Washington DC Injury Attorney Blog

There is a major disconnect between your eyes and your brain when a person is driving but on the phone. Be it the person is answering a phone call, imputing and address into a GPS or even using a voice-activated application to send text messages or chat. This is called a cognitive distraction, that most drivers are not aware is taking place.

A two-year study conducted by the University of Utah and sponsored by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety determined that technology developed to enhance the safety of text messaging while driving is not very effective. The study found that interacting with the speech-to-text system was the most cognitive distraction to drivers on the road, when compared to other forms of distracted driving. Therefore; the voice-based systems intended to keep drivers more safe and less distracted from driving is doing the opposite.

When the study was conducted, over a two year period, driving simulators and on-road testing was done. Test subjects wore a helmet of electrode wires to test how the brain reacts to distractions that arise for drivers and their ability to stay focused on the road. Each distraction caused a change in the brain and these changes were marked through graphs on a computer. The data showed, that the more complicated and absorbing a task, the greater the distraction, to the driver on the road. The longer it took for a driver to complete a conversation, send a message, or set a destination on a GPS, the worse the distraction was on the driver, as graphed by the computer.

Another problem that the study determined was something called "inattention blindness". Inattention blindness is when a person sees something but doesn't register it. It means that when distracted, it takes a driver longer to connect what he or she sees to an appropriate reaction while driving. This means that, it takes a driver, longer to break or swerve to safety.

In 2011, federal data showed that distracted driving was a factor in about 10 percent of the fatal accidents reported, nationwide that year. Nationally, it was also reported, in 2011, that 387,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving a distracted driver.

In other words, anything that distracts a driver from the task of safe driving creates a risk. 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of close calls came about after a driver took their eyes off the road.

Sending and receiving text messages topped the list of driver distractions. Therefore; texting while driving, has been banned in 41 states, including Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. In addition, the District and 11 states, which include Maryland but not Virginia, have also prohibited the use of hand-held cell phones.

In conclusion, it was determined that as distractions increase reaction time slows down, brain function is compromised and drivers scan the road less and miss visual cues more. Minor tasks; such as listening to the radio, are considered minimal risks, while responding to voice activated email features, that are built into vehicles, ranked as the highest distraction.

JAMA Pediatrics is the oldest continuously published pediatric journal in the United States, which publishes peer-reviewed journals for physicians and other children and adolescent health care professionals, whom published a study on June 10, 2013 in regards to children in the United States getting too many CT scans which could result in high risk for cancer later in adulthood.

CT scans are high powered x-rays that expose patients to radiation measuring the equivalent to 100 to 500 chest x-rays. The radiation dose from one CT scan can range from a few millisieverts to 20 millisieverts.

The researchers involved reviewed data from seven different U.S. Healthcare systems between 1996 through 20120. The researchers evaluated a total of 744 computed tomography (CT) scans performed on children younger than 15 years of age between 2001 and 2011. The team of researchers found that the use of CT scans doubled for children under five and tripled for children between five and 14 years of age between 1996 and 2005. The rates stayed the same during 2006 and 2007, and finally began to decline in 2008 to 2011.

The research found cancer rates were much higher among girls who received CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis. One girl would develop radiation induced cancer for every 300 to 390 abdomen or pelvic CT scans conducted, 330 to 480 chest scans or 270 to 800 spine scans. These numbers depended on the girl's age.

The research indicated that the CT scan attributed cancer risk was higher for younger patients and girls that for older patients and boys. The risk of Leukemia was the highest for children under five years of age who received head scans. That means that about 2 cases of Leukemia developed for every 10,000 scans.

4,870 cases of future cancer would develop nationally for every 4 million pediatric CT scans conducted annually.

Researchers noted that by reducing the highest 25% of doses to a median dose would prevent about 43% of future cancers. Lower dose scans or no scan at all is often possible depending on the medical situation. Parents are urged to ask doctors if the CT scan is medically necessary or if any other form or testing or scan can be done that would reveal similar results as a CT scan.

Medical malpractice payments do not really drive up healthcare costs, says a study conducted by Johns Hopkins. The study released by Johns Hopkins in early May 2013, shows that health care costs only rise about 1% when payouts are made in substantial medical malpractice claims, in the United States.

The study was published in the Journal for Healthcare Quality and it examined payments made in what they describe as "catastrophic medical malpractice claims". These catastrophic medical malpractice claims involve payments of more than $1 million, which involve patient deaths, birth injuries, and/or other claims for problems that result in the need for lifelong medical care as a result of a medical mistake.

The Johns Hopkins study examined data from 2004 to 2010 and found that catastrophic medical malpractice claim payments totaled $1.4 billion, and it is estimated that the United States healthcare costs are around $2.8 trillion annually, therefore medical malpractice payments don't really have as high an effect on healthcare costs as is reported by health insurance companies, doctors and other members of the medical field.

Medical malpractice payouts are much lower than is portrayed by tort reform advocates. These people advocate that the high cost of healthcare in the United States can be blamed on medical malpractice lawsuit payouts and the fact that state legislatures have the power to arbitrarily override jury decisions and cap awards, but the Johns Hopkins study shows that it really does not have as high an effect as these advocates make it out to be.

On the contrary, the Johns Hopkins study shows that the cost of actual claims pales in comparison to the cost of defensive medicine, which is unnecessary medical procedures and tests doctors conduct on patients in order to avoid lawsuits in the first place. That cost totaled about $60 billion annually, or about 40 times the cost of actual medical malpractice payouts.

In the date used from 2004 to 2010 for this study, there were a total of 77,621 medical malpractice claims paid. 6,130 of those claims were considered "catastrophic" payouts, therefore; tort reform advocates are wrong when they make the assumption that medical malpractice claims payouts result in $100 million payouts.

The New England Medical Journal, in 2011, published a study that found that only 7.4% of physicians face the risk of medical malpractice claims each year. That means that only one out of every five claims result in a settlement or payout.

Therefore; it is fare to say that far too many tests and procedures are performed annually in the name of defensive medicine, as many physicians dear they could be sued if they don't order them. It is not the payouts that are bankrupting the system... it's the fear of them that are.

A new bill will be presented named "The Safe Rental Car Act" to the U.S. Senate sometime this year, where it states that Rental car companies are to ground any recalled vehicles within 24 hours of receiving a recall notice from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The time limit is extended to 48 hrs if a rental company has more than 5,000 of the affected vehicles in its fleet. At times, certain recalls provide a list of temporary measures that can be taken until the complete fix is available. If such an option is made available, rental car companies are allowed to continue to rent those recalled vehicles until the replacement parts are available and distributed accordingly.

The bill, if passed, would also give the NHTSA the right to investigate rental car companies' compliance with the law. Passing the Safe Rental Car Act has its ups and downs, according to rental car companies such as Hertz, Budget, Enterprise, etc. Some rental companies say it's too hard a law to abide by because depending on the vehicle that is being recalled, rental companies might be forced to ground thousands of vehicles, which would in turn affect the customer, reduce the inventory available at each rental company and any recalled vehicles already out on loan would have to be replaced immediately.

Secondly, some recalls are less serious than others. For example, if a vehicle is being recalled for brake failure or fluid leaks or engine troubles then that recall is important and should be immediately grounded but if the recall is for a proper tire pressure label then that recall is not as important, serious or dangerous to the renter.

Lastly, rental companies, sometimes, point out that taxis do not have to follow the same legislation as rental companies, and to them, that is not fair. They consider taxis as vehicles that take a non-vehicle owner from one place to another and should therefore follow the same legislation, rules and laws as rental car companies in order to maintain the safety of the driver and passenger in these recalled vehicles.

However; if the new bill is passed, it is only for and in the best interest to the public/consumer. When renting vehicles, the rental companies are ultimately taking risks and taking responsibility for the vehicles that they are renting to the public. It is simply one of the risks that come with the rental car business.

Speeding, alcohol, inexperience, impaired driving and the lack of helmet use are factors that affect the increase in motorcycle deaths in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Motorcycle deaths continue to climb. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that 706 motorcyclists who died in 2010 would have survived if they had been wearing their helmets. In 29% of the fatalities in 2010, the motorcyclists had a blood-alcohol content about the legal limit and about 35% of the motorcyclists were found to be speeding. Other factors include, motor vehicle drivers not being attentive enough to their surroundings, violating the motorcyclists right of way and being impaired.

Only 19 states, including Maryland and Virginia, and the District of Columbia have helmet requirements and laws for all riders.

In the first nine months of 2012, there were 138 motorcycle deaths in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Nationwide, the number of motorcycle fatalities were 3,922, in the same period of time. Therefore, the number of motorcycle deaths has almost doubled in recent years. When all the motorcycle fatalities are calculated for 2012, it is believed that the number of deaths will be close to 5,000. Nationwide, 34 states reported more deaths in 2012 and 16 recorded fewer. In 2011, there were three motorcycle deaths in the District of Columbia, 63 in Maryland and 72 in Virginia.

The Governors Highway Safety Administration (GHSA) believed that good weather, higher gas prices and an improving economy were the most common explanations for the rise in motorcycle fatalities. Troy Costales, the immediate past president of the GHSA stated that, "The fatality increase is disheartening." "Every motorcyclist deserves to arrive at their destination safely. These numbers represent real people - they are family, friends and neighbors."

Maryland currently has the following Motorcycle requirements: Helmets must be worn by the motorcycle operator and passenger at all times and eye protection must be used. The motorcycle helmet must have a windscreen or the motorcycle operator must wear approved eye-protective device.

The state of Maryland also offers rider training courses because riding a motorcycle requires special skills and concentration. The courses are offered to both new and experienced riders. The courses teach the participants the special skills and mental strategies necessary for responsible motorcycle operation. The course approved curricula meets and exceeds the standards established by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. For more information on these motorcycle rider training courses, please visit the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration's motorcycle training site.

In the United States, traffic accidents are still the leading cause of teenage deaths, according to a report issued in April 2013 by the Center for Injury Research and Prevention at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and State Farm Insurance. The main causes of teenage car accidents, according to the report, are texting while driving, driving while intoxicated, driving while under the influence, distracted driving, speeding and lack of seat belt use. Speeding in particular counts for more than half of fatal crashes which involve teens ages 15 to 19 years of age. As for texting while driving, the report states that one third of teen driver's still report texting, messaging and/or emailing while driving.

41 percent of car accidents studied in the CHOP report stated that teens had a blood alcohol content level higher than 0.01, which is an increase from 38 percent when the same study was conducted in 2008. Therefore; it is estimated that teens have car accidents at four times the rate of adult drivers ages 25 to 69.

The report states that by reducing distractions from passengers and technology, improving skills in scanning, hazard detection, speed management and increased seat belt use would lower teen crashes and ultimately teen fatalities. Parents are also encouraged to enforce tougher rules and limitations to their new licensed teen drivers. Such as, limiting the number of friends their teens may have in one vehicle at any given time and to make their vehicles a no phone zone, which means that the driver is not allowed to use their cell phone until they have reached their destination. Handheld or hands-free devices should be included. Also, parents should set time limits to their new licensed teen drivers. Make sure these teens are not driving too late into the evening, in the dark, too early in the morning or for too long a period of time.

If both teens and parents educate themselves to the rules of the road and sit down and make sure that limits and rules are set for teen drivers, then teen car accidents and fatalities as a result of teen car accidents would decrease in a major way. Remember that driving is a privilege and not a right; therefore, it is a responsibility that we all must take seriously, teen or adult. Everyone should take responsibility for themselves and others when operating a motor vehicle.

As warmer temperatures arrive in Maryland, more people get out on the roads, be it in bicycles, by foot and by motor vehicles. It is important to remember the rules of the road and to share the road with pedestrians and cyclists. The Maryland Department of Transportation's State Highway Administration (SHA), the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) and the Maryland State Police (MSP) are reminding everyone to obey the rules of the road and to drive and bike responsibly.

Traffic accidents continue to be one of the leading causes of death for Maryland residents. This means that thousands of Maryland residents suffer injuries and are overall economically impacted by motor vehicle accidents. Therefore, it is important for all motorists to be fully aware of the increase in both vehicle and pedestrian volume on the roads. Everyone is reminded to obey the posted speed limits on Maryland roads, not to drink and drive, to avoid distractions, such as cell phone use, texting and the like, and to always wear seatbelts and safety belts.

Aggressive driving and speeding are real threats on roadways in Maryland. Speeding contributes to about 40% of aggressive driving deaths, according to studies conducted by the MVA and the Highway Safety.

Here are some tips for safe driving: Remember to Buckle up, slow down, always drive sober, focus and share the road with everyone. Plan ahead. In Maryland, one can sign up for MD511 to learn about travel delays and construction activity along state routes. This will help you remain safe on roadways. Also, make sure and not text while driving. Make your vehicle a no phone zone while you are operating the vehicle. If you must use the telephone, make sure you use hands-free devices. Be use and keep an eye out for construction workers and utility crew members on the roads. Most of these people are issued orange and lime colored vests/safety equipment, so be sure and keep an eye out for them. And lastly, perform vehicle safety checks. Make sure your vehicle's tire pressure is correct and that all the vehicle's fluids are at the roper levels.

For more safety information, visit the Maryland Department of Transportation safety page at www.1.usa.gov/10zMfX4

Magura USA Hydraulic disc brakes have been recalled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) after it was determined that the brakes can malfunction in low temperatures and can lead to loss of brake pressure. The recall includes Magura MT6 and MT8 hydraulic disc brakes that consist of a brake lever, master cylinder linked to the handle bars, and a hose running from the master cylinder to the caliper that is attached to the rear wheel. These specific hydraulic disc brakes were manufactured from March 2011 to May 2011 with the date codes ranging from 10301 to 20531, which are printed on the bicycle. This means that about 2,800 bicycle hydraulic brakes have been recalled due to the risk that they may fail, posing potential crashes and injuries for riders. All other Magera hydraulic disc brakes are not included in this recall or affected by the faulty part that can cause injury.

The Magura MT6 was sold in black and silver and the MT8 was sold in black and red. Both have the word "Magura" located on the caliper and the "MT" logo on the master cylinder. The MT6 model has the word "six" printed on the brake lever and the MT8 model has the word "eight" written on the brake lever. The Magura MT6 and MT8 were priced at $269 and $379 respectively. Also, included in this recall are all MT6 and MT8 brake systems without date codes.

Magura disc brakes are manufactured in Bad Urach, Germany and imported by Magura USA, of Olney Illinois.

The CPSC recommends that owners and riders of these bicycles stop riding them, contact Magura USA at (800)448-3876 for a free repair, and/or visit them online at www.maguradirect.com and click on "Recall Information".

Also, please be aware that it is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The CPSC responsible for protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with the use of thousands of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than $900 billion a year. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical or mechanical hazard.

No injuries have been reported to date, but if you or someone you know does become a victim or is injured by the use of either the MT6 or MT8 Magura USA Hydraulic disc brakes, please contact the CPSC and file a report/complaint and contact an attorney to assisting you in your claim.

Dram is a small unit of liquid. Dram shop refers to a bar or tavern where alcoholic beverages are sold. Dram shop liability is when an establishment can be held liable for selling alcohol to visibly intoxicated persons and/or minors, which then cause death or injury to a third party as a result of alcohol-related automobile crashes and other accidents.

Dram shop laws are intended to protect the general public and innocent people from the hazards of serving alcohol to minors and intoxicated patrons. Serving alcohol to minors in the United States is illegal. All 50 states consider it illegal to sell and or serve alcohol to anyone under the age of 21.

The argument against dram shop liability is that a person, drunk or sober, should be responsible for his/her own behavior and actions. Also, bar, tavern and restaurants owners believe that if dram shop laws go into effect in Maryland that insurance premiums would rise, prices for customers would rise and therefore some business would have to close. Also, some people argue that there is no way for a bartender to know if a patron had drank somewhere else before or after coming to their business, or had used drugs.

There are other people who suggest that there has to be some accountability for a situation that is created or made worse by the action or inaction of the bar and or tavern.

The Court of Appeals in Maryland has recently heard several arguments in dram shop liability cases and will start considering whether to implement dram shop liability, which would in turn make bars, taverns and restaurants liable for customers involved in drunk-driving cases. But even without dram shop liability in Maryland, there seems to be a growing trend of Maryland cases recognizing tavern liability when there is additional action or inaction by the tavern that contributes to the occurrence or makes the situation worse. If a Dram Shop law does go into effect in Maryland it would go against over 60 years of judicial precedent.

Maryland and Virginia are a few of the states that still do not have any kind of dram shop liability law in affect. Maryland does not currently hold businesses responsible for serving too much alcohol to its patrons. 44 states in the United States and the District of Columbia do have some form of dram shop laws, although they differ in scope and in the evidence required for holding a business responsible for other's actions.

The FDA has issued a warning for the antibiotic drug Zithromax, commonly known as Z-pack or Zmax, due to the fact that the drug can cause disruption to the electrical activity of the heart. An investigation has been conducted since May 2012 to determine the side effects of Zithromax and therefore a warning was issued on Tuesday, March 12, 2013.

Zithromax is an antibacterial drug known as macrolides, which have been known to cause abnormal heart rhythm problems, which can lead to fatal heart conditions. In the research conducted by the New England Journal of Medicine, it was found that patients who took Zithromax were 2.5 times more likely to die due to heart related problems on a 5 day treatment plan when compared to patients using other antibiotics.

Patients with existing medical conditions were at higher risk of heart health issues as those without pre-existing medical conditions. Patients with low blood levels of potassium and/or magnesium, those with slower than normal heart rates and those taking certain drugs used to treat abnormal heart rhythms were at higher risk of complications when using Zithromax.

Pfizer, in 2011, made a profit of over $450 million in Zithromax sales. The drug is usually prescribed to patients suffering from urinary tract infections, tonsillitis and other bacterial infections. Patients should consult with their physicians before taking this drug and doctors should inform patients of the possible heart problem drug side effects of using this drug.

Dr. Nikita Levy, a Johns Hopkins Medical Center Gynecologist, committed suicide on Monday, February 18, 2013, after he was confronted with allegations of recording and photographing his patients during exams in his 25 year career. Dr. Levy obtained his medical license in Maryland in 1988 and started working at Johns Hopkins Hospital shortly after. Dr. Levy was contacted by Johns Hopkins on February 4th, 2013, suspended on February 5th and ultimately terminated on February 8, 2013. On February 18, 2013, Dr. Levy's body was found at his home, in Towson, Maryland, with a plastic bag wrapped around his head and Helium being pumped into it. An apology letter to his wife was also found, near his body.

When Dr. Levy's home was searched by police, unauthorized photographs and video recordings of patients treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital were found. Multiple computer hard drives filled with images and records, photographic equipment and hidden cameras, such as a pen camera, were found and taken as evidence.

Several lawsuits are now being filed in Maryland on behalf of former patients of Dr. Levy due to these allegations. Hundreds more are expected to be filed in the coming months. Dr. Levy had over 600 former patients whom may have been secretly photographed or recorded.

Baltimore Police have yet to contact the patients identified in the photographs and recordings and have not confirmed whether any of the material was distributed over the internet, therefore; some lawyers of these former patients have submitted a request to the Baltimore Police to release this information.

Johns Hopkins issued a statement, which in part says, "An invasion of patient privacy is intolerable. Words cannot express how deeply sorry we are for every patient whose privacy may have been violated... " The hospital further says that Dr. Levy's alleged behavior violates its conduct and privacy rules. The allegations were brought to light by an employee of Johns Hopkins Medical Center, who on February 4th, 2013, noticed something unusual about Dr. Levy's examination of a patient and so a supervisor was alerted.

Baltimore Police are treating this as a criminal investigation while Johns Hopkins' board or trustees has opened their own investigation. Hospitals, in the past, have been held liable for failing to protect patients' privacy and for doctor's actions, but it depends on whether there is enough evidence to prove negligence. It all depends on whether the women can be identified in the images and what they show. If patients cannot be identified, they cannot really say that they were embarrassed or humiliated.

Over 10,000 lawsuits have been filed against the company Johnson & Johnson for their distribution of the DePuy ASR hip implant, since a recall was issued in August 2010. The DePuy ASR hip implant has a metal on metal design, which means that a metal head rotates within a metal cup. This design causes metal debris, caused from the metal parts rubbing against each other, to be released into the surrounding tissue and cause medical problems. The failure occurs within five years of replacement.

When the recall was first issued, Johnson & Johnson stated that the failure rate was only about 13%, but after documents were released as part of the litigation, it was estimated that the failure rate of the DePuy ASR hip implant is as high as 37%. This means that one out of every eight DePuy ASR hip implants were failing within five years of replacement surgery.

There is currently a case going on in California against Johnson & Johnson for the marketing, manufacturing and sale of the defective DePuy ASR hip implants. It is being said that the company failed to properly warn the public, as well as healthcare professionals, about the risk of loosening and other complications that may develop shortly after hip replacement surgery.

In testimony in the current case being heard in California, a DePuy engineer testified that Johnson & Johnson only tested one angle of implantation and that the company failed to use the right engineering controls when trying to assess potential problems. The engineer further stated that the testing conducted failed to predict how much wear the hip implants would experience and how much they could loosen.

The FDA released a new guidance for metal on metal hip replacements in January of this year. Doctors were advised that metal on metal hip replacement systems should only be used if other artificial hip implants were not appropriate for the patient, and called on all manufacturers to prove that their implants are safe enough to stay on the market. Also, future metal on metal hip designs will have to undergo extensive human clinical trials before being made available for sale to the public.

A rear-end collision is one of the most common types of traffic accidents. It occurs when one vehicle collides with the one in front of it, often as a result of the lead vehicle's sudden deceleration which does not permit the trailing vehicle sufficient time to stop.

Injuries sustained by passengers and drivers in either vehicle range from mild to severe although occupants in the lead vehicle typically suffer more serious injuries. The size of the vehicles and the speed upon impact also matters. The occupants of compact car struck by a speeding SUV will likely sustain much more serious injuries than if struck by a slow-moving car of relative size. To understand the impact of a rear-end collision, consider this example: Crashing into a parked vehicle of comparable size at 60 miles per hour is equivalent to crashing into a brick wall at 30 miles per hour.

Injuries

Although bumpers on automobiles are designed to cushion the impact of a vehicle collision, they are of course not full-proof. Even low-speed rear end collisions can cause serious injuries, particularly for the occupants in the lead vehicle, because of the unexpected and sudden nature of the impact. Examples of typical injuries include:

• Soft tissue injury of the cervical spine (i.e. whiplash)
• Soft tissue injury of the lumbar spine (lower back pain)
• Spinal cord injury
• Facial and head injury

Compensation

In virtually all rear-end collisions, the trailing car is at fault. Even if the lead car stops suddenly, the trailing car is considered liable because drivers are supposed to maintain a safe distance behind the cars in front of them. Occupants struck by another vehicle from behind deserved to be compensated for their injuries. Passengers in the trailing car that rear-ends the front car also deserve to be compensated.

A failure to yield accident is when a driver fails to give or yield to the car or party that has the right of way. The majority of these accidents are caused by distracted drivers. There are various types of failure to yield accidents. Some types are:

- Failure to yield to oncoming traffic when making a turn
- Failure to yield the road to ambulance, fire engine and/or police vehicles
- Failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign
- Failure to yield to a pedestrian or bicycle who has the right of way
- Failure to yield when merging onto a freeway, highway or byway
- Entering into traffic from an alley, side street, private driveway, or parking lot when the traffic traveling on the main road has the right of way

It is important to secure eye witnesses, take pictures at the scene and obtain intersection videos from the cameras that many municipalities/cities/districts have installed. Red-light cameras can be used to prove conclusively that the at-fault driver failed to yield the right of way at an intersection. Also, never admit fault at the scene and do not make any statements, recorded or not, to the opposing insurance company.

Failure to yield accidents can cause many types of injuries, including traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, fractures and/or burns. Therefore; never accept an insurance settlement without first discussing your claim with an experienced automobile accident attorney. If you accept a settlement without consulting with an attorney, you will have forfeited your right to seek future compensation. Many failure to yield accident victims do not realize that their injuries can be more serious than they appear, at first, and could require additional treatment and/or surgery.

Head on automobile collisions are often the most serious types of crashes. It occurs when the fronts of two vehicles collide into each other. Head on collisions typically occur at intersections and on highways. Head on crashes at intersections occur when one driver fails to obey a traffic light or other traffic signals, such as a stop sign or yield sign. Highway head on crashes can occur when one driver goes the wrong way on an exit ramp or when a driver crosses the center line or a median barrier separating vehicles traveling in opposite directions.

Factors that contribute to head on crashes include driver impairment, driver negligence, poor road design, or insufficient road signs. Most head on collisions are due to driver factors, such as driver behavior, visual acuity, reaction speed, distraction, fatigue, and unfamiliarity with the roadway where the collision occurred.

Any type of head on collision is exacerbated when one or both of the vehicles are traveling at high speeds. A high speed head on collision, whether it occurs on a highway, roadway, exit ramp, or intersection can result in serious injuries to the drivers and passengers. Head on collisions can even be fatal. Although head on collisions account for only 2 percent of all automobile crashes in the U.S., they account for 10 percent of fatal crashes. Injuries suffered from head on crashes can include the following:

• Brain Injury
• Head Injury
• Spinal Cord Injury, including Paralysis
• Broken Bones
• Whiplash
• Burns
• Lacerations

Some of these injuries can be permanent in nature and so an experienced attorney can make sure that you are properly compensated for your damages. Your health is the most important thing and you should reach maximum medical improvement before you settle any claim and accept any monetary value from any insurance company.