Missouri Injury Law Blog

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

Bike accidents happen all too frequently and as a St Louis bike injury lawyer the vast majority of bike accidents I see are exactly that, accidents. Accidents wherein a driver may be liable for the injuries because they were negligent, meaning they unintentionally and mistakenly did something wrong and failed to keep a lookout or yield and thus hit a bicyclist. Every so often I believe the driver may have done it on purpose or out of road rage. Additionally, I have often seen drunk drivers hit cyclists in Missouri and Illinois. Never have I seen a video as blatant as the one below, a bus driver was convicted of purposely hitting a cyclist, and it was caught on video.

The bus driver pleaded guilty to and was convicted of dangerous driving and causing grievous bodily harm to a biker. Had this incident not been caught on tape it may have been a hard conviction to make. Now consider if it was not a bus driver with passengers and on a road with witnesses, instead a car with a single driver that hits a cyclist on a rural roadway. See St Louis Cyclist hit By Drunk Driver. No witnesses and the driver can make up any story he wants, such as: the cyclist swerved into the lane, ran off the roadway themselves, or the even more common situation of the driver keeps going.

For these reasons is why any bicyclist needs an experienced St Louis bike lawyer to investigate and aggressively pursue the at fault driver or to pursue an Uninsured Motorist Claim if the driver fled the scene of the collision and could not be identified, thus becoming a phantom vehicle which is an uninsured motorist under Missouri law, thus the cyclist's injures should be covered if they have an auto insurance policy. Additionally, if there is evidence of purposeful striking of the cyclist or drunk driving, you must pursue punitive damages, this will result in a higher compensatory award as well as a punitive damages award. Punitive damages are a necessary allegation as the claim for punitive damages is not only legitimate, but raises the stakes for the defendant which puts more pressure on his car insurance company to settle the case for what it is worth.

Other Bike Accident and Injury Articles:

The "I did not see the cyclist" Defense and dealing with it at Trial

Bicyclist Right of Way at Unmarked Intersections

Continue reading "Bicycle Injuries - Usually Negligent but Sometimes Drunk Drivers or Road Rage" »

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" »

A now former attorney was sentenced to 25 years in prison for the drunk driving wrongful death of a 31-year-old woman and injuries to two others. While driving from a football game and fueled by twice the legal amount of alcohol, Tolliver caused the car crash when he ran a red light and slammed his SUV into an oncoming cab. The impact instantly killed 31-year-old, mother of two, Shannon Brown, while the other passenger suffered severe injuries of a collapsed lung along with loss of sight in one eye and the cab driver's injuries put him in a coma for several weeks. See: St Louis Lawyer blog article: TBI and Drunk Driving Trends

This guy had 4 separate prior DWI convictions. This is not a new situation, repeat offenders severely injuring and killing innocent victims. See Missouri Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Ben Sansone Obtains St Louis County Judgment of $2.3 Million. The intoxicated driver's family members stated that he was receiving regular treatments; however, part of his probation agreement from his latest DWI conviction was that he not be allowed to drive. Though some may argue that after two convictions it should be realized the offender has no intention of obeying the law, but once again it took 4 DWI convictions, a death of a mother and permanent dismemberment and traumatic brain injury to others for a Fulton County Judge to "let the community know such behavior deserves severe punishment." As such and per a plea deal, she sentenced Tolliver to 25 years in prison. He pleaded guilty to one count of vehicular homicide and two counts of serious injury by vehicle, all while driving under the influence.

I have represented injured parties in other motor vehicle accidents involving drunk drivers. See Missouri Injury Law Blog: Drunk driving Law . While this is apparently a case of blatant intoxication with tragic results, many cases where the actions of the driver are just as egregious do not get the media attention because the driver did not kill anyone or severely harm them. But does that make their reckless actions any less reckless? I say no, we are currently pursuing five or six drunk driving cases with minor injuries.

When the driver was drunk but the injuries are minor, the insurance companies resist settlement because the injuries are not massive and therefore ignore the fact their driver was drunk. These cases must be pursued vigorously however some lawyer give up too easily on these cases . See: Illinois Drunk Driving Car Accident - My Client was Rear Ended by a Drunk Driver Going Approximately 60 MPH - Prior Illinois Personal Injury Lawyers Failed to Pursue Claim- Case Referred to Us for Trial

If you or a loved one are the victim of a reckless drunk driver, even if the injuries are minor, contact St Louis drunk driving accident lawyer Ben Sansone today for a free consultation. We aggressively pursue these cases.

"Dram Shop" cases are drunk driving injury cases pursued by the injured party, or their surviving family as a wrongful death claim, against the bar or restaurant that may have over served the intoxicated driver that caused the car accident. For more information on lawsuits against the negligent bar or restaurant for over-serving a drunk driver See Missouri Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Article: Drunk Driving Accident Lawsuits in Missouri - Making a Negligence Claim Against the Bar that Over-Served the Missouri Drunk Driver

As an injury lawyer, often specializing in drunk driving injury cases, I can tell you first hand that Dram shop cases are difficult, but winnable. Under Missouri Statute § 537.053 a Dram Shop case has three main elements to the cause of action:

1. The claim must be brought (1) "by or on behalf of any person who has suffered personal injury or death"

2. Against a "person licensed to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises . . ."

3. Clear and convincing evidence the seller "knowingly served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person"

That can be very tough case to prove, first you have to find out where the reckless drunk driver that caused the car accident came from, and they may not tell anyone where they came from or admit it to you.

The more difficult part to prove is whether or not the driver was "VISIBLY INTOXICATED" Can you find witnesses that remember seeing the intoxicated driver at the bar and remember or be willing to testify that they were visibly intoxicated? Probably not, most of these cases are proven through he police officer's observations and hopefully a blood or breath test. Then hire a toxicologist to testify what the driver's physical appearance would have likely been based on the BAC test by the police or their observations. In many cases the intoxicated driver who caused the accident may have little or no insurance, and certainly not enough to compensate an injured driver or passenger who is severely injured. Thus the possibility of pursuing the bar or restaurant is something that must be investigated in most drinking and driving car accident injury cases. See, Evidence in Missouri Drunk Driving Car Accident Injury Case: Proving the Other Driver was Intoxicated stating:

Whether a defendant is intoxicated may be proven by any witness who had a reasonable opportunity to observe him. State v. McCarty, 875 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Mo. App.1994); State v. Corum, 821 S.W.2d 890, 891 (Mo.App.1992).

[I]ntoxication is a "`physical condition usually evidenced by unsteadiness on the feet, slurring of speech, lack of body coordination and an impairment of motor reflexes.'" [State v. Ruark, 720 S.W.2d 453 (Mo.App.1986) ] at 454 (quoting State v. Blumer, 546 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Mo.App. 1977)).

The "VISIBLY INTOXICATED" portion of the dram shop law has recently been discussed by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, in Nokes v HSM Host USA LLC, WD Court App Opinion 9/13/2011. In the Nokes case, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant because the Plaintiff did not have any direct evidence that the driver was "visibly intoxicated", meaning an eye witness or videotape. The Appellate Court overruled that requirement stating:

"Nokes's evidence regarding Chiarelli's level of intoxication, taken together with the drink receipts, the police report, and the expert testimony that such a level of intoxication would produce outward manifestations of intoxication was sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Host defendants knowingly "served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person." Section 537.053."

Thus, in Missouri visible intoxication can be proven by circumstantial and indirect evidence, eye witnesses not required.

Under Missouri dram shop statute, the victims of Missouri personal injury or the family of the Missouri wrongful death victim caused by an intoxicated or drunk driver may have a cause of action against the establishment that served the Missouri drunk driver that caused a car crash or hits a pedestrian.

Missouri Statute § 537.053, Sale of alcoholic beverage may be proximate cause of personal injuries or death

... a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered personal injury or death against any person licensed to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises when it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the seller knew or should have known that intoxicating liquor was served to a person under the age of twenty-one years or knowingly served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person.

How do you prove by "clear and convincing" evidence that the bartender knew or should have known the drunk driver was "visibly intoxicated"? See St Louis Injury Attorney Article: ... Proving the Other Driver was Intoxicated

However, in a Missouri dram shop lawsuit, proving "visible intoxication" is more difficult than simply showing the driver was legally intoxicated. For example, under the above dram shop statute, Missouri Statute § 537.503, blood alcohol content is simple relevant to proving a person was visibly intoxicated, but does not prove it. So what else, clearly a St Louis DWI personal injury lawyer would hire a toxicologist to testify, but what about testimony from someone else at the bar that served the at fault driver? the bartender? they obviously are not going to admit they served a visibly intoxicated, so you are left with tracking down other patrons at the bar, which is hard enough, much less finding one that remembers the drunk driver who caused a car accident and that they were visibly intoxicated.

So is an eye witness required? Recently a Missouri trial court ruled through summary judgment that eye witness testimony is required to prove that the Missouri drunk driver who caused a car accident was visibly intoxicated at a bar in order to be able to hold that establishment liable under Missouri's dram shop law. This issue is currently up on appeal and for an excellent analysis of the Missouri dram shop law and its application see: Amicus Brief - Missouri Dram Shop Law Appeal regarding Proof of Visible Intoxication

Continue reading "Drunk Driving Accident Lawsuits in Missouri - Making a Negligence Claim Against the Bar that Over-Served the Missouri Drunk Driver " »

A recent verdict in a DUI accident was handed down, the jury found the driver grossly negligent and awarded some punitive damages, but the amounts were curiously low, especially for a drunk driving accident case. Jury Finds Band Leader Grossly Negligent, but Slaps Him on Wrists The jury awarded less then $100,000 to the injured passenger who sustained about $40,000 in past medical bills. Additionally, only $20,000 in punitive damages from the DUI injury accident.

As a St Louis DWI car accident and injury lawyer, I find this amount to be insufficient in light of the facts; I believe the jurors in the above case went easy on the driver because he is a local celebrity and he was severely injured in the accident suffering a brain injury requiring multiple surgeries. Perhaps the jury believed his injuries were punishment enough.

We have handled Missouri and Illinois drinking and driving injury accidents with less in medical bills but received fro more in compensation or our clients:

DUI Injury Lawyer - Illinois drunk driving accident injury case settles for policy limits

Illinois DUI Accident and Brain Injury Lawsuit - Settles for $575,000

St Louis Missouri DWI Accident Lawyer gets Judgment for 2.3 MILLION

Illinois DUI Accident Injury Claim, Lawsuit settles few Weeks before Trial for Policy Limits

Continue reading "DWI Bus Accident Injury Lawsuit....verdict insufficient? " »

As a bicyclist myself and a St Louis Missouri bike accident injury lawyer, I have handled dozens of bike injury cases and spoke with many cyclists I ride with about being hit by cars and who were lucky enough not to be thrown off their bike or injured. See St Louis bike injury lawyer discusses common causes of bike accidents and injury

Most commonly, personal injury to bike riders being hit by cars is the result of driver inattention and negligence. A close second however, is bike riders being struck in the summer evenings by drunk drivers. See Missouri bike rider struck by drunk driver and suffers extensive personal injury

In the above mentioned St Louis drunk driving bike accident, the police did an excellent job investigating the accident and making sure they tested the driver for intoxication. Police investigation of a potential Missouri drunk driving accident is critical to a personal injury lawsuit because if the police do not investigate immediately it is almost impossible to later prove the driver was intoxicated; unless they admit it (good luck!) or there is credible observation and evidence from a witness proving intoxication. See Missouri Personal Injury Trial Evidence - Proving Driver was drunk with Lay Witness Testimony

Fortunately, a distant third, are bike accidents and injuries intentionally caused by the driver, these types of situations have recently gotten some national attention as some prosecutors and law enforcement are starting to investigate these cases more thoroughly and look into to prosecution. See the following:

Bike Accident and Injury Intentionally Caused by Doctor?

Bike Accident and Injury Caused by Road Rage

Also see Missouri Injury Law Blog - Missouri Bicycle Accident and Injury Cases

A wrongful death lawyer has filed a wrongful death lawsuit and negligent road design lawsuit on behalf of the family of a deceased Pennsylvania teen. The wrongful death lawsuit stemming from a drunk driving accident, alleges negligent design and maintenance of the road and that it contributed, not the sole cause, of her death. This particular road had a 55 mph speed limit and a 4-inch drop-off between the road and the shoulder not to mention the drop-off is located on a curve in the road.

The wrongful death lawsuit specifically alleges that the department of transportation did not level the road properly when they upgraded that section after two other teens were killed in car accidents at this same location. The prior accidents are crucial to the negligence claim as the dept of transportation was clearly on notice of the defect and should have corrected it.

On top of the negligent road design, the driver was intoxicated and that clearly contributed to the wrongful death car accident as well. Also, the deceased teen was not wearing her seat-belt at the time; however, under the law of most sates, and certainly in Missouri, evidence of the victim not wearing their seat belt is generally not admissible into evidence at a wrongful death or car accident injury trial. The driver allegedly attempted the curve in the road at this high speed, dropped off the road onto the shoulder, over-corrected and collided into an elderly couple in an oncoming car before his truck was stopped by a guardrail.

The Dept. of Transportation has since dropped the speed limit to 50 mph on this road, paved the shoulders, and added guardrails, reflectors, and rumble strips. All of these precautions will help to prevent such sad and tragic accidents in the future.

Article: Wrongful Death Lawsuit against Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Continue reading "Wrongful Death and Drunk Driving Car Accident Lawsuit combined with Negligent Road Design" »

As a St Louis personal injury law firm handling car accident and other types of injury cases involving intoxicated or drugged individuals who caused the accident or injury, proving intoxication is critical to maximizing value of my clients' cases.

In many cases the at fault driver that caused the truck accident and injury is charged with DWI or other intoxicated related offense and the police officer's investigation can often be piggybacked by injury lawyers to show intoxication. However, not all cases are properly investigated by police officers or investigated for intoxication at all.

What other evidence is there to show intoxication? Because I guarantee the at fault driver will not admit it, especially after their insurance company and their lawyers have gotten to them.

One example is a Crawford county Missouri drunk driving head injury case we are currently handling. My client was thrown from a vehicle as a result of the driver's erratic driving in a resort area and in a private parking area and driveway. The driver stopped and witnesses called the police, however, prior to the police arriving the driver hid and was never interviewed by the police. So in this case we need to use the lay witnesses to prove intoxication. Luckily a security guard witnessed the incident, observed the driver after she exited the vehicle, and called the police.

Under Missouri law a defendant may be proven to be intoxicated by any witnesses who had a reasonable opportunity to observe him or her. State v McCarty, 875 S.W.2d 622 (Mo Ct App 1994)

Whether a defendant is intoxicated may be proven by any witness who had a reasonable opportunity to observe him. State v. McCarty, 875 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Mo. App.1994); State v. Corum, 821 S.W.2d 890, 891 (Mo.App.1992).

[I]ntoxication is a "`physical condition usually evidenced by unsteadiness on the feet, slurring of speech, lack of body coordination and an impairment of motor reflexes.'" [State v. Ruark, 720 S.W.2d 453 (Mo.App.1986) ] at 454 (quoting State v. Blumer, 546 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Mo.App. 1977)).

Lay witnesses need to convey factors such as opportunity to observe the defendant, knowledge of drinking earlier in the day, balance, motor skills, bloodshot eyes, erratic driving, smell of alcohol, etc... Granted it is always better to have a trained police officer than a lay witness, but the lay witnesses testimony is admissible for the jury to then decide.

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

When can prior criminal history be used in a Missouri personal injury trial? As a St Louis injury lawyer handling drunk driving accident injury cases, this often comes up as sometimes not only is the driver intoxicated but sometimes my own client has a criminal history. How does that affect the St Louis car accident or other injury case at trial?

Under Missouri Statute § 491.050

"Any person who has been convicted of a crime is, notwithstanding, a competent witness; however, any prior criminal convictions may be proved to affect his credibility in a civil or criminal case[.]"

So if a witness has been convicted of a crime, that can be used to impeach them and attack their credibility during a St Louis personal injury lawsuit trial. However, what if they plead guilty but did not get convicted and instead received probation, also known as an SIS (Suspended Imposition of Sentence) in Missouri? Two things need to be considered:

(1) If the only purpose is for impeachment (attacking their credibility) then no, an SIS is not admissible.

This issue was addressed in State v. Hansel, 629 SW 2d 509 (MO Ct App ED 1981). For purposes of § 491.050 a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) is not a conviction because sentence has not been pronounced or imposed.

(2) But what if the negligent driver received an SIS on a charge related to the accident? OR an SIS for any charge related to liability?

I have handled multiple Missouri and Illinois personal injury cases resulting from a drunk driver, and oftentimes in these cases that person is charged as a result of the accident and it is their first offense. In Missouri most first time offenders are eligible for an SIS to avoid a conviction; so is the SIS admissible to prove they were drunk at the time of the Missouri car accident?

YES, because when someone gets an SIS they have to plead guilty which is an admission of guilt. So if they plead guilty to DWI that resulted in an accident then a good personal injury attorney knows they have to admit that they admitted they were guilty when asked. So the SIS or probation is not admitted into evidence, but the admission of guilt is.

Continue reading "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)" »

In February 2009 the injury law firm of Sansone Law llc was retained to represent a St Louis area pedestrian that was dragged by a drunk driver after the pedestrian attempted to assist the Missouri drunk driver who appeared passed out at his wheel in the middle of the road. See, Pedestrian and Good Samaritan Injured by Drunk Driver

See St Louis attorney Ben Sansone's other Missouri and Illinois personal injury settlements and verdicts HERE - Personal Injury Settlements and Verdicts

Continue reading "Missouri Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Ben Sansone Obtains St Louis County Judgment of $2.3 Million" »

Staff Article - Erin Mace.

We have discussed driving while texting, (or "DWT"), in a previous Missouri Personal Injury Law blog article, but I recently read an article that was titled, “Texters, you’d be better off driving drunk” and thought this would be a good follow up.

On September 21, laws regarding driving while texting were the major topic at the Transportation Department’s Distracted Driving Summit. They discussed why cell phones, combined with moving motor vehicles, are so deadly. They also discussed why it has been so difficult to define this danger which is the root cause to many car accidents and personal injuries.

According to recent studies, driving while texting is more deadly than being legally intoxicated while driving. This study found that cell phone users had a much slower reaction time than those who were drunk. A test subject, with a 0.08 blood alcohol content and driving 70 mph, was made to break suddenly. He traveled approximately 4 feet “beyond his baseline performance”. A completely sober subject performed the exact same test; the only difference was he was reading an e-mail at the time he was made to break suddenly. He traveled 36 feet beyond the baseline result. While sending a text message during the test, subjects traveled 70 feet.

In a recent poll they found that in 2009, Americans text 15 times more the number of messages than in 2005. Most drivers said that they would ban texting while driving, even though these are the same ones that admitted to engaging in this activity.

There have been many different ideas proposed for stopping people from cell phone use while driving. As we discussed in the previous blog, laws have been passed, foundations have been formed, and bumper stickers made. None of these things seem to be working. This is because the penalties are quite lenient, and the fines that are imposed are less than speeding fines.
Missouri DUI laws are some of the most relaxed in the country – and they are still somewhat strict. DUI laws around the country vary from minimum fines of $200 to $1,500, license suspension from 90 days to one year, and jail time from 48 hours to 2 years. States with driving while using a cell phone fines typically are $20.00 for the first offense and $50.00 for each successive violation.

If driving while using a cell phone, in any capacity, is more dangerous than driving while legally intoxicated, why are the laws less stringent than DUI laws? How do the police officers enforce these laws that more and more states are trying to implement? The problem with driving while using your phone is a cognitive problem – a distraction in the mind more so than a physical distraction. How do you regulate distraction while driving? At some point law makers will have to remove car radios to be consistent.

I am currently taking some Criminal Justice classes. My class is mostly comprised of police officers so I asked them these same questions and the majority responses somewhat shocked me. They said that the DUI laws are too strict in some aspects, driving while texting is a fairly new problem, the texting laws are almost impossible to enforce, and – my favorite – there is no need for these laws, as we already have laws that cover what texting while driving causes (i.e. swerving, running stop signs, speeding, and accidents).

They also said that they see more accidents from drivers messing with their car radios than messing with their phones. Some municipalities are adding what will appear as an addendum-like charge to a careless and imprudent violation. This will allow the fine to be raised but that is all.

Just as Missouri does not list “driving with no seatbelt” as a primary offense, they will not have "driving while using a mobile device" as one either.

Each year in the United States there are well over 1 million people who suffer from some sort of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Of that, between 50,000 and 100,000 people die from a TBI incident and approximately 80,000 to 90,000 are left with some sort of long lasting TBI impairment. Often times those injured must report to a hospital and/or specialty care facility and undergo some kind of rehabilitative treatment, like that offered at CareMeridian. While TBI can be caused by any number of incidents, falls, assaults, etc. many (as much as 20%) are caused by automobile accidents. Many of these automotive accidents are due to drunk or impaired driving. Young adults have a high incidence of TBI due to automotive accidents, and a large number of these involve alcohol or other mentally impairing drugs.

While drunk driving related Traumatic Brain Injuries are high there are measures that can be taken to prevent such incidents, the most important being don’t drive when impaired by alcohol or any other mind altering substance. Drunk driving is illegal in all 50 states and due to the recent increased enforcement of these laws TBI incidences have been on the decline. Nonetheless precautions should always be taken to reduce the likelihood of a drunk driving accident.

Record Missouri Verdict - Drunk Driving Accident in Franklin County

Recently a Franklin County jury returned a massive Missouri wrongful death verdict stemming from a death resulting from a drunk driving collision. Sansone Law has handled multiple drunk driving personal injury cases and often the likelihood of these massive verdicts facilitates very favorable settlements in favor of our clients.

Our prior Missouri and Illinois drunk driving personal injury settlements and ongoing cases:

Illinois drunk driving lawsuit - settled for policy limits

$575,000.00 Settlement - Traumatic Head Injury resulting from Illinois drunk driving collision

Good Samaritan injured by Missouri drunk driver, ongoing St Louis personal injury lawsuit

Four Illinois teens severely injured in Illinois drunk driving collision - personal injury lawsuit filed.

Drunk Driving accident case referred to Sansone Law for personal injury lawsuit and trial

Auto dealer vehicle involved in drunk driving accident - Personal injury claims of negligence, recklessness, and negligent entrustment