What do we look for when we go buy a new car? Price is certainly an important consideration and, of course, utility; will it fit everyone it has to fit? We look at color, interior material, and, currently, the crucial “miles per gallon city” rating.

Do we look at the design of the vehicle; the rollover potential; crash worthiness; or safety rating? We try to consider the information that will most affect our safety and the safety of our family, but the advertising issued by vehicle manufacturers can sometimes get in the way. They tell us to buy the fastest, the classiest, the most affordable, or the best gas mileage. Safety is sometimes not synonymous with fast, classy, or affordable.

Vehicle crashes kill more than one million people a year, injuring another thirty-eight million (5 million of them seriously).  The death toll on the world’s roadways makes driving the number one cause of death and injury for young people ages 15 to 44. 

There has been significant research done and crash ratings assigned that rate the safety of various vehicles in different types of collisions and rollover accidents. For example, one of the most important factors in protecting occupants in roll-overs is whether or not the roof of the vehicle will resist collapsing into the passenger compartment. There have been many crashes in which drivers and passengers have been seriously injured or killed when the vehicle they were driving or riding as passengers was not crashworthy. If all the automobile manufacturers would adopt and adhere to strict safety guidelines for all automobiles on the road today, a lot of these tragedies could be avoided. Safety should be the key issue when buying a motor vehicle. In fact, if automobile manufacturers would simply comply with their own studies, the safety of vehicles on our highways would be greatly improved.

Where can we go to help us determine the best and safest vehicle to buy? Try Consumer Reports; the National Highway Transportation & Safety Administration; the Insurance Institute for highway safety; and the Highway safety Group.

As an attorney, I am accustomed to cautionary tales after the fact, in the wake of tragedies that might have been avoided. If only someone had known, I think. If only someone had behaved differently, I say. What follows is a short story that can, and does, happen to anyone, any day. It’s a cautionary tale before the fact, with a happy ending that nonetheless serves as a lesson about attention and responsibility on the road.

Last month I awoke with severe pain radiating down my back, legs and thighs, so excruciating that I couldn’t walk. In handling my share of medical-related lawsuits, I have gained just enough knowledge to scare the heck out of myself – but not enough for any kind of accurate diagnosis. So I turned to the Internet. Morning sciatica, I read. Nice to know, but not much comfort as the next few sunrises brought debilitating pain that abated only slightly as the days wore on.

(more…)

In reflection, one might legitimately ask the question:” has the adoption of the Florida Motor Vehicle No Fault Law in 1971 really achieved the goals it was intended for?”

If we simply accept the decision to do away with what we familiarly know as “PIP” (personal injury protection), then the answer is a resounding “no”. When the hatchet was to have fallen in October 2007 on PIP it was abruptly placed way back on the back burner.

(more…)

There are few things we as people endure that are worse than losing a member of our family. The sense of loss, hurt, and anguish, however, is only magnified when a family member’s death was due to the negligence of someone else. What all-too-often causes even more heartache is the surviving family member’s discovery that the loss they have endured may not be recognized, i.e. compensable, under Florida law. Many people who have lost close family members as a result of the negligence of someone else have been surprised to learn that Florida law only allows for a financial recovery on behalf of certain surviving family members.

In Florida, the recovery of money damages by the surviving relatives for the death of a family member as the result of the negligence of another party is governed by Florida’s Wrongful Death Act (”Act”). According to the Act, the recovery of money damages is limited to the “survivors” of the deceased family member. The Act offers what would seem to be a fairly straightforward definition of who will constitute a deceased family member’s “survivors.” The Act defines survivors, in part, as “the decedent’s spouse, children, parents, and, when partly or wholly dependent on the decedent for support or services, any blood relatives and adoptive brothers and sisters.” Although the identification of a decedent’s survivors is ordinarily an easy enough task, it is critical for the lawyer representing the bereaved family to have a firm understanding of the relationship between family law principles and the Wrongful Death Act.

(more…)

Today, more than ever, safety sells. And major automakers such as Ford, GM and Honda, have raced to launch safety-for-all ad campaigns or make announcements that a new safety feature will be standard on all models. But one population has been consistently left out of manufacturers’ plans for improved safety: children between the ages of 4 and 8 years old. The safety community calls these youngsters “The Forgotten Child.” But they are not so much forgotten as systematically ignored by industry and regulators alike. In fact, the historical landscape is dotted with missed opportunities to close the safety gap and warnings about the failure to do so.

Today, motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of injury-related unintentional death among children aged 14 and younger; children between the ages of 5 and 14 account for two-thirds of those deaths. In 2005, 585 children ages 5-9 died in motor vehicle crashes; 74,000 suffered injuries. About 8,000 of those injuries were incapacitating-including traumatic brain injuries caused by head trauma and cervical spine and severe abdominal injuries associated with restraint misuse.

(more…)

Florida’s “No Fault” insurance statute is nearing expiration. Should it be renewed; should it be allowed to “sunset”; should it be modified? The Florida legislature has an opportunity to not only take the correct action, but an opportunity to improve on the no fault system altogether.

The controversy about eliminating “No Fault” is interesting. In the early ‘’70’s, when NO FAULT started in our state it was controversial. As it gained in popularity nationwide, Florida adopted it along with most states. The result was compulsory PIP (Personal Injury Protection) and compulsory PD (Property Damage liability)

PIP pays medical expenses (lost wages also) and PD pays for damages to motor vehicles. It should come as no surprise the groups that lobbied heavily for the original passage of compulsory PIP and PD? You guessed it. Medical providers lobbied heavily for PIP to get their bills paid. And who lobbied hot and heavy for PD inclusion? You probably guessed correctly again. The banks and finance companies wanted PD included to protect their collateral (motor vehicles). Although driven by there own business interests, the end result was good for the Florida consumer.

But, there was no special interest group throwing money at including compulsory BI (Bodily Injury liability) coverage. Bodily injury coverage pays damages to injured victims in auto crashes. To this day we do not have any compulsory BI liability coverage in Florida, but most states do.

I think it is clear to any thoughtful person that there should be a continuation of compulsory PIP and PD coverage, currently provided for in the No Fault statute. The legislature has an opportunity to also add compulsory bodily injury protection coverage. The required limits should be at least $10,000 per accident and $20,000 per occurrence. PIP should be increased as well. PIP was $10,000 back in 1972 and certainly medical costs charged to injured victims have since skyrocketed.

The Florida legislature can not only do the right thing by renewing the current No Fault structure; they have an opportunity to actually improve the system for both business and victim interests. I encourage them to step up to the plate and do the right thing.

After years of decline, thanks to safety standards and increased law enforcement, accidental deaths in the United States are on a sharp upswing - with apparently no end in sight.

The National Safety Council warns that if the trend continues, accidents will surpass an all-time high set in 1969 (http://www.intelihealth.com/). This epidemic cost us an estimated $625.5 billion in 2005, including projected lost earnings, medical expenses and motor vehicle damages.

One reason for the increase is our aging population. Formerly alert and cautious Baby Boomers are tripping over household hazards; falls are the leading cause of accidental deaths among the elderly. Another biggie in this age group is motorcycle deaths, 35% of which were among bikers over 45 in 2005.

(more…)

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety issued a list of vehicles qualifying as Top Safety Picks following extensive testing at the Institute testing facility. The Institute rates vehicles based on “performance in high-speed front and side crash tests plus evaluations of seat/head restraints for protection against neck injuries in rear impacts.”

In order to qualify as a Top Safety Pick, each vehicle must earn at least “good” ratings in all three of the above-mentioned tests. In addition, for the first time this year, in order to qualify as a Top Pick, the Institute requires the winning vehicles to have electronic stability control. “This addition is based on Institute research indicating that ESC significantly reduces crash risk, especially the risk of fatal single vehicle crashes, by helping drivers maintain control of their vehicles during emergency maneuvers.”

(more…)

Automakers are a formidable force to oppose and alleging their product to be defective is a certain way to cause them to circle the wagons. Donna Grimes and her family discovered just how tough fighting a battle with an auto maker can be when she took on Ford Motor Company. A jury awarded her $10,373,552 after two trials and six grueling years.

Donna Grimes was driving her 2000 Ford Explorer and wearing her seatbelt. She was at a stop when a vehicle, traveling at approximately 58 miles per hour, rear-ended her. If her vehicle had functioned properly, even that significant impact would have resulted in minimal or no injury. In fact, the driver of the other vehicle (Charles Kravitz) walked away from the accident relatively uninjured. Ms. Grimes, tragically, was rendered a quadriplegic and will require substantial care for the rest of her life.

(more…)

Tainted dog food and now defects in a product that propels humans at high speeds in vehicles that crash and are known to cause significant injury and death. Chinese tire manufacturer, Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber Co., chose not to add a gum strip that binds the treads together. Tire separation in a vehicle propelled at high speeds results in catastrophic accidents; rollovers, and high impact crashes.

A lawyer for the distributor of this dangerous tire gave an excuse for their late reporting of this problem:

Lawrence N. Lavigne, a lawyer for Foreign Tire Sales, said the company did not alert the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration about the problems until June 11 because officials had no definitive proof of a manufacturing flaw until it was revealed by further testing in May. He said it made no sense to initiate a recall based on suspicions. Jeffrey B. Killino, a personal-injury lawyer from Philadelphia, said the company came forward only after it was named as a defendant in a lawsuit, filed in May, involving an accident in which two construction workers were killed and a third was severely injured when a van rolled over. The lawsuit contended that the accident was caused by tread separation in a Hangzhou Zhongce tire.

(more…)