Report: Majority of Americans still skeptical of self-driving cars

March 9, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

For the second year in a row, three-fourths of American drivers are afraid to ride in self-driving cars, according to a new survey published by AAA.

The statistics come at a time when companies like Google and Uber vie for industry dominance, both by way of manufacturing and advances in technology. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to wrestle with regulatory standards for the fledgling industry.

But talk of competition or regulation may be premature. The bigger issue may be whether the public feels comfortable riding in fully autonomous vehicles at all. Only one in five Americans say they trust an autonomous vehicle to drive itself, an indication that the technology is still far from comprehensible, and the skepticism seems to be a matter of safety. More than half of U.S. drivers (54 percent) feel less safe when considering the prospect of sharing the road with autonomous cars, while only 10 percent of respondents say that they would feel safer.

Vehicles with semi-autonomous features fair better among the public. Sixty-one percent of survey participants indicate that they prefer at least one of several automated technologies to be available in their next car: automatic emergency breaking, adaptive cruise control, self-parking technology or lane-keeping assist. Still, most Americans trust their driving skills above all else, and 81 percent of those who took the survey believe that the fully automated vehicle features should work universally across all systems.

Other notable statistics from the survey include:

Baby Boomers are more likely to cite safety as a reason they want semi-autonomous features on their next vehicle (89 percent) than Millennials (78 percent)
Millennials are more likely to cite convenience (75 percent) and wanting the latest technology (36 percent) compared to older generations
Women are more likely to cite reducing stress as a reason for wanting the technology (50 percent) than men (42 percent)

Proponents of self-driving cars believe they can reduce, or even eradicate, accidents altogether. Jill Ingrassia, AAA’s managing director of Government Relations and Traffic Safety, noted that 35,000 people die each year because of human-related errors, but that further research is necessary to “ensure that these new vehicles are safely tested and deployed.” Based on the stats, it appears the public requires it.

You hit a pothole and now you’re injured. Is the city liable?

February 28, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Soon, anxious cyclists will dust off their bicycles and zip around various city and state maintained paths and trails to usher in the new spring. However, both experienced and new riders may fall victim to dangerous conditions leftover from the last year’s biking season or even new dangers created by the thawing out of winter’s freeze.

Imagine, you’re riding your bike when suddenly you’re propelled through the air after your front tire comes in contact with a severe buckle on one of these “city” bike paths/trails. You are seriously injured. Who is liable?

Illinois recognizes that many adventurists love to engage in recreational activities, located “in a truly natural setting.” Corbett v. County of Lake, 64 N.E.3d 90, 95 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2016). In addition, it recognizes that requiring a governmental entity to maintain these types of property would not only be burdensome in both time and money, but “would defeat the very purpose of these types of recreational areas.” Id. Therefore, it created an absolute immunity for injuries sustained on these types of properties.

Section 3-107 of the “Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act” declares that:

Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by a condition of: (a) Any road which provides access to fishing, hunting, or primitive camping, recreational, or scenic areas and which is not a (1) city, town or village street, (2) county, state or federal highway or (3) a township or other road district highway. (b) Any hiking, riding, fishing or hunting trail. 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 10/3-107.

However, this Immunity Act is not a complete bulwark to all injuries sustained on government sponsored bike paths. In Corbett v. County of Lake, the court makes clear that not all bike trails are protected by Section 3-107. In short, the court wants the plaintiff to take a good assessment of the landscape around the path.

The bike trail in Corbett was a city-made path that snaked through commercial and residential areas of the city. Although trees, shrubs, and bunnies could be seen while cruising the path, the court held that the presence of industrial and residential development all around a path negates any conclusion that it is located within a “natural and scenic wooded area.” Corbett, 64 N.E.3d at 97 (explaining that a forest preserve is a “forest,” even with a moderate degree of improvement within and without. An industrial/commercial/residential area is not a forest because it contains narrow strips of green space on which a few trees stand).

The court held in favor of Corbett, thus putting the County of Lake on the hook for her injuries and on notice to take better care of certain trails that it maintains.

Report: Insurers keep penalizing drivers for not-at-fault accidents

February 15, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

No-fault liability would seemingly mean just that: no fault. But a new report from the Consumer Federation of America (released yesterday) found that annual premiums continue to rise in most major cities, some as much $400, and that insurance companies are doling out penalties for not-at-fault crashes.

In other words, insurers are jacking up your premiums or instituting a surcharge for something that was never your fault. The research group took a look at premium quotes form 10 different cities, including Chicago, from five of the country’s top auto insurance providers. The premiums that came under the most scrutiny belonged to Progressive, Farmers and GEICO insurance.

From the Associated Press: “The researchers found that Progressive aggressively used a not-at-fault penalty, surcharging drivers in eight of the 10 selected cities. Rates in Oklahoma City and Los Angeles did not change. Oklahoma and California prohibit not-at-fault penalties.

The group said GEICO and Farmers raised rates in some states by 10 percent or more. Allstate had occasional penalties.”

The lone insurer that isn’t penalizing for not-at-fault crashes? Illinois-based State Farm.

The report from the CFA underscores how insurers consistently look to mitigate and/or recoup as much money as is reasonably possible after someone files a claim. There are several methods to do so, including the highly suspect practice of “surcharging” not-at-fault drivers for simply being involved in a crash. They assess, re-assess and, in many cases, look for excuses to raise your rate by pinning circumstantial evidence on you.

Just as insurers analyze a crash for their own benefit, it’s important for an attorney to analyze the crash for your benefit. We help root out the technicalities and ensure that your rights (and your finances) are being protected.

How an unexpected death can lead to questions about liability

February 9, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Thomas Hoy was rear-ended by Kurt Woltmann. Hoy sued Woltmann for negligence. After Woltmann’s deposition, Hoy sued Great Lakes for negligence under respondeat superior theory. Before Great Lakes could depose Woltmann, he died from causes unrelated to the accident.

Respondeat superior is a doctrine that considers whether an employer is liable for the torts of an employee when the employee commits the tort within the scope of employment. To determine if an employee was acting in the scope of their employment, the court looks to see if three elements are met: 1) was the conduct the kind of work the employee is employed to do; 2) did the conduct occur substantially within the approved temporal and geographical limits; and 3) was the purpose of the conduct, at least in part, to serve the employer?

Generally, travel to and from work is outside the scope of employment but there are two exceptions, which arise when an employer requires an employee to travel away from a regular workplace or when the employee’s travel is for their employer’s purposes rather than simply moving an employee to or from a regular job site. For example, when an employer tells an employee to drive to a non-work location to take an evening exam as part of a certification related to work, or when a company policy provides employees with reliable transportation home. Those fall within the purview of the exceptions. The second exception focuses on the travel itself and whether it serves the employer’s purpose other than simply moving the employees. In the second example, the travel was serving the employer’s company policy and therefore was a valid exception to the rule.

When Woltmann testified that he was heading towards headquarters to speak with his boss, the Court allowed the inferences that Woltmann was going to talk about something work related. Hoy argued that the second exception applied to him because a work-related meeting serves the employer’s interests. The Court did not find the argument persuasive, rather, application of Hoy’s argument would swallow the general rule. In other words, every time an employee appears for work they are serving the employer’s interests and if that satisfied the exception then every time an employee travels to or from work they are acting in the scope of employment.

The question turns on the goal of the travel. If that goal is nothing more than to convey an employee to a regular work site, then the conduct is outside the scope of employment and liability is not attached to the employer. Here, Woltmann was conveying himself to a regular work site, headquarters, and therefore, the employer was not liable.

Slip and fall cases: What qualifies as sufficient evidence?

January 30, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

You recall an injury sustained by a fall you took in the parking lot of a big-box store and you’re trying to prove that it was the store’s fault. What evidence will be sufficient in court? Well, that question is difficult because, like most negligence cases, there usually is not a single piece of evidence that conclusively shows fault. Recently, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals revisited the burden of proof a plaintiff must furnish to prevail. But, because the plaintiff’s case was unsuccessful the analysis by the court merely leaves practitioners with a list of possible ways in which evidence is insufficient.

In Piotrowski v. Menard, Inc, the court of appeals held that: (1) customers must show that placement of the injury-causing object was due to the store owner’s negligence, and (2) that the store owner had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that caused his/her injuries. The holding relied on precedent found in Zuppardi that required a plaintiff to show that “the foreign substance was related to the defendant’s business and (2) “offer some further evidence, direct or circumstantial, however slight, such as the location of the substance or the business practices of the defendant, from which it could be inferred that it was more likely that defendant or his servants, rather than a customer, dropped the substance on the premises.” The Zuppardi court goes on to give a lengthy list of all the events that could have set forth sufficient evidence. But, it may be misplaced to concluded that showing one of the hypotheticals would have been dispositive to the Zuppadri’s case.

Both holdings suggest that the court is looking for evidence that specifically provides a way in which the defendant caused the harmful condition, not merely speculation. In both cases the plaintiffs only demonstrated possible ways in which the conditions could have been created. This was insufficient. In short, a plaintiff must show either (1) the defendant negligence caused dangerous condition; or (2) the defendant had actual notice of condition and did nothing; or (3) the defendant had constructive awareness of the condition and did nothing. This is a high bar.

No recall for Tesla: Did the NHTSA miss a golden opportunity?

January 24, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Last Thursday was another reminder that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is struggling to define what automation means for the future of the auto industry.

According to Reuters, the agency officially closed its investigation into the fatal crash that killed Joshua Brown, owner of a Tesla Model S, who set his car on autopilot as he was cruising on a highway west of Williston, Florida. The car ended up colliding with a tractor-trailer that was crossing an uncontrolled intersection.

Initial reports in May showed that the Tesla had failed to distinguish between the color of the white trailer and a bright-colored sky, therefore it did not slow its speed. Thickening the plot was the fact that Brown, 40, was reportedly watching a movie on a portable DVD player at the time of the crash.

When the NHTSA announced that it was planning to investigate further, people began to wonder if this was the start of something much more profound; part of the investigation was to determine whether Tesla’s semi-automation system — one of the few sanctioned systems being used on the road today — was defective, and whether a recall was necessary.

But after six months, the NHTSA has come to the conclusion that nothing about automation is conclusive. The final evaluation, released last week, determined that the Tesla was working in accordance with its specifications and that the company was not liable for any technical fiascos; no recalls were issued as a result.

“The Autopilot system,” as it says in the NHTSA report, “is an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) that requires the continual and full attention of the driver to monitor the traffic environment and be prepared to take action to avoid crashes.”

More from the NHTSA: “Although perhaps not as specific as it could be, Tesla has provided information about system limitations in the owner’s manuals, user interface and associated warnings/alerts, as well as a driver monitoring system that is intended to aid the driver in remaining engaged in the driving task at all times.”

While it’s hard to pin this particular crash on the Tesla automation system alone, it’s also hard to ignore that the NHTSA called out Tesla for not being “as specific as it could be …” Question is: In what respect? These are the specifics that are going to matter in the future, and it probably behooves the agency to elaborate. Looks like we’ll have to wait a little longer.

“A safety-related defect trend has not been identified at this time and further examination of this issue does not appear to be warranted,” says the concluding paragraph of the NHTSA’s investigative report. ”Accordingly, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that no safety-related defect exists. The agency will monitor the issue and reserves the right to take future action if warranted by the circumstances.”

Given the shaky legal landscape surrounding autonomous vehicles, it’s time for the agency to go on heightened alert.