Boston Injury Lawyer Blog

There has been longstanding law in Massachusetts that protects victims of drunk drivers who were served alcohol by a Massachusetts homeowner who knew, or should have known, that the driver should not have been allowed out of the home and onto the roads. The law was from the case Worcester Mutual Insurance v. Marnell, which was decided in 1986.

The way it has worked for decades is as follows: if you, or a loved one, is injured or killed by a drunk driver who was served by a homeowner, you can file a claim against two separate and distinct parties: the homeowner, for negligently serving the alcohol and allowing the driver to drive, and the driver, for his or her negligence in driving. The practical consequence is that there have been two insurance policies to help compensate victims for their injuries: homeowners insurance and automobile insurance. For serious injuries in Massachusetts this duel approach has been effective in helping victims to recover damages in Massachusetts.

However, there is a disturbing trend in Massachusetts which does not bode well for victims of such collisions. In the case recently decided by the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, a homeowner hosted a party in Lawrence where alcohol was served to a minor. The homeowner allowed the minor guest to leave the party and drive a motor vehicle. The vehicle struck another vehicle resulting in serious personal injuries to the persons in that other vehicle. However, in this case, Massachusetts Property Insurance Underwriting Association v. Berry, the Court noted that the specific language in the homeowners policy excluded insurance coverage for "motor vehicle liability" arising out of the operation of a vehicle "by any person" notwithstanding the fact that the operator of the vehicle at issue was not owned by the homeowners.

There seems to be a trend with the Massachusetts and federal courts, based on new languages in insurance policies, to limit coverage. In a case called Yerardi v. Pacific Indem Co, the federal court, using Massachusetts law, precluded coverage for a spouse of the insured. In another case, Hingham Mutual Fire Insurance v. Smith, involving sexual assault by the homeowner's son, a family claimed that there was negligent supervision. However, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals held that the Marnell case involved auto insurance and did not apply.

The significance, from the prospective of a Massachusetts personal injury lawyer, http://www.neilburnslaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1393809.html is that there is increasingly less insurance coverage available to victims in Massachusetts. The insurance companies are trying to tighten the drafting of the language in their policies. And, the courts are preventing victims from using all of the traditionally available insurance policies to protect those that are injured.

One way to combat this trend, on a personal level, is to be sure to purchase sufficient Massachusetts underinsurance coverage. This coverage, which you buy on your own policy, would apply to you and your family. It generally provides insurance coverage in addition to the insurance coverage of the drunk driver.

In Hingham, Massachusetts last week, a 41-year-old man with 10 prior license suspensions, was allegedly operating a motor vehicle under influence of alcohol when he crossed over the double yellow line and struck another vehicle, seriously injuring the two people in the other vehicle and himself. Police found open containers of alcohol in the vehicle. The negligent Massachusetts driver allegedly had 16 speeding tickets on his record and was involved in five prior motor vehicle collisions in Massachusetts. Further, the driver had other serious violations including violation of open container, driving to endanger, and defaults. He may be considered a habitual traffic offender in Massachusetts.

What laws protect us from these drivers?

A first offense for operating under the influence conviction will result in up to 90-day loss of license. It can also carry incarceration in the county house of detention for up to 2 ½ years. Usually, however, there is a plea to the alternative disposition, which is 45 days of loss of license, a drug/alcohol class and fines. In the case above, while it was a first offense for driving under the influence, because of the collision and the prior record, the judge may not agree to a plea to the minimum offense policy. Thus, we are not very well protected, but then again, it's his first offense.

The second offense for operating under the influence is 60 days to 2 ½ years in incarceration, fines, suspended license for 2 years (a work hardship license available after 1 year). However, if the driver refuses the Breathalyzer they are not usually able to get a hardship license. Also, there is the new "interlock" device for convicted drivers. However, again, there is the "alternative disposition" which is 2 years of probation, 14 days in a confined alcohol treatment program, license suspension for 2 years, the interlock device. However, if the first offense was more than 10 years from the second defense, the driver may be entitled to only the penalties of the first offense.

Third offense operating under the influence drivers face a mandatory 5-6 months in jail and a license suspension of up to 8 years, with a work license in 4 years. A fourth offense includes jail time of 2 years, which, in Massachusetts means you serve one year.

A conviction for driving to endanger will result in a 60-day loss of license and up to 2 year jail sentence. But not usually; these folks don't serve any significant time in jail unless there are injuries associated with the offense. In a case where we represented the family of a Massachusetts wrongful death victim the negligent driver only got 18 months incarcerated even though he had a significant driving violation history.

Other penalties by the Department of Motor Vehicles include: three speeding tickets within one 12 month period will result in a suspension for 30 days. If a driver has three surchargeable events within a 24 month period, s/he has to comply with the DMV regulations to avoid suspension. Compliance includes taking the Driver Retraining Course. If a driver has five surchargeable events within a 3 year period triggers a suspension, but again, a driver need only take the class and a license can be reinstated. Only when there are 7 surchargable events within a 3 year period is there a mandatory loss of license - for 60 days.

The news, perhaps, for the Hingham driver, is that there is a statute called the Massachusetts Habitual Traffic Offender. Habitual offender violations results in a 4-year revocation of license -- if there is an accumulation of three "major" moving violations, or a combination of 12 major and minor moving violations and includes violations in other states.

Are we protected? No law stops the one time someone makes a mistake that injures or kills a loved one, but perhaps the seriousness with which Massachusetts treats habitual offenders needs to be reevaluated.

Motorcycle fatalities climbed from the late 1990s to 2008, when there were 5,312 deaths. In 2009, that number went down, to 4,462, a 16% decline. This is notwithstanding an increase in usage. While still too high, the significant decline is encouraging.
There is more good news for motorcycle owners in Massachusetts as the season comes to a close. Fifteen Massachusetts motor vehicle insurance companies have agreed to return overcharged premiums to motorcycle owners. The refunds, which include $5 million from Travelers Insurance Company, and $35 million from other companies, are based on overcharges on the collision and comprehensive sections of the insurance policies. In essence, the insurance industry overvalued motorcycles. Motorcycle accident lawyer Neil Burns reported that many motorcycle owners, especially those who own Harley Davidson bikes, should have received their checks already.

The refunds are a culmination of work by Attorney General Martha Coakley. Apparently, one Harley Davidson owner complained that his bike was overvalued: a 1999 Road King. The consumer complained and the Attorney General's office found that the initial complainant was overcharged $1,500 from 2003 to 2008, based on a $20,000 valuation of the motorcycle.

We first reported this on February 19, 2010, when Safety Insurance Group agreed to pay $7.4 million for Massachusetts motorcycle accident insurance overcharges. To date that was the largest settlement. However other companies have given refunds in settling with the Attorney General as well: Arbella Mutual Insurance paid $6.3 million, Plymouth Rock paid $3.99 million, Metropolitan Property and Casualty paid $3.65 million, Liberty Mutual Insurance paid $3.1 million, USAA paid $2.7 million, Hanover paid $2.5 million, OneBeacon paid $2.1 million, and a host of companies paid somewhat less than one million dollars in refunds.

Consumers who want to see if they are entitled to a refund can go to the Attorney General's website, www.motorcycle.ago.state.ma.us
Other motorcycle news includes the top five brands of motorcycles stolen: Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Kawasaki and unknowns. The top five states for motorcycle thefts are: California, Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Indiana.

A word of caution: Supersports motorcycles have a death rate of 22.5 driver deaths per 10,000 registered bikes; regular motorcycles are half that rate, at 10.7 deaths per 10,000 registered bikes. Supersports bikes are those that are built on racing platforms but are street modified. They car reach speeds close to 200 miles per hour and are lightweight. They are popular with younger riders.

Of course, no motorcycle new article by a Massachusetts accident lawyer could be complete without an update on helmets. Our friends in New Hampshire enjoy a "live free or die" approach to helmet laws. Along with Illinois and Iowa, there are no helmet laws in New Hampshire. The statistics show that helmet use declines form 99% to 50% when the laws are taken away. But, when used they save lives: 1,483 lives were saved in 2009, according to the National Highway Safety Transportation Authority. 732 lives were lost in 2009 because of failure to wear helmets.

Finally, a few obvious tips. Don't speed: 35% of motorcycle fatalities were as a result of speeding. Get a license: 25% of motorcycle fatalities involved riders who were riding without a valid license. Don't drink: 39% of motorcycle fatalities involved riders who were over the 0.08% acceptable blood alcohol level. All of these numbers are significantly above the same numbers for cars and trucks.

We have worked hard to educate our clients about Massachusetts uninsured motor vehicle accidents and underinsured Massachusetts motor vehicle accidents. Significantly, we have encouraged our Boston car accident clients to consider purchasing insurance beyond the minimal insurance. We regularly represent victims of serious Massachusetts car accidents and they often suffer a second "injury: -- insufficient insurance to cover their losses.

A recent Massachusetts motor vehicle collision is an unfortunate example of this occurred. Apparently a Weymouth driver was driving a vehicle on I-93 south without a valid driver's license. She crashed into two other vehicles, resulting in numerous victims and her own car going up in flames. Assuming the Massachusetts State Trooper was correct regarding her license, the Weymouth vehicle may not have insurance to protect the victims of the collision.

What happens to the victims if the Weymouth driver indeed did not have insurance? The victim, if she had a Massachusetts motor vehicle insurance policy, has uninsurance coverage. The minimal coverage in Massachusetts is $20,000. Thus, if the victim has significant injuries, she would file a claim against her own insurance company, where she has that $20,000 of coverage. What if her injuries are clearly worth more than the $20,000 policy? Unfortunately, if she had a minimal underinsurance polity, that is the maximum claim she could file.

Is there a way around this when the victim has permanent injuries? Yes, buy more than the minimal coverage. In Massachusetts, most motor vehicle insurance companies will sell up to $500,000 in uninsurance and underinsurance coverage. Wherefore, if you were seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision, and the other vehicle had no insurance (or insufficient insurance) you could file a claim and there would be up to $250,000 (or whatever amount of coverage you purchased) in available insurance.

Will my own motor vehicle insurance company simply pay my claim? Of course not. Even when your injuries are clear, insurance companies have lots of tricks to try to reduce the amount they pay out. Insurance companies have extensive experience in denying claims, reducing claims, and fighting against legitimate claims; they use insurance trial lawyers, private investigators, and insurance doctors at their disposal. And they use them in every case.

How does the claim work? The claims process works this way. You give your insurance company official notice that you are filing the claim. You "demand" arbitration to resolve your claim. That is, you cannot file a lawsuit because there is no one to sue and no one at "fault" in your situation. You are simply saying that you want the extent of your injuries to be determined by an impartial arbitrator. If your insurance company refuses to agree to arbitrate, you can file a lawsuit to force the arbitration.

How does Massachusetts motor vehicle arbitration work? You file your claim against your company. Statements are taken which are similar to depositions in civil cases in Massachusetts courts. Documents, including photographs and medical records, are exchanged. Witness lists are exchanged. An arbitration agreement is reached. An arbitrator, or judge, is hired. Finally, the arbitrator conducts an arbitration, which is similar to a civil trial in Massachusetts courts. The rules of evidence can be reduced. There is no jury, but the arbitration hearing is similar to a trial. Both sides present their witnesses and introduce their evidence. The arbitrator typically will take some time and render a written decision soon after the hearing. The process is generally faster than a jury claim in Massachusetts courts.

We have extensive experience in representing victims of underinsured motor vehicle collisions. We highly recommend that anyone injured in a motor vehicle collision retain a lawyer as the arbitrator process described above can be complicated; even the playing field by hiring an experienced Massachusetts injury lawyer.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is currently considering an important case under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A, Consumer Protection statute. The issue before the SJC is how to calculate 93A damages following a finding, by the trial judge, that a motor vehicle accident insurance company violated the law by failing to make a fair settlement offer. We reported on this case last December, in an article called Massachusetts Personal Injury Victims Win Unfair Claims Settlement Against Insurance Companies.

The case currently on appeal stems from a 2002 motor vehicle and truck collision. When Marcia Rhodes stopped her vehicle on Route 109 in Medway, Massachusetts for a police officer, a tractor trailer rear ended her vehicle. Ms. Rhodes was severely injured, resulting in paralysis. The driver of the truck was an employee of Driver Logistic Services, working for GAF Building. GAF had motor vehicle insurance with Zurich American, for $2 million and there was a $50 million policy with National Union, with adjusting company AIGDC. When the truck driver plead out his criminal case in November 2002, the civil case should have been ready to settle.

The Rhodes family, through their Massachusetts personal injury lawyer, made a settlement demand of $15 million, in November, 2002. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the fact that the Zurich Insurance adjuster made an internal assessment of clear liability and gave a value of $5 million to $10 million, no offer was made by the company at that time. The defense attorney, paid for by the insurance companies, recommended that they make a settlement offer or they would be in violation of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A and Chapter 176D. The insurance companies did not follow the advice of counsel. Four months later, Zurich offered their $2 million policy. As that was the extent of the offers, the Rhodes family rejected the offer. A few weeks before trial, the insurance companies made an offer of $3.5 million. The trial resulted in a $9.5 million jury verdict, which, with interest at 1% per month per Massachusetts Court Rules, there would be a judgment of $11.3 million.

Again, rather than pay, or negotiate, the insurance companies appealed, calling the jury's verdict excessive. The Rhodes family sent a 93A Demand Letter on November 19, 2004, to both insurance companies. Zurich responded by paying the $2 million policy; the adjusting company for National Union finally made an acceptable offer in June 2005, in the amount of $9 million.

Next, the Rhodes family filed a second lawsuit, against the insurance companies, for violations of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A and Chapter 176D. The Superior Court judge found that AIGDC violated 93A in failing to make a reasonable settlement offer, however, the Court found that the $3.5 million offer at mediation was "reasonable" and at that point stopped all 93A damages. The Court did find, however, that following the trial AIGDC failed to pay promptly, thus ordering "loss of use" damages and doubled those damages for violation of 93A. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial Court on the issue of pre-trial conduct but agreed with the trial Court's on the violation of 93A for post trial conduct.

The Court of Appeals ruling is now under appeal before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. At issue is how 93A damages should be calculated. Rather than provide all of the possible ways the SJC could rule, we will await their decision and report back at that time. In essence, the SJC will decide whether the measure of damages is the "loss of use" of funds or based on multiplying the judgment amount. The Rhodes family and their Massachusetts personal injury lawyers argue that a finding of unfair settlement practices should be double or treble damages, per the statute. The insurance companies argue that the judgment for the 93A case is not the same "traction or occurrence" as the underlying case and should be a different measure of damages.

Stay tuned. The outcome could determine how the insurance companies treat Massachusetts motor vehicle drivers.

The no texting law, formally called the Massachusetts Safe Driving Act, went into effect on September 30, 2011. A Boston car accident lawyer ponders whether it is working; from October 1, 2010 to May 30, 2011, there were 733 citations in Massachusetts for texting while driving. This amounts to approximately 3 per day throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In addition, 41 drivers under 18 have received citations for operation of cell phones.

Earlier this year we reported on the death of a Haverhill man, allegedly by a teenager texting while driving in Massachusetts. While that criminal case remains unresolved in the Massachusetts courts, the question remains: Is the law working as a deterrent? Are police officers able to enforce it? Of course, one problem for police officers is differentiating between texting and dialing. Is there any physical difference between texting a short message and dialing a phone number?

The ban on texting in Massachusetts forbids teenagers under 18 from using mobile phones and forbids all drivers in Massachusetts from texting, but allows adults the use of cell phones in motor vehicles. For those under 18, the ticket results in an automatic 60 day license suspension. The law was passed in 2010.

According to the National Highway Safety Administration study, 5,474 deaths in 2009 were as a result of distracted drivers. This is 16% of all motor vehicle fatalities. 995 of those deaths were a direct result of cell phone use. In addition, NHSA studies show that 20% of all motor vehicle collisions are as a result of distracted driving. Furthermore, the Naturalistic Driving Study undertaken by NHSA showed that over 22% of all crashes AND near crashes were associated with distracted driving.

The American Automobile Association of Southern New England, a proponent of the ban, says emphasis needs to be put on education. A study undertaken by the AAA Foundation concluded that 94% of drivers found it unacceptable to text while driving.

One study says that 11% of all drivers are talking on a cell phone at any given moment. That is more than one out of every 10 driver on the roads in Massachusetts!

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has a technology and law program. The director, Nicholas Ashford, is urging new laws and new technologies to resolve the problem of the dangerous nature of cell phone use in vehicles. .

A proposed federal law, The Safe Drivers Act of 2011, filed by New York Representative to Congress Carolyn McCarthy, would require states to ban cell phone use while driving, except for emergencies. Could the federal government be today where Massachusetts was last summer when we reported on the upcoming ban on texting in Massachusetts?

The bottom line perhaps, as always, is economics. Text messages are sent approximately 4.2 billion times per day, resulting in over $60 billion in revenue for the phone companies. Do they have a vested interest in lobbying against anti texting laws? Further, 18-25 year olds are a disproportionate population of texters: they text 100 times per day! This is 95% of all texting. They spend a disproportionate amount of money to cell phone companies.

According to a University of Connecticut study, Massachusetts highways are the safest roads in the United States; Connecticut came in second in the study.
The academic study was published in the Connecticut Economy, a scholarly journal of the University of Connecticut, Summer 2011 edition.

The good news nationally is that the rate of fatalities has gone down steadily since 1975; from 3.35 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles driven, to 1.14 deaths per million. That is a reduction of almost two thirds. Boston personal injury lawyers tend to think of the Massachusetts roads as dangerous: we see the bad news every day at work. However, the New England states, along with New York and New Jersey, have fatality rates among the best in the country.

The study, by economics professors Arthur W. Wright and Subhash C. Ray, is a fascinating example of digging deep. They used National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data and reviewed the obvious factors: urban verses rural, safer vehicles, etc. However, the only statistically significant answer was per capita income! According to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, a higher state rate of economic wellbeing was positively associated with lower motor vehicle fatalities. Massachusetts and the other states which made progress in increasing per capita incomes over the time period studied had lower traffic fatalities. This was considered a time-variant variable.

Another time-variant was youth. Using FHWA data and determining that drivers under 24 were another variable, the data showed that there was a positive correlation between youth and increased traffic fatalities. Thus, the states with higher number of youth drivers were states with higher fatality rates.

The major time in-variant variables that the study examined were:

1. Snowfall: "greater snowfall is associated with lower fatality rates." Perhaps this is because those in snowy climates learn how to drive in snow, and because they try not to drive in it; further, public safety officials are prepared in those states.

2. Seatbelt laws; the professors compared primary seat belt laws, where a driver can be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt, with secondary seat belt laws, where a driver can not be stopped for not wearing a seat belt, but can be ticketed if it is discovered for an otherwise legal stop. The results were significant, albeit weakly.

3. The 1999 per se 0.08 blood alcohol law is considered the standard for preventing drunk driving. The study looked at early adoption of the law, where states were more serious about drunk driving.

4. The quality of the states' graduated drivers licensing (GDL) programs. These programs require additional steps before someone can get a license. They include supervised driving, restricted driving (after dark, with non-family members in the vehicle). The higher the GLD rate, the lower the fatality rate.

The facts showed that high per capita income was associated with lower fatality rates. This could be a result of higher education rates and ability to purchase safer cars.

Car seats save lives, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. In a Raynham collision between a sedan and a pick up truck that killed the driver of the sedan, a two year old passenger survived because she was in a car seat, according to the Raynham Fire Department. The accident, which happened on South Main Street in Raynham, resulted in the wrongful death of the child's mother.

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children. Thus, the NHTSA implores parents and car providers to use car seats for children; selecting ones that are appropriate for the size, height and weight of the child; to use them for as long as possible; and to keep all children in the back until at least age 13. In Massachusetts, the law is that all children under seven must be in a car seat; and all children 8 to 12, or until they are taller than 57 inches, must wear a safety belt. Those 13 or over are adults, and must also wear a safety belt.

Continue reading "Child Safety Seats Saves Lives in Massachusetts" »

As followers of this blog know, the panel studying the death of Princess Di in Paris in 1997 said that the failure to wear a seat belt was a substantial contributing factor to her death. After all, the only person who survived the limousine crash was wearing a seat belt. With prom season coming, Boston personal injury lawyer Neil Burns urges Massachusetts' teenage drivers to drive safely, avoid any and all alcohol before driving, and follow the zero texting and cellphone law. But on an every day basis, wear a seat belt in Massachusetts.

In a horrific reminder of this safety rule, last week a 21 year old involved in a Somerville car accident was charged with motor vehicle homicide as a result of a collision that resulted in the deaths of two teenage girls after a party Somerville. The police also charged the driver with drunk driving, speeding and motor vehicle homicide in Somerville District Court. Three other passengers who were wearing their seat belts were not seriously injured. There is a Massachusetts penalty for failing to wear a seat belt of a 60-day loss of license.

According to reports about motor vehicle safety in Massachusetts, Route 2 in Concord will finally get an upgrade. The highway has a full elbow turn at what is known as Crosby's Corner. We have represented victims of car accidents at that location; in one case in particular, at the deposition of the truck driver who was coming from Route128, he testified that he had no idea there was such a long decline with a red light at the end. When his brakes failed, he testified that he had never tested them before driving that particular truck. That truck caused a collision, which involved approximately a dozen vehicles that had all been stopped for the red light at Crosby's Corner. Last year there was an accident involving a diesel oil truck at that intersection, in which the truck driver was injured. We have also represented victims of truck accidents along that corridor of Route 2, including a wrongful death case.

It seems that the Commonwealth is finally able to fix portions of the road where there are frequent vehicle accidents. The new design will involve an elevated highway and new surface roads for local traffic. The Crosby's Corner plan apparently involves local, state and federal authorities working together. It includes a Wetlands Protection Act variance and is ready for bidding.

The Kentucky legislature passed a law forbidding lawyers from soliciting victims injured in motor vehicle accidents for the first thirty (30) days. While the law is intended to protect victims of motor vehicle collision, the nominal fine of $1,000 may not deter attorneys when there are wrongful death accidents or serious truck accidents. It is not clear how consumers will be helped as the Kentucky law allows insurance companies, who clearly have an interest in resolving claims before victims have counsel, to contact injured parties.

The Kentucky rule is more restrictive than the Massachusetts rule regarding solicitation, Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 7:3 Solicitation of Professional Employment. The Massachusetts Rules are essentially: a lawyer may not "coerce or harass," use a "false or misleading communication," solicit someone who is in a "physical, mental or emotional state" where he or she cannot "exercise reasonable judgment," and when the prospective client clearly does not want to be solicited. Massachusetts lawyers can solicit by "written communication, including audio or video" so long as they retain a copy of the communication for two years. Specifically, the Massachusetts Rule forbids paying non-lawyers, i.e. runners, for solicitation and referrals.

It's springtime in Massachusetts. This means Red Sox, students going wild, and motorcycles coming out of storage. Unfortunately, there were 4,955 people killed on motorcycles in the US in 2008. There were 41 Massachusetts motorcycle fatalities in crashes in that year. While motorcycles make up only 0.4% of vehicle miles traveled, per mile traveled, motorcyclists were 37 times more likely to be injured than a motor vehicle occupant. Motorcyclists were 9 times more likely to be injured. Statistics are from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. According to NHTSA, 47% of motorcycle fatalities involved collisions with other vehicles. 77% of the fatal accidents were motorcycles struck in the front, with merely 7% struck in the rear. Significantly, in 41% of the fatalities, the motorcycle was going straight and the other vehicle was turning left.

Massachusetts has a 97% helmet use; nationally, the rate is 59%. The NHTSA estimated that the use of helmets saved 1,829 lives, and, that if all motorcyclists had worn helmets, an additional 823 lives could have been saved.

Continue reading "Massachusetts and Motorcycle Safety" »

In our personal injury law blog we normally refrain from filing articles about individual collisions, choosing to focus on studies or trends we see, and avoiding the sensational and tragic. However, as a Massachusetts wrongful death attorney and auto accident trial lawyer, we felt the need to report on a Haverhill collision which resulted in the death of a 55-year-old Danville man, with injuries to his passenger who was treated at the Massachusetts General Hospital after the crash. News reports from the Lawrence Eagle Tribune indicate that a 17-year-old was driving while texting on River Street in Haverhill last month. The district attorney's office charged the youth with Massachusetts motor vehicle homicide and texting while driving in Massachusetts.

Allegedly, Aaron Deveau, of Haverhill, was driving a 2001 Chevrolet Malibu on River Street in Haverhill when his vehicle crossed the centerline and collided with a 1992 Toyota Corolla on the afternoon of February 20, 2011. The extent of the injuries on the passenger was not reported.
The new Massachusetts law, Chapter 155 of the Laws of 2010 amends Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 90 which went into effect on October 1, 2010, sets a fine of $100 for anyone texting while driving. For a driver under 18 years old, the penalties include a 60 day loss of license and attendance in a driving class. The penalties escalate with additional offenses.

According to news we received this morning from Washington, D.C., United State Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was issued a traffic ticket by the U.S. Park Police for following too closely when his motor vehicle struck the vehicle in front of him on his way to work. The collision caused a "chain reaction" with four cars and the justice's car being towed from the scene. Most importantly, no one reported personal injuries at the time.

Fortunately, Justice Scalia was back to work almost immediately and was on the bench when court began to hear a gender discrimination case against Walmart, where he claimed to be "whipsawed" by the women's claim. We haven't read the briefs, but perhaps he was whiplashed from the collision he caused?

We do not have any word as to whether Justice Scalia will pay the $70 ticket or if he will appeal it for a Judge Magistrate Hearing at the to the United States District Court in Washington, D.C.

In a study of truck accidents involving fatalities, a multiplicity of statistics show interesting data. We reviewed the Federal Trucks involved in Fatal Accidents data complied by the Center for National Truck and Bus Statistics at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Fatal Accidents database. We intend here merely to highlight some of the data.

Average annual crash involvement rate for all trucks was 3.54. Dump trucks had the highest rate of 5.96, garbage trucks' rate was 5.12, tractor trailerst rate was 3.63, straight trucks were at 2.9. But dump trucks accumulate 80% of their miles on short trips of less than 50 miles while semitrailers traveled 84% of the time on long trips.

Half of work truck fatal crashes occurred on state or county roads, while 13% occurred on local streets. Semitrailers had the highest percentage of fatalities on interstate highways, 61%; conversely, they had the lowest percentage of fatal crashes on local streets.
Intersections statistics: work trucks were most likely to be involved at an intersection, at the rate of 30.6%, while semitrailers were least likely, at 21.8%.

Continue reading "Work Related Trucks and Fatality Accident Data" »