Company must pay $22M for cell phone/driving injury
May 31, 2012 by Fred HosierPosted in: cell phones and safety, cost of safety, In this week's e-newsletter, Injuries, Latest News & Views, new court decision
PDF Here’s proof that allowing employees to talk on cell phones for business purposes while they’re driving can be costly.
A Texas jury says Coca-Cola Enterprises should pay a woman more than $22 million because one of the company’s employees struck the woman’s car while she was talking on a cell phone about business.
Vanice Chatman-Wilson sued the other driver, Araceli Cabral, and Cabral’s employer, Coca-Cola, after she suffered neck and back injuries due to a 2010 car crash in Corpus Christi, Texas. Chatman-Wilson had lumbar surgery as a result. She continues to have a 25% disability.
Cabral was on a business call on her hands-free cell phone when her car struck Chatman-Wilson’s in an intersection. Cabral said she thought she had the right of way, but it turned out she did not.
Chatman-Wilson’s attorney successfully argued that just because Cabral wasn’t holding a phone didn’t mean she wasn’t distracted by the conversation.
The attorney presented studies that showed there is just as much distraction for a driver using a hands-free phone as a hand-held one.
In a statement following the jury verdict, Coca Cola said its “cell phone policy, which requires the use of a hands-free device when operating a motor vehicle, is completely consistent with, and in fact, exceeds the requirements of Texas law.” Coca-Cola plans to appeal.
The jury awarded Chatman-Wilson more than $11.5 million for lost wages, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. Jurors also awarded her $10 million in punitive damages.
Chatman-Wilson’s attorney, Thomas Henry, said, “Corporations big and small are getting a wake-up call that allowing your employees to use cell phones while driving is a big risk.”
Does your company have a cell phone policy, and if so, what is it? Should states ban the use of cell phones while driving? Does hands-free or hand-held matter? Let us know what you think in the comments below.
The Safety Insights You Need
Get the latest safety news, trends, and insights - delivered weekly.
Join over 334,000 safety pros:
Privacy policy
Tags: cell phone driving, Coca-Cola, hand-held cell phone, hands-free cell phone
Loading ...
May 31st, 2012 at 5:32 pm
This is ridiculous. Companies might as well require employees to travel on their own instead of carpooling as the passenger carrying on a conversation with them could be a “distraction”.
June 1st, 2012 at 11:28 am
It is my understanding that hands free is legal. Paying the bills and compensation might have been justified but $22M is way over the top. There are not enough details in the article to make a assessment of the situation.
June 4th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
It’s funny how people can make these comments on the dollar amount and not have any concern for the women that was hit by this driver, she can’t work and provide for herself and not to mention her pain and the effects it has had on her family I guess if she had died then maybe it would be different….this 10 million was awarded for punishment. Coke told there employees that they know that talking on the phone and driving is a legal liability but they did not care as long as they were making money for the company they would deal with the issues as they arise, and driving with someone in the car is different because you have 2 sets of eyes on the road so what the driver doesn’t see the passenger will but when you are on the phone 37% of your brain is into the conversation not on the road it has been proven it is the same as driving drunk. So my concern is for the lady whose life has changed just because a company is more concerned about making money then making sure we are safe on our roads she will have to have more surgeries and deal with this injury for the rest of her life.
June 4th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
I often wonder how people come to these amounts. I sat on a jury a long time ago, in a civil case. After 4 days it was obvious to me that the person suing her landlord had proven her case. On the 4th day we, the jury, were told that the parties had agreed to a settlement. The lawyers for both sides came in and asked how we were leaning. Everyone agreed in the lady’s favor. When they asked us how much in damages we would have awarded her. I took in to consideration her actual loss and said that somewhere around $84-85,000 was appropriate. Every other juror gave figures between $1,000,000 - $15,000,000.
I don’t agree. Getting hit by a coca-cola truck shouldn’t be on the same level as winning the lottery.
June 4th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
@whatswrongwithpeople. I worked as a manager at a very large trucking company for 10 years before changing careers. You can rant and rave and make strawman arguments accusing other comments here about caring more about the money than the person. Many of the comments you put in your comments about Coke telling their employees they know it’s dangerous but don’t care “as long as they were making money for the company”, about her not being able to work, her needing more surgeries, and not being able to care for herself, are not in this article, or any other article I googled. I’m not sure how accurate your assessment is considering she was given 25% disability.
The issue I have with this case in particular is that a jury determined the amounts for pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages. I question the expertise of a jury, whose members we have no idea of their backgrounds, determining such a large amount of a fine with the sole intention of punishing a company.
I re-read all the comments made by others and myself, and I don’t think anyone else was out of line. That’s just my opinion.
June 4th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
The company admitted liability, however they are appealing the amount.
What seemed incredibly crazy was that the coca cola employee ‘testified’ they were unaware that the use of a cell phone while driving may be dangerous. this sounds strange for a supposedly qualified truck driver.
You also wonder if she was hit by an average Joe off the street if she would have taken the insurance coverage and be back at work and probably running marathons.
http://www.verdictsearch.com/index.jsp?do=news&rep=recent&art=206034
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2012/05/07/246574.htm