| *Most recent Jury Verdict or Settlement: $2,500,000.00 Settlement in Contested Liability Motorcycle Accident. Motorcycle pulled out from between to left turn lanes. Below knee amputation, broken ribs and clavical. |
| *The results obtained in the cases listed were dependent upon the facts of the cases, and the results will differ in other cases based on different facts |
|   |  |  |
The Cell Phone Accident Lawyers Represent Victims of Serious Injury Auto Accident Cases. They Do The Appropriate Investigation to Determine Whether The Other Motorist Was On the Cell Phone At the Time of the Accident to Aid in Establishing Liability. The Cell Phone Accident Attorneys Establish Whether the Cell Conversation Involved Business Discussion in Order to Include The Other Motorists Employer in the Litigation, to Increase the Available Insurance to Pay the Plaintiff’s Damages. Every Serious Injury Auto Accident Case Should Be Investigated and Prosecuted by A Highly Qualified Trial Lawyer Who is Also a Highly Qualified Cell Phone Accident Attorney.
In every serious injury auto accident case, whether it was observed that the other driver was on a cell phone or not, it is essential that an appropriate investigation be conducted to determine if the other motorist was on his or her cell phone at the time of the accident. This includes obtaining the other motorists phone records, in every serious injury case and in every case in which liability is contested. Particularly in serious injury auto accident cases, it is then essential to determine if the cell conversation was business related, because it will provide the ability to add the employer as a defendant, to increase the insurance available to pay the damages. The serious injury lawyer knowledgeable about the often enormous advantages of establishing that the defendant was on his or her cell phone at the time of the accident can indeed often grab victory on liability out of the mouth of defeat in contested liability litigation, and obtain the additional insurance sources to obtain for his client the difference between a statutory minimum insurance policy recovery and a multimillion dollar recovery.
First we will introduce attorney Ray Henke one of the very few highly qualified cell phone accident lawyers. Below that we will summarize the scientific information with regard to the DUI level driving impairment associated with driving under the influence of a cell phone. Below that we will discuss the advantages that a highly qualified cell phone accident lawyer can bring to your case
Appropriately Qualified Cell Phone Accident Lawyers Must be Sophisticated Lawyers able to Comprehend the Wealth of Scientific Literature on the Magnitude and Nature of the Cell Phone Driving Impairment, and to Present the Complex Evidence at Trial.
Cell phone accident attorney Ray Henke is the most knowledgeable and acknowledged lawyer in the United States on the scientific literature substantiating the serious dangers associated with “driving under the influence of cell phones.” He has written a number of scientific review articles which have been widely cited., circulated and reprinted in various forums. One such article is reprinted here for your review at “Henke, Cell Phone Driving Impairment, a Scientific Review Article.” In addition to his work as a cell phone accident lawyer, Mr. Henke has also been broadly involved in consulting with advocacy groups lobbying for strong, comprehensive cell phone bans. He is devoted to outlawing cell phone use while driving.
Mr. Henke is an accomplished and highly successful trial lawyer, who in addition to auto accident and motorcycle accident litigation previously concentrated extensively on pharmaceutical product liability cases and medical malpractice cases. He has a strong background in science and that is important when it comes to preparing and presenting cell phone liability litigation. He is a former Governor of the fifth largest trial lawyer association in the United States, nominated “Trial Lawyer of the Year” by the same organization among other honors and awards. He has testified before Congress at the invitation of the Chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee with regard to his prosecution of complex litigation. He is “AV” rated by Martindale & Hubbell, the highest ratings awarded by the most highly respected lawyer rating directory in the United States. The "A" means "very high to preeminent" in "legal ability"; The "V" means "very high" in general ethical standards. To quote Martindale & Hubbell, "AV Peer Review Rating shows that a lawyer has reached the height of professional excellence. He or she has usually practiced law for many years, and is recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity." Mr. Henke is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum, commonly referred to as the most selective and prestigious lawyer group in the United States. Mr. Henke’s trial accomplishments in complex medical and pharmaceutical product liability cases have been followed widely by the legitimate press, from the front page of the New York Times to the front page of the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and many other newspapers, legal and lay magazines, and national and international television. For additional information with regard to Mr. Henke’s trial lawyer qualifications consult the other pages of this web site.
There are very important reasons to select an attorney knowledgeable about the prosecution of cell phone accident cases, whether you know that the other party was on the cell phone while driving or not. It is both the hard study and education in the epidemiological, controlled experimental, and neurological literature that makes up the science by which we prove the nature and magnitude of cell phone driving impairment, and it is the unique litigation strategies, beginning with appropriate investigation through the trial of a cell phone accident case which sets competent cell phone accident attorneys apart from other personal injury lawyers.
Very briefly we will discuss the scientific literature establishing the DUI level driving impairment associated with “driving under the influence of a cell phone.” The discussion here will be brief, since we have attached Mr. Henke’s “scientific review article” for the more full discussion of the science. Immediately below that we will discuss some of the legal strategies which competent cell phone accident lawyers use in every auto accident case which comes into their office.
The Cell Phone Accident Lawyers Present the Scientific Evidence That Driving Under the Influence of Any Cell Phone Results in DUI Level Impairment And a 4 Fold Increased Incidence of Resulting Accidents.
The use of cell phones while driving is epidemic and growing. In the year 2000 four percent of all American drivers on the road at any given daylight moment in time were actively involved in cell phone conversation. By December 2005 the number had grown to 10 percent of all American drivers on the road at any given daylight moment in time, on the phone, actively involved in cell conversation. National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) (a probability based observed data study on cell phone use performed by NHTSA.)
This is important and persuasive evidence that cell phone accident lawyers must understand thoroughly that those who drive under the influence of a cell phone are as dangerous as DUI drunk drivers.
Those who driver under the influence of cell phones are are equally impaired as the DUI drunk driver, and their driving impairment results in an equal four fold increased likelihood that they will cause an accident. Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997) Association Between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions.” New England Journal of Medicine, 336, 453. McEvoy, Stevenson, McCartt, Woodward, Haworth, Palamara and Cercarelli, "Role of Mobile Phones in Motorvehicle Crashes Resulting in Hospital Attendance; A Case-Crossover Study,” British Medical Journal (July 12, 2005). Strayer, Drews and Crouch, “A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver,” Human Factors, Summer 2006. Strayer first announced his findings demonstrating DUI level impairment associated with cell phone use in 2003. 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).See, 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 Ergonomics 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). McCarley, J.S., Vais, M.J., Pringle, H., Kamer, A.F., Irwin, D.E., & Strayer, D.L. (2004) “Conversation disrupts 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.)
It is critical that cell phone accident lawyers also fully understand not just the magnitude but the nature of the impairment if they are going to present an intelligent scientific case persuasive to their juries.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, all the science demonstrates unambiguously that it doesn’t matter whether the motorist was using a handheld cell phone or a hands-free cell phone; the impairment and increased incidence of accidents is the same. The significant aspect of the impairment is “attentional” deriving from the cell conversation, not from holding the phone. The mechanism of the impairment derives from the diversion of limited conscious attention to the internal-cognitive give and take of the cell conversation away from the external-visual tasks associated with safe driving. “These data call into question driving regulations that prohibit handheld cell phones and permit hands-free cell phones because no significant differences were found in the impairments to driving caused by these two modes of cellular communication." 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 has indeed made this clear at least since 2001: See, also e.g., Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2003). “Cell Phone Induced Failures of Visual Attention During Simulated Driving.” Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol 9, pp. 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 has indeed made this clear at least since 2001: 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. See also, 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. See also, Shomstein, S., Yantis, S. “Control of Attention Shifts Between Vision and Audition in Human Cortex.” The Journal of Neuroscience, November 24, 2004, 24(47):10702-10706.
In some cases it might be that witness testimony will demonstrate that the auto driver was dialing his or her cell phone at the time of the accident, and this also might provide the cell phone accident lawyer evidence important to the maintenance of a lawsuit based upon the distraction, but a cell phone accident lawyer must understand the science in order for him to know that this is not the same thing as the impairment which science demonstrates as leading to the 4 fold increased incidence of accidents among cell phone users. The competent cell phone accident lawyer must also recognize that it is not the “holding” of the cell phone which results in the DUI driving impairment. It is unfortunate that politicians have seen fit to enact “handheld cell phone bans” but that not a reflection of the science; it is a reflection only of the “political realities” that they don’t want to risk the public backlash if they were to deprive the majority of their constituency of the use of cell phones while driving, a use indeed that 70 percent of auto drivers have become so accustomed.
Let there be no misunderstanding, according to the most highly regarded scientist in thee field: “These data call into question driving regulations that prohibit handheld cell phones and permit hands-free cell phones because no significant differences were found in the impairments to driving caused by these two modes of cellular communication." 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 has indeed made this clear at least since 2001.
It is a trap for the unwary “cell phone accident lawyer” to focus on the handling of the cell phone, because the science cited above demonstrates that holding the cell phone is not a factor contributing to the driving impairment. “Our data imply that legislative initiatives that restrict handheld devices but permit hands-free devices are not likely to reduce interference from the phone conversation, because the interference is, in this case, due to central attentional processes.” 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. See also, 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. This sentiment was echoed by Johns Hopkins Professor Yantis, based on his above described neurological studies, “Our research helps explain why talking on a cell phone can impair driving performance, even when the driver is using a hands-free device.” Stromstein & Yantis, supra. In an interview, professor Yantis made plain the significance of his findings on the specific issue of cell phone driving impairment:“Our research helps explain why talking on a cell phone can impair driving performance, even when the driver is using a hands-free device ... Directing attention to listening effectively 'turns down the volume' on input to the visual parts of the brain. The evidence we have right now strongly suggests that attention is strictly limited -- a zero-sum game. When attention is deployed to one modality -- say, in this case, talking on a cell phone -- it necessarily extracts a cost on another modality -- in this case, the visual task of driving." Consumer Affairs, June 22, 2005.
Calling oneself a cell phone accident lawyer doesn’t make one a qualified cell phone accident lawyer. Consult the other cell phone accident lawyer web sites and you will find more misinformation than information. To competently prepare and present the cell phone accident case the cell phone accident lawyer must immerse himself in the science and have a firm grounding in the epidemiology, the controlled experimental studies and the neurological studies and be able to present the evidence at trial. This is particularly true given the cell phone accident lawyer must overcome unfortunate public misinformation about the nature of cell phone driving impairment.
There are enormous opportunities for the competent cell phone accident lawyer to overcome contested liability cases where there is irrefutable evidence from cell phone records that the motorist was driving while in conversation on a cell phone. There are extraordinary opportunities to obtain complete compensation for the seriously injured auto accident victim when it can be established that the cell phone conversation was business related. But there are huge pitfalls for lawyers who are not well educated cell phone accident attorneys and so the selection of the appropriately qualified lawyer is essential.
Cell Phone Accident Lawyers Must Prepare Their Case From the Initial Investigation, Through Depositions, Build Their Case by Expert Preparation, Undercut the Opponent’s Case at Expert Depositions and Ultimately Present The Case Through Effective Direct and Cross-Examination.
Call Mr. Henke Toll Free, with regard to your Auto Accident, or Fill Out the Easy to Submit Questionnaire, And Mr. Henke will Call You Within 24 Hours, Guaranteed.
|  |  |
 | | |  | |
1. The Cell Phone Accident Lawyer Can Often Obtain Extraordinary Advantages for his Seriously Injured Client By Establishing That the Other Motorist Was Involved in Cell Conversation At the Time of the Accident.
It is important at the outset to understand why it is that the cell phone accident lawyer will want to establish that the defendant motorist was on the cell phone at the time of the accident. In many cases the other motorist may not acknowledge fault for the accident, and so establishing that he was involved in cell conversation, DUI level impaired and four times more likely to be involved in an accident can be very important in establishing liability.
But one extraordinary advantage that can be obtained in serious injury auto accident litigation is where it can be established that the other motorist was involved in a business conversation. All to often in serious injury litigation the defendant motorist’s insurance and assets will be woefully insufficient to pay for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. The evidence of the cell phone conversation can provide the “deep pocket,” in the employer’s insurance policy and assets.
These two important advantages to the cell phone accident lawyer of establishing that the defendant that the auto driver was on the cell phone at the time of the accident will be discussed separately.
1.(A). The Cell Phone Accident Attorney’s Use of Evidence that the Defendant Motorist Was On the Cell Phone to Establish Liability in Contested Cases.
It is an unfortunately phenomenon, but the fact is that in a very large percentage of auto accident cases the party at fault for the accident is unwilling to acknowledge fault. In a large number of contested liability cases, furthermore, fault comes down to a “swearing contest” or “he said, she said,” as lawyers commonly put it. Even where there are witnesses it is common that witness testimony will be conflicting. The jury is faced with two conflicting stories and must somehow come to a determination based often on vague judgments about the relative “credibility” of the parties or witnesses. Since the judge will instruct the jury that “the plaintiff bears the burden of proof” often times jurors fall back on this instruction in finding for the defendant.
The cell phone accident lawyer has the advantage in contested liability cases where he can demonstrate that the defendant motorist was engaged in cell conversation at the time of the accident. When the cell phone accident lawyer puts on the scientific evidence that the defendant motorist was driving DUI cell phone level impaired at the time of the accident and four times more likely to cause an accident, this can turn a contested liability case into a “no thinker” for the jury. It is powerful evidence, just as a Breathalyzer, urine or blood test demonstrating that the defendant was DUI drunk at the time of the accident is powerful evidence.
1 (B). In Serious Injury Auto Accident Cases the Cell Phone Accident Attorney Can Often Obtain A Much Larger Recovery for His Client If He Can Establish That The Other Motorist Was Involved in a Business Related Cell Conversation At the Time of the Accident.
The cell phone accident lawyer’s competent investigation, his prosecution of the appropriate pretrial depositions, amendments to the pleadings, and trial of the case, can mean the difference between a minimal recovery and a spectacular recovery for his client where it can be established that the defendant motorist was involved in a business related call.
In serious injury accident cases all to often the ordinary auto accident lawyer will be unable to obtain a recovery remotely approximating the magnitude of the monetary damages to which his client should have been entitled. The client may have suffered brain damages or paralysis or debilitating internal injury or limb amputation or catastrophic orthopedic injury, unable to work in his profession for the remainder of his work life expectancy. His measure of damages properly recoverable include his general damages associated with his injury including his pain and suffering and compensation for all the things he could have done, and did before the accident which he can’t do now; his medical expenses and future medical expenses; and his loss of earnings, past and future. When all are calculated his case might be “worth” millions. But the auto drivers who commonly cause accidents are so often woefully underinsured, usually with statutory minimum liability policies, and little or no assets with which to pay the damages. All too many of these seriously injured clients have been sent on to state run convalescent centers for the remainder of their lives deprived of ability to obtain the state of the art medical technology available for their injuries, deprived also of the dignity of paying their own way, as they have their whole lives.
The appropriately qualified cell phone lawyer can often make the difference between a pitiful recovery and a recovery for his client which fully compensates him for all of his damages.
For many businesses the cell phone is deemed a useful tool for a variety of reasons, too many to enumerate. It may be a part of the employee’s responsibilities to communicate with clients or customers while driving or with the employer to and from the workplace. With the long commutes of workers to their place of business, employees often use the time to call clients or customers or communicate with their secretaries, employers or fellow employees.
Generally speaking when an employee is “commuting” to and from work it is the law that is not “within the course and scope of his employment,” and so the employer cannot be held liable if the employee is involved in an accident
However, if the cell phone accident lawyer can be established that the employee was involved in a cell conversation, and that he was involved in a business related call, a good case can be made that he was driving “in the course and scope of his employment.” For the seriously injured client, this can literally mean the difference between just a few dollars in compensation and millions. Respondeat supeior theory states that where an employee is acting within the course and scope of his employment, the employer is liable in addition to the employee. The cell phone accident lawyer can amend the complaint to name the employer as a defendant, and the employer will be held “vicariously liable” for the injuries and damages caused by his employee. The employee may have just a minimum liability policy, but the employer may have a million dollar policy, a many million dollar excess policy, and many millions more in assets which can be attached to pay the judgment.
In serious injury cases it is extremely important that attorneys highly qualified in cell phone accident liability be engaged to investigate and prosecute the litigation.
2. The Cell Phone Accident Lawyers Investigates of Every Serious Injury Auto Accident Case to Determine if there is Phone Record Evidence of a Cell Conversation and Follows Through To Determine the Identity of the Other Party to the Conversation and the Purpose and Substance of the Conversation.
In every serious injury auto accident case, whether the client or any witnesses noticed whether or not the other motorist was on the phone, the competent cell phone accident lawyer will immediately demand through discovery the other motorist’s cell phone records. This is important first, to determine whether the other motorist was on the phone in order to establish a much stronger liability case. But the cell phone accident attorney will not stop there. The cell phone accident attorney will also immediately determine the identify of the other party to the conversation and initially send his investigator to speak with him or her to discover whether the person has any business relationship with the defendant auto driver or the auto driver’s employer. The cell phone accident lawyer will instruct his investigator to contact the other party to the conversation immediately because he will want him to will ask also about the nature and substance of the conversation while the conversation is still relatively fresh in his or her mind. The investigator will obtain a written statement from the witness. The cell phone accident attorney will then notice the depositions both of the defendant motorist and the other party to the conversation to interrogate them under oath about their relationship, the nature of the call and the substance of the conversation.
It is in this way that the cell phone accident lawyer can often establish that the cell phone call in which the motorist was involved at the time of the accident was one “in the course and scope of his employer’s business.” Once this is established, the cell phone accident lawyer will amend the complaint in the case to add the employer as a defendant an put the employer’s insurance policy and assets at risk in the litigation. In this way the cell phone accident lawyer can often obtain a settlement for his client fully adequate to pay for his pain and suffering, loss of the participate in the activities he enjoyed before the accident, his full measure of past and future medical expense, his lost earnings and his future lost earnings for the remainder of his work-life expectancy.
The Cases Are Complex And Require Competent Cell Phone Accident Attorneys Capable and Willing to Learn the Complex Science as Well As Capable of Presenting the Science.
Slowly auto accident attorneys are beginning to realize the importance of investigating every contested accident case and most importantly every serious injury accident case to determine if the other motorist was on the cell phone. But it is not just determining that the other party was on the cell phone, it is determining who the other party to the cell phone was and whether it was a business conversation. And then it is essential to establish that the accident resulted from the motorists driving impairment resulting from the cell conversation. Appropriately qualified cell phone accident lawyers have researched the science, know it backwards and forwards, and have the capacity to apply that knowledge at trial. These are not just simple auto accident cases in which the most complicated issue is whether the defendant motorist ran the light. These are complex cases involving the presentation of complex scientific evidence. Usually good cell phone auto accident lawyers have had a background of experience in prosecuting cases involving complex subject matter requiring the presentation of scientific evidence, such as medical malpractice cases or pharmaceutical product liability cases which provide them the scientific background essential to present the cases at trial. In every serious injury case in particular any potential client should consider obtaining a qualified cell phone accident lawyer.
|
|  | | |
|
|