Advertisement

May 21, 2013

Distracted Driving on Company Time . . .

. . . A Risk Manager’s Worst Nightmare.

That was the title of the webinar I participated in yesterday, hosted by Risk and Insurance. Speaking on the topic were:

  • Dexter Hamilton, member and general/commercial litigator at Cozen O’Connor
  • Jami McClellan, senior risk engineering consultant at Zurich
  • Paul Bomberger, editor in chief of Risk and Insurance

Without wasting any time, the panel began discussion about various studies published in the recent past that highlight the dangers of distracted driving. Not only is it hazardous to those behind the wheel, but if the driver is talking on a work-issued phone, or about work-related issues, or driving a company-owned vehicle, the company stands liable.

According to webinar, there is no difference in distraction between hand-held and hands-free devices. In not-so-obvious news, distracted driving is one of the top insurance losses — averaging $100,000 per incident.

The panelists highlighted several cases of companies that were required to pay hefty sums for on-the-road accidents caused by their employees.

One such case involved a brokerage firm whose employee was driving his personal vehicle but talking about company business on his cell phone. The driver hit and severely injured a motorcyclist while talking on his phone. His employer was forced to pay $500,000 to settle the case.

“There’s simply going to be no sympathy once an accident happens,” said Hamilton. “And companies must realize that brand destruction is very critical. A high-profile accident can harm the brand everyone worked so hard to maintain and promote.”

For another example we can turn to the case of Tiburzi v Holmes, which involved Jeffrey Knight, who was a driver for Holmes Transport & Logistics, and Mark Tiburzi, who was driving his personal vehicle at the time. Knight caused an accident that injured 15 and killed three in St. Louis, Missouri. One of those injured was Tiburzi, who suffered severe traumatic brain injury. The cause of the accident? Along with excessive speed and driving over the alloted on-duty hours, distraction was blamed — Knight had looked away from the road to check his cell phone. The jury awarded Tiburzi $18 million — to be paid by Knight’s employer.

For more on this topic, check out “Unsafe at Any Speed” in Risk Management magazine.

distracted driving

The above article is reprinted from the Risk Management Monitor - the official blog of Risk Management magazine.

Reprinted with permission from the Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2010 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Editor

Emily Holbrook is the editor of Risk Management magazine and the Risk Management Monitor blog.

212-655-5915

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.