Alabama Personal Injury Blog - Wreck

Interstate Trucking Driver Qualification Records

Michael Roberts — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:39:56 GMT

Interstate trucking companies (federal motor carriers) are required under federal regulations to maintain and preserve certain records about their drivers. The purpose of these regulations is to place specific obligations on the part of these companies to make sure that only qualified, competent drivers are safely operating these commercial motor vehicles in interstate transportation. 49 C.F.R. § 391.51 requires that these companies maintain in their “driver qualification files” the driver’s application for employment; the response by each state agency about inquiries into the driver’s driving record during the 3 years before the application for employment; certificate of the driver’s road test; responses from state’s agencies from each state where the driver held a CDL in the previous 12 months; a note naming the person who reviewed, on the company’s behalf, the driving record; lists of all traffic violations for which the driver was convicted, or forfeited bond through the previous 12 months; the medical examiner’s certificate for the driver; and any letter of a waiver of physical qualification.

In addition to these requirements, a motor carrier must review the driving record of each driver it employs on an annual basis to make sure the driver meets minimum requirements for safe driving and is not disqualified pursuant to the regulations.

Obviously if a company, whose driver has injured another person, violates the law and fails to keep these records, this can be very important in lawsuits involving interstate trucking companies.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Roberts

Money for a Wreck? Fast? Think again!

Jon Lewis — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:08:40 GMT

I was working out at the YMCA the other day, and another one of those attorney ads came on the television. The promise? We'll get you money fast for your wreck. Well, I don't know what process they are using, but I do know that our experience shows that proper compensation for your injuries does not come fast.

In this commercial, the firm implies that the process is quick, easy, and simple. That might be true if the case is settled for less than a fair value. Usually, the adjusters for the insurance companies make you prove your case and injuries before they properly evaluate the claim, and even then, they don't always evaluate it properly.

What if the case has to go to court? What does that entail? Well, we have to file a complaint with the court. Once the defendant is served with a copy of the complaint, they will have thirty (30) days to answer in Circuit Court. Once that process is concluded, paper discovery ensues, depositions are taken, a scheduling order is entered, and the case is typically set for trial within 12-18 months (For more information on the process, visit the Lewis, Feldman, Lehane & McAtee, LLC website). Is that fast? Is that quick and easy?

What about issues of subrogation? What is that? If your medical bills are paid by a health insurance company such as BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama, you have to pay them back and potentially negotiate a settlement with them. If Medicare paid your bills, you have to send them a letter and wait for a response. Do you know how long it takes to get a response from Medicare? Think about typical government action and how long that takes.

When attorneys start making promises of quick and easy cash for your injuries, question the process. How familiar are the attorneys with the court system? How many cases have they tried to verdict? How do they define proper compensation? This article is not to denigrate any firms or their attorneys, but to dispel the idea that these cases can be settled for quick and easy cash and provide you with adequate compensation. They CAN be settled for quick and easy cash, but the case will usually be settled for less than fair value.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Local Wreck Reminds Us of Dangers of Teen Driving

Jason Knowles — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:59:55 GMT

Last week near Gadsden, Alabama a 20-year-old driver of a Jeep died in a head-on automobile collision with a Honda Accord driven by a 16-year-old. The driver of the Accord, along with her 14-year-old passenger, were seriously injured. The 24-year-old driver of the Jeep, as well as a 19-year-old passenger, were also seriously injured in the accident. (See the story in The Gadsden Times, August 6, 2009)

Accidents such as this remind us of the dangers associated with teen aged driving. According to the CDC, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for U.S. teens, accounting for more than one in three deaths in this age group. In 2005, 12 teens ages 16 to 19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries. According to the CDC, although young people ages 15-24 represent only 14% of the U.S. population, they account for 30% ($19 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among males and 28% ($7 billion) of such costs among females. Among teen drivers, those at especially high risk for motor vehicle crashes are males, teens driving with teen passengers, and newly licensed teens. The CDC has found that, compared to older drivers, teens are more likely to speed, more likely to underestimate dangerous conditions, less likely to wear seatbelts, and more susceptible to the effects of alcohol or drugs.

Fortunately, there are proven methods to helping teens become safer drivers. For example, research compiled by the CDC suggests that the most comprehensive graduated drivers licensing (GDL) programs are associated with reductions of 38% and 40% in fatal and injury crashes, respectively, among 16-year-old drivers. Simply put, graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems are designed to delay full licensure while allowing teens to get their initial driving experience under low-risk conditions. For more information about GDL systems, see the Teens Behind the Wheel: Graduated Licensing fact sheet.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jason Knowles

Does High Performance Driving Lead to Accidents?

Jon Lewis — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:36:30 GMT

In the last couple of weeks, the Birmingham News has run an article on the Porche Driving School along with several articles covering wrecks leading the the death of several drivers and passengers. This has led me to ponder the question, "Do our average drivers think they are on the NASCAR circuit?"

Now, I'm not suggesting that the Porche driving school leads to these types of wrecks, but I do wonder what many of these people are thinking. In the articles above which discuss the wrecks which killed three people, the writer describes the wrecks as follows: one vehicle struck a tree on Alabama 155 in Jemison; another wreck happened at the 31st Street exit off of Interstate 20/59 North; and the third vehicle driven by a 44 year old man drove off the road in northeast Jefferson County and partially ejected him. In today's Birmingham News, it was reported that a woman was killed in Pratt City when the driver lost control of the vehicle, and another man was charged with his brother's death when he ran off the road, overcorrected and flipped his Ford Explorer.

All five (5) of these collisions were single vehicle collisions. There was not one moving car or truck which caused the wrecks. Yet, five people are dead as a result of this senseless driving. When do adults mature and realize that driving can be exceptionally dangerous? When you are driving down the road at a relatively low rate of speed, say 20-30 mph, and you hit a stationary object such as a tree, you are going to get hurt. SERIOUSLY HURT!!

You have to pay attention to the road. You cannot be drunk. You cannot text. You cannot be fiddling with the radio or air conditioner. You have to watch where you are going. One small move in the wrong direction can mean death. Pay attention. Be careful. Realize that you are not in NASCAR. Which, by the way, I'll bet you the NASCAR drivers are paying attention and not putting on makeup.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

TRAIN DERAILMENTS WREAK HAVOC

Jason Knowles — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:59:51 GMT

With so much technology today in our fast-paced world, when I think of trains I think of dinosaurs. We almost forget about the massive machines as they roll through our cities and towns. That is, until you hear about a tragedy, such as the one in Albertville, Alabama recently where a train derailed, killing the conductor. According to an article in The Gadsden Times, dated June 25, 2009, the conductor on a 75-car Alabama-Tennessee River Railroad train was crushed between a tanker and a pile of scrap metal when the train slid off the tracks while dropping tankers at Progress Rail, near Albertville.

I am reminded of the interesting case arising out of North Dakota, where residents of a small North Dakota town have tried to sue Canadian Pacific Railway over a 2002 derailment that sent a cloud of toxic anhydrous ammonia from farm fertilizer over the town. One man died trying to escape the fumes and others were treated at hospitals for eye and lung injuries. The U. S. Supreme Court has recently refused to block the lawsuit. In 2006, a U. S. district judge ruled that federal law protected Canadian Pacific from claims stemming from the derailment. After Congress changed the law the same year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled that the claims could proceed.

Train derailment tragedies such as these remind us of the dangers of trains and of the need for greater safety measures in the industry.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jason Knowles

Child Car Seats in Automobile Crashes

Jason Knowles — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:37:34 GMT

As the father of two small children, I use child car seats daily, and I often think, usually as I am hurriedly buckling up one of them, about how important it is to properly select, install, and use such devices. I recently came across some research by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) which I found enlightening and helpful to all parents, grandparents, and others who may transport our most precious cargo.

The IIHS recently released some new research examining the effectiveness of child seats in regard to injury prevention. The study focused primarily on the effectiveness of child booster seats. The IIHS report provides strong evidence that belt-positioning booster seats, coupled with lap/shoulder seatbelts, offer the safest way for children to travel in cars after they outgrow their child safety seats.

The IIHS examined in particular the use of child safety devices for children between the ages of about four and eight, who typically have outgrown child safety seats but are not yet large enough to properly fit in standard lap/shoulder seatbelt systems. The IIHS research provides evidence of a significant benefit from the use of belt positioning booster seats which allow for a better fit for small children in lap/shoulder seatbelts. The data revealed that the risk of injury among children in belt-positioning booster seats with lap/shoulder belts was reduced by 57% compared with children using lap belts alone. Thus, according to the IIHS study, a lap-belt only position is not optimal for booster-aged children due to the lack of torso restraint. This study shows that the risk of injury for small children can be reduced significantly by the proper selection and use of child restraint devices.

The IIHS has an excellent video resource titled “Keeping Children Safe in Crashes” which can be viewed and purchased on the IIHS website. The video has instructions and photographs on the proper selection, installation, and use of child seat devices. The information can be viewed at www.iihs.org/research/topics/child_restraints.

Here locally in the Gadsden, Alabama area the Gadsden Fire Department is presenting a free child car seat check on June 18, 2009, where you can have your child safety seats checked for proper installation. In Gadsden, call 256-549-4566 or visit www.gadsdentimes.com for more information.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jason Knowles

Are they Really Accidents?

Jon Lewis — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:52:36 GMT

I just finished a book called "Safety 24/7 - Building an Incident-free Culture". The authors, Gregor M. Anderson and Robert L. Lorber, Ph.D, make it clear that there are very few true "accidents". In the book, they call them "incidents". What's the difference? In the book, they define the difference as follows:

Incident vs. Accident: an accident implies the result is outside a person's control. In 97 percent of the cases, what happens - the incident - is easily within someone's control.

Somewhere along the line, we started calling "incidents" "accidents". Why? When someone runs a red light and causes a collision, is it an accident? When someone is texting on their cell phone and has a crash, is it an accident? When someone drinks and drives, is it an accident?

These aren't accidents. These are choices people make. We choose whether to pay attention to the roadway. We choose whether to look at the radio or look at the road. We choose whether to drive defensively. These are choices, and the term "accident" implies we have no choices.

When we are in a court of law, you will hear the defense attorneys constantly refer to the term "accident". Plaintiff attorneys will use the terms "collision," "wreck," or "crash". Which is more accurate?

In future posts, I will discuss more of the theme of this book. It does not only apply to car wrecks. it also applies to the workplace, public stores, and other commercial establishments. If you are interested in the book, you can purchase it from Amazon.com.

Or, you may call or e-mail our firm, Lewis, Feldman, Lehane & McAtee, LLC, for your free copy.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Car Wrecks - New eCrash Reports

Jon Lewis — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:36:17 GMT

The Birmingham News reported today that the State has instituted a new eCrash system. This system allows the State Troopers to submit wreck reports electronically. According to the article, this will make the process quicker and allow victims of car wrecks and insurance companies to obtain the reports in a more timely fashion.

Anyone who has attempted to obtain accident reports in the last few years knows how long the delay has been. When the collision is significant enough, it can take months to get the report. Now, the report will be available much more quickly.

This is very important for victims of crashes. The sooner the reports can be obtained, the sooner the investigation can be completed, and the sooner the report can be sent to the insurance carrier so the matter can be resolved. When people are injured and cannot work, it is important to get quick decisions from insurance companies so that they can compensate the victim and help them move on with their lives.

For more information about Alabama automobile accidents, you may visit www.AlabamaAutoAccidents.com. Also, below is a video from the Birmingham News which illustrates the new eCrash system. See State Trooper Wesley Burgett below.

http://videos.al.com/birmingham-news/2009/06/ecrash_program.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Full Disclosure From Clients

Danny Lehane — Wed, 20 May 2009 23:06:01 GMT

Apparently but unbeknownst to me, I speak a second language and rather fluently at that. As best I can tell this incomprehensible second language starts in an initial meeting with a prospective client. My initial client meetings usually last at least 90 minutes to 2 hours on average. I would like to state that it is all 100% case specific dialogue but I tend to deviate a might during the interview and regale all those fortunate individuals present with a good story that may or may not be self serving. O.k., who we kidding? All the stories are self serving but that is not the point here. During these Herculean, marathon interviews I always ask the potential client pointed questions that are obviously important to their case. These specific, direct questions are always prefaced with a statement explaining how important the sought after information is to the case. (Notice the theme here?) On occasion the hyperbole meter maxes out when I tell the client the fate of their case and the free world is dependent upon their 100% disclosure. Obviously, the intent is for the potential client to understand that this is not a game and if my firm and I are going to represent him, her, them, etc., complete disclosure is a must. If there is any bad news in any shape, form or fashion, let’s get it out there from the get-go and figure how to best deal with it. More importantly, the client has got to realize that his/her credibility is vital to the success of the case.

Despite giving very explicit requests for a client to disclose everything, good or bad, apparently this is the part of the interview where my words inexplicably morph into a language not understood by the interviewee. I am all for due diligence when it comes to investigating and researching defendants and potential defendants. In every case there needs to be a thorough search conducted on the potential defendant (or defendants) whether it be through secretary of states, corporate documents, Federal Regulations, Google, Dogpile, Myspace, Facebook, criminal records, civil records, web sites, all the www. sites you can tap into for information, Twitter, Tweeter, etc., but, really, do we have to extensively investigate our own clients? Once you experience the unspeakable bliss of learning something harmful about your client during his/her deposition or during trial instead of during the initial interview, the answer is, yes.

Years ago prior to one particular deposition I requested copies of all the medical records the defense counsel had obtained via their non party subpoenas. There was no real surprise in the medical records. My client had a car wreck on his way to the beautiful Alabama beaches. His vacation, and according to him, his life, were ruined as a result of the back injuries sustained in this particular wreck. During his deposition, my client was asked if he ever had any prior wrecks or other incidences where he sustained injuries to his back. He answered the same way he answered me in the client interview. No, he had no prior back injuries. Heck, he was never involved in any other incident. “Well now, let’s just see how much money we are going to get put on this baby at the end of the deposition” I thought to myself. Yes sir, prior to this particular wreck my guy was as healthy as one of those Muscle Magazine cats. A model of health with no prior back problems. Further, he was a salt of the earth kind of guy with no past criminal activities. At least that is what he told me in my interview and during his deposition prep. This is also how he testified during the deposition. Unfortunately the states of Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana and Tennessee keep records of criminal activity as well as car wrecks. It turns out the hospitals located in those states keep records as well. Who would have know that in the state of Florida trying to elude police and then assaulting the very same pursuing police would lead to criminal charges? What, really? Likewise, as a result of innumerable prior car wrecks in the other aforementioned states there were numerous ER visits with the chief complaints of pain being to the very same back that at one time I guess was pristine. Never mind the 7 prior lawsuits he filed in other states to recover for those prior back injuries. Never mind the repeated blows he received to his back as a result of a fight he got into with several people at a Waffle House in who knows where Mississippi two weeks prior to his Alabama wreck. I have no problem with pre-existing conditions. I do, however, have a huge problem with a client that has not been up front with me and that is not credible. I will not represnt a client that has not been upfront and honest. Life is too short and my time is too valuable.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Lehane

PROTECT YOURSELF WITH UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE

Danny Lehane — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:18:09 GMT

Many motorists make what they think is a sound financial decision by electing not to purchase Uninsured/Underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. I have represented many individuals that did not have this very important coverage. The reasons are many and varied. The most common reason provided is that a particular vehicle is old and only needs liability insurance. Another reason is saving money. Unfortunately, the $250.00 to $500.00 an insured saves in a year by electing not to obtain UM/UIM coverage can prove to be a horrible financial decision.

I emphasize to my clients that while liability coverage protects the world against them, UM/UIM coverage protects them against the world, whether they are in their vehicle or not. And that is the point: UM/UIM actually protects you, the policy owner. Despite what some self proclaimed financial experts write, it is an irresponsible and bad financial decision when a driver refuses to obtain UM/UIM coverage. The sound and prudent act is to obtain UM/UIM coverage with high limits. This will result in not having to rely on the coverage limits, or lack thereof, of other drivers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Danny Lehane