• Skip to main content

Levinson and Stefani Injury Lawyers

Client-first legal representation for injury victims. Injured? Free Consultation:

(312) 376-3812

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Attorneys
      • Ken Levinson
      • Jay Stefani
      • Vanessa A. Gebka
    • Practice Areas
      • Truck Crashes
      • Bus Collisions
      • Auto Accidents
      • Child Injuries
  • Firm News
  • Library
    • Articles
    • Cases
    • Law
    • Video
  • Blog
  • For Lawyers
    • Focus Groups
  • Free Case Review

Blog

The U.S. trucking industry’s safety standards are fading, not improving

July 6, 2016 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

Semi_Truck

Cutting corners will ultimately cost more lives

As a trial lawyer, I’ve seen too many cases where the wellbeing of others is compromised for the sake of doing business.

That’s especially true when it comes to the U.S. trucking industry, which faces numerous lawsuits every year related to negligence, including a systemic failure to shell out for basic safety standards.

What’s ironic is that this penny-pinching approach is the same approach costing the trucking industry millions of dollars in personal injury and wrongful death claims. The industry apparently would rather accept the risk of pricey lawsuits than pay for marginal improvements, while other countries (like Canada and the U.K.) pass safer laws and enact better proposals to protect their citizens—including truck drivers—from preventable disasters. For those of us living in the U.S., it’s becoming harder to ignore how fast our peers have outpaced us.

Dating back to 2005, the U.S. trucking industry has favored a market-driven model to promote commerce. That’s in stark contrast to the Europeans, who have gone as far as to implement speed detection systems to keep drivers honest. Perhaps more striking is Europe, unlike the U.S., tries to promote a healthy working environment (better hours, less emphasis on associating a paycheck with the number of hours spent on the road), rather than the pressures of a corporate time crunch.

Now let’s look at the U.S.: The trucking industry has flirted with the idea of lowering restrictions (like allowing 18-year olds to drive big-rigs within state borders and increasing weight limits for large trucks) or endorsed modest safety proposals that move up the bureaucratic chain of command at a snail’s pace. One of those things is installing side underride guard rails, which have been a point of contention between the trucking lobby and safety advocates for years.

Writer Paul Feldman of FairWarning explored this in an article titled “Critics Say Underride Fix Will Do Little to Curb Deadly Hazard.” Feldman called side underride crashes “among the most horrific collisions on the road,” yet any effort to curb those collisions has been overlooked or ignored domestically.

Feldman went on to explain how a new proposal for underride guards, recommended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, essentially replaces a 20-year-old standard with a 10-year-old Canadian standard. The NHTSA justified its reasoning by citing low-loss-of-life in relation to the cost of outfitting or retrofitting trucks with side underride guards.

That correlation rings like a shallow justification of Reagan era policies, as Feldman notes, that favors economic benefits over the value of safety. Try explaining that to a family that’s lost a child, or someone with terminal injuries. We need to get ahead of the curve, not just keep up.

I sit on the American Association for Justice Side Underride Guard Task Force. I recently returned from a trip to England as part of an investigation into the safety practices of the U.K trucking industry. My colleagues and I were shocked to learn how far we have to go before we catch up to our British counterparts. Some of those things include a comprehensive certification process for underride guards, additional training for drivers, outfitting old trucks with new safety features, and a national awards program/incentives that encourages safe driving.

All of this is low-hanging fruit. We need to start picking before it goes bad.

‘Your honor, I call to the stand Tesla Model X’

June 17, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The Tesla Model X. Photo: Steve Jurvetson
The Tesla Model X. Photo: Steve Jurvetson

Yet another glimpse into the future

Autonomous vehicles will soon change how lawyers deal with their clients and cases, yet I’ve had trouble imagining a day when smart cars start getting subpoenaed.

The Washington Post published a story recently titled “Tesla just showed us the future of car crashes,” about the owner of a Tesla Model X, who claims the car’s autopilot system necessitated a crash by independently accelerating while his wife was behind the wheel. The car jumped over a curb and crashed into the side of a shopping center.

There’s just one problem with that scenario, according to Tesla. Data collected from a diagnostic log, which relies on multiple sensors that keep track of the car’s behavior, indicated that the gas pedal was suddenly pressed to the floor before the crash. Tesla also revealed that the car was never switched to autopilot or cruise control, which would place liability squarely on the shoulders of the driver.

The Post goes on to mention that the owner of the Model X is sticking by his story, even though the data is practically conclusive. We may have the beginnings of an ongoing case study, but the bigger takeaway is whether drivers (and manufacturers, insurers, etc.) are prepared to deal with such a fast-approaching reality. How do you disprove a computer?

Writer Brian Fung had some insightful thoughts on what the Tesla situation means for the future of driving, one of which includes keeping people honest by virtue of the nature of smart cars and how they operate:   

“Cars have reached a level of sophistication in which they can tattle on their own owners, simply by handing over the secrets embedded in the data they already collect about your driving.”

That’s a relatively impressive realization when you consider the amount of auto-related litigation that occurs in the United States alone. Outside of our ability to install dashboard cameras, collecting information from a vehicle’s computer system represents a turning point in the way automakers, insurance companies, and lawyers will soon go about their business, including the protection of consumers. Fung goes on:

“But the potential dark side is that the data can be abused. Maybe a rogue insurance company might look at it and try to raise your premiums. Perhaps it gives automakers an incentive to claim that you, the owner, were at fault for a crash even if you think you weren’t.”

As I’ve said before, we’re on the edge of a new frontier and we have to have a clear view of what’s coming.

When it comes to wearing bike helmets, there is no debate

June 16, 2016 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

Divvy

Do they look great? No. Do they save lives. Yes 

I’ll confess: my profession skews my view of the world. We don’t handle cases involving people who safely got from point A to point B. We don’t represent clients who went for an incident-free bike ride. We help people whose lives have been changed—for the worse—because someone else was careless or reckless. It’s that view that colored my reading of a recent article in the Chicago Reader.

“Promote helmets or prevent crashes? Some advocates say it’s time to shift,” by John Greenfield, looks at the debate amongst cycling advocates on whether promoting bike helmets deters cycling. Greenfield spoke with a number of biking supporters to discuss varying approaches to bike helmet usage. Some of those people believe that pushing others to wear helmets is having a depressing effect on potential riders—they either don’t like helmets or they feel they’re unnecessary. Others take the approach that helmets save lives and minimize injuries. Frankly, I think it’s a bit of a silly—and reckless—argument.

The folks against strict helmet usage allege that slow, urban cycling can be “quite safe” without a helmet. One opponent, a consultant from Denmark, argues helmets send a message that cycling is dangerous, and it can discourage others from taking part. Recent studies have concluded that there might not be as large of a difference in terms of the severity of head injuries—noting helmets might only reduce the risk of a head injury by 25-55 percent. If you were given a chance to reduce the risk of cancer by 25-55 percent, wouldn’t you gladly take it?

The problem—the naïve and dangerous problem—with this rationale is it assumes the cyclist is the sole person responsible for crashes. If you’re riding slowly and safely, you have little to worry about. By that logic, if you’re just driving in your neighborhood, why bother wearing a seatbelt? The harsh reality is you don’t have any control over what other drivers are doing. In a car, you’re at least enveloped by a highly engineered, crumple-zone, steel wrap. In a bike, it’s you—and hopefully your helmet.

I lived—and cycled—in Chicago for over a decade. Not once did I consider riding without a helmet. Even riding at a slow pace (5-10 mph), you’re constantly aware that someone in a parked car could open a door in the blink of an eye. Your options are to veer into traffic (which is coming from behind you) or hit the door. Wouldn’t you want to be wearing a helmet?

A bicyclist’s own speed has no bearing on a truck blowing a stop sign or a red light. No matter how safe a bike rider is, how alert he or she may be, it won’t prevent a random car quickly pulling out of an alley or driveway. The point of wearing a helmet—the same as wearing a seatbelt in the car—is you’re taking a simple precaution to protect against someone else’s carelessness.

Too many times I’ve seen the aftermath of a bike, car, or truck crash. Crashes—especially bike crashes—happen in an instant. The speed of the cyclist, the alertness of the rider, and the setting of the crash have little effect on the outcome. We don’t always have control over our surroundings, which is why we control what we can. Wearing a helmet is something we can control, and it may save your life.

Why a Chicago trucking lawyer went to England

June 3, 2016 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

Jay_England
Jay at the Commercial Vehicle Show in Birmingham, England

When it comes to truck safety, the U.S. has some catching up to do

I recently went to Birmingham, England, with a small group of fellow trucking lawyers from around the country to visit the Commercial Vehicle Show. As members of the American Association for Justice’s Trucking Litigation Group’s Side Guard Task Force, our goal was to see how the U.K. approached trucking safety. It being my first trip to the U.K., I was enthralled by the country. One peculiarity that caught my attention was the frequency of cover songs—a singer’s or band’s interpretation of someone else’s song—being played in restaurants. In a way, it was a metaphor for my take on England—very familiar, but it was the nuances and differences from what I was used to that made it more interesting.

The language is the same, but there’s the accent, and certain words have different meanings. Some of it adds a layer of charm (I prefer the automated voice asking me to “alight” the train as opposed to “exiting”), some of it requires an acclimation period (fries aren’t fries, they’re chips, but chips are actually crisps). Good service is good service, but there’s something particularly charming when they bring your coffee in a small porcelain kettle. Mostly, the various cultural spins on the familiar were enjoyable, and have me longing for a return trip. Unfortunately, the differences in how the British handle trucking and trucking safety left me frustrated.

As I mentioned, we were tasked with learning ways to cut down on the number of truck crashes back home. My specific subcommittee deals with preventing pedestrian and bicyclist injuries and deaths caused when trucks literally run them over. What makes these incidents particularly tragic is how easily preventable they are. As trucking lawyers, we know that driver behavior (driving dangerously) is often a primary cause, but the CV Show revealed the significant gap between the U.K. and the U.S. in terms of safety equipment that could prevent or minimize these incidents.

After a spate of trucks killed pedestrians and cyclists, the U.K. began implementing safety requirements for trucks. Most common were increased mirrors and side under ride guards. The mirrors eliminate dangerous blind spots for truckers when making left turns (right turns here). In the event a truck driver still makes a turn into someone, the side under ride guards literally deflect pedestrians or cyclists away from the truck, as opposed to trapping them underneath the turning truck.

But those incredibly modest upgrades are not enough. Vendors throughout the CV Show touted the benefits of front, side, and rear blind spot sensors and cameras. The cameras and sensors visually and audibly alert the truck driver that something or someone is near the truck. This isn’t pie-in-the-sky, far-off technology. Most of us are familiar with it—I have blind spot sensors and a backup camera in one of my cars, and the U.S. will begin requiring backup cameras on all vehicles in a couple years. If we know it’s important enough to require in a typical two-ton car, why aren’t we demanding it for 30-ton tractor-trailers?

There is cause for optimism, though. Some cities, such as Boston, have enacted local laws requiring trucks to be equipped with side guards. We should all be pushing our hometowns and cities to pass similar legislation. Unlike the sensors, mirrors, and cameras, side guards won’t prevent trucks from hitting people. They are, however, very effective at minimizing injuries – or turning would-be deaths into survivable injuries.

The U.K.—both citizens and the trucking industry itself—decided enough was enough when it came to preventable injuries and deaths caused by careless truck drivers. It took action by implanting common sense changes and rules aimed at reducing trucking tragedies. Moreover, the British trucking industry—truck companies, equipment vendors, and even construction companies—not only got on board with the program, but is now driving safety advancements. One of the common phrases I heard from the salespeople at the CV Show was “market-driven.” They understand the myriad benefits of reducing truck vs. pedestrian/bicyclist crashes.

Cultural differences are one of the great reasons to travel. Quirks and customs help define nationalities and ethnicities in wonderful ways. But, like the cover songs I heard throughout my trip, finding the similarities bring comfort via commonality. I missed many of the little English traits when I returned home, but missing them just makes me want to head back for another visit. The glaring exception was the morning after I got home when I saw a truck pass by without side guards. Safety shouldn’t be a “quirk” of our across-the-pond truckers.

Donald Trump is the world’s worst client

June 1, 2016 by Ken Levinson Leave a Comment

Photo: Marc Nozell
Photo: Marc Nozell

The real estate mogul’s behavior is proving to be a legal nightmare

Far be it from me to throw my hat into the ring of Presidential punditry, but Donald Trump has provided an opening.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee has been fending off serious backlash for Trump University, among other things, which is back in the headlines after a federal judge ordered 1,000 pages of internal Trump U documents be made available to the public. Those documents, unveiled yesterday, reveal what many are now calling a sophisticated scheme that was intended to scam people out of money. The basis for that conclusion comes from the so-called Trump U Playbook, which instructed would-be salespeople how to earn a prospective student’s trust, only to lead them down a shady, destructive financial path.

From the New York Times: “One sales manager for Trump University, Ronald Schnackenberg, recounted how he was reprimanded for not pushing a financially struggling couple hard enough to sign up for a $35,000 real estate class, despite his conclusion that it would endanger their economic future.”

“The language employed by Trump University’s sales team is similar to that of multilevel marketing scams like AdvoCare and Amway, and even certain cults,” wrote Olivia Nuzzi of The Daily Beast, which parceled through the documents yesterday.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has said that he will prosecute Trump to the full extent that he and the state of New York is able, calling the situation a “straight-up fraud case,” not a political one.

In the meantime, Trump defaulted to his usual shtick by levying insults toward his critics and, more surprisingly, the judge overseeing his case. He made reference to the idea that Judge Gonzalo Curiel has been out to get him. He later derided the Indiana-born Curiel as “Mexican” during a Trump rally and re-ignited his tendency to make racially suggestive commentary, all of it setting yet another dangerous precedent as he trucks along to the Republican nomination.

Even if Trump knew how stupid he sounded before he stood in front of a microphone, it probably wouldn’t have mattered. The intent was to defame, damage and offend his way out of a corner. In a normal world, that would pose problems for any litigant.

But Trump is not normal. Since announcing his run for the presidency, his campaign has capitalized on the pettiness that emboldens him and his followers. It’s become so normalized that the Trump contingent likely can’t recognize the damage Trump is doing to himself or the legal process.

That makes attorneys like me lose sleep at night. Trump has instigated a far more complicated legal battle than he or his lawyers bargained for. Worse, his example has inspired recklessness by challenging his detractors with petty insults rather than evidence. How long before other litigants start doing the same, whether it’s an ill-advised tweet, a Facebook post, or airing their grievances in a public forum? We always encourage our clients to refrain from discussing their case outside the courtroom. I never imagined that might one day include advising people to refrain from personally attacking the judge presiding over our case.

From the outset of the legal profession, attorneys have had to protect clients from hurting themselves. It’s worth thinking about how we can protect them from examples like Donald Trump.

Yikes. Driver caught snoozing while car is on autopilot

May 26, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Tesla-Autopilot
Hands-free shouldn’t mean hands-off

That didn’t take long. A driver was caught napping in the driver’s seat of his Tesla Model S on Sunday while the car inched along a congested LA freeway.

There’s only one problem: The Model S is not an autonomous vehicle. Rather, Tesla’s futuristic-style cars are equipped with a semi-autopilot system designed to give drivers a smidge of hands-free liberation on a severely limited basis. That means it’s probably not a good idea to catch a few z’s, no matter how cool your car is.

The few autopilot systems that exist still require drivers to be alert at all times. Anything less likely has bad implications for you, your car, and the drivers who happen to be nearby. Motor Trend caught wind of the video and reached out to Tesla for a statement. The company was quick to reply, describing its auto system as “designed to provide a hands-on experience to give drivers more confidence behind the wheel, increase their safety on the road, and make highway driving more enjoyable.”

Proponents of autonomous vehicles have championed their cause in recent years, as the technology has advanced to a new level of sophistication. We’ve even written about the benefits of autonomous vehicles and what the future may look like down the road. But this is a perfect example of how drivers are taking a relatively fledgling luxury for granted. There’s not enough evidence to suggest that “hands-free” translates to “hands-off.”

In the same article, Motor Trend points out that owners of self-driving cars are responsible for the actions of their property, meaning the sleepy driver from the video would be liable for any crash that he or his car may cause. It’s a logical conclusion. From a legal perspective, however, the case precedence has yet to be written. There’s no telling how a case like that might play out.

The bottom line at this stage? Keep your hands on the wheel.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 110
  • Page 111
  • Page 112
  • Page 113
  • Page 114
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 128
  • Go to Next Page »

Levinson and Stefani Injury Lawyers in Chicago / Attorney Advertising