| Auto accident lawyers can use the evidence that the | | | | theinternal-cognitive tasks associated with the give and |
| other driver was onhis cell phone in the moments | | | | take of the cellconversation away from the |
| preceding the accident in at least twoways: (1) to | | | | external-visual tasks essential for safedriving. |
| establish that the other auto driver was DUI level | | | | Auto accident lawyers must come to appreciate that |
| drivingimpaired, to aid in establishing liability, particularly in | | | | in terms ofdriving impairment, there is no difference |
| contestedliability cases; and (2) in some cases to gain | | | | between driving DUI alcoholintoxicated and driving DUI |
| access to additionalinsurance coverage, e.g., where the | | | | level impaired "under the influence of cellconversation. " |
| auto accident attorneycan establish that the driver | | | | Just as evidence that the other driver was DUI |
| was engaged in a business call, "in thecourse and | | | | levelintoxicated is useful in establishing liability, the time |
| scope of his employment. | | | | must comewhere auto accident lawyers see the |
| Driving under the influence of cell phone conversation | | | | similar advantages of establishingthat the other driver |
| results in | | | | was DUI impaired, under the influence of |
| DUI level driving impairment and a four fold increased | | | | cellconversation. |
| likelihood thatthe driver will cause an accident. The | | | | Every serious auto accident case should be |
| attorneys at the California Auto | | | | investigated to determinewhether the other driver was |
| Accident Lawyers Group have reviewed all the extant | | | | on his cell phone in the moments leadingup to the |
| epidemiologicaland controlled experimental literature on | | | | accident. In most cases there will not be witnesses, but |
| cell phone use and drivingimpairment, and are pleased | | | | weurge that document requests can be fashioned to |
| to share the information, on request. | | | | obtain the cell phonerecords, to determine whether the |
| Contrary to popular misconception, it doesn't matter | | | | driver was on his cell phone at thetime of the accident. |
| whether the cellphone is handheld or hands-free, the | | | | And then in serious injury accident cases wherethere |
| resulting DUI level drivingimpairment is the same, and | | | | is insufficient insurance to fully compensate the |
| the impairment results in the same 4 foldincreased | | | | attorney'sclient, the auto accident lawyer can inquire in |
| likelihood that the driver will cause an accident. The | | | | deposition as to thepurpose of the call, to determine |
| reasonis that that the impairment doesn't derive from | | | | whether the call was a business call,in the course and |
| holding the phone. Themechanism of impairment results | | | | scope of the driver's employment, setting up |
| from the cell conversation,specifically from the | | | | therespondeat superior case against the employer. |
| diversion of limited conscious attention to | | | | |