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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT