Study Reveals Best and Worst Driving Cities in Ontario

InsuranceHotline.com, a website that compares auto insurance quotes, recently named the ten best and worst driving cities in Ontario based on how likely residents are to have tickets, collisions, or a combination of the two on their records. The study, which looked at quotes from 2018 and 2019, showed that drivers in high-density urban neighbourhoods are less likely to have infractions than their more rural counterparts. The results came as a surprise to insurance professionals and car accident lawyers.

Oakville is One of the Best Driving Cities in Ontario

Province-wide, 3.5 per cent of drivers admitted to having at least one at-fault crash and one ticket on their record; 6.9 per cent admitted to having at least one ticket and 8.9 per cent admitted to having been in a collision in the last ten years.

Drivers in Orangeville, Ontario, located roughly an hour northwest of Toronto, were the most likely to report at least one crash and one ticket, at 9.4 per cent. Fifteen per cent of Caledon drivers reported having at least one ticket, and 13.6 per cent of Woodstock drivers admitted being involved in a crash in the last decade.

The report assigned letter grades for each municipality based on the increased or decreased likelihood of drivers reporting an infraction. The communities of Orangeville, Bradford, Woodstock, Sault Ste. Marie, Brantford, and Orillia all received ‘D’s, while Thunder Bay, St. Thomas, Caledon, and Barrie rounded out the bottom ten with ‘C’s.

The top ten driving cities in Ontario – North York, Toronto, East York, Etobicoke, Mississauga, Brampton, Scarborough, York, Thornhill, and Oakville – are all in the GTA, to the surprise of the study’s authors.

“We were as surprised as pretty much everyone when we saw these results and really looked at the data and saw how this was shaking out,” InsuranceHotline.com senior manager of partnerships Anne Marie Thomas told Canadian Underwriter. For car accident lawyers, the finding bolsters concerns that downtown clients don’t receive good value for their insurance dollars.

Insurance Rates Don’t Reflect Study Findings

Drivers in cities like Brampton, Mississauga, and Toronto pay stubbornly high auto insurance rates which, as Ontario car accident lawyers know, have become more unreasonable given recent accident benefits cuts by the province. BramptonGuardian.com reports that Brampton residents pay an average $2,494 per year in insurance premiums, more than $1,000 above the provincial average. Mississaugans pay an average of $2,086 per year.

Auto insurance premiums are based on more than collision and infraction rates. Urban drivers may pay more due to the sheer volume of accidents downtown, or perhaps because collisions in city cores tend to be more serious than accidents on rural roads. Lower per capita collision rates also don’t necessarily mean that city dwellers drive more safely; they may simply drive less. After all, it’s more difficult for people in rural areas to get from point A to point B by transit, bicycle, or foot. Average population age could also play a role.

“It’s everything factored in together,” Thomas said in her interview with Canadian Underwriter. “It’s where you live, how you drive, how long you’ve been licenced – it’s the whole package. Saying that this one city is worse or this one city is better, for everyone, that may not necessarily be the case.”

“Maybe [the lower average premium in rural areas] speaks to the accidents not being at-fault accidents,” Thomas continued. “Maybe rates are more expensive in these cities … because of the cost to settle the claim versus somewhere in Orangeville. Maybe those drivers have had an accident, but it’s a single-vehicle accident that had a couple of thousand dollars in damage, whereas in a more congested areas, maybe the accidents are more significant and more expensive to settle.”

Flipping the Script

Regardless of insurance prices, the InsuranceHotline.com study challenges assumptions about rural vs. urban driving. It may feel safer to coast along a provincial highway than navigate multiple lanes of impatient traffic on the Don Valley Parkway, but the stats suggest rural drivers are ticketed more often and involved in more accidents than their urban peers.

Contact an Ontario Car Accident Lawyer

If you’ve been involved in a traffic accident anywhere in Ontario, contact Will Davidson LLP to learn how our experienced team of car accident lawyers can help. Will Davidson LLP has been representing injured Ontarians for decades. We understand the serious physical, mental, emotional, and financial challenges that accompany serious car accident injuries, and are committed to helping our clients secure compensation for the damages they have incurred.

Contact us today to arrange a free, no-obligation consultation where we will discuss the viability of your claim and explain your legal options. Will Davidson LLP is proud to work on a strict contingency basis, meaning you will not be asked to pay legal fees until your case has been successfully absolved. Reach out now to learn more.

Licence Appeal Tribunal mired in controversy

Ontario’s Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), the body in charge of resolving accident benefits disputes between injury victims and insurance companies, was consumed by controversy last month when a top-ranking official was revealed to have meddled in an insurance claim. The event seized the attention of other provincial adjudicating bodies and prompted concern from Ontario personal injury lawyers.

The Case

In 2012, Mary Shuttleworth suffered a traumatic brain injury and tissue damage in a two-car collision near Dundalk, Ontario. Her injuries left her with persistent nausea, vertigo, and stress. She is unable to work.

Despite her impairment, her insurance company, Peel Mutual, informed her that her injuries were not considered “catastrophic,” a designation that would have entitled her to up to $2-million in benefits. Her “non-catastrophic” injuries made her eligible to receive less than $90,000.

Shuttleworth appealed the insurer’s decision to the Licence Appeal Tribunal. It was the first dispute relating to catastrophic injury designation that the newly formed body was asked to resolve.

The LAT adjudicator for the case, Susan Sapin, eventually sided with the insurer and denied Shuttleworth’s claim for additional benefits.

The Controversy

In the months after Shuttleworth’s claim was denied, her legal team team received an anonymous letter accusing Linda Lamoureaux, head of the Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunal, of interfering with Sapin’s decision.

“I have heard from reliable source that Sapin’s initial decision was that this was a catastrophic impairment. Linda Lamoureaux changed the decision to make the applicant not catastrophically impaired,” the letter read, per the CBC. “Thought you should know that the decision was not made by an independent decision maker who heard the evidence.”

Shuttleworth’s team filed a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act application for documents that would back up the letter’s allegations. The request produced an email chain showing that Lamoureaux’s unsolicited review of Sapin’s decision led to the ruling being changed.

Ruling Overturned

After review by a three-judge Divisional Court panel, the LAT’s ruling on Shuttleworth’s claim was overturned.

“Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done,” wrote Justice Julie Thorburn. “An informed, cautious observer would have a reasonable basis to believe that the decision did not reflect the independent decision of the adjudicator.”

Fallout

While Justice Thorburn stressed that the court found no evidence of “any actual impropriety having occurred,” the episode has shaken the trust of Ontario personal injury lawyers and their clients in the fairness of the system. Many injury victims already believe that the system is stacked against them, and this event will only worsen the relationship.

If you or someone you love has been injured in a car accident, contact the Ontario personal injury lawyers at Will Davidson LLP to learn how we can help.

 

Image credit: Ilya Plekhanov/Wikimedia Commons

New technologies pose distracted driving risks

 

Last month, an Ontario Justice of the Peace found a woman guilty of distracted driving after she was caught checking her Apple Watch while behind the wheel of her car. The case underscores not only the evolving role of technology in our lives, but also the need for up-to-date laws governing the use of these devices. Today, drivers, law enforcement officers, and Ontario personal injury lawyers are making due with a patchwork of rapidly aging legislation.

In the Apple Watch case, a University of Guelph police officer testified that Victoria Ambrose checked her device several times while stopped at a red light. When the light turned green, the cars in front of her moved forward while she remained stationary. The police officer eventually shined a light into Ambrose’s vehicle, at which point she began to drive. The officer pulled her over and issued a ticket for distracted driving, which Ambrose contested.

“Despite the Apple Watch being smaller than a cellular phone, on the evidence, it is a communication device capable of receiving and transmitting electronic data,” said Justice of the Peace Lloyd Phillipps, according to the National Post. “While attached to the defendant’s wrist, it is no less a source of distraction that a cellphone taped to someone’s wrist.”

Canada’s Highway Traffic Act prohibits drivers from operating handheld wireless communication devices but doesn’t specifically address wearable technologies like the Apple Watch. As these devices grow more popular, lawmakers must decide when their use is acceptable and when it increases the risk of motor vehicle collisions.

Legitimate questions of liability can also be raised in accidents involving wireless technology. To be sure, drivers have a responsibility to remain focused on the road, not on their electronic device. But as more people become aware of the danger of distracted driving, individuals who knowingly send messages to drivers may be asked to bear some responsibility for third party damages. According to CBC News Toronto, a 2013 court decision established this possibility in the state of New Jersey, and some Ontario personal injury lawyers anticipate similar rulings in Canada.

Electronics manufacturers could also be held responsible for traffic deaths. In 2016, a California lawsuit alleged that Apple’s failure to implement a feature restricting the use of FaceTime while behind the wheel caused a fatal 2014 car accident. Both Apple and Google have announced plans to combat phone addiction by limiting screen time – is limiting screen time for drivers also possible?

If you or a member of your family has been injured in a car accident caused by distracted driving, contact the Ontario personal injury lawyers at Will Davidson LLP to learn how our experienced team can help.

 

 

Allstate Releases Safe Driving Study; GTA Performs Badly

 

In late November, Allstate Insurance Company of Canada released its latest Safe Driving Study, an in-depth analysis of company collision claims data covering 93 regions over the 24-month period from July 2015 to June 2017. The study revealed improved safety in certain regions, but an overall 2.5 per cent increase in accident frequency nationwide. The findings are cause for concern for Ontario personal injury lawyers.

“While it’s encouraging to see that a number of regions across Canada are showing a decrease in collision frequency, we find it troubling that our 2017 Safe Driving Study is showing an overall increase in collisions, especially as the most severe collisions are involving cyclists and pedestrians,” said David MacInnis, Vice President, Product Operations at Allstate. “These results show there is still a lot of work to be done to help reduce collisions, especially as we head into what is typically the most dangerous driving season of the year.”

The Province of Ontario and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) performed particularly badly. Though Halifax, Nova Scotia, recorded the worst collision frequency of the 93 regions covered, GTA cities like Ajax, North York, Scarborough, Caledon, Brampton, Concord, and the City of Toronto all appeared in the bottom ten. Oakville fared considerably better as the 53rd safest region, but Ontario was the only province to see an overall collision frequency increase.

Ontario personal injury lawyers will be concerned, but likely unsurprised, to discover that collisions involving vulnerable road users were considered the most severe.

“It’s clear that in many communities across Canada, collisions involving those walking or cycling happen far too often,” MacInnis said. “Our study reinforces the need to talk about what can be done to help reduce these collisions to improve the safety of everyone using our roads, whether they’re in a vehicle, on a bike or on foot.”

As if to brutally emphasize this point, two GTA pedestrians, one in Etobicoke and one in Mississauga, were killed in separate collisions just days after Allstate’s release. As of late December 2017, 34 pedestrians and three cyclists had been killed in the City of Toronto alone, with many more seriously injured. Across the region, and indeed across Canada, drivers must better adhere to safe driving principles in order to limit serious injuries and fatalities as much as possible.

If you or a member of your family has been injured in an automotive accident in Oakville or the wider GTA, contact Will Davidson LLP’s team of Ontario personal injury lawyers to learn how we can help.

Can the Province of Ontario do more to prevent dangerous driving?

A recent survey conducted by Leger Research on behalf of insurer belairdirect found that the vast, vast majority of Canadians (95 per cent) believe they are good drivers, a conclusion that might surprise Ontario personal injury lawyers. Most of the survey’s 1,551 respondents were also able to identify risky driving behaviour, including driving under the influence, distracted driving, and fatigued driving.

Paradoxically, a staggering 93 per cent of the same respondents admitted to bad driving habits including distracted driving, eating while driving, talking on a cellphone while driving, and applying makeup while driving, according to the Globe and Mail’s Andrew Clark. An additional 31 per cent admitted to running red lights, and 29 per cent to disobeying road signs.

“Show me someone who thinks they’re a good driver and I’ll show you someone who’s never seen a professional take a car around the track,” Clark writes. “If we’re being honest, most of us are pretty good drivers at best and the thing that keeps us that way is a realistic appraisal of our skills.”

When even self-described “good drivers” engage in risky behaviour, what can be done to improve road safety? Ontario personal injury lawyers understand that distracted driving activities like the ones belairdirect’s respondents admitted to cause more accidents in the province today than drunk driving.

Indeed, Queen’s Park already imposes stiff penalties on distracted drivers. A convicted individual will have their license suspended and face a fine of $400, plus a victim surcharge and court fee for a total of $490, if settled out of court. If a court appearance is necessary, the fine can be as much as $1,000.

Drivers will also have three demerit points applied to their records, which allows insurance brokers to apply further monetary punishment. Some drivers could see their rates double until the points are cleared, and even those with infraction-free records are likely to experience a bump of a couple hundred dollars.

“People just don’t think about the insurance aspects of bad driving,” InsuranceHotline.com’s Anne Marie Thomas told the Globe and Mail.

While lawmakers and insurers adopt monetary penalties to prevent distracted driving, the belairdirect study reveals the possibility of a different approach: paying off drivers. Nearly 80 per cent of respondents said they would be willing to quit at least one bad habit in exchange for a cash incentive.

While the Ontario personal injury lawyers at Will Davidson LLP don’t condone payments to dangerous drivers, the survey makes clear that distracted driving remains a serious issue in Canada, even among those who consider themselves safe, capable drivers. If the government’s existing punishments fail to improve road safety, perhaps more creative solutions are necessary.

If you have been injured in a motor vehicle accident, contact the Ontario personal injury lawyers at Will Davidson LLP today. We can help you access compensation for your injuries.

 

Image credit: Staff Sgt. Chad Warren

Court of Appeal decisions clarify prejudgment interest rate rules

In 2014, the Ontario Government passed Bill 15, the Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, an amendment to the Insurance Act that came into effect the following year. One of the measures contained in the act reduced the default prejudgment interest rate for pain and suffering damages awarded in automotive injury lawsuits from five per cent to the bank rate at the time the proceeding started. The change sparked debate among defendant and plaintiff side car accident lawyers.

Confusion centred on the question of whether the interest rate reduction could be applied retroactively or whether it was intended for new lawsuits only. This September, the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decisions on El-Khodr v. Lackle and Cobb v. Long Estate – heard simultaneously – clarified Bill 15’s intention in this matter.

“The Ontario Court of Appeal has clarified that 2015 amendments to the Insurance Act could apply to actions that were brought forward before changes came into force,” wrote Law Times’ Alex Robinson in an October 2 article.

Defence lawyers were pleased by the ruling. One lawyer who represented the defense in El-Khodr told Robinson that “this decision will now discourage plaintiffs’ counsel from delaying the commencement of actions and will accelerate the litigation process, all to the benefit of the injured plaintiff.”

Plaintiff side car accident lawyers are less pleased with the decision, in particular because it discourages victims from settling their accident benefits claims prior to resolving civil actions.

“I think it really is making practicing lawyers in this field take a hard look at their cases before they know they can take on a case anymore in these motor vehicle crash cases,” one plaintiff lawyer in Cobb told Robinson.

“If you apply [the prejudgment insurance rate] retroactively, then, effectively, the reduction in premiums is coming at the expense of accident victims that were injured in motor vehicle accidents that occurred entirely prior to the date of the amendment,” added a plaintiff lawyer in El-Khodr. “So that’s a little disappointing.”

While the Court of Appeal’s decision has left car accident lawyers frustrated, the fight for accident victims’ rights may not be over: Robinson writes that the plaintiffs in both El-Khodr and Cobb are considering an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

If you or someone you love has been injured in an automobile accident, consider contacting the experienced personal injury lawyers at Will Davidson LLP’s Oakville offices. Our team has years of experience helping Ontarians access compensation for their injuries.

Ontario personal injury lawyers worry Law Society policy is step towards non-lawyer ownership

In September 2012, the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) formed its Alternative Business Structures (ABS) Working Group to explore alternative options to permitted law and paralegal firm structures. In general, ABS’s – which are legal in England, Wales and Australia, but not Canada – allow individuals without legal licenses to own organizations that provide legal services.

Alternative Business Structures are a controversial topic among Ontario personal injury lawyers. Their proponents argue that they could lead to innovation and wider access to legal services, while their detractors believe they increase the risk of conflicts of interest and compromised confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege agreements.

In September 2017, the LSUC’s Board of Directors approved, in principle, “a policy to permit lawyers and paralegals to provide legal services through civil society organizations (CSOs), such as charities and not-for-profit organizations,” according to the Law Society Gazette. The society stated that the policy aims to improve “access to justice for individuals who may have legal issues but who have traditionally faced barriers to receiving legal advice from a lawyer.”

The move was met with criticism by some Ontario personal injury lawyers.

“It’s just simply the first step and, two years down the road, we’re going to have full non-lawyer ownership of law firms,” one injury lawyer told Law Times’ Alex Robinson. “That’s where this is headed.”

The Working Group originally intended to table the policy in June, but delayed the decision after backlash from prominent provincial legal groups, including the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) and Federation of Ontario Law Associations (FOLA), felt unable to provide sufficient input.

Despite the criticism, the Working Group insisted that the measure would help marginalized individuals access legal aid.

“What I would say to those who take the position that one shouldn’t do a good thing because it might lead to a bad thing is that they should analyze each proposal on its own merits,” Working Group chairman Malcolm Mercer told Robinson. “It would be a shame if the profession, if it was concerned about non-lawyer ownership, would not permit charities and not-for-profits to serve needs that we all know exist.”

Whether the LSUC’s new policy eventually leads to the formation of Australian-style, publicly traded law firms remains to be seen. For now, the LSUC appears to be taking the feedback from Ontario personal injury lawyers to heart and proceeding with cautious, marginal steps along the road to ABS’s.

If you or someone you know has suffered an injury, contact Will Davidson LLP’s team of experienced and knowledgeable personal injury lawyers today to learn how we can help you on your road to recovery.

For amusement park thrill-seekers, injuries are an unfortunate possibility

As a fixture in regional fairs and large events like the Canadian National Exhibition, Ferris wheels, rollercoasters, and other amusement park rides are a common scene across Canada and the United States during the summer months. These rides are, in general, a perfectly safe source of old-fashioned fun, but a small malfunction or instance of negligence can render them extremely dangerous. In fact, personal injury lawyers are hired each year to represent victims of amusement park ride accidents.

On July 16, a ride called the Fire Ball broke apart while in operation at the Ohio State Fair in Columbus. Seven people were injured in the accident, and one teen boy lost his life. Organizers insisted that the ride had passed all required inspections.

The Fire Ball incident is not isolated: four people were killed in an accident at Australia’s Dreamworld amusement park in October 2016; last August, one boy was killed and three girls were injured in separate events in Kansas and Tennessee which occurred on the same day.

Even Canada is not immune: in 1986, a roller coaster crash at the West Edmonton Mall resulted in three deaths, and in 1998 a 21-year-old died when he was flung from a ‘reverse bungee’ ride at the Central Canadian Exhibition in Ottawa.

Experienced personal injury lawyers will tell you that amusement park accidents can be extremely serious. In 2013, for instance, 16-year-old Adam Martens suffered severe spinal injuries and was left quadriplegic after an accident at the Red River Exhibition in Winnipeg. What recourse do injury victims have in these situations? Martens sued the Ex and North American Midway Entertainment for damages.

Amusement park injury lawsuits

Amusement park injury lawsuits generally focus on either negligence or product liability. Negligence in this scenario can take many forms, including failing to post clear and visible warning signs; posting signs that don’t adequately describe the risks posed by the ride; failing to properly instruct riders; failing to train ride operators; failing to regularly inspect the ride; and improperly operating the ride.

In cases where the ride owners or operators have done nothing wrong, the manufacturer of the ride may be at fault. For instance, if a roller coaster’s safety bar becomes unsecured and a rider falls from their seat, the manufacturer of the ride – or the of safety bar – could be liable for the victim’s injuries.

If you or someone you know has suffered an injury at an amusement park, contact the personal injury lawyers at Will Davidson LLP to learn how we can help. Our team has represented injured Ontarians in a wide variety of personal injury cases and would be happy to help you understand your rights and pursue compensation.

Does your insurance policy cover you for accidents outside Ontario?

Summer vacation road trips are a great way to bond as a family and experience the size and diversity of North America. With just a few weeks left before the end of the school year, it’s time to start planning your route and deciding what to see and where to stay. Before you embark on your trip, you should take the time to consider what sort of coverage your auto insurance policy provides in different North American jurisdictions – if necessary, an auto insurance lawyer can help you understand your policy and suggest purchasing additional coverage.

The Standard Ontario Motor Vehicle Policy contains safeguards for car accidents outside of Ontario, including no-fault benefits for insured Ontarian motorists. These include benefits for income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, lost education benefits, and death and funeral benefits. They may also cover visitors’ expenses, reimbursement for damaged medical devices, glasses and clothing, and in some cases benefits for housekeeping and home maintenance. An auto insurance lawyer can explain the scope of these benefits more fully.

If you plan on heading to the United States this summer, it’s important to understand that motor vehicle insurance policies are quite different south of the border. For instance, motorists in Ontario are required to carry at least $200,000 in liability coverage; most states have no minimum, and as such many motorists have limited coverage. This can cause significant issues for uninsured accident victims.

Many Ontario auto insurance policies include “Uninsured Automobile Coverage,” which can be useful when driving in the United States. The stipulation ensures that Ontario drivers are protected up to the limits of their policy’s liability coverage when involved in a collision with an uninsured driver. If you’re concerned that your needs may not be met, consider purchasing additional, enhanced accident benefits coverage prior to your trip.

Finally, the Family Protection Endorsement extends insurance coverage to some Ontario motorists’ family members if they are involved in an accident outside of Ontario. Once again, an auto insurance lawyer may suggest purchasing additional benefits if a family member is traveling to the States.

While insurance coverage rules vary by jurisdiction, most Ontario auto insurance policies do a good job of protecting Ontarians driving outside the province. If you’re planning an outside-Ontario trip, make sure to review your policy and, if necessary, talk to an auto insurance lawyer to ensure peace of mind on the road.

The personal injury lawyers at Will Davidson LLP have been protecting Ontarians for decades. If you’ve been injured in a car accident, contact the team at Will Davidson today to book a free, no-obligation consultation.

 

Image credit: Clotee Pridgen Allochuku/Wikimedia Commons

Top causes of car accidents in Ontario

Thousands of Canadians die each year in car accidents, and although the country possesses one of the world’s lower traffic fatality rates, law enforcement officers, road safety advocates and auto accident lawyers believe drivers’ safety can be much improved. The majority of car accidents are caused by some form of human error, meaning Canada’s transportation system could be made safer and more efficient if drivers chose to adhere to a series of simple safety measures.

Last summer on the WillDavidson.ca blog, we described some of the common causes of car accidents on Canadian roads. With warm weather approaching once again, it’s time for another look.

Distracted Driving

Between May 1 and May 7, 2017, York Regional Police charged almost 100 drivers with distracted driving. In April, a report presented to law enforcement in Hamilton, Ontario, showed that distracted driving contributed to almost half of fatal collisions in the area over five years.

Though cellphone use is the primary contributor to distracted driving, distraction can occur in a variety of ways, including by interacting with passengers in the car, eating while driving, or applying makeup. Regardless of cause, distracted driving is now the leading contributing factor to fatal car accidents and car accidents in general in Ontario.

Impaired Driving

Rates of impaired driving have fallen steadily over the past decades, thanks in large part to aggressive public awareness campaigns from activist groups, auto accident lawyers, and law enforcement officials. Public knowledge hasn’t eliminated the problem, however, and Canada’s drunk-driving death rate remains unusually high for wealthy countries.

As Ottawa prepares to legalize recreational marijuana, new concerns over impaired driving have emerged. Roadside tests for marijuana intoxication are inconsistent, and impairment varies greatly from person to person. How will police enforce drug-impaired driving laws when marijuana is the suspected intoxicant? Will impaired driving rates increase with legalization?

Speeding

Speeding has been a safety issue for as long as cars have been on the roads. Nearly everyone who drives exceeds the speed limit from time to time, often by mistake and sometimes because they’re in a rush.

Limits are posted for a reason, and even a modest speed increase will raise your chance of suffering a serious injury: individuals involved in collisions at 80 km/h have twice the risk of dying as those involved in 64 km/h collisions.

Weather

According to Allstate Canada’s Safe Driving Study, most Canadian car accidents occur in December, January and February, while the fewest occur in April, May and June. As auto accident lawyers know, bad-weather driving is an unfortunate reality of life in Canada.

There are steps you can take to reduce your risk of injury, however. Always check weather reports before you leave your house; make sure to equip your car with seasonal tires and emergency equipment; ensure your windshield wipers are functioning properly; and always drive according to the weather, not the speed limit.

If you or a member of your family has been injured in a car accident, contact the auto accident lawyers at Will Davidson LLP today to learn how our experienced team can help you advance a personal injury claim.

 

Photo credit: W. Robert Howell/Wikimedia Commons

Request a free consultation

COPYRIGHT 2019 © WILL DAVIDSON LLP