Orlando Personal Injury Lawyer - Car Crash

Helpful Hints In Selecting a Child Car Seat

Ed Normand — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:03:08 GMT

Baby Car Seats - Did you know...

Often parents move their child from a baby car seat to a full-size safety seat too soon. Data from crash-testing reveals that a baby is better protected in a rear-facing seat because the seat gives better support to the baby’s head and neck, and distributes the crash force over a greater area of their body. The general rule of thumb is to wait until your child is at least one-year of age, and weighs at least 20 pounds, before you move your child to a full-size safety seat. If your child weighs more than 20 pounds, but is still under a year of age, it is best to keep him/her in a rear-facing seat. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), along with car seat safety advocates, now also recommend that babies remain in a rear-facing seat as long as possible, up to the weight limit of the seat. If the weight limit of the seat is 30 pounds, these groups recommend that it is best to keep your child rear-facing until they reach the weight limit of the seat.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Dangers of Distracted Driving

Ed Normand — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:24:24 GMT

With the advent of safer cars, airbags and mandatory seatbelts one would think that we are progressing toward safer roadways. Technology, however, is bringing about a new and very real danger: distracted driving.

Distracted driving can take many forms including traditional ones like eating in the car or screaming kids. Now, with the proliferation of modern communication devices we have the added danger of not just talking on the phone but also texting while driving.

At a two day summit that began today in Washington D.C., the Transportation Department is tackling the issue of distracted drivers and how the traffic laws should be reformed to stop the dangers of driving and texting. The forum will include various speakers who have knowledge on the dangers of holding a steering wheel in one hand and typing on a PDA in the other. One of the speakers is a teenage driver from Utah who crashed his vehicle while texting and killed two other people.

The statistics on automobile accidents caused by texting and driving are not clear because most drivers do not willingly offer that they were using a communication device when in a crash. Most Traffic Crash Reports do not even have a field or box where the investigating officer can routinely inquire about the use of a cell phone at the time of the crash. At a minimum the investigating officer at the time of a crash should obtain the cell phone data including phone number of the at fault driver to permit easier investigation into the possibility of texting or phone use being a contributing factor to the crash.

Technology could also come to the rescue to prevent distracted driving. Most parents want their teens to have cell phones but are worried about the use during driving. There now exist GPS devices that block the receipt of emails and texts into a PDA while a vehicle is moving. The products hold the receipt of the message until after the vehicle is stopped. This technology should be offered as an easy option for any parent to purchase for their children. While it will not stop all distractions and can keep the hands on the wheel and away from the keyboard.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Sunday P.M. Rain Wreaks Havock with Central Florida Highways

Sandy Grinnell — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:06:00 GMT

A mid-afternoon heavy rain shower on Sunday resulted in multiple auto accidents from Polk County to Tampa, causing significant delays on both I-4 and I-95.

The I-4 pile-up occurred at about mile marker 55 in Polk County, which is the same vicinity as the massive smoke-related accident back in January 2008. As the skies opened up, the brake lights started to come on and the heavy rain made it impossible for some drivers to stop. In all there were about 30 vehicles involved and luckily most had only minor damage. Only four of the victims were taken to local hospitals by ambulance. Adding to victims problems was the was the heat and heavy humidity they had to endure waiting for investigators and wreckers to clear the scene.

In Tampa there was a major traffic jam resulting from a 17-car and one charter bus accident on I-75 north between SR 60 and Martin Luther King Blvd. There were 6 injuries reported, none of them life threatening.

Also in Tampa, a rain soaked Howard Franklin Bridge only added insult to injury for Buccaneer fans whose team lost again. There were about 8 auto accidents involving as many as 50 cars that shut down the Howard Franklin for about 3 hours. This bridge is a major thoroughfare from Tampa across the bay to St. Petersburg. There were no reports of injuries in these accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sandy Grinnell

Disney Bus Crash Highlights Legal Double Standard

Ed Normand — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:40:45 GMT

Of course we have all heard about the recent tragic death at Disney caused by two Walt Disney world monorail trains colliding. Recently, on July 16, there was a Disney bus crash where 12 people reported being injured when a Disney bus rear-ended another Disney bus in front of the Contemporary Resort. These crashes highlight another legal double standard that the theme parks have involving their transportation and ride systems in Florida.

The legal advantage relates to the liability of a common carrier. Traditionally the courts have held that common carriers involved in public transportation -buses, trains, airplanes etc...- are held to a higher standard of care than that required of personal use vehicles. Under traditional tort law the reasonable care required of a common carrier for the safety of a passenger is the highest degree of care consistent with the mode of transportation. Under this standard a common carrier must use the care that would be provided by very careful persons. Accordingly, a taxi, a city bus, or an airport transit must behave as a very careful person would do not just as a reasonable person would do. Of course, this higher standard makes sense because the common carrier is paid to look out for the safety of its passengers in the often dangerous business of transportation. Guests rely on these carriers to take extra precautions to look out for the safety of passengers and others in the zone of danger that the transportation creates.

In Florida, however, because the theme parks operate their buses, rides and trains in a closed system they claim that they are not held to the legal standard of a very careful person but claim a much lower standard of care applies to their activities. One way to look at it is like a grading system. A Greyhound bus, for instance, is held to an "A" standard in their operation. If they do not perform up to the A standard, then they are liable for any injuries resulting from their operations. Theme parks and others operating under a closed transportation system, however, can claim they can get by with a "C". That is if they operate only as an average driver (non-professional) driver/operator and someone is hurt they are not liable for any injuries they cause. This is true even if, had they been operating as very careful person, there would have been no injuries.

Other states do not have this double standard. In California, for instance, theme parks are held to the A standard and must operate their transport systems and rides in accordance with that of a very careful person. It seems reasonable to ask why a theme park in Florida can operate a bus or train or a ride under a standard of care less than that of a taxi driver. They certainly market their transport systems and rides to the public as top of the line safe. Why then should they get away with a much lower legal standard in court when it comes time to answer for injuries they cause? Maybe that is fair, maybe it is not, but in the interest of full disclosure perhaps all theme park boats, trains, rides and buses should come with a warning: "Caution: we get by with a "C" for safety, if you want an "A" take a taxi."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Insurance Companies Denying Payment For Jaws Of Life

Ed Normand — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:05:00 GMT

Jaws of life are used by fire and rescue personnel as part of their lifesaving work in extricating victims from accident wreckage. The goal is to prevent and minimize injury to victims as part of the medical rescue effort. Amazingly, it seems that auto insurance companies are denying coverage for the bill for Jaws of Life refusing to pay even as part of medical coverage purchased under the policy. Medical coverage applies to the ambulance bill and the services of rescue personnel why then should their equipment not be covered? After all the ambulance bill includes coverage for the cost of the ambulance vehicle. Should Jaws of Life be treated any different. We want to encourage rescue personnel to have the best equipment and to use it. To deny medical coverage reimbursement may result in rescue personnel not purchasing or not using these rescue devices. Surely that is not a goal of our insurance system nor is it the expectation of the consumer buying the insurance.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Latest Pedestrian v. Auto Accident Statistics

Ed Normand — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:25:00 GMT

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued the latest statistics on accidents involving pedestrians and motor vehicles in the United States. The report details the number of pedestrian traffic related fatalities and injuries. The report shows that a pedestrian dies from a motor vehicle related collision once, on average, every 113 minutes and a pedestrian is injured in a traffic incident about every 8 minutes.

The totals reveal that in the year 2007 4,654 pedestrians died in the United States and 70,000 were injured in traffic accidents in the United States. The statistics also provide information about the location and conditions at the time of the traffic accidents. By far the majority (73%) of the deaths happened in urban areas and outside of crosswalks away from intersections (77%). Most happened in good weather (90%), and most were at night (67%). The most alarming (but not surprising statistic) was that alcohol was found in a driver or the pedestrian Alcohol involvement in 49 percent of the fatal pedestrian traffic accidents. More children and elderly are involved in traffic crashes involving pedestrians than other victims.

Analysis of the statistics tells us to be careful crossing outside of an intersection and that drunk driving kills. Of course, we already knew that.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Auto Accident Insurance Primer

Ed Normand — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:33:00 GMT

Many consumers wonder what insurance they should get to protect themselves if they get into a car accident. The types of insurance can be confusing. I will be discussing the basics of certain types of coverages in different entries. Contact me if you want more detailed information.

Bodily Injury Liability Coverage (BI Coverage). This coverage protects you from liability if someone else sustains a physical injury from a car accident caused by your operation of a motor vehicle or from someone else using your vehicle. Some states have minimum coverages others like Florida do not. If you do not have BI coverage you may be personally liable for the medical expenses, lost earnings and pain and suffering caused by your negligent operation of a motor vehicle. To protect yourself you need to buy BI coverage. Given the high cost of medical care and the severe injuries and death that can result from a car crash I recommend coverage of at least $100,000 per person, with a total of $300,000 per accident or at least $300,000 if you have single limit coverage. Remember if you do not have enough insurance then you can be held personally liable for damages that exceed your BI coverage. I also suggest, therefore, that you purchase an umbrella policy. An umbrella policy can protect you with over one million dollars in excess of your BI coverage. It can also protect you in boating accidents or other accidents. An Umbrella can only be purchased as excess coverage over your BI coverage and so the premiums are surprisingly low.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand