This statistic may surprise some readers of this blog, which frequently focuses on traffic accidents in Tennessee and their causes by looking at developing technology and its tendency to create unsafe driving conditions. The reality is that these unsafe conditions have been mitigated by the factors listed above as well as ever-increasing vehicle quality that helps to protect passengers, but that it still only takes one accident to cause serious injury or death on the roadways.
]]> While it is encouraging that roadway deaths are steadily declining, drivers should realize that the roads are still dangerous and that negligent driving is still very likely to cause accidents. These accidents have a great tendency to result in serious injuries and death, especially when they take place in high-speed areas such as highways, which in turns results in personal injury lawsuits by victims who are seeking to recover for their damages. Thus, while overall safety on the roadways may be steadily increasing, drivers should remain diligent, follow the rules of the road, and otherwise drive safely in order to avoid accidents and lawsuits.Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jZWXMAKDL1hNsWENCsKsChdohh1gD9ECLCE81
]]>The issue with all of these forms of activity is that when a driver is focused on his or her hair, eyes, lips, eyebrows, or other assorted bodily locations, that driver is not completely focused on the road ahead, which, as luck would have it, is where all of the other vehicles and pedestrians who are using the roadway happen to be. This failure to keep a proper lookout is negligent in Tennessee and can result in an accident for which the negligent driver will be held responsible. Needless to say, the act of grooming or primping while driving is one that causes more than its fair share of accidents on the roadways, especially in high-traffic areas where people tend to perform a good chunk of their morning beautification ritual while in the vehicle on the way to work or school.
There is simply nothing a potential victim of such activity could do to try to avoid the accident, since there is no way to know the man behind you is trying to trim his goatee in the carpool lane until he rear-ends your vehicle. However, victims can recover for their damages by bringing a personal injury suit against the negligent driver, which would enable the victim(s) to recover for the damages and injuries caused by the negligent conduct.
A memorial service is reportedly being planned for a sixty-four year-old college student at the University of Central Oklahoma who was killed on Tuesday in an automobile-pedestrian accident. The woman apparently took the bus to school on Tuesdays and Thursdays and was stepping out into the street to board the bus on Tuesday morning near her apartment complex when she was struck by a vehicle. Law enforcement officials say it looked like she may have walked into the side of a moving vehicle, and the manager of the apartment complex said she may have gotten her suitcase used to carry her books stuck on something and was trying to get it unstuck as she stepped out into the road. There is no indication in the article of who was at fault for the accident.
The unfortunate truth is that sometimes there is simply nothing a driver can do to avoid accidents, even if he or she is keeping a proper lookout. For this reason, drivers should drive much more slowly and with a much greater degree of caution in areas where they know pedestrians are present just in case something out of the ordinary might happen. Failure to take extra care may result in the driver being liable for the damages should a scenario take place like the one described above.
]]>This situation demonstrates how dangerous failure to yield can be on the roadways. Wherever a driver sees a “yield” sign on the road, he or she must wait until no oncoming traffic would be affected by that driver entering traffic before making the decision to enter the roadway. While it is common to see drivers treat a “yield” sign in a similar manner to a stop sign, that is not a correct interpretation of the rule of the road requiring drivers to yield. Yielding has nothing to do with stopping or even slowing down your vehicle, but rather implies that a driver defer to all oncoming traffic before deciding to entering the road.
As seen above, the failure to yield can cause serious accidents and may very well result in a significant amount of liability being placed on the offending driver, who will likely be responsible for any damages and injuries (including, in this case, wrongful death or some similar claim) sustained by any victims should the decision not to yield cause an auto accident. Drivers should always be wary of yield signs and make sure the way is clear before they decide to enter the roadway.
Source: http://news.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/02-23-2010/20100223052007_13.html
]]>Incidents like this one have cause Toyota to millions of vehicles around the country. Toyota initially blamed the acceleration problems on sticking gas pedals and misplaced floor mats, but the House subcommittee is investigating whether or not the acceleration issues could be the result of an electronic malfunction that Toyota initially refused to acknowledge in instituting the recalls. Toyota does admit that the company may have grown too fast to enable them to maintain the proper focus on consumer safety but the company denies that there are any electronic problems of the sort alleged by the House subcommittee.
]]> The outcome of this hearing may have significant ramifications in the area of Tennessee personal injury law and perhaps even on a national level. Any time a manufacturer places a defective product on the market, they can be held liable for the injuries and damages caused by that product in a products liability suit. In this case, Toyota is one of the most popular automotive brands in the entire world and has sold tens of millions of vehicles worldwide that may potentially be defective in some way. Add to that the fact that the product in question is indeed a vehicle, a product which, when defective, has the potential to seriously injure or even kill those trying to use it, and it becomes clear that Toyota is facing a serious liability as a result of the sudden acceleration of its vehicles. While the Tennessee woman in this instance thankfully escaped unharmed, some other drivers have not been so lucky. Those unlucky drivers may be entitled to recover for their damages and injuries if Toyota was indeed negligent in placing a defective product on the market.Source: http://news.findlaw.com/ap/f/1310/02-23-2010/20100223032009_08.html
]]>Unfortunately his niece was only fourteen years old, and was also reportedly intoxicated. Officers initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle and the vehicle drove into the yard of a nearby home while trying to stop near the curb. Both the uncle and the driver face a litany of charges.
Designating a driver is a great way to avoid irresponsible driving behavior and potential liability in a lawsuit arising from an auto accident. However, that driver must legally be able to drive and must be in a condition to operate a motor vehicle. Tennessee drivers who employ the tactic described above will be responsible for the damages suffered by any victims in a personal injury suit just as they would if they had actually driven the vehicle while under the influence.
]]> The standard for liability for negligent driving in Tennessee is that the driver does not act in a manner that a reasonably prudent driver would. This basically means that a driver who does anything that a reasonable driver would not do can be held liable for negligence. It goes without saying that reasonable drivers do not ask fourteen year-olds to drive them home, especially if they too are intoxicated. Victims who have suffered injuries or damages in accidents related to drunk driving should consult an experienced Gatlinburg personal injury attorney who can assist them in obtaining the compensation they deserve.Source: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/bicyclist-hit-by-18-wheeler-man-killed-in-268742.html (3rd article down).
]]>The biggest risk most people expect to face when attending an auction is that someone across the room will be just a little more enthusiastic about buying an item than they are. They certainly don’t expect to get hurt, and only in their wildest dreams would attendees consider the possibility that a rogue vehicle would do its best Horace the Hate Bug impression and mow down the crowd. However, this kind of scenario is one which Tennessee law sometimes expects the persons or companies that host the auctions to consider. Tennessee law demands that an owner or occupier of a space use reasonable care to prevent harm to the patrons, visitors, or other persons who could foreseeably be on the property. Failure to do so may be negligent, and may expose the owner or occupier to premises liability for the damages or injuries sustained should something like the above scenario occur.
]]> In a scenario like this one, some key considerations will hinge on whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the harm caused and the likelihood that such harm would occur. In other words, is the likelihood that a car driven in to be auctioned would suddenly accelerate (through mechanical failure, driver error, or some other unknown cause) and drive into the crowd great enough that a reasonable person should have taken steps to protect the crowd in case such an event occurred. If the answer is “yes,” then the owners of the land and the auction company may find themselves on the hook for the injuries and damages of over twenty-five victims.Source: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/02/17/Auto-auction-crash-leaves-dozens-hurt/UPI-60601266425351/
]]>Luckily no one was injured in the collision, which occurred just days before a new law prohibiting Illinois drivers from using electronic devices while driving was to take effect. To help combat similar incidents in the future, Illinois police have placed the car in the median with a sign that informs passers-by that the car was struck while texting.
This scenario is becoming ever more likely as distracted driving has become the leading cause of roadway accidents. Public service announcements in Tennessee are now citing that distracted driving accounts for 80% of all roadway accidents, meaning that if you are the victim of an auto accident in Tennessee then there is a good chance that the party at-fault was engaged in some fort of distracted driving at the time the accident occurred.
]]> Distracted driving is negligent driving, so the party at fault may be liable for any damages and medical expenses that are suffered or incurred by the victims of such accidents. Medical expenses that result from auto accidents can often reach substantial amounts, so it will often be imperative for the victim to consult with an experienced personal injury attorney in East Tennessee who will be able to identify the victim’s best chance for recovery and work to get the appropriate compensation for the victim. Distracted driving injures drivers all across Tennessee every day, many of whom are innocent parties who did not contribute in any way to the accident and who deserve to be fully compensated for their loss. ]]>As is often discussed on this blog, operating a vehicle while intoxicated is a frequent source of negligent driving that can result in liability in personal injury lawsuits. In this scenario, the driver made several unfortunate decisions, all of which constitute negligence in Tennessee. The first such decision was driving a backhoe down the highway, since the highway probably isn’t a proper or safe place to drive such a low-speed vehicle. The second poor decision was the decision to try to evade the police, since other drivers can easily be injured in a police chase and the driver who is the cause of the chase can be held responsible for the damages. The third unfortunate decision in this case was the decision to weave between the proper lane of travel and oncoming traffic. This decision, maybe more than any other, could result in the driver or someone else being seriously injured or killed. This decision could also constitute conduct that a jury could find was reckless enough to warrant the imposition of punitive damages.
Driving while intoxicated is never a good idea, and newspapers and websites are filled with examples of why that is the case. That decision often leads to serious accidents and personal injury suits, which often result in large damages awards against the person responsible for the accident.
Source: http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2010/02/09/20100209man-flees-in-backhoe.html
]]>Scenarios such as this one help to illustrate why individuals under twenty-five, particularly males, are considered “high-risk” by insurance companies and generally have to pay higher premiums. This high-risk status derives from many factors. First and foremost is the fact that drivers under the age of twenty-five will generally be less experienced behind the wheel than older drivers. Second, younger drivers are also generally more prone to risky or reckless driving, which can combine with inexperience to form a deadly combination. Third, younger drivers are thought by insurance companies to have a lesser degree of emotional maturity than do older drivers, which may cause them to let emotional or stressful situations impact the decisions they make behind the wheel of an automobile. This is also probably the reason that the teen in this situation is being taken for a mental evaluation, which can help determine whether or why he decided to crash the car into the school.
In situations like this one, it is extremely fortuitous when no injuries result. A vehicle crashing through the hallways of a high school would have the potential to injure or kill dozens or hundreds of kids depending on the time of day. Luckily no one was injured in this incident, including the driver, but it does provide a good example of why drivers in this age group may be considered “high-risk” by insurance companies.
]]>Source: Hixon v. Highsmith, 147 F.Supp. 801 (E.D.Tenn. 1957).
Although authorities have not been able to determine the cause of the accident, their eventual findings will be critical to the victims of the case. The party responsible for the accident will potentially be facing personal injury and product liability claims from ten different parties, which more than likely will consist of a couple of wrongful death suits and numerous claims for medical expenses and damages depending on the circumstances. If the automakers are found liable for a mechanical defect in the vehicle, the victims will have a greater chance of recovering the full amounts of the damages and medical expenses that would potentially be awarded since automakers generally have a greater capacity to compensate victims than does your average seventy year-old man.
]]> Even if authorities are unable to find a primary cause of the accident, Tennessee law would still provide the victims with a chance to recover. The victims would be able to file claims against all parties that they believe to be responsible for the crash and would then get the opportunity at trial to prove that each of the defendants was liable, at least in part, for their damages.Tennessee is a comparative fault state, so the jury would then have to decide which of the defendants is responsible for the crash, and to what extent. Damages and medical expense awards would then be assessed against each defendant in proportion to that defendant’s responsibility for the wreck. As indicated above, the portion of fault that is attributable to each party can greatly affect the victims’ ability to receive compensation for their damages.
Sources: http://news.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/02-04-2010/20100204012009_04.html
]]>Source: http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_b2eca4b2-108b-11df-9d4a-001cc4c03286.html
At trial, she maintained that these injuries would prevent her from pursuing her profession in the future. She claimed that the club had recklessly disregarded its own safety rules, including limiting dancers to two drinks per night and taking the keys from drunken employees or arranging transportation to escort them safely home, and that such disregard for the rules led to her accident and injuries. The jury agreed with her side of the story and awarded her the six-figure compensatory damage amount.
This story illustrates an important aspect of which plaintiffs in personal injury suits should be aware, which is that establishments who sell, distribute, or otherwise encourage the consumption of alcohol may be held liable for accidents caused by letting drivers leave the premises when they are too intoxicated to drive. It is noteworthy that in this case the club was held liable for the accident despite the club’s policy and procedures designed to prevent drunk employees from driving home, because they failed to actually prevent her from getting behind the wheel while intoxicated. This principle can apply not only in this type of situation but also to a restaurant or other establishment that allows a customer to continue drinking when it is clear he or she has had enough or when a business allows a customer to leave in his or her vehicle despite the fact that the business knows the customer is intoxicated. This principle is even more significant in Tennessee, because Tennessee is a contributory negligence state, which would allow the restaurant or business to be held liable for the portion of the damages that stems from its own negligence, no matter how great or small that may be.
Source: http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/02/former_stripper_gets_100000_in.html
]]>Previous blog articles have shown that DUI is a very common source of negligence that causes roadway accidents and imposes liability upon the driver at fault for the damages sustained by victims of the accident. Although huffing is a less common method of ingesting an intoxicant than is drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana, it still comprises the use of an intoxicant and can lead to driving under the influence.
]]> As this example shows, huffing is also one of those forms of substance abuse that can lead to negligent driving even before the intoxicant begins to affect the driver’s system. In this example, the man was in the actual act of huffing the can of air when he hit the median and flipped his truck, which means that he may not have even inhaled the substance when the wreck occurred but rather may have been diverting his attention from the road in order to effectively inhale the substance.Failing to keep a proper lookout or being distracted while driving constitutes negligence just as effectively as does driving under the influence. Clearly, diverting ones attention from the road in order to inhale an intoxicant is not a reasonable driving maneuver. In this case, such a maneuver may have led the man to crash his truck, meaning he would have been liable had any victims suffered damages or injuries as a result of his decision.
]]>