Philadelphia Car and Truck Accident Lawyer Blog

Modern Science levels the playing Field in Catastrophic Commercial Vehicle Injury Litigation here in Philadelphia and especially on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and New Jersey Turnpike.
Though highly regulated, commercial Vehicles; 18 wheelers, construction vehicles, cement mixers, backhoes, street sweepers, private fire trucks and tankers to name just a few contribute to and are the cause of the highest number of deaths and catastrophic injuries to innocent drivers and the loved ones in passenger vehicles.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand the dynamics. Trucks weigh considerably more than your passenger vehicle and with the advent of escalating petroleum prices your vehicle has been on a diet for a number of years. Despite advances in safety gear and collision impact testing in the private passenger vehicles when a 2500 lb car meets a 25,000 lb commercial vehicle there is no safety equipment in the world that can withstand a crushing impact of such magnitude. We have all seen pictures of these catastrophic collisions and the aftermath of mutilated bodies, spinal injuries, brain injuries and permanent losses of vision and function. Because of the tremendous cost of these injuries to society one might think that the trucking industry would respond not by attempting to curtail rules & regulations but by strictly enforcing those that are already in existence; but that is not the case.

What is the case, is that the minute (and I mean the very minute) an accident is reported, the Trucking Company Operations Manager who knows that there is a seriously injured driver or passenger, has personnel on the ground at the scene to "clean up the situation". What do we mean by that?
At a recent Law Seminar which our firm ,Philadelphia car accident lawyers attended a high powered defense lawyer was very candid in advising the group of lawyers present that he carries his Beeper 24-7 so that his clients can get him or one of the knowledgeable partners to the scene of the catastrophic accident before the aggrieved family of the seriously injured or dying family member is even medevaced to a hospital or arrives at the coroner's.
These gruesome realities are important to the expired or injured victim's family to be aware of because it is absolutely critical to have your own knowledgeable law firm in the mix as quickly as possible.

Continue reading "Science Changes The Litigation Highway" »

From our Philadelphia Car Accident Attorney department: Despite the assertion by Toyota that a driver of its Prius had filed false reports with the state police, the reports continue to come in from individuals who would not likely crash their cars just to bring a personal injury claim.

One such report involved an elderly couple, a husband and wife, who suffered injuries in a crash related to sudden acceleration and have filed a lawsuit against a Pennsylvania Toyota dealership. The suit, one of many filed throughout the country, contends that, even after their Toyota Camry was taken to the dealership upon receiving notification of a recall, their vehicle was not fixed and subsequently became involved in what, if not for a miracle, would have been a fatal accident. The reports indicated that they were stopped at a red light on the road before the incident occurred. Upon letting go of the brake, when the light turned green, the couple’s Toyota Camry suddenly accelerated. Attempts at pressing down on the brakes proved useless as the vehicle sped up, only coming to a rest after smashing into the rear of a Lexus (a vehicle also produced by Toyota and also subject to claims of sudden acceleration, which were originally defended by Toyota claiming that the floor mats were the cause). Mr & Mrs. K were transported to area hospitals by responding emergency medical services (EMS) crews, so they could be treated for the injuries. Husband was reportedly released from the hospital after suffering a head laceration, which needed up to 20 staples to be closed. His wife suffered a fractured ankle and badly sprained wrist in the incident.

A Toyota spokesperson reported that repairmen reinforced the vehicle's gas pedal and secured the floor mats in early March, noting: “All repairs are performed per the specifications and requirements of the vehicle manufacturer… Customer safety continues to be the number one priority at Toyota.”

However it is clear, “The fix is not a fix”.

We have researched the problems internally so that we can provide expert and competent representation of crash victims who have found themselves at the mercy of a runaway vehicle. One of our Philadelphia defective vehicle product liability engineering experts, Sherman McCloud, a former professor at Drexel University, has provided us with his thoughts that the problem is likely due to an electrical modular interaction defect.

Continue reading "TOYOTA CRASH REPORT: ACCELERATION DEFECT" »

Our Philadelphia car accident lawyers needed to go the extra mile to win a substantial settlement for an injured client with a problem history. The client was standing on the corner when the defendant driver failed to stop for a stop sign, went through the intersection striking another car lawfully in the intersection. The struck vehicle was spun around and pushed to the corner where the young woman was standing, Witnesses at the scene indicated that she was thrown “at least 50 feet” to the sidewalk. Semi-conscious and in severe pain the young African-American woman was taken immediately by ambulance to the local hospital, where she underwent open reduction internal fixation surgery of her right wrist. Right knee injuries, in addition to the severe wrist fracture, included a complete tear of the anterior and posterior cruciate ligament and sprain of the medial collateral ligament. Additionally, she sustained a compression trauma to her chest with suspected rib fractures, multiple abrasions and contusions with the eventual development of “fat necrosis, secondary to trauma” established by examination and mammography after follow-up.

A physical and occupational therapy disability examination six months later, which was performed by a physician retained by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, reported that she had not been able to retain function in her right hand with loss of range of motion of her fingers, joints and wrist. The right knee swelling at times made it difficult for her to walk any distance. Because of the discomfort, she has discomfort doing computer work which she had done in the past.

Yet before coming to our Philadelphia injury attorneys she was not offered a fair settlement. How and why would defense counsel refuse to negotiate a fair settlement in light of the foregoing facts?

Despite her serious injuries, plaintiff, because of a prior criminal conviction for drug-related offenses was sent to prison for a number of years. Insurance defense attorneys were only willing to make a nominal offer that after liens, costs, reimbursement to the State for medical expenses would leave this young woman, after her incarceration was completed, literally, with next to nothing. When her prior lawyer recommended she accept the settlement, plaintiff who was at the time incarcerated, had her family contact the Philadelphia car accident attorneys at PP&L to see if something could be done?

After a review of the underlying facts presented by the family, PP&L took on the responsibility to revisit all the circumstances of the situation and realized that the plaintiff needed to be personalized rather than just being looked at as a laundry list of injuries. Personal and phone contacts were initiated with the new client; contact with prison authorities and social workers all were undertaken to get a personal and real picture of the person. Extensive interviews with the family about the Plaintiff's background and the circumstances that lead up to her societal problems enabled the firm to prepare a trial strategy that would be formidable.

Our injury lawyers then presented to the defense at a non-binding mediation, what explanations would soften and explain the plaintiff's prior behavior at a jury trial. The strategy was to show a more sympathetic and deserving person, that a jury would be willing to award a fair amount of money, to help start the plaintiff on a new life. When the defense saw what our Philadelphia car accident attorneys had done up to that point, the offers to settle began to increase and finally reached a level where the plaintiff and counsel decided that going to a courtroom, though the case was prepared to do exactly that, was too risky to bring in a county court where verdicts were hard to come by. Plaintiff now with a sizeable offer accepted the settlement.

Continue reading "PEDESTRIAN SUFFERS MULTIPLE FRACTURES WHEN CAR RUNS THROUGH STOP SIGN - OVERCOMING PERSONAL HISTORY TO ACHIEVE FAIR SETTLEMENT" »

One of the most eye-opening car crash cases of the past year was not extensively reported and certainly kept under wraps by the defense bar. We found it and want to let all of you know about it, because it reflects the approach our Philadelphia car and truck accident lawyers at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis regularly take with cases we have accepted and put into suit.
The facts in the case were that Plaintiff was driving her minivan and had slowed down to less than five miles an hour as she approached a controlled intersection. She heard screeching tires and was rear-ended by defendant’s car. The impact caused her to strike the car in front of her. Her injuries were soft-tissue and thought initially to be an arbitration case worth less than $50,000. A Chester County Pennsylvania panel awarded $28,220, and the attorney hired by the defendant’s insurance carrier appealed. The case was then tried in front of a jury. After hearing the evidence, the jury awarded more than $400,000.

Why was this first thought to be an arbitration case? Why did the panel award so little? Why did the defense appeal? Why was everyone so wrong about the value of the case?

Lawyers often size up an auto crash on the basis of the severity of the injuries – were there broken bones, were there severe injuries to organs, did the accident result in surgery, are the injuries permanent, did the plaintiff die? Soft tissue injuries often are viewed with skepticism by the defense and not very exciting on the surface to plaintiff firms. Obviously, the history of the case before it went to a jury bears this out as no one who looked at it with a lawyer’s eyes considered it of major proportion in any way. In fact, our Pennsylvania injury attorneys have often seen adjusters approach cases in a very cavalier manner and automatically direct defense counsel to appeal an arbitration award just to delay payment. This was evident in this rear-end collision case.

By having to look at it as a jury trial that resulted from the arbitration appeal, more work was done to develop the evidence surrounding the plaintiff’s course after the accident for these seemingly-minor injuries. She claimed continuing chronic back pain as a result of the accident. Her treating chiropractor testified saying that she suffered from permanent chronic sprain syndrome attributable to the accident with defendant, which would cause pain during her daily activities. The defense did not call a doctor that they hired to do an independent medical examination (IME); plaintiff did call him as a witness, because he agreed that plaintiff’s back injuries were chronic and permanent in nature. Being in the nature of an IME, and not having had pre-trial contact with the witness except to arrange for his court appearance, the court agreed that he could testify as the defense did not “own” his opinion. The combined testimony of both experts sealed the conclusion undoubtedly reached by the jury that the injuries were more serious than non-specific neck or back pain often seen in a minor accident.

Continue reading "YOUR AUTO CASE MAY BE WORTH MORE THAN YOU THINK" »

In Part I of this case study, we indicated that the report from the State Police, which had investigated the Pennsylvania car accident on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, left little hope in finding another source of funds after finding that the defendant driver was so clearly at fault. This did not deter our Philadelphia wrongful death attorneys, because in Pennsylvania if there were other causes that were the result of some negligent act then the doctrine of "joint and several liability" could be invoked. So a research and discovery initiative by the firm was begun to see where else and what else caused the wrongful death of our client's son. What we found – as you will see below – was that the car dealership had negligently repaired the vehicle.

Too Much Air Improper Repair

On July 15, 2006, Plaintiff’s Decedent, was the front-seat passenger of the vehicle that went out of control, and Decedent, who was seat-belted, was ejected from the front seat passenger side of the vehicle, causing severe traumatic injuries resulting in his death.

The crash vehicle, a 2000 Nissan Maxima, was regularly serviced and maintained at the Defendant’s dealership. In March of 2006, during the inspection and maintenance servicing, new tires were purchased and placed on the vehicle. The tires were mounted, balanced and inflated by an employee and we theorized that they tires had been grossly over-inflated, resulting in a reduction of traction and maneuverability of the car during emergency situations. We believed that the driver, who was traveling at a high rate of speed on the Pennsylvania Turnpike on July 15, 2006, was unable to bring his car fully under control during an emergency situation as a result of both his excessive speed and the uneven pressurization and over-inflation of the two front tires.

A full chain of custody was established for the entire period from March 2006 thru July 2006 by our car accident attorneys by getting affidavits and depositions from every entity that had control over the vehicle from the day of the crash up until trial. The firm actually purchased the vehicle and a garage for storage in order to accomplish this aspect of the proof process, without which the theory would not have been provable. What we found was that, although the tires had been on the car for some 5 months, no tire pressure check had been done and no air had been added to the tires by those in custody. The over-inflation of the two front tires (left tire 40 PSI and right tire 58 PSI) resulted in a reduction of surface contact with the roadway thus reducing the tire surface in contact with the roadway, resulting in less tire surface in contact with the road causing diminished stability and traction under sudden braking. The uneven pressure between the two front tires produced severe impairment to the handling of the vehicle.

Originally the expert, who was initially hired by us to do an accident reconstruction, never considered the loss of tire-to-road surface friction as a cause of the driver losing control. To the Philadelphia injury attorneys at PP&L it was clear that this was still a possibility in the reconstruction of the accident.

Continue reading "HOW THE PHILADELPHIA CAR ACCIDENT LAWYERS AT POMERANTZ PERLBERGER & LEWIS DID IT – PART II OF CSI" »

The following, an example of our Philadelphia car accident lawyers doing CSI-like work in the development of a case, is a true story, only the names have been left out to protect the innocent.

It was Summertime; three teenage friends from the Philadelphia suburbs were finishing up the week's work at their summer jobs and excited to get on their way on what was supposed to be an exciting Penn State weekend. The Nissan Maxima had been inspected five months earlier and was supposed to be in perfect shape. With new front tires and a full tank of gas the boys were ready to hit the Pennsylvania Turnpike and hopefully not too much traffic. The youngest of the trio got the "lucky" draw for the front passenger seat, while the passenger in the back just settled into listening to the MP3 player and texting a cousin. Windows wide open, cruising and then tragedy struck. The phone call every parent dreads to hear came early that evening from the Pennsylvania State Police, "I'm sorry to inform you folks your boy was killed in a traffic accident". They had only gotten as far a little past the Montgomery County portion of the Turnpike.

SYNOPSIS OF STATE POLICE INVESTIGATION:

Unit #1 was a 2000 Nissan Maxima driven by a 19-year-old male. Unit #2 was a 2001 Dodge Durango, towing a 2001 TrailLite camper, driven by a 59-year-old female. Operator #1 was reportedly driving at a high rate of speed as he approached unit #2 in the right lane. Operator #1 reportedly went right (as the left lane was occupied) and struck the camper of unit #2 in the right rear (causing minor damage) with the left front of unit #1. Unit #1 traveled onto the north shoulder and then up an embankment adjacent to the shoulder. Unit #1 rolled at least twice before coming to rest within the paved shoulder approximately perpendicular to the roadway facing towards the embankment. During the collision sequence, the right front passenger and right rear passenger of unit #1 were ejected. The right front passenger suffered a fatal injury as a result of this collision.

Conclusions: The following conclusions have been reached during the course of this investigation. They are based on the available information and are believed to be accurate and correct to a reasonable degree of investigative certainty.

1. Unit #1 was traveling westbound on SR 0076 (PA Turnpike).
2. Unit #1 lost control within the westbound shoulder, rotated clockwise, traveled off the roadway edge onto an embankment and subsequently. Rolled over. 1
3. Unit #1’s speed at the beginning of its tire marks was between 54 and 63 mph.
4. No means exist by which to calculate the speed of unit #1 prior to its loss of control on the westbound shoulder.

Multiple witness statements were taken which estimated the speed of the driver between 85-95 mph before losing control of the vehicle and veering off the Turnpike. Extensive evidence secured at the scene mapped trajectory and placed full civil and criminal responsibility on the teenage driver. Driver was prosecuted and pled guilty to reduced charges.

WHAT WE DID WITH THE POLICE FINDINGS:

Our Philadelphia injury lawyers secured a settlement in excess of $500,000 where the driver’s insurance was a mere $50,000.00. How did we do it?

E-mail us for the answer or watch for the next Blog titled:

"Negligent Repair – Too Much Air"

What is the chance of your being injured in a Philadelphia or Pennsylvania car accident involving a truck? While the percentage for your involvement is not exact, the formula is simple: the more trucks, the greater number of accidents. Statistics from the American trucking industry as of 2009, indicate that 71% of the total volume of freight transported in the United States is attributable to the trucking industry. The U.S. Department of Transportation projects that the volume of freight will double by the year 2035.

According to the DOT, each year about 400,000 trucks are involved in motor vehicle accidents. New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware are main thoroughfares with Major Turnpikes and account for a substantial percentage of these crashes. Unfortunately, but predictably, very often serious and catastrophic injuries occur when such accidents occur (see DOT Table below).

Our Philadelphia car and truck accident lawyers have the experience and knowledge to protect the injured and their families by securing the necessary information to obtain the winning verdicts and settlements on their behalf throughout the Philadelphia metropolitan area as well as the entire Delaware Valley.

If you or a family member is injured in a car accident, there is much that goes into proving your case. This may often call for counsel experienced in retrieving, analyzing and utilizing the vast electronic information available to prove a contested case.

The short list of Electronic Data Recorders that our Philadelphia injury attorneys are adept at and skilled in securing and using to the advantage of our clients, includes: “ECM” Engine Control Modules, ACM Airbag Control Modules, ABS Computers (the ones you have in your car), The Eaton Vorad System (Vehicle Onboard RADar system). As discussed in our last blog, it is imperative to secure this information quickly but sometimes there is no “Electronic Data” or its been destroyed.

In those cases, there is one last hope that our firm has used and that is Photogrammetry (“PGMY”), i.e., the reconstruction of a serious accident by photographs. The photos and the demarcations in the photos (today almost all are digital) can be used to reconstruct the scene once the right expert is secured. By using multiple pictures and computer technology, experts have been able to determine data such as crash severity, vehicle crush measurements, skid mark length, vehicle rest positions and even speed prior to a vehicle coming to rest.

The trick is choosing the right law firm with the expertise to find these kinds of valuable pieces of evidence and then use courtroom skills and years of experience to ensure their admissibility. The Philadelphia injury attorneys at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis have over 120 years of combined experience making us the firm to choose for representation in the cases of catastrophic injury such as loss of limbs, brain damage, quadriplegia or death in a Philadelphia or Pennsylvania car or truck accident.

Our Philadelphia injury attorneys litigated this actual truck accident case: It was 5:30 A.M on a still dark, rainy winter morning when a young Philadelphian approached an intersection intending to make a left turn from a multi-lane highway and began negotiating the turn after traffic had stopped in the opposite direction at the controlled intersection. While making that turn he was crushed by a colliding Mack Truck that went through a red light carrying a full load of quarry stones. Three uninvolved drivers indicated that the victim had either begun turning on a red or yellow light when the truck entered the intersection. Obviously this was not helpful to our client’s case. However, the driver in front of the truck, whose vehicle had come to a stop when the light turned red, testified that the light had been red for a number of seconds before the truck passed her in the left lane.

Our catastrophically injured client, after emergency life saving surgery, remained in a coma for three days and could be of little help in providing key evidence to uncover the true facts of the incident. Police officers and accident reconstructionists who came to the scene testified: three implicating the truck driver and one being less than conclusive. Naturally, the truck driver said that our client ran a red light and turned in front of him as he came through the intersection while the light was turning yellow.

Because the witnesses were not completely unanimous in their accounts of how the accident had occurred, other objective evidence had to be added to the mix.

Modern Technology Saves The Day:

Because of computers and modern technology that our Philadelphia car accident lawyers were aware existed concerning the mechanics of the accident, our firm was able to prove that the one clearly favorable witness was right about this catastrophic accident. The four (4) witnesses, who indicated that our client was in the wrong, didn’t see what they thought they saw.

First, we secured the Electronic Data Recorder (“EDR”) that was factory installed by the Mack Truck manufacturer. We then made sure that the EDR was sent to Mack, which has its own proprietary programs that can read the data stored on the hard drive of the computer. We secured information which included segmented road speed times from the moment that the brakes were hit, the distance traveled, how long it took for the truck to stop before contact and the speeds that it was traveling at distinct points in time. Our experienced Pennsylvania injury attorneys were able to use this information, along with data secured from the Pennsylvania Department Of Transportation (“PENNDOT”), which included exact measurements and schematics of the roadway, overhead views, light sequence times and other critical materials needed in a contested serious injury matter, to contradict the potentially-damaging witnesses.

Using the electronic data our skilled lead counsel, my partner, Pennsylvania Super Lawyer, Norman Perlberger, was able to convince the defendant’s carrier during mediation that virtually all of its policy limits (and the UIM carrier’s excess coverage) should be used to compensate our client for his catastrophic injuries.

But that’s not all…. Our car accident attorneys found more evidence from an off sight surveillance camera blocks away that showed the headlights and traffic lights of the vehicle collision and not much else in the dark rainy early hours. With the use of this data which was secured through the local police Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis was able to be settle this serious injury case for slightly less than 3 million dollars in less than eight months time!

In all probability the scientific evidence that we know where and how to secure will be able assist us in winning your serious injury case. If you or a loved one is in a car versus truck accident in Pennsylvania or New Jersey highway or TurnPike, please be aware that a prompt investigation must be accomplished before things are “innocently” moved, tampered with or destroyed. Contact the Philadelphia car and truck accident lawyers at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis now for our expert help.

If needed: Call Now the Pomerantz Perlberger and Lewis EMERGENCY NUMBER at 267 255 7229 anytime day or night.

A Philadelphia Pennsylvania truck accident case history: Your loved one is injured in a catastrophic accident with a 16-wheeler. An “eyewitness”, another trucker, says he saw the whole thing and your loved one was at fault, because he ran the red light and the trucker, who he says was not speeding, couldn’t avoid the accident.

Years ago, this could have been all the evidence the defendant insurance company would need to win the case and avoid paying a huge damage award. In wrongful death cases depriving the widow, with or without children, of just compensation for their loss.

Modern technology and computers today have changed the rules of the game.

The flight recorders we have heard about so many times and for so many years in fatal airplane crashes also have their counterparts in trucks. In fact, they have been around for a number of years but kept quiet by local and national trucker’s associations, including here in the Philadelphia, five-county area and New Jersey.

But now, the Truck (BUCK) stops here with the skills and knowledge of the Philadelphia and Pennsylvania injury lawyers at Pomerantz Perlberger and Lewis.

Trucking companies are required by the National Safety Boards as well as local authorities in Pennsylvania and New Jersey to maintain records of the mileage, maintenance, inspections, speed monitors, governor settings, time of brake depression, travel distance from the moment of deceleration, and incremental braking data. This enables the experts in the field to prove that the trucker was going too far above the speed limit under applicable road conditions when he began applying his brakes. This computer generated information stored in the “black box” of a truck, will now prove that the witness in our above fact pattern was mistaken or biased in support of his fellow trucker.

In my next BLOG, we will provide an actual case where our Philadelphia car accident attorneys overcame facts strikingly similar to the case history above, reaching a multimillion dollar settlement, despite potentially damaging testimony of three eyewitnesses on the scene.

If you or a loved one is in an accident with a truck in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, you must know that TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE! A prompt investigation must be accomplished quickly before things are “innocently” moved, tampered with or destroyed.

Call Pomerantz Perlberger and Lewis EMERGENCY NUMBER CALL 267 255 7229 anytime day or night. It might save the day for your family.

In New York state, the Queens district attorney has dropped charges against the driver of a private van carrying a group of young children to school that crashed into a city bus in Queens last week, injuring seven children, one of whom was critically injured.

The driver of the van, Gene Boyd, 60, faced charges of reckless endangerment and endangering the welfare of a child in the accident. “The charges have been dropped at this time,” said Capt. Kevin Ryan, a spokesman for the Queens district attorney’s office. “There was not enough evidence to sustain criminal charges.”

The police said that Mr. Boyd did not have a license to transport children to school. While the district attorney dropped the more serious charges against Mr. Boyd, he still might face lesser charges, the police said.

Mr. Boyd, who neighbors said was a very careful driver, turned the van into the path of an oncoming Q46 bus at 184th Street and Union Turnpike in Fresh Meadows around 8 a.m. the day of the collision.

The most severely injured child, Rebecca Frazier, 9, had head injuries and had been listed in critical but stable condition at Long Island Jewish Medical Center. A hospital spokeswoman said on Monday that the girl’s family had asked that they not share information on her current condition.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a vehicle accident in Philadelphia or anywhere in Pennsylvania, please contact the accident attorneys at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis today to schedule your initial consultation.

Luckily, rear-end collisions rarely result in the catastrophic injury that a head-on collision with an SUV or truck causes, but they are still dangerous. Rear-end collisions most often result in serious neck and back injuries that sometimes don’t show symptoms right away. Some whiplash injuries may not show symptoms for months. If you are hit from behind, even at a low speed, your injuries cannot be ignored as they affect your ability to live a healthy life down the road.

The accident injury attorneys at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis, LLP represent accident victims in the Philadelphia and surrounding areas. Our attorneys have over 100 years of combined experience representing vehicle accident victims who have suffered life-altering injuries through no fault of their own. We handle accident claims involving victims who were:

Hit while stopped at a red light
Hit from behind while at a stop sign
Hit from behind while paying a toll
Rear-ended while stopped in traffic
Rear-ended by a large truck who didn’t brake in time

If you or a loved one has been injured or killed in a rear-end collision in Philadelphia or anywhere in Pennsylvania, please contact the experienced vehicle accident attorneys at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis, LLP today.

There are over 260 million cell phone accounts in the United States alone – nearly one for every person. Considering that most of these cell phone users also use automobiles on a regular basis, it is no wonder that we are seeing more and more car accidents that are caused by driver distraction due to cell phone use.

Current statistics place the number of car accidents caused by cell phone use (link to new web page) as high as 25 percent. This number is only expected to rise in years to come as cell phones become more commonplace. A recent survey by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company found that nearly three-quarters of drivers use cell phones while driving and 20 percent send text messages while driving.

Despite these statistics, there are only a handful of states (California, Washington, Connecticut, Utah, New York, New Jersey and Washington D.C.) that have banned the use of hand-held cell phones while operating a motor vehicle. Alabama currently has no such law. However, if you have been injured in an auto accident caused by another motorist’s cell phone use, you may be able to sue for damages if you can prove the other driver liable. Proving liability can be a challenge in these cases, but we have handled several of them successfully.

If you live in Pennsylvania and have been in a car accident due to someone else's negligence or wrongdoing, please contact Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis, LLP today.