Articles Posted in Motor Vehicle Cases

Here is another decision that makes it reversible error to show photos of vehicles involved in a wreck, point out minor property damage, and then argue that the plaintiff could not have been injured.

The New Jersey Appellate Division said this:

“Given the narrow field of dispute, the photographs served no apparent purpose other than to suggest the accident was low-impact and minor and, therefore, not the cause of plaintiff’s condition. For reasons already advanced, we find this inference impermissible absent an expert foundation. And lest there be any doubt as to defendant’s real purpose, counsel referred to the accident as a “fender bender” on three separate occasions in her opening and closing remarks. Clearly, this argument played a prominent role in the defense, especially in light of the polarity of medical views on causation, and was identical to that found objectionable in Davis. By the same token, nowhere in her argument did defense counsel explain to the jury how, based merely on the extent of property damage, a fact finder could assess the origination of plaintiff’s injury or whether any pre-existing condition she may have had was exacerbated by the impact. In any event, defense counsel’s argument clearly transgressed what was to be, at least according to the trial court’s tacit understanding, the limited use to which the photographs would be put. Even more significant, however, counsel’s commentary contradicted her own medical expert who opined no such connection or correlation between impact and injury exists. Under the circumstances then, we conclude that the introduction of the photographs without appropriate limiting instruction, when considered together with counsel’s uncured comments thereon, allowed the jury to speculate, unguided by any expert basis, as to the cause of plaintiff’s injuries, and thus created a clear capacity for an unjust result.”

Sorry for the delay in posting today. I caught a red-eye flight last night and spent 12 hours traveling.

Public Citizen and four other entities have launched another court challenge to the hours-of-service rules that have been promulgated by the FMSCA.

From Public Citizen’s press release: “More than 5,000 people are killed each year in large truck-related crashes and more than 110,000 are injured,” said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. “That FMCSA chose in both rules to expand driving hours is astounding given its statutory mandate to make safety its highest priority and Congress’s specific directive to the agency to reduce fatigue-related incidents. We fully expect the court to find once again that this rule violates the agency’s clear assignment to put safety first.”

Read here about the indictment the executive of the charter company that operated the bus that exploded Sept. 23 on Interstate 45 in Texas, killing 23 residents of a Bellaire nursing home who were fleeing Hurricane Rita.

If he is found guilty, what will his punishment be? Will it be the nine years that Anna got for extortion? Should it be less? Should it be more?

Here is some interesting information on the realtionship between where people live and their tendancy to be involved who tend to be in car wrecks.

A sample: “People who live within one mile of a church are 10 percent less likely to have an accident resulting in a property damage claim than if they lived one more than one mile from the church.”

My daughter is 14 and is very excited about getting her driver’s license. The idea terrifies me like it does most parents.
Here are some statistics about car wrecks and teenagers that will not do you much good at the office but may help you talk about safe driving with your teenager.

Do you want to know how many people died in traffic wrecks in Tennessee? In North Dakota? On two-lane roads? On interstates?

If so, see this report from NHTSA and the United States Department of Transportation.

An excerpt:

“In 2004, the Nation’s crash fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles of travel was the lowest (1.46) since record keeping began 30 years ago and remained below 1.50 for the second consecutive year. 2004 was also the second year in a row that fatalities from motor vehicle crashes declined. The number of police-reported motor vehicle crashes occurring on our highways dropped to
under 6.2 million from over 6.3 million in 2003, and persons injured in these crashes continued a steady decline. On average, a police-reported motor vehicle crash occurred every 5 seconds, a person was injured every 11 seconds, and someone was killed every 12 minutes.”.”

The Court of Appeals of Washington has ordered a new trial in a criminal case in which the State admited into evidence computer-generated simulation evidence using Version 6.2 of a program called PC-CRASH to prove that defendant had been the driver of the vehicle involved in the wreck.

The Court held that “we cannot be confident that a scientific consensus has been achieved among accident reconstructionists that PC-CRASH is capable of accurately performing the predictions to which the State’s expert witness testified.” Therefore, the Court reversed a jury verdict against the defendant and remanded the case for a new trial.

More specifically, the Court said that “[j]urisdictions that have addressed the issue uniformly hold that the admissibility of computer-generated models or simulations (as opposed to animations) as substantive proof or as the basis for expert testimony regarding matters of substantive proof is conditioned upon a sufficient showing that (1) the computer is functioning properly; (2) the input and underlying equations are sufficiently complete and accurate (and disclosed to the opposing party so that they can be challenged); and (3) the program is generally accepted by the appropriate community of scientists for use in the particular situation at hand. [Citations omitted.] We agree with these courts, and hold that in Washington, computer-generated simulations used as substantive evidence or
as the basis for expert testimony regarding matters of substantive proof must have been generated from computer programs that are generally accepted by the appropriate community of scientists to be valid for the purposes at issue in the case.”

Tennessee has the 13th highest truck crash death rate in the nation, a rate of 2.63 deaths per 100,000 population. This means over 150 people die in Tennessee each year in truck-related crashes.

The Tennessee death rate is 30% higher than the national average. For a listing of the death rates in all states, click here. Almost half of the top 13 states are in the South.

These statistics are released at the same time the Federal Government is taking steps to allow truck drivers to drive an extra 17 to 18 hours per week. Fatigue plays a significant role in truck crashes; the new rules will increase the likelihood that tired truckers will be operating big rigs carelessly.

Can a passenger of one vehicle sue a passenger of a different vehicle alleging that the latter negligently told the vehicle driver that it was safe to back up when, in fact, it was not, and the resulting wreck injured the former?

This is a classic duty question – it has been certified to the Florida Supreme Court. Read the opinion here.

Remember that even if there is not a duty in general there may well be a duty because of the “gratuitous undertaking” of giving the driver advice. But that gives rise to a duty issue itself. Why? Because while the passenger who undertook the duty to “be on the lookout” for the driver of his car would clearly owe a duty to that driver and probably other passengers in that car there is still an issue of whether the passenger would owe a duty to the passengers of other vehicles.