Caring and looking after an aging parent is a challenge in a variety of ways. One of the common issues adult children face is keeping an elderly parent from getting behind the wheel. Ideally, of course, adult children are able to talk things out with the parent and help them to realize that failing eyesight, slower reactions, or other health conditions make it unsafe for them to drive.
In recent posts, we’ve been looking at how human error factors into the discussion of liability for accidents involving automatic driving technology. As has been pointed out, automatic vehicles as currently designed may, in some instances at least, be more prone to accidents due to the fact that they do not adapt well to situations which require temporarily violating traffic regulations for the sake of safety. This raises ethical and legal questions that have not yet been adequately answered.
Last time, we began looking at how driverless technology, while largely cutting out human error and thus reducing many types of motor vehicle accidents, may simultaneously be increasing the possibility of certain other types of accidents.
Fault is obviously an important issue in car accident litigation, and it is critical for plaintiffs to build to build a strong case for liability. Without doing so, a plaintiff’s case will not go very far. Fault can be proven in a number of ways depending on the circumstances, but the heart of it is demonstrating a failure to exercise reasonable care in the operation of a motor vehicle.
In our last post, we began speaking about the federal hours of service rules and their general purpose. As we noted, compliance with the rules has been a challenge over the years, because federal regulations have only required truckers to keep track of their hours via paper logs. The problem is that paper logs are too easily subject to tampering, allowing non-compliant truckers to get away with unsafe and illegal driving practices.
Truck driver fatigue is an important issue, or rather problem, when it comes to highway safety. Although most truckers are responsible and don’t take chances behind the wheel, there are some who put both themselves and other motorists at risk by driving without adequate rest.
In our previous post, we spoke a bit about the problem of aggressive driving in general and here in Pennsylvania. One of the issues we mentioned at the end of our last post is that aggressive driving is often not a matter of only one individual losing his or her temper and acting out on the road. In some cases, perhaps many, there is a mutual antagonism involved in aggressive driving accidents.
Aggressive driving, we’ve all experienced it at some point. There are many different forms it can take, ranging from uncooperativeness in sharing the road to actively attempting to injure another driver. Whatever form it comes in, aggressive driving can cause a great deal of harm.
There are many different reasons auto accidents can occur, and it is impossible to blame the problem of negligence in driving on any one factor. As everybody knows, though, distracted driving caused by cell phone use is a particularly common and problematic problem.
In our last post, we began speaking about the distinction between limited tort and full tort insurance here in Pennsylvania. As we noted, the primary difference between the two is the ability to pursue non-economic damages for serious injuries. Selecting limited tort coverage will allow a motorist to save money, but it also means giving up the right to pursue non-economic damages.