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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT