Des Moines Personal Injury Lawyer - Trial Practice

Trial Work: Construction safety issues lead the trial lawyer to read patent applications.

Steve Lombardi — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:10:00 GMT

Today let's take yesterday's post, Construction Safety: Fellow construction worker killed by crane operation to a new level by examining how trial lawyers would go one step further to understanding crane stabilization systems.

The crane’s front outriggers began to suddenly sink into the ground which caused the crane and its boom to fall forward into a wall. As construction workers shouted warnings a welder with his mask on was unable to hear and was killed by the falling boom.

Crane outriggers are part of a crane’s stabilization system. For a good explanation see the diagrams and photographs or outriggers at How Stuff Works.

“The outriggers are only one mechanism used to balance the crane during lifting operations. There are also detachable counterweights that can be placed on the back of the crane on the underside of the cab. These counterweights prevent the crane from tipping forward during operation. The amount of counterweight needed for a particular lift is determined by the weight of the load, the radius of the boom and the boom's angle during operation. The 70-ton Link-Belt truck crane has counterweights that come in 4,000-pound (1,814-kg) sections. Counterweights are only used during lifts; they have to be removed before the truck can be driven. “ www.HowStuffWorks.com

Other more detailed information can be gleened from patent applications where inventors describe the shortcomings of previous patented models and benefits to be obtained from their invention. Trial lawyers are smart to learn this technique of investigation. The outrigger on a crane is a good opportunity to see how this works for a case to determine was it the crane operator or a defective product, or both, that caused the crane to sink. In other words was it unstable ground or a faulty set-up as opposed to a failure of the outrigger or just a poor design. The patent application can also provide you with an understanding of what it is you’re going to be dealing with in this case and how to plead the case. As trial lawyers we don’t know everything there is to know. We are constantly learning so having an inquisitive mind is a good thing. Of course the law is a jealous mistress so be prepared to always be getting prepared. Here is the patent application.

US Patent 5348171 - Removable outrigger for mobile crane

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Outriggers for use with mobile cranes and other similar apparatus are necessary to stabilize the crane during lifting operations. Specifically, the outriggers include jacking cylinders with ground engaging pads mounted on opposed laterally extendable support beams. These beams are extended to position the jacking cylinders outwardly in spaced positions with respect to the vehicle chassis. The jacking cylinders are then extended to bring the pads into engagement with the ground, and raise the vehicle so that the wheel assemblies are lifted from the ground. The full weight of the crane is then supported through the outriggers. Advantageously, the wide spacing of the jacking cylinders and pads serves to provide the required side-to-side stability. Typically, a large mobile crane requires two outrigger units, one attached near the rear of the vehicle frame, the other towards the front. Accordingly, good fore/aft stability is also provided.

As the lifting capacity of the crane is increased, so too is the weight of the crane. Accordingly, the outrigger units must be fabricated for greater strength. This necessitates the utilization of stronger, heavier support beams, elongated frame and reinforcements. As a result, the weight of the outriggers also increases. This increase in outrigger weight, added to the already massive mobile crane weight, presents a well known problem. That is, the largest mobile cranes with outriggers can no longer comply with road weight restrictions in many jurisdictions.

As a result, it has become necessary on these larger cranes to use outriggers that are removable from the vehicle frame. These outrigger units are then transported over-the-road separately, usually on low-boy trailers. Because the front and rear outriggers can weigh up to 20,000 - 22,000 lbs., and are generally unwieldy due to their relatively long length, it has proven difficult in the past to efficiently handle them. A key handling concern is the amount of turn-around time required for removal at one working site, and the reattachment at the next working site.

It is already known to construct both the front and rear outrigger units with an elongated box frame that can be securely attached to the vehicle frame and with internal hydraulic cylinders to extend and retract the support beams. Removable lock pins extend through mated apertures in the box and vehicle frames and this provides a significant advancement in the overall handling and attachment process. In fact, cranes with this type of removable outrigger units with removable lock pins have become commonplace in the construction equipment industry in recent years.

Despite the advantage provided by the outrigger units that are securely attached by lock pins, other advances in handling have been slow in coming. The considerable handling drawbacks coincident with the use of these removable outrigger units have had a significant adverse effect on sales of these units. The industry in general has heretofore simply found them to be very difficult to handle; i.e. it is too tedious and time consuming a task to both remove them from, and then reattach them to the vehicle.

Attachment is typically accomplished in three steps. First, using the cable and live mast of the crane or some separate, attendant crane, the outrigger unit is properly positioned with respect to the vehicle frame. This positioning is especially difficult when manipulating the front outrigger that is located under and attached to, the underside of the vehicle. The second step is to manually align apertures in the outrigger and vehicle frame that accommodate the securing lock pins. The large mass and inertia of the outrigger complicates the handling as this alignment takes place. Such a fine adjustment is particularly difficult to make under adverse weather conditions, such as high winds, rain and/or cold temperatures. In the final stages of alignment, the prior art outrigger units simply defy precise positioning. Inevitably the process requires a two or three man crew for manual intervention to push and pull on the unit for an inordinate amount of timer as it swings back and forth suspended by the crane.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Trial Practice: Part III – Watching the McCain team can teach you the why and how to give an opening statement.

Steve Lombardi — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:12:00 GMT

This is part three in a short series that examines opening statement strategy while comparing voter reasoning to juror decision-making. Today we pick up again with Sara Palin's progress as a candidate.

Her sophomoric reasoning ability was demonstrated when she answered the questions related to her ability to make foreign policy decisions and why she is qualified to do so. As VP she could become President, just think of Gerald Ford. Sarah Palin actually wants us to believe, because I think she does believe, that Alaska’s geographic proximity across the Bering Strait to Russia gives the Governor of Alaska the credentials to make foreign policy decisions for the United States. This is probably confirmation of what a bad choice she is for John McCain’s running mate. I’ll use the same reasoning as she uses and make an argument that my wife is more qualified than Sara Palin to be John’s running mate.

If the Palin reasoning makes sense to you then it should also make sense that my wife, due to her having lived in Massachusetts, Colorado, California, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Rhode Island, Maine, Texas, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Germany is qualified to be the Governor of the aforementioned along with Vermont, New Hampshire, Illinois, Nebraska, Missouri, South Dakota, Connecticut, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah and Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland and New Jersey.

Further, using Sarah Palin’s reasoning; because of living in a foreign country and visiting countries other than the U.S., Barbara could also qualify to be the Prime Minister of Canada, the President of France, the Chancellor of Germany, the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Belgium and a member of the seven member Federal Council that acts as the head of state of Switzerland. She could also be the President of Mexico since she lived in both Texas and California.

She’s been to Germany, France, Switzerland, and England and Aruba so she’s qualified for leading those countries as well. I’ve left out the refueling stops; so using Mrs. Palin’s reasoning I’m underestimating Barbara’s qualifications.

She’s been to Hawaii and Puerto Rico along with the Bahamas so anything that touches the water of any ocean she could rule.

So let me ask you Sarah Palin, “Knowing you are a heart beat away from the Presidency, will you, if the occasion arises choose Barbara as your Secretary of State?”

By the way, we are spending the next few weeks in Ireland (an island) and I’m wondering what countries that will qualify Barbara to lead? Just so you know Barbara is getting out of the plane. We aren’t just stopping off while it refuels; we are really visiting. Additional qualifications include that Barbara has had a passport since she was 16. And no, her parents aren’t wealthy, didn’t give her a backpack and send her to tour Europe on their dime. In Ireland she’s actually going to touch the Irish dirt, kiss the Blarney Stone, look over the Cliffs of Moher and drink in a Dublin Pub or two. We promise that should we see Russians we’ll shoo them back to Moscow and St. Petersburg. How is this for sounding presidential? “Get out of her you Russians! Go home! Or we’ll send Sara out to shoot your moose!”

Did I mention that Barbara was the 1971 Miss Fourth of July in America’s most patriotic town, Bristol, Rhode Island? Her list of qualifications goes on and on. (I’ve not mentioned her Miss Fire Prevention crown.)

I'd hate to see what a team of John McCain and Sarah Palin will do to the stock market. And as spiteful as you acted with you’re the father of your nieces and nephews, I’d hate to see what you do to Maryline Blackburn for beating you out as 1984’s Miss Alaska and for the simple fact she’s voting for the O guy. Remember the United States doesn't have the oil that Alaska has and has a few more people than does Alaska. During the last census bureau count the population of the state of Alaska was 642,200 ranking it 48^th out of 50 states. Only Vermont (608,827), the District of Columbia (572,059) and Wyoming (493,782) had fewer people. In the year 2000 the population of the United States was 281,421,906.

Now look at the themes being used. Most make little sense. The Republicans contend if we sent the Democrats to the White House they will run up the deficient. The Republicans already did that to the tune of $9.5 trillion. They argue the Democrats will install regulations that will strangle government; John, are you referring to the bankrupt banking industry? You see most of what McCain argues makes little sense, but he keeps saying it because he knows it’s what people want to hear. He’s inoculating them to accept the premise no matter how incredible and deceptive it may be. It may not make sense to McCain either but because the voter (the jury) wants to hear it he continues to repeat it to bolster their confidence.

The same holds true for trials. When counsel during trial continues to say things that make no sense you can not afford to ignore them assuming the jury will see through it. You have to take it on, every time and challenge their consciences.

Let’s go back to Palin. Examining her history clearly demonstrates she is not qualified to be a heart beat away from being the President of the United States. Anyone who thinks that is delusional and fooling themselves by ignoring the evidence. And that’s the point with juries; they fool themselves into believing an unlikely or incorrect outcome by disregarding the facts. And this means every opening statement is absolutely critical.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Trial Practice: Part II – Watching the McCain team can teach you the why and how to give an opening statement.

Steve Lombardi — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:09:00 GMT

This is a three-part series about opening statements. Today we pick up again with John McCain's choice of a running mate. She claims that governing Alaska and it being adjacent to Russia gives her foreign policy experience. Is she right?

Do you know what osmosis is? Osmosis is a process by which position alone along with composition allows absorption of what is around you. Imagine your son or daughter getting ready for a test about history or government by just going outside and walking around. Further consider them saying they could study for tests by just hanging out with the popular kids at school. What would you say to them about their chances of improving their intelligence and getting a good grade? Now what if someone were running for Vice President of the United States and believe that doing the above actually was a qualification for making critical decisions as the President of the U.S.?

In this United States Presidential race the Governor of Alaska is running as the VP Candidate with John “Mc-Let’s-have-more-economic-pain”.

Many Republicans are asking; why did you pick Palin? She’s not qualified to be the Governor of Alaska, let alone the Vice President of the United States. I watched her on the debate with Biden and I'll say this, she’s not shy; not smart, but also not shy. I suspect that comes from being trained as a beauty queen who had to work really hard to try to win against real talent, of which she appears to be lacking.

Let’s check out her educational background, maybe the critics are wrong.

Palin attended several colleges and universities. In 1982, she enrolled at Hawaii Pacific College but left after her first semester. She transferred to North Idaho community college, where she spent two semesters as a general studies major. From there, she transferred to the University of Idaho for two semesters.^[11][12] During this time Palin won the Miss Wasilla Pageant beauty contest,^[13][14] then finished third (second runner-up) in the Miss Alaska pageant,^[15][16] at which she won a college scholarship and the "Miss Congeniality" award.^[17] She then left the University of Idaho and attended Matanuska-Susitna community college in Alaska for one term. The next year she returned to the University of Idaho where she spent three semesters completing her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.^[11][12]

That’s not a very impressive resume of an educational history. She seemed to have a difficult time focusing. Many are wondering with this selection whether John McCain isn’t showing his age. Sarah Palin claims she is ready to be President of the United States. That she thinks that doesn’t surprise me. After all her spiteful decision making as the Governor of Alaska shows she’s not a deep thinker able to comprehend the future consequences of her actions. That fact that she’s even running makes me ask the question, what if she were the President of the United States. I'm sure Vladimir Putin from Russian Kim Jong-il from North Korea, Hugo Chavez from Venezuela and Ali Khamenei from Iran are salivating over that notion. It’s frightening to think about.

Tomorrow we’ll look at this candidate’s ability to reason and you can decide the maturity level.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Trial Practice: Part I – Watching the McCain team can teach you the why and how to give an opening statement.

Steve Lombardi — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:14:00 GMT

We can learn a lot about how to give an opening statement at trial by studying the U.S. Presidential campaign.

Recent psychological research indicates that trial lawyer opening statements, if done with a theme and sub-themes can win a case before jurors actually hear the evidence. Research conclusions indicate that jurors make up their minds during the opening statement. Then when listening to evidence they use confirming testimony to corroborate what they already believe and disregard that information which doesn’t confirm what they want to hear and believe. I wondered if this could possibly be true and so I’ve been looking for something that corroborates this premise. Looking at American politics I think I’ve found it. It’s the in the percentage of voters supporting John McCain and Sara Palin.

First John McCain. I’m shocked at his popularity amongst Republicans. He’s been in Congress long enough to have made a difference and yet he’s made very little difference. The banking debacle strikes during his campaign and realistically voters should be saying to throw all the bums out of Washington. John changes his platform to fit each crisis and his latest seems to be that we need to run the greed out of Washington along with all of his peers in the Republican Party. He tells us to send him to Washington (Isn’t he already there?) and he’ll clean house. Well, if you couldn’t clean house in twenty-something years what would make us believe he can do it in four? So I asked myself who is the real John McCain? I watched the video clips at The Real McCain and was frankly appalled.

Remember I said I was not surprised, just appalled. I admire John for his prisoner of war time served, but that doesn’t qualify him to be President of the United States. The fact that a large percentage of voters continue to support him says more about their mindset before he started to run then after the campaign got underway and his contradictory statements began to multiply. The voters, like jurors made up their minds with the opening statement and no matter what he says of does will change the way they think. This could be confirmation of the psychological premise being taught to young trial lawyers. But let’s look for more evidence. Let’s examine his choice of a running mate, Sara Palin and the large percentage of voters supporting her as the choice for U.S.V.P.

Tomorrow I’ll discuss the choice of McCain’s running mate and whether that made any sense.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Auto Accidents - DOES YOUR iPOD HAVE YOU TUNING OUT?

Steve Lombardi — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:15 GMT

Researchers have identified strong links between listening to fast-paced music and driving fast and listening to loud music and driving recklessly, both of which correlate with increased accident rates. The iPod is great but until technology catches up to human frailties you need to pay less attention to your tunes and more attention to the traffic.

Our recent posts have centered around one primary issue: driver distractions. We've concluded that cell phones are dangerous because when we listen, our ability to see and react is diminished. We can't help but wonder if music has the same effect? Does hooking up your iPod tune you into the song but out to the road? Does the driver trying to change the 'station' end up being a larger distraction then just changing the radio station?

Unlike a car radio the iPod can be anywhere the cord allows it to go. Even onto the floor. Unlike the car radio the buttons are not push and play. Also the buttons are not easy to locate and to 'push' to operate. The iPod was not designed for a driver, but instead for entertainment and leisure time. It has been adapted for car use. So if you don't have a passenger and don't know how to set up a playlist forget the iPod while driving.

Turns out it does. iPods have been shown to adversely affect drivers' performances. In fact, studies have found that using an iPod while driving is roughly equivalent to using a cell phone; therefore, operating the device while driving significantly increases your risk of being involved in an accident.

And the iPod isn't alone. Israeli researchers have conducted extensive studies and have concluded that all kinds of music prove distracting to drivers. Regardless of genre or type, listening to music makes drivers less alert behind the wheel.

There are countless websites centered on music-related accidents (go ahead - Google "traffic accident" + "radio" and see what you find). Many of these websites include a description of what happened alongside images of the wreckage that resulted.

We consider such images and detailed accounts supporting evidence for what researchers have identified as strong links between listening to fast-paced music and driving fast and listening to loud music and driving recklessly, both of which correlate with increased accident rates.

As if the music isn't bad enough, now iPods and similar devices offer the video feature. Talk about multitasking - drivers can watch TV shows and music videos (among other segments) while driving. In the ever-evolving world of technology, driving Apple Corporations bottom line isn't necessarily an answer to driver boredom.

But how good can it be good when using the features limits your ability to stay in your own lane and causes significant fluctuations in your speed? We think the advance in technology is great; however, we're not so sure about the judgment of drivers who use these every evolving devices while sitting behind the wheel. We are all in the midst of what can be described as first generation technology. The second wave will have to develop audio technology that can follow verbal instructions to drive these new devices. Once the technology catches up you will have an easier time 'changing the station' without having to change your attention from traffic conditions. Until that technology catches up you need to tune the devices out and pay attention to your driving.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Cell Phones: University of Utah Applied Cognition Lab

Steve Lombardi — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:00:51 GMT

In today's post the Des Moines Injuryboard blawg provides a one stop source for a better understanding of how cell phone usage increases the risk of an auto accident.

If you have a case that involves the use of a cell phone this list of articles and web links may assist you to understand the gravity of your negligence and proximate cause question. All of the attached articles can be viewed at the University of Utah Applied Cognition Lab website.

Under David Strayer the principal investigator ACL has as its objective:

"The long-term objective or our research is to understand the impact of using advanced in-car technologies on driving performance and traffic safety. Our research addresses three specific goals limited to the most prominent communication technology, the cellular phone. First, we provide unambiguous scientific evidence demonstrating that cell phone conversations disrupt driving performance. Second, we compare and contrast the increased risk associated with cell phone use relative to other real-world activities. Finally, we provide a theoretical account for why cell phone use disrupts driving performance."

For a trial lawyer this information can be the difference between pleading simple negligence or gross negligence. If you have other suggested studies write and let us know.

Recent Publications

Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular phone. Psychological Science, 12, 462-466.

McCarley, J. S., Vais, M., Pringle, H., Kramer, A. F., Irwin, D. E., & Strayer, D. L. (2001). Conversation disrupts visual scanning of traffic scenes. Paper presented at Vision in Vehicles, Australia.

Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., Albert, R. W., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). Cell phone induced perceptual impairments during simulated driving. In D. V. McGehee, J. D. Lee, & M. Rizzo (Eds.) Driving Assessment 2001: International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design.

Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2002). Why do cell phone conversations interfere with driving? Proceedings of the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2003). Cell phone induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 23-23.

Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). Are we being driven to distraction? Public Policy Perspectives, Vol. 16, 1-2. (Published by the Center for Public Policy and Administration, University of Utah)

Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. (2003). Effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers. In the Proceedings of the 47nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Erconomics Society (pp.. 1860-1864).

Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. & Crouch, D. J. (2003). Fatal distraction? A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver. In D. V. McGehee, J. D. Lee, & M. Rizzo (Eds.) Driving Assessment 2003: International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. Published by the Public Policy Center, University of Iowa (pp. 25-30).

Strayer, D. L., Cooper, J. M., & Drews, F. A. (2004). What do drivers fail to see when conversing on a cell phone? In the Proceedings of the 48nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp 2213-2217).

Drews, F. A., Pasupathi, M., & Strayer, D. L. (2004). Passenger and cell-phone conversations in simulated driving. In the Proceedings of the 48nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp 2210-2212).

McCarley, J.S., Vais, M.J., Pringle, H., Kamer, A.F., Irwin, D.E., & Strayer, D.L. (2004) Conversation distupts change detection in complex traffic scenes. Human Factors, 46, 424-436.

Strayer, D.L., & Drews, F. A. (2004). Profiles in driver distraction: Effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers. Human Factors, 46, 640-649.

Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. Crouch, D. J., & Johnston, W. A. (2005). Why do Cell Phone Conversations Interfere with Driving? In W. R. Walker and D. Herrmann (Eds.) Cognitive Technology: Essays on the Transformation of Thought and Society (pp. 51-68), McFarland & Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC.

Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. (In Press). Multi-tasking in the automobile. To appear in A. Kramer, D. Wiegmann, & A. Kirlik (Eds.) Applied Attention: From Theory to Practice

Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J.(2006). A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors, 48, 381-391.

Strayer, D. L., & Drews, F. A.(2007). Cell-Phone-Induced Driver Distraction. Current Directions In Psychological Sicence, 16, 128-131.

Cooper, J. M., Vladisavljevic, I., Strayer, D.L., Martin, P.T.(2008). Drivers' Lane Changing Behavior While Conversing On a Cell Phone in a Variable Density Simulated Highway Environment.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Cell Phones: Getting the other driver's cell number - It's just like being on a date, only you've already crashed and burned!

Steve Lombardi — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:29:52 GMT

Who else would suggest reading Dating for Dummies, 2nd Edition, by Dr. Joy Browne to improve your chances of proving negligence in a car accident? Read the Des Moines Injuryboard blawg to find out.

Okay so you read my last post and don't feel comfortable confronting the other driver or the police officer was no use in getting the appropriate investigative information - what then do you do? Well a gentler way to still get the number is through the accident investigation exchange form used by some police departments. After getting it filled out point out that you're usually not home and would be willing to exchange cell phone numbers with the other driver. Or after looking at the phone number given by the other driver ask them if the number on the form is their home, office or cell. And then offer to exchange cell phone numbers. Use your imagination, think of it as if it were someone you wanted date and how you might under different circumstances get the other person's number.

To be good at investigating an accident, can at times require you to think outside the box. In this instance you may want to read Dating For Dummies, 2nd Edition, By Dr. Joy Browne.

In this new edition, Dr. Joy offers updated guidance on how to find a date, covering "speed dating," Internet dating services, and singles nights at grocery stores and other unexpected places. She delivers fresh pointers on a whole host of topics, including:
- Building your confidence and polishing your social self
- Determining if you're really ready to date
- How to meet and approach Mr. or Ms. Intriguing
- Where to go, what to do, what to wear, and what to avoid on the first date
- Taboo subjects, such as your ex, sex, politics, and religion
- Cell phone and e-mail etiquette
- Moving from dating to a successful relationship and the four stages of attachment
-Breaking up (just in case Mr. or Ms. Right wasn't) and avoiding pity parties and pitfalls
- The dos and don'ts of Internet dating

Hey don't laugh Dr. Joy has sold more than 156,000 copies!

Asking a Potential Date for a Number -

Perhaps some friends introduced you. Maybe you ran into one another on the street or at a party. Whatever the circumstances, you've met someone and you want to get a number: a phone number, a street address, an e-mail address, a business card, or something. You'll need that information if you want to get in touch if plans should change. (Yes, there's always the mutual friend route, but you're not in seventh grade any more -- or are you? Plus, if you contact the other person directly, you get a lot more -- and more reliable -- information.)

Of course one last bit of advice. If the other driver is really creepy then by all means don't give him or her your cell phone number. Let the lawyers do the work because it's better to be safe than to put your life at risk.

Know your rights, know how to protect yourself and be ever vigilant to avoid known risks.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Cell Phones: What to Do In Case of an Accident

Steve Lombardi — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:00:47 GMT

What if you're involved in an accident and suspect the other driver was using a cell phone? What should you do? The first thing I would suggest is to remain calm while you plot your strategy. Note the time of the crash. Look at your watch and make a mental note of the time or write it down. That's important because the police may not be there for several minutes or more and remember the police didn't witness the accident so they won't know of the exact time of the crash. Of course later on your lawyer can always get the other driver's cell phone records, but you need to be able to testify of the exact time of the crash. Say the time out loud so any passengers hear you say it.

You'll probably need a witness to the other driver's use of the cell phone so I'd suggest before getting out of the car that you ask any passengers in your car if they saw the other driver using a cell phone. Then, assuming you have a passenger ask them to get out of the car with you while you gently interview the other driver while your witness is within ear shot. Tell you passenger to remain calm and quiet and to listen to everything the other driver is saying, while remaining quiet. I say gently interview because running over to the other car while yelling at the top of your lungs "You stupid fool why you were using a cell phone while driving?" is not likely to get you anywhere. And two people yelling at the other driver isn't going to help so remain quiet and listen. What you want is an admission by the other driver or proof that the other driver was using a cell phone at the exact minute of the crash. If the other driver in front of a witness admits to using the cell phone then get the witnesses contact information along with their name. The witness may not be a passenger and your lawyer will later need to be able to contact the witness to get a recorded statement as to the driver's admission.

If the driver doesn't admit to using the cell phone but you know they were or strongly suspect they were, then when the officer arrives take the officer aside and calmly tell him or her of what you suspect. Ask the officer to request the other driver give the officer their cell phone so the officer can check the last four numbers that were called by the driver or calls the driver received. It's important to get both because you won't know if the driver called or was called. Knowing who they spoke with can lead to knowing what they were talking about which can be pretty good evidence when determining fault.

Let's say the officer declines to ask the other driver for their cell phone. Then again, gently ask the officer if they will at least obtain the other driver's cell phone number as part of the investigation. That information can later be used to determine who they were talking to at the exact time of the wreck.

It's important to always remain calm, cool and collected. Be persistent but not obnoxious. Don't be loud and accusatory, speak in matter-of-fact tones. Be factual not dramatic. And remember there is always the lawyer to fall back on to get what you don't get at the accident scene. Which leads me to one final point: Right after you get back from the hospital emergency room, assuming you need one, find the right lawyer to help you to legally preserve the cell phone information and time connection to the accident. And that is probably another subject we will discuss in the future, the how to guide to trace electronic communications.

Cell Phone Number Reverse Lookup
Cell Phone Numbers
Reverse Cell Phones
Abika and trace source of an email or looking up an IP address.
Online Directory Compiling Cell Phone Numbers - Maybe Even Yours.
Free Reverse Cell Phone Lookup Websites - Do they Exist? This site has a comprehensive list of services offering cell phone number or owner information.
Reverse Cell Lookup Options?

Using Reverse Phone Detective I put in my own and it generally worked. It will cost a few bucks but that's part of the cost to win your case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Cell Phones: Iowa Proposes Cell Phone Legislation

Megan Roth — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:00:15 GMT

...do wireless headsets and other hands-free devices really present a decreased risk? Research points to "No." Studies have also indicated that, regardless of age or experience, all drivers demonstrate decreased capabilities when talking on a cell phone.

The correlations that exist between drinking and driving and cell phone use and driving has helped several states realize that banning cell phones while driving is a key issue that must be addressed when dealing with driver distraction. Now Iowa is following the trend.

The Statehouse is currently considering legislation that will ban all Iowa drivers -teenagers and adults alike - from using cell phones behind the wheel.

Though the issue is still under consideration, driver's are already concerned with how severe the restrictions will be. Many wonder whether all cell phone usage will be banned while driving, or whether Bluetooth and other hands-free devices will be permitted.

Should they be? If it's the distraction that's presented and not the actual cell phone that causes the problem, do wireless headsets and other hands-free devices really present a decreased risk?

Research points to "No." Simply freeing-up hands does not decrease the risk of an accident because the brain struggles to look and listen at the same time, regardless of what it's looking at or listening to.

Studies have also indicated that, regardless of age or experience, all drivers demonstrate decreased capabilities when talking on a cell phone. This raises the issue of whether or not a cell-phone ban should apply to teenagers only or to all drivers.

In February, 2008, the Des Moines Register published an article about Iowa's proposed legislation; as we were reading through the online responses to the article, we came across a post stating: "...living is a risk...if we are that concerned about safety we need to go back to using walking and using horses for transportation...accidents happened before cell phones and will continue to happen if this law passes..."

We disagree. We recommend we go back to the days of common sense and good judgment; user itsmetoo092774 is right: accidents will still happen. But if passing this legislation has the potential to decrease the number of accidents simply by requiring that we flip our phone shut when driving, that's a risk we're willing to take.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Megan Roth

Cell Phones: INTOXICATION V. IN-TEXT-ICATION - Which is worse?

Steve Lombardi — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:00:15 GMT

The consequences for using your cell phone while driving? None. Zip. Nada. That's right, folks. Never mind the statistics; the equally impairing act is not yet punishable by law.

We ended the previous post with a seemingly bold statement: "Using a cell phone while driving is comparable to driving while intoxicated." Well, folks - make no bones about it, it's true.

It's been under investigation for years, and in June 2006, the University of Utah published a study confirming "people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit."

The correlation exists because it's not the actual cell phone that causes the accident; it's the distraction it presents. And quite a distraction it is. A driver using a cell phone is so preoccupied he's 5.36 times more likely to get in an accident than an undistracted driver. The risk for a drunk driver? Roughly the same.

Seem hard to believe? It shouldn't be. The correlation between using a cell phone while driving and getting in an accident is the inevitable result of 'multitasking'. Whenever we attempt to perform two tasks at once, our performance abilities suffer. It's not to say we're incapable of talking and driving; however, it is to say our abilities are diminished.

Psychologist Steve Yantis (of John Hopkins University) notes listening affects our ability to see clearly because "whenever we turn our listening knobs up, we turn our visual knobs down."

As a result, talking on the cell phone makes you more likely to rear-end the car in front of you by delaying your braking ability by nine percent. In addition, it makes you 19 percent slower to resume a normal speed after braking.

So, how do the consequences for driving while intoxicated and driving while 'in-talk-icated' measure up? Though laws vary state to state, drinking and driving is often punishable with hefty fines, the loss of a license, traffic school, community service, and yes - even jail time.

The consequences for using your cell phone while driving? None. Zip. Nada. That's right, folks. Never mind the statistics; the equally impairing act is not yet punishable by law in most states. Allow us to insert an editorial comment here: "This is a true injustice of the law."

Realistically, it doesn't matter whether you're "intoxicated," "in-talk-icated," or "in-text-icated." It's sort of like comparing an OWI to a DUI; in the end, the acts are essentially one and the same.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi