What Are The Effects of Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC)?

Categories:

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reported 9,967 fatal accidents in 2014 due to alcohol-impairment, or 31% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.  This also amounts to one fatality every 53 minutes at an annual cost of more than $44 billion.

At greatest risk were younger drivers, ages 21-24 who accounted for 30% of fatal crashes.  The next largest groups were ages 25-34 (29%), and ages 35-44 (24%).

Twenty-nine percent of motorcycle fatalities involved alcohol above the legal limit of .08%.  The highest percentage of fatalities involved ages 40–49 (40% in 2013).

Drivers involved in fatalities were seven times more likely to have a prior conviction for DWI.

Safety Measures You can Take

  • Plan Ahead.  Designate a non-drinking driver before drinking.
  • Watch out for others.  Do not let your friends or family members drive impaired.
  • Call a taxi or use other paid transportation if you have been drinking or using drugs.
  • When hosting an event, make sure alcohol-free beverages are available, remind guests about designated drivers and make sure your guests leave either sober or with a sober driver.

What are the effects of blood alcohol concentration (BAC)?*

 Information below shows the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level at which the effect usually is first observed, including typical effects and predictable effects on driving.

.02%  About 2 alcoholic drinks  

  • Some loss of judgment
  • Relaxation  Slight body warmth
  • Altered mood
  • Decline in visual functions (rapid tracking of a moving target)
  • Decline in ability to perform two tasks at the same time (divided attention)

.05%  About 3 alcoholic drinks

  • Exaggerated behavior
  • May have loss of small-muscle control (e.g., focusing your eyes)
  • Impaired judgment
  • Usually good feeling
  • Lowered alertness
  • Release of inhibition
  • Reduced coordination
  • Reduced ability to track moving objects
  • Difficulty steering
  • Reduced response to emergency driving situations

.08%  About 4 alcoholic drinks  

  • Muscle coordination becomes poor (e.g., balance, speech, vision, reaction time, and hearing)
  • Harder to detect danger
  • Judgment, self-control, reasoning, and memory are impaired
  • Concentration
  • Short-term memory loss
  • Speed control
  • Reduced information processing capability (e.g., signal detection, visual search)
  • Impaired perception

.10%  About 5 alcoholic drinks  

  • Clear deterioration of reaction time and control
  • Slurred speech, poor coordination, and slowed thinking
  • Reduced ability to maintain lane position and brake appropriately

.15%  About 7 alcoholic drinks  

  • Far less muscle control than normal
  • Vomiting may occur (unless this level is reached slowly or a person has developed a tolerance for alcohol)
  • Major loss of balance
  • Substantial impairment in vehicle control, attention to driving task, and in necessary visual and auditory information processing

Blood Alcohol Concentration Measurement

The number of drinks listed below represents the approximate amount of alcohol that a 160-pound man would need to drink in one hour to reach the listed BAC in each category.

A Standard Drink Size in the United States

A standard drink is equal to 14.0 grams (0.6 ounces) of pure alcohol. Generally, this amount of pure alcohol is found in:

  • 12-ounces of beer (5% alcohol content)
  • 8-ounces of malt liquor (7% alcohol content)
  • 5-ounces of wine (12% alcohol content)
  • 1.5-ounces or a “shot” of 80-proof (40% alcohol content) distilled spirits or liquor (e.g., gin, rum, vodka, whiskey)

Phillips Law Firm is committed to keeping people safe on our roadways.  Please join us in working together to keep intoxicated drivers off the road by sharing this information with your friends and family.

*table credit:  https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html and adapted from The ABCs of BAC, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005, and How to Control Your Drinking, WR Miller and RF Munoz, University of New Mexico, 1982.

by

Motor Vehicle Deaths on U.S. Roadways Surge 6% in 2016

Categories:

Truck AccidentConcerns reignite over the dangers of distracted driving as the National Safety Council (NSC) estimates roadway fatalities of 40,200 people in 2016, an alarming increase of 6% over 2015 and 14% increase over 2014.

This represents the sharpest two-year increase in roadway deaths in over 50 years.

In 2014, the number of fatal accidents had decreased 25% when compared with 10 years prior, thought to be partly due to more advanced safety equipment in vehicles.

The NCS data does not directly compare to stats published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as it includes accidents that did not happen on public roadways, such as an incident in a driveway or parking lot.

Still awaiting NHTSA’s final data for year 2016, the agency did say that traffic fatalities had increased 8% January – September, 2016.

 

Factors in Roadway Deaths

One factor that typically increases roadway fatalities is gasoline prices.  When prices are low, drivers travel more.  When factoring a 3% increase in miles driven in the U.S. in 2016 however, the jump in fatalities exceed that pace.

The NSC says factors contributing to this include things like speeding, drunk driving and distracted driving, specifically texting while driving.  It’s too early to name specific reasons, says the NSC, but they did cite survey results indicating 64% of drivers are “comfortable speeding” and almost 50% are “comfortable texting manually or through voice commands.”

Jonathan Adkins, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association which represents nationwide highway safety offices, says, “With the economy getting better, people have more time and money to go out and drink, and then they drive home,” also noting people in rural areas do not have as much access to taxis or ride-shares.

Adkins also cited not using seat belts, higher speed limits and cellphones as contributing to the increase in fatalities last year.

According to data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, teenagers are involved in traffic accidents three times more than drivers age 20 or over and NHTSA data shows 10% of teenagers involved in fatal crashes are caused by distracted driving.

Both auto makers and regulators hope that continued vehicle safety enhancements such as lane-keeping, distance control and automatic breaking could help reduce accidents.  They also cite self-driving cars as another potential solution.

by

Mechanical Failure and Improper Maintenance Cited as Probable Cause in Deadly Ride the Ducks Accident

Categories:

On Tuesday the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) cited the probable cause of “mechanical failure and improper maintenance” after an investigation of the devastating Ride the Ducks accident that killed five people in Seattle in the summer of 2015.  Another 69 people were injured. They also noted a lack of federal oversight that could have helped prevent the tragedy.

NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart spoke of other basic protections that were lacking on the amphibious passenger vehicle (APV), such as seat belts and “severely deformed” seats.

The vehicles have been a popular choice for sightseeing in many cities across the United States but “have been operating without any regulatory oversight when driven on our roads and highways,” said Hart.

The accident happened when the APV driver lost control of the vehicle after an axel suddenly broke.  The vehicle crossed the center line on a 40 mph highway, crashed into a bus, killed five North Seattle College international students and damaged three other vehicles.

Ride the Ducks International, the company manufacturing the APV, received harsh criticism for failing to register as a manufacturer which could have provided missing oversight, perhaps preventing the crash.  Ride the Ducks Seattle also came under fire in their failure to act upon a bulletin warning of plagued axel housings.

In addition to the NTASB recommending that all franchises immediately stop using the vehicles until all axle housings are repaired or replaced, they listed 10 additional safety protocols, such as passenger seat belts.  However, it was noted that touring staff would need to make sure seatbelts are removed before the vehicle enters water.

A spokesman for Ride the Ducks Seattle, Mark Firmani, wanted to make clear that they had already implemented many voluntary changes since the accident.

He said that they had already stopped using the “stretch Duck” models, such as the one involved in the crash, and only use a newer, safer version that they refer to as the “Truck Duck”.  Some other safety measures include a 360-degree live streaming video to company headquarters and a second crew member added to tours, allowing the driver to pay more attention to the road.

A lawyer for Ride the Ducks Seattle, Pat Buchanan, says that since the voluntary changes the Washington state Utilities and Transportation committee has now given them the highest safety rating available and that blame for the accident lies with the manufacturer.

“The report clearly concludes that Ride the Ducks International was a vehicle manufacturer, subject to very specific rules and regulations, including dramatically heightened responsibilities for warning operators of safety issues,” Buchanan said. “Had the company done its duty as prescribed by the regulations, we believe this tragic accident would never have occurred.”

The NTSB however, cited many events that led up to the crash which places blame on both companies.

“Our investigation found missing layers of safety oversight in the way that APVs are manufactured, determined to be safe for operation, and maintained,” he said.

He claimed that Ride the Ducks International has been aware of axle problems since 2004 and attempted a first “poorly executed” fix in 2005.

In 2013, they sent an “urgent service bulletin” in an attempt to alert operators to the axle housing issues. That notice was found in the Ride the Ducks Seattle office during the investigation, but the work was never completed.   It was determined that Ride the Ducks Seattle lacked the proper protocols to ensure proper vehicle maintenance.

One of the crash victims, Katie Moody, 30, said “it felt like we lost control and he said ‘oh no’, and I looked up and saw the bus coming right at us. It was a really hard hit,” she told KIRO after the crash.

“I was thrown out. I must have blacked out or had my eyes closed. I remember waking up on the freeway and I saw people running towards us from their cars to check on us.” Her father was also ejected from the vehicle upon impact.

“This crash is a cautionary tale of what can happen when a manufacturer does not follow established rules about fixing safety defects,” said Hart.

by

Halloween Safety Tips

Categories:

Halloween Safety Tips

Let’s ensure the safety of our children tonight. Unfortunately, it’s a night where treats and excitement often get mixed with accidents and injuries. Many of these accidents and injuries can be avoided if children are provided with routine safety tips to better protect themselves, their friends, and their neighborhoods. Children are our most valuable resource.

  1.  Never go into a stranger’s home.
  2.  Plan out a route in advance with your parents and have a curfew.
  3.  Carry a flashlight or glow stick so that cars can see you.
  4.  Cross the street at corners.  Use crosswalks and traffic signals.
  5.   Walk on sidewalks. Walk facing traffic and as far to the left as possible.
  6.   Never dart out into the street or cross the street between parked cars.
  7.   Watch for hidden stairs in the sidewalk and curbs so that you don’t trip or fall – it’s dark out!
  8.   Go trick-or-treating with an adult if you are under 12. Go with a group if you are 12 or older.
  9.   Look at your candy before eating it. If it has been opened, don’t eat it!
  10.   Do not eat homemade candy unless you know that family.

The National Safety Council has reported about 6,300 pedestrian deaths and 145,000 medical consultations for injuries in 2014 among pedestrians and motor vehicles.  They also reported that darting out or running into the road was the predominant issue, accounting for about 70% of pedestrian deaths for the age group 5 – 9 years.  47% of these incidents involved 10 – 14 year olds.

October also ranked second for motor vehicle deaths by month.

by

Types of Insurance Coverage Inherent in Personal Injury Claims

Categories:

Washington law requires all drivers to carry liability insurance. Adequate insurance coverage will ensure that both you and others are protected in the event of unintentional injury in an auto accident.  The most common types of insurance policies that will both help and protect you after an accident will be:

Personal Injury Protection Insurance (PIP) 

PIP insurance covers reasonable and necessary medical bills and wage loss incurred as a result of a car accident.  PIP coverage is used to pay your medical bills and lost wages, regardless of who is at fault for the accident.  This essentially means that no matter who caused an accident, your own insurance company will pay your medical bills and lost wages up to a maximum coverage amount.

Under Washington law, the insurer is obligated to offer each policyholder a minimum of $10,000.00 of PIP coverage when they sell an automobile insurance policy. You are not obligated to purchase PIP. Policyholders have the option to increase this amount.  For now, however, please note that a policyholder does not have to accept this offer.  The policy holder is free to decline PIP coverage, but he must do so in writing.  In fact, the insurance company must prove a policyholder declined PIP, or the company most likely will be required to provide it by default.

PIP insurance is relatively inexpensive and because $10,000 can go quickly and considering the wide range of healthcare providers and other expenses it covers, you may want to consider carrying at least $35,000 in coverage.  If your personal assets and/or income are above average, then you should consider carrying a much higher limit.

Liability Insurance

Liability coverage is a second type of widely used insurance coverage and is distinct from PIP coverage.  The State of Washington requires all car owners to carry liability insurance coverage of at least $25,000.00 per person.  This means that if you were involved in an automobile accident, and you are found to be at fault, you will have $25,000.00 worth of insurance to compensate an injured party.  If a claim is filed against you because you may be liable for an auto accident, your insurance company may use an attorney of their own to fight the claim and protect you.  If you are found liable for damages that exceed the amount of coverage you elected to purchase (say, the $25,000 minimum), then you may find your personal assets exposed to seizure.

In general, you should consider carrying $100,000 in this type of insurance.  The price differential is generally not significant versus putting your personal assets at risk.  However, if your personal assets and/or income are above average, then you should consider carrying a much higher limit.

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Insurance (UIM)

The State of Washington requires motorists to have liability insurance while operating a motor vehicle.  The State also has strict penalties when this requirement is not met.  Despite these penalties, thousands of drivers in Washington operate a car with no liability insurance.  Underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) and uninsured motorist coverage (UM) are essentially liability policies that help manage the risk if you get hit by a driver with no or minimal insurance and suffer an injury.

Both UIM and UM insurance policies act as a “substitute” insurance for the other driver who has no or minimal insurance.  Both will allow you to make a claim against your own insurance company for the negligent conduct of the uninsured driver.  An easy way to think of this is to simply note that your own UIM and UM policies will basically become the policies of the at fault driver, and you are able to make a claim against your own insurance company as if they were the insurance company for the other driver.

In general, you should consider carrying $250,000 in this type of insurance. However, if your personal assets and/or income are above average, you may want to consider a much higher limit.

Health Insurance

Your health insurance policy may actually become an important asset in the event of an accident.  Generally, if you have PIP coverage, this coverage will be first in line to pay medical bills and any wage loss.  After the PIP coverage has either been exhausted or denied, your health insurance may begin to pick up your costs for treatment of injuries.  This treatment includes such care as: chiropractic care, physical therapy, and prescriptions. Unlike PIP coverage, however, health insurance policies usually have limitations on coverage like copays and deductibles, and annual limits on the number of appointments for certain types of providers (e.g. chiropractors).

Umbrella Insurance  

This is an optional type of insurance coverage that is excess over your liability insurance policies should damages you are liable for exceed all other types of insurance you have in effect.  Umbrella insurance will protect your assets from seizure by providing a high-limit, sometimes including Uninsured Motorist coverage, resource should injuries be catastrophic or just exceed all other available limits. Stated otherwise, if you have a $100,000 liability policy and cause an accident which results in $500,000 worth of damage, you would be covered if you have an umbrellas policy of $500,000 or more.

These types of policies are frequently carried with coverage of $1 – $5 million depending on your net worth.

For a more in-depth review of the legal process after an auto accident, please download one of our free e-books here.

by

“Protecting Public Safety While Allowing Innovation to Flourish – Who’s In Charge?”

Categories:

Self-driving car interior concept where front seats could turn backward.

Last month, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx issued a policy that will increase the role of federal officials to “ensure that safety is appropriately addressed in the front end of development.”  He detailed 15 points that automakers would need to comply with such as how and where the vehicles operate, how testing will be validated, how privacy will be protected, hacking prevention, data collection, and more.

“As technology races forward, the government could sit back and play catch-up down the road, or we can keep pace with these developments, working to protect public safety while allowing innovation to flourish,” Foxx said to reporters.

It’s an issue both state officials and manufacturers have been long grappling with.  Next, they await these plans in greater detail.

Mark Rosekind, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administrator said, “We are looking at what type of information related to events, incidents, crashes, et cetera, need to be recorded, and we’re actually looking at ways for that information to be shared so that you would provide a way for all autonomous vehicles to learn from those issues.”

Up until now, drivers of vehicles have been regulated by states as they issue licenses, require registration and maintenance standards while the federal government is responsible for safety issues such as seat belts, recalls, backup cameras and air bags.  This leaves the question of “who’s in charge” if the federal government takes an expanded role.

If there is no “driver” in the car, does that leave just the automaker to be regulated on a federal level?

“Part of what we’re doing with this policy is saying when the software is operating the vehicle, that is an area where we intend to regulate,” Foxx said. “When a human being is operating that vehicle, the conventional rules of state law would apply.”

In a concept Foxx calls “pre-market approval”, federal authorities would engage auto manufacturers, members of Congress and other policymakers regarding measurements of vehicle safety.

“You have to remember that the United States’ approach to automobile-safety regulation is a self-certification approach, so automobiles today are supposed to meet our federal motor-vehicle-safety standards [and] the manufacturers self-certify that they do. We’re putting out the idea that in this emerging arena, there should be conversation about pre-market approval, the idea that additional authorities could be given to NHTSA to evaluate a technology and to essentially have to approve its use before it’s put on the marketplace,” Foxx said.

Driverless vehicles are already being tested in states such as California, Nevada, Florida and Pennsylvania.

Raj Rajkumar, professor at Carnegie Mellon University and at the forefront of the emerging driverless car, says “this could be a nightmare, if you drive across a state border in an autonomous vehicle.”

California’s Department of Motor Vehicles has proposed that “safety certifications from both the manufacturer and a third-party testing organization” be required which would certify the vehicle safe for the public but some automakers don’t like the idea.

Michigan’s Senate has already passed legislation to allow self-driving cars on the road.  The legislation would also allow “on-demand, automated” networks such as Uber and Lyft (and others) to operate throughout the state and “prohibit a local unit of government from imposing a fee, registration, franchise, or regulation on an on-demand automated motor vehicle network through December 31, 2022.”

Automakers, however, want state governments to hold off on regulations for now.

Bryant Walker Smith, law professor at University of South Carolina says, “some companies will conclude that existing law is perfectly flexible and accommodating for whatever they want to do. Some companies may be more conservative and want [legal] structures upfront. Developers of these systems will not want any legislation until they are pretty sure what technologies they are going to deploy and at that point they will have crafted proposed regimes that are most conducive to their particular vision, and will enthusiastically push for adoption of those particular regimes.” Smith also heads the Emerging Technology Law Committee of the Transportation Research Board.

John Zimmer, president and co-founder of Lyft, sees a rollout more like this, “at first, fully autonomous cars will have a long list of restrictions. They will only travel at low speeds, they will avoid certain weather conditions, and there will be specific intersections and roads that they will need to navigate around. Hypothetically, Lyft could initially have a fleet of autonomous cars that completes rides under 25 miles per hour on flat, dry roads. Then, we could upgrade the fleet to handle rides under those same conditions, but at 35 miles per hour. And so on and so on, until every kind of trip can be completed by an autonomous car.”

Google, who is currently testing vehicles without steering wheels or floor pedals, argues “we believe that fully autonomous technology will most likely be deployed incrementally, starting with locations that have distinct geographic, weather, roadway type, and other features, and progress to general deployment. We believe that our fully self­-driving vehicles should be able to successfully demonstrate competency in a variety of reasonably foreseeable traffic situations,” via comments to the federal government.

Clearly, there are a wide range of views.  How aggressive should state and federal governments be in overseeing these categories?

The Department of Transportation is currently calling Foxx’s document as “guidance” as there are a myriad of technological advances ahead.

Premature regulation of technology could inhibit development and with the possibility of an official federal ruling taking five years or more, could leave regulations outdated.

Nevertheless, our technological revolution continues to take enormous leaps ahead, including the auto industry.

by

Traffic Deaths Rise in First Half of 2016

Categories:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released numbers showing that traffic deaths rose in the first half of 2016, as compared to the same period in 2015.  Although the numbers also indicate about 50.5 billion more miles were driven (an increase of 3.3%), it doesn’t account for the rise in deaths (an increase of over 10%).

In the first half of 2016, the death toll was 17,775 vs. 16,100 for the same period in 2015.

A spokesperson for NHTSA said, “It is too soon to attribute contributing factors or potential implications of any changes in deaths on our roadways.”

The recent statistics are nothing short of dire considering the year 2015 had shown the largest increase in traffic fatalities since 1996. And, since the final months of 2014, traffic fatalities have now increased seven consecutive quarters when compared with corresponding previous years.

These latest statistics were released just as federal officials announced a launch of ‘Road to Zero’, which is a coalition of the NHTSA, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and National Safety Council, whose goal will be to an end all traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian fatalities within the next 30 years.  The Department of Transportation has earmarked $1 million per year for the next three years in grants to organizations assisting the coalition’s efforts with lifesaving programs.

“Our vision is simple – zero fatalities on our roads,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

Many states and cities have adopted “zero” fatality visions since Sweden first adopted the idea “Vision Zero” in 1997.

by

Potentially Destructive Storm This Weekend

Categories:

We would like to urge all Washington drivers are to use extra caution when driving this weekend as our first big storm of the season hits hard.  Driving conditions will likely be particularly harsh with heavy rain, high winds and restricted visibility.

When driving in bad weather, it is important to keep your full attention on the road. Consider putting your cellphone in the glove box or turning it off altogether to save battery power and prevent distractions. Never drive above the posted speed limit sign, especially in bad weather and maintain an even longer distance behind other vehicles.

Here are a few tips that serve as a good reminder to us all:

  • Always keep a safe distance between you and the car in front of you. In bad weather, you should double the distance you need to stop—especially when visibility is low or road conditions are hazardous.
  • Don’t use cruise control; stay in complete control of your vehicle.
  • Reduce your speed while driving.
  • Always use your signals when changing lanes and be sure to double check your mirrors for other drivers and motorcyclists.
  • Check the weather reports in your community before heading out so that you can be prepared and know what to expect.
  • Drive with low-beam headlights on during bad weather to increase the likelihood that other drivers will see your car.
  • Always bring your cell phone with you in case of an emergency—but resist the urge to talk on it or use it while driving.

While we’re here for you 24/7, we truly hope you won’t need us this weekend.  Stay safe, friends.

by

Release of Liability in an Automobile Accident Settlement

Categories:

A release of liability, or more generally known as a “release,” is one of the most important documents involved when settling a car accident claim with an insurance company. Many though are quite unfamiliar with this document, and resultantly, poor settlements get made. The following takes a closer look at what a release actually is and what it means for your settlement. Two quick things a reader should learn are: (1) never rush into signing a release; and, (2) contact Phillips Law Firm if you have any questions before you sign a release.

What is a Release of Liability?

A release is basically an agreement a claimant makes with an insurance company when an automobile accident claim gets settled. While releases may vary in terms of length and specific provisions (depending on the facts of a case/accident), the main idea to a release is that a claimant agrees to drop, or end a claim, and an insurer, in turn, agrees to pay the claimant some money.

More specifically, releases generally include the following:

• An identification of all of the parties to a claim and the settlement (e.g., the injured motorist and the specific insurance company involved).
• A statement providing a description of the accident, including a statement that a claimant purports to have been injured as a result of the accident.
• The specific amount of money that the insurance company will pay the claimant.
• If applicable, a description of other entities the insurance company may pay on behalf of the claimant (e.g., healthcare providers).
• A statement whereby the claimant agrees, as a condition of the settlement, to release the insurance company from all liability for damages relating to the claimant’s injuries.

If a claimant is represented by a lawyer, claims adjusters usually allow the lawyer to draft the release. If a claimant settles a claim without a lawyer, the insurance adjuster typically prepares the release and sends it to the claimant to review and sign. If a lawyer is not involved in the settlement, it’s crucial for a claimant to actually review the release before signing it. Claimants do not have to agree to all of the terms within a release. If questions exist as to terms, or if disagreements exist, these should all be brought to the claim adjuster’s attention and matters should be further negotiated.

Releases are Final

It’s highly important for claimants to understand the terms of a release because a release is deemed final once signed. If a claimant does not accept a settlement offer, the claimant should never sign a release. Once a release is signed, there is typically very, very little chance of getting it nullified. Once again, review is crucial. Further, seeking the assistance of a personal injury attorney is of significant importance if questions arise.

Avoid Signing a Release Too Early

Know that claimants do not have to sign a release. They only sign a release if they choose to settle a claim with an insurance company…and are happy about the settlement. If a claimant does not agree as to a specific settlement offer, the claimant has the right to reject the offer and re-enter negotiations.

With this said, insurance adjusters sometimes try to have a claimant sign a release just days after an auto collision. Typically though, little information is known about a claimant’s damages in this short time. For example, a claimant may not have even visited a physician within a few days after an accident. There may be damage to the claimant’s automobile and repair estimates are still pending. In the end, claimants should not sign a release until they have all of the details on the damages they suffered from the accident.

As stated above, claimants should contact an experienced personal injury attorney if they have specific questions on a release, or even if they need assistance in negotiating a claim settlement. Please know that our firm is always here to help. Our team of experienced personal injury attorneys can start answering your questions today.

by

Who’s at Fault in a Rear-End Car Accident?

Categories:

The experienced personal injury attorneys at Phillips Law Firm have represented innocent victims in countless of auto collision cases. We have seen a host of accident scenarios and have worked hard at determining the often complicated issue of negligence. Although difficult to establish at times, negligence in rear-end car accidents is a bit easier to identify. The bottom line is that negligence will normally lie with the tailing driver.

The Law on the Matter

Washington law presumes that the tailing driver in a rear-end collision is responsible for causing the crash. The tailing driver has the right to rebut this presumption if evidence exists to convince a court that the driver was not, in fact, negligent for the accident. However, for all practical purposes, the driver in the back of a rear-end collision will likely be deemed the party responsible for causing the crash.

The reasoning for these rules is largely based upon the principles within safe driving. Safe driving tells us that drivers should be able to stop their autos safely if the driver in front of them comes to a sudden halt. Thus, if a driver cannot stop his car in time without rear-ending the vehicle in front of him, the premise is that the tailing driver was not driving safely and he should bear the liability for the accident.

Nevertheless, we should note that, at times, the tailing driver will not bear the full liability for a rear-end collision. There are situations when the leading driver in these accidents will be comparatively negligent . For example, there are times when a tailing driver will fail to safely stop, and thereby hit a vehicle in front of him, because the leading vehicle’s brake or tail lights were out. In this situation, the leading driver would incur a certain percentage of liability for the accident; and, any potential damage award won in a case would be reduced by this percentage.

Same Rules Apply for Crashes with Multiple Vehicles

Rear-end collisions are by no means isolated to accidents involving two cars. These types of collisions can involve three, four or even more vehicles. When multiple vehicles are involved, the law still presumes that the tailing driver is responsible for causing the crash. Consider, for example, an incident where one vehicle stops at a red light. A second vehicle soon pulls behind the first and slows to a safe stop. A third vehicle, however, eventually crashes into the back of the second vehicle. This causes the second vehicle to crash into the back of the first car. Here, the third vehicle is presumed to have caused the entire accident. Again though, keep in mind that the driver of the third vehicle can attempt to rebut this presumption, if evidence is available.

Rear-End Accidents Can Cause Serious Injury

These collisions seem relatively simple in nature. But, don’t let this translate into the ideas that rear-end collisions produce only minor injuries. The truth of the matter is that these accidents can produce very severe injuries, such as:

• Whiplash;
• Head trauma;
• Back and spine injuries;
• Broken bones; and even,
• Fatal injuries.

The personal injury attorneys at Phillips Law Firm know just how severe rear-end collisions can be. If you are a victim of a rear-end crash, we also understand the pain and difficulty that you are most likely experiencing. The attorneys at our firm are here to answer your questions. They are ready to review your case. In short, we are here to provide you with justice.

by