Pennsylvania Injury Law Report : Accident Attorney Philadelphia: Personal Injury Attorney Philadelphia (PA), Injury Lawyer Philadelphia - Kreithen Baron & Carpey

In 2011, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a survey of over 15,000 teenagers nationwide, asking them questions on the topic of distracted driving. Of the thousands polled, 58 percent admitted that they use their cell phones while they drive, either for texting, emailing, or surfing the internet. With over 3,000 lives lost to distracted driving related accidents in 2010, can we afford to let our teens underestimate the risks of texting while driving?

No, we can't. Which is why more states should follow the Ohio Department of Transportation's lead and invest in some of the current innovations in distracted driving education, such as the simulator One Simple Decision, a creation of Virtual Driver Interactive Inc.

One Simple Decision is a driving simulator which places teens in a virtual reality distracted driving crash, taking them through the impact of the crash and ensuing interactions with police and medical personnel. Teens start by simply driving down the road on the simulator and, after time, are prompted to pull out their cell phones and start texting someone. The teen driver subsequently veers off the road and is involved in a crash -- often a collision with another driver -- which results with live-action footage of a police officer approaching the car and questioning the driver.

The One Simple Decision simulator takes an abstract concept and makes it real for teens, demonstrating firsthand the real-life consequences of distracted driving. The idea is a refreshing way to impress upon our nation's youth the growing danger posed by driver distraction in the U.S. And Virtual Driver Interactive Incorporated's post-simulator surveys have shown promising results: more than 80 percent of teens who participated in One Simple Decision resolved to never text and drive again. Maybe "never" is an unreachable goal, but the very fact that teens are becoming aware of this danger is a step in the right direction.

For more information on technology which aims to reverse ongoing distracted driving accident trends, see some of the articles on the Kreithen, Baron & Carpey website, like our article, "The Fight Against Distracted Driving Moves Forward -- New Initiatives, New Technology Hope to Quash the Texting Epidemic." That article describes new gadgets and mobile apps which inhibit a driver's ability to use his or her cell phone while at the wheel.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Pennsylvania, defendants, and the insurance companies who represent them, have the right to have an injured claimant examined by an "independent" doctor so that the doctor can render an opinion as to the physical condition of the claimant and the relation of the injury to the accident. The problem is that these doctors are hired by the insurance companies, so they are anything but independent.

Boilerplate reports, where the doctor uses the same report for each person he or she examines, seeing numerous people in the same day, all without being required to adhere to the doctor-patient privilege, leads to questionable methods of obtaining an "independent expert" opinion. This has been thoroughly looked at in a recent New York Times article about these types of practices taking place in the New York workers compensation system.

The best way for an injured person making a personal injury claim to prepare for these types of exams is to know what to expect. I've written on this subject before. I also make sure my clients are not alone when they attend these exams. That way, an unbiased witness can not only record how the exam was conducted, but can also record what the defense physician asked and said at the exam. If it is different from what's in his report for the insurance company, the doctor can be easily cross examined at trial and be forced to explain the discrepancy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I recently read a few articles about lawyers in Wisconsin and Texas targeting car accident victims by scouring local police reports. They then contact the accident victims by mail. In the articles, the lawyers give their reason for doing this as trying to put accident victims on equal footing with insurance companies, who also approach accident victims immediately after an accident. Fair enough. Sort of like public service. But I guarantee the lawyers using this method to attract clients are not offering free legal services. Are the Wisconsin and Texas lawyers justified in their attempts to seek new clients in this way? Is it just another method of marketing their practice, or does it go too far?

The same thing happens in Philadelphia, although it has not been written about. Local lawyers hire “investigators” to sit in a room in City Hall where all the police reports are kept. The “investigators” scour the police reports for serious accidents where the accident victims are not at fault, for instance rear- end collisions, and once that information is obtained by the lawyers, they write to the car accident victims offering representation. A few clients of mine have told me, after they have hired me, that they have received a “strange’ letter from another lawyer, like what I’ve just described. I then explain this method that some lawyers use to try to find clients.

Is this illegal? No. Is it unethical in terms of the standards lawyers must adhere to? Not technically. Lawyers have the right under the 1st Amendment to contact prospective clients in writing, not in person or by telephone, and offer their services. Does it undermine the legal profession and personal injury lawyers in particular? It certainly does.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link