Motor Vehicle Accidents
New Technology Prevents Pedestrian Accidents and Saves Lives In Massachusetts
Pedestrian accidents at crosswalks cause some of the most serious personal injuries, including spinal cord injury, and wrongful death. In 2006, pedestrian accidents accounted for 14% of roadway fatalities in Massachusetts. Public education campaigns and strict traffic laws have not prevented the death toll from climbing. However, new technology may be the solution for preventing many pedestrian accidents.
Communities across the country, including some in Massachusetts, have started installing “in roadway warning light systems” or IRWLs, at dangerous crosswalks. Flashing beacons are installed on the side of the road, in the crosswalk pavement, or in an overhead mast. When a pedestrian activates the system, either by automatic detection or manually, lights flash outwards toward the approaching vehicle. As an intentional design factor intended to prevent a feeling of false security, pedestrians cannot see the flashing lights. Studies have shown these IRWL enhanced crosswalk systems are effective in reducing pedestrian accidents.
Pedestrians can protect themselves further by being aware of whether they or motorists have the right-of-way. Massachusetts laws and regulations set forth the rights-of-way of pedestrians and motorists where traffic control signals are not present. Where a pedestrian is crossing at a crosswalk where no traffic control signals are in operation, Massachusetts law requires that motorists must yield to the pedestrian. Pedestrians crossing at a point in a road that does not have a crosswalk must yield to the right-of-way of motorists. Further, once they being to cross, pedestrians should continue to look in the direction of on-coming or turning traffic. Pedestrians should always face the on-coming traffic when walking or running in the road.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center has additional information on pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Massachusetts Drivers Should Take Precautions Against Winter Hazards on the Roads
As if plummeting temperatures and shoveling aren’t reason enough to dislike winter in Massachusetts, snowy and icy weather creates hazardous road conditions. Car accidents, truck accidents, and pedestrian accidents are more likely as slippery roads increase both the distance required to stop a vehicle and the chance of sliding. Taking certain precautions against winter hazards can reduce drivers’ and pedestrians’ risk of personal injury or wrongful death.
First, try to avoid driving in bad winter conditions. If driving is necessary, try to drive during daylight hours only, plan ahead to avoid rushing, and wait until snow removal crews have eased road conditions. Check wiper blades and tires and make sure they are suited for winter driving conditions. Also, if you are traveling far from home, equip vehicles with a winter emergency kit including blankets, food, water, matches, candles, flares, sand for traction, and jumper cables.
Seat belts can save lives but only if they are worn properly. A properly fitting seat belt will fit tightly across the lap, snugly across the chest, and will cross at the shoulder. A seat belt should never cross at the neck or back Seat belts with lap restraints only are ineffective and should be avoided. An improperly fitting belt can actually make personal injuries worse. Heavy jackets will intefere with proper seat belt operation and should be avoided or removed once the car is warmed up.
Pedestrians face special problems since sidewalks are not always plowed and it may be necessary to walk in the street. One should walk facing the traffic in order to be able to observe the approaching traffic–and to take evasive action if necessary. At night, lightly colored clothing is important. Motorists need to be especially aware of pedestrians and even bicyclists during the winter months. Massachusetts General Laws c. 89, Section 14 requires motorists to slow when approaching pedestrians or bicyclists, and to pass only when it is safe to do so.
Finally, focus on safe and strategic driving. Stay at least nine car lengths behind the vehicle ahead to allow plenty of room to stop. Unless you have anti-lock brakes, If brakes begin a lock, ease off the brake. Be aware that bridges and overpasses freeze before the road. To regain control of a vehicle if rear wheels begin to skid, ease off the gas and steer in the direction the car should go. If the car starts to go too far in one direction, keep steering opposite ways until the vehicle is under control. If the front wheels are skidding, ease off the gas and let the vehicle slow down until traction is regained. If stuck in the snow, do not hit the gas. Try to remove snow and ice from around the wheels, and use sand for traction. Some vehicles can also be “rocked” by alternating between drive and reverse, while gently pressing the gas.
For more information on winter safety, please see the following articles:
State Police Issue Winter Driving Safety Tips
Uncleared Sidewalks Imperil Pedestrians
Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency–Tips to Ensure Safe Winter Driving
Trucks Found to Have High Rates of Safety Violations, Inadequate Insurance
Many of the over 9 million trucks on the roads in this country are operating with serious safety problems, according to a recent study performed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Twenty-eight motor carrier companies, representing more than 200,000 trucks, were found to have trucks in violation of federal safety laws. These violations include defective brakes, overly worn tires, excessive loads, and undertrained or impaired drivers. All of these factors contribute to the likelihood of a serious truck accident.
While the public is largely unaware of the problems with the nation’s large truck fleet, it is at significant risk due to these safety violations. Although trucks make up fewer than 4 percent of vehicles on the road, they are involved in 12 percent of motor vehicles fatalities, with over 4,000 deaths and 80,000 serious injuries occurring every year. Government data shows that many trucking accidents are not reported, suggesting the numbers above are underestimates. Citizens of Massachusetts, with its older highway system, are left at risk.
Many of these deaths and injuries are preventable, and would be avoided if trucking companies fully complied with safety laws. Unfortunately, many companies fail to perform critical maintenance and repairs in order to save money. As the government’s inspection and enforcement resources are limited, the chances of being caught are small, and the companies that are forced to take its trucks off the road simply change their name and continue operations as before.
Compounding this unsafe situation is the fact that many trucking companies carry insurance in amounts that are inadequate to compensate the victims of trucking accidents, especially when someone is seriously injured or there are multiple victims. Congress set the minimum level of insurance for tractor trailers at $750,000 in 1980, and has not changed it since. Although many companies carry higher amounts, carrying the minimum insurance is common in small trucking companies, which is of great concern, as 87 percent of the companies in violation of safety standards had fleets of ten trucks or fewer.
Toyota Recall of Defective Cars to Affect 3.8 Million Vehicles–Floor Mats Blamed for Crashes
In what will be the largest recall in the history of Toyota Motor Corp., the company will be recalling 3.8 million defective motor vehicles because of defective floor mats. The defective mats may cause the accelerator to jam, and may lead to serious accident.
Toyota has recommended that for several Camry, Avalon, Prius, Tacoma, Tundra and Lexus models the driver’s side removable mat be removed from the car immediately and not replaced until the company issues a fix.
According to the Washington Post, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has called this an “urgent matter,” and has strongly urged owners to “remove mats and other obstacles that could lead to unintended acceleration.”
One recent spectacular car crash has been blamed on the defective mats. In August 2009, a California family was traveling in a 2009 Lexus ES 350 when the car’s accelerator became stuck. The runaway vehicle could not be stopped, and reached a speed of 120 mph before crashing, rolling off the highway, and catching fire. All four family members were killed.
Toyota has also issued instructions on how to disable the vehicle if the accelerator becomes jammed. A driver should use both feet on the brake to slow the car and slip the gear shift into neutral. The key should be turned to accessory (not to lock, otherwise steering will be lost). In a push-button ignition, holding the button for three seconds will kill the engine.
More Information
For more information, consumers can contact the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s hotline at (888) 327-4236, Toyota at (800) 331-4331 or Lexus at
(800) 255-3987.
Toyota to recall 3.8M vehicles over floor mats, Washington Post, September 30, 2009.
Massachusetts Elderly Drivers Involved in Motor Vehicle Accidents Ignite Debate Regarding New Licensing Requirements
A large number of motor vehicle accidents involving elderly drivers has prompted the Transportation Committee of the Massachusetts Legislature to enact a bill that would impose driving tests on people over 85 years of age. Currently, Massachusetts only mandates a vision test every ten years. However, a group of lawmakers is trying to enact tougher regulations on the elderly.
Several recent tragedies have drawn attention to safety issues related to elderly drivers. Concerns about reaction time and vision of the elderly have arisen from the wrongful death of 4-year old Diya Patel who was allegedly killed by an 86-year-old woman in Canton earlier this month. Similar stories this year alone accuse elderly drivers of crashing into a Wal-Mart, a group of cyclists at UMASS, and even a Vietnam Memorial in Plymouth. Furthermore, an 84-year-old woman remains in critical condition after an 86-year-old man allegedly hit her while she was crossing the street near downtown Melrose yesterday.
According to an article in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, Rep. Joseph Wagner (D-Chicopee) and Sen. Brian Joyce (D-Milton) want to enact a law similar to those in nearly 30 other states which mandate road tests alongside the vision test every five years for drivers over 85. This would override the current system, where drivers take a simple vision test every ten years after their initial licensure.
Not surprisingly, the issue is a sensitive one for many who say that regulating senior driving and treating them more like adolescents is demeaning and insulting. Even some suspects, such as 85-year-old Dominick Perry who stands accused of pinning a young boy against another car in a parking lot complain that “age discrimination” is the sole reason for the revocation of his license. A story in The Boston Globe tells of a former race-car driver who took a long and difficult mock test similar to the road test which would be required of someone his age under the new law. However, the anecdotal evidence from the elderly about the tedious nature of the test doesn’t outweigh the substantial evidence which links many elderly people to acts of negligent driving.
More Information
Lawmakers Hear Call for More Legislation Regarding Elderly Drivers – Boston Globe July 1, 2009.
Legislators Discuss Proposed Elderly Driving Bill Tomorrow – Lawrence Eagle Tribune – June 29, 2009.
Tested for the Road – Hospital Test Gauges Older Drivers’ Capability. – Boston Globe July 1, 2009.
Registry Revokes License of Driver, 86, in Melrose Accident. – Boston Globe June 29, 2009.
Passenger Dies in Elderly Driving Case – Boston Herald July 1, 2009.
Driver Charges Elderly Bias – Boston Herald July 2, 2009.
Malden Man Involved in Fatal Wreck Has Recent Road Woes – Boston Herald July 2, 2009.
If you’ve been injured in a motor vehicle accident<
The attorneys at Breakstone, White and Gluck have a proven record in dealing with elderly drivers envolved in cases of wrongful death and car accidents. Recently, Ronald E. Gluck obtained a significant recovery for a 33 year old school teacher and avid sports enthusiast who was struck by an elderly woman in a parking lot. If you or anyone you know has suffered injury as the result of an elderly driver or any motor vehicle accident, please visit www.bwglaw.com or call 617-723-7676. Experience Matters.
Can Stricter Licensing Requirements for Elderly Drivers in Massachusetts Help Make Our Roads Safer?
Two recent Massachusetts car accidents have once again raised the issue of the safety of some elderly drivers. Last week a 73-year old woman lost control of her car and drove it into a crowd of people viewing “The Moving Wall,” a traveling replica of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Plymouth, MA, injuring eight people. The same week, a 93-year old man plowed into a Wal-Mart in Danvers, MA, causing personal injury to six people including an infant.
For years, the debate over elderly driving has been waged in Massachusetts, yet nothing concrete has been done. Generally, once a person has passed the initial road test, only a vision test is required for renewal. Yet as the body ages, this simply is not safe.
Some elderly advocates say that the media has been blowing elderly driving accidents out of proportion, while similar accidents by younger drivers go unnoticed. Research indicates that risk begins to increase around age 70, and increases significantly after age 80.
For the last two sessions one state senator, Brian Joyce of Milton, MA, has proposed a bill that would require drivers 85 or older to pass another road test before their licenses could be renewed. However, this bill is always stalled by advocates for the elderly who cry age discrimination. This year Governor Patrick has indicated his support for the bill. Representatives from the RMV say that the agency would be willing to support a study on the issue as is proposed in a bill sponsored by Sen. Stephen Buoniconti.
In some states, doctors are required by law to report to the registry when a person is unfit to drive, but not in Massachusetts. Right now there are no state laws or tests in place to protect residents from unfit elderly drivers. Sometimes a police officer or a family member will report a medically impaired driver, but so far only 8,000 cases have come under review.
We support enhanced testing of elderly drivers, just as we supported the stricter regulation of younger drivers which are now the law in Massachusetts. We have handled many cases where we have seen that the age of a driver has been a factor in the accident.
Of course if an elderly driver causes an accident, their license may be revoked or suspended. But sometimes it is too late. If you have been injured by a medically unfit driver in Massachusetts, contact the Massachusetts personal injury law firm of Breakstone, White & Gluck, P.C. for a free legal consultation.
More Information
Pressure mounts to test elder drivers, Boston Globe, June 8, 2009.
Family and Friends Concerned about an Older Driver, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Massachusetts Reaches Final Settlement in Big Dig Tunnell Ceiling Collapse
Massachusetts has reached a final settlement in the Big Dig tunnel ceiling collapse case that caused the wrongful death of Boston resident Milena Del Valle and the injury of her husband.
Gannett Fleming, the company which designed the ceiling, will pay $50,000 to the city of Boston and $1.5 million for maintaining the Big Dig tunnels. Additionally, they will forfeit $150,000 in payments from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority.
Sika Corp., which made the epoxy glue that held the ceiling in place, has agreed to pay $200,000. This money will go directly into a trust fund that has been designed to fund the upkeep of the Boston tunnel complex.
Two claims were dismissed: those against Sigma Engineering International Inc., a structural engineering company, and Conam Inc., a materials inspection company.
Both were determined to have no liability for the ceiling collapse.
After the tragic accident, resulting from the negligent design and construction of the tunnel, Massachusetts undertook a thorough examination of the tunnel system. The resulting settlements have provided funds that will assist in proper upkeep and maintenance in years ahead.
More Information
AG settles with final two firms in fatal collapse of Big Dig tunnel, Boston Globe, March 27, 2009
Massachusetts Car and Truck Drivers: Slow Down and Move Over to Prevent Accidents–It’s the Law!
Massachusetts drivers now have another law to obey: Drivers need to slow down and move over when approaching stationary police, emergency response, and construction vehicles that have their lights flashing. The penalty: $100, and your insurance rates will probably also go up.
This well intentioned bill was enacted to prevent injuries caused by car accidents. First responders to accident scenes and work crews have suffered serious injuries as the result of negligent drivers who fail to slow and move over, and the legislation is designed to make their work safer.
But can you legislate this kind of safety? The bill itself is quite vague. A driver is required to change lanes “if practicable.” A driver is required to reduce his or her speed to a “reasonable and safe speed for road conditions.” How will that be judged? And will emergency vehicles leave the scene to chase down violators of this new law?
Saving lives and preventing injuries are, of course, important goals. But real safety comes from a broader awareness of our duty to ensure the safety of emergency and construction personnel, and that awareness begins with proper driving training. It also begins with simple common sense and courtesy.
Massachusetts Court Affirms $3.4M Verdict in Negligence Case Against Liquor Store–Drunk Driver Caused Wrongful Death
On January 7, 2003, 16-year-old Trista Zinck was struck and killed by an underage drunk driver, William White, as she walked with her boyfriend, Neil Bornstein, along Ferry Road in Newburyport. Bornstein survived, but was seriously injured. Before the accident, White had been drinking at his friend Brendan Kneram’s house, whose parents were away. Earlier that day, White, Kneram and their two friends pooled some money, and Kneram used his fake New Jersey driver’s license to purchase a 30-pack of beer at The Gateway Country Store in Seabrook, NH.
Since the accident occurred in Massachusetts, Zinck and Bornstein’s families brought actions for negligence in the Massachusetts Superior Court against both the driver and Gateway Country Store, alleging that the store negligently sold beer to an underage buyer, a transaction that was the proximate cause of the accident that killed Zinck and injured Bornstein. In 2004, an Essex County jury decided that the liquor store was partially responsible for the wrongful death and injuries, and awarded the families nearly $9 million in damages, which the defendants promptly appealed.
On appeal, Gateway admitted that it sold the beer to the underage Brendan Kneram, but argued that because it was William White who became intoxicated and caused the accident, the store should not be held liable. In Massachusetts, to be liable for negligent conduct, the plaintiffs had to prove two primary elements:
- First, they had to prove that the defendants owed a duty of care, and that they breached that duty. Businesses that sell alcohol owe a duty of care to the public, by law. In this case, the jury found that Gateway breached this duty by selling alcohol to someone whom the store clerk reasonably should have known was under 21.
- Second, the plaintiffs had to prove that there was a causal link between the breach (the sale of the alcohol) and the harm (the car accident). Gateway argued that its liability ended once Kneram served the beer to his friends, but the jury did not agree.
In its opinion, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reiterated the test of causation, which the trial judge had instructed the jury to apply: If an intervening act (Kneram giving the beer to his friends) was foreseeable by the defendant, then the original negligent act (the sale of the beer) remains a proximate cause of the harm (the car accident).
Another important part of this test is that the plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant could have foreseen the exact harm that occurred, but only the injuries that could have occurred in “substantially the manner” in which they did. In this case, plaintiffs had to show the jury that the liquor store clerk could have reasonably foreseen that selling 30 cans of beer to an underage man with an out-of-state license, on a snowy, January evening, with a car full of other underage teenagers waiting in the parking lot, is an action that could potentially cause a fatal drunk driving accident.
Here are two more general, important points to keep in mind about causation and the role of the jury in these types of cases:
This is a civil case, not a criminal case, so the burden of proof is much lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” A jury only needs to find “more likely than not” that the defendant was negligent. The two elements of negligence (breach and causation) are questions of fact for the jury to sort out after evaluating the defendants’ and plaintiffs’ versions of the events.
It should be noted that under Massachusetts law, the driver and the liquor store were found jointly liable, meaning both are responsible for the full amount of the damages. The plaintiffs will be able to recover the balance of the damages from the liquor store since the insurance on the driver will be inadequate to cover the damages.
The name of the case above is Zinck vs. Gateway Country Store, Inc., 72 Mass. App. Ct. 571 (2009).
Read More
Massachusetts Courts Protect the Rights of Passengers Injured in Hit-and-Run Accidents With a Broad Interpretation of Uninsured Motorist Insurance Policies
This week, the Massachusetts Appeals Court continued its trend of expanding insurance coverage for victims injured in hit-and-run car accidents when it granted a trial to an 18-year-old woman who suffered injuries in a car accident as a passenger in a taxi cab.
In this case, the plaintiff suffered neck injuries when the taxi cab in which she was riding rear-ended another car. Although the drivers spoke to each other to assess the damage to their vehicles, neither driver called the police or exchanged information. The plaintiff, who did not think she was hurt, took down no information. In addition a police report was never filed.
After unsuccessfully trying to track down the identity of the cab driver after the accident, the plaintiff’s attorney filed a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under her mother’s insurance policy to cover the cost of her injuries. The policy provided coverage for accidents involving “uninsured or hit-and-run autos.”
The trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment, ruling that the insurance company was not liable. However, the Massachusetts Appeals Court said, “Not so fast,” and explored the question of whether or not the taxi cab in which the plaintiff was riding could be considered a hit-and-run vehicle.
In short, the answer is yes: the taxi cab could be considered a hit-and-run vehicle. The courts have broadly interpreted the phrase “hit-and-run” in order to protect victims like this passenger. In previous cases, the Supreme Judicial Court has found that uninsured motorist claims were viable in other, similar scenarios:
- A driver is forced off the road and into a guardrail by an oncoming vehicle, despite the fact the two cars never made contact with each other; and
- A passenger in a car that is rear-ended realizes that he is injured, hours after the two uninjured drivers had gone their separate ways after concluding that there was no property damage or injuries.
In summary, the court held, “a passenger in an at-fault vehicle who is injured in an accident and who, unaware of her injuries… leaves the vehicle without obtaining identifying information about the vehicle is entitled to recover under the hit-and-run provisions of the policy.”
Importantly, however, the court noted that if a passenger realizes immediately after a car accident that he/she has been injured, the passenger is under an obligation to obtain identifying information from the driver(s), as long as his/her injuries are not so grave as to prevent an exchange of information.
The court also rejected the insurance company’s claim that it was prejudiced by late notice. The court said this was a factual determination to be made at trial.
The name of this case is Pilgrim Insurance Co. v. Molard. Other key cases in this area of insurance law include Surrey v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 384 Mass. 171 (1981) and Commerce Ins. Co. v. Mendonca, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 522 (2003), which each address the bulleted scenarios above.
Uninsured motorist insurance is statutorily required in the state of Massachusetts in order to provide financial protection to those injured by other negligent drivers.
Important Consumer Tips
- If you are in a car accident and are wondering what to do, it is usually best to err on the side of caution, and obtain identifying information from the other drivers. For more tips about what to do if you are in an accident, visit the Mass. Registry of Motor Vehicles’ Driver’s Manual page.
- Always notify your insurance company promptly if you are in an accident, even if you are a passenger is somebody else’s car.
- Make sure you have enough car insurance to protect yourself if you are injured. You should have enough uninsured and underinsured coverage on your cars to protect yourself from injuries caused by other drivers. Please see our car accident insurance information for Massachusetts drivers.
If you were injured as a passenger in a car accident, or are the victim of a hit-and-run accident, call the Massachusetts injury attorneys at Breakstone, White & Gluck at 800-379-1244 for a free consultation.