On May 8, 2012, a construction worker was hit by a car while he was walking at a repaving project site on East 10th Street in Indianapolis, Indiana. His injuries were critical, and he unfortunately passed away the next morning.

The victim was doing everything right. He was on the job and was wearing a bright yellow safety vest. But the same cannot be said of the driver that caused the car accident. The 24-year old female was driving drunk and failed at least two sobriety tests administered at the crash scene. This would have been bad enough on its own, but it gets worse. Witnesses say she stopped briefly to check on the man, then got back in her car and drove away. She also had her young daughter in the car with her while she was driving drunk. When police found her, she gave them a false identity for herself and her child. All of this occurred while she should not have been driving at all because her license had been suspended.

All of these actions add up to a long list of charges including not stopping after a fatal accident, driving while intoxicated, driving with a minor in the car while intoxicated, giving a false identity and driving with a suspended license. Most people are familiar with the majority of these charges. But one may be a little more unknown a driving drunk with someone under the age of 18 in the car.

Teen and pre-teens hanging out at a friendas house is commonplace on the weekends. Often lacking money to go out, they congregate at a home to visit, play video games, or listen to music. That is probably how the evening of December 9, 2011 started for a group of Indiana kids. Unfortunately, a few people made some bad decisions, and the night ended in tragedy.

Somehow, a 14-year-old boy obtained the keys to a car and took a 13-year-old and 12-year-old for a joyride around 1:00 a.m. A combination of inexperienced driving, a slippery road, and perhaps speed caused the driver to lose control of the car. It slid off the road, rolled over, and landed in a deep ditch. The 12-year-old passenger was killed. The driver and other passenger had some broken bones, but no life-threatening injuries. No one in the car was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash.

The parents of the deceased victim have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the driver, both to request damages and to find out what really happened that night. Because the investigation is still open, the victimas parents do not have access to any police information about the car accident. Their attorney states, aNo one really knows the truth. Thereas so many different stories about what happened that evening.a Once a lawsuit is filed, witnesses can be called to testify as to how the 14-year-old ended up with the keys to a car and what happened in the moments leading up to the crash.

After four days of opening and closing arguments and testimony, a Kentucky jury took only four hours to determine that a church and its former youth minister were mostly responsible for the death of a 13-year-old boy. His estate was awarded over $2 million. How much of that they receive remains to be seen.

The 13-year-old was killed in 2009 in a single-car accident. The wreck occurred after 10 youths had gone on a camping trip with Derek Coulter, their youth minister from Big Springs Assembly of God. At first Mr. Coulter stated that he was driving with the victim and another passenger in his SUV when he swerved to hit a deer and ran off the road. Later, another teen passenger told authorities that Mr. Coulter had allowed the victim to the driver the SUV, and he caused the accident when he lost control of the vehicle and crossed the road. Mr. Coulter then recanted his initial story, leaving the victimas loved ones to wonder if anything he told them about that day was true.

The boyas family filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Kentucky requesting compensation for the death of their son from Mr. Coulter and the church. Church officials denied any responsibility, saying it was not a church function and that Mr. Coulter was not acting as an employee when the car accident occurred because it was his day off. The plaintiffas attorney argued that the church was liable because every person who attended the camping trip was a church member, Mr. Coulter referred to it as church event during the victimas funeral, and the kids were told they were not allowed to swear on the trip because it was a church outing. Also, statements showed that Mr. Coulter had allowed several other teens to drive his car in the church parking lot on various occasions, so the church should have known it was occurring and intervened.

A tragic car accident took the life of a 13-year-old Kentucky girl in March 2010. She was walking along a road near Philpot, Kentucky around dinner time. An SUV hit her from behind and she sustained critical injuries. The story would be bad enough if it ended there, but it gets worse.

The man who hit her fled the scene, making the crash a hit-and-run accident. He proceeded to wash his car and even created a one-car accident with it two days later to cover up the evidence. So not only did he not stay to help the child that he hit, he also tried to pretend that he was not at fault by tampering with the evidence.

The victim unfortunately died four days later at Kosair Childrenas Hospital in Louisville, Kentucky. Would she have survived if the man who hit her stopped to help instead of running away to hide his guilt? No one will ever know. What is known is that the driver was charged with three class D felonies, reckless homicide, leaving the scene of an injury accident, and tampering with evidence. After being found guilty on all charges by a jury, on March 27, 2012, he was sentenced to five years in prison for each count, making a total of 15 years that he should remain behind bars. Throughout the entire process, the driver never took responsibility for his actions or showed any remorse.

On Sunday, February 5, 2012, Robert Kempf was driving on I-71 near the Watterson Expressway in Louisville, Kentucky when a fatal accident occurred. Based on a preliminary investigation, this tragic car accident could have been avoided.

Robert Kempf and his friend had been watching the Super Bowl that Sunday, visiting with friends, drinking some alcohol. Later that night, Mr. Kempf got in his 1995 white Corvette with his friend. Once on I-71, he started speeding and lost control of the vehicle. Investigators are unsure if he ran off the road and rolled the car or if the car rolled over until it left the road. Either way, his 49-year-old passenger was killed when the car rolled onto its roof. How Mr. Kempf survived the crash is a mystery.

What is not a mystery are the factors involved in this crash. First, Mr. Kempf was driving over the posted speed limit, which makes it more difficult to control a vehicle. Second, Mr. Kempf had been drinking prior to driving the vehicle. Being under the influence of drugs or alcohol seriously hinders a driveras ability to safely operate a vehicle. Apparently this was not the first time Mr. Kempf had driven while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. He has been charged with DUI at least three times in Louisville since the 1980s and had his license revoked at some point. He also faced drug-related charges in the past, which may mean some of his DUIs were drug-related instead of alcohol-related.

A pedestrian was critically injured in a Spokane car accident in the South Hill area, according to a KXLY news report. The injury collision occurred at the intersection of 10th and Oak where the victim was hit by a car. The driver of the car fled the scene of the crash. The victim was taken to a local hospital. The pedestrian is believed to have sustained life-threatening injuries. The suspectas vehicle has been described as a light brown or blue sedan with a loud muffler.

As a Seattle car accident attorney, Kirk Bernard understands the serious consequences of hit-and-run accidents. Leaving the scene of an auto collision is a serious crime in Washington State and is punishable by jail time. According to the Revised Code of Washington Section 46.52.020: "A driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in the injury to or death of any person or involving striking the body of a deceased person shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such accident or as close thereto as possible but shall then forthwith return to, and in every event remain at, the scene of such accident until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of subsection (3) of this section; every such stop shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary."

A 50-year-old driver was injured in a Washington car accident after his 2005 Toyota pickup truck was rear-ended by a 1997 Nissan Maxima. The driver of the Toyota was making a left turn into the Sundown M. Ranch from the northbound State Route 821 in Selah, Washington, the Yakima Herald-Republic reports. Both drivers were transported to a local hospital. The extent of their injuries is not known. Officials believe that the woman driving the Maxima may have been inattentive just before the collision occurred. It is not clear what she was doing at the time.

Distractions and inattention amount to negligence when it comes to vehicular accidents. Distractions could include anything from talking on a hand-held cell phone, texting, eating, applying makeup or looking out the window at something that caught your eye. This is how most rear-end accidents are caused and several of these incidents often result in serious injuries. It could cause head injuries, spinal cord injuries or other types of neck and back injuries. Whiplash is one of the most common consequences of a rear-end collision. If you have been injured in a car accident as a result of a rear-end collision caused by a negligent driver, you can file a claim with the help of a Seattle car accident attorney seeking compensation for the medical expenses incurred as well as loss of wages.

As a St. Louis car crash attorney, I handle cases caused by all kinds of human error. Most of them have to do with errors behind the wheel by one or both drivers, but sometimes, a third party is responsible. That would be true if the wreck was caused or worsened by a poorly maintained road, inadequate signage or signals, obstructions to driversa views or other non-driver factors. In McIlroy v. Gibsonas Apple Orchard, the Maine Supreme Court ruled that James McIlroy should be permitted to make the case that his accident was caused by a commercial business sign that obscured driversa views. McIlroy was nearly hit by Charlotte Small as he passed the sign for Gibsonas Apple Orchard, lost control of his motorcycle and suffered injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment to Gibsonas, but the Maine Supreme Court reversed, saying a jury could reasonably find the sign caused the crash.

Gibsonas places an eight-foot temporary sign at the corner of Route 2 and North Road in Bethel, Maine, during apple-picking season. On the day of the accident, McIlroy was heading west on Route 2 through the intersection and had the right-of-way; Small was on North Road at the corner with the sign. According to McIlroyas testimony, Small pulled into his lane of traffic, causing him to lose control of the motorcycle and crash. McIlroy argued that the sign obscured Smallas view of the road, requiring her to pull into the intersection in order to safely turn, and thus proximately caused the accident. Small denied entering the intersection, but McIlroy argued that if this is true, the sign still was a proximate cause because Small was still obliged to move around it while on North Road. McIlroyas claims against Small herself were dismissed with prejudice, but McIlroy appealed only the summary judgment finding that he could not show proximate cause by the sign.

The Maine Supreme Court sided with him, agreeing that a rational jury could find that the sign proximately caused the accident. His claim was for negligence, the high court said, which requires a finding that Gibsonas breach of a duty owed to McIlroy was a proximate cause of the crash. That is, the breach must have been a substantial factor in bringing about the harm to McIlroy. This is a question of fact, the court said, making it appropriate for a jury to decide unless thereas so little evidence for it that the jury would have to speculate to find causation. The trial court concluded that the jury would have to speculate to find causation in this case, but the Supreme Court disagreed. While there was no evidence of the exact location of the sign (which was temporary), a rational jury could find causation from other elements, including various partiesa and witnessesa testimony about where the sign was placed and how Small was required to drive to make her turn. Thus, the high court vacated the judgment and remanded the case.

I strongly agree that this is an issue of fact that is most appropriate for a jury to decide. As a Missouri motor vehicle accident lawyer, I demonstrate this kind of driving decision to the jury all the time. Most drivers can relate to the need to make a good judgment when entering a partly obscured intersection, and even those who donat ride a motorcycle can likely sympathize with McIlroyas decision to swerve out of the way when he saw, or thought he saw, a driver entering his lane. Itas also interesting to me as a southern Illinois auto accident attorney that the claims against Small were dismissed. Itas unfortunately not uncommon for motorcyclists to have one-vehicle accidents that were nonetheless caused by another driveras bad decisions, because a motorcycle is less stable than a car. Insurance companies see this as an opportunity to deny that their insured is at fault, which is why itas important for accident victims to fight back.

As a St. Louis auto accident lawyer, I frequently have to counsel my clients on claiming benefits for uninsured or underinsured motorists. This is a type of insurance that covers drivers when they are injured through no fault of their own by someone who doesnat have any insurance at all, or doesnat have enough insurance to cover all the injuries created by the accident he or she caused. Missourians are required by law to carry uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, along with the minimum liability insurance coverage. Unfortunately, people in Missouri and across the United States have frequently had trouble actually using those benefits, because insurance companies save money when they can deny claims. One case like this, out of Virginia, was the Virginia Supreme Courtas decision in Arnold v. Wallace et al., which upheld a small verdict in favor of Mary Arnold. Arnold appealed the admission of her medical records and the use of an expert witness, but the high court affirmed both.

Arnold was injured in a 2005 collision with Jonathan Wallace, who had no insurance at all. To collect from her uninsured motorist policy, she brought a suit against Wallace, triggering a defense by her insurer, Travelers Insurance Company. At trial, Arnold argued that the crash had caused neck and back pain as well as post-concussion syndrome. Travelers introduced Arnoldas past medical records over her objection that the company had not made its case for a business records exception to the hearsay rule. Travelers then cross-examined Arnoldas doctor about other doctorsa notes on her medical conditions, including a deteriorating cervical disc and migraines. Arnold also objected at trial to expert defense witness Dr. Charles Citrin, who Arnold had previously hired. The trial court agreed that Citrin had conflicts, but permitted Travelers to substitute Citrinas partner, Dr. Elizabeth Hartman, over more objections. The jury ultimately awarded $9,134.61 to Arnold, who appealed.

The Virginia Supreme Court upheld both decisions. On the medical records, Arnold claimed Travelers should have shown that the records contained facts and not medical opinions, and thus did not adequately establish a business records exception to the hearsay rule. The high court disagreed. No past Virginia Supreme Court decisions have required that business records be entirely factual and free of opinions, it noted. Furthermore, it agreed with Travelers that objecting to the admission of the records does not encompass objecting to each individual record discussed a which Arnold had failed to do. Thus, her objections are waived, the court said, and the foundation of the business records exception was sufficient. The high court also rejected Arnoldas contentions that Hartman had a conflict of interests, in particular because she was given documents from Citrin including handwritten notes that could have contained confidential information from when Citrin had been hired by Arnold. However, no evidence shows any transfer of confidential information from Arnold to Citrin or Citrin to Hartman, and many of the notes were handwritten and indecipherable. Thus, it upheld the trial court on both counts.

I understand why Arnold would have been disappointed by the relatively small recovery in her case. While $9,000 would be a nice windfall for many people, I know from my work as a Missouri car accident attorney that it likely wonat cover treatment for the typical neck and back injuries sustained from a car accident. Most people donat realize that even a low-speed wreck is enough to throw the spine out of alignment, causing chronic pain and difficulties with daily life. Unfortunately, these soft tissue injuries are also difficult to prove, so plaintiffs like Arnold can have trouble collecting the full amount of their losses. Here at Carey, Danis & Lowe, we tell all of our clients to save every piece of documentation related to their injuries, even seemingly unimportant things like drugstore receipts. Armed with evidence that our clients took their injuries seriously from the beginning, our southern Illinois motor vehicle accident lawyers can make a strong case for fair compensation.

The family of a young girl killed in a 2006 hit and run accident has reached a settlement with the city of Lincoln Park in Chicago, IL, regarding the traffic safety conditions that led to 4-year-old Maya Hirsch's death. In the days leading up to the settlement, the case had become a lightning rod for traffic safety advocates across Lincoln Park and Chicagoland as a whole.

Details of the settlement are not forthcoming at this time. The Hirsch family attorney said that any statement from the family would wait until such time as a joint statement between the family and the city could be reached and released simultaneously. City Law Enforcement officials could not be reached for comment by local news sources for comment at all.

The complaint leveled by the Hirsch family against the city revolved around the traffic safety lights that were in place around the intersection where Maya was struck and killed by a fleeing driver. The Hirsch family's complaint stated that the traffic safety lights were placed improperly, as well as poorly maintained, both conditions leading to confusion and safety risks for those who used the intersection.

The driver of the car that struck Maya was David Roth, a 57 year old driving instructor with multiple driving offenses on his record. He struck Maya, her sister, and their mother, then drove away from the scene. Onlookers called and pleaded with Roth to stop, but he did not. Police later arrested and incarcerated Roth for an eight year term for leaving the scene of an accident. Roth later died in prison in 2008.

Maya's family had named Roth's estate in the lawsuit along with the city of Lincoln Park. The settlement reached includes an accord with the Roth Estate as well, bringing this unhappy saga to a close, hopefully one that will open the city's eyes about its responsibility to good traffic safety.

As a Missouri personal injury attorney, Iave written here several times before about accidents involving railroad crossings. These are particularly dangerous here in the Midwest, where we have a lot of railroad lines and the crossings arenat always as well marked as they should be. Railroads are frequently federally regulated, however, which means different laws are likely to apply than would if the crash had been between two cars. In Grade v. BNSF Railway Co., the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of most of the claims on the basis that they were preempted by federal railroad laws. Steven Grade of Nebraska was injured after he drove his car into a stopped railcar on a day when an ice storm greatly reduced visibility. He sued BNSF for blocking the crossing without adding a warning or breaking up the line of railcars.

Grade and his wife were coming back from a trip to buy groceries in Hastings, Nebraska. The trip was at night in late December, and an ice storm had affected both the roads and the visibility. As Grade attempted to drive through the railroad crossing, he hit a railcar that had been detached from a BNSF engine and left parked unattended at the crossing, waiting for a crew change and maintenance. (In fact, the line of parked railcars was so long that the court noted, in a footnote, that another driver hit it at a different intersection on the same night.) Gradeas car was totaled and he suffered disabling injuries to one arm. His lawsuit alleged BNSF should have supervised its railcars; warned drivers about the obstruction; and/or broken the line of railcars so it wouldnat block the intersection. The federal district court granted summary judgment to BNSF, finding most of the claims were federally preempted and the abreak the linea argument lacked proof of causation.

Grade appealed on all counts, but the Eighth Circuit ultimately affirmed. On the inadequate warning claims, the court found that they were preempted by the U.S. Supreme Courtas 2000 decision in Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Shanklin, which said any state-law claim of inadequacy at a railroad crossing is preempted when the warning device was installed with federal funds. It rejected an argument that a 2007 law superseded Shanklin, because that law applies to ongoing obligations, not the installation standards at issue. Similarly, a claim that BNSF should have used more reflective material fails because it was using as much reflective material as federally required. On the claims for improper blocking of the crossing and failure to break up the railcars, the court found that Grade did not show that his injuries were the natural and probable result of BNSF blocking the intersection for longer than the ten minutes permitted by state law. Finally, the Eighth found that Grade never showed BNSFas railcars were not under its control, so the control claim failed as well.

This outcome is another in a lengthening list of state-law personal injury cases rejected for federal preemption reasons, which is disappointing for southern Illinois auto accident lawyers like me. Followers of the U.S. Supreme Court may remember the court rejecting cases involving medical devices and generic prescription drugs, all of which it says are preempted by federal law. Attorneys for big businesses that are likely targets of lawsuits have busily expanded the idea to nearly every area with federal regulations, sometimes with thin justification. The end result is that injured people like Grade donat get their cases heard a that is, a jury never even considers them. Instead, the large companies that harmed them avoid responsibility for their own actions a in fact, they avoid even scrutiny of those actions. As a St. Louis car crash attorney, I donat believe this unfettered power of the strong over the weak is good for our society.