

The Motorcycle Accident Lawyer SITEMAP

Cell Phone Motorcycle Accident Lawyers

Ask How Our Motorcycle Accident Lawyers Can Make A Difference In Your Case With Evidence That the Other Driver Was On His Cell Phone.

For every auto or motorcycle accident case involving serious injuries it is essential to obtain the representation of highly qualified trial lawyers fully knowledgeable about the very important strategic litigation advantages that result from establishing that the other driver was on his cell phone at the time of the accident. The evidence in the hands of attorneys who have carefully researched the epidemiological literature and the controlled experimental studies can snatch victory out of the mouth of defeat in disputed liability cases, and in many serious injury cases can identify sources of insurance that can mean the difference between a recovery equal to the auto driver's statutory minimum insurance policy and a multimillion dollar recovery fairly compensating the plaintiff for his damages, as when they demonstrate that the other driver was engaged in a business call at the time of the accident.

We are highly qualified trial lawyers and have comprehensively researched all of the scientific literature demonstrating the DUI level driving impairment resulting from the use of cell phones while driving. Indeed, armed with the science we can demonstrate that those who drive under the influence of their cell phones are 4 times more likely to be involved in an accident. Since the cell phone driver is as impaired as a driver DUI level drunk and significantly more likely to cause an accident, establishing that the other driver was on his cell phone at the time of the accident can be as persuasive as demonstrating that the other driver was DUI drunk.

In serious injury motorcycle and auto accident cases where the other driver is underinsured to fully compensate the plaintiff for every measure of his damages, it is absolutely essential that a lawyer be retained who is both fully educated in the pertinent science and who fully appreciates the litigation advantages to be obtained by demonstrating that the other motorist was on his cell phone at the time of the accident. Indeed it is unfortunate that in most serious injury auto and motorcycle accident cases the other driver will be woefully underinsured to compensate for the plaintiff's injuries, his past and future medical expenses, and his loss of earnings and future loss of earning capacity. All too often the other party has only statutory minimum liability coverage, not enough to pay a single day's hospital expense. But the competent cell phone accident lawyer can often provide the solution to obtain full recovery for his client's damages by demonstrating that the other driver was engaged in cell conversation "in the course and scope of his employment.".

In every serious injury case it is essential that the motorcycle accident attorney do the proper investigation beginning with obtaining the other driver's cell phone records because with the long commutes more and more drivers are using their time driving to engage in business calls, calling into their office with instructions for their secretaries, calling to make appointments with clients, calling to obtain information about their schedules for the day and making every other manner of business related call. The appropriately qualified cell phone auto accident lawyer will not stop at obtaining the cell phone records, he will interrogate the other driver at his deposition and interrogate the other party to the cell call to determine the nature of their relationship to determine if it is a business relationship and will further interrogate them to determine the nature and content of the conversation. It can truly mean the difference between a $15,000 recovery and a multimillion dollar recover for the client if the cell phone accident lawyer establishes that the call was business related, "in the course and scope" of the driver's employment. The appropriately knowledgeable cell phone accident lawyer will amend the plaintiff's complaint to name the driver's employer as a defendant, and the employer will be vicariously liable to pay the full measure of the plaintiff's damages, making both the employer's liability insurance and the employer's assets available as resources to pay the plaintiff's full measure of damages.

In Every Serious Injury Auto or Motorcycle Accident Case The Cell Phone Accident Lawyers of the Henke Law Office Obtain The Other Party's Cell Phone Records Whether or Not The Other Driver Was Observed by Witnesses to Have Been On His Cell Phone At the Time of the Accident.

If you were seriously injured in an auto accident, our highly respected trial lawyers with the investigatory techniques and knowledge of the advantages of demonstrating that the other party was driving under the influence of a cell phone will obtain the other party's cell records and if it is determined that the other driver was on his cell phone at the time of the accident will conduct the appropriate depositions to determine whether the cell conversation was business related.

We investigate every serious injury auto accident case in which the Henke Law Office is retained as trial attorneys to obtain the cell phone records of the other driver, whether or not there is party or witness or a police report to support that the other driver was on the cell phone.

We investigate every serious injury accident for cell phone use, whether or not the other driver was observed to have been on his phone in the moments prior to the accident, first because cell phone use while driving is now literally epidemic, with 1 in every 10 American drivers on the street at any given moment in time actively engaged in cell conversation, and with his 10 percent of drivers each four times more likely to cause an accident, the chances are reasonable that any given driver who causes an accident will have been on his cell phone at the time of the accident. Second, those who drive while conversing on a cell phone will commonly not acknowledge to the investigating police that they were on their cell phone at the time of the accident, and often it will also not have been obvious to witnesses that the driver was on the cell phone, particularly as their attention may not have been drawn to the driver until after the accident. The cell phone records can provide the crucial evidence, and as we at the Henke Law Office recognize, establishing that the driver was on the cell phone can lead to enormous accident litigation advantages..

In many serious injury car accidents the party at fault will not admit fault, and so it is essential to prove his liability. Cell phone records that the driver was operating his vehicle while on the cell phone may provide powerful evidence against the driver, because the studies have shown that those who drive under the influence of cell phones are DUI level driving impaired. We have compiled and reviewed all of the epidemiological, controlled experimental and neurological literature demonstrating convincingly that the use of any cell phone, whether a handheld device or hands-free device, results in DUI level driving impairment and a 4 fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident. If this is properly presented by competent cell phone accident lawyers fully knowledgeable about the science, this evidence -- presented at settlement conferences or at the trial -- can be very effective in contributing to the proof of liability.

But since many serious injury auto accident cases the other party to the accident may also be woefully underinsured to pay for the plaintiff's sometimes catastrophic injuries, medical expense and earnings losses, we don't stop at obtaining the cell phone records; we propound written interrogatories requiring the other party to disclose the identity of the other party to the cell conversation; we depose the other driver, meaning we require him to come into our offices and interrogate him under oath, not just to get his story about how the accident occurred, but to obtain his sworn testimony with regard to the nature of his relationship with the other party to the telephone call and the subject matters of the call. And then we depose the other party to the call, asking him the same questions. In some cases our investigation into the relationship of the parties to the call may be even more extensive. The cell phone records and the depositions of the parties to the call can be extremely important when they reveal that the cell call was business related, made "in the course and scope of the driver's employment." When these facts are established the employer may be named as a defendant under the legal doctrine of "respondeat superior," held vicariously liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff, jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiffs damages, and now we have the employer's insurance and assets also available to pay the claim.

Our most recent multimillion dollar settlement involved our client, a motorcyclist, who was splitting lanes pulling out to turn left at an intersection between cars two left turn lanes when he was hit by a vehicle which ran the light. It was not known prior to our agreeing to serve as the motorcyclist's attorneys that the other party was driving his vehicle in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, but after we established the fact we named the other driver's employer. The driver had a $15,000/$30,000 minimum liability auto insurance policy; but the employer had a multimillion dollar policy. Attorney Henke took the deposition of the police officer who investigated the accident who acknowledged under Mr. Henke's interrogation that his client's splitting lanes, even two left turn lanes, was legal in California and not a causal factor in the accident. We settled the case in less than a year, recovering $2,500,000.00 for our client. If another lawyer had not appropriately investigated the case and determined that the other driver was driving "in the course and scope of his employment, the motorcyclist could have been left with only $15,000 recovery. This is why it is so very important to obtain appropriately qualified legal counsel particularly in serious injury cases, and specifically, cell phone accident attorneys who fully understand both the science and the litigation advantages of investigating fully the other driver's cell phone records and the nature and content of the cell conversation. In addition to being highly qualified cell phone accident lawyers, we are also very highly accomplished and respected trial lawyers. Attorney Henke is "AV" rated by Martindale & Hubbell, the most highly regarded national attorney rating directory in the United States. "A" is defined as "very high to preeminent" in "legal ability"; "V" is defined as "very high" "general ethical standards." According to Martindale & Hubbell: "AV Peer Review Rating: shows that a lawyer has reached the height of professional excellence. He or she has usually practiced law for many years, and is recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity."

Mr. Henke was elected Governor of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association (now the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles), the fifth largest trial lawyers association in the United States. He was also nominated "Trial Lawyer of the Year" by the same Association. Mr. Henke has obtained many multimillion dollar settlements and verdicts, most of them in complex cases, ranging from auto accident cases, to medical malpractice and pharmaceutical product liability cases. He is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum, commonly referred to as the most prestigious trial lawyer group in the United States. Please consider Mr. Henke's other trial lawyer credentials described below and on other pages of this web site.

Then Contact us for a Free Attorney Case Consultation. We welcome the opportunity to review your case with you and will consider representing those seriously injured in motorcycle accidents,

Our Cell Phone Accident Attorneys Will Consider Representing All Those Seriously Injured in Auto or Motorcycle Accident Cases Whether or Not it is Known That the Other Party was On the Cell Phone At the Time of the Accident and Whether or not the Cell Phone was a Handheld Device or Hands-Free Device. We Represent Those Seriously Injured in Motorcycle Accident Cases .

In every serious injury motorcycle accident case, it is essential that an appropriate qualified cell phone accident lawyer investigate to determine if the other motorist was on his or her cell phone at the time of the accident. The investigation to determine if the other party was on the cell phone is important whether it was observed that the other driver was on a cell phone or not, because the driver may not admit to the police that he was on the cell phone and witnesses may not have noticed that the driver was on the cell phone when he engaged in the negligent or inattentive driving which caused the accident.

Sometimes also the driver may have been on a hands-free cell phone which is more difficult to observe from a distance. It is a "conventional wisdom" that only handheld cell phones result in driving impairment. This conventional wisdom is found repeated even other "cell phone lawyer" sites. The conventional wisdom is dead wrong as we will demonstrate below. It is the cell conversation which results in the DUI level impairment and 4 fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause the accident, not holding the phone. This is the conclusion of all of the science, reviewed and cited below. This is just one reason why it is so very important that the seriously injured auto accident victim obtain appropriately qualified cell phone accident attorneys whose first obligation is to be able to recognize the cases in which the scientific evidence of the DUI impairment can provide the advantage..

If you were seriously injured in any county in a motorcycle accident you are welcome to submit the Cell Phone Accident Attorney Case Evaluation Request Form. If the other party admitted that he was on a cell phone or you or a witness saw him using his handheld or hands-free cell phone at the time of the accident it is essential that you obtain legal counsel appropriately qualified to investigate the case further to determine if the other driver was using his cell phone for business purposes, and to present the scientific evidence that the other motorist was driving DUI level impaired. But in most cases there will be no witnesses that the other party was on the cell phone at the time of the accident and so it is important in any serious injury auto or motorcycle accident cases, that you obtain an appropriately qualified cell phone accident lawyer to obtain the cell phone records and conduct the appropriate follow up investigation, including by deposing both parties to the conversation.

Below we will introduce attorney Ray Henke, one of the very few truly highly qualified cell phone accident lawyers. Below that we will summarize the scientific literature with regard to the DUI level driving impairment associated with driving under the influence of any cell phone, and demonstrate also that conversation by handheld and hands-free devices results in the same DUI level driving impairment and same 4 fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident. Below that we will discuss further the advantages that a highly qualified cell phone accident lawyer can bring to your case.

Qualified Cell Phone Accident Attorneys Must First be Sophisticated Lawyers with Broad Experience in Complex Litigation to able to Comprehend the Scientific Literature Demonstrating the DUI Level Cell Phone Driving Impairment, and Present the Complex Scientific Evidence at Settlement Conferences or at Trial.

Cell phone accident attorney Henke is the most knowledgeable and acknowledged lawyer in the United States on the scientific literature substantiating the DUI level dangers of �driving under the influence of cell phones.� He has authored a number of scientific review articles which have been widely cited, circulated and reprinted in numerous forums. One such article is summarized here for your review on this web site. See "Henke, Driving Under the Influence of a Cell Phone, a Scientific Review Article.� In addition to his legal work as a cell phone auto accident lawyer, Mr. Henke has also been broadly involved nationally in consulting with advocacy groups lobbying for comprehensive cell phone bans, meaning laws which restrict the use of both handheld and hands-free cell phones while driving. He has devoted enormous time and resource to his national campaign to outlaw cell phone use while driving.

First, attorney Henke is a highly accomplished and highly successful trial lawyer, who in addition to auto accident cases and motorcycle accident litigation has extensive experience prosecuting the most complex scientific litigation tried in our courts, including litigation demanding the same kind of scientific presentations essential to the prosecution of cell phone accident cases. Specifically attorney Henke has prosecuted the most complex of pharmaceutical product liability cases and medical malpractice cases. He has a strong background in science and epidemiology, has been trained by some of the most highly regarded epidemiologists in the country in the context of preparing complex pharmaceutical product liability litigation, and that type of education and experience is essential when it comes to preparing and presenting cell phone auto liability litigation. Indeed, the evidence of the DUI level driving impairment and the four fold increased likelihood that the cell phone impaired driver will cause an accident derives from the epidemiological literature, the extensive controlled experimental literature and the converging neurological literature, discussed in part below.

Attorney Henke�s trial accomplishments specifically in complex medical and pharmaceutical product liability cases have been followed widely by the legitimate press, from the front page of the New York Times to the front page of the Los Angeles Times, from the Washington Post to the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner, and many other newspapers. His cases have also been chronicled in local and national legal magazines and journals, from a feature articles in California Lawyer to the National Law Journal, and Mr. Henke has appeared also on national and international television, from Tom Brokaw's NBC Evening News to CNN. He has also testified before Congress at the invitation of the Chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee again specifically with regard to his prosecution of complex pharmaceutical and medical litigation and the societal utility of punitive damages.

Attorney Henke is a former Governor of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association, the fifth largest trial lawyer association in the United States, nominated �Trial Lawyer of the Year� by the same organization among other honors and awards. He is �AV� rated by Martindale & Hubbell, the highest ratings awarded by the most highly respected lawyer rating directory in the United States. The "A" means "very high to preeminent" in "legal ability"; The "V" means "very high" in "general ethical standards."

There are important reasons for anyone seriously injured in an auto or motorcycle accident to select an attorney who is knowledgeable about the prosecution of cell phone accident cases, whether it is known that the other party was on the cell phone at the time of the accident or not. But It is the hard study and education in the epidemiological, controlled experimental, and neurological literature that makes up the science by which we prove the nature and magnitude of cell phone driving impairment, and it is the lawyer's appreciation for the unique litigation strategies and appreciation for the advantages to be gained in cell phone accident litigation, which sets competent cell phone accident attorneys apart from other personal injury lawyers.

Below we will very briefly discuss the scientific literature establishing the DUI level driving impairment associated with �driving under the influence of a cell phone.� The discussion here will be brief, since we have attached Mr. Henke�s �Scientific Review Article� for the more full discussion of the science.

If you were seriously injured in a motorcycle accident, you are welcome to complete the Cell Phone Accident Attorneys Case Evaluation Request. We are pleased to offer our initial case consultations free of charge and without any obligation. We welcome to opportunity to speak with you.

Cell Phone Accident Attorney Henke Presents the Scientific Evidence That Driving While Engaged in Cell Phone Conversation, by Handheld or Hands-Free Cell Device, Results in DUI Level Driving Impairment And a 4 Fold Greater Likelihood that The Driver will Cause an Accident..

Before we examine the scientific literature demonstrating the DUI level driving impairment resulting from driving a vehicle under the influence of a cell phone, to understand the magnitude of the problem first consider that the use of cell phones while driving is now literally epidemic and growing. In the year 2000 two percent of all American drivers on our roads and highways at any given daylight moment in time were actively involved in cell phone conversation. By December 2005 the number had grown to 10 percent of all American drivers on our streets at any given daylight moment in time, on their cell phones, actively involved in cell conversation. That means that 1 in every 10 cars we encounter when we drive now is being operated by a motorist who is driving under the influence of a cell phone. National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) (a probability based observed data study on cell phone use performed by NHTSA.)

There is overwhelming scientific evidence, which cell phone accident lawyers must understand thoroughly, which demonstrates without legitimate scientific controversy that those who drive under the influence of any cell phone, handheld or hands-free, are as dangerous as DUI drunk drivers, as likely to be involved in an accident as drivers DUI impaired under the influence of alcohol.

Those who drive under the influence of cell phones are DUI level driving impaired, at least equally as likely as the DUI drunk driver to cause an accident, with four fold increased likelihood that they will cause an accident over those who are not using cell phones. The epidemiological literature: Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997) Association Between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions.� New England Journal of Medicine, 336, 453. McEvoy, Stevenson, McCartt, Woodward, Haworth, Palamara and Cercarelli, "Role of Mobile Phones in Motorvehicle Crashes Resulting in Hospital Attendance; A Case-Crossover Study,� British Medical Journal (July 12, 2005). The controlled experimental literature: Strayer, Drews and Crouch, �A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver,� Human Factors, Summer 2006. Strayer first announced his findings demonstrating DUI level impairment associated with cell phone use in 2003. Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. & Crouch, D. J. (2003). �Fatal Distraction? A Comparison of the Cell-Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver.� In D. V. McGehee, J. D. Lee, & M. Rizzo (Eds.) Driving Assessment 2003: International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. Published by the Public Policy Center, University of Iowa (pp. 25-30).See, Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). �Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular phone. Psychological Science,� 12, 462-466. McCarley, J. S., Vais, M., Pringle, H., Kramer, A. F., Irwin, D. E., & Strayer, D. L. (2001). �Conversation disrupts visual scanning of traffic scenes.� Paper presented at Vision in Vehicles, Australia. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., Albert, R. W., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). �Cell phone induced perceptual impairments during simulated driving.� In D. V. McGehee, J. D. Lee, & M. Rizzo (Eds.) Driving Assessment 2001: International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2002). �Why do cell phone conversations interfere with driving?� Proceedings of the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2003). �Cell phone induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving.� Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 23-23. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). �Are we being driven to distraction? Public Policy Perspectives,� Vol. 16, 1-2. (Published by the Center for Public Policy and Administration, University of Utah) Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. (2003). �Effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers.� In the Proceedings of the 47nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp.. 1860-1864). Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. & Crouch, D. J. (2003). �Fatal distraction? A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver.� In D. V. McGehee, J. D. Lee, & M. Rizzo (Eds.) Driving Assessment 2003: International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. Published by the Public Policy Center, University of Iowa (pp. 25-30). Strayer, D. L., Cooper, J. M., & Drews, F. A. (2004). �What do drivers fail to see when conversing on a cell phone?� In the Proceedings of the 48nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp 2213-2217). McCarley, J.S., Vais, M.J., Pringle, H., Kamer, A.F., Irwin, D.E., & Strayer, D.L. (2004) �Conversation disrupts change detection in complex traffic scenes.� Human Factors, 46, 424-436. Strayer, D.L., & Drews, F. A. (2004). �Profiles in driver distraction: Effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers.� Human Factors, 46, 640-649. Strayer, D. L. & Drews, F. A. Crouch, D. J., & Johnston, W. A. (2005). �Why do Cell Phone Conversations Interfere with Driving?� In W. R. Walker and D. Herrmann (Eds.) Cognitive Technology: Essays on the Transformation of Thought and Society (pp. 51-68), McFarland & Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC.)

It is critical that cell phone accident lawyers also fully understand that it is not only handheld cell phones which result in the DUI level driving impairment, hands-free cell phones result in the same impairment and the same four fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident.

Contrary to the "conventional wisdom" which has been unfortunately exacerbated by political compromise, such as that evidenced by state laws enacted banning only the use of handheld cell phones while driving, the fact is that the science demonstrates unambiguously that it doesn't matter whether the motorist is using a handheld cell phone or a hands-free device; the DUI level driving impairment and 4 fold increased incidence of accidents is the same.

First, it has been demonstrated in dozens of controlled experimental studies that the significant aspect of the cell phone impairment resulting in the increased incidence of accidents is �attentional�, an "inattentional blindness," deriving from the cell conversation, not from holding the phone. The science demonstrates persuasively that the impairment derives from the diversion of limited capacity for conscious attention to the internal-cognitive tasks associated with the give and take of the cell conversation away from the external-visual tasks associated with safe driving. Id. When drivers are engaged in conversation on any cell phone, handheld or hands-free, as their attention shifts back and forth from the external-visual to the internal-cognitive, the driver will not consciously "see" what is right in front of him, even the objects upon which his eyes are fixed. �Our data imply that legislative initiatives that restrict handheld devices but permit hands-free devices are not likely to reduce interference from the phone conversation, because the interference is, in this case, due to central attentional processes.� See, Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). �Driven to Distraction: Dual-task Studies of Simulated Driving and Conversing on a Cellular Phone.� Psychological Science, 12, 462-466. See also, Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2002). �Why Do Cell Phone Conversations Interfere With Driving?� Proceedings of the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

In controlled experiments comparing subjects using handheld or hands-free cell phones, subjects DUI level alcohol intoxicated, and subjects neither intoxicated nor on the cell phone, Strayer, et al., found the subjects conversing on cell phones and the subjects DUI alcohol intoxicated were equally impaired in their driving. Indeed, those on the cell phone were found to be significantly more likely to cause accidents than even the DUI alcohol intoxicated subjects. Strayer found that those conversing on the cell phone were more likely to fail to see traffic signals, more likely to fail to see a car braking ahead, they fail to see significant changes in the driving environment which would normally be expected to automatically draw attention, they will fail to see what is right in front of them, and fail to see even what their eyes are fixed upon. And because the nature of the impairment is an "inattentional blindness" it didn't matter whether the driver was using a handheld device or a hands-free device, the impairment was identical.

According to Strayer, et al., the authors of the greatest number of these controlled experimental studies: �These data call into question driving regulations that prohibit handheld cell phones and permit hands-free cell phones because no significant differences were found in the impairments to driving caused by these two modes of cellular communication." Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). �Are We Being Driven to Distraction?� Public Policy Perspectives, Vol. 16, 1-2. (Published by the Center for Public Policy and Administration, University of Utah). Strayer has indeed made this clear at least since 2001: See, also e.g., Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2003). �Cell Phone Induced Failures of Visual Attention During Simulated Driving.� Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol 9, pp. 23-23. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). �Are We Being Driven to Distraction?� Public Policy Perspectives, Vol. 16, 1-2. (Published by the Center for Public Policy and Administration, University of Utah). Strayer has indeed made this clear at least since 2001: Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). �Driven to Distraction: Dual-task Studies of Simulated Driving and Conversing on a Cellular Phone.� Psychological Science, 12, 462-466. See also, Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. & Johnston, W. A. (2002). �Why Do Cell Phone Conversations Interfere With Driving?� Proceedings of the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. See also, Shomstein, S., Yantis, S. �Control of Attention Shifts Between Vision and Audition in Human Cortex.� The Journal of Neuroscience, November 24, 2004, 24(47):10702-10706.

These findings of Strayer that the cell phone impairment is attentional deriving from the switching of attention from the external-visual to the internal-cognitive during the cell conversation is supported also by the neurological studies of Johns Hopkins Professor Yantis, who examined the brain activity of human subjects while the subjects engage in cell conversation. What Yantis found was that brain activity switched back and forth from the visual and auditory centers of the brain, and he concluded: �Our research helps explain why talking on a cell phone can impair driving performance, even when the driver is using a hands-free device.� Stromstein & Yantis, supra. In an interview, professor Yantis made plain the significance of his findings on the specific issue of cell phone driving impairment: �Our research helps explain why talking on a cell phone can impair driving performance, even when the driver is using a hands-free device ... Directing attention to listening effectively 'turns down the volume' on input to the visual parts of the brain. The evidence we have right now strongly suggests that attention is strictly limited -- a zero-sum game. When attention is deployed to one modality -- say, in this case, talking on a cell phone -- it necessarily extracts a cost on another modality -- in this case, the visual task of driving." Consumer Affairs, June 22, 2005.

It is a trap for the unwary or uneducated " cell phone accident lawyer� to focus on the handling of the cell phone, because the science cited above demonstrates that holding the cell phone is not the factor contributing to the DUI driving impairment, it is the diversion of limited capacity for conscious attention to the cell conversation.

Cell phone accident lawyers must appreciate that drivers who use hands-free devices are just as impaired as those who use handheld devices. It would be a grave disservice to write off cases in which hands-free cell phone use is identified, and a grave disservice even to concede weakness in a hands-free cell phone case.

In some cases it may be that a witness may observe that the auto driver was dialing his or her cell phone at the time of the accident, or texting a message on the phone, and this also might provide the cell phone accident lawyer good evidence of driver distraction important to the prosecution of a lawsuit based upon the distraction, but a cell phone accident lawyer must understand the science in order for him to know that this is not the same impairment which science has demonstrated to lead to the DUI level driving impairment and 4 fold increased incidence of accidents among cell phone users actively involved in cell conversation.

It is so very unfortunate that politicians such as the majority in our legislatures which have enacted cell phone legislation have seen fit to enact �handheld cell phone bans� as compromise to the comprehensive cell phone legislation offered by our more responsible legislators. Perhaps they feared the public backlash if they were to deprive the majority of their constituency of the use of cell phones while driving, a use to which, indeed, unfortunately, 70 percent of American auto drivers have become so accustomed. But the legislation is out of step with the science, and it is the science that has measured the risk associated with handheld and hands-free cell phones and found the risk to be identical. When our Governor signs the bill and then turns to the cameras and says "Don't worry, the legislation will not come into effect until 2008, plenty of time to pick up a hands-free device" he compounds the problem by misleading the public to believe that driving under the influence of a hands-free cell phone is somehow safe. This presents the cell phone accident lawyer another hurdle to overcome, but again, it is the science that will prevail, and there is no scientific rebuttal.

Calling oneself a " cell phone accident lawyer" doesn't make an attorney a qualified cell phone accident lawyer. Consult the other cell phone accident lawyer web sites and you will find more misinformation than accurate information, some of them actually urging those who visit their sites to switch to hands-free cell phones to avoid endangering their lives. This is completely irresponsible, and the danger is that these attorneys may also fail to recognize that the same advantages that they purport to be capable of providing to those of their clients involved in accidents with drivers using handheld devices can with equal force be used to the advantage of clients injured in accidents caused by drivers using hands-free devices.

. Being a competent cell phone accident lawyer means that one must first be competent to recognize the good cell phone accident case, and then to prepare and present the scientific evidence establishing that the other driver was DUI level impaired. In order to do this, the cell phone accident lawyer must be conversant with scientific methodology, able to read and understand epidemiological and experimental literature and he must be willing to read and indeed immerse himself in this science to have the firm grounding essential to present the evidence in the context of a settlement conference or at trial.

There are extraordinary opportunities for the competent cell phone accident lawyer to overcome contested liability cases where there is irrefutable evidence from cell phone records that the motorist was driving at the time of the accident while in conversation on a cell phone. There are important opportunities particularly in serious injury auto or motorcycle, bicycle and pedestrian accident cases to obtain complete compensation for the seriously injured auto accident victim when appropriate investigation establishes that the cell phone conversation was business related. But there are huge pitfalls for lawyers who are not able or willing to become well educated cell phone accident attorneys, and so the choice of an appropriately qualified and educated lawyer is essential.

Cell Phone Accident Lawyers Must Prepare Their Serious Injury Auto and Motorcycle Accident Cases From the Initial Investigation, Through the Depositions, Build Their Case by Expert Preparation, Undercut the Opponent�s Case at Expert Depositions and Ultimately Present The Case Through Effective Direct and Cross-Examination.

In every serious injury auto or motorcycle accident case the cell phone accident lawyers must conduct the appropriate investigation to determine whether the other driver was using his cell phone at the time of the accident. This begins by inquiring of the plaintiff and the witnesses, but it is the rare case in which the attention of the plaintiff or the witnesses will have been drawn to see whether the other driver was on the cell phone in the seconds leading up to the accident. Often the cell phone use will go unnoticed, particularly where the cell phone is a hands-free device. The other driver commonly will not acknowledge that he was on the cell phone. And so the police report may make no mention of the fact.

It is therefore so very important that in every serious injury case and in every contested liability case that the motorcycle accident lawyer obtain the cell phone records of the other driver to determine if he was on the phone at the time of the accident.

It is important to establish that the other driver was impaired, and as noted above, in serious injury cases the other driver may be woefully underinsured to compensate the plaintiff for his injuries, and so his only chance for full compensation for his damages may depend upon the cell phone accident lawyer's demonstrating, whenever true, that the other party was engaged in business conversation or cell conversation while operating his vehicle in the course and scope of his employment. As described above, this will permit the lawyer to add the employer as a party and hold the employer jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's damages, with the employer's insurance and assets available to pay the claim. In addition to obtaining the cell phone records, the competent cell phone accident lawyer has a number of litigation tools available to him to advance his client's case. The lawyer should send "interrogatories," written questions which the other party is required by law to answer under oath to obtain the driver's cell phone number. The cell phone accident attorney can propound document requests demanding the cell phone records. He can take the depositions of the defendant driver and the individual with whom he was engaged in cell conversation at the time of the accident. In this manner, the cell phone accident attorney can determine whether the defendant was on his cell phone at the time of the accident, and he can determine the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the other party to the call, and specifically whether it was a business relationship. The cell phone accident attorney can inquire at deposition about the content of the conversation to determine whether it had, in whole or part, a business purpose. And in this way cell phone accident lawyers can establish whether the cell conversation was in the course and scope of the driver's employment. With this evidence the lawyer can name the employer as a party defendant in the litigation, establish his joint and several liability under respondeat superior theory. Once established by this type of evidence, the employer's insurance policy and assets may be sought to pay for the full range of damages suffered by the plaintiff, which is particularly important where the driver's policy may be insufficient to fully compensate the plaintiff.

The evidence that the defendant driver was on the cell phone can also mean the difference between success in establishing liability and failure, but it will require a competent cell phone accident lawyer fully conversant with the science and able to present it.

It is an unfortunate phenomenon in our modern society, but in a large percentage of auto accident cases the party at fault for the accident will be found unwilling to admit fault. In a substantial number of these "contested liability" cases furthermore, the trial of fault or "liability" comes down to a �swearing contest� or �he said, she said,� as some lawyers are apt to put it. Even where there are independent witnesses to an accident it is common that witness testimony will conflict. The jury in the auto case is then faced with the conflicting stories and must somehow come to a judgment based often on vaguely grounded assessments of the relative �credibility� of the parties or witnesses. Unfortunately, since the judge will instruct the jury that �the plaintiff bears the burden of proof,� very commonly the jurors in contested liability cases will feel compelled by this instruction to find for the defendant. All too often this will result in a miscarriage of justice.

The appropriately qualified cell phone accident lawyer has the advantage in contested liability cases where he can demonstrate that the defendant motorist was engaged in cell conversation at the time of the accident. When the cell phone accident lawyer puts on the scientific evidence that the defendant motorist was driving DUI level cell phone impaired at the time of the accident and four times more likely to cause an accident, this can turn a contested liability case into a �no thinker� for the jury. It is powerful evidence, just as a Breathalyzer, urine or blood test demonstrating that the defendant was DUI level drunk at the time of the accident is powerful evidence.

If you have been seriously injured in an accident, there are an abundance of good reasons why you should consider obtaining the representation of lawyer experienced in the prosecution of complex cases and competent in the assessment, investigation, and preparation of cell phone auto accident litigation.

Again, we welcome you to contact us for a free attorney consultation. Simply submit the Cell Phone Auto Accident Attorney Case Evaluation Request Form. We look forward to the opportunity to speak with you.

For Free Consultation with Motorcycle Accident Lawyer
Click here to Submit Case Inquiry Form

This web site is provided strictly for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice and should not be interpreted as legal advice. Any information presented on the web site is not intended as legal opinion and should not be interpreted as legal opinion. To the extent that any information provided on the web site might be characterized as opinion, it is not intended to be relied upon, and you should not rely upon any opinion contained herein without first seeking the advice of an attorney. You should not act or rely on any information at this web site without seeking the advice of an attorney. Furthermore, merely viewing the web site or contacting Mr. Henke by telephone or Accident Questionnaire, does not create an attorney-client relationship with Mr. Henke or his law firm. The only way that an attorney-client relationship can be created with Mr. Henke or his firm is by a written attorney retainer agreement signed both by the client and by Mr. Henke. For information with regard to the additional aspects our practice as motorcycle and auto accident lawyers and cell phone accident attorneys, you may consider our personal injury trial lawyer pages.

Motorcycle Accident Lawyers - Attorney Legal Notices and Disclaimers

Merely viewing the web site and its pages cannot and does not create an lawyer client relationship with attorney Henke or the Henke Law Office. The motorcycle accident lawyers of the Henke Law Office provide free consultations. Merely contacting attorney Henke by telephone or the Motorcycle Accident Lawyers Case Evaluation Form, however, does not create a lawyer-client relationship with attorney Henke or his law firm. The only way that a lawyer-client relationship can be created with attorney Henke or his law office is by a written attorney retainer agreement signed both by the client and Mr. Henke. This web site is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice and should not be interpreted as legal advice.

The Motorcycle Accident Lawyers of the Henke Law Offices Provide the Following Attorneys Disclaimers for the States of Alaska Alabama Arkansas Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Massachusetts Maryland Maine Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Nevada New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Vermont Washington Wisconsin West Virginia and Wyoming.

Please read the Full Website Term and Conditions, and Required Legal Notices.

The following is a synopsis:

The motorcycle accident lawyers of the Henke Law Office provide free initial consultations. Merely viewing the web site or contacting the Henke Office motorcycle accident lawyers by telephone, Email or Motorcycle Accident Attorneys Case Evaluation Form, however, does not create an lawyer-client relationship with attorney Henke or the Henke Law Firm. The only way that an lawyer-client relationship can be created with attorney Henke or his firm is by a written attorney retainer agreement signed both by the client and attorney Henke. This web site is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice and should not be interpreted as legal advice. No information on this web site should be relied upon without first contacting an appropriately qualified attorney. It is the intent the Henke Law Office attorneys in framing the content of this motorcycle accident lawyers page to comply with all laws and ethical rules in all states in which such rules exist, including those of Alaska Alabama Arkansas, Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii, Idaho Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky, Louisiana Massachusetts Maryland Maine. Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota. Nebraska New Hampshire. New Jersey New Mexico Nevada New York Ohio, Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota. Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia, Vermont Washington Wisconsin West Virginia and Wyoming. Information to comply with the rules applicable in specific states is set forth below and on the Legal Notices Page of this web site, which we invite you to consider, and incorporate on this motorcycle accident malpractice lawyers web page.

. By virtue of the characteristics of Internet communication of attorney advertisements generally, including by the ability of persons to view the advertisements beyond state borders, and indeed worldwide, the following notices are provided for all states of the United States. The motorcycle accident attorneys of the Henke Law Office do not represent clients involved in accidents in other countries. The state laws and state bar rules and other laws governing Internet communication generally, and lawyer advertisements in particular are constantly changing. Attorney. Henke has made an effort on this general informational motorcycle accident lawyers web page below and on the Legal Notices page to comply with all the applicable state laws, state bar rules and other rules governing lawyers and attorneys in anticipation that this motorcycle accident lawyers advertisement might be viewed by citizens of Alaska Alabama, Arkansas Arizona California. Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia ,Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana Massachusetts. Maryland Maine Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana, North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire, New Jersey New Mexico Nevada in New York. Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Vermont Washington Wisconsin West Virginia and Wyoming. This attorney advertisement is not intended for those whose potential motorcycle accident cases do not have a nexus with the state of California, e.g., an incident that arose in the state, or in which the lawsuit might properly be brought in the state, e.g., by virtue of a defendant's incorporation in the state or the location of its principal place of business in the state

The following are particular admonitions intended to comply with the laws and rules of the identified states:

Alabama: No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Colorado: Colorado does not certify attorneys as specialists in any field.

Florida: The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience.

Iowa: The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. This disclosure is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Memberships and offices in legal fraternities and legal societies, technical and professional licenses, and memberships in scientific, technical and professional associations and societies of law or field of practice do not mean that a lawyer is a specialist or expert in a field of law, nor do they mean that such a lawyer is necessarily any more expert or competent than any other lawyer. All potential clients are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of any lawyer being considered. This notice is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa.

Kentucky and Oregon: THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT.

Mississippi: The Mississippi Supreme Court advises that a decision on legal services is important and should not be based solely on advertisements.

Missouri: Neither the Supreme Court of Missouri nor the Missouri Bar reviews or approves certifying organizations or specialist designations.

Nevada: The State Bar of Nevada does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert.

New Mexico: LAWYER ADVERTISEMENT.

Tennessee: None of the attorneys in this firm are certified as a Civil Trial, Criminal Trial, Business Bankruptcy, Consumer Bankruptcy, Creditor's Rights, Motorcycle accident, Legal Malpractice, Accounting Malpractice, Estate Planning or Elder Law specialist by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization. Certification as a specialist in all other listed areas is not currently available in Tennessee.

Texas: Unless otherwise stated, Henke Law Office attorneys claiming certification in an area of law are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.

Wyoming: The Wyoming State Bar does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert. Anyone considering a lawyer should independently investigate the lawyer's credentials and ability, and not rely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise.

For all those states which consider informational lawyer web pages to be advertisements, please take notice, this web site and motorcycle accident lawyers page is an advertisement. The lawyers of the Henke Law Office consider the following information to be good advice for all of the following states: Alaska Alabama, Arkansas Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Massachusetts, Maryland Maine Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Nevada New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania ,Rhode Island South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Vermont Washington Wisconsin West Virginia and Wyoming: The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon attorney advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. The motorcycle accident lawyers of the Henke Law Office hereby state: �Before you decide on an motorcycle accident attorney to represent you, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. We do not hold ourselves out to be specialists in states which certify specialists. All potential clients are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of any lawyer being considered.

This website and the instant motorcycle accident lawyers page are not intended for the purpose of soliciting any prospective clients residing in the States of Alaska Alabama Arkansas Arizona Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Massachusetts Maryland Maine Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Nevada New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Vermont Washington Wisconsin West Virginia and Wyoming for the commencement of any motorcycle accident civil action in any of the above states either by attorney Raymond L. Henke or the Henke Law Offices. If the lawyers of the Henke Law Offices were to file a civil lawsuit in any of the above states, the law firm would do so in association with an attorney who was a member of the Bar of the state, who would serve as the local attorney in in the litigation, only on the request of said local attorney, and only with the permission of the state court for the Henke Law Office lawyer to appear as the attorney for the client pro hac vice. We do not solicit clients in any such state; although we do offer our services as motorcycle accident and trial lawyers to attorneys in these other states who consider that they might benefit from our expertise.

� 2004 Raymond L. Henke