ILNews

Opinion: One inattentive moment is all it takes

Lee C. Christie
April 28, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary


In the March 17-30, 2010, issue of Indiana Lawyer, my colleague David A. Temple authored an informative article on cellular phone use while driving. In closing his article, he posed the question, "[w]ho will care for, raise and play with your family when you are disabled or dead?" Unfortunately, in my representation of a family who were the victims of a distracted driver, I have had a front-row seat to one family's struggle to answer this question over the last three years as they have dealt with the devastation caused by the catastrophic injuries suffered by their patriarch and breadwinner as the direct result of the actions of a distracted driver.

In early 2007, a call came into my office regarding a trucking collision. A married father of two teenage boys, who happened to be a hugely successful in his career as a salesperson of neurological medical devices, was now barely hanging on to life at Methodist Hospital. Ironically, the man who was injured was now being saved, in part, by the same technology he was selling just hours before his vehicle was hit by an 18-wheeler on that sunny afternoon in February. The defendant driver, it seems, had been looking down at his companyissued handheld tracking device - likely anticipating his next stop or delivery. The truck driver's focus on the handheld device - known as a "mobile computer" and which had a broad range of capabilities, including texting - and his inattention to the roadway before him, caused the semi driver to blow through a red light at a well-traveled intersection and to collide with the vehicle being operated by my client. Discovery in the case revealed that the handheld device was operational while the truck was being driven and unlike similar equipment of its kind, had no automatic shut-off mechanism when the vehicle in which it was placed was in operation. A recipe for disaster, indeed.

Rather than the claim being limited to the negligence one would allege in a trucking collision of this sort and the violations one would investigate and allege based on the involvement a semi tractor trailer, I soon recognized that distracted driving was a central issue in the claim and one which exposed the driver's employer to a potential punitive damage claim. The more I researched distracted driving statistics, consulted with experts, and talked with lawyers who had handled similar cases, the more troubled I became about the hazard that handheld devices of any kind posed for travelers of our roadways. A threat akin to, if not worse than, impaired drivers according to many studies.

In our case, that moment of inattention to the roadway by the truck driver in order to glance at his handheld device has deprived my client of the ability to ever provide for his family again. He will never work again. He will never drive again. His ability to be a meaningful partner to his spouse and a father to his sons was taken that day. His brain injuries were so severe that his neurosurgeon described the damage as an "emotional and equivalent to a frontal lobotomy." To be sure, his family is grateful that he is alive and can sit among them. However, what used to be a full schedule of meeting and exceeding professional goals, attending and coaching children's sporting events, socializing with friends, and raising two boys with his life companion and best friend, has been diminished to therapy appointments, doctor appointments, surgical procedures, and many hours of idle time for a man who was once described as the "Energizer bunny" by friends and colleagues. He is a shell of who he once was, and his wife now serves as a caregiver to him and she is, in essence, a single parent to two boys in their teen years. Their lives were changed irreparably in one moment - the instant the distracted driver chose to focus on his handheld device instead of the roadway.

My colleague posed another question at the end of his Indiana Lawyer article on cell phone use while driving as follows: [i]s that phone call or e-mail so important that you are willing to risk your life or the lives of your family and friends who are in the vehicle with you or the innocent pedestrian or driver and passengers in the vehicle you hit?" I have seen the tragic results of what can happen in a distracted driving case and I can tell you that no call or e-mail is that important. Pull over. Companies should all have restrictions on the use of cell phones and/hand-held devices so that catastrophes such as this one occur much less frequently.

Lee C. Christie is an attorney with Cline Farrell Christie Lee & Caress in Indianapolis. The opinions expressed in this column are the author's.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT