Missouri Injury Law Blog

Earlier this month a driver from Clay County, Missouri, plead guilty to careless and imprudent driving after a sneezing attack led to her hitting and killing another motorist. Police say the woman hit the other driver head-on after drifting out of her lane. There is a defense to negligence based on a sudden and unexpected medical condition, such as a seizure or a heart attack that causes you to loose control. But a sneeze? Probably not a good defense to a Missouri wrongful death action; especially if the driver pleads guilty to criminal charges which is an admission of the negligent act.

The accident in question occurred back in November (which we previously discussed here) of last year when Brady hit Laura McClendon, killing her and paralyzing her two-year-old son. The accident took place just outside of Smithville, MO and occurred when Brady began having a sneezing attack. The sneezing caused her to lose control of her vehicle, crossing the centerline of the narrow road. She eventually drifted far enough over the line and that she struck McClendon's vehicle head-on.

Brady now faces up to 18 months in jail and a fine of $1,500. Brady has not yet been sentenced, authorities say that will happen later in June. It's a terrible price to pay for the victims and the driver, all because of a careless sneezing fit.

Police took the deadly accident as an opportunity to remind drivers about the importance of maintaining control over your vehicle, emphasizing how even momentary lapses, like this one, could lead to disaster. Officers said that if a driver starts sneezing it is critical that they continue to control the car. Attorneys say that Brady could have easily slowed her car down or pulled over until her sneezing episode subsided.

The family of McClendon has now filed a wrongful death suit against Brady. It's important to understand that in Missouri, individuals can file suit against negligent parties who have caused them harm regardless of whether criminal charges are being pursued. Despite Brady's prosecution and even potential jail time, the McClendon's family is still permitted to file suit for civil compensation. In fact, her plead of guilty to the careless and imprudent driving can and will be used in the civil auto crash case to prove it was her fault.

Another unfortunate bit of news came from the police who said that Brady had no insurance at the time of the deadly accident. In Missouri, and most other states, the law requires the owner of a motor vehicle to have it insured before operating it on state roadways. Sadly, many people decide to disobey this requirement and drive without proper insurance.

If you are ever involved in an accident and the other driver has no insurance, then you will be forced to make what is known as an uninsured motorist claim against your car insurance policy. Everyone in Missouri is required to carry a minimum of $25,000 in uninsured motorist coverage in case such an accident does occur. Once you file a UM claim, your insurance company steps in to take the place of the negligent driver and can be held liable for your medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Though this is welcome news for the family of the woman killed in the accident, $25,000 does not go very far. There are countless situations where clients wished they carried more than $25,000 in uninsured motorist coverage. Given the potential harm that can result in such uninsured driver accidents, it's a good idea to carry the maximum uninsured motorist coverage allowed under your policy.

If you or someone you know has a loved one who has been seriously or fatally injured in any kind of accident due to the negligence of another party, you do have options to receive compensation for this loss. For information on how to protect your rights in a situation of negligence or wrongful death, please call one of the St. Louis Missouri car accident attorneys at (314) 863-0500 today or contact us online.

Source: "Driver Guilty of Careless Driving After Sneezing While Driving Fatality," by Kathryn Brady, published at Yahoo.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Missouri Fatal Car Accident: Caused by Sneezing?

Are Pictures of Car Damage Relevant in Missouri Car Crash Trials?

For obvious reasons, when the damage to the cars involved in a collision is severe, the Plaintiff wants to show pictures of the damage to the jury and the defense wants to try and exclude them as irrelevant; and the opposite is true when the damage to the vehicles is minor. Personally, whenever I take a car accident case to trial in Missouri, I want the jury to see the pictures regardless if the damage is minor or major because they are going to want to see these pictures to fully understand all the circumstances about the collision. However, oftentimes pictures are excluded by the judge based on motion filed by the victim's lawyer of the insurance defense lawyer.

So what is the law in Missouri about when car damage pics can be used and when they should not be used at trial in a car accident lawsuit?

Oftentimes, if the damage is minor the defense will try to introduce evidence of property damage in an attempt to argue or infer to a jury that there is a scientific and/or medical relationship between degree of vehicle damage and degree of occupant's personal injury. It can be argued that such a conclusion would be unfounded if not supported by expert testimony establishing it, so if no expert has been identified, then the pictures are irrelevant. In this situation the Plaintiff should argue that the pictures invite the jury to unfairly speculate to the prejudice of a litigant. As the Western District has explained, a trial judge is required to consider both the degree of probative value and the degree of potential prejudicial effect. Even relevant evidence should be excluded when the potential prejudicial effect of the evidence exceeds the probative value. Stevinson v. Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc., 870 S.W.2d 851, 860 (Mo.App. 1993). Evidence is considered prejudicial if it "tends to lead the jury to decide the case on some basis other than the established propositions in the case."

Additionally, Missouri Courts Have Held that the speed of impact cannot be determined by property damage photographs. The defendant may be trying to ask the jury to conclude that the speed or force of impact itself can be determined by the testimony of witnesses or by the photographs of damage. But such a conclusion lacks reliable foundation.

In Missey v. Kwan, the Eastern District held that a police officer could not be permitted to testify as to speed of vehicles at impact, when his opinion was based on what witnesses said about the speed and on the condition of the vehicle following the impact. Missey v. Kwan, 595 S.W.2d 460, 463 (Mo.App.E.D. 1980) The Missey court noted, that while skid marks could provide a sufficient basis for estimating speed, "Such is not the case with estimates of speed based on conditions of the vehicles after impact." M

In Everett v. Bishop, the Eastern District declined to allow even an accident reconstructionist to testify as to speed of impact when his opinions was based on photographs of property damage. Everett v. Bishop, 680 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Mo.App. E.D. 1984) If evidence of property damage does not provide a sufficient basis for an expert to reach conclusions about speed or force, surely it does not provide sufficient basis for a layperson to do so.

Permitting the Jury to Speculate that Allegedly "Minor" Impact Equals Minor Injury Would Prejudice the Plaintiff

If the defendant also apparently intends to invite a jury of laypersons to take a next step and reach a medical conclusion: that the severity of injury is determined by the force of impact. Such an argument is prejudicial by definition because it would invite the jury to decide the case on the basis of a proposition which is not established - that is, the proposition that minor impact equals minor injury. This conclusion would require supporting expert testimony. Yo need to ask, has the defendant disclosed medical, biomechanical, or other experts to support it. The Defendant should not be allowed to ask the jury to assume it, based on "common sense." Missouri trial courts have properly rejected this effort. While there is apparently no Missouri appellate decision on the question, one state supreme court and two state appellate courts have refused to permit such boot-strapping on the purported basis of "common sense."

The Delaware Supreme Court in Davis v. Maute (copy attached) held that without expert testimony is was reversible error to admit property damage evidence and allow defense counsel to argue that a serious injury could not have resulted from a "minor" accident. Davis v. Maute, 770 A.2d 36 (Del. 2001). Over objection, defense counsel there was permitted to introduce evidence of the cars involved in the accident, and then bootstrap into the argument that because the property damage appeared to be minor, the injury must not have been significant. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the only relevance of the photographs was to suggest that the plaintiff could not have sustained serious injury from an allegedly minor accident, and stating that absent expert testimony, "any inference by the jury that minimal damage to Plaintiff's car translates into minimal personal injuries to the Plaintiff would necessarily amount to unguided speculation." Davis v. Maute, supra, 770 A.2d at 40 (emphasis added).
A New Jersey appellate court agreed in Brenman v. Demello, 383 N.J. Super. 521, 890 A.2d 741 (N.J. Super. 2006). The Brenman court concluded that "If the pertinent field of expertise has yet to establish a scientific basis for the connection, we question how a jury may be expected to draw an inference of causation in the absence of any proof, expert or otherwise."

Likewise, an Illinois appellate court has held that a decision by the trial court granting the plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude property damage photographs or testimony as to the damage caused to the vehicles was correct, holding that to do so is necessary "to avoid what amounts to the jury forming medical opinions." DiCosola v. Bowman, 342 Ill.App.3d 530, 536-37, 794 N.E.2d 875-76, 880 (2003). In so holding, the appellate court cited the Illinois Supreme Court case of Voykin v. DeDoer, which noted:

(w)ithout question, the human body is complex...In most cases, the connection between the parts of the body and past and current injuries is a subject that is beyond the ken of the average layperson. Because of this complexity, we do not believe that, in normal circumstances, a lay juror can effectively or accurately assess the relationship between prior injury and current injury without expert assistance.

The same principles apply to an attempt to correlate property damage to physical injury. Without expert testimony, there is not a sufficient basis to make such a conclusion, and attempts to have the jury supply such a scientific basis with their "common sense" should fail.

Continue reading "Are Pictures of Car Damage Relevant in Missouri Car Crash Trials? " »

If some one causes a car accident that results in an injury, to what extent are they responsible for the injury? What if the injured person sustains further injury through subsequent malpractice by the emergency room doctors? what if they get an infection int he hospital which leads to a much more serious condition than the injury caused in the car accident? Also, what if the person involved in a car accident already had a medical condition which made their injury worse, such a as bad back or recent surgery that had not healed?

Subsequent Injury:

Under Missouri personal injury law, the person that caused the initial injury, also referred to as the original tortfeasor, is legally liable for subsequent injury through negligent medical care. So for example, the original tortfeasor caused a car crash in Missouri, the victim suffered a broken leg and was taken to the hospital where they catch a staph infection or other nasty bug, the original tortfeasor (the negligent driver) is responsible not only for the broken leg but the subsequent infection, regardless if it was caused by medical negligence or not. The only defense to the subsequent infection would be a "failure to mitigate damage defense" basically an accusation that the victim somehow caused the subsequent injury (the infection in this example) themselves or failed to prevent it when they easily could have. So in the infection example, if there is evidence that the victim failed to properly care for their would after being sent home, that could be a defense. But generally subsequent negligence is not a defense and the driver is responsible for injuries, such as infections, that can occur after the car accident.

See Baldwin v. Gaertner, 613 S.W.2d 638, 640 (Mo Banc 1981), stating:

An original tortfeasor may be liable for any additional damages resulting from the negligent treatment of an injury by a physician, but the physician, who has played no part in causing the original injury, will be liable only for the additional harm caused by his or her own negligence in treatment

A case dealing with this issue we currently are handling:

We represent a bike rider that was hit by an O'Reilly AutoParts truck while he was riding on the sidewalk. The bike rider was rehabilitating his knee by bike riding as he had a knee replacement just a few weeks earlier. So when he was hit by the truck his knee was injured much more than if he had a healthy knee. Additionally, while in the hospital repairing his knee injury, he caught a staph infection in his knee which resulted in several weeks spent in the hospital. The truck driver that caused the St Louis bike accident is also responsible for the additional medical treatment from the infection.

Pre-Existing Conditions:

Additionally, many people ask me about a negligent driver's responsibility for a pre-existing condition. Some people feel that if a victim of a car crash already had a pre-existing condition (example, disc herniation and previous back surgery) and the accident makes that condition worse, that the driver should not be responsible because if the victim did not have that pre-existing injury then the accident would not have hurt them as bad. Some people feel that you are responsible for the injury regardless if the victim was more susceptible to injury through a pre-existing condition or not. Under Missouri law they are responsible for the victim regardless if they have a condition that makes them more susceptible to injury than the average person.

Missouri follows the "Eggshell Skull Doctrine" , meaning you take your victim as you find them. The fact they have some condition or pre-existing injury that makes them more susceptible to injury is not a defense. So in the Missouri bike injury case above, the truck driver cannot defend the case by claiming a biker without a recent knee surgery would not have been hurt as badly, additionally, the truck driver cannot claim they are not responsible for the subsequent infection, as it is foreseeable that a hospital admission for a bike injury could result in an infection, even if it is because of medical negligence.

Ben Sansone is an experienced Missouri trial lawyer based in St Louis and handles injury law and accident cases throughout Missouri and Illinois. Call for a FREE CONSULTATION (314) 863-0500 or e-mail us.

Hit and run accidents, or the official term "leaving the scene of an accident", are all too common in my experience, at least as a Missouri car accident lawyer; I see people severely injured and even sometimes killed by hit and run drivers. This is one reason why I keep the maximum amount of uninsured motorist coverage on all my cars, to protect myself and my family. I strongly recommend that everyone have high uninsured motorist policy limits as hit and run a accident are becoming more common. An unidentified driver is an uninsured motorist under Missouri law. See "Uninsured Motorist 'UM' Claims".

Recently, a St Louis county police officer hit another vehicle while off duty but driving a county patrol car; he fled the scene of the car accident. See "St. Louis County Police Officer accused in hit and run wreck". Under Missouri law leaving the scene of an accident is a class A Misdemeanor if the collision only caused less than $1000 in property damage, if the property damage is greater than that or an injury resulted, then a hit and run is a Class D Felony. See Missouri Statute 577.060.1: "Leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident."

Why do people run from the scene of an accident? Usually it is because they are drunk and do not want to face the penalties of DWI, also they may be unlicensed, have warrants for their arrest, or simply do not have insurance. No matter what the reason, hit and run cases must be dealt with harshly, and jurors have a very strong reaction to drivers whether identified or not, who run from accidents leaving innocent injured victims. Sometimes leaving the scene means no one able to call 911 to get the hurt people help, sometimes this delay in getting 911 help results in death. Especially because most of these hit and run incident happen late at night or on rural roads, so if the victims are knocked out there is no one available to call 911.

According to www.deadlyroads.com a hit and run victims advocacy group, the top reasons for hit and runs are described as follows:

"To break it down, I call some of the most common reasons "DUSA"(Driving in the USA)

D - Driving impaired (drinking, drugs), drowsy, distracted
U - Unlicensed driver or car, suspended or revoked, uninsured
S - Self preservation (status to protect, scared), stolen vehicle, street racing
A - Aggressive driving(road rage), amorality, Age (youthful immaturity)"

This St Louis County police officer probably has experience responding to hit and run accidents and knows the deadly consequences delay in emergency personnel responding can cause. The police are being very quiet about how they are handling this situation, but this officer should be dealt with harshly. Why did he flee the accident? was he drunk? what other reason would he have for not reporting this?

Recent witness reports state:

"I saw him come blowing through a stop sign," .... "You just brace yourself for impact-and then he just stopped. I had to reverse and go around the officer." The witness lived on the same street as the officer and saw him pull into his driveway and then stated, "then we looked down the street and saw the guy and his wife -she's trying to get him out of the seat by the arm-was dragging him and everything." See "New witness comes forward in St. Louis Co. officer hit-and-run case"

I find this outrageous, if the driver was not a cop they would have been immediately arrested and charged with leaving the scene and probably investigated for DWI. So right now, you have a possible drunk cop that left the scene of the accident and an arrest has not even been made. If his physical condition was related to anything else but drugs or alcohol I guarantee you would have already heard a statement from the police that he went to hospital and was treated for a heart attack, seizure, or something that could explain his physical condition; but that is not the case here. St Louis County cops looking after their own and not the citizens they are supposed to serve. The police are still staying silent about the case other than to acknowledge that is occurred.

Related St Louis area hit and run car accident blog posts:

St. Louis Child Dead and Another Injured After Hit-and-Run Accident

Drunk driving accidents are one of the leading causes of needless injury and death in Missouri, Illinois, and across the country. Our St Louis law firm unfortunately sees the carnage caused by this reckless behavior through the injury and wrongful death cases that we handle that often involve drunk drivers.

Sometimes, the drunk drivers got extremely drunk at a bar or restaurant, left that bar and then caused the car crash. So what responsibility should the bar have, assuming you can prove they were over-served? In Missouri and Illinois if the driver was "visibly intoxicated" and the bar continued to serve them, they could be liable for the injuries caused to others on the road. See Missouri Dram Shop Law, proof drunk driver was "Visibly Intoxicated".

Some states still don't have those laws on the books; therefore, the bar can over-serve a driver and throw their hands up to the family of someone killed by a drunk driver and say, "we can't control what they do". Nonsense! They can prevent needless deaths by simply refusing to serve patrons that are visibly intoxicated, or even call a cab for them or encourage them not to drive or turn their keys over if they want another drink.

The fight to impose liability on bar owners is currently going on in Maryland, a state that currently does not have laws on the books holding bar owners responsible. See, Maryland court considers liability of bars in drunken-driving crashes.

I read this article and felt it is necessary to dispose of some myths from the insurance industry that is fighting this law. Int he article the bar owners are claiming: "They say they can't control the actions of someone who leaves their premises. In addition, they say the prospect of being blamed for a customer's drunken-driving crash would raise insurance premiums for them, raise prices for customers and lead some businesses to shut their doors."

True, they cannot control the actions of someone who leaves their premises, but they can control if they are over-served at their bar. No one is trying to hold business owners responsible for a drunk driver that chooses to get ridiculously drunk in the parking lot or somewhere else.

More importantly, the family of the victim or the injured person must prove that the driver was visibly intoxicated and was still served at the bar. This is not easy, but the insurance industry makes it sound like liability is automatic against the bar just of a drunk driving crash happens. Most cases it is difficult to prove the driver was "visibly intoxicated": and then served continuously, it is a very tough burden to prove.

Why is it so hard to prove? Usually no-one knows where the drunk driver came from, then when you find out, and surveillance tape is gone, if it ever existed. Then you have to find witnesses at the bar who can say they remember the driver before they left and that they were visibly intoxicated. Additionally, usually the witnesses were drunk themselves and thus their recall is sketchy at best.

So in the few cases where there are witnesses and clear evidence the bar employees knowingly over-served a drunk person, then let them walk out and drive, and that person causes a car crash; why not hold them responsible? The vast majority of drunk driving injuries, no-one knows where the intoxicated driver got drunk at and it is never an issue because of that.

So to the business owners out there they want to shirk responsibly for knowingly let an inebriated driver leave and drive off and likely kill someone, I say hire a good lawyer because we are coming for you! You would not put a gun in the hand of a drunken patron at 2:00 in morning, so why load that gun for them by over-serving them and get paid for doing it.

It is not difficult, don't serve people that are visibly drunk, if you do, ask a simple question: Do you have your car keys? .... yes .... well, if you want another drink here give them to me and I will give them back to you in the morning or hand them to the cab driver when he picks you up.... Don't want to hand over your keys? I cannot serve you another drink, thank you for coming in. -- Will probably save a life.

St Louis Attorney Ben Sansone is an experienced drunk driving accident lawyer, with millions in verdicts and settlements against drunk drivers and on behalf of injured victims and their families. Hurt by a drunk driver? Relative killed by a drunk driver? Call us today (314) 863-0500 for a free consultation.

Related Articles:

Drunk Driving Deaths in Maryland Heights Missouri - Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed

St. Louis Child Dead and Another Injured After Hit-and-Run Accident

$2.3 Million Judgment - Missouri Drunk Driving Accident

Hybrid and electronic cars' relation to pedestrian and/or cycling injuries

Hybrids and electronic vehicles may not be the biggest thing in automobiles right now but they are slowly getting some steam in as far as popularity is concerned. Today, more and more celebrities are purchasing and have been going around these politically-correct statements on wheels. These celebrities are showing their own way of taking care of the environment by going around town these green machines. However, despite the many benefits that these technological wonders offer, they are being tagged as one of the major causes of pedestrian accidents involving people with disabilities

What make hybrids and electric car more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists?

Hybrids don't rely much on the internal combustion engines to propel it in short-distance city travels or cruising. In fact, you will never (or will have a really hard time to) know if a hybrid car is near you until somebody tells you, or you get struck by it. This gets worse when you are dealing with an electronic car. Since it doesn't have an engine that burns fuel, it barely emits a sound. Because of this, blind people or those with hearing problems wouldn't really be able to do something to detect the presence of a hybrid or electric vehicles.

Blind people or people with hearing impairments have been getting involved in accidents with hybrid or electronic cars. Though the number of injuries won't really cause panic over people and various organizations, one has to acknowledge the fact that these cases should be looked into by the government, and that something should really be done to make these vehicles safer, especially to pedestrians and cyclists.

How can hybrids and electric cars be made safer for pedestrians and cyclists?

After a careful assessment of the data it has gathered, the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) came up with the conclusion that hybrids and electrics should emit a sound to alert and help give a warning to motorists that a hybrid or an electric vehicle is fast approaching. This way, pedestrians and motorists alike will be more aware about the presence of such vehicles, making them ready to take the needed precautions avoiding accidents.

The sounds, as the NHTSA requires, car makers to come up with sounds that are detectable under a range of street noise and ambient background sound, when the vehicle is traveling under 18 miles per hour. If the vehicle travels at 18 miles per hour and up, the vehicle will be making sufficient noise so that pedestrians and bicyclists the vehicle must emit sounds that are enough so drivers can notice and avoid these vehicles. An automaker will then be given a range of choices for the sounds that it can choose the vehicles they will produce. The sound should have certain characteristics that meet the minimum requirements. Finally, a vehicle with the same make and model needs to emit the same sound or set of sounds.

The NHTSA's proposal

The NHTSA has already sent the proposal to the Federal Register, for finalization. After that, this measure will then be publicized where the public will be given 60 days to comment on the action by the agency. If there wouldn't be any more problems, this measure will then be implemented to upcoming models that are going to be tested by the NHTSA. These vehicles will then be required by the agency to be equipped with the above mentioned safety system. With this new measure in place, the agency estimates that there would be around 2,800 lesser pedestrian and cyclist injuries.

Soon people with disabilities, bicyclists, and the general public will reap the benefits of this newest move by the NHTSA. This way, you won't need the assistance of a car accident lawyer to help you seek for damages since you won't get into an accident anyway because you'd be able to avoid it now.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Anne Roberts is a web content writer for the Mesriani Law Group, a professional law corporation with its main office in Los Angeles, California and satellite offices in nearby counties in Southern California. She excels in writing blog posts, how-to's, and other related web copies.

There are many reasons why it is important to have a lawyer when dealing with a car accident injury claim or lawsuit. The many reasons are discussed here. Additionally, you need a lawyer to navigate through the many liens or claims that may be asserted by companies against your settlement or judgment money. The following are common claims by 3rd parties wanting money from your settlement:

1. Hospital and Doctor Bills not Submitted through Health Insurance
2. Health Insurance Companies wanting to be paid back
3. Medical Payments Coverage from an Auto Insurance Policy
4. Medicare or Medicaid
5. Workers' Compensation Liens

1. Hospital and Doctor Bills not Submitted through Health Insurance:

If a hospital or doctor refused to submit their bill through your health insurance there is probably a "claimed lien" on your recovery by the hospital or doctor wanting to be paid back in full for their bill. We advise all of our clients to demand the hospital or doctor submit the bills through their health insurance coverage and to go to a different provider if they refuse to do so. Hospitals do this because they want a higher reimbursement rate at the expense of your settlement share. So you must insist that bills are submitted through health insurance and do not agree or sign anything to the contrary. However, if you do not have health insurance you have no choice but to be treated with a lien against your recovery or pay out of pocket costs.

In both Missouri and Illinois there are limits to the amount of the lien the healthcare provider can claim. For a discussion on the Missouri law see, "Can Your Health Insurer Demand Payback for Medical Expenses?"

In Illinois the law is called the "Healthcare Services Lien Act" as essentially states that the total amount of liens from doctors and hospitals cannot eat up more than 40% of your recovery, after attorney fees and costs. EXAMPLE: Case settles for $100,000 but you have medical liens for $50,000. After attorney fees of 1/3 and costs of a few thousand dollars, let's say your recovery is $65,000. the most the healthcare providers can take as part of their lien (assuming they have a valid lien in the first place) is 40% of the $65,000, or $26,000, leaving you with $49,000 in this hypothetical.

The above numbers are assuming a valid lien has been made and the bills are reasonable and necessary. There are many other ways to deal with the liens, however, under Illinois law the above is the maximum amount they can take. Experienced car accident lawyers know how to get the liens often reduced even more through other means. Another example on why having a lawyer maximizes your recovery after a car accident.

2. Health Insurance Companies wanting to be paid back:

Your health insurance paid for all your treatment, so you have to pay them back from your settlement? That depends, do you have coverage through work? if so it is likely an ERISA protected plan. See "Dealing with ERISA Liens When Settling Personal Injury Cases". For ERISA plan treatment in Illinois injury cases see: "Illinois ERISA Plan's Right of Recovery from Your Personal Injury Settlement".

If you have individual coverage, then in Missouri they cannot take any of your settlement money. It would be called "subrogation", and in Missouri that is not enforceable in car accident cases.

In Illinois, however, subrogation by a health insurance company is allowed. Their amount recoverable from your settlement is reduced by the proportionate share of attorney fees. Therefore, if the subrogation claim is for $10,000 and your paid 25% in attorney fees, the subrogation claim is also reduced by 25%, this is referred to as the "Common Fund Doctrine". Additionally, if you are held partially at fault for the accident, lets say 25% at fault, then the subrogation amount is also reduced by that amount as well.

3. Medical Payments Coverage from an Auto Insurance Policy:

Sometimes you may have "Med Pay" coverage under your auto policy which will pay for some of your medical bills, regardless if the accident was your fault or another driver's fault. Just like subrogation with individual health insurance discussed above, in Missouri the med pay insurance company has no right to med pay reimbursement, but in Illinois they do.

4. Medicare or Medicaid:

If you are a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary and they paid for medical treatment related to a car accident, then the government has a "super-lien" against your recovery. A super-lien is an automatic lien, they do not have to notify you, your attorney, or the insurance company. Therefore, if the insurance company settles and writes you a settlement check without making sure there is not a Medicare or Medicaid lien on the case then they are responsible for the lien amount. Most auto insurance companies will not write any injury settlement check until we get written confirmation from both Medicare and Medicaid that there is not a potential lien on the recovery.

Again, a very critical reason to have a good injury lawyer handle your car accident case. For more details on Medicare and Medicaid liens see: "Medicare recovery against Personal Injury Awards".

5. Workers' Compensation Lien:

If you were hurt in a car accident while on the job then you probably had a work comp claim and a 3rd party claim against the at fault driver. The workers' compensation coverage will pay out faster, cover medical bills, and a percentage of lost wages. These work comp payments are typically made early on and help avoid financial distress.

When the case against the at-fault driver is resolved, you have to pay back the work comp insurer for benefits paid. In the long run the victim still come out ahead and the payment is reduced by what is known as the " The Ruediger Formula" because the lien reduction formula was laid out in the case of Ruediger v. Kallmeyer Brothers Services, 501 SW2d 56 (Mo. 1973).

The Ruediger Formula applied with an example of $300,000 settlements and $90,000 in work comp benefits paid.

So $90,000 / $300,000 equals a ratio of 0.3 meaning that the work comp insurer can recover up to 30% of your recovery AFTER deduction for attorney fees and costs.

So if the 3rd party case attorney fees and costs totaled $110,000 then the work comp carrier and recover up to 0.3 of $290,000, or $87,000.00

Many of us have heard of someone that walks away from a severe car crash without a scratch, and as a car accident attorney, I also know many people that are in accidents that are not so severe yet end up with persistent pain and significant injuries.

Why is it that some people are hurt worse than others in similar impacts? That is a complex question with many answers. Much of it has to do with the mechanics of the impact, angle, speed, weight of the cars, height of the different cars, shock absorption of the car's frame, etc. Additionally, some people are more susceptible to injury than others. In my experience when someone under the age of 18 is involved in a car wreck, the vast majority of the time they suffer little in the way of injury and recovery very quickly. however, their parent or an older adult in the same car suffers significant injury, such as a slipped disc in their neck or back.

There are many factors that determine the amount of injury suffered from a car crash, but a new study shows one factor may be hereditary. "[P]ain after an MVC is not solely due to tissue damage at the time of trauma, but rather may also be strongly influenced by physiologic systems involved in the body's response to the collision. These physiologic systems influence the function of nerve cells that process pain in the brain, spinal cord and body tissues." Is immediate and long-term pain after a motor vehicle collision hereditary? from the Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), October 16, 2012.

The study involved more than 900 patients and included data about the severity of pain complained of at the emergency room, pain reported six weeks after the car collision, and based on the blood work taken from each patient. The study focused on dopamine receptors in the brain, particularly dopamine receptor 2 which has been shown to play a very important role in the transmission of pain. "The findings suggest dopamine pathways involving the dopamine receptor 2 contribute to the intensity of pain experienced immediately after an MVC,"

The study has identified genetic factors that put some individuals at a higher risk for persistent pain after a car accident and has concluded that persistent pain after a car crash has a biological basis.

Legal Analysis:

What does this mean to your car accident case? It can help explain why some individuals experience more pain than others from injuries. The defense in injury cases is sometimes the "malingering defense", basically that the victim is faking their injury or pain just to get money. Defense lawyers sometimes try to argue that the accident was minor so it is unlikely the pain is real. There are many ways to deal with these bogus defenses, but now genetic evidence of experiencing more pain than others may be one of them in the coming years.

As genetic testing becomes more prevalent maybe this test will be done by primary care doctors or specialist that treat clients for injuries after a car accident. I can imagine that eventually pain management specialists will have access to this genetic testing and use it to help determine why the patient is experiencing the level of pain that they are, in conjunction with their actual physical injury as well.

On personal note, I have high cholesterol and have been on medication to control it for years. Recently, at my annual physical, my doctor offered me "cardio genetic testing", I was amazed to find out they can now isolate the genes that affect cardiac disease factors and then tailor more specific treatment of my high cholesterol. I have not gotten to results yet, however, it may point my doctor and I in a diffident direction for medication and other treatment.

With genetic science becoming more and more available and affordable, I can foresee genetic testing becoming an issue in some injury cases in the future. Most likely testing to support doctor opinions about the injury, how it was caused, and the likely continuing effects of that injury on the victim.

Continue reading "Pain From a Car Accident is More Severe Based on Genetic Factors " »

One of the first concerns after a car accident is deciding whether or not to go to the hospital or a doctor right away. Usually, the responding police will ask if you are injured or need medical treatment, if you are hurt tell them, even if you do not want to go to the emergency room right away. My advice, as an experienced car accident lawyer, is to get medical treatment sooner rather than later.

Should I go straight to the ER from the scene of the accident?

Obviously, if you have severe injuries you should go to the emergency room by ambulance as soon as possible. Maybe you do not want to go to the emergency room straight from the scene of the accident, usually that is ok. Many people do not go to the ER by ambulance right away because they want to make sure their car is taken care of by being towed away properly or they drive it home and then decide later or the next day if they need to go to the ER or a doctor.

Make a Doctor Appointment As Soon as Possible:

Regardless if you go to the emergency room or not, make an appointment with a family doctor after the accident or for an emergency room follow up. Most emergency room doctors will advise you to do this. If you do not have a family doctor to go see, call us, we will send you to a doctor that will take care of you either through your health insurance or agree to get paid after the case settles.

I Do Not Have Health Insurance, What Should I Do?

Go to the doctor! If you have been hurt in a car accident you must get medical treatment or risk permanent damage to your health. If you do not have health insurance we have doctors that will agree to treat you without health insurance. We have a network of Missouri doctors that trust us when we send them clients and assure them they will eventually get paid from a car accident settlement. Additionally, many of these doctors will agree that if you lose your case (which we never have!) that you then do not have to pay the medical bill.

How Long Should I go to the Doctor, Physical Therapy, Etc ... ?

For the sake of your physical and mental well-being you should go until you reach "MMI" - Maximum Medical Improvement. MMI is the point where you are 100% better or as close to 100% as you are expected to get. Not only is this crucial for your recovery, but if you settle your case and then realize several months later your injury is worse than you thought, you can't reopen the case. Therefore, it is very important that your injuries have completely resolved or reached MMI before settling a case.

I Missed an Appointment, is that OK?

Missing appointments on rare occasions is to be expected with today's busy lifestyles; however, do not make a habit out of it. Multiple missed appointments can look bad, auto insurance companies and their lawyers will argue that you were not very hurt, especially since you did not make it a priority to get better when you missed several appointments.

What Should I tell the Doctor or other Healthcare Provider When I see Them?
Tell them about everything that is bothering you. Just today I met with a new client that was hurt when her car was t-boned at an intersection. She told me she has had bad headaches since the accident and has been taking aspirin for relief. I asked her if her doctor recommended anything and she advised me she did not tell her doctor, because she knew aspirin or Tylenol was really the only thing you could do.

Do not do this! Tell the doctor everything that is bothering you from the car accident, even if you do not think the doctor cannot do anything about it. Take the headache example from above, imaging that if 6 months after the accident the persistent headaches are still there, you then tell the doctor, and then lets say he diagnoses you with post -concussion syndrome. When we make the head injury claim to the insurance company or a jury, the defense can argue that the victim said nothing about the headaches to any doctors for 6 months after the accident, therefore, the claim of headaches is vulnerable to a credibility attack. They will then argue that something else later on caused the headaches and that they were not caused by the car accident because they were not disclosed to the doctor.

If you are hurt in a car accident the most important things to do are:

1. Call the police;
2. Seek medical treatment;
3. Call a car accident lawyer.

If your car ever breaks down please be sure to get it off the side of the road as much as possible. Even with hazard lights, road flares, or strobe lights, inattentive or drunk drivers will still hit cars parked on the shoulder causing severe injuries or even death. As an accomplished injury lawyer, I have handled dozens of cases involving pedestrians hit by passing cars. In my experience, these types of accidents usually happen between 10:00 p.m. and midnight; especially on the weekends. I think for obvious reasons, since this is the time of day that more drivers are intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, thus impairing their ability to see stranded motorists on the side of he road.

Currently, our law firm is handling one such case that resulted in the tragic death of a father of four children. See Wrongful Death Lawsuit - Lewis County, MO. Despite taking safety measures, a man was killed on the side of the highway. Cortez Robinson's car broke down late at night in December 2012, he moved the car off the road as far as possible onto the shoulder, turned the hazards on, and was standing outside near the car. This stretch of Highway 6, about 2 miles West of Lewistown, Missouri, is straight and visibility is good. Despite his hazard lights being on and good visibility, a driver passing by struck the vehicle and Mr. Robinson, killing him and severely injuring another pedestrian by forcing the car into her body. See Article in Kirksville Missouri Daily Express: KV man killed in Lewis County crash. Additionally, the preliminary crash report from the Missouri Highway Patrol is available here.

As mentioned above, our law firm is representing the four surviving children ages 1 to 8. We believe the driver was negligent and at fault for by not keeping a proper lookout, even if the disabled car was partially in the westbound lane, she still should have seen it in plenty of time to avoid the collision with a parked car. It is foreseeable on the roadway that other vehicles may break down or pull over to the side for whatever reason. I am sure we have all encountered vehicles pulled over on the road while driving down the highway, most of us do the responsible thing of first paying attention enough to see the car and then move our vehicles away form the shoulder to give the vehicle and the people in or around it as much room as reasonably possible.

Since the children whose father was killed in the wrongful death accident are all minors, the case is still brought in their name, however, the court must appoint a "next friend" to make decisions on behalf of the minors. Typically, the "next friend" is a parent or guardian, usually the natural mother or father. In this case, we have asked the court to appoint the natural mother of the children as the "next friend". This is a formality to protect the minor children. Additionally, to also protect the minor children, any settlement involving a car crash death and minor children must be approved by the court. The court will assure that the judgment or settlement money goes to the benefit of the minors and put in a protective account that will benefit the children and prevent the parents or other adults from squandering the assets. This is referred to a minor settlement approval hearing.

Related Blog Posts:

Pedestrian Deaths on the Rise

St. Louis Child Dead and Another Injured After Hit-and-Run

Multiple Deaths in Illinois Bus Accident

Continue reading "Lewis County Missouri - Wrongful Death Car Accident involving Stranded Motorist on Side of Highway 6" »

Recently we settled a Missouri auto accident case that was caused by a distracted driver with allegations of drug use. We represented the passenger that was injured after the driver lost control of the pickup truck and ran off the road.

But the driver did not have his own auto insurance; Permissive Use?

The driver was the passenger's "friend" and did not have his own auto insurance to cover the injuries sustained by the passenger. However, the car he was driving was not owned by him but was owned by the passenger's grandfather. The grandson had permission to drive the car and let his friend drive. Therefore, under Missouri insurance law, the grandfather's insurance policy covers the at fault driver because the negligent driver is what is considered a permissive use driver. So the coverage purchased by the owner of the car is available for the injured passenger to collect from for his injuries that were caused by the negligence of the "permissive use" driver. Permissive use coverage is diffident than liability for negligent entrustment. For discussion about negligent entrustment see: Illinois Drunk Driving Car Crash - Negligent Entrustment.

See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Scheel, 973 S.W.2d 560 (Ct App WD 1998) stating:

The requirement of "permissive use" of a motor vehicle in an omnibus or non-owned vehicle clause of an automobile insurance policy to limit liability coverage is a question of fact which may be satisfied by a showing of either express or implied permission. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Ricks, 902 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Ct App ED 1995)

What if the Driver has his own insurance and the car owner has insurance?

In the same case above, assuming the driver had his own insurance as well, there may be additional insurance coverage for the hurt car crash passenger. Both insurance policies may apply, but it depends on the amount of coverage under each policy and if the insurance policies have valid and enforceable "set-off" or "other insurance" clauses. a few scenarios that could occur are outlined below:

1. The Owner's and the Driver's Auto Insurance have the same coverage amounts:

If the owner and driver both have, for example, $25,000 in liability coverage then the passenger may be limited to just $25,000 total if the policies have valid and enforceable set-off or other insurance clauses. These insurance contract clauses basically say they are not liable to the extent "other insurance" covers the driver's liability. If they do not have these clauses or they are poorly written, the injured passenger may have $25,000 from each policy available, thus $50,000 in total insurance coverage.

In Missouri the case of Zemelman v. Equity Mut. Ins. Co., 935 S.W.2d 673 (Mo. App. WD 1996) discussed "set off" and "other insurance" clauses. In that case the Court read the policy's UIM "set-off" provision against the policy's "other insurance" provision and found it ambiguous because the language described the UIM as "excess over any other collectible insurance." In 2004, we successfully used the above case to avoid set-off and recover an additional $50,000 for our client injured in a St Louis car crash.

2. The Owner and Driver have Different Coverage Amounts:

If one car insurance policy has more liability coverage then that larger amount is typically available. But you still need to deal with issues of set-off. Example, policy #1 has $100,000 in coverage and policy #2 has $50,000 in coverage. A good Missouri car accident lawyer will try and pursue the full amount of each policy, or $150,000. However, many insurance companies now have enforceable set-off clauses, meaning the larger policy can set-off the smaller policy's payment of $50,000; therefore, the total amount recoverable is just the amount of the larger policy, or $100,000 in this example.

What Insurance Applies to My Case?

All cases are different and dozens of critical issues must be discussed and analyzed to ensure a maximum recovery for anyone injured in a car wreck. Insurance coverage is just one of many issues to address. Contact a good car wreck lawyer sooner rather than later. Call us for a free consultation and no fee unless we win. (314) 863-0500 or contact a lawyer online.

Many people not familiar with the Missouri personal injury legal process often get confused as to the issue of auto insurance versus the individual driver that caused the car accident. If the driver had auto insurance your claim is against the individual driver but the auto insurance company "indemnifies" the driver, or pays for the amount they owe as a result of the injuries caused. Additionally, the insurance company appoints and pays a lawyer they use, technically, the driver is the insurance lawyer's client, but in reality the insurance lawyer is looking out for the company that pays their bill, the auto insurer.

If the car insurance company will not settle the auto accident claim and a lawsuit is necessary, in most cases, the Missouri car accident lawsuit is against the driver, not the insurance company, however, as stated above, the insurance company foots the attorney bills and typically pays any settlement, judgment, or verdict.

In most cases the Jury is NOT told about auto insurance, as it is considered irrelevant under the Missouri collateral source rule. There are exceptions to this rule and other ways to get the issue of insurance in the juries minds. This is important as a jury could be reluctant to fully compensate an injured victim based on worries about whether or not the individual defendant driver can pay or if it will be an undue hardship for them to pay. A few years ago a St Louis jury returned a verdict in favor of my client in a car accident case. The verdict amount was good and double what the insurance company offered before the case, but it was not a great verdict. When I asked the jury, after they were dismissed by the judge, why they did not find a larger verdict, most of them told me, we felt sorry for the driver and did not want her to have to pay more. Example of a case where no one on the jury knew or assumed there was auto insurance. In fact when I asked them about auto insurance they stated they assumed there was no insurance because we did not tell them there was.

This insurance issue must be addressed and every good trial lawyer knows it. IT can be addressed as follows:

1. The "Insurance Question" During Voire Dire:

"Voire dire" or jury selection is the beginning of a trial where a pool of potential jurors is questioned top make sure they are an appropriate juror for the case. One of the questions that can be asked is called "The Insurance Question". Under Missouri law the Plaintiff's lawyer can ask the jury if they have any affiliation or interest in _______ Insurance Company. Cannot state it is the defendant driver's insurance company.

The accepted procedure in Missouri for asking the preliminary "insurance question" includes 1) first getting the judge's approval of the proposed question out of the hearing of the jury panel, 2) asking only one "insurance question," and 3) not asking it first or last in a series of questions so as to avoid unduly highlighting the question to the jury panel. Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp., 863 S.W.2d 852, 871 (Mo. banc 1993). The form of the question is at the trial court's discretion. However, it generally encompasses whether any members of the panel or their families work for or have a financial interest in the named insurance company.

2. Get the Jury Panel Talking About Insurance:

Inevitably, during voir dire, a juror will bring up auto insuance, a lawyer must be careful in doing so, but to the extent you can, a good Missouri injury lawyer will follow up with quesitons like "tell me more about that" or "anyone else feel the same way?" to get the jury discussing the issue of insurance coverage. There is no rule against the jury telling each other about insurance coverage!

3. Defense Lawyer is Employed by the Auto Insurer:

Oftentimes, the insurance defendant lawyer is directly employed by the auto insurance company. In that situation the court, in its discretion, can allow an additional insurance question, but even the best Missouri injury lawyers must be very careful not go over the line or they may risk a mistrial. In Richter v. Kirkwood, 111 S.W.3d 504 (MO Ct App SD 2003) the trial court allowed the personal injury lawyer to ask the jury if any of them knew the defense lawyer or provided goods or services to his employer, Allstate Insurance. The case was appealed with one of the grounds for appeal was the trial court allowing this question. The Court of Appeals upheld the ruling that the question was proper, stating:

It was within the trial court's discretion to allow plaintiffs' attorney to show that defendant's attorney was an employee of Allstate to ascertain whether that circumstance would result in bias or prejudice on the part of prospective jurors.

4. Defense "Opens the Door" to the insurance issue:

The rules not allowing the Plaintiff to inject insurance coverage into the case does not stop the defense from being able to do it, however, they would never intentionally do it. So if the defense lawyer or one of his witnesses brings up auto insurance coverage, they effectively waived their objection to it and it is now admissible. If it is a simple slip up in testimony, the extent you can follow up on it will remain within the discretion of the trial judge.

But, if the defense argues to the jury about not burdening the defendant with a money judgment, that clearly opens the door for a good St Louis car accident lawyer to immediately follow up with the jury that there is no evidence that the defendant would have to personally pay any money judgment and that they have auto insurance to cover them. The defendant "opens the door" the the issue of insurance when they make an argument that can only be rebutted by the discussion of the insurance.

Continue reading "Missouri Auto Accident Claims - Getting the Issue of Auto Insurance in Front of a Jury " »

In June 2011, Clarence was spending time with his grandson. Around 1:50 p.m. in the afternoon, in House Springs, Missouri, they were driving in Clarence's pickup truck on Route MM a few tenths of a mile from its intersection with Miller Road. Another driver, Aureliano Correa-Garcia, was driving a VW Jetta Westbound on Route MM when he crossed the center line and drove down the wrong side of the road, causing ahead on car accident with Clarence and his grandson.

After investigation, the reporting police officer concluded the collision was Mr Garcia's fault, noting probable contributing circumstances as "Wrong Side (not passing)" and "Physical Impairment". At trial, the police officer's conclusions or opinions are not admissible as evidence. The jury can only hear the evidence of what he was told or observed, then the jury decides who was at fault.

There was no evidence of physical impairment other than the officer's statement of it being a factor, thus at this point, no evidence that can be used at trial. As part of our legal investigation of the car accident, we ran a full criminal background check of the other driver and found that he plead guilty to a DWI several years before. This does not mean he was drinking at the time of this Jefferson county car accident, however, we used it as a negotiating position to infer we had evidence he was drunk at the time of the accident. Based on the injuries sustained by the driver and passenger and our position on impairment, we were able to settle the case for all the insurance available, $150,000, which was a high value for this case. We were able to settle for this amount within a few months and without having to file a Jefferson County car accident lawsuit. Saving our clients time and money.

Sample from demand letter regarding DWI:

"On April 24, 2010, your insured plead guilty to and was convicted of DWI in St Louis County, case # 09SL-MU00989. Even though this DWI was not related to the collision at hand, under Missouri law prior convictions are admissible to attack the credibility of your insured. By implication, an argument could be made that your insured was under the influence of drugs or alcohol when the collision occurred."

In the current legal environment, auto insurance companies are generally taking hard line positions on Missouri car accident and injury cases. They are taking the position of settling for only medical bills (after adjustment down to only consider what insurance paid not total bill) plus a few thousand for pain and suffering. See Missouri Personal Injury Trial Evidence: Bills "Paid" versus "Charged". this is assuming they admit 00% liability on behalf of their insured driver.

Whenever there is any evidence of aggravating factors, such as: speeding, DWI, texting while driving, cell phone, etc ... that issue must be addressed and highlighted to make the car accident case not just about simple negligence, but a case of carelessness and recklessness causing needless personal injury. This approach adds value to every case as insurance companies know jurors will sometimes forgive mistakes (simple negligence) but will be more receptive to carelessness beyond mere mistakes and even more receptive to reckless behavior that endangers everyone.

If injured in a Missouri or Illinois car accident, contact the injury trial lawyers of Sansone / Lauber today. Contact us online or call us for a free consultation at (314) 863-0500.

A tragedy supposedly involving a sneezing fit leading to a Missouri fatal car crash has left a 30-year-old Kansas City woman dead and the other driver facing a police investigation. The other driver in the accident claims that a terrible sneezing episode caused her to lose control of her minivan and crash into the other woman.

Though it's true that sometimes you aren't able to control when or if you are going to sneeze, it is your responsibility to be traveling at a slow enough speed so that you can remain in control of your vehicle and avoid a collision.

The fatal car accident happened on a 2-lane highway where there was little room for error given the lack of a shoulder. The sneezing is to blame for the one driver crossing over the centerline, hitting a passing car head-on. The crash also resulted in injuries to a 1-year-old boy traveling in the car that was hit by the sneezing driver.

A police spokesperson said that while the car accident is highly unusual, a sneezing attack is not a valid excuse. While it is out of the control of the person afflicted, a driver suffering an attack still has the responsibility to safely maneuver their vehicle. The police officer suggested that if such an attack does occur the best thing to do is slow your vehicle down so you can maintain control.

So far officers have issued traffic tickets to the sneezing diver under Missouri's carless and imprudent driving statute. The case is still being reviewed by the Clay County Prosecutor to determine if more serious charges will follow.

Tragically, the woman who died in the accident was not wearing her seatbelt. She was the only person involved in the accident to be without a belt and law enforcement officials say that it was likely a critical factor. Traffic deaths in Missouri are up 6% so far this year and in 2 out of 3 of them, the victims were not buckled up. However, typically, a victim's failure to wear a seat belt cannot be used against them in a Missouri personal injury action. See Missouri Car Accident Evidence: "Can the Plaintiff's Failure to Wear a Seat-belt be Used Against Them?"

Putting on a seatbelt is an easy way to greatly increase your safety while behind the wheel. It only takes a second but it could be the thing that saves your life one day. No matter how responsible of a driver you are, you never know what a passing driver might do or if one might have to sneeze.

If you or someone you know has a loved one who has been seriously or fatally injured in any kind of accident due to the negligence of another party, you do have options to receive compensation for this loss. For information on how to protect your rights in a situation of negligence or wrongful death, please call one of the St. Louis Missouri car accident attorneys at 1-314-863-0500 today or contact us online.

Source: "Missouri tragedy shows sneezing can cause a fatal crash," by Brian Burnes, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

St. Louis Sees Several Instances of Multiple DWI Convictions in Less Than a Week

St. Louis Tractor-Trailer Accident Leaves Victims Trapped in Wreckage

Word from the Missouri Department of Transportation is that a new strategy involving increased police presence and enhanced speeding fines along a corridor of I-70 appears to be working at reducing the number of car accidents. Anyone familiar with traveling on I-70 near the airport knows the St Ann Police usually have 5 police cars lined up on the side of the highway handing out tickets constantly.

However, the number of accidents resulting in disabling injuries still occur too frequently along the corridor and, as a result, the stretch of I-70 between St. Louis and Lambert Airport will remain a Travel Safe Zone for another year. Though the total number of accidents has dropped, MoDOT says the real goal was to reduce the fatal and serious injury collisions which will take some more work.

The change in the total number of St Louis car accidents has been quite dramatic. In 2009, there were 757 crashes on that stretch of interstate. Fast forward to 2011, after the new traffic plan had been instituted and the number of crashes fell to 384. Unfortunately, the same kind of decline was not found in accidents that resulted in disabling injuries. In 2009, there were 11 such accidents and in 2011 there were eight, not nearly the drop MoDOT was hoping for. Thankfully, fatalities did decline, from two in 2009 to zero last year.

The new plan went into effect in July of 2010 which allowed police departments along the way, chiefly St. Ann, to collect higher fines and more aggressively enforce speed limits. Under Missouri law, speeding fines in a designated "Travel Safe Zone" can be doubled. The St. Ann police chief has said he's told his officers to target speeders traveling 11 mph over the speed limit or greater. So far the strategy has resulted in St. Ann police writing nearly 9,500 speeding tickets this year.

The police chief says the results in St. Ann speak for themselves. In the six months prior to the implementation of the Travel Safe Zone there were 40 accidents along I-70 in St. Ann. During the six months after implementation there were only 10.

The police chief in Normandy, MO spoke out about similar decreases in the number of accidents along his stretch of I-70. In 2009, there were 41 accidents, 2011 saw 19 collisions and so far there have only been six this year. Now if only the Department of Transportation can orchestrate a similar decline in the number of serious injury accidents pedestrians could truly feel safe on that stretch of Missouri highway.

If you or someone you know has a loved one who has been seriously or fatally injured in any kind of accident due to the negligence of another party, you do have options to receive compensation for this loss. For information on how to protect your rights in a situation of negligence or wrongful death, please call one of the St. Louis accident/wrongful death attorneys at (314) 863-0500 today or contact an accident attorney online.

Source: "Travel Safe Zone cuts I-70 accidents by half," by Ken Leiser, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

St. Louis Tractor-Trailer Accident Leaves Victims Trapped in Wreckage

St. Louis Child Dead and Another Injured After Hit-and-Run Accident