Law That Matters To You Life and laws change daily - keep informed
Chalat Hatten & Koupal PC


Who Says Talk Is Cheap?


Recent Updates

May 05, 2008
Get to Know Your Doc

April 30, 2008
Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied

April 22, 2008
Avoid Getting Nailed

April 14, 2008
Justice for Sale

April 04, 2008
Wheels of Justice Move Very Slowly



Web Resources

Chalat Hatten & Koupal PC
Colorado Medical Malpractice     
Colorado Truck Accidents 
People Over Profits 
Consumer Action 
U.S. Product Safety Commission 
Consumer Reports  
Colorado Personal Injury Law 
Ski Safety
Ski Law
FindLaw
Westlaw
New York Times
Newspapers Online
USA Today
Wall Street Journal
AOL
Google
Yahoo!Legal Blog Directory  

 

Logo


        

Posted by: Linda Chalat
March 11, 2008
Topic: General Interest

phone.jpgInternational Paper contended that the employee was not actually on the phone at the moment the collision occurred, according to McArthur. The employee testified at deposition that she had used the cell phone just prior to getting on the interstate, and the accident occurred nearly two miles later. A witness, however, testified that he had seen her with the phone to her ear at the time of the collision.

Georgia has a cell phone statute that says the driver is not to do things that are distracting, this essentially means reasonable cell phone use is acceptable within the purview of the statute. The widow's attorney argued that The International Paper employee's cell phone use was not reasonable, because the employee had set her cruise control at 77 miles per hour -- in a 70 mph speed zone.

After a series of negotiations with a variety of outside counsel for International Paper -- the company changed law firms three times, McArthur said -- and an attempt at mediation, the parties agreed to settle for $5.2 million in mid-December. The case had been set for trial March 17. A spokesperson described the matter as "a very unique case."

In a similar case, Dykes Industries of Little Rock, Ark., lost a $20.9 million personal injury suit in which its employee was using a cell phone when the accident occurred. In another case, the state of Hawaii agreed to pay $2.5 million as its share of liability in an accident involving a state employee who was allegedly talking on her cell phone when she hit a tourist.

Perhaps the classic example for lawyers involves attorney Jane Wagner of Cooley Godward. In 2000, Wagner was driving home from work and conducting a business call on her cell phone when she struck and killed a 15-year-old girl in Northern Virginia's Fairfax County. She did not stop her car, later saying she thought she had hit a deer.

According to Washington Post reports, Wagner later pleaded guilty to a hit-and-run and served one year in jail; a jury ordered her to pay more than $2 million in damages to the victim's family. Wagner's firm, Cooley Godward, settled for an undisclosed amount, according to the Post; the plaintiffs had initially sued for $30 million.

Fifteen states ban or restrict cell phone use by young drivers, and five states and the District of Columbia ban hand-held cell phone use while driving. This year California will join the list. Colorado has considered a variety of restrictions, but nothing has been made law. But Colorado state troopers have begun asking drivers involved in traffic accidents whether they were using cell phones, hoping to determine whether the phones are a threat to public safety.


The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.