The new measure, which went into effect July 1st, allows police to initiate traffic stops on the sole basis of observing a driver who is texting. Previously, law enforcement could only issue citations for texting-and-driving if the driver was stopped on the basis of another suspected offense.

Although this move is to be commended, Fort Lauderdale personal injury lawyers recognize Florida is among the last states to take this action.more

A separate measure banning the use of handheld cellphones in school and construction zones begins October 1st. Both this and the texting-while-driving law have a grace period ending January 1st, during which violators will merely be warned instead of ticketed. Authorities call this an “education period.”

Even so, the fact that authorities now have a stronger basis on which to initiate traffic stops hopefully means more motorists will be paying closer attention to the pavement than their phones. Those violators who aren’t deterred and accrue multiple offenses may soon find themselves paying higher insurance premiums and potentially without a license. In either case, these moves are expected to prevent South Florida car accidents and potentially save lives.

The Threat of Texting Drivers in Florida

Although it’s technically not all “texting,” per se (emailing, playing games, watching clips, taking photos – all that counts too), distracted drivers pose a deadly threat. In just 2016 alone, distracted driving caused more than 50,000 Florida car accidents and resulted in more than 230 deaths, according to the governor’s office.

According to insurance analytics firm The Zebra, 14 percent of fatal crashes involved cell phones in 2018 and 14 percent of distracted driving deaths were attributed specifically to smartphone use (as opposed to other forms of distraction). The firm calculated that more than 4,630 people died in motor vehicle accidents that year as a result of cell phone use, and texting while driving was deemed six times more deadly than even drunk driving, which kills 10,000 in the U.S. every year.

A person using a smartphone – hands-free or not – will have a delayed reaction time that is equal to a person operating a vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 – the legal limit in Florida.

Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers know that proving distraction in these cases can be difficult because unlike alcohol, no chemical test conducted at a crash scene will reveal whether a driver was using a cell phone. What we can do is analyze cell phone activity data and compare it to what we know to be the actual or estimated time of the crash in question.

Understanding Florida’s New Texting and Driving Law

During the “transition” grace period, a driver can rack up an unlimited number of texting-and-driving warnings without any real impact to his or driving record. However, it’s likely that motorists warned for multiple violations will have committed other traffic offenses for which they are cited. It’s still possible that insurers could take note if they catch wind of these violations, which often come with substantial hikes in car insurance costs. Motorists will still technically be permitted to talk on their cell phones while they are driving – but it’s not recommended. The exception will be the provision that pertains to school and construction zones where active workers are on site.

Drivers are permitted to tap their phones while driving (i.e., to answer a call) while the vehicle is in motion, so long as they don’t hold it, but even this doesn’t apply in construction areas and school zones. Motorists can still text while they are stopped at a traffic light or toll booth because law enforcement are only allowed to initiate a traffic stop on a driver for offenses committed while the vehicle is moving. BUT, a driver impeding the flow of traffic due to smartphone distraction can be cited.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties. Additional Resources:

Texting and Driving Statistics 2019, Jan. 2, 2019, TheZebra.com

• It involved a phantom motor vehicle;
• The court inferred the ladder in the road had fallen from a pickup truck that had parked in the right emergency lane;
• The court inferred the ladder had fallen into the road (causing a chain collision) due to negligence in securing the ladder.

These conclusions were based primarily on circumstantial evidence and witness statements. Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist (UM) insurance carrier argued there was no proof of those last two points, the assertion relying wholly on circumstantial evidence and failing to exclude other possibilities. Defense sought a directed verdict in its favor. The court denied the motion and jurors decided the case in favor of plaintiff. The phantom vehicle was found 60 percent at-fault for the collision, while the soda company truck that rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle when she made a sudden stop on the highway was 40 percent at-fault. The UM carrier is liable for damages caused by the “phantom vehicle.more What is a “Phantom Vehicle” in a Fort Lauderdale Uninsured Motorist Claim?

“Phantom vehicle” is a term used by auto insurers to describe a car or truck that left the scene of an accident unidentified. Unlike a hit-and-run, there is no actual collision with a phantom vehicle, but that motorist may nonetheless be at-fault. Some also call these “miss-and-run” accidents. Typically, it involves another motorist’s reckless or sudden movement that cause plaintiff to hit a third vehicle or to run off the road. In this case, it involved alleged negligence of the phantom vehicle’s driver to properly secure items within the truck, causing the ladder to come loose and fall from the truck, into the highway lane where it posed serious danger to other motorists.

Fort Lauderdale car accident lawyers at The Ansara Law Firm can explain that phantom vehicle cases can be challenging to prove because if the two vehicles don’t collide, there may be very little evidence another vehicle was involved at all, except for the word of the plaintiff. What plaintiff had going for her in this case was there were numerous witnesses who attested to the suspected phantom vehicle.

Plaintiff’s sister-in-law was driving, with plaintiff as front seat passenger, in the second lane of I-295 behind two other vehicles when suddenly, all three in the travel lane stopped abruptly because of the large ladder lying in the road. Seconds later, a soda company truck slammed into the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle, causing her serious injury.

Two independent witnesses told investigators that just before the crash, they observed the pickup truck in the far right emergency lane with a man standing outside the truck, seemingly focused on the ladder as if trying to retrieve it. However, the driver of that truck was not identified.

Plaintiff filed a claim against the soda company and its driver, which were later settled. As Fort Lauderdale car accident attorneys can explain, there is a rebuttable presumption of fault by a driver in the rear whenever there is a rear-end collision. Motorists have a responsibility to keep a safe distance from the vehicles ahead of them precisely for a scenario like this. Drivers are supposed to anticipate that there may be a sudden emergency ahead, whether it’s a traffic jam or a tire in the road, that would require the driver in the lead to make a sudden stop, and maintain enough space between their two vehicles to safely stop or maneuver away if that happens. Rebuttable presumptions are explained in F.S. 90.302. These are presumptions to be taken as fact by the court unless there is credible evidence sufficient to prove otherwise.

However, closure of the claim against the soda truck company wasn’t the end of it because someone was still liable for the ladder in the road that set off the chain of events. Here, the jury concluded plaintiff was entitled to UM benefits. Defense appealed, arguing plaintiff had “stacked inferences,” which is depending upon inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence as proof of one fact and then constructing another inference upon the initial reference to establish it as fact. This isn’t allowed unless plaintiff can show the original, basic inference was established to the exclusion of all other reasonable inferences. Basically, courts don’t want verdicts to be reached on the basis of speculation and conjecture. The appellate court, however, affirmed the verdict, finding the original inference (that the ladder fell from the phantom vehicle) was made to the exclusion of all reasonable others.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

State Farm v. Hanania, Dec. 10, 2018, Florida First District Court of Appeal

More Blog Entries:

When Your Florida DUI Injury Lawsuit Conflicts With Criminal Proceedings, Nov. 4, 2018, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Attorney blog

Florida is one of a handful of states where texting-and-driving remains a secondary offense. That means an officer must also observe some other traffic offense before a traffic stop can be initiated and a texting-while-driving citation issued.

F.S. 316.305, also known as the Florida Ban on Texting While Driving Law, prohibits the use of an electronic device (manually typing, sending, reading or researching data or interpersonal communication) while operating a motor vehicle. There are a number of exceptions to this rule (i.e., researching traffic or weather alerts, those who are searching radio broadcasts use of a system for navigation), but the biggest issue is the fact that it’s a secondary offense. Plus, even if a fine is issued, it’s only $30 for a first-time offense.

Mountains of evidence suggest more must be done to curb this problem, particularly in Florida. For example, EverDrive’s Safe Driving Report 2016-2017 reveals Florida ranked second-worst in the country for distracted driving, with 44 percent of drives containing at least one distracted driving event. (On top of that, researchers pointed out, Florida drivers exceeded the speed limit in 38 percent of trips and 32 percent of drives involved harsh braking.)

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a recent report revealing approximately 3.3 percent of drivers in 2016 hold cell phones to their ears while driving, translating to an estimated 481,000 passenger vehicles driven by people using handheld cell phones at any typical daylight moment. The rate was higher among female drivers than male, and was the highest among those ages 16 to 24.

Meanwhile, the number of drivers visibly manipulating handheld devices was roughly 2.1 percent, with younger drivers again observed at higher rates. Those in vans and sport utility vehicles were also noted to be bigger offenders, as were those in rural areas and on weekdays during rush hour.

All this was based on some 48,000 vehicles observed by researchers at 1,600 sites across the country.

Although no state entirely bans all forms of cell phone use by drivers, there are 14 that ban talking on a handheld cell phone. Each of these states also has a primary enforcement law, intended to allow officers to cite drivers who use handheld cell phones despite the absence of any other offense.

Proof of distracted driving in a civil personal injury case in Fort Lauderdale may be based on physical as well as circumstantial evidence. Your injury lawyer may gather data directly from the tortfeasor’s phone (which would include time stamps on messages, photos and other posts). We may also take into account evidence that the driver failed to initiate any evasive maneuvers (a fact that can often indicate inattention), as well as witness statements of the driver’s behavior – including the driver’s own statements.

In cases where the at-fault driver was on-the-clock or driving a company vehicle, employer liability may also be an issue worth exploring.

Having an experienced injury lawyer working for you following a distracted driving accident can make a substantial difference in your ability to collect damages.

Call Fort Lauderdale Injury Attorney Richard Ansara at (954) 761-4011. Serving Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

Additional Resources:

Ride-along: Catching distracted drivers in SWFL, Sept. 26, 2017, By Rachel Polansky, NBC-2

More Blog Entries:

Florida Court: Insurer Required to Cover $15M Car Accident Verdict, Sept. 22, 2017, Fort Lauderdale Car Accident Lawyer Blog