Posts Tagged ‘“car accident”’
Can Stricter Licensing Requirements for Elderly Drivers in Massachusetts Help Make Our Roads Safer?
Two recent Massachusetts car accidents have once again raised the issue of the safety of some elderly drivers. Last week a 73-year old woman lost control of her car and drove it into a crowd of people viewing “The Moving Wall,” a traveling replica of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Plymouth, MA, injuring eight people. The same week, a 93-year old man plowed into a Wal-Mart in Danvers, MA, causing personal injury to six people including an infant.
For years, the debate over elderly driving has been waged in Massachusetts, yet nothing concrete has been done. Generally, once a person has passed the initial road test, only a vision test is required for renewal. Yet as the body ages, this simply is not safe.
Some elderly advocates say that the media has been blowing elderly driving accidents out of proportion, while similar accidents by younger drivers go unnoticed. Research indicates that risk begins to increase around age 70, and increases significantly after age 80.
For the last two sessions one state senator, Brian Joyce of Milton, MA, has proposed a bill that would require drivers 85 or older to pass another road test before their licenses could be renewed. However, this bill is always stalled by advocates for the elderly who cry age discrimination. This year Governor Patrick has indicated his support for the bill. Representatives from the RMV say that the agency would be willing to support a study on the issue as is proposed in a bill sponsored by Sen. Stephen Buoniconti.
In some states, doctors are required by law to report to the registry when a person is unfit to drive, but not in Massachusetts. Right now there are no state laws or tests in place to protect residents from unfit elderly drivers. Sometimes a police officer or a family member will report a medically impaired driver, but so far only 8,000 cases have come under review.
We support enhanced testing of elderly drivers, just as we supported the stricter regulation of younger drivers which are now the law in Massachusetts. We have handled many cases where we have seen that the age of a driver has been a factor in the accident.
Of course if an elderly driver causes an accident, their license may be revoked or suspended. But sometimes it is too late. If you have been injured by a medically unfit driver in Massachusetts, contact the Massachusetts personal injury law firm of Breakstone, White & Gluck, P.C. for a free legal consultation.
More Information
Pressure mounts to test elder drivers, Boston Globe, June 8, 2009.
Family and Friends Concerned about an Older Driver, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Massachusetts Car and Truck Drivers: Slow Down and Move Over to Prevent Accidents–It’s the Law!
Massachusetts drivers now have another law to obey: Drivers need to slow down and move over when approaching stationary police, emergency response, and construction vehicles that have their lights flashing. The penalty: $100, and your insurance rates will probably also go up.
This well intentioned bill was enacted to prevent injuries caused by car accidents. First responders to accident scenes and work crews have suffered serious injuries as the result of negligent drivers who fail to slow and move over, and the legislation is designed to make their work safer.
But can you legislate this kind of safety? The bill itself is quite vague. A driver is required to change lanes “if practicable.” A driver is required to reduce his or her speed to a “reasonable and safe speed for road conditions.” How will that be judged? And will emergency vehicles leave the scene to chase down violators of this new law?
Saving lives and preventing injuries are, of course, important goals. But real safety comes from a broader awareness of our duty to ensure the safety of emergency and construction personnel, and that awareness begins with proper driving training. It also begins with simple common sense and courtesy.
Massachusetts Court Affirms $3.4M Verdict in Negligence Case Against Liquor Store–Drunk Driver Caused Wrongful Death
On January 7, 2003, 16-year-old Trista Zinck was struck and killed by an underage drunk driver, William White, as she walked with her boyfriend, Neil Bornstein, along Ferry Road in Newburyport. Bornstein survived, but was seriously injured. Before the accident, White had been drinking at his friend Brendan Kneram’s house, whose parents were away. Earlier that day, White, Kneram and their two friends pooled some money, and Kneram used his fake New Jersey driver’s license to purchase a 30-pack of beer at The Gateway Country Store in Seabrook, NH.
Since the accident occurred in Massachusetts, Zinck and Bornstein’s families brought actions for negligence in the Massachusetts Superior Court against both the driver and Gateway Country Store, alleging that the store negligently sold beer to an underage buyer, a transaction that was the proximate cause of the accident that killed Zinck and injured Bornstein. In 2004, an Essex County jury decided that the liquor store was partially responsible for the wrongful death and injuries, and awarded the families nearly $9 million in damages, which the defendants promptly appealed.
On appeal, Gateway admitted that it sold the beer to the underage Brendan Kneram, but argued that because it was William White who became intoxicated and caused the accident, the store should not be held liable. In Massachusetts, to be liable for negligent conduct, the plaintiffs had to prove two primary elements:
- First, they had to prove that the defendants owed a duty of care, and that they breached that duty. Businesses that sell alcohol owe a duty of care to the public, by law. In this case, the jury found that Gateway breached this duty by selling alcohol to someone whom the store clerk reasonably should have known was under 21.
- Second, the plaintiffs had to prove that there was a causal link between the breach (the sale of the alcohol) and the harm (the car accident). Gateway argued that its liability ended once Kneram served the beer to his friends, but the jury did not agree.
In its opinion, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reiterated the test of causation, which the trial judge had instructed the jury to apply: If an intervening act (Kneram giving the beer to his friends) was foreseeable by the defendant, then the original negligent act (the sale of the beer) remains a proximate cause of the harm (the car accident).
Another important part of this test is that the plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant could have foreseen the exact harm that occurred, but only the injuries that could have occurred in “substantially the manner” in which they did. In this case, plaintiffs had to show the jury that the liquor store clerk could have reasonably foreseen that selling 30 cans of beer to an underage man with an out-of-state license, on a snowy, January evening, with a car full of other underage teenagers waiting in the parking lot, is an action that could potentially cause a fatal drunk driving accident.
Here are two more general, important points to keep in mind about causation and the role of the jury in these types of cases:
This is a civil case, not a criminal case, so the burden of proof is much lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” A jury only needs to find “more likely than not” that the defendant was negligent. The two elements of negligence (breach and causation) are questions of fact for the jury to sort out after evaluating the defendants’ and plaintiffs’ versions of the events.
It should be noted that under Massachusetts law, the driver and the liquor store were found jointly liable, meaning both are responsible for the full amount of the damages. The plaintiffs will be able to recover the balance of the damages from the liquor store since the insurance on the driver will be inadequate to cover the damages.
The name of the case above is Zinck vs. Gateway Country Store, Inc., 72 Mass. App. Ct. 571 (2009).
Read More
Massachusetts Changes Laws to Increase Bicycle Safety, Reduce Bicycle Accidents
Good news for Massachusetts bicycle riders! Legislative changes have finally come which help protect bicyclists, and which place greater requirements on drivers of cars and trucks to prevent injuries to bicycle riders.
Bicycle riders are at risk when riding on the road for a number of reasons. First, motorists are often not looking for bicycles when driving; they are looking for larger vehicles, such as other cars or trucks, and they often simply fail to see bicycles (and the same is true, or course, for motorcycles). The risk is magnfied because cyclists are largely unprotected from serious injury if there is a crash.
The new law targets the most common types of accidents, and places new, explicit requirements on drivers to prevent these accidents. These are some of the most common accidents:
- Drivers try to pass a bicycle when there is not enough room
- Drivers cut back into the lane where the bicycle is operating, cutting off the cyclist
- Drivers overtake cyclists, then turn right, right in front of them, cutting them off
- Drivers fail to recognize that bicycles are traveling to the right of traffic–which is perfectly legal–and turn left in front of them, failing to yield the right of way
- Drivers fail to recognize the cyclists passing them on the right, and move to the right or turn to the right without checking blind spots or mirrors
- Drivers and passengers fail to recognize approaching bicycle riders, and open their doors directly in the path of the bicyclist
The new laws, which are part of Chapter 525 of the Acts of 2008 (click for full text of enacted statute), prohibit all of these acts, and create fines for drivers who fail to follow the law.
Hopefully the new legislation will help reduce the incidence of serious injury and wrongful death caused by collisions between bicycles and motor vehicles.
For more information on the legislative changes, please see our article, Good News for Bicyclists in Massachusetts: Important Changes in Massachusetts Statutes Favor Cyclists–Drivers Must Use Greater Care.
Information
What the New Bicycle Law Means for You: A Practicle Guide. MassBike
Avoiding Injuries Caused by Defective Child Car Seats
Children’s car seats are designed to keep children safer in the event of an accident. Unlike a regular seatbelt, car seats specifically protect small bodies. However, car accidents remain the leading cause of death among children. This is largely due to the improper use of child car seats. Massachusetts consumers need be aware of proper use of car seats, and also be aware of recalls of defective car seats for children.
Last month a recall was issued for Graco’s ComfortSport Convertible Car Seats due to an obscured warning label regarding the child airbag. Car seats can be confusing to install in the first place, but with important warnings covered, it can be close to impossible. Learn more about Ease of Use Ratings below.
Remember that a car seat is only beneficial if
- It fits the child.
- It is properly secured into the car.
- It is in working order.
Selecting a Car Seat Appropriate for Your Child’s Size
Rear-Facing Seats: These are appropriate for infants. Use a rear-facing seat from birth until your child is at least one year old. However, you should still use a rear-facing seat as long as your child weighs less than 20 pounds. This is the safest type of car seat–as long as your child fits in it properly.
Forward-Facing Toddler Seats: This type of seat protects children who are at least twenty pounds. It should always be placed in the back seat of your vehicle and can be used until your child weighs 40 pounds (generally around the age of four).
Booster Seats: These larger car seats are used in the rear seats of the vehicle for children over 40 pounds. You should use a booster seat until your child is either eight years old or 4’9″ tall.
Back Seat with Safety Belt: Once your child is eight years old or 4’9″ tall, he or she can sit in a regular seat with a regular safety belt. However, all children under the age of twelve should ride in the back seat.
Massachusetts Courts Protect the Rights of Passengers Injured in Hit-and-Run Accidents With a Broad Interpretation of Uninsured Motorist Insurance Policies
This week, the Massachusetts Appeals Court continued its trend of expanding insurance coverage for victims injured in hit-and-run car accidents when it granted a trial to an 18-year-old woman who suffered injuries in a car accident as a passenger in a taxi cab.
In this case, the plaintiff suffered neck injuries when the taxi cab in which she was riding rear-ended another car. Although the drivers spoke to each other to assess the damage to their vehicles, neither driver called the police or exchanged information. The plaintiff, who did not think she was hurt, took down no information. In addition a police report was never filed.
After unsuccessfully trying to track down the identity of the cab driver after the accident, the plaintiff’s attorney filed a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under her mother’s insurance policy to cover the cost of her injuries. The policy provided coverage for accidents involving “uninsured or hit-and-run autos.”
The trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment, ruling that the insurance company was not liable. However, the Massachusetts Appeals Court said, “Not so fast,” and explored the question of whether or not the taxi cab in which the plaintiff was riding could be considered a hit-and-run vehicle.
In short, the answer is yes: the taxi cab could be considered a hit-and-run vehicle. The courts have broadly interpreted the phrase “hit-and-run” in order to protect victims like this passenger. In previous cases, the Supreme Judicial Court has found that uninsured motorist claims were viable in other, similar scenarios:
- A driver is forced off the road and into a guardrail by an oncoming vehicle, despite the fact the two cars never made contact with each other; and
- A passenger in a car that is rear-ended realizes that he is injured, hours after the two uninjured drivers had gone their separate ways after concluding that there was no property damage or injuries.
In summary, the court held, “a passenger in an at-fault vehicle who is injured in an accident and who, unaware of her injuries… leaves the vehicle without obtaining identifying information about the vehicle is entitled to recover under the hit-and-run provisions of the policy.”
Importantly, however, the court noted that if a passenger realizes immediately after a car accident that he/she has been injured, the passenger is under an obligation to obtain identifying information from the driver(s), as long as his/her injuries are not so grave as to prevent an exchange of information.
The court also rejected the insurance company’s claim that it was prejudiced by late notice. The court said this was a factual determination to be made at trial.
The name of this case is Pilgrim Insurance Co. v. Molard. Other key cases in this area of insurance law include Surrey v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 384 Mass. 171 (1981) and Commerce Ins. Co. v. Mendonca, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 522 (2003), which each address the bulleted scenarios above.
Uninsured motorist insurance is statutorily required in the state of Massachusetts in order to provide financial protection to those injured by other negligent drivers.
Important Consumer Tips
- If you are in a car accident and are wondering what to do, it is usually best to err on the side of caution, and obtain identifying information from the other drivers. For more tips about what to do if you are in an accident, visit the Mass. Registry of Motor Vehicles’ Driver’s Manual page.
- Always notify your insurance company promptly if you are in an accident, even if you are a passenger is somebody else’s car.
- Make sure you have enough car insurance to protect yourself if you are injured. You should have enough uninsured and underinsured coverage on your cars to protect yourself from injuries caused by other drivers. Please see our car accident insurance information for Massachusetts drivers.
If you were injured as a passenger in a car accident, or are the victim of a hit-and-run accident, call the Massachusetts injury attorneys at Breakstone, White & Gluck at 800-379-1244 for a free consultation.
Massachusetts Court Says Limo Service May Be Liable For Drunk Driving Accident Caused by Passenger
The Massachusetts courts have continued to expand the liability of individuals and companies which contribute to drunk driving accidents. On November 26, 2008, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court ruled that limousine driver have a responsibility to prevent their passengers from drinking and driving, and to prevent drunk driving accidents.
In the accident leading to the case, one man was killed and several others were injured in a car accident caused by the drunk driver. The driver, along with several other men, had been drinking at a bachelor party on the night of the crash. The men, expecting to become intoxicated during the party, had hired a limousine service to provide safe transportation. The limo driver picked the men up at a bar in South Boston, where they had been drinking, and drove them to a strip club in Rhode Island, stopping along the way to purchase even more alcohol. The limo driver allowed the men to drink in the limo on the return trip. The limo driver knew the passengers were drunk.
At 2:10 A.M., the limo driver dropped at least one man off at his car near the South Boston bar. The bar was closed. The MBTA was closed. It was plainly foreseeable that the drunk limo passenger would attempt to drive home.
The victims of the drunk driving crash sued the limo service for wrongful death and personal injuries, arguing that its driver knew, or should have known, that his passenger was drunk, was going to drive home, and would likely injure or kill someone. The trial court threw the case out, saying the limo driver had no responsibility. But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the limo driver had the duty or responsibility to use reasonable care to avoid discharging its passenger “who they knew, or should have know, was intoxicated” and likely to drink and drive.
The SJC stated, “[a] private carrier, engaged in the business of transporting persons consuming alcohol, is in a primary position to use care to avoid leaving an intoxicated passenger at a location where it is likely the passenger will drive.” The case will now go to trial.
This case is important because it defines responsibility on private carriers, such as limo drivers, to make sure passengers who have been drinking do not drive home drunk after they are dropped off. Private carriers are required to exercise “reasonable care” to ensure that its passengers are not going to drive home drunk at the end of the night.
In addition to limo drivers and private carries, bars and restaurants also have a legal duty to prevent people from drinking and driving. Bars are prohibited from serving customers who are visibly intoxicated. If a bar serves someone who is visibly intoxicated, and that person drives home and causes a car crash, the bar is legally responsible for injuries caused by the drunk driver. This is known as “dram shop” liability.
Distracted Car and Truck Drivers Frequent Cause of Injuries
After the September fatal Metrolink
train crash in Los Angeles, California, which was clearly linked to text messaging by
the engineer, a new focus is being brought on the many distractions which are
causing increasing numbers of car and truck accidents.
Driver distractions have always
included adjustments 
to
the radio and temperature controls, other occupants in
the car or truck, eating, roadside distractions, and for some, putting on
make-up and reading the morning paper. The proliferation of new devices, such as
GPS units, DVD players, iPods, cell phones, mobile e-mail, and text messaging,
have only compounded the likelihood of an accident being caused by a
distraction.
iPods mounted for the vehicle’s
sound system are very likely to distract a driver. Recent studies have shown
that almost every driver with an iPod took his or her eyes off the road for two
seconds or more. Two seconds is the “magic number” because the probability of an
accident goes up by factor of three after that time. (These tests were run on a
simulator.)
The results of the study were even
more dramatic for young drivers, ages 16-18, who were much more likely to keep
their eyes off the road for a distraction, such an iPod or changing a CD.
The Metrolink train crash, which
killed 25 people and injured 140 others, starkly illustrated the potential
dangers of text messaging. The engineer failed to stop at a red track signal,
and then struck a freight train head-on.
So far, Washington, Alaska, the
District of Columbia, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey and California have
banned text messaging while driving. Massachusetts is considering a similar ban,
but no action was taken in the 2008 legislative session. A similar bill is
expected to be brought to the legislature in 2008.
Investigation of driver
distraction is a standard part of the investigation of
car accident and truck
accident cases. Evidence of driver distraction, which can be from cell
phones, entertainment equipment, GPS units, or other distractions, is important
evidence in cases of
personal injuries or wrongful death.
At the personal injury law firm of
Breakstone, White & Gluck, P.C., we are aggressive in the investigation of
facts, such as driver distractions, which may have caused the accident. We have
experience retrieving relevant cell phone records and other accident data which
can help prove liability in our clients’ cases.
Resources:
“Study
points to hazards of driver iPods,” Boston Globe.
“NTSB
team sorting out what happened in Metrolink crash,” Los Angeles Times.
“Schwarzenegger:
Hasta La Vista To Texting While Driving,” Information Week.
“State
leads ban on texting while driving,” Seattle Post Intelligencer
Crash Statistics Show No Improvement in Massachusetts Highway Death Rates, Little Improvement in Drunk Driving Death Rate
There are about 6.5 million residents of Massachusetts, and about 4.6 million drivers. The number of miles driven each year for the last three years has been in the range of roughly 55 million miles per year. And despite efforts to improve vehicle safety, enforce traffic laws, and improve highway design, death rates have dropped only slightly, primarily as a result of fewer pedestrian accidents.
Here is a summary of some of the statistics. The statistics for 2007 are not yet available.
|
Fatal Accidents in |
|||
| Victim | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 |
| Driver | 234 | 232 | 233 |
| Passenger | 88 | 70 | 76 |
| Motorcyclist | 58 | 54 | 49 |
| Pedestrian | 82 | 79 | 61 |
| Bicyclist | 11 | 5 | 6 |
| Other/Unknown | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Total | 476 | 441 | 429 |
Statistics for the same period are not completely available concerning disabling injuries. However, for 2004 and 2005 the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security reports over 5,000 people suffered incapacitating injuries from some sort of motor vehicle crash. In the same two years, 138,465 and 158,802 motor vehicle crashes were reported.
Drunk driving continues to play a major role in fatal car accidents, though the last three years have seen a slight drop in the role of alcohol in fatal accidents.
| Year | Fatalities | ||||
| Total | Alcohol Related |
% | 0.08 | % | |
| 2004 | 476 | 203 | 43 | 181 | 38 |
| 2005 | 442 | 171 | 39 | 150 | 34 |
| 2006 | 422 | 159 | 38 | 137 | 32 |
These data include not just deaths to the drunk drivers, but to passengers, other motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. It also includes deaths related to alcohol consumed by pedestrians and bicyclists.
In addition to the wrongful deaths of so many individuals caused by drunk drivers, there are also thousands of personal injuries caused by drunk driving accidents.
If you or a loved one has suffered personal injury or if a loved one has suffered wrongful death as a result of a drunk driving accident or other motor vehicle accident, please contact the lawyers at Breakstone, White & Gluck today for a free consultation. Our toll free number is 800-379-1244. Learn more about Hiring an Attorney for a Car Accident Case.
More Information:
Massachusetts Drunk Driving Statistics Center for Disease Control and Prevention Injury Center-Impaired Driving