The New York Senate passed a bill (S. 3452) on January 24, 2012 that addresses driving the wrong way and reckless driving, making these violations a felony. It awaits final approval from the Assembly.

The legislation proposes a new driving offense called aggravated reckless driving. As worded in the bill, violations that comprise aggravated reckless driving include:

 Drivers who drive the wrong way, against the flow of traffic, either knowingly or because they are intoxicated
 Drivers who drive more than 30 miles an hour over the speed limit while intoxicated or impaired
 Drivers who drive more than 30 miles an hour over the speed limit while racing, pursuing other vehicles, or excessively weaving in and out of traffic

The bill makes aggravated reckless driving a class E felony, punishable by a prison sentence of up to four years.
The bill also reclassifies reckless driving as a more serious offense, changing it from an unclassified misdemeanor (maximum 30 days in jail) to a Class A misdemeanor (maximum prison sentence of one year).

For more details about S. 3452 see the New York State Senate website.

Relevance for car accident claims

The aggravated reckless driving category may offer an advantage for accident victims seeking compensation. The legal change acknowledges how serious reckless driving is and that it indicates a greater degree of negligence. In extreme cases, aggravated reckless driving may lead to case rulings that allow plaintiffs to obtain punitive damages.

If you suffered serious injury as a result of an auto accident, seek legal guidance from an experienced Suffolk County car accident lawyer

In 2002, Judge Douglas E. McKeon, Bronx Supreme Court Justice devised a program that he called judge-directed negotiation to facilitate settlements with 11 NYC hospitals operating under New York City Health and Hospitals, Corp. Cases predisposed toward settlement were sent to the judge, and he directed negotiations between the NYC medical malpractice lawyers and counsel for the hospitals. These Bronx medical malpractice cases that normally took several years to move through the justice system resolved in under a year.

According to a Washington Post article , the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded Judge McKeon’s program with a $3 million grant to expand the program and include more NYC hospitals. Policy experts are viewing it as a national model for handling medical liability cases.

Currently, legal systems are bogged down with prolonged medical malpractice cases that often pass through several judges before conclusion. In addition, court procedure does not create an atmosphere that favors settlement. Pre-trial discovery for medical malpractice cases often lasts months or years, and the more time invested in this trial phase, the less likely parties are to enter into negotiated settlements.

While case resolution takes less time, the average payout is less. However, clients are able to receive settlements in a timely manner and less legal expense goes into managing cases. Parties that do not settle still have the option of litigating.

If you suffered serious injury as a result of medical malpractice, an experienced Suffolk County medical malpractice lawyer can review your situation and determine the prospects of pursuing a case.

Under New York law, if you are injured in a motor vehicle accident, you can recover compensation based on the degree of fault another party had in causing the accident.

A case in point is a lawsuit that Rosenberg & Gluck, LLP brought on behalf of their client who suffered headaches and occasional dizziness as a result of an auto accident. Allstate Insurance and their attorneys represented the defendant. They claimed that the plaintiff’s injuries were insignificant and did not qualify as serious enough to warrant any compensation. New York Insurance law section 5102 requires a “serious injury” or the case gets dismissed. Allstate refused to settle so the case went to trial. Rosenberg & Gluck proved that the plaintiff suffered from an inner ear injury as a result of the collision and convinced the jury there was a “serious injury.” The jury awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in damages.

Under Civ. Prac. L. & R. §1411 Damage Actions: Effect of Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk , the amount of recoverable damages are diminished in proportion to culpable conduct attributable to the claimant.

Digging deeper into the investigation, before trial, Rosenberg & Gluck, NY car accident lawyers, discovered a surveillance video from the building adjoining the accident site. This enabled them, in a motion for summary judgment, to prove that the defendant was 100% responsible for the collision. This additional evidence increased the recovery by $41,000 in interest for a total award of $191,000.

Get a legal opinion

Our tenacious approach to cases and commitment to details make Rosenberg & Gluck, LLP stand apart from other New York City car accident law firms. If you suffer serious injury in a car accident, consult experienced lawyers. A Suffolk County car accident attorney can evaluate the prospects of pursuing a case.

Alzheimer’s disease primarily afflicts the elderly and at what point a person with Alzheimer’s should quit driving is under study. Currently, New York does not have a law that requires physicians to report patients with Alzheimer’s to the DMV for prohibited driving. In fact, no conclusive study has delineated accepted driving guidelines for people with Alzheimer’s. However, with more baby boomers coming of age, the elderly population percentage is increasing significantly, and today issues like Alzheimer’s are more in the public eye.

A 2009 USA today article reported facts from a research study conducted on 40 people with early-stage Alzheimer’s who were given a written test and road test. The study compared them with 115 older drivers without dementia and found the following:

 Alzheimer’s patients committed 42 safety mistakes
 Other subjects committed 33 safety mistakes
 Biggest errors for drivers with Alzheimer’s were swerving or hugging the center line when an oncoming car approached
 Errors increased by 2 1/2 mistakes for every increase in 5 years of age
 Some Alzheimer’s patients drove equally as well as their counterparts without dementia
 Flunking memory tests did not indicate motor skill or visual incapability for driving
 Alzheimer patients scoring average or better on written tests were no worse drivers than those without dementia

Get a legal opinion

If you suffer injury in a car accident and you wonder whether the other driver’s age or medical condition resulted in negligence, consult an experienced lawyer. A Suffolk County car accident attorney can evaluate your accident and advise you whether to pursue a case.

Child restraint laws in all states and the District of Columbia require using booster seats for younger children and seat belts for older children. States vary on the age, weight, or height requirements for children that must use booster seats. Many states have primary child restraint laws, which mean police officers can stop a vehicle for an apparent child restraint violation. Other states have secondary child restraint laws, requiring police stops for a primary violation before officers can cite secondary law violations.

According to an Eyewitness News article, car accidents are the greatest cause of death for children between ages three and 14. States with stricter child restraint laws show reduced child deaths in car crashes.

Even so, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) not all booster seats are equally safe. The IIHS evaluated 83 different booster seats and categorized 31 as best bets, five as good bets, and six as not recommended. IIHS based evaluation criteria on seat belt fit while using the booster: whether the elevated booster position allowed lap and shoulder belts to correctly restrain a child, lying flat when crossing the child’s upper thighs and securely crossing the middle of the child’s shoulder. The not recommended booster seats resulted from seat designs that prevented proper seat belt contact. IIHS lists the name brands of rated booster seats on its website.

Get a legal opinion

If your child suffers injury in a car accident and you suspect the booster seat did not offer adequate protection, consult an experienced lawyer about filing a lawsuit. A Suffolk County car accident attorney can evaluate your situation and determine the prospects of pursuing a case.

CNN announced Tuesday, December 13, 2011 that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) called for a nationwide ban on texting and cell phone use while driving, except for emergency calls. This announcement is NHTSA’s boldest move to date for reducing cell phone use and texting.

Cell phone statistics backing the proposed ban
 
A December 8, 2011 CNN article entitled Millions of drivers won’t hang up, study shows provides statistics that explain some underlying reasons for the recent requested ban. A federal study indicates:
 
 One in 20 drivers use cell phones at any given time
 One in 100 drivers are observed sending text messages or manipulating digital devices
 During daytime hours, 13.5 million drivers are on handheld cell phones
 Cell phone use and texting steadily increase despite new laws and publicity about dangers
 One tenth of all 2010 fatalities involve distracted drivers

Researchers suspect distracted driving fatalities are actually much higher than the study revealed. A lack of witnesses frequently makes observing cell phone use difficult.

While NHTSA has influence as a respected government agency, it has no power to legislate a nationwide ban, not federally or at the state level. Just as state governments legislate DUI and other traffic laws, cell phone restrictions have also been state mandated. The outcome of NHTSA’s call for a nationwide cell phone ban while driving remains to be seen. At this point the matter is open for debate and various sectors are weighing in with their views.

Protect your rights

Seek legal help as soon as possible, if you suffer serious injury or a loved one is killed in a car accident.  Other driver distraction through texting or cell phone use often indicates negligence and may be grounds for a lawsuit.  A Suffolk County car accident attorney (lilawyer.com) can begin interviewing witnesses and preserving evidence immediately.

 
Considering years of science fiction stories and Hollywood productions where automated cars were commonplace and given current technological advances, how soon can we expect fully computerized, self-driving cars to frequent our roadways?

 
Google and Stanford University Professor Sebastian Thrun working with a team of engineers have developed automated Toyota Prius prototype vehicles that operate through onboard computers. The onboard computers enable the cars to detect terrain, detours, traffic lights, road signs, traffic, and follow roadmaps. Through interfaces with lasers, radar, and cameras, the computers instantly process information to avoid accidents and provide safe rides.
According to a NY Times December 5, 2011 article, the prototypes have driven safely for close to 200,000 miles in California and Nevada, wherever regular cars travel. The fact that Nevada has passed a texting while driving ban that excluded self-driven cars may be an indication of how soon automated vehicles are in our future.

A legal perspective for now

Self-driving cars may indeed make auto accidents a thing of the past. However today, car accidents remain the most common type of injury claim filed by people seeking damages because of another’s negligence. Accident reconstruction is the principal technology used by Suffolk County car accident attorneys for determining accident causes and identifying liable parties. In intricate cases, multiple parties and their insurance companies complicate the process of obtaining compensation. An experienced car accident lawyer can cut through the red tape and help protect a victim’s rights.

Most people never consider that private details exchanged with family and friends in emails, on Facebook, or Myspace could turn into court evidence. Yet, while social media sites and your own emails allow you to be selective about who you invite or who receives your communication, courts have ruled otherwise.

Kathleen Roman v. Steelcase Inc.

The New York Supreme Court allowed defendant access to social media information in the 2010 case, Kathleen Romano v. Steelcase Inc.  The plaintiff, Kathleen Romano sought damages for back and neck injuries she claimed reduced her enjoyment of life. The injuries were caused by a fall from a collapsing chair, sold by Steelcase, a Michigan furniture company. Her claim indicated she was homebound and limited in activities, yet her daughter’s Facebook and Myspace posts discussed that she and her family enjoyed a Florida vacation. The Steelcase insurance company defense counsel motioned to compel the social media pages and the judge allowed it.

Fourth Amendment rights

The Fourth Amendment guarantees people the right to” be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures” without probable cause. The doctor-patient privilege protects communications with physicians, which cannot be used legally against you. The federal Stored Communications Act often protects social networks against turning over personal information.  However, as defense teams find penetrable chinks in the digital armor, people should be wary of what they post and consider the legal perspective.  If you consider pursuing a personal injury lawsuit in New York, consult experienced Long Island car accident attorneys and get further legal advice about social media communications.

Parents who are concerned about their teenager’s driving safety have good reason to be concerned.  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) teen drivers between the ages of 16 and 19 are four times more likely to be involved in car accidents than adult drivers.  Statistics from 2009 showed that 3,000 teens from the ages 15 through 19 were killed and in excess of 350,000 received emergency room treatment because of car accidents.  Car accidents are the largest cause of death for individuals in this age group, accounting for one third of all teenage deaths.

Some other noteworthy statistics about teen car crashes include:

• 65 percent of teens age 16 or 17 involved in accidents are male
• 36 percent of teens were speeding
• From 2004 to 2008, teen driver fatal crashes decreased by 36 percent

Graduated license law

In response to teenage driving accidents and fatalities, New York passed a graduated license law in 2003 that stiffened driving requirements for teens.

The graduated license law requires teenagers driving with learner permits to have a licensed adult (21 years or older) in the car with them and prohibits carrying more than one passenger under the age of 21 (unless family members) without the driver’s parent, legal guardian, or a certified driving instructor also in the car.  Drivers supervising teens must ride in the front seat beside them.

If your teen has been injured in a car crash because of someone else’s negligence, a knowledgeable and experienced Long Island car accident attorney can help you seek compensation to cover medical and other expenses.

After numerous reports of Toyota accelerators sticking and causing vehicles to accelerate suddenly, Toyota announced a voluntary recall of eight models including the Camry and Corolla. In 2010, Toyota recalled approximately eight million vehicles worldwide and an estimated six million within the United States.

Toyota’s concessions to appease consumers

Subsequent to the recall, people began filing lawsuits for personal injury, wrongful death, and economic losses based on car value. In response, Toyota made vehicle modifications, including a brake enhancement system causing the brake to override the accelerator in particular driving situations when both pedals were used simultaneously. Toyota also extended special services to customers with recalled cars. These actions were part of a promotional campaign to offset and restore consumer confidence in their vehicles.

Lawsuits on the docket

Yet, Toyota’s investigation revealed no identifiable defect, which Toyota lawyers are leveraging as a defense strategy in several lawsuits brought against them.

According to a Bloomberg Businessweek article , a federal court judge scheduled three Toyota trials in 2013 to hear suits involving sudden acceleration claims. The trials consist of:

• Two families who filed wrongful death lawsuits for two family members killed in a Utah 2010 crash from a defective accelerator and brake failure to override it
• An economic loss class action claim based on grounds that Toyota’s failure to disclose or fix acceleration defects drove down the value of their vehicles, a claim limited to car owners in only three states.

The trial outcomes are the bellwether for later trials and will be court decisions that dictate whether a class exists for further class action lawsuits. Suffolk and Nassau counties product liability lawyers throughout the country wait to see how these trial cases unfold.