year, and over one-half (77,000) of those were the direct fault of the truck driver.

The top ten causes of truck accidents are:

1. Prescription Drug Use  ::  26%
2. Traveling Too Fast  ::  23%
3. Unfamiliar with Roadway  ::  22%
4. Over-the-counter Drug Use  ::  18%
5. Inadequate Surveillance  ::  14%
6. Fatigue  ::  13%
7. Illegal Maneuver  ::  9%
8. Exterior Distraction  ::  8%
9. Inadequate Evasive Action  ::  7%
10. Aggressive Driving Behavior  ::  7%

TruthAboutTrucking.com reports that truck driving schools and trucking companies use a three minute video during their classes to show the dangers of drugs and driving. That site claims that this short video is basically useless and that there needs to be a continual reiteration of the facts to the drivers to reinforce the fact that medication and truck driving jobs just do not mix.

Source:  "Top 10 Causes of Truck Accidents" by Allen Smith, published at his TruthAboutTrucking blog.  Thanks to Ken Shigley of the Atlanta Injury Law & Civil Litigation Blog for his post about this article.

Study Challenges Driving Stereotypes

A study researchers at Carnegie Mellon University shattered several myths such as the stereotype that women are the most dangerous drivers. Researchers found that male drivers have a 77 percent higher risk of dying in a car accident than women, based on miles driven. Despite stories of "crazy Boston drivers," New England was found to be the safest region for drivers. Statistics also showed that overall, about one death occurs for every 100 million passenger miles traveled.  You can read more about this study by clicking HERE.

Source:  "Study Puts The Brakes on Driving Stereotypes" by Seth Borenstein, published in the Houston Chronicle.

Consumer Reports Retracts Article on "Failed" Car Seats

As I posted on my South Carolina Family Law Blog, Consumer Reports magazine reported two weeks ago that many infant car seats were reported to have failed side-impact crash tests.  However, Consumer Reports has now retracted the article after receiving data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, who reported the seats appeared to do well at the correct impact speed. In its tests, Consumer Reports simulated impacts at more than 70 miles an hour when they were supposed to simulate an impact at 38 miles an hour.  Consumer Reports claims at its website that its report is withdrawn pending further tests of the performance of those seats in side-impact collisions.

Source:  "Consumer Reports Retracts Article on Car Seats" by Matthew L. Wald, published in The New York Times.

Do Commercial Truckers Deliberately Violate Hours of Service Rules?

A recent confidential survey of commercial truck drivers reports that 77 percent admitted to deliberately violating the hours of service regulations in the past, and that 55 percent said they were still breaking the rules. 

Drivers report that the most common violation is logging time as off-duty when actually on-duty (78 percent). Other common violations included using more than one logbook (21 percent), logging violations correctly in hopes that they will not be noticed (17 percent), and indicating that a team driver is operating the vehicle when they really are not (11 percent).

Respondents report an average of six days per month of intentional violations and five days per month of unintentional violations.Nearly 17 percent of the respondents felt it necessary to violate the HOS rules in order to earn a reasonable income, while 38 percent strongly disagreed with that assumption.

Thirty-eight percent said that their company expects them to violate the regulations as part of their job. Some 68 percent thought that law enforcement officers do not know how to relate to commercial motor vehicle drivers. Among the reporting drivers, 11.2 hours was the average estimate given for the reduction in driving hours over seven days if logbooks couldn't be "adjusted."

Source:  "Survey Reports 77% of Commercial Truckers Deliberately Violate Hours of Service Rules" by Ken Shigley, published at the Atlanta Injury Law & Civil LItigation Blog.