Missouri Injury Law Blog

Most of us learned the rules of the road and the safety rules of driving through our parents or driver's education. Including to follow a few simple steps before changing lanes: turn on your blinker, check your mirrors and check your blind spot. Only after these had been done is it safe to move over. Car accident attorneys see accidents caused by all sorts of negligent or careless actions, including improper lane changes and failure to yield when turning.

According to a new study by the Society of Automotive Engineers discussed on MSNBC.com, almost half of all drivers are getting that first and arguably most crucial step wrong. The study found that, when changing lanes, 48 percent of drivers either fail to engage their turn signals or forget to turn them off. When turning, the error rate drops considerably but still remains at a worryingly high 25 percent.

Whatever the reason, forgetfulness, laziness or poor education, the signal errors are having a major impact on driving safety. According to the study, improper blinker use causes roughly 2 million traffic accidents every year. By comparison, distracted driving car accidents are linked to around 950,000 crashes each year.

Drivers who fail to use their turn signals properly might not think their mistake is a big deal, but the fact is that such a slip up puts everyone else on the road at risk. Even if an accident does not happen, drivers could still run into trouble with the law. After all, failing to signal a turn or a lane change is a crime and is treated as severely as speeding or running a red light.

The people at the Society of Automotive Engineers have come up with a novel and potentially useful solution to the problem. It's called the "Smart Turn Signal," the group claims it can go a long way to reducing the rate of car accidents across the nation's roadways.

The "Smart Turn Signal" would automatically shut off a signal once a certain amount of time had passed. The device is also capable of being programmed to automatically turn off after detecting a lane change. Such a feature is similar to what happens now after drivers complete a turn.

The Smart Turn Signal would also be able to recognize when drivers make a habit of ignoring their turn signals. In that case the device would flash a gentle reminder light, something akin to the ones that alert drivers who aren't wearing their seatbelts. Currently the device is still being tweaked. As such, drivers would do well to remember the basics they learned when they were first starting out and focus on proper turn signal usage. For information on how to protect your legal rights if you or a loved one has been seriously injured in an accident, call one of our Missouri car accident attorneys today at 1-314-863-0500.

Source: "Turn Signal Neglect a Real Danger, Study Shows," by Paul A. Eisenstein, published at MSNBC.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

The biggest driving distraction might just be... your car?

Missouri Takes Aim At Distracted Driving

Drunk driving injury lawyer Ben Sansone focuses on pursuing drunk drivers on behalf of injured clients and their families. We have handled dozens of drunk driving injury cases in Missouri and Illinois to successful conclusions. With the assistance of Sansone's partner, Gary Lauber, a former prosecutor, they have the experience and skill necessary to aggressively pursue drunk drivers in personal injury cases and wrongful death actions. See 2.3 Million dollar Judgment Obtained againt St Louis County Drunk Driver. Also see Drunk Driving Injury Lawyer Articles.

The Franklin County, Missouri Sheriff's Office wants to make sure during prom season the teenagers and other drivers on the road are safe and sober. Law enforcement agencies across the state are working with the Missouri Department of Transportation to crack down on underage drinking and driving as well as minors found to be in possession of alcohol between May 3rd and May 13th.

In Missouri it is illegal for anyone under 21 to possess or consume alcohol, yet teens make up an alarmingly large proportion of the drunk drivers arrested for having caused traffic accidents on Missouri roadways each year. Though most would not think so, many drunk drivers are under the age of 21.

From 2009-2011, there were 83 fatal crashes and 233 disabling injury crashes involving an alcohol impaired driver under the age of 21. Devastatingly, there were 94 people killed and 368 seriously injured as a result of these crashes.

Franklin County has specific reason to be concerned as it came in at number four in Missouri for traffic cashes between 2009-2011. In Franklin County alone there were 41 crashes involving drunk drivers under the age of 21. During the same two years there were four fatal crashes and four disabling injury crashes involving an impaired driver under 21.

Franklin County police officers as well as officers across the state will be stepping up enforcement of Missouri's Zero Tolerance Law. The law says that anyone under the age of 21 caught driving with even a trace of alcohol in their system will have their license suspended. "Drinking and driving is not worth the risk," said Leanna Depue, chair of the executive committee of the Missouri Coalition for Roadway Safety. "Zero tolerance means zero chances: Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over."

The consequences for such reckless behavior includes jail time, loss of a driver license, or being sentenced to using ignition interlocks. Insurance rates will also go up as a result and the perpetrator will have to shell out money for attorney fees and court costs.

In 2011 across the state there were 217 people killed and 867 seriously injured in crashes involving an impaired driver. As Saint Louis personal injury attorneys we routinely see the devastating aftermath of collisions caused by such drunk driving accidents. If you've been the victim of such an accident and need help navigating confusing legal waters, contact our skilled Missouri injury lawyers today.

Source: "Officers to Crack Down on Underage Drinking," published at eMissourian.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Bicycle Injuries - Usually Negligent but Sometimes Drunk Drivers or Road Rage

Attorney Causes DWI Death and Severely Injures Two Others, Gets 25 years Jail

A federal law that aims to reduce number of truck and commercial vehicle accidents and injury caused by distracted driving has recently gone into effect. The law, which took effect at the beginning of this year, affects nearly 4 million truck and bus drivers, plus millions of other commercial drivers who work for businesses both large and small.

The recently passed law prohibits commercial vehicle drivers from using hand-held cellphones while the vehicle is in motion. The ban applies to operators of commercial vehicles, defined as those vehicles weighing more than 10,000 pounds which cross state lines for business purposes or any other vehicle weighing more than 26,000 pounds which includes all sorts of vehicles from tractor-trailers to large delivery trucks.

The ban imposes stiff fines for drivers who violate the law. For each offense, violators face a civil penalty of up to $2,750. If a driver is a repeat offender, he or she can lose their commercial vehicle operator's license. Even more seriously, drivers who commit two major violations within a three-year period will lose their driving privileges for at least 60 days. If there are three or more violations within three years, the penalty is a suspended license for 120 days, something that will hit operators of commercial vehicles where it counts: their wallets.

Drivers are not the only ones who can be penalized under the new law; companies can be held responsible as well. Any company that allows or requires their employees to use hand-held cellphones while driving the company or other work-related vehicle can be fined up to $11,000. Holding the employers' feet to the fire is another method of ensuring that all steps are taken to encourage the safe operation of commercial vehicles. To comply with the law, many companies and organizations are scrambling to draft and implement internal policies prohibiting cellphone use while on company business.

However, as many Missouri personal injury attorneys can tell you, even the best plans to rid the roads of distracted drivers won't stop some from refusing to behave responsibly behind the wheel. The St. Louis injury lawyers at Sansone / Lauber believe that the best way to protect yourself against distracted driving by commercial vehicles is to pay special attention while driving and carefully watch the road ahead of you. For information on how to protect your legal rights if you or a loved one has been seriously injured, call one of our Missouri car accident attorneys today at 1-314-863-0500.

Source: "Companies weigh risks of distracted driving" by Larry Copeland, published at USAToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
The biggest driving distraction might just be... your car?

Missouri Takes Aim At Distracted Driving

As the Baby Boomer generation continues to age, one thing is certain--the roads will be increasingly filled with older drivers. Currently, thirteen percent, or 34 million Americans, are over sixty-five years of age. That number is expected to increase by 60% over the next fifteen years. Based on these numbers, it is projected that one in five drivers will be 65 or older by 2025.

While the older drivers may have more experience on the road, they are also responsible for a disproportionate number of accidents. A report released by TRIP states that although drivers over 65 account for 8% of all miles driven, they are involved in at least 17% of all reported crashes.

Missouri is high middle-of-the-pack in multiple statistical categories pertaining to older drivers. (See "Missouri's Oldest Drivers Causing More Than Their Fair Share Of Accidents") The state is eleventh in the nation in raw number of older drivers killed in car accidents and twelfth in the number of accidents involving at least one driver over the age of 65. Missouri is ranked seventeenth in the nation for number of older licensed drivers. Unsurprisingly, the number one state in many of these categories is Florida.

Older drivers are more susceptible to serious injury from car accidents for a number of reasons. First, age comes with increased physical frailty and related medical issues. These issues include slower reaction time, poorer eyesight, and reduced muscle dexterity. Furthermore, when such accidents happen, injuries tend to be more severe due to this increased frailty. TRIP singles out "safely moving through intersections" as especially hazardous for older drivers.

Despite these numbers, no one is suggesting that we revoke the licenses of all older drivers. One of the major determining factors in quality of life is mobility and to deny that to an ever-increasing proportion of the population could only lead to trouble. Rather, it is being suggested that steps be taken to make the roads safer for older drivers. Some of the more prominent suggestions include clearer signs with larger lettering, increased width of pavement markings, widening lanes, and brighter lighting.

In addition to making the roads easier for older drivers to use, the TRIP report has recommended the expansion of public transportation and "non-traditional and public sector approaches that are tailored to the needs of older adults." Such non-traditional approaches include carpools, volunteer driving programs, and door-to-door community transportation services.

Currently, Missouri has no special provisions for older drivers, such as renewals contingent on vision tests. The only extra burden an older driver would have is that he would have to get his licensed renewed every three years rather than the every six years required for drivers aged 21-69. Compare this to Illinois, which requires all renewal applicants over the age of seventy-five to take a road test.

We at Sansone/Lauber encourage older drivers to use their honest best judgment to determine if they are still capable of navigating the road. As experienced St. Louis car accident lawyers, we have seen many accidents caused or exacerbated by factors related to the age of the driver. For information on how to protect your legal rights if you or a loved one has been seriously injured, call one of our Missouri car accident attorneys today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Missouri's Oldest Drivers Causing More Than Their Fair Share Of Accidents," by Allison Blood, published at StLouis.CBSLocal.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Child Cyclist Hit by Car Loses at Trial

The biggest driving distraction might just be... your car?

As a Missouri personal injury attorney handling auto accidents, one of the standard documents we work with is the police report. While we often note that they can be biased against the victim (especially in the case of bicycle accidents), they are still asked for by insurance companies to determine payouts and are typically evidence if a case goes to trial. However, if you are unfortunate enough to get into an accident in some parts of Missouri, you may not receive police report because it will never be created.

Missouri law requires that for all accidents on public roads that either result in injury or apparent property damage great than $500, law enforcement officials must submit a report to the Missouri State Highway Patrol superintendent. Certain branches of law enforcement, such as the state troopers, will generate a report for every accident, no exceptions. For others, such as the local Columbia Police Department, whether a report is generated depends on the nature of the damage caused.

Back in 2009, the city of Columbia implemented a policy that allows officers to "clear" a 911 call, i.e. respond to an accident without generating a report, if a) there were no injuries and b) no need for a tow truck. The amount of damage sustained by a vehicle is irrelevant. The goal of the change was to reduce the workload of officers; generating these reports take two and a half to three hours according to Columbia Police Chief Ken Burton. Since this policy went into effect, traffic citations have been reduced 48%.

Burton also indicated during a February 6 city council meeting that similar paperwork reduction strategies are being used in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas.

By not generating a police report and issuing a citation, it is as if the accident never happened. It won't become an entry for the Statewide Traffic Accidents Record System, and the driver will not receive points on his license. The justification for this procedure is that many who are in this minor collision already choose to circumvent insurance companies anyway. Drivers in single car accidents caused by running through red lights or going into a ditch typically just call friends and solve the problem without making reports to anyone. Drivers who get into minor collisions with other drivers typically negotiate what repairs would cost on the spot and agree not to involve the police or insurance companies.

Should the victim of an accident choose to involve his insurance company in one of these no-injury, no-tow accidents, records are much more scant. There is a record of the 911 call made that led to the dispatch of an officer, but no record investigating the accident. Insurance companies must then gather their own evidence and make the best possible decision based on their findings. One thing insurance companies recommend doing in cases where there is no police report is to make an in person "walk-in" verbal report at the police department so that there is at least some record of the accident made close to the time it occurred.

As experienced Missouri personal injury attorneys, those of us at Sansone/Lauber emphasize the importance of having as full a record as possible of the accident. If you have been injured in a car accident contact us today at (314) 863-0500 for a free consultation.

Source: "Police Department's no-report accident policy reduces tickets, raises concerns," by Bobby Watson, published at ColumbiaMissourian.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri Bicycle Plates - Way to Raise Money for Bike Safety in Missouri

Cyclists - you can now buy a witness! Witnesses are Critical in Bike Injury Claims

Ever look around in the airport, an elevator, or any public place where people are waiting? Notice most people are staring at their cell phone. Unfortunately, sometimes this habit does not change much when people are behind the wheel. See Missouri Texting Laws, Car Crashes, and Wrongful Death. Below is a handful of scary statistics showing how obsessed people are with their smart phones. I have heard the phrase and believe - "Texting While Driving is the New Drunk Driving".

Created by: OnlineMastersDegree.com

Texting or surfing he web while driving is a developing area of the regarding punitive damages. In Missouri and in limited cases, lawyers are seeking punitive damages for drivers who cause serious injury or death while driving. These approaches are case specific, however, an inured party or relatives of a person killed by a distracted driver only needs to show wanton or willful disregard for the safety of others to make an admissible punitive damages case to a jury.

Realted Link:

Missouri's Anti-Texting Bill currently pending in Missouri Senate

Ever since the 2005 Tort "reform" law changes in Missouri there has been an ongoing debate as to what the amount of medical damages submitted to a jury is. Auto insurance companies and their lawyers argue for the amount paid by the individual or their health insurance and not the full amount of the bill. As most people know, the amount of a medical bill and the amount actually paid often differ. See Injury Law Article: Medical Bills at Trial. This previous injury law article discusses the background of the "paid" versus "billed" debate.

Recently, Missouri Federal Judge Mummert issued an order pertnaing to this issue in an Under-Insured Motorist "UIM" case which would logically also apply to a Missouri Uninsured Motorist "UM" case as well. Judge Mummert ruled that Mo.Rev.Stat. § 490.715.5(2) is inapplicable in a under-insured motorist case, and thus also a uninsured motorist case, because the negligent person responsible for the injuries, the Under-insured motorist, is not a party to the case, thus the statue is not applicable. Section 490.715.5(1) reads that "[p]arties may introduce evidence of the value of the medical treatment rendered to a party that was reasonable, necessary, and a proximate result of the negligence of any party." Because the medical treatment rendered to Plaintiff was the proximate result of a non-party, a plain reading of the statute forecloses application by the insurance company; which is the named defendant (party) to a UIM or UM case. See Mummert.Order.790.715.pdf

This is an important ruling for all "UM" and "UIM" cases going forward as it helps put the argument to rest of what amount to consider going to the jury in an auto crash or other personal injury trial. The difference between the amount Paid versus Billed is oftentimes very significant and makes a major difference in settlement negotiations as well as at trial. The "Paid" versus "Billed" battle is still ongoing and is not settled law in Missouri. However, Orders like this one, even though it is pertinent to UM or UIM cases only, helps settle the issue at least for certain types of cases.

Related Articles:

Medical Bills at Trial: "Billed" versus "Paid" Amount, what if Bills Partially Paid? So "Billed" versus "Partially Paid"?

Missouri Personal Injury Trial Evidence: Increased Risk of Future Surgery Admissible When.....

Auto accident lawyer Ben Sansone focuses his practice on personal injury, auto accidents, premise liability, and medical malpractice. For a free & no obligation consultation with a personal injury attorney, contact a lawyer today or call (314) 863-0500.

We have talked repeatedly about the dangers of distracted driving, particularly the distraction of texting. Studies have shown that texting while diving can be even deadlier than driving while intoxicated. The proliferation of smartphones have only exacerbated the problem. However, perhaps the greatest driving distractions may come from devices built into the cars themselves.

Gone are the days when the bulky car phone was a rare luxury enjoyed only by a few incredibly wealthy people. Nowadays, the cars manufactured both domestically and abroad are becoming "virtual iPads on wheels." Multitasking has become the norm. Drivers can even order movie tickets, get stock quotes, or receive status updates from their Facebook pages. The Facebook update feature received focus during one car commercial that debuted during Super Bowl XLV.

If the car companies have their way, this can only get better (or worse, depending on your perspective). Mercedes-Benz is working on a feature that would allow drivers to project readable information on the windshield. Ford is working on a feature that would allow a smartphone to be converted into a wireless router, giving drivers internet access. It is anticipated that in five years, 90% of new cars will come equipped with some form of internet access.

The purpose of this technological arms race is to reach the so-called millennial generation, believing that this 19-31 age cohort sees app technology "as extensions of themselves." Consumer surveys reveal that 75% of potential buyers would like touch-screen technology and in-dash apps in their new vehicles. In other words, car companies are simply responding to consumer demand.

While touch-screen "auto infotainment" seems to be the wave of the future, there is fear that we are not ready to implement this new technology safely. Touch-screen dashboards require more attention than the traditional push button interface of most cars, says David Champion, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports. According to Champion, touch-screen controls by their very nature require users to look down at them, causing them to take their attention away from the road. And according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, drivers who glance away from the road for even two seconds increases their risk for accidents twofold. Even Clifford Nass, a consultant to automakers who specializes in automobile interfaces says that "there really hasn't been enough research on how to safely design for these things."

Despite the apparent risks of creating cars with greater distractions, companies say that the purpose behind these innovations is to increase safety. Jim Buczkowski, Ford's director of electrical and electronics systems, says that a major reason for these innovations is that consumers are already partaking in texting/Facebook updating/stock quote checking while driving. Since these acts aren't going to stop, the next best thing is to attempt to make them safer.

However, as many a personal injury attorney can tell you, all the attempts in the world to make distractions "safer" won't change the fact that distracted driving is still inherently dangerous. Injury lawyers at Sansone/Lauber believe that the best way to protect yourself against distracted driving is to focus full attention on the driving and road ahead of you. For information on how to protect your legal rights if you or a loved one has been seriously injured, call one of our Missouri car accident attorneys today at 1-314-863-0500.

Source: "Cars connectivity seen as a safety hazard," by John Boudreau, published at StAugustine.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Driving While Texting or Driving While Intoxicated...Which is Worse?

Missouri - texting or phone use and driving laws - Texting Ban Map - Texting and driving Wrongful Death

Truck and Bus Drivers' Use of Hand Held Cell Phones while Driving Banned

Missouri Takes Aim at Distracted Driving

Distracted driving is something that takes the lives of many innocent Missouri drivers each year in fatal car collisions. You would think that something so deadly would be heavily regulated in the hopes of eliminating the danger. Not so in Missouri. Compared to the rest of the nation, Missouri lacks the laws necessary to deter distracted drivers. Most states have four or five relevant laws; Missouri is one of 12 states that have one or none.

Currently, the only relevant law in the sate deals with texting while driving and only concerns those 21 or younger. To help improve the situation, a Distracted Driving Summit, moderated by Missouri State Highway Patrol Captain Tim Hull, was held in Jefferson City this week. The summit was intended to develop an education program that can be used across Missouri to inform the public about the deadly consequences of driving while distracted.

The summit began with a presentation by Jennifer Smith, whose mother was killed in 2008 after being hit by a man talking on a hands-free phone. Smith said that it's wrong to assume that hands-free devices are safe, saying that they too impede the driver's cognitive responses. "Yes, your hand is on the wheel, but your brain isn't seeing what's right in front of it."

Smith referred to this particular problem as "inattention blindness." A study conducted at the University of Utah has shown distracted driving places the driver's cognitive functions at a level similar to that of an intoxicated person with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent, equal to Missouri's legal limit.

Another shocking bit of information is that in the time it takes to send or read a text, a driver can travel the length of a football field. Even a moment of inattention can be deadly, as Smith has painfully come to understand. She said the number of fatalities resulting from distracted driving is comparable to one major aircraft crash per week. Instead of acting like it's a big deal that must be stopped the public has remained largely complacent leading to further unnecessary deaths.

Law enforcement officials have found that enforcing the texting while driving ban has been difficult. Although officers at accidents fill out crash reports and are supposed to have the power to subpoena phone records, that rarely happens.

Given the lack of distracted driving laws on the books in Missouri, law enforcement agencies must draft carefully worded city ordinances and use creative strategies to stop distracted drivers. One strategy is to pair up offenses like speeding and phone use, using high ground to be able to look into cars and spot the texting or talking.

Another major problem in the state is a lack of information. Few hard statistics exist about the real sources of distracted driving and numbers need to be shown for there to be action. To remedy the problems, a new crash report form and policy was introduced in January across the state. The form offers more detailed options to establish what exactly distracted the driver and differentiates between hand-held devices, hands-free devices, web browsing and other electronic activities.

With inattention listed as the primary cause of crashes in Missouri, personal injury attorneys across the state see more and more examples of the negative effects of such carelessness. The tragic consequences of distracted driving are why we at Sansone / Lauber repeatedly stress vigilance and awareness while operating motor vehicles. It only takes one or two seconds of distraction to cause irreparable damage. For information on how to protect your legal rights if you or a loved one has been seriously injured, call one of our Missouri car accident attorneys today at 1-314-863-0500.

Source: "Distracted Driving Summit aims to bring attention to statewide problem," by Alyssa Schueneman, published at ColumbiaMissourian.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri Highway Patrol Gives Advice to Drivers Following Fatal Wreck

Role of Property Damage Pictures in Missouri Car Accident Injury Trials

In Missouri, injury claims, such as a car or truck accident, are valued by the amount of harms and losses suffered by the victim. There are two general types of harms and losses or "Damages" in personal injury cases; (1) Special damages or economic damages: which include specific amounts billed or out of pocket, such as past and future medical bills, past and future lost wages, damage to property. The second general type of damages is (2) Non economic damages or pain and suffering. In the past medical bills were determined by the amount billed, not the amount paid. So if the injured victim was charged $100,000 in medical care but their insurance paid $50,000, at trial the evidence would be $100,000, not $50,000.

Currently, the billed versus paid amount being submitted to a jury is controlled by the Missouri Supreme Court case of Deck v Teasley. See St Louis injury law article: "Under Missouri Personal Injury Law, Medical Damages are Amount BILLED to patient, NOT Amount PAID by Insurance; assuming proper evidence is established by Plaintiff" However, What if the medical bills are only partially paid and not satisfied in full by a lower amount paid by insurance, can the defense make a rebuttable presumption of reasonable value being the amount paid? As a practicing St Louis PI lawyer I think the answer is no.

An affidavit as to the amount partially paid with a balance owed should not invoke the rebuttable presumption of reasonable value created by Missouri Statute 490.715. As the statute specifically provides that " (2) In determining the value of the medical treatment rendered, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the dollar amount necessary to satisfy the financial obligation to the health care provider represents the value of the medical treatment rendered. R.S.Mo. 490.715.5 (2) (emphasis added.) If the medical providers bills are not satisfied in full then the defendant should not be entitled to the statutorily created presumption. No provision of law, and certainly not R.S.Mo. 490.715, allows Defendant to urge that the partial payment of a medical bill which does not satisfy the balance owed is the reasonable value of medical services provided to Plaintiff.

The Deck case did not completely resolve the billed versus paid battle. This is currently still a tricky area of law and is handled differently by different judges. At trial many Judges are currently allowing the plaintiff to submit evidence of the total amount billed and allowing the defense to submit evidence of the amount paid. However, neither side is allowed to comment as to why the numbers are different. Neither side is allowed to mention insurance, neither medical insurance or auto insurance. So they issue of billed versus paid is still not completely settled, but good injury lawyers are making sure they submit the strongest evidence on behalf of their clients to at least get the amount billed in front of a jury whether it is submitted with the amount paid or hopefully, just by itself.

St Louis car accident attorney and personal injury lawyer Ben Sansone of the Sansone / Lauber law firm has been practicing injury law for over 10 years in the St Louis area and across Missouri and Illinois. Call (314) 863-0500 or contact an injury lawyer online for a free no obligation consultation today.

According to a recent article on KSDK.com, the Missouri State Highway Patrol has recently released several tips for drivers after a fatal accident along a busy stretch of interstate in St. Louis. Southbound Interstate 55 was closed just this week when a pedestrian was struck and killed by a tractor-trailer near Sidney Street.

Police say the victim, 67-year-old Moustafa Elmansy, got a call from a friend saying he needed help. The friend was pulled over on the shoulder of I-55 after his car had run out of gas. The victim bought gas and rushed out to help his stranded friend. When Elmansy arrived, he parked in front of his friend's stalled vehicle and began adding gas to the car when he was clipped by a passing semi. Police have said that the truck driver told them he never saw the victim prior to the impact.

Missouri State Highway Police Sergeant Al Nothum said that if a driver encounters vehicle issues "always yield to the right." This is because drivers have significantly more room on the right shoulder than the left. Nothum says following a few guidelines can save you from a potentially dangerous situation, risking not only injury, but also death. The left shoulder, where Elmansy was hit and killed, is not a place to be outside of the car. A good general rule of thumb is to stay inside your vehicle where you at least have some level of protection. Once a driver exits the vehicle their chance of injury increases exponentially.

The Missouri Highway Patrol also has a toll free number for drivers who find themselves in dangerous situations while on the interstate. "Call *55 and inform them where you're at," Nothum said. "Give them a good location and tell them you need assistance immediately." Highway Patrol says that someone will be dispatched immediately to provide a safe perimeter and assistance.

The victim that was tragically killed was married with children. Though it is a horrible accident, police so far believe no serious charges are expected. However, the investigation remains ongoing.

Suffering from a pedestrian accident caused by another person's actions can leave you facing injuries that will affect your life in a number of ways. You need to understand that you do have rights to protect during this difficult time so that you can move forward. You can resolve this matter in a beneficial way when you ensure that your case is handled properly so that you do not suffer medical bills, lost work wages and other costs. With the help of an experienced St. Louis car accident lawyer, you can begin to move forward with your case and regain your life.

The tragic consequences of traffic accidents are why we at Sansone / Lauber repeatedly stress vigilance and awareness while operating motor vehicles. It only takes one or two seconds of distraction to cause irreparable damage. Our Missouri car accident attorneys regularly handle car accidents and cases involving pedestrians being struck by other vehicles. For information on how to protect your legal rights if you or a loved one has been seriously injured, call our office today for free at 1-314-863-0500.

Source: "Missouri Highway Patrol offers tips after Moustafa Elmansy killed on I-55," by Steve Patterson, published at KSDK.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Defendant's Denial of Liability can Come back to Haunt Them

Evidence in Missouri Drunk Driving Car Accident Injury Case: Proving the Other Driver was Intoxicated

In Missouri auto accident cases, it is typical practice for insurance defense lawyers to outright deny all liability, even when the insured driver being sued is clearly at fault. I see it all the time and am amazed, especially when the car accident was caused by a drunk driver. Fault is often admitted directly by the driver, or even when they plead guilty to DWI or failure to yield, reckless driving, failure to maintain safe distance, or other traffic ticket they plead guilty to. Fault has been admitted to through a plea of guilty to the traffic violation and the accident is clearly their fault. So in their deposition the defendant, a drunk driver in my example, will admit they pleaded guilty to the DWI charge to get probation (an admission of fault) and that the injured victim or other driver was not speeding and do not do anything improper.

So a trial tactic insurance lawyers like to take, after dragging an injured person through months or years of litigation, is to say to a jury, "we know it was our fault so go ahead and give them a little money and pay their medical bills, but do not give them as much money as they are asking for." This is an attempt to gain credibility with the jury and act like they want to do the right thing and pay for the damages their insured driver caused. I immediately respond to these appeals to the jury with a statement to the affect that the insurance company has the gall to admit they are at fault, yet refuse (until now) to pay the Plaintiff for their injuries and drag them through litigation and a car accident trial.

Additionally, attack them with their prior legal pleadings denying liability, showing that they now claim they want to do the right thing, but all along have been denying liability. This tactic will be objected to and fought by the insurance lawyer, however, Missouri case law supports the proposition that the victim's lawyer can make this argument, even if the pleadings were later amended.

When a defendant takes a position at trial that is inconsistent with a prior pleading, that pleading may be received in evidence. "Such admissions are not binding on the party but may be employed for impeachment and are to be weighed by the trier of fact in the same manner as any other admission. Hall v. Denver-Chicago International, Inc., 481 S.W.2d 622, 628 (Mo.App.1972). The basis for receiving in evidence the pleading admission, later abandoned, is its inconsistency with the position taken at trial. Howell v. Dowell, 419 S.W.2d 257, 260 (Mo.App.1967)."

Thus, given that a prior or superseded or abandoned pleading may be received in evidence because of inconsistency with a position taken at trial, as an admission against interest, and/or for impeachment purposes, Bank of America, N.A. v. Stevens, 83 S.W.3d 47, 56 (Mo.App. S.D. 2002), precluding its use in advance would be improper.

This along with may other trial tactics are very important, often it is not enough for a jury simply to agree with the injury victim that the other driver was negligent, a good trial lawyer shows the defendant's disregard and lack of caring for what they did, which should result in a better result for the injured victim of the car accident.

See related blog:

Evidence in Missouri Drunk Driving Car Accident Injury Case: Proving the Other Driver was Intoxicated

Trial Evidence in Missouri Personal Injury Lawsuits - Can a Personal Injury Lawyer Admit into Evidence an SIS (Suspended Imposition of Sentence - probation in lieu of a conviction)

Continue reading "Defendant's Denial of Liability can Come back to Haunt Them" »

Often after a car accident or other injury the victim's future medical condition cannot be certain and often doctor's will opine that future surgery may be required as a result of the injuries sustained. This leads to the questions of ... when can the risk of future surgery be submitted to a Missouri jury for their consideration?

This issue was addressed by the Missouri Supreme Court in Swartz v. Gale Webb Transportation Co., 215 SW 3d 127 (MO 2007). This case arose from serious injuries, including lower back disc bulges, sustained after a car and bus collision. The plaintiff was the passenger in a car that was struck by a school bus owned by the defendant, Webb Transportation. The jury determined that the bus driver was at fault and as part of their verdict considered the need for potential future surgery. The defendant appealed claiming the jury should have never been able to hear medical testimony about future surgery and appealed on that ground.

The defendant argued that it was error to admit the doctor testimony that the Plaintiff's injuries put her at an increased risk of future surgery and other complications. Claiming that the experts were not able to testify that "more likely than not" the injured victim would need surgery in the future as a result of her injuries sustained. One expert testified that she had a 50/50 chance of requiring future surgery, a "more likely than not" standard requires a just a little bit more ...50.1% sure not just 50%. Additionally, the doctor admitted future surgery was "speculation" and could not be stated "within a reasonable degree of medical certainty". All buzz words or phrases that are problems for the Plaintiff to meet her burden of proof. See Injury Lawyer Article: Reasonable Degree of Medical Certainty Standard.

Despite the uncertainty of the future risk of surgery and problems, the testimony and evidence of future surgery and problems is admissible. It is admissible for purposes of establishing the nature and extent of the Plaintiff's current injuries.

"The fact that her back injury carries with it at least a 25 percent chance, and perhaps a 50 percent chance, of requiring surgery in the future makes it a worse injury than a back injury that has a lesser chance of future complications requiring surgery or that had fully healed by the time of trial."

Since the present injury brings with it this increased risk of future injury this "is information the jury should have in the difficult task of trying to give plaintiff's condition a dollar value." Because the testimony of doctors was admissible for the purpose of establishing the nature and extent of the victim's injuries, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony or in refusing withdrawal instructions.

Therefore, an experienced Missouri injury attorney will get any evidence of future problems in front of a jury so they can fully decide the damages to award and the full nature and extent of the injury. Even if it is speculation that the future surgery would be needed, it goes to the extent of the present injury. However, I believe if you want to ask for specific damages - the jury to award the cost of the future surgery - you need a doctor to testify it is more likely than not the surgery would be required and what the likely cost would be.

Property damage pictures depicting the damage to the vehicles involved in the Missouri car crash are often helpful for the Plaintiff, especially when the damage is significant. However, oftentimes the damage appears to be very minor or even non existent, yet the driver or passenger still suffered injuries. In this situation the insurance defense lawyer will try to use the pictures to argue to a jury that the collision could not have caused the Plaintiff's injuries. This can be very powerful evidence for the defense, and a good car accident injury lawyer must be prepared to challenge these arguments.

How to Combat the Argument of No Damage to Car = Little or No Injury?

1. Argue that the Pictures Should be Excluded from Trial:

During a Missouri personal injury trial, the decision to exclude the pictures is within the discretion of the trial judge, however there is some helpful Missouri case law to make a good argument to the judge the pictures should be excluded, especially if you anticipate the defense will specifically argue minor damages means low impact and little or no injury without the support of expert testimony.

In the absence of expert testimony addressing the relationship between vehicle damage and severe injury, there is no foundation for the admission of property damage evidence. Interpreting the force of an impact from vehicle photographs and then assessing the likelihood of injury from such impact are tasks that can only be attempted by experts. The admission of property damage evidence would lead to unsupported and prejudicial speculation by the jury.

In order to present testimony that the forces of impact were not sufficient to cause certain personal injuries, at least one and possibly two experts would be required. First, a properly qualified expert would have to testify to the nature of the forces involved. Next, an expert would have to provide testimony concerning the nature of the injury based on the forces which were exerted.

In these situations all property damage evidence should be excluded because it lacks probative value to any element of the case and, assuming arguendo, that such evidence would have probative value, any probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and that the jury would be misled to speculate on items not within the evidence.

This argument the issue has never been specifically addressed by the Missouri Supreme Court, but similar cases have been discussed, see Boland v Jando,414 S.W.2d 560 (1967).

This precise issue has been decided by the Superior Court of New Jersey in Brenman v. Demello, 892 A.2d 741 (N.J. Super. 2006), the Delaware Supreme Court in Davis v. Maute, 770 A.2d 36 (Del. 2001), and DiCosola v. Bowman, 342 Ill.App.3d 530, 794 N.E.2d 875 (2003)

These cases have held that without expert testimony it was reversible error to admit property damage evidence and allow defense counsel to argue that a serious injury could not have resulted from such a minor collision.

2. Tried and Tested Counter Arguments:

Sometimes judges allow defense lawyers to make the argument despite lack of expert testimony and the cases above. When this occurred in a case I handled a few years back before the insurance defense lawyer even had an opportunity to make his insinuations, I addressed it with the jury immediately.

This particular case involved a St Louis rear end car accident where the at fault driver drove an old Cadillac with a steel bumper which hit my client's vehicle when she failed to stop for a red light. The steel bumper hit my client's trailer hitch, thus little damage was apparent despite a bent trailer hitch.

Effective arguments: comparing the auto collision to a tuning fork, as the energy from the collision was not absorbed by the vehicle's body but the energy was transferred directly to the frame of the vehicle and to the driver's body, causing injury. No absorption of the impact as is seen with modern car crunch zones and even formula one racing cars. They are built to shatter as to absorb the energy of the impact.

If you do not have the direct frame impact argument, there are also videos out there showing slow motion very low impact collisions (less then 10 miles per hour) and the effect on the human body. Quite dramatic. Make sure in any doctor depositions you ask if the doctor will testify to low impact being able to cause significant injury.

Continue reading "Role of Property Damage Pictures in Missouri Car Accident Injury Trials" »

Previously, we have discussed the recent ban on CDL driver's (commercial drivers of trucks and buses) from using hand held cell phones while driving. See "Truck and Bus Drivers' Use of Hand Held Cell Phones while Driving Banned". Now the winds are indicating that a ban, even more strict than this one, is being pushed for on a federal level and covering all drivers, not just commercial drivers, and even proposing a ban on cell phone use via Bluetooth. See US News: "US calls for ban on in-car phone use ... even with Bluetooth".

As a practicing St Louis injury lawyer handling all types of cases including Missouri car accident cases, I often do see cell phone use as a contributing factor in accidents. In fact, a few years ago I began routinely requesting or subpoenaing cell phone records for all defendant drivers to see if they were using there cell phone at the time of the car crash. However, banning 100% of all cell phone use and mandating car manufacturers and electronics manufactures to come up with ways to disable cell phones while a car is in motion is simply taking this too far.

"NTSB also urged consumer electronics manufacturers to figure out a way to "disable the functions of portable electronic devices within reach of the driver when a vehicle is in motion"

In support of this push the NTSB stated "no text, no call, no update is worth a human life." I can think of a dozen other things we can completely ban in society because a human life may be lost. Airline travel, recreational sports, medical treatment for non life threatening illness, highway construction, space travel ..... There is a risk versus utility analysis they are completely overlooking.

What is wrong with drawing the line at texting? and requiring hands free phone use, doesn't that solve the problem? I personally think the recommendation by the NTSB will never be enacted, it is too strict, can never be enforced effectively, and the political support may never be there. Personal responsibility and encouragement to use cell phones safely is the answer, not draconian mandates.