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