Reference and Reading

P

Personal Injury is the name for a type of legal claim for injuries to your body and/or mind from the wrongful acts of another. These cases involve obtaining compensation for the changes in your body or mind, the treatment expenses you have incurred and will incur in the future, any income loss past present or future, any incidental expenses you incur in having your housework or yard work done for example when you cannot perform those tasks due to your injuries, your loss of function and activities past present and future, and your pain and suffering. These injuries can come from motor vehicle collisions, workplace injuries that were not the fault of your employer, a dangerously designed or manufactured product and other injury-causing situations. Mental or psychological personal injuries are typically associated with long term physical injuries from a trauma event or as a result of witnessing severe injury or death in others near you.

Personal injury claims have to be proven by the injured person, usually with the assistance of an attorney. The standard of proof in Washington is “more probable than not”, or to a 51% certainty. This is a lower standard of proof than that in a criminal case where the prosecutor must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Before you can collect an award, your personal injury lawyer will have to prove that the defendant is liable.

Time Limitation

The time for bringing claims is not endless. The law recognizes that one has to be able at some point to be free from the potential of being sued for an action in the distant past. Individuals under 18 in Washington have until 3 years after their 18th birthday to bring most types of personal injury claims. For those over 18, there are several state law statutory provisions that govern time periods for bringing an action. For more specific information see How much time to I have to file a claim?

Conditional Fee

The concept of a contingency fee was arrived at to allow those who could not afford the high hourly rate of an experienced, successful attorney to still get help and legal help with their claims. The Contingency Fee means the lawyer getting paid for their legal services is conditioned on their recovering money for you on your claims. If the lawyer obtains money for you through a settlement or winning at an arbitration or trial, you owe them a percentage of the total amount as payment for their legal services. If the attorney does not get you any money, they do not get anything for the considerable time and effort they have put into your case.

The contingency fee however, does not mean the injured person does not have anything to pay if they lose. The costs the lawyer must incur or advance in developing the evidence needed to prove the injury case must always be paid back win, lose or draw.

Pain and Suffering and Loss of Amenity

One often sees the term “pain and suffering” bandied about when folks are talking about personal injury claims. This is a part of the personal injury claim that does not have a fast and predetermined economic value like the charge for an MRI or a week of lost wages. It is a concept that is not well understood and is therefore an easy target for those who keep trying to reduce or eliminate the ability of an injured person to hold the individual or entity that hurt them accountable for their losses calling it “tort reform”. This argument would have you believe pain and suffering is something that plaintiff trial lawyers and injured people are pursuing that is above and beyond what is reasonable. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the law provides for this type of compensation:

RCW 4.56.250(1)(b). defines noneconomic damages as “subjective, nonmonetary losses, including, but not limited to pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, disability or disfigurement incurred by the injured party, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation, and destruction of the parent-child relationship.”

These are elements that must be proven more probably than not just like all other elements of the claim. An attorney can use various methods of proof. These include evidence developed by individuals with special expertise called experts like physical capacities evaluations, vocational assessments as well as non expert or lay testimony of friends, family and co-workers of how the injuries from the incident have changed the injured person’s life and relationships. The evidence can include photographs and videotapes from before the incident in contrast to those after the injury incident.

Structured settlements in personal injury cases

Often, the use of a structured settlement is desired by the injury victim to help protect him or her financially after an injury settlement. Structured settlements provide injury victims with tax benefits and enable proper financial planning for future needs of the injury victim as a result of the injury.

Traffic collision

The front ends of two cars after collidingtraffic collision, also known as a traffic accidentmotor vehicle collisionmotor vehicle accidentcar accident, or car crash, occurs when a road vehicle collides with another vehicle, pedestrian, animal, road debris, or other geographical or architectural obstacle. Traffic collisions can result in injury, property damage, and death. A number of factors contribute to the risk of collision including; vehicle design, speed of operation, road design, and driver impairment. Worldwide motor vehicle collisions lead to significant death and disability as well as significant financial costs to both society and the individual.

Terminology

Many different terms are commonly used to describe vehicle collisions. The World Health Organization use the term road traffic injury, while the U.S. Census Bureau uses the termmotor vehicle accidents (MVA)and Transport Canada uses the term “motor vehicle traffic collision”. Other terms that are commonly used include auto accidentcar accidentcar crashcar smashcar wreckmotor vehicle collision (MVC)personal injury collision (PIC)road accidentroad traffic accident (RTA)road traffic collision (RTC)road traffic incident (RTI)road traffic accident and later road traffic collision, as well as more unofficial terms including smash-up and fender bender.

Some organizations have begun to avoid the term “accident”. Although auto collisions are rare in terms of the number of vehicles on the road and the distance they travel, addressing the contributing factors can reduce their likelihood. For example, proper signage can decrease driver error and thereby reduce crash frequency by a third or more. That is why these organizations prefer the term “collision” rather than “accident”.

However, treating collisions as anything other than “accidents” has been criticized for holding back safety improvements, because a culture of blame may discourage the involved parties from fully disclosing the facts, and thus frustrate attempts to address the real root causes.

Classification

Main article: Road accident types

Motor vehicle collisions can be classified by mechanism. Common mechanisms include head-on collisionsrun-off-road collisionsrear-end collisionsside collision, and rollovers.

Causes

Driver factors

57%

27%

Road-

way

factors

6%

3%

3%

1%

2%

Vehicle factors

Breakdown of crash causes

A 1985 study by K. Rumar, using British and American crash reports as data, found that 57% of crashes were due solely to driver factors, 27% to combined roadway and driver factors, 6% to combined vehicle and driver factors, 3% solely to roadway factors, 3% to combined roadway, driver, and vehicle factors, 2% solely to vehicle factors and 1% to combined roadway and vehicle factors.

Human factors

Human factors in vehicle collisions include all factors related to drivers and other road users that may contribute to a collision. Examples include driver behavior, visual and auditory acuity, decision-making ability, and reaction speed.

A 1985 report based on British and American crash data found driver error, intoxication and other human factors contribute wholly or partly to about 93% of crashes.

An RAC survey found most British drivers think they’re better drivers than non-British drivers. Nearly all drivers who’d been in a crash did not believe themselves to be at fault. One survey of drivers reported that they thought the key elements of good driving were:

  • controlling a car including a good awareness of the car’s size and capabilities
  • reading and reacting to road conditions, weather, road signs and the environment
  • alertness, reading and anticipating the behaviour of other drivers.

Although proficiency in these skills is taught and tested as part of the driving exam, a ‘good’ driver can still be at a high risk of crashing because:

…the feeling of being confident in more and more challenging situations is experienced as evidence of driving ability, and that ‘proven’ ability reinforces the feelings of confidence. Confidence feeds itself and grows unchecked until something happens – a near-miss or an accident.

An AXA survey concluded Irish drivers are very safety-conscious relative to other European drivers. However, this does not translate to significantly lower crash rates in Ireland.

Accompanying changes to road designs have been wide-scale adoptions of rules of the road alongside law enforcement policies that included drink-driving laws, setting of speed limits, and speed enforcement systems such as speed cameras. Some countries’ driving tests have been expanded to test a new driver’s behavior during emergencies, and their hazard perception.

There are demographic differences in crash rates. For example, although young people tend to have good reaction times, disproportionately more young male drivers feature in accidents, with researchers observing that many exhibit behaviors and attitudes to risk that can place them in more hazardous situations than other road users. This is reflected byactuaries when they set insurance rates for different age groups, partly based on their age, sex, and choice of vehicle. Older drivers with slower reactions might be expected to be involved in more accidents, but this has not been the case as they tend to drive less and, apparently, more cautiously. Attempts to impose traffic policies can be complicated by local circumstances and driver behaviour. In 1969 Leeming warned that there is a balance to be struck when “improving” the safety of a road:

Many places that look dangerous have few or no accidents. Conversely, a location that does not look dangerous may have a high crash frequency. This is, in part, because if drivers perceive a location as hazardous, they take more care. Accidents may be more likely to happen when hazardous road or traffic conditions are not obvious at a glance, or where the conditions are too complicated for the limited human machine to perceive and react in the time and distance available. (This fact can be used to improve safety, by putting up signs in accident-prone locations, like ones stated above.)

This phenomena has been observed in risk compensation research, where the predicted reductions in accident rates have not occurred after legislative or technical changes. One study observed that the introduction of improved brakes resulted in more aggressive driving, and another argued that compulsory seat belt laws have not been accompanied by a clearly attributed fall in overall fatalities.

In the 1990s Hans Monderman‘s studies of driver behavior led him to the realization that signs and regulations had an adverse effect on a driver’s ability to interact safely with other road users. Monderman developed shared space principles, rooted in the principles of the woonerven of the 1970s. He found that the removal of highway clutter, while allowing drivers and other road users to mingle with equal priority, could help drivers recognize environmental clues. They relied on their cognitive skills alone, reducing traffic speeds radically and resulting in lower levels of road casualties and lower levels of congestion.

Motor vehicle speed

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration review research on traffic speed in 1998. The summary states:

  • That the evidence shows that the risk of having a crash is increased both for vehicles traveling slower than the average speed, and for those traveling above the average speed.
  • That the risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much faster than the median speed.
  • That the severity of a crash depends on the vehicle speed change at impact.
  • That there is limited evidence that suggests that lower speed limits result in lower speeds on a system wide basis.
  • That most crashes related to speed involve speed too fast for the conditions.
  • That more research is needed to determine the effectiveness of traffic calming.

The Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) of the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) asserts speeding (travelling too fast for the prevailing conditions or above the posted speed limit) is a factor in about 40 percent of road deaths. The RTA also say speeding increases the risk of a crash and its severity. On another webpage, the RTA qualify their claims by referring to one specific piece of research from 1997, and stating “research has shown that the risk of a crash causing death or injury increases rapidly, even with small increases above an appropriately set speed limit.”

The contributory factor report in the official British road casualty statistics show for 2006, that “exceeding speed limit” was a contributory factor in 5% of all casualty crashes (14% of all fatal crashes), and that “travelling too fast for conditions” was a contributory factor in 11% of all casualty crashes (18% of all fatal crashes).

Driver impairment

Driver impairment describes factors that prevent the driver from driving at their normal level of skill. Common impairments include:

Alcohol
Main article: Driving under the influence

Relative risk of an accident based on blood alcohol levels.

In Canada 33.8% of motor vehicle deaths were associated with alcohol use. See also: alcohol-related traffic crashes in the United States;

Physical impairment

Poor eyesight and/or physical impairment, with many jurisdictions setting simple sight tests and/or requiring appropriate vehicle modifications before being allowed to drive;

Old age

Old age, with some jurisdictions requiring driver retesting for reaction speed and eyesight after a certain age;

Sleep deprivation

Fatigue

Drug use

Including some prescription drugsover the counter drugs (notably antihistaminesopioids and muscarinic antagonists), and illegal drugs.

Distraction

Research suggests that the driver’s attention is affected by distracting sounds such as conversations and operating a mobile phone while driving. Many jurisdictions now restrict or outlaw the use of some types of phone within the car. Recent research conducted by British scientists suggests that music can also have an effect; classical music is considered to be calming, yet too much could relax the driver to a condition of distraction. On the other hand, hard rock may encourage the driver to step on the acceleration pedal, thus creating a potentially dangerous situation on the road.

Combinations of factors

Several conditions can work together to create a much worse situation, for example:

  • Combining low doses of alcohol and cannabis has a more severe effect on driving performance than either cannabis or alcohol in isolation, or
  • Taking recommended doses of several drugs together, which individually do not cause impairment, may combine to bring on drowsiness or other impairment. This could be more pronounced in an elderly person whose renal function is less efficient than a younger person’s.

Thus there are situations when a person may be impaired, but still legally allowed to drive, and becomes a potential hazard to themselves and other road users. Pedestrians or cyclists are affected in the same way and can similarly jeopardize themselves or others when on the road.

Road design

A potential long fall stopped by an early guardrail, ca. 1920. Guardrailsmedian barriers, or other physical objects can help reduce the consequences of an accident or minimize damage.

A 1985 US study showed that about 34% of serious crashes had contributing factors related to the roadway or its environment. Most of these crashes also involved a human factor.The road or environmental factor was either noted as making a significant contribution to the circumstances of the crash, or did not allow room to recover. In these circumstances it is frequently the driver who is blamed rather than the road; those reporting the accident have a tendency to overlook the human factors involved, such as the subtleties of design and maintenance that a driver could fail to observe or inadequately compensate for.

Research has shown that careful design and maintenance, with well-designed intersections, road surfaces, visibility and traffic control devices, can result in significant improvements in accident rates. Individual roads also have widely differing performance in the event of an impact. In Europe there are now EuroRAP tests that indicate how “self-explaining” and forgiving a particular road and its roadside would be in the event of a major incident.

In the UK, research has shown that investment in a safe road infrastructure programme could yield a ? reduction in road deaths saving as much as £6billion per year. A consortium of 13 major road safety stakeholders have formed the Campaign for Safe Road Design, which is calling on the UK Government to make safe road design a national transport priority.

Vehicle design and maintenance

Seatbelts

Research has shown that, across all collision types, it is less likely that seat belts were worn in collisions involving death or serious injury, rather than light injury; wearing a seat belt reduces the risk of death by about two thirds. Seat belt use is controversial, with notable critics such as Professor John Adams suggesting that their use may lead to a net increase in road casualties due to a phenomenon known as risk compensation.

Maintenance

A well-designed and well-maintained vehicle, with good brakes, tires and well-adjusted suspension will be more controllable in an emergency and thus be better equipped to avoid collisions. Some mandatory vehicle inspection schemes include tests for some aspects ofroadworthiness, such as the UK’s MOT test or German TÜV conformance inspection.

The design of vehicles has also evolved to improve protection after collision, both for vehicle occupants and for those outside of the vehicle. Much of this work was led by automotive industry competition and technological innovation, leading to measures such as Saab‘s safety cage and reinforced roof pillars of 1946, Ford´s 1956 Lifeguard safety package, and Saab and Volvo‘s introduction of standard fit seatbelts in 1959. Other initiatives were accelerated as a reaction to consumer pressure, after publications such as Ralph Nader‘s 1965 book Unsafe at Any Speed accused motor manufacturers of indifference towards safety.

In the early 1970s British Leyland started an intensive programme of vehicle safety research, producing a number of prototype experimental safety vehicles demonstrating various innovations for occupant and pedestrian protection such as: air bagsanti-lock brakes, impact-absorbing side-panels, front and rear head restraints, run-flat tyres, smooth and deformable front-ends, impact-absorbing bumpers, and retractable headlamps. Design has also been influenced by government legislation, such as the Euro NCAP impact test.

Common features designed to improve safety include: thicker pillars, safety glass, interiors with no sharp edges, stronger bodies, other active or passive safety features, and smooth exteriors to reduce the consequences of an impact with pedestrians.

The UK Department for Transport publish road casualty statistics for each type of collision and vehicle through its Road Casualties Great Britain report. These statistics show a ten to one ratio of in-vehicle fatalities between types of car. In most cars, occupants have a 2–8% chance of death in a two-car collision.

Center of gravity

Some crash types tend to have more serious consequences, Rollovers have become more common in recent years, perhaps due to increased popularity of taller SUVspeople carriers, and minivans, which have a higher center of gravity than standard passenger cars. Rollovers can be fatal, especially if the occupants are ejected because they were not wearing seat belts (83% of ejections during rollovers were fatal when the driver did not wear a seat belt, compared to 25% when they did). After a new design of Mercedes Benz notoriously failed a ‘moose test‘ (sudden swerving to avoid an obstacle), some manufacturers enhance suspension using stability control linked to an anti-lock braking system to reduce the likelihood of rollover. After retrofitting these systems to its models in 1999–2000, Mercedes saw its models involved in fewer crashes.

Now about 40% of new US vehicles, mainly the SUVs, vans and pickup trucks that are more susceptible to rollover, are being produced with a lower center of gravity and enhanced suspension with stability control linked to its anti-lock braking system to reduce the risk of rollover and meet US federal requirements that mandate anti-rollover technology by September 2011.

Motorcycles

Motorcyclists have little protection other than their clothing; this difference is reflected in the casualty statistics, where they are more than twice as likely to suffer severely after a collision. In 2005 there were 198,735 road crashes with 271,017 reported casualties on roads in Great Britain. This included 3,201 deaths (1.1%) and 28,954 serious injuries (10.7%) overall. Of these casualties 178,302 (66%) were car users and 24,824 (9%) were motorcyclists, of whom 569 were killed (2.3%) and 5,939 seriously injured (24%).

Prevention

A large body of knowledge has been amassed on how to prevent car crashes, and reduce the severity of those that do occur. See Road Traffic Safety.

United Nations response

Owing to the global and massive scale of the issue, with predictions that by 2020 road traffic deaths and injuries will exceed HIV/AIDS as a burden of death and disability, the United Nations and its subsidiary bodies have passed resolutions and held conferences on the issue. The first United Nations General Assembly resolution and debate was in 2003 TheWorld Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims was declared in 2005. In 2009 the first high level ministerial conference on road safety was held in Moscow.

The World Health Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations Organization, in its Global Status Report on Road Safety 2009, states that over 90% of the world’s fatalities on the roads occur in low-income and middle-income countries, which have only 48% of the world’s registered vehicles, and predicts that road traffic injuries will rise to become the fifth leading cause of death by 2030

Crash rates

The safety performance of roadways are almost always reported as rates. That is, some measure of harm (deaths, injuries, or number of crashes) divided by some measure of exposure to the risk of this harm. Rates are used so the safety performance of different locations can be compared, and to prioritize safety improvements.

Common rates related to road traffic fatalities include the number of deaths per capita, per registered vehicle, per licensed driver, or per vehicle mile or kilometer traveled. Simple counts are almost never used. The annual count of fatalities is a rate, namely, the number of fatalities per year.

There is no one rate that is superior to others in any general sense. The rate to be selected depends on the question being asked – and often also on what data are available. What is important is to specify exactly what rate is measured and how it relates to the problem being addressed. Some agencies concentrate on crashes per total vehicle distance traveled. Others combine rates. The U. S. state of Iowa, for example, selects high accident locations based on a combination of crashes per million miles traveled, crashes per mile per year, and value loss (crash severity).

Fatality

The definition of a road-traffic fatality varies from country to country. In the United States, the definition used in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) run by the NHTSA is a person who dies within 30 days of a crash on a US public road involving a vehicle with an engine, the death being the result of the crash. In the U.S., therefore, if a driver has a non-fatal heart attack that leads to a road-traffic crash that causes death, that is a road-traffic fatality. However, if the heart attack causes death prior to the crash, then that is not a road-traffic fatality.

The definition of a road accident fatality can change with time in the same country. For example, fatality is defined in France as a person who dies in the 6 days (pre 2005) after the accident and was subsequently changed to the 30 days (post 2005) after the accident.

Society and culture

Economic costs

The global economic cost of MVCs was estimated at $518 billion per year in 2003 with $100 billion of that occurring in developing countries. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimated the U.S. cost in 2000 at $230 billion.

Legal consequences

In the United States, individuals involved in motor vehicle accidents can be held financially liable for the consequences of an accident, including property damage, injuries to passengers and drivers, and fatalities. Because these costs can easily exceed the annual income of the average driver, most US states require drivers to carry liability insurance to cover these potential costs. However, in the event of severe injuries or fatalities, victims may seek damages in civil court, often for well in excess of the value of insurance.

Additionally, drivers who are involved in a collision frequently receive one or more traffic citations, usually directly addressing any material violations such as speeding, failure to obey a traffic control device, or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In the event of a fatality, a charge of vehicular homicide is occasionally prosecuted, especially in cases involving alcohol.

Convictions for traffic violations are usually penalized with fines, and for more severe offenses, the suspension or revocation of driving privileges. Convictions for alcohol offenses generally result in the revocation or long term suspension of the driver’s license, and sometimes jail time and/or mandatory alcohol rehabilitation.

Due to increase in availability of cable news and Internet news, exposure to such legal actions has increased in recent years, specifically with coverage of cases and class action suits concerning SUV rollovers and recent incidents of sudden acceleration crashes highlighted by the 2010 Toyota Recall. Increased exposure has led to larger class action suits, and automobile owners’ ability to link their collision causes and issues to ones in other regions has spread knowledge of external causes.

In popular culture

 


Contact MGL | Seattle Personal Injury First Steps | Personal Injury Practice Areas | Personal Injury Newsstand | Privacy Policy | Seattle Bicycle Accidents | Seattle Auto Accidents | Premises Liability | Slip and Fall Accidents | Driving Directions | Site Map

Miale Gix Law is building on over two decades of excellence and leadership in personal injury legal representation for Washington state residents and focuses on full-circle recovery for select physical and psychological injuries from premises liability, slip and fall accidents, auto accidents, pedestrian and bicycle accidents. Discover a standard of legal service that "champions" your full-circle recovery!

Miale Gix Law covers the Pacific Northwest and Puget Sound like a boomerang.Our service areas for personal injury cases span Seattle to Spokane, Vancouver, WA to Bellingham, and your Washington state hometown be it: Arlington, Auburn, Bothell, Bremerton, Edmonds, Everett, Federal Way, Issaquah, Kent, Kirkland, Lacey, Lynnwood, Marysville, Medina, Olympia, Port Orchard, Redmond, Renton, Shelton, Snohomish, Tacoma, Tukwila, and Woodinville. We handle cases in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County, Skagit County, Douglas County, Kittitas County, Yakima County, Kitsap County or Island County.

Miale Gix Law is Your Champion for Personal Injury Recovery

Seattle Personal Injury Law Office of Miale Gix Law — The Canal Building at Interbay,
3600 15th Avenue West, Suite 300, Seattle WA 98119

info@personalinjurylawwa.com