Auto Injury Law and Legislation

Baltimore Auto Injury News: Will Banning Hand-held Cell Phones Reduce Fatal Maryland Traffic Accidents?

May 7, 2010 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

It’s already been discussed here that a recent study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that cellphone bans do not appear to lower the incidence of traffic accidents. Even so, Maryland legislators are still moving toward a proposed law that will ban hand-held use of cellphones and mobile devices when operating a motor vehicle.

Anything that can reduce automobile and trucking-related highway crashes would be a good thing, since thousands of people are killed in traffic wrecks every year around the U.S. As a Baltimore car accident attorney, I’m on the side of the victims and I know that every driver should be doing his or her part to cut down on the carnage on our public roads.

I’ve seen what can happen to the occupants of a passenger car when it’s hit by another vehicle. Cuts and bruises are the least of the injuries a person can sustain in a crash. Traumatic brain injury is common, as is damage to the neck and spine, any of which can put a person in a wheelchair sometimes for the rest of their life. The question here is would a ban on hand-held cellphones be too much of burden, even if it saved the life of just one person?

Consider your answer carefully because the life you save may be your own, or that of a loved one. An editorial in the Baltimore Sun speaks to this very issue as Maryland faces a ban on hand-held cellphone use.

Of course, nearly every motorist at one time or another has seen all manner of vehicle being driven hazardously. This includes instances of failure to yield where appropriate, drifting into oncoming traffic or suddenly making a turn without an appropriate use of turn signals. I’ll wager that, at least in the past 10 years, these kinds of activities may well have been caused by a so-called distracted driver with a cellphone to his or her ear.

The new Maryland law would restrict driver cellphone use to only hands-free devices. Although it isn’t quite clear that such technology (usually a headset or vehicle-mounted microphone/speaker arrangement) improves matters much, but it may be the new law of the land as Maryland joins the growing number of jurisdictions that ban drivers from using hand-helds.

Baltimore Car Accident News: Maryland Residents May See Auto Insurance Rates to Increase

April 19, 2010 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

As a Maryland auto accident attorney, I know how costs can add up for the average family. When a car, truck or motorcycle accident causes a wage earner to be hospitalized for injuries suffered during a crash, medical costs and lost earnings can put many families into a terrible bind. Because carrying auto insurance on your vehicle is required by law, premiums are another cost that simply cannot be avoided.

Recently, news out of Annapolis shows that the state legislature is working on a bill that would likely increase insurance premiums for nearly every one of the 61,000 Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund customers. At the time of the news article, the bill passed through the House despite the protestations of the Republican side.

The bill would require policyholders to carry a minimum security of $30,000 for individuals and $60,000 for multiple drivers. Currently those minimums are $20,000 and $40,000 respectively and have not changed since 1972 when MAIF was established following legislation that made auto insurance mandatory.

Maryland Car Accident Law News: Never Assume a Minor Car or Truck Crash Causes Only Minor Injuries

April 16, 2010 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Having seen a number of car, commercial truck and SUV collisions over the past few months, it’s important to remind anyone who has been involved in a recent traffic accident that bodily injuries sustained as a result of a crash should never be compared to the damage that your vehicle may have received.

Why do I say this? The reason is simple, many insurance companies will attempt to paint a victims level of injury with the same brush as that of the vehicle involved in the accident. There is rarely a correlation between the two. And even if there was, you should always consult with a qualified Maryland injury attorney before signing any documents related to the accident.

Having represented hundreds of car-crash victims, I and my staff know that it is very easy for the occupant of a passenger vehicle to become seriously hurt in a traffic accident even though the repairs to the vehicle itself are relatively minor.

Baltimore Auto Accident Injury Law Update: Reckless Driving Bill Pending in Maryland Legislature

April 8, 2010 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Negligent drivers, whether they operate passenger vehicles or commercial delivery trucks or tractor-trailer rigs, should be help accountable for their actions behind the wheel. In Maryland, the penalties for reckless driving involving fatalities can appear to be hardly sufficient considering the results that are evident. Not a week goes by that it seems we hear at least one news story of a traffic fatality on one of this state’s busy roadways.

As a Baltimore automobile accident lawyer, I and my colleagues fight a seemingly never ending battle for car crash victims and their families. It makes not difference whether a person is hurt as a result of a semi truck hitting their car or another passenger vehicle slamming into their sedan, minivan or SUV. The pain and suffering sustained during the accident and afterward can be substantial.

Not long ago we reported on a bill introduced into the Maryland state legislature that would increase the penalties for drivers found guilty of reckless and negligent driving in instance where the driver’s action led to the death or serious injury of another individual. It’s heartening to know now that the bill has already received support in the form of a successful vote in the Senate and will soon be moving on to the House.

Baltimore Traffic Injury Law: Uninsured Cabs are Cheap…Until You’re Injured in a Severe Accident

March 31, 2010 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In my Baltimore injury law office we often hear of accidents involving service vehicles. Taxi cabs, hire cars, limousines and shuttle busses can all be involved in traffic collisions. As passenger, you can be seriously injured in even the simplest automobile accidents. It doesn’t take much to cause an unbelted occupant of a motor vehicle to sustain broken bones, cuts and bruises and even debilitating injuries.

Every Maryland resident who rides as a passenger in a cab, bus or other type of fare-paying transportation should be aware of the potential problems associated with uninsured carriers. And even if you don’t travel in these potentially costly conveyances, you may have an elderly relative or friend who often uses one to get to and from the supermarket or other metropolitan location.

This is especially important because, as we all know, automobile accidents can happen anywhere, any time. People on a fixed budget will find uninsured cabs and hire cars particularly difficult to turn when they offer such low fares. But you must ask yourself the question, “Is it worth the possibly devastating medical or work-loss costs should you become a victim of that driver’s error or negligence?”

Maryland Auto Accident Update: Are Lenient Vehicular Manslaughter Laws Unfair to Victims of Fatal Car Crashes?

March 29, 2010 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

To some observers, it could be said that Maryland’s automobile manslaughter laws are not nearly as harsh as they should be for individuals convicted of killing another person as a result of a traffic wreck. While car and truck accidents happen all of the time, a percentage of these collisions are fatal. As a Baltimore auto accident lawyer, I and my colleagues have helped dozens of families deal with the tragic loss of a loved one due to another person’s negligence.

Wrongful death suits can be quite commonplace in instances of gross negligence on a driver’s part. Certain factors can make a vehicular manslaughter charge necessary, such as drinking and driving, excessive speed and aggressive driving, even distracted driving is getting the attention of some states as a cause of fatal passenger car and trucking-related collisions. Pedestrians killed by a motorist’s poor judgment are another group that is represented in the gruesome fatal traffic accident statistics.

A recent editorial brought home some of the heart-breaking details that illustrate typical facts surrounding these sad stories of loss and grief. One example of the seeming injustice of Maryland’s traffic laws was an incident where a driver only had to pay two traffic tickets after an accident that killed a gentleman and was allegedly caused by excessive speed, racing and off-road driving.

Baltimore Injury Lawyer News: Many Maryland Residents Support Ignition Interlocks for Convicted DUI Offenders

March 26, 2010 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Drunk driving kills thousands of people every year across the U.S. and Maryland is no exception to this sad statistic. Whether you live in Annapolis, Baltimore, the District or Columbia, MD, every week it is possible to read another in the steady stream of news article covering fatal traffic accidents caused by motorists impaired by alcohol, prescription narcotics and illicit drugs. Most every Maryland injury attorney has represented his or her fair share of victims and their families following a tragic car or truck wreck.

A bill making its way through the Maryland legislature may help to reduce the number of injuries, such as broken bones, head trauma and spinal cord damage, caused by repeat drunk driving offenders. According to reports, two bills are part of the state’s Drunk Driving Elimination Act, which was created in an attempt to reduce the incidence of DUI across Maryland.

One of the bills would require every convicted drunk driving offender to have an ignition interlock installed in his or her vehicle, and to remain in use for a state-mandated period of time — possibly three months. This potential law, which would affect even first-time DUI offenders, is similar to laws on the books in other states that require the use of ignition interlock devices for people responsible for automobile and trucking-related collisions.

Maryland Auto Accident News: Health Insurance Not Obliged to Cover Crash Victims’ Medical Costs

November 15, 2009 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A recent Court of Appeals ruling has determined that Maryland health insurance carriers do not necessarily have to cover the medical costs incurred by victims of car and truck accidents. As part of a class-action suit concluded on October 20, Maryland’s top court’s decision is based on a state law that requires automobile insurance companies to carry PIP (or personal injury protection) coverage for driver’s.

As a Maryland auto accident attorney, I understand the typically expensive medical costs associated with car and truck accidents. This is why I and my colleagues always recommend to anyone involved in an injury accident to contact a qualified accident lawyer to review his or her situation. This latest court ruling makes it more difficult for victims of traffic collisions to recover their medical costs following a hospital stay.

The Court of Appeals’ 6-1 decision is a setback for a class of injured motorists who claimed that MAMSI Life & Health Insurance Co. had an obligation to make good on policies requiring it to pay medical expenses, including those resulting from automobile accidents. Had MAMSI paid for beneficiaries’ medical costs, they could have used the insurance money under personal injury protection, or PIP, to cover other expenses, such as lost wages.

The class-action lawsuit began on Sept. 24, 2004, when lead plaintiff Kuei-I Wu sued MAMSI in Baltimore County Circuit Court for breach of contract and related claims, due to injuries incurred following a car accident three years earlier when she was a University of Maryland student.

On April 5, 2007, the circuit court certified as a class all owners of MAMSI health plans since Sept. 23, 2001, who had a car accident and whose PIP coverage was partially or fully exhausted before their treating physicians sought reimbursement from MAMSI, which subsequently had the case moved to U.S. District Court in Baltimore.

Wu claims she sought medical treatment under her MAMSI health policy, which contained a provision that called for coverage regardless of any other insurance she had, including PIP. Wu alleges the insurance company, in violation of the contract provision, required her treating physicians to seek reimbursement through the PIP first before turning to MAMSI.

But since the statutory issue has now been resolved in the company’s favor, the case will go back to the U.S. District Court in Baltimore for the narrower claim that MAMSI breached a provision in the policy contract requiring it to provide health coverage to injured motorists, regardless of the statute. The plaintiffs allege that, contrary to the policy contract, MAMSI’s separate contract with physicians required them to exhaust their driver’s auto insurance coverage before billing the company.