Boston Personal Injury Lawyer - Automobile Accidents

Teen Cell Phone Ban

Ken Margolin — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:35:00 GMT

California has banned cell phone use by drivers ages 16 & 17. The ban will include text messaging. Older drivers will be allowed to use hands free phones, but the ban for the teenagers will be total. While the legislation is positive and regrettably, too rare, it is insufficient. A number of studies have shown that even during conversations on hands free cell phones, drivers' reactions times were significantly reduced, and automobile accident levels increased. Multi-tasking makes for mediocre performance of many tasks, and can be deadly on the road.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

Cell Phone Driving Fatalities

Ken Margolin — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:10:00 GMT

If the sight of the driver to your right on the interstate, chatting away on his cell phone gets you angry, you've got a right to be. Various studies have shown that driving while talking on a cell phone can be as dangerous as driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. Estimates of the number of U.S. traffic fatalities caused by cell phone talking while driving are generally in the 2,000 - 3,000 range with one hundred times as many injuries. The best remedy for the menace of cell phone traffic accidents, would be common sense by most drivers and a realization that the common practice is anti-social and dangerous. Failing a sudden epidemic of common sense, legislation and tough enforcement need to be implemented. Enacting legislation will be tough given the lobbying power of the cell phone industry. The effort, though, coupled with public education, can save thousands of lives each year.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

A Victory Against Trucking Fatalities

Ken Margolin — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:45:00 GMT

The federal Appeals Court of the D.C. Circuit, struck down new rules of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, that would have allowed big rig truckers to drive many more consecutive hours. The case was brought by Public Citizen, a public safety advocacy group, and other groups formed to protect the public against tired truckers. The Appeals Court held that the federal agency had not justified the change in rules, in light of data that showed the trucking industry to be amongst the most dangerous, and fatalities in accidents involving large trucks to be far more likely than those involving cars alone. Naturally, the rules change was pressed by the trucking industry, which consistently ignores the data regarding trucking fatalities, and places profits ahead of quality of life and safety on our roadways.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

More Insurance Company Fraud

Ken Margolin — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:05:00 GMT

Several days ago, I posted a blog on bad faith denial of claims by insurance companies. I don't usually write blogs on the same topic within several days of each other, but I must comment on the superb reporting on insurance company bad faith, in this month's issue of Trial magazine. Trial is the journal of the American Association for Justice, the plaintiffs' trial lawyers association. The issue highlights intentional campaigns by the insurance industry to raise profits by denying valid claims and delaying payment to pressure policy holders to accept low ball offers.

Amongst the most shocking incidents of insurance company fraud reported are claiming poverty and threatening to leave states, amidst record profits, forging signatures on earthquake waiver forms after a major California earthquake in 1994, deceptively obtaining statements by Hurricane Katrina homeowners that their homes had been damaged by "flood" (as opposed to the hurricane), because wind and rain damage were covered, while flood damages were not, using catastrophes to raise rates and dramatically increase profits, independent of actual increased risk of loss. The greed is astounding. Legislatures appear too weak to stop the insurance industry cabal. Once again, it is left to the maligned plaintiffs' trial bar to right the balance.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

The Serious Car Accident Case

Ken Margolin — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 12:45:00 GMT

For many years, small car accident cases resulting in modest injury, were the bread and butter of a portion of the Massachusetts plaintiffs' personal injury bar. Some firms had hundreds of these cases, which were prepared in cookie cutter fashion, and settled with adjustors with little or no discovery done, or even before suit was filed. Reputable lawyers handling the small car accident case, provided an important service. Unfortunately, some less than reputable lawyers worked with unscrupulous doctors and chiropractors to inflate the medical expenses. Some disbarments occurred, along with a huge hit to the reputation of personal injury attorneys generally.

Serious car accident cases, resulting in death or disabling injury, bear no relation to the simple accident case. They must be handled with the care and thoroughness of any catastrophic personal injury case. Time can be the attorney's friend or enemy, depending on how soon after the accident, he is contacted. Witnesses should be located and interviewed as soon as possible, while memories are still fresh. Statements can preserve their observations, protect against changed memory or be used to refresh memory, at a deposition or trial two years later. Photographs of the site should be taken promptly as well. If too much time goes by, the scene may change drastically due to development or roadway changes. Sometimes, retention of an accident reconstruction expert will be advisable. If the plaintiff's injuries are life-altering, a vocational expert, economist, life care planner, day-in-the life videographer, may all be brought into the case. Sound preparation and aggressive movement of the case through the justice system, gives the plaintiff the best chance of a good result.

For more information on this subject matter, please see our section detailing Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

Bad Faith Denial of Insurance Claims

Ken Margolin — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:15:00 GMT

There is only one reason to buy insurance - to have the peace of mind of knowing that the financial needs of you or your family will be covered in the event of death, catastrophic injury, or long-term disability or illness. When an insurance company denies payment of a valid claim in bad faith, it is practicing the corporate greed version of "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine." You pay the premiums when you don't need coverage, and we'll keep your money and ours when you do.

Bad faith denial of insurance claims must be countered with immediate and aggressive action. Your insurance policy may have a time limit within which an internal appeal of a claims denial must be taken. Every state has statutes of limitations. Sooner or later if you are wrongfully denied and fail to pursue your rights, you will lose them. The good news in Massachusetts is that insurance companies that engage in bad faith settlement practices are subject to the Consumer Protection Act ("chapter 93A") and a bad faith law that applies especially to insurance companies.

If an insurance company is found to have engaged in bad faith practices, it can be subject to multiple damages and attorneys fee. Bad faith can include denial of coverage when the plain language of the insurance policy requires coverage. It can also include such favorite insurance company practices as offering less than a claim is worth in order to pressure a financially strapped claimant to accept less than he is entitled to, or to deny an obviously valid claim, forcing litigation to obtain payment that should have been prompt and voluntary. Aggressive action when faced with bad faith insurance practices helps every insurance policy holder to obtain the value of his or her insurance purchase.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

Disastrous Distractions

Ken Margolin — Mon, 07 May 2007 07:00:00 GMT

Driving while chowing down a donut, alternating the snack with a cup of hot coffee, is a time-honored example of dangerous, distracted driving. Even though driving safety researchers preached that drinking a beverage while driving, could lead to car crashes due to distraction, human nature dictated that eating and drinking while driving, was never going to stop. The ante was raised with the invention of the cell phone. It is simply impossible to maintain complete road awareness while talking on a cell phone. Dialing the phone while driving, is practically begging for a serious car crash to happen.

Cell phone technology is still in its infancy, and the devices have more road perils in store. The latest, a serious menace, is text messaging. Roadway accidents have already occurred while drivers have been looking down at their cell phones, typing a text message on the tiny keyboards. Virginia Beach Injury Board partner, Rick Shapiro, tells of a study that found that cell phone use while driving can be more dangerous than driving while intoxicated. There is no easy solution to the dangers posed by distracted drivers. New legislation will not create the manpower necessary for enforcement. It is more difficult for law enforcement officials, to spot a driver talking on a cell phone, or tapping out a text message, than it is to spot a car driving 90 miles per hour. I fear that it may take a spectacular and well-publicized crash caused by cell phone use while driving, involving death or paralysis, before people remember that driving, without more, requires 100% of the driver's attention.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

Pedestrian Accidents

Ken Margolin — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:00:00 GMT

A few years ago, the National Safety Council ran a television ad showing a deadly car crash, with the superimposed message, "he was right - dead right." I don't know if the ad stopped any accidents, but its message was undeniably true - when on the roads, drivers have to put safety over pride. Sometimes, the best course is to give the right of way to the car, that by rights, shouldn't have it. That advice is doubly true for pedestrians. In any collision with a car, the pedestrian loses.

The Federal Highway Administration reported that in 2005, the last year for which complete data is available, there were 4,881 pedestrian fatalities, from pedestrians struck by motor vehicles. Fellow Massachusetts lawyer, Christopher Early, writes a blog about pedestrian accidents in the city of Boston. In every location, impatience, speed, road rage, and plain old carelessness, account for the carnage. Even though the laws are generous to pedestrians, no one walking amongst cars and trucks can rely on their legal rights for safety. For example, in Massachusetts, chapter 89, Â§11 of the General Laws, provides that the driver of a motor vehicle may not proceed when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk ahead of him, even if the driver has a green light. I would not advise any pedestrian to presume that every driver will comply with that salutory law. A pedestrian must be wary even when a driver extends a courtesy on the roads. There have been many tragic accidents, some involving children, when an impatient driver behind a car that has stopped to let a pedestrian pass, and not knowing why the car has stopped, swerves around the good samaritan, striking the pedestrian.

Laws already in place to protect pedestrians, are probably sufficient, though I would not be surprised to hear a different point of view. What is needed on the driver side to reduce pedestrian injuries, more than anything else, including education as to the laws, is courtesy and patience. What is needed from pedestrians, is constant vigilance.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

The Atlanta Bus Tragedy

Ken Margolin — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 07:00:00 GMT

A tragedy in Atlanta, Georgia, killed six members of the baseball team of Bluffton University, Bluffton, Ohio, and injured dozens of others. The Bluffton baseball team was traveling in a charter bus on highway I-75 in Atlanta, Georgia, on the way to games during the team's spring break. It appears that the bus took a left lane exit at full speed, the driver possibly thinking that he was in a travel lane - that may never be known, as the driver and his wife, accompanying him, were also tragically killed. The bus crashed through a barrier and plunged 30 feet to the highway below.

As the Atlanta bus crash is being investigated, no comments in this blog are specific to that incident. My thoughts and sympathies are to the families of the young people killed, as are the thoughts of every American who has heard of the crash.

Fatal bus accidents or bus accidents with serious injury are unfortunately more common than should be tolerated. Excessive speed is often a cause. Driver fatigue due to an unsafe number of hours behind the wheel is another. A third cause, possibly a factor in the Atlanta bus crash, is unfamiliarity of the route by the driver. Anytime a driver is put behind the wheel of a bus and does not know the route, the fault lies with the company. Buses appear outwardly to be safe vehicles due to their size. They are prone, however, to rollovers. Owing to their size and center of gravity, they are not highly maneuverable in emergencies at high speed.

A tragedy analogous to the Atlanta, Georgia incident occurred to students of a middle school in my hometown of Newton, Massachusetts. A bus operated by Crystal Transportation was taking middle school music students to a performance in Canada, when the bus flipped over several times on an off-ramp to Fredericton, Canada. Four students were killed. Investigation revealed that the driver got off on the wrong ramp - the ramp on which he exited was not designed for the relatively high speed he was traveling when he took it. The driver had recently spelled the original driver. It is possible that the replacement driver was unfamiliar with the route. Charter (and public) bus companies, owe no less to their users than to insure that their drivers stay within the legal speed limits, and are always familiar with the route, especially hazardous exits and stretches of highway.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin

Private Investigators for Real Plaintiffs

Ken Margolin — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:00:00 GMT

You've seen them on television - those private investigators who can solve any crime or get the true story on any disaster while the authorities fiddle around without a clue. If you are old enough to remember "The Rockford Files," then you know how creative television private eyes can be. The work of real-life private investigators is more boring, generally consisting of tenacity, a good questioning manner, and an eye for detail.

For many accident cases, private investigators are invaluable. They can be especially helpful in obtaining witness statements favorable to the plaintiff's case while memories are fresh. Even if interviews have already been conducted by the police or other officials, a witness statement by the plaintiff's P.I. can bear fruit. Oftentimes, the witness's recorded answer is affected by the way the question is asked. If the witness statement is not signed, but merely reflected on a police report, the likelihood of inaccuracies or omissions, increases. In an automobile-pedestrian accident case I handled, the police report portrayed the only eye-witness as implying that my client, struck while in a cross-walk, was at fault for crossing against the "Don't Walk" light. Once the eyewitness had the opportunity to speak with my investigator and write out her complete statement, she recalled that the driver was "flying" around the corner, while talking on a cell phone and never even tapped his brakes before knocking my client over his hood and partway through his windshield. Without a skilled private investigator, essential details about this cross-walk accident may have never come out. Good private investigators have made and saved many a plaintiff's case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ken Margolin