Cook County Personal Injury Lawyer - Motor Vehicle Accidents

Video of Chicago Amtrak crash shows train speeding

Barry Doyle — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 07:31:45 GMT

One of the unusual features of the recent Chicago Amtrak crash is that the event was captured on video. In most personal injury cases, descriptions of the events come entirely from eyewitnesses who may describe the same event in very different ways.

IThe Norfolk Southern security shows the violence of the train crash as the Amtrak train smashes into the back of the stopped freight train.

Other news accounts have indicated that the Amtrak engineer had been certified for only three months, and was traveling at nearly 40 miles per hour on the track where the collision took place. The signal that he had received for that track restricted his speed to no more than 15 miles per hour. After dropping his speed to 8-9 miles per hour, he increased his speed again to 40 miles per hour shortly before the crash.

The increase in speed is a key factor on this crash. One of the things that the video shows is that he was in a "canyon" of train cars -- meaning that there were freight cars on either side of him. Since he was coming out of a curve, the combination of the curve and the other train cars would have obstructed his view of the train stopped ahead of him. He simply could not see the freight train until he was right on top of it, and at the speed he was travelling, he could not stop before hitting it.

The investigation to date has answered one question regarding the responsibility for the accident. However, the other question has not been answered: why was the Amtrak train was cleared to go down that track when dispatch should have known that there was a freight train stopped there?

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Mass Transit Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Barry Doyle

Chicago train crash injures dozens

Barry Doyle — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:41:22 GMT

An Amtrak train coming into Chicago from Grand Rapids, Michigan ran into the back of a stopped freight train this afternoon. The crash happened on Chicago's south side. The engine from the Amtrak train hit the rear end of a Norfolk Southern freight train which was hauling shipping containers. Spokesmen from Norfolk Southern claim that the freight train had been cleared to be on that track.

Passengers aboard the train estimated its speed at 30 miles per hour. The impact threw the passengers from their seats. The only car to derail was the engine. The most serious injuries appear to be to the crew of the train.

There are a number of entities that potentially bear responsibility for this accident.

The first is Amtrak. Because Amtrak was carrying paying passengers, it is a common carrier and must exercise the highest degree of care for the safety of its passengers. The failure of the crew to stop the train short of the Norfolk Southern train ahead of its was ngeligence. The seond

The second is the railroad on whose tracks the collision occurred. Railroads allow each other to operate on their tracks, but traffic on the tracks is controlled by the railroad who owns the tracks. Having two trains on the same track that are apparently unaware of the other is negligence.

The third potentially negligent party is Norfolk Southern. If its train was on the wrong track or failed to properly advise the track controller of its location and activities, it may be found negligent as well.

All of the parties involved bear some responsibility for the injuries to these passengers.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Mass Transit Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Barry Doyle

Six hospitalized in bus crash

Barry Doyle — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:07:16 GMT

On Saturday, a CTA bus driver lost control of his bus and crashed into a fence near Roosevelt and Kolmar.

Six were hospitalized, one with severe injuries.

There are always two important points to keep in mind when a CTA bus or train is involved in an accident like this.

The first point is that the CTA has the legal status of a common carrier. Most drivers are required to use ordinary care for the safety of others, including their passengers. However, as a common carrier, the CTA must use the highest degree of care to assure the safety of its passengers. The reasoning behind this distinction is that the passengers have relinquished control over their safety to someone who they have paid to transport them.

The second point is that there is a special 6 month statutory notice that must be given to the CTA before a lawsuit can be filed against them. The notice is not terribly difficult to comply with, but the notice must be completely accurate, or the lawsuit is subejct to dismissal. Anyone considering suit against the CTA following an accident should be careful to hire legal counsel to esnure that the notice if properly completed and filed with the CTA.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Barry Doyle

Man Killed in Fatal I-275 Motorcycle Crash

Courtney Mills — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:07:23 GMT

Nicholas C. Kopplin of Overland, Missouri, was riding his motorcycle on Tuesday night at a high rate of speed when he lost control and ran it into the guard rail of the median dividing I-275.

According to a Florida Highway Patrol statement, Kopplin was not wearing a helmet at the time he was thrown from the motorcycle, which occurred at around 6 o'clock in the evening.

Nicholas C Kopplin, a twenty-one year old young man, after losing control of his vehicle and crashing into the median, was pronounced dead at the scene by officials.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Courtney Mills

Senior citizen crashes through restaurant window

Barry Doyle — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:37:04 GMT

In Wilmette last week, a 94-year old woman crashed through the front window of a Panera bread restaurant after losing control of her vehicle.

Nine people were hospitalized following the crash, including several in critical condition.

This incident not raises many questions about why this woman was behind the wheel of a car, but also underlines the importance of having full coverage, including uninsured and underinsured coverage on your own vehicle.

Every automobile liability insurance policy carries policy limits which are the maximum amount of money that the insurer will pay in the event of an accident. In illinois, the state minimums are $20,000 per person and $40,000 per occurrence. The "per person" limit is the most that will be paid for injuries to any one person; the "per occurrence" limit is the total amount that will be paid in any one accident, regardless of how many people are injured.

The most common limits seen on policies sold by reputable carriers are either (a) $50,000 per person and $100,000 per occurrence or (b) $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence.

With nine people needing hospitalization, including some in critical condition, it is pretty clear that this woman's insurance coverage will be exhausted long before all of the claimants are fully compensated. This is where the value of underinsured motorist coverage comes into play.

When you buy full coverage, you normally get a coverage called underinsured motorist coverage. Underinsured motorist coverage applies when you have more insurance coverage than the at-fault driver or when the at-fault driver's coverage is exhausted. It fills the gap between the coverage that the at-fault driver has and the damages you sustain, up to your policy limits. A couple of illustrations should help explain the point.

Assume that you get into an accident with a driver carrying the state minimum of $20,000, and you sustain damages in the amount of $50,000. You have $100,000 in underinsured coverage. The at-fault driver's insurance will pay $20,000 and your underinsured coverage will fill in the gap between the available coverage of the at-fault driver and your damages, so you will collect $30,000 thorugh your underinsured coverage. This way, you are fully compensated for the full amount of your damages.

Let's look at the restaurant case as an example of how underinsured motorist coverage works. Let's supposed that the at-fault driver has $50,000 per person limits and $100,000 per occurrence. The $100,000 will have to be divided between the nine injured people. It does not have to be divided evenly, so let's assume that one of the patrons got $10,000 of the $100,000 available to all of the claimants. Let's also assume that he had undersinured motorist coverage in the amount $100,000 and had sustained damages of $75,000. In that case, the remaining $65,000 in compensation would come from the underisnured motorist coverage. This gives him full compensation for his injuries, where he would be dramatically under-compensated if he did not have underinsured motorist coverage.

People should be careful to obtain uninsured and undersinured coverage when they get the opportunity. These coverage provide benfits to you when you are injured, and is actually fairly cheap coverage compared to liability and collision coverage. When you are renewing your automobile insurance, you should be careful to ask about this coverage.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Barry Doyle

Sleeping trucker kills motorist and daughter

Barry Doyle — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:45:00 GMT

Last week in Pennsylvania, a woman and her daughter were hit by a truck when the truck driver behind them fell asleep at the wheel as they slowed to enter a construction zone.

The woman and her daughter suffered fatal injuries.

Driver fatigue is a major issue in trucking safety. One study showed that 13% of all trucking related crashes were caused in part by driver fatigue.

Regulations setting forth maximum driving times and minimum hours of rest have long been in place in the trucking industry. However, those regulations were recently modified to extend the number of consecutive hours a driver can be on the road and increasing their maximum work week. Critics say that has sacrificed the safety of other motorists on the road.

Another issue is compliance with the regulations. Many drivers feel that the regualtions unnecessarily interfere with their ability to get the job done and return to their families. Compliance with the regulations is monitored through a series of paper log books, but electronic monitoring has not been adopted yet.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Barry Doyle

Motorcyclists injured in multiple accidents

Barry Doyle — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:30:00 GMT

An Indiana newspaper came out with a piece recently documenting the high number of accidents involving motorcycles and cars. The article noted that many of the accidents were the product of the car driver failing to yield the right of way to the motorcyclist, and postulated that the reason for this is that drivers are not used to looking for motorcyclists after their absence in winter months and have a harder time gauging the speed of motrocycles.

The crashes examined all involved significant injuries, including head injuries, fractures, and deaths.

The writer of the article likeoly has a point about the root causes of these accidents, and it would be interesting to see whether there are studies which verify the point. When deposing the defendant in a car accident case, you often hear the defendant say that the plaintiff "came out of nowhere".

From a scientific standpoint, people obviously do not suddently materialize, but if there are barriers to perception, that can actually be an honest answer, even if it is one that does not absolve the car driver from his or her responsibility to yield the right of way.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Barry Doyle

Minnesota woman killed by commuter train

Barry Doyle — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:07:27 GMT

Passengers boarding a Minneapolis Metro Transit train made a gruesome discovery last week: blood spatters on the side of the train. Apparently, a 79-year old woman who gotten off the train and was walking alongside it when she lost her balance, touched the side of the train to regain her balance, and was sucked underneath the train.

One she was pulled underneath the train, she suffered fatal injuries from being crushed by the train.

A commuter train such as this is a common carrier. Common carriers are different from ordinary vehicles because they owe an elevated standard of care. The legal theory behind this is that by entrusting control over your safety to the operator of the train and by paying them money for this, they owe the highest standard of care to assure your safety.

The duty owed by a common carrier extends from the time someone board the bus or train until they have debarked and reached a place of safety. Since this woman was pulled underneath the train while within arm's reach of the train, she had not reached a place of safety. All that was required to prevent this accident was for the operator to wait a few seconds ore before starting to leave the station. That would have avoided the accident all together - this accident never would have occurred.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Barry Doyle

Motoryclist hits telephone wire downed by drunken teen

Barry Doyle — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:00:00 GMT

An Indiana teen is under arrest after he struck a telephone pole and then fled the scene. The impact between his vehicle and pole knocked the pole down, leaving a wire hanging over the road.

A motorcyclist came upon the scene shortly thereafter and struck the wire, causing a loss of control. The motorcyclist suffered multiple fractures, but his passenger was killed due to blunt force trauma.

One of the crucial questions that gets asked when someone is killed as a result of the actions of a teen who has been drinking is, "Where did he get the booze?" Every state has a drinking age of 21 years, so teens should not have alcohol made available to them.

In many states, if the liquor was obtained from a parivate home, there is no recourse against the homeowner. The homeowner is considered a social host, and most states do not allow social hosts to be held liable for the later negligent acts of their guests, even teens who should not have been drinking in the first place.

Illinois has modified its social host liability rules recently by amending the Dram Shop Act to permit liability to be imposed against homeowners who provide alcohol to teens. However, people injured by the actions of drunken teenagers should be aware that there are damage caps that are in place and that the Dram Shop Act provides for a short, one-year statute of limitations.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Barry Doyle

Bicyclist hit by car

Barry Doyle — Tue, 29 May 2007 09:00:00 GMT

A California dentist training for the AIDS Ride was hit by a car while out on a training ride. The motorist who hit him said that he did not notice the dentist on his bike.

The dentist was severly injured in the accident, suffering several fractured ribs, a fractured shoulder, leg injuries, and road rash. He was in a medically-induced coma is on a ventilator.

When a car crash happens, people often look for very specific reasons for the accident: did the driver misjudge speed or distance, was there drinking or cell phone usage involved, did the driver disregard traffic signals or laws, etc. However, simple inattention to what is happening around you is often the true culprit for a collision.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Barry Doyle