Personal Injury Law Journal

Let’s say you are walking on the side of a road and you are hit and injured by a big rig as it barrels down the road.  Let’s also assume you own a car in NJ that is covered by a standard automobile insurance policy.  Who pays your medical bills?

If you owned a car in NJ with a standard policy of insurance on it at the time of your injury, at least a portion of your medical bills would be paid for by a specific type of coverage on your automobile insurance policy known as “Extended Medical Expense Benefits Coverage.”  State law requires that auto insurance companies in New Jersey include at least $1,000.00 of Extended Medical Expense Benefits Coverage in standard automobile insurance policies.  State law further explains that insurance companies may offer up to $10,000.00 of Extended Medical Expense Benefits Coverage in standard automobile insurance policies.  

So, if you, a pedestrian, are hit by a truck, you will have at least $1,000.00 available under the Medical Expense Benefits Coverage of your automobile insurance policy to be paid toward your medical bills for the accident.  You may have up to $10,000.00 in coverage, depending on which coverage amount you selected on your automobile insurance policy.  Most policies either carry $10,000.00 or $1,000.00 in Medical Expense Benefits Coverage.  

Insurance coverage can be a complicated issue, and rightfully so, for many consumers.  The statutes can be difficult to understand, and when an accident happens, probably the last thing you want to be confused about is your auto insurance coverage.  So if you or your family members have questions concerning the types of insurance coverage available, please call me to discuss it.  Insurance coverage is an important issue and should not be ignored.  Don’t assume that you have enough insurance coverage.  You can call me anytime, and I will be happy to answer your questions absolutely free of charge.   

Stephen Di Stefano is an attorney in Stark & Stark’s Marlton, New Jersey office, concentrating in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Mr. Di Stefano.

Have you ever passed a tractor-trailer or bus and seen its driver talking on a hand-held cell phone?  Have you ever seen a tractor-trailer or bus in your rearview mirror whose driver was talking on a hand-held cell phone?  I have and I doubt that my experience is unique.

In September 2010, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration issued a regulation banning text messaging while operating a commercial truck or bus, but this regulation did not go far enough to curb the distracted driving epidemic affecting commercial drivers.  The new rule takes the necessary steps to further address the epidemic and bans commercial truck and bus drivers from using a hand-held mobile telephone while operating their vehicles.

Thankfully, the new rule comes with strong penalties for violators and their employers.  Commercial drivers who violate the rule will face federal civil penalties of up to $2,750 for each offense and disqualification from operating a commercial vehicle for multiple offenses.  Equally significant, the new rule imposes penalties of up to $11,000 on commercial truck and bus companies who allow their drivers to use hand-held mobile telephones.

If the extraordinary danger of operating a commercial vehicle while using a hand-held cell phone was not enough to deter drivers, with the consent of their employers, from engaging in this behavior, perhaps the new penalties will.

Bryan Roberts is an Associate in Stark & Stark’s Lawrenceville, New Jersey office, concentrating in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Mr. Roberts.

As part of the recently passed transportation bill, Congress has ordered the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to create a national clearinghouse for drug and alcohol test results for commercial drivers.  The clearinghouse, which is strongly supported by the American Trucking Associations “ATA,” is designed to close a significant loophole in the existing rules and prevent “job-hopping” drivers who violate the drug and alcohol rules.  

Although the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has voiced its desire to create such a clearinghouse in the past, progress has been slow, if not altogether imperceptible.  In hopes, the Congressional directive will motive the Administration to act quickly and the clearinghouse will become a reality.  Our roadways will be undeniably safer with fewer drugged and drunk commercial drivers behind the wheel.

Bryan Roberts is an Associate in Stark & Stark’s Lawrenceville, New Jersey office, concentrating in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Mr. Roberts.

In June, Congress debated a proposal that would require commercial truckers to install electronic on-board recorders “EOBRs” on their tractors.  EOBRs are similar to, though less sophisticated than, the “black boxes” that we hear about on commercial aircraft.  The proposal is part of the 2012 transportation and infrastructure bill and is designed to make our roadways safer by ensuring that truckers do not violate the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s hours of service regulations.   

Currently, many large trucking companies use EOBRs to track their drivers’ hours of service, whereas smaller fleets and owner-operators rely on paper logs that are easily manipulated and oftentimes falsified.  Not surprisingly, the 150,000-member Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association “OOIDA” has vigorously opposed the proposal and argued, without any concern for safety, that the devices will invade the drivers’ privacy, won’t increase record-keeping accuracy and will needlessly increase drivers’ operating expenses.  

However, the American Trucking Associations “ATA,” which is the nation’s largest trucking industry trade association and counts many of the nation’s largest trucking companies as members, supports the EOBR mandate.  In a recent USA Today article, ATA’s spokesman, Sean McNally, was quoted as saying, “[o]ur fleet members who are using (recorders) tell us it cuts down on hours of service violations, make it less burdensome to do paperwork, that they have fewer violations and comply with (federal) rules more effectively.”

Dan Osterberg, a senior vice president of safety and security at Schneider National, a 13,000-truck fleet and member of ATA, stated that the company saw a “significant reduction in crashes after it installed and mandated the use of EOBRs.  In the USA Today article, Mr. Osterberg stated that Schneider National did a study of crashes involving its trucks over a four year period and found that fatigue was the No. 1 cause of crashes at that time.  Following its installation and use of EOBRs in 2010, Osterberg was quoted as saying that “we’ve seen a significant reduction in fatigue-related crashes, in fatality crashes and in injury crashes.”

Clearly, in the experience of the trucking industry’s biggest players, the use of EOBRs makes our roadways safer by keeping fatigued drivers off of the road.  In acknowledgment of the safety benefits of EOBRs, auto club AAA and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance have joined ATA in urging Congress to adopt the EOBR mandate.  We can only hope that the voice of safety will be heard the loudest by the ears of Congress.

Bryan Roberts is an Associate in Stark & Stark’s Lawrenceville, New Jersey office, concentrating in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Mr. Roberts.

A recent New Jersey case involving distracted driving has made national headlines.  The case involves a motorcyclist and his passenger who were catastrophically injured when a distracted, text messaging driver struck their bike.  The case gained national attention because the injured riders sued the individual who was sending text messages to the driver and knew that the recipient was driving at the time of the conversation.

Not long ago, Superior Court Judge David Rand issued a ruling dismissing the injured riders’ claims against the text message sender.  However, counsel for the injured riders has indicated that his clients will appeal the ruling and the legal debate over the text message sender’s civil liability will continue in the New Jersey Courts.

Shortly after Judge Rand’s decision, Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno signed the Kulesh, Kubert and Bolis Law into effect, which is named after victims of distracted driving crashes.  The new law allows full prosecution of cell phones users who drive recklessly and cause crashes that result in serious harm or death.  Penalties for offenses under the law would include prison time and fines of up to $150,000.00.  These penalties are similar to those for drunken driving in the State.  

While at first blush these penalties may seem severe, research supports equalizing penalties for distracted driving due to cell phones and drunken driving because both activities similarly impair drivers.  A 2006 study published by psychologists from the University of Utah revealed that people who drive while using cell phones are as impaired as an intoxicated driver operating a vehicle at the legal blood-alcohol limit of .08%.

Research has further revealed that teenagers and young adults are disproportionately affected by the distracted driving epidemic.  The NHTSA reports that 11% of all drivers under the age of 20 involved in fatal crashes were distracted at the time of the crash.  This age group has the largest proportion of drivers who were distracted.  In another study done by the Pew Research Center, a whopping 40% of American teenagers said that they have been in a vehicle where the driver has used a cell phone in an unsafe manner.  

If the statistics, the tragic stories of the families who have lost loved ones in distracted driving crashes, and the increased distracted driving penalties are not enough to end this dangerous behavior, which is particularly prevalent in teens and young adults, what else can be done?

Bryan Roberts is an Associate in Stark & Stark’s Lawrenceville, New Jersey office, concentrating in Accident & Personal Injury Law. For more information, please contact Mr. Roberts.