Articles Posted in Motor Vehicle Accidents

Hacking and cyber crimes are occurrences that frequently happen to innocent victims all over the world. More than 55 million people across the globe fall victim to computer hacking and other cyber crimes, according to a statistic provided by the Go-Gulf site. Hacking is the act of breaking into someone’s account and using it for malicious personal gain. Hacking can be a devastating experience that can ruin a person’s life, depending on the system that the hacker overrides. The types of accounts that hackers infiltrate are email accounts, social media accounts and financial accounts. Recently, consumers of high-tech vehicles learned that hackers have advanced to taking control of some computerized automobile systems.

Hackers Gain Access to a Vehicle

Automobile technology grows in innovations with each passing year. The Fiat Chrysler company is an example of a company that manufactures vehicles with the wireless technology. The dashboard connectivity system that comes with some of the newer vehicles was supposed to provide a high level of convenience to consumers. The system allows consumers to have access to the Internet via Wi-Fi connections. It allows consumers to connect to GPS systems, applications, cell phone connects and more. Unfortunately, some of the newer models were suffering from some great vulnerabilities and glitches. The company had to recall more than 1.4 million of its elite vehicles because of the glitches in the dashboard connectivity system.

In an interesting personal injury claim coming out of California, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, has reinstated a plaintiff’s case arising from injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. (See Navarrete v. Meyer, (2015), CA Fourth District Court of Appeal, Case No. D067454).

Facts of the Case: On November 26, 2009, a vehicle driven by defendant, Brandon Coleman, was traveling with two passengers.  Defendant, Hayley Meyer, was riding in the front passenger seat and the second occupant was in the rear.  As the vehicle was traveling to a drug store, defendant Meyer is alleged to have encouraged the driver to turn down a street known to have a lot of “dips” and to go fast to attempt to “get airborne”.  Despite the stated speed limit of 25 m.p.h., the driver got the vehicle to an estimated 80 plus miles per hour, hit the “dip”, lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a parked vehicle.  At the time of the collision, plaintiff’s husband was standing alongside the parked vehicle attempting to strap a child into a car seat.  He was struck, his legs were both severed and he died of his injuries.  His wife brought a wrongful death claim initially against the driver and the County of Riverside, CA (claiming negligence operation of a motor vehicle and a dangerous roadway condition of public property, respectively).  The lawsuit was later amended to add passenger Meyer as a defendant under theories of “civil conspiracy” and violation of California Vehicle Code 21701, which states, in pertinent part as follows:

“No person shall wilfully interfere with the driver of a vehicle or with the mechanism thereof in such manner as to affect the driver’s control of the vehicle.”

Too often, auto manufacturers negligently produce defectively designed or assembled parts that can cause a driver to lose control, cause a risk of fires, or create other dangerous hazards. In the wake of the Takata recall of an estimated 34 million cars,¹ much attention has been focused on the possibility of having defective airbags in our vehicles. However, while you should definitely check whether your vehicle has been affected by the airbag recall, there are many other active recalls for defective auto parts that may lead to serious accidents and injuries. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports new safety recalls² on a constant basis so that consumers can always determine whether their car or truck is safe for use.

The following are only some examples of recalls that have been issued in recent months of which drivers should be aware:

Fleetline fender brackets – Fender brackets that were manufactured in early 2015 were reportedly not sufficiently welded and can cause a fender to either fall against the tires, causing steering hazards or can fall off of the vehicle entirely, potentially causing other vehicles to crash into the fender in the road. 

As the use of cellular phones has become almost ubiquitous in today’s everyday culture, both in California as well as across the country, distracted driving has becoming a correlative increasing danger. Many people are seriously injured or even killed in accidents every year caused by a distracted driver, both in California as well as elsewhere in the U.S.

While the idea of distracted driving has become almost synonymous with talking or texting on a cell phone while driving, the activity encompasses much more. As a recent study reported in the LA Times reports, cell phone use has become an increasing problem. Despite the risks, drivers continue to use cell phones and do other activities while they are driving.

National Statistics

Distracted driving is a safety issue typically associated with performing other tasks while driving. Any non-driving activity you are engaged in while operating a motor vehicle significantly raises a risk of crashing and fatalities. Distraction transpires at any time you take your eyes off the road and do not concentrate on the primary task of driving.

Even with the alarming statistics, the car companies continue to furnish their vehicles with elaborate dashboards and enticing displays of information. Originally, the idea was created to aid the drivers with their transportation needs by providing Global Positioning System (GPS) allowing them to easily find their destination. The technology has since advanced into other methods of navigation that may lead to interference with safe driving causing an increased number of accidents worldwide.

The youngest drivers are at most risk as in addition to being distracted by the displays on the dashboard, they also engage in texting and talking on the cell phone simultaneously. On average, 660,000 cars are being operated by someone who is using their Smartphone accounting for 16 percent of distracted driving crashes involving people less than 20 years of age.

Google’s self-driving cars are here, but if you are in a state other than California, you wouldn’t know it from personal experience. To this date, California is the only state to allow these vehicles to be tested on the open roads.

Of the 50 vehicles that received permits to be driven on the roads and highways since September of 2014, four of them have been involved in collisions. To be fair, only two of the accidents occurred while the car was not being controlled by a human being.

Three of the four accidents involved Lexus SUVs that Google equipped with computing power and sensors. Delphi Automotive is an automobile parts supplier that owns two self-driving vehicles. One of these was involved in the fourth crash. Executives with Google and Delphi denied that their vehicles were at fault in these collisions. They also both claimed that the crashes were insignificant.

According to Juryverdictalert.com , a jury in Sacramento California rendered a verdict of approximately $360,000 in a case of “disputed injury”in the matter of “Doe v. Landis” Case No. 34-2012000133121.  (See jury verdict summary here ).  The summary of this case and the things I find interesting about the claim are as follows:

Facts of the Case: Plaintiff was rear ended while sitting at a stop light.  She claimed immediate neck pain at the scene of the accident.  She underwent several months of physical therapy and, when this did not fully resolve her pain, she underwent trigger point injections.  At the time of trial, she still claimed to have residual pain.  The plaintiff had a history of fibromyalgia and chronic pain and headaches prior to the car crash.

Rules of Law that Can Be Drawn from This Verdict: Cases where a party is injured due to negligence or wrongdoing but, had a pre-existing medical condition prior to the incident are not uncommon.  California law basically states that the defendant is not liable for prior medical problems, but, to the extent that these problems were exacerbated by the incident complained of, the defendant is still liable.  Furthermore, if any prior medical condition caused the plaintiff to be more susceptible to injury, it is immaterial to liability.  Specifically, these rules are stated as follows:

In what is believed to be a new record high jury verdict for a personal injury claim in Sonoma County, CA, a woman was awarded $13.4 Million related to a crash that happened approximately 4 years ago. (See article here).  The plaintiff alleged that a vehicle driven by her father wrecked and caused her major spinal trauma which required fusion surgery of four vertebrae and permanent placement of a metal rod to stabilize her spinal column.  The plaintiff alleged that she is still in constant pain and cannot sit for longer than 20 minutes at a time without feeling a high level of discomfort.  The jury award consisted of $6.4 Million to pay for past, present and future medical expenses and related out of pocket costs associated with future care and $7 Million to compensate for physical pain and emotional distress caused by the accident and the lingering medical issues.

Things I find interesting about this verdict as a California Personal Injury Attorney:

From the description of a horrific traffic collision and a spine injury causing permanent and lifelong pain, I am glad that the jury was able to see in their hearts to award a high amount.  More rural areas of California like Sonoma County, tend to have more conservative jury pools and this can lead to lower awards for plaintiffs.  I am glad this particular jury was able to understand the effect this event had on the plaintiff and what impact it will have for the rest of her life.  What is more remarkable to me is that the award was made in a  lawsuit by a daughter against her father.  Why is this?  We all know that, under California law, all drivers and registered owners of vehicles must carry automobile liability insurance.  What the jury was not able to know because of the CA rules of evidence is whether or not the father had any such coverage.  In fact, they were instructed on this issue as follows: