Recent Posts in Automobile Accidents Category

Distracted driving is a serious problem, and Nevada is now joining other states that ban the use of cell phones while driving.

The RGJ reports that Gov. Brian Sandoval signed into law a bill that makes texting or talking while driving illegal in Nevada. 

The law allows exceptions for using hands-free devices.  Fines range from $50 to $250, and a person convicted of three or more offenses within seven years can have their license suspended.

The fines and penalties become effective Jan. 1, 2012.

The Nevada Supreme Court addressed issues of seatbelt evidence and violations of pretrial motions in limine in Roth v. BMW, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 11 (April 14, 2011).

The case involved a single car rollover in which the Plaintiff, Alyson Roth, was rendered a paraplegic. Roth was a passenger in a 1987 BMW 528e, and she was sleeping in a reclined position in the front passenger seat when the car strayed onto the shoulder, swerved back across the road, and rolled 2.5 times before coming to rest on its roof. Roth was ejected from the vehicle and suffered severe injuries to her spine.

Roth sued the driver of the vehicle for negligence, and BMW for strict product liability. Roth's theory against BMW was that the car's safety restraint was defective and allowed her to be ejected from the vehicle. Roth and the driver of the car both claimed that Roth was wearing her seatbelt at the time of the accident.

In a pretrial motion in limine, Roth moved to preclude BMW from introducing evidence that Roth was not wearing her seatbelt. Roth based this motion on Nevada's seatbelt statute, NRS 484D.495, which requires that an adult wear a seatbelt but that failure to wear a seatbelt "may not be considered as negligence [or] misuse or abuse of a product or as causation in any [civil] action." NRS 484D.495(4). BMW argued that the statute could not prohibit evidence of seatbelt nonuse where the plaintiff sought damages for enhanced injuries due to defects in the safety restraint system.

The Court ruled that Roth had to show that she was wearing her seatbelt at the time of the accident, so BMW could introduce evidence of nonuse of the seatbelt. However, the Court crafted a limiting instruction, given before opening statements and again before deliberation: "BMW [will introduce] [has introduced] evidence the Plaintiff was not wearing her seatbelt. This evidence may be considered by you in evaluating Plaintiff's claim against BMW that the subject vehicle was defective and unreasonably dangerous. You may not consider this evidence for any other purpose."

In opening statements, BMW's attorney stated that the evidence would show that Roth was ejected from the car because she wasn't wearing her seatbelt, and had she been wearing her seatbelt, she wouldn't have been ejected and she wouldn't have received her spinal injuries. Roth's attorney did not object.

In closing arguments, BMW's attorney said, "[L]et's look at what [Roth is] claiming here and ask the question, did any of these alleged defects cause any injury to Ms. Roth or the accident? Take the seatbelt. It wasn't being worn . . ." Roth's attorney objected, and the Court clarified that BMW could "say that there is evidence she was not wearing her seat belt, so the seat belt couldn't have been defective, and, therefore, the defect in the seat belt could not be a cause of the injuries," but that BMW's attorney "can't say anything beyond that."

The jury returned a $5.9 million verdict in favor of Roth against the driver of the BMW for negligence, but returned a verdict in favor of BMW. The jury found no defect in the BMW.

Roth moved for a new trial against BMW based on NRCP 59(a)(2), which provides that misconduct may warrant a new trial if the misconduct "materially affect[s] the substantial rights of an aggrieved party." The district court granted the motion.

Violation of Motion in Limine

The Supreme Court addressed several issues in determining whether a new trial was warranted.

One issue was whether the prevailing party on a pretrial motion in limine must contemporaneously object to misconduct concerning a pretrial motion in limine. The Court concluded that whether a contemporaneous objection is required depends on whether the party prevailed on the motion in limine. Where the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial is pursuant to an order in limine, the alleged error at trial is the same as the error alleged in the ruling on the motion, and the party need not contemporaneously object in order to preserve claim of error on the ruling on the motion in limine. However, where the alleged error is attorney misconduct involving the violation of an order in limine, a contemporaneous objection must be made in order to preserve the claim of error on appeal. The Court explained the reasoning behind the distinction:

Dispensing with the requirement of a contemporaneous objection would allow the proponent of the order in limine to remain silent and hope for a new trial even though, in many instances, an objection and curative instruction would prevent the need to relitigate the case. Thus, contemporaneous objections to claimed violations of an order produced by a motion in limine are required to prevent litigants from wasting judicial, party, and citizen-juror resources.

BMW's attorney's references to seatbelt evidence in opening statements were not objected to; thus, claim of error was waived unless the misconduct was plain error. Noting that Roth did claim that the seatbelt system was defective, the lack of specificity in the court's order in limine, and the uncertainty in the law with respect to the seatbelt defense in crashworthiness cases, the Court ruled that the comments regarding seatbelt nonuse in opening statements were not plain error.

The Court then addressed the objected-to conduct in closing statements. Conduct that is admonished and objected to is subject to standards set forth in Lioce v. Cohen, 124 Nev. 1, 174 P.3d 970 (2008). Under Lioce, "a party moving for a new trial bears the burden of demonstrating that the misconduct is so extreme that the objection and admonishment could not remove the misconduct's effect." Lioce, 124 Nev. at 17, 174 P.3d at 981. The Court noted that "A violation of an order granting a motion in limine may only serve as a basis for a new trial when the order is specific in its prohibition and the violation is clear." Black v. Schultz, 530 F.3d 702, 706 (8th Cir. 2008).

The Court held that the closing argument statements did not warrant a new trial, because the jury instruction cured any misconduct, and in fact, the jury found no product defect and did not reach causation.

American Association for Justice President Gibson Vance authored an article in the Washington Post last month explaining the connection between decreased traffic deaths and the civil justice system. The full article is below.

How our cars got safer
By Gibson Vance
April 16, 2011

Traffic deaths in the United States have dropped to their lowest level since 1949, according to a report released this month by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Remarkably, this drop occurred even as Americans drove 21 billion more miles in 2010 than they had the previous year.

The drop in fatalities is due in large part to the fact that cars are getting safer. Since the introduction of the Ford Pinto nearly four decades ago — a car synonymous with danger, destruction and executives putting profits ahead of consumer safety — amazing advancements have been made in auto safety. The technology is better, regulations are stronger and buyers have more information. Not surprisingly, consumers are drawn to cars with the latest safety features.

Yet these factors alone do not tell the whole story. History shows that litigation and the civil justice system have served as the most consistent and powerful forces in heightening safety standards, revealing previously concealed defects and regulatory weaknesses and deterring manufacturers from cutting corners on safety for the goal of greater profits.

The Ford Pinto litigation sent a strong message to the auto industry. Unfortunately, manufacturers have still sold dangerous cars. In June 2004, a Dallas-area mother stopped her Ford F-150 truck to speak with her husband through the driver’s side window. Her 3-year-old daughter leaned out the passenger’s side window and accidentally hit the rocker switch, causing the window to close on her neck. When her parents noticed moments later, it was too late — their daughter was strangled.

As power windows became more common, so too did instances of children being strangled. Seven children died within a three-month period in 2004. Manufacturers were aware of the issue, and the fix was relatively simple and inexpensive. In response to regulations in other countries, European and Asian cars already used a safer switch — one that must be pulled up to raise a window — and so did many U.S. manufacturers on cars they offered to foreign markets. Yet incredibly, U.S. manufacturers did not install the safer switches on domestic cars because NHTSA had no rules governing power-window safety. Litigation eventually forced universal acceptance of the safer switches in 2006.

It is easy to take for granted just how much safer vehicles have become and how safety measures have been standardized. For years, the auto industry has worked to undermine regulations and limit its liability by pushing for complete immunity from lawsuits when their vehicles comply with minimum federal safety standards. This would, in short, be devastating for consumers.

Recall that the Pinto’s design met all government standards of the time. Had compliance with federal standards been a complete defense of vehicle safety, Ford could not have been held accountable for the many burn victims that the company was later shown to have anticipated.

Put another way, without the civil justice system, gas tanks would still explode in rear-end collisions, seat belts and airbags would not be standard, and cars would roll over onto roofs that would be easily crushed.

There are multiple reasons behind the welcome news that traffic deaths continue to decline. But the role of the civil justice system is often overlooked. Litigation has spurred safety innovations in vehicles for more than half a century and will continue to be essential in keeping Americans safe and holding manufacturers accountable.

The writer is president of the American Association for Justice.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a press release on Thursday, March 11, announcing that "the number of overall traffic fatalities reported at the end of 2009 reached the lowest level since 1954, declining for the 15th consecutive quarter."

Once miles traveled are accounted for, this fatality rate could actually be the lowest level ever recorded, according to the release.

"This is exciting news, but there are still far too many people dying in traffic accidents," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "Drivers need to keep their hands on the steering wheel and their focus on the road in order to stay safe."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration attributes the decline in 2009 to a combination of factors that include, high visibility campaigns like Click It or Ticket to increase seat belt use, and Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest which helps with the enforcement of state laws to prevent drunk driving and distracted driving. In addition, the decline is also the result of safer roads, safer vehicles and motorists driving less.

The Utah bus crash that killed nine and injured 43 others in January of 2008, was followed by an investigation into the cause of the accident. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded recently that driver fatigue was a contributing factor to the crash. More importantly, however, the Board concluded that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) failed to implement motorcoach passenger safety recommendations made by the NTSB in 1999 and that this failure was a contributing factor in the severity of the accident.

The recommendations made by the NTSB included on-board electronic recorders to monitor a driver's hours of operation and prevent fatigue, seatbelts to prevent passengers from being ejected in rollovers, stronger roofs and easy-to-open windows that don't shatter. Members of the NTSB are frustrated that the NHTSA has been so slow in implementing these safety standards. More recent accidents elicit the same concerns.

In January of this year a tour bus accident in Arizona killed 7 people and injured at least 10 others. It was reported that all but one of the passengers who died at the scene were ejected from the bus during the accident. It was also reported that the bus rolled at least once before stopping.

The bus accident that occurred just recently on April 29 in California killed 5 and injured dozens. Four of the passengers were ejected from the bus and fell over a guardrail some 60-70 feet onto a set of railroad tracks.

Both accidents call into question several of the proposed safety standards yet to be implemented by the NHTSA. Given that passengers were thrown from the bus in both accidents, it seems likely that the severity of the injuries sustained could have been mitigated if the NHTSA had implemented, at a minimum, the seatbelt regulations recommended by the NTSB a decade ago. 

In an effort to provide consumers with more complete safety information and encourage car manufacturers to design safer cars, the U.S. Department of Transportation has revised its five star rating system.

The changes include reporting an overall safety rating, taking into account an automobile's performance in frontal, side, and rollover tests, instead of just reporting those results separately. A new side poll test will simulate an automobile collision with a tree.

For the first time, female crash test dummies will be tested, to represent women and larger children, and a new test for leg injuries will be implemented.

The updated system will include ratings for new technologies, such as electronic stability control, lane departure warning systems, and forward collision warning systems.

The changes in vehicle testing will be implemented beginning with 2010 model automobiles.


For more information, visit the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

A quick look at www.safercar.gov sheds lights on the significant dangers of "rollover" automobile accidents, information particularly relevant for Nevada drivers, especially those who do a lot of driving in the mountains or on rural roads.

Rollovers are not the most common type of automobile accident, but they often cause the most serious injuries. While rollovers account for only 3% of accidents, nearly 33% of fatalities in passenger vehicle accidents are caused by rollovers.

In 2002, over 10,000 people died in rollovers. Of those 10,000, 72% were not wearing seatbelts.

What Causes Rollovers?

SUVs have a reputation for causing rollover accidents, and with reason. The taller and narrower a vehicle, the more likely it is to rollover. SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans fit this description.

However, vehicle type is not the only factor leading to rollover accidents. All vehicles can rollover, and driving behavior plays the largest factor. 85% of rollover fatalities were single vehicle accidents.

Speeding: 40% of fatal rollovers involved excessive speeding, and almost 75% of fatal rollovers occurred in speed zones of 55 mph or greater.

Alcohol: Nearly 50% of fatal rollovers involve alcohol.

Rural roads: Rollovers are more common on rural roads, especially those with a speed limit of 55 mph or greater.

Minimizing Your Risk

The site lists some tips to minimize the risk of rollover and minimizing injury:

MAINTAIN YOUR TIRES
Improperly inflated and worn tires can be especially dangerous because they inhibit your ability to maintain vehicle control, the most important factor in reducing the chance of rollover. Worn tires may cause the vehicle to slide sideways on wet or slippery pavement, sliding the vehicle off the road and increasing its risk of rolling over. Improper inflation can accelerate tire wear, and can even lead to tire failure. It is important to maintain your tires properly, and replace them when necessary.

LOAD VEHICLES PROPERLY
Consult your vehicle's owner's manual to determine the maximum safe load for your vehicle, as well as proper load distribution. If you're using a roof rack, pay special attention to the manufacturer's instructions and weight limits. Any load placed on the roof will be above the vehicle's center of gravity, and will increase the vehicle's likelihood of rolling over.

AVOID PANIC-LIKE STEERING
Many rollovers occur when drivers overcorrect their steering as a panic reaction to an emergency--or even to a wheel going off the pavement's edge. At highway speeds, overcorrecting or excessive steering can cause the driver to lose control, which can force the vehicle to slide sideways and roll over.

For more information, check out www.safercar.gov

The National Safety Council reports that rural areas account for about 65 percent of traffic deaths. Further, 75 percent of all noncollision accidents (overturns, jackknifes) occur in rural areas. The allure of the countryside is obvious, but dangers are all around.

Rural Hazards

Rural roads are usually not as well maintained as urban roads and major highways. Always wear your seat belts and be especially alert for:

-Blind curves or intersections. Approach each curve expecting the worst. That means slowing down and staying on your side of the road.

-Excessive speed. Drive within the speed limit. It's based on the road's characteristics under ideal conditions, and it is established for your protection. Reduce speed in heavily wooded areas and at night.

-Soft shoulders. They will give way under the weight of your vehicle, and they could pull it down a slope or into a ditch.

-Narrow roads and one-lane bridges. Like it or not, you may have to yield to another driver. Don't be stubborn.

-Poorly marked intersections and railroad crossings. Approach them with caution.

-Woods and tall crops which obscure curves.

-The possibility for head-on collisions. To avoid them:

-Always stay to the right of the center line.

-If an oncoming vehicle veers into your lane for any reason, slow down right away, sound your horn and flash your headlights. Drive to the right to get out of the way. Driving into a ditch is less dangerous than driving into a vehicle.

-If the choice is between a head-on collision and hitting a fixed object, such as a tree or utility pole, it's safer to hit the fixed object, which has no momentum of its own.

Unpredictable Weather And Animals

Weather hazards are compounded on rural roads.

-Carry a survival kit and a cellular phone.

-In wet weather, try to stay in the path in the road that has been worn by traffic. The traction is better there.

-Heavy rains can cause flooding in low areas. A car can be swept away in only one foot of water. Don't try to cross rushing water.

-Wet gravel roads and fall leaves require extra stopping distance. Slow down in the rain.

Animals are a special danger in the country. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more than 100 people are killed and 8,000 are injured each year in crashes involving animals, particularly deer. You can't predict an animal's actions, but you can prepare your response.

-Use an animal warning device.

-If you encounter a small animal on the road, do not swerve to avoid hitting it. Stay on the roadway. The alternative could mean the loss of your life.

-Because of their size and increased numbers, deer present a special hazard:

-Dusk and dawn are their times of peak activity.

-If one deer crosses ahead of you, stay alert! They usually travel in groups.

-Be most alert in areas where foliage and trees extend to the road.

-If a collision with a deer is unavoidable, slow your speed to reduce the impact. Never swerve left!

Beware! Farm Machinery Crossing

The National Safety Council reports there are about 30,000 collisions each year between vehicles and farm machines. Farm machines are usually big and pon­derous. Mishaps can be avoided if drivers show restraint and patience.

-Slow down when you approach farm implements. Be prepared to stop if necessary.

-Stay calm. Your chance to pass will come eventually. Don't risk your life to save a minute or two.

-Be wary. These implements need more room to maneuver than you do. Tractors will veer to their right before they make left turns. Don't mistake this to mean the tractor is moving aside to let you pass.

I continue my discussion of driving safely with the following about distractions:

A recent study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that driver distraction is a factor in 80 percent of all motor vehicle crashes.

The list of distractions in an automobile is long and continues to grow. The bottom line here is that we just have to pay closer attention to our number one responsibility behind the wheel: driving safely. Here are some tips to help achieve that objective.

Focus On The Task At Hand

- Start with the basics and drive defensively. Make it your goal to have a "perfect" trip.

- Don't turn your head to talk or look at scenery or another person.

- Don't fool with the radio or other nonessential equipment when the road is busy. When driving in unfa­miliar areas, turn off the radio for maximum concentration.

- Personal grooming and reading are obvious no-no's.

- Experts say we eat one in ten restaurant meals in our automobile, often while weaving through traffic. Don't eat or drink while you drive.

- If you don't know exactly where you're going, get directions before you leave.

- If you need to look at a map or reach into your purse or briefcase, pull over. The same applies to dealing with troublesome children.

- Do not engage in stressful or emotional conversations that may be distracting.

- Illness is a distraction. When you're sick, your reflexes are slower than normal and your senses may be fogged. Consider staying home until you are alert.

- Read the labels on medications and talk to the pharmacist. Many medications such as antihistamines can make you dizzy or drowsy.

The Rolling Phone Booth

Using a cell phone while driving is a leading cause of driver inattention.

- Learn and follow all local and state laws. When you travel, review local requirements.

- Learn how to operate your phone without looking at it.

- Never take notes or look up phone numbers while driving. Use a small tape recorder to take notes.

- Keep conversations brief so you can concentrate on your driving.

- A cell phone should only be used when it is absolutely necessary. The Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association offers these safety tips for cell phone users:

- Take the time to become familiar with the features of your phone such as speed dial and redial.

- Position your phone so you can reach it while maintaining a proper view of the road and all mirrors.

- Dial while the vehicle is stopped. If you absolutely must dial in light traffic, dial a few numbers, check traffic, and continue dialing when it's safe. Or, have a passenger dial for you.

- If you place a call while moving, stay in the lane reserved for slower traffic.

- Use Speed Dialing for frequently dialed numbers.

- Always assess the traffic situation before receiving calls. Allow voice mail to answer the phone when it's unsafe to speak, e.g., heavy traffic or bad weather.

- Let the person you are speaking to know you are driving. If neces­sary, suspend conversations during hazardous driving conditions or situations.

- The National Safety Council rec­ommends not using a cell phone at stoplights. You may notice cars moving in the next lane, but your light could still be red.

- Hearing impaired drivers should pull over to use the phone. Too much of your attention will be diverted to deciphering the sounds. 

Prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) medications are intended to keep us healthy. In the wrong circumstances - especially when we are behind the wheel of a vehicle - our drugs could contribute to our early demise. To be sure your medications don't abuse you, please remember:

- It is your responsibility to know what you're taking and how it affects you. If you have a question, ask your doctor or pharmacist.

- Bodies are different and every­one will not react the same to medications. Furthermore, a drug can affect one person differently in dif­ferent situations.

- Don't mix medications, or mix any kind of drug with alcohol, until you have consulted with your doctor or pharmacist.

- Try to use only one pharmacy.

- The problem with some drugs, such as cough medicines, is that they have a high alcohol content. Read the literature you get with any drug to determine whether it con­tains sedatives or alcohol.

Driving Alert

Even at recommended doses, OTC drugs can affect driving ability as much, or in some cases, even more than illegal drugs, pre­scription drugs, or alcohol.

- Antihistamines are the principal culprit, according to the Southern California Research Institute. They can cause drowsiness, dizziness and blurred vision.

- Sleeping pills and night-time cold medications can also impair drivers. Obviously, a medication intended to help you sleep is not going to make you a good driver.

- Ibuprofen, a commonly used pain reliever, can reduce concentra­tion levels and cause drowsiness.

- If you're taking a medication for the first time, don't plan on driving after you take that first dose. Wait to see how it affects you. 

Over the next several blogs I plan to concentrate on basic information about driving safety.

Driving a car is one of the most routine activities we engage in, but it's also one of the most dangerous. Over 40,000 people are killed in motor vehicle accidents each year.

These 40,000 deaths translate into lifetime odds of 1-in-100 of dying in a motor vehicle accident.

Another discouraging number associated with motor vehicles is that 1-in-2 of us will suffer a temporary or permanent disabling injury* in a motor vehicle accident.

With odds like these, your only answer is to develop a defensive driving attitude when you get into a car. As the articles in the Driving section show, there are many steps you can take to reduce the odds you will be one of these statistics.

One of the most important steps you can take is to develop an attitude to make every driving trip a "perfect trip." This includes such things as wearing seat belts, obeying speed limits, and driving defensively under all weather and traffic conditions.

Driving a car should be one of life's pleasures, not one of life's tragedies.

The principal causes of motor vehicle deaths, based on recent National Safety Council statistics, are: Collision Between Motor Vehicles - 20,600; Collision with Fixed Object - 13,300; Pedestrian Accidents - 5,900; Noncollision Accidents - 5,200; Collision with Pedalcycle - 900; Collision with Train - 200; Other Collision - 100.

* A disabling injury is an injury that disables you beyond the day of the injury.

In the ongoing squabble over Allstate defense attorney Phil Emerson's repeated misconduct in arguing cases at trial, the Nevada Supreme Court rendered its latest decision on January 17, 2008.

In its introduction to Lioce v. Cohen, 124 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 1, the Court stated:

On December 28, 2006, this court issued an opinion in these consolidated appeals.[2] The defendants in each of the four underlying personal injury cases were represented by the same attorney, who gave substantially the same closing argument on behalf of his clients at each trial. Asserting that defense counsel's closing arguments constituted misconduct, the plaintiffs sought new trials, with varying success.

In that opinion, we revised the standards under which district courts are to evaluate requests for new trials based on attorney misconduct. Next, we reversed the denial of the motions for new trials in Lioce v. Cohen and Lang v. Knippenberg, and affirmed the grant of new trials in Castro v. Cabrera and Seasholtz v. Wheeler. Additionally, we determined that the defendants' attorney's closing arguments in Castro and Seasholtz amounted to misconduct, and we remanded those cases with instructions to the district courts to calculate and impose monetary sanctions on defense counsel and his clients.[3] Finally, we referred defense counsel to the State Bar of Nevada for disciplinary proceedings. This petition for rehearing followed. Having considered the petition, answers, amici curiae briefs, and the replies, we conclude that en banc rehearing is warranted in part under NRAP 40(c). We therefore grant the petition in part, vacate our prior opinion in this matter, and issue this opinion in its place. On rehearing, we reach substantially the same conclusion as in our prior opinion, but we decline to impose monetary sanctions on defense counsel and his clients.

Because defense counsel's closing arguments encouraged the jurors to look beyond the law and the relevant facts in deciding the cases before them, we agree that they amounted to misconduct. In determining whether the district courts properly decided that this misconduct warranted new trials or not, we take the opportunity to revise our attorney misconduct jurisprudence. New trial requests based on attorney misconduct must be evaluated differently depending upon whether counsel objected to the misconduct during trial. When a party successfully objects to the misconduct, the district court may grant a subsequent motion for a new trial if the moving party demonstrates that the misconduct's harmful effect could not be removed through any sustained objection and admonishment. With respect to unobjected-to misconduct, we conclude that the district court may grant a motion for a new trial only if the misconduct amounted to plain error, so that absent the misconduct, the verdict would have been different. When ruling on a motion for a new trial based on attorney misconduct, district courts must make express factual findings, applying the above standards.

In these consolidated appeals, we conclude that in Castro and Seasholtz, the district courts did not abuse their discretion by granting the plaintiffs' motions for a new trial, and therefore, we affirm the district courts' orders in those matters. In Lang and Lioce, however, we are unable to ascertain from the record whether the district courts abused their discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motions for a new trial. Accordingly, we vacate those orders and remand those two matters for a new decision on the new trial motions, based on the standards announced today. In addition, we refer defense counsel to the State Bar of Nevada.

Here's a plug for Trial Guides at www.trialguides.com. The following interesting news comes from their enewsletter of today's date.

This week, Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty announced that he is suspending Allstate Insurance companies from writing new insurance in Florida. McCarty's choice follows Allstate's refusal to comply with subpoenas served October 16 by the Office of Insurance Regulation.

The subpoenas seek disclosure of the McKinsey Documents, in which McKinsey & Co. instructed Allstate how to systematically underpay claims starting in the mid 1990s. The content of the documents is so explosive that Allstate has already ignored a $25,000 per day fine in Missouri for its ongoing failure to provide the McKinsey Documents in that state.

Trial Guides landmark book, From Good Hands to Boxing Gloves, is the only book that provides a full discussion, as well as reproductions, of the McKinsey documents. Written by the only lawyer who has obtained the McKinsey Documents unprotected, David Berardinelli, the book gives plaintiff lawyers the edge in personal injury and bad faith claims by disclosing the content of the McKinsey Documents and how you can use them in trying or settling your case. From Good Hands to Boxing Gloves has been the most widely publicized legal book of 2007, serving as a source for feature stories with CNN, PBS, BusinessWeek, Bloomberg, and many more. More media coverage is coming in 2008, following the suspension of Allstate in Florida.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents

Driving in Reno is not (nearly) as bad as driving in Southern California or New York City, but we still have our share of accidents.

A UNR civil engineer professor and some UNR students are now researching roads and intersections in the Reno area to make them safer and less accident prone. The project entails videotaping certain intersections and studying tire marks or warning signs in "fender bender" areas.

The students have also set up surveys online and at the Department of Motor Vehicles that ask the public to identify high accident areas. Once these areas are located, the students review statistical data with an aim toward alleviating the problem particular to the spot. Read more about this project in the Reno Gazette.