Maine Personal Injury Lawyer - Automobile Accidents - Most Commented

Maine Senate gives green light to Ignition Interlock in hopes of controlling drunk drivers

Don Briggs — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:40:59 GMT

On March 27th, the Maine Senate gave full approval to the implementation of an Ignition Interlock program which would install breath analysis devices in the vehicles of convicted OUI offenders. The devices require drivers to breath into a miniature breathalyzer installed on the dashboard, and, if the driver's blood alcohol percentage is above the programmed limit (usually .02% -.04%), the vehicle will not start.

The systems also administer random tests while the car is in motion to prevent intoxicated drivers from fooling the test by having a friend breath into the device for them. If they exceed the limit, the car will warn the driver to stop the car and then set off the alarm, flash its lights, honk the horn, etc., until the engine is turned off.

So what does this mean for Maine drivers? The details of the plan are still in the works, and procedures differ from state to state, but OUI offenders may face mandatory installation of the devices on their vehicles if Maine follows down the same path as California. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) launched a campaign in November of 2006 to push for ITD installation for all OUI convictions, even first time offenders, but some criticize the devices, suggesting that they may actually lead to more accidents.
For more information and details on the bill titled "An Act to Reduce Drunk Driving" sponsored by Senator Lynn Bromley, click here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Briggs

Maine Car Crash Leads To Second Accident

Anne Fennessey — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:46:52 GMT

It happens alot. There's an accident on the highway. Rescue vehicles rush to the scene with sirens blaring and lights flashing. Other drivers on the road move out of the way and let the rescue vehicles make their way to the crash. That's the way it should be, but on Wednesday, March 26, 2008, things didn't exactly work out the way they should have following an accident on I-95 North in Hamden, Maine.

According to a report in the Bangor Daily News, the driver of the car involved in the first accident lost control of his vehicle as he was heading north on I-95, causing it to careen across the roadway. The car rolled over, became airborne, and landed on its side about 25 feet off the the northbound side of the highway.

"This accident occurred first, and that one over there occurred second," Trooper Michael Johnston said from the scene of the rollover. "When fire and rescue units responded, traffic didn't heed their [emergency] lights" and crashed into each other.

Rescue vehicles approaching the accident scene from the southbound side of the highway slowed down at an emergency turnaround in order to reach the crash site. Unfortunately, some drivers on I-95 South didn't notice the emergency vehicles slowing down in front of them and that inattention led to a three car crash in the southbound lanes. This second crash was not a serious accident, with mostly minor damage to the cars involved, but it did back up traffic for more than an hour.

A passenger in the car involved in the first accident was injured seriously enough to be transported to a local hospital. (Neither occupant of that vehicle were wearing seat belts.) One person from the second crash was also sent to the hospital for treatment of minor injuries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Anne Fennessey

Drunk Drivers, Suspended Licenses, and Fatal Crashes: Does Maine Need the Ignition Interlock System?

Don Briggs — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 09:23:49 GMT

Every ten hours, a driver with a suspended license gets into a crash in Maine. That's according to a recent article from the Kennebec Journal Morning Sentinel. More concerning, still, is that one quarter of these drivers has been drinking or using drugs before the crash.This comprehensive report offers a detailed analysis of the problem and reveals that, not only are suspended drivers getting into crashes, but they are six times more like to be fatal crashes that those caused by properly licensed drivers. Some states have adopted tough laws and new technology to fight the problem. Should Maine do the same?

Suspended drivers, though, aren't the only problem. In many states, like Maine, drivers who have their licenses suspended are eligible to apply for work-restricted licenses that allow them to drive between home and work. The Portland Press Herald reports that there are currently over 1000 Mainers operating under restricted licenses. However, they're difficult to regulate and often abused. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers supports the implementation of an Ignition Interlock System that acts as sort of breathalyser that is installed in the vehicles of repeat OUI offenders. The device requires periodic breath tests that must record a blood alcohol level below a certain limit in order for the engine to start. The devices, which have been implemented in several states, have faced much criticism, and it's clear that the problem of drinking and driving in Maine cannot be solved by technology alone, but it's equally clear that more must be done to keep dangerous drivers off Maine roads.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Briggs

Dangerous Drivers and Suspended Licenses: Who Will Keep Them Off Maine's Roads?

Don Briggs — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:02:31 GMT

A recent article published in the Portland Press Herald reports that, every day, thousands of Mainers get behind the wheel with suspended licenses, but according to court records, law enforcement catches about only about a dozen of them. The chances of getting caught are slim unless the driver is pulled over for some other reason, and many people simply decide it's worth the risk. For others, alcohol and drug abuse evokes behavior that is unlikely to change for those who refuse to seek treatment. However, whether the
suspensions come from habitual speeding, reckless driving, or alcohol consumption, it's no surprise that people who have had their right to drive revoked for disregarding traffic laws in the past are also likely to disregard the laws telling them not to drive.

Alton E. Grover Jr., is a perfect example of what Maine law enforcement is up against. This article tells the story Grover's story and how explains how, at 58 years old, he's racked up at least 36 traffic-related convictions, been on drugs while driving, and caused at least two crashes in which someone was hurt.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

"In 2006, Grover's driving problems intensified. That February he was convicted of operating under the influence. In May he was convicted of driving while his license was suspended. And in August he was convicted of driving without a license and was sentenced to 48 hours in jail. Those three convictions made Grover a "habitual offender," a license status that meant Grover would face stiffer penalties if he were pulled over again by police. But because of paperwork delays in the court system and at the Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles, more than five months passed before the state officially reclassified Grover as a habitual offender. In the meantime, Grover was arrested, again, for driving with a suspended license. Had the state moved more quickly, Grover would have received a minimum sentence of six months in jail under "Tina's Law," the 2006 overhaul of Maine's traffic statutes. Instead, he got a five-day jail term."

Tina's Law is a prime example not only of the pain and suffering that bad drivers have caused in Maine, but also of the important legislative efforts that have been made to get these people off the road. But good laws aren't good enough, we must also enforce them. That means getting ahead of bureaucratic backlog so laws like Tina's Law from working the way they were intended.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Briggs

Why Maine Jurors Should Be Mad

Alison Mynick, RN, Esq. — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:16:39 GMT

Here is a typical example of how insurance companies, and their corporate defense counsel, take advantage of ordinary Maine citizens:
"Driver A" is sitting in her car. The car is stopped in traffic and she is waiting to turn left. She has her blinker on. She has seatbelt on. Driver A is playing by the rules.

Up from behind her in traffic comes another driver, "Driver B". This driver is not playing by the rules. Driver B swivels her head taking her eyes off the road and turns to look out the passenger window just because. Driver B isn't stopped in traffic while looking out the passenger window--she's driving forward without looking!!! Driver B plows into Driver A. Driver A's car is jolted forward, and the lady inside is jolted too. Driver A is hurt, for no good reason.

Since it's pretty clear that Driver A is in the right, and just as clear that Driver B is in the wrong, isn't it ridiculous that people have to receive a notice from the Clerk of Court, leave their job and other responsibilities, and show up in Court to tell Driver B "Yes, Driver B, you were in the wrong and you are responsible for every way in which you changed the physical condition of Driver A". Isn't it foolish that Driver B doesn't accept responsibility for what is clearly Driver B's breaking the rules?

What is really happening here? Who should the Jury really be angry at?

The insurance company for Driver B.

Drivers B has paid an insurance premium so that when Driver B makes a mistake Driver B can simply say, "I'm sorry, I take responsibility" and have his or her insurance company pay for every change in Driver A that was caused by the car accident. But the insurance company has nothing to lose in hauling people (Jurors) out of their homes, their jobs, their lives into a Court two, three or four years after they should have paid on a claim, because they can hope that the Jury will blame Driver A-who is the Plaintiff_ and let the insurance company off the hook.

The insurance company hires corporate attorneys who, on paper, represent Driver B. But, it is Driver B's insurance company that pays for Driver B. The insurance defense lawyer has additional incentive to spin the facts of a case so that a Jury will think the whole problem lies with Driver A, and not with Driver B.

If insurance companies did what they were supposed to--pay for injuries caused by their insureds- Courts wouldn't be clogged with cases that shouldn't be there in the first place. This is why Maine jurors should be mad.

And every time Jurors get the chance to tell the insurance company how angry they are, and how unhappy they are of being taken advantage of, they ought to tell the insurance company that, through their verdict. They ought to make the insurance company pay every cent that an injury is truly worth to an ordinary American. Juries should be mad every single time this happens to them. And they should let the insurance companies know it every single time.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Alison Mynick, RN, Esq.

Slippery Maine Roads and Distracted Drivers Make for a Dangerous Winter Mix of Car Accidents and Injury

Don Briggs — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:03:38 GMT

Did you know that driver distraction causes about 80% of all car accidents? According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, driver inattention is the number one cause of accidents. An article summarizing the findings reports that drowsiness increases the risk of crashes by at least a factor of four, looking at something outside the car more than triples the chance of accident, and the same with dialing a cell-phone, reading, and applying makeup.

Unfortunately, a lot of people out there simply aren't paying attention, and things only get worse when you add freezing rain, sleet, and snow to the mix. In Rangely, this week, a woman plowed through a snow bank after reckless driving on slippery roads, and ended up falling over the guardrail and down a ten-foot embankment. This woman, who turned out to be heavily intoxicated, luckily crashed before doing harm to anyone other than herself.

Many times, though, careless, reckless, and distracted drivers do end up causing all kinds of suffering, injury, inconvenience, and even death to the people they hit. Unfortunately, what seems like a clear-cut case of negligence, can be complicated by legal jargon and insurance adjusters who inevitably try and find ways to avoid paying damages. Things can get especially complicated by the winter driving conditions here in Maine because many people will try and blame the weather for their own carelessness and poor judgment. That's why it's essential to seek the help of an attorney who has experience dealing with winter driving, car accidents, and insurance companies.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Briggs

Connecticut Driver Kills New York Motorist

Courtney Mills — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:42:31 GMT

A fatal car accident on Route 8 claimed the life of a 41-year old man from New York. Connecticut police announced that Robert Goodwin of Saratoga Springs, NY, died at Yale-New Haven Hospital.

Goodwin's truck was in the southbound lane on Route 8 when, according to authorities, a car struck him head-on in the oncoming direction. The other car was in the wrong lane of the highway, and apparently did not see Goodwin in time.

The other driver, Finn McDaniel of Milford, Ct, came onto the highway from exit 20 and began driving northbound before hitting Goodwin's truck, said police. Both men were then brought to the hospital from the scene of the crash, where Goodwin later died.

Our thoughts and prayers extend to the family of the deceased.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Courtney Mills

Insurance Industry Greed

Corinne Tozier — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:37:41 GMT

Most insurance companies make a sizeable profit each year yet never really explain to their customers why the rates keep going up and perhaps services go down. Take, for instance, the Eastern and Gulf Coast policyholders whose policies have been dropped yet the insurance industry profit in 2006 was over $63 billion dollars. Sixty-three Billion!

Watch out for the greedy insurance company.

You faithfully pay your premiums, a natural disaster hits, and then your insurance company drops you.

Or you are in an automobile accident, sustain injuries that the insurance company may regard as being minor or even immaterial, and not want to pay.

Insurance companies often take advantage of you by not settling your claim, or they offer you as low a settlement as they think they can get away with. Don't be fooled. The friendly insurance adjustor who seems concerned about your injuries is really trying to do his or her job - maximize the insurance company's profits!

Call your Maine personal injury attorney.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Corinne Tozier

Car Accidents 101 - What to do!

Corinne Tozier — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:07:46 GMT

You've been in an accident; you are upset and cannot think clearly; and you are at a loss as to what to do or what information you might need for future use.

A print-out list of what you should do would be handy to help you through those first stressful minutes after your accident. Well here's a list for you!

http://www.seitelman.com/auto_accident.htm

1. Try to remain claim and thoughtful
2. If you are injured, stay in your car - unless it's dangerous to do so.
3. Wait for the police and medical help.
4. Inform the police about the accident for the official report.
5. Record all witnesses' names, addresses and phone numbers.
6. Confirm whether you were wearing a seat belt, which is the law in most jurisdictions.
7. If you are injured, insist on being transported to a hospital in an ambulance.
8. In all instances, obtain medical treatment immediately. Tell medical personnel about everything that you feel may be physically wrong.
9. Refrain from taking legal referrals at hospitals.
10. Do not talk to insurance reps until you contact a lawyer.

Protect yourself and your family. Print out this list and keep it in your glove compartment. Let's hope you never need to use it. But if you do, you will be prepared and your stress level should be less.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Corinne Tozier

Safety Problem with Weakened Car Doors

Corinne Tozier — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:19:23 GMT

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been asked to reconsider the wording of a regulation on car door locks that might affect state tort laws.

The regulation in itself is good as it makes sure that car doors, including sliding side doors, remain closed in the event of a crash.

However, the language is problematic.

The regulation, scheduled to take effect on September 1, 2008, contains language which could deprive individual states from holding slack manufacturers liable.

"Many states have gone beyond the federal government's safety requirements and taken extra steps to protect residents," said Jon Haber, chief executive officer of AAJ, formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. "Eliminating state safety laws and their ability to hold wrongdoers accountable is a dangerous giveaway to the big car companies that could ultimately make cars less safe."

"Although AAJ thinks that preamble language has no substantive effect, the language must be revised to remove any reference to preemption of state tort law,'' said AAJ President Lewis S. "Mike'' Eidson, in a letter delivered to the NHTSA and dated March 23, 2007.

Apparently the NHTSA failed to provide notice to interested parties that the proposal could preempt state law prior to adoption.

href="http://www.justice.org/pressroom/PressReleases/2007/mar26.aspx">http://www.justice.org/pressroom/PressReleases/2007/mar26.aspx

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Corinne Tozier