Jaime Jackson Law recently teamed up with attorneys Ryan Fisher and Kyle Melling of Lowe Trial Lawyers to obtain a successful result on behalf of our paralyzed client. Our client’s vehicle was struck from behind by another vehicle that was not equipped with collision mitigation safety technology.
The case settled shortly before trial against a vehicle manufacturer for choosing not to equip one of its vehicles with a collision mitigation system, including forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking. This manufacturer chose to include these safety technologies on some of its vehicles, but not the one involved in this case, that rear-ended our client causing her paralyzing injuries.
The dangers of distracted driving have been known for decades
Our client was stopped in traffic for construction ahead when her vehicle was struck from behind causing catastrophic spinal cord injuries. In this case, the driver of the vehicle behind was distracted and did not see the stopped traffic in front. Vehicle manufacturers have known the dangers of distracted driving for decades. For this very reason, dating all the way back to the 1970s, vehicle manufacturers developed safety technologies such as forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking to protect us against the dangers of distracted driving. The crash was caused by a mistake, and this safety technology exists to catch mistakes.
Forward collision warning and Automatic emergency braking
Forward collision warning (FCW) is a safety feature in vehicles that alerts the driver to a potential collision. FCW systems use a camera and radar to scan the road ahead and warn the driver with a sound, lights, vibrations, or a combination of these. Automatic emergency braking (AEB) is a safety technology that can detect a potential car crash and automatically brake to avoid a collision or lessen the severity of impact.
Double standards
Many manufacturers have a double standard: they include these safety systems on vehicles sold in Europe but choose to remove or withhold these safety systems on vehicles sold in the United States.
These Crash Avoidance or Crash Mitigation Safety Systems have a proven track record of preventing or mitigating crashes, yet many manufacturers have chosen profits over safety. They choose not to install these safety systems in its vehicles as standard equipment or make them “optional” and charge consumers extra for these safety features. Safety is for everyone—not just those who can afford it. Safety should not cost extra.
Crash mitigation systems save lives
Vehicle manufactures know these crash avoidance collision mitigation safety systems save lives and prevent injuries, yet they still choose to withhold these safety systems from their vehicles. This case wasn’t just about this crash; it was also about helping prevent the next one. This is the seatbelt story all over again.
Any car or truck crash case where someone has been catastrophically injured or killed should be closely looked at to determine if a collision mitigation system (CMS), also called crash avoidance technology (CAT), could have prevented or mitigated the crash. CMS or CAT include forward collision warning, automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning, lane keep assist, and blind spot detection. Don’t miss out on a claim against the manufacturer of the vehicle for failing to include these key safety features that could have prevented or mitigated the crash.
If you or a loved one have been seriously injured in a motor vehicle crash, contact Jaime Jackson Law on 717-519-7254 or through our website.
Read more articles Contact us today