Articles Posted in Motor Vehicle Accidents

A class action lawsuit was recently filed in Los Angeles Superior Court against smartphone giant Apple. The lawsuit is seeking to hold Apple liable for a number of different automobile collisions that happened when drivers were distracted by texting or using features like apps on their iPhones while driving.

Lawsuit claims

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are asking that the court issue an injunction against Apple to prevent it from selling any new iPhone 6 phones in the state without the company first installing a safety lock feature. The feature would prevent people from texting while they drive, and Apple has apparently had the technology for the safety feature since 2008. The company was granted a patent for it in 2014 but has not installed it. The lawsuit is also asking that Apple is ordered to update phones that people have already purchased to add the feature to them.

Beginning on Jan. 1, 2017, drivers in California will be prohibited from holding their cell phones while they drive. Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 1785 in September, and its effective date is on Jan. 1, 2017. The law prohibits holding a cell phone while driving for any purpose, including checking maps, texting, talking or for any other reason.

What the law allows

The new law is codified at California Vehicle Code Sect. 23123.5. It provides that people may only use their cell phones while they are driving if the phones are mounted on their dashes and are set up for voice activation or hands-free use. Systems that are embedded in the vehicle and installed by the manufacturer are exempted. Emergency personnel who are using their cell phones while they are driving emergency vehicles are also exempt from the law. The first offense of the statute is a fine of $20. Successive violations bring increasing fines.

Is there a moral dilemma for self-driving cars?  As the time nears when autonomous cars may make a full entry into the marketplace, ethical questions regarding their programming may impact both public safety and the actual adoption by the public of autonomous cars. In 2015, 4.5 million people were seriously injured and almost 40,000 people were killed in traffic accidents. A large number of the accidents that occur every year are due to human error. The thought about autonomous cars is that removing the potential for human error will drastically cut down the injury and fatality rates by preventing accidents. A recent study shows a moral dilemma that exists when autonomous cars would be forced to make decisions about protecting the safety of their occupants or instead those of pedestrians.

A question of the public good versus self-sacrifice: The study

Researchers in the U.S. and France were interested in exploring an ethical dilemma that could arise when autonomous cars are programmed. Specifically, when the cars encounter situations in which the cars could act in order to preserve the lives of their passengers or instead to preserve the lives of pedestrians were studied. The researchers surveyed 2,000 participants, a majority of whom agreed that they thought cars programmed to save the greatest number of people over protecting the passengers in the vehicles was a good idea. However, when they were presented with the idea of actually purchasing a vehicle that was programmed with such a utilitarian purpose, a majority then stated that they would not want to own a car that was not programmed to protect them and their families regardless of how many other lives could be potentially lost.

A California woman was awarded more than $2.8 million by a jury as compensation for past and future damages for injuries she suffered in a car accident. The verdict appears to rely on a legal doctrine known as the “eggshell plaintiff rule.” Although generations of budding attorneys have learned about the rule in law school, its significance in personal injury cases is oftentimes lost to anyone who has not been subjected to a professor’s lecture about it in a first-year torts class.  It is still a useful and practical argument for party’s who have pre-existing medical conditions who suffer emotional or physical harm due to negligence.  Such was the case here.

An admission of liability and a concession by the defense

The defendant in the Sacramento case admitted that she was at fault in causing the car accident in which her vehicle hit the passenger side of a car driven by the 26-year-old plaintiff. Both sides in the case agreed that the speed of the defendant’s car was no more than 15 mph when it struck the plaintiff’s vehicle.

Among all of the traffic fatalities that happen each year in Los Angeles, almost half are pedestrians or cyclists. This is true even though pedestrians and cyclists are involved in around 14 percent of traffic accidents in the city. In order to combat this problem, the City of Los Angeles implemented the Vision Zero initiative, which is a concerted effort to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injury accidents by 2025. The primary focus is on pedestrians and bicyclists since they have the highest risk of death. To carry out the city’s initiative, the Los Angeles Vision Zero Alliance is working towards bringing the goals to fruition.

Vision Zero is a collaborative, worldwide effort aimed at eliminating traffic deaths by involving multiple government departments and agencies utilizing accident data in order to identify and address the highest risk categories and areas. Because they have very little protection, pedestrians and bicyclists are the most vulnerable of all people traveling on the roads.

Mayor Eric Garcetti issued an executive directive on Aug. 24, 2015, which established the Vision Zero initiative in Los Angeles as a citywide effort. Prior to that, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation had adopted the initiative in Sept. 2014 as a component of the department’s strategic plan. The City Council likewise adopted Vision Zero in Jan. 2016, making it a key part of the City’s Mobility Plan 2035.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently ruled to improve its rating system with the intention of encouraging manufacturers to produce safer vehicles. The new safety rating system includes changes such as:

• Adding new technologies to the crash avoidance aspect
• Using additional test dummies for testing

People who sustain catastrophic injuries in accidents often have their lives changed for a long time—if not permanently. In order to recover, a victim must prove the value of their damages.¹ The following are examples of evidence that a California accident attorney can use to prove damages after a catastrophic injury:

Past medical expenses and lost income – The financial losses that you have already incurred are often the easiest type of damages to prove in a personal injury case. For example, medical bills can concretely indicate how much your treatment cost and paystubs and timesheets can show how much work and income you lost. However, if the other party questions whether all of your treatments or time off work were necessary, you may need a medical or occupational expert to testify regarding your injuries. Additionally, if the opposing party disputes the severity or cause of your injury, your doctor may have to testify to your diagnosis.

Future medical costs and lost income – Proving the estimated losses you will likely incur in the future due to your injuries is slightly more complex. A medical professional can testify to your prognosis and the necessary future treatment for your recovery, as well as the usual cost of those treatments. If you are unable to return to your previous job, an occupational expert can assess your work abilities—if any—to determine your future earning capabilities. This can then be used by economic experts who can use inflation² and other calculations to determine your future lost earning ability, income, benefits, and more.