What’s Defined in Avery’s Law?

The law establishes new definitions for dogs that have committed acts causing harm to other dogs or people. A “vicious dog act” will be defined as an act done by a dog without provocation, resulting in the death of a person or serious injury. A “dangerous dog act” will be defined as causing injury other than killing or serious injury by physical contact, or serious injury even without physical contact, or the serious injury resulting in euthanasia or killing of another dog. A “nuisance dog act” will be defined as a variety of behaviors including chasing or menacing a person, attempting to bite or attack a person, causing injury to a person, or chasing other dogs or livestock in apparent attitude of attack.

Having established new standards for dog behavior, the new law requires owners of a “dangerous” or “vicious” dog which has acted in the manner set forth above (but not a “nuisance” dog) to register the dog with the auditor in their counties of residence and imposes numerous new annual requirements with the registration including:

• Providing proof of a rabies vaccine;
• Requiring the dog to be spayed or neutered or producing a statement from a licensed veterinarian that neutering or spaying is medically contraindicated;
• Requiring posting of visible signs warning of the presence of a dangerous dog on the property;
• Requiring dogs to wear a tag identifying them as dangerous or vicious;
• Requiring microchipping of the dog.[1]

The new law also imposes a new requirement that owners, harborers, or keepers of vicious or dangerous dogs obtain and maintain liability insurance in an amount of at least $100,000. Failure to comply with these requirements is a new criminal offense. Interestingly, some homeowners insurance policies specifically exclude insurance coverage for some types and breeds of dogs.

The new statute also requires that no owner, harborer, or keeper of any dog shall fail to keep the dog physically confined or restrained on the owner, harborer, or keeper’s premises by leash, tether, fence, supervision or secure enclosure or otherwise under reasonable control.[2] Failure to do so is now a crime punishable by fine or imprisonment upon multiple offenses. Courts will also now be able to require dogs to undergo obedience training or to be euthanized if they cause serious injury or death to a person.

The new law, at the same time, also includes protections for owners, keepers, and harborers of dogs that are legitimately defending themselves, their owners, or their property.

Potential Outcomes and Changes Within Dog Attack Law

While it is not anticipated that the new law will have major impacts for the civil liability of dog owners, it provides local officials with tools to better manage dangerous and vicious dogs. It now imposes criminal liability and insurance requirements where none existed previously. The statutory determinations of vicious, dangerous, and nuisance will likely be tested in court hearings subject to ordinary due process standards.

Importantly, the law does not make any changes to the existing dog attack liability statute.[3] Under existing law, owners, keepers, or harborers of dogs are generally legally liable for any harm caused by the dog so long as the victim was not trespassing, teasing, or tormenting the dog.

Previously, Ohio law limited or restricted the admissibility of certain facts in tort lawsuits. Avery’s Law does not contain any such restrictions on the admissibility of the new definitions of vicious, dangerous, or nuisance. Thus, if a dog that has been previously adjudicated under Avery’s Law goes on to commit further harm against others, its status is likely admissible in a subsequent suit.

Avery’s experience and other notable cases[4] evidenced that Ohio’s dog-regulation scheme previously left gaps that allowed harm to befall those who were victimized by dangerous dogs. Avery’s Law helps to increase responsibility burdens on owners of vicious and dangerous dogs and closes many of these loopholes. The criminal deterrence aspect will also hopefully increase the safety of Ohioans from dangerous and vicious dogs.

How Can We Help?

McCarthy Lebit attorneys Colin Ray and Christian Patno regularly represent individuals who have been severely injured by dogs through no fault of their own. Those who have been injured or have questions about the new law may call Colin for a free, no-obligation consultation to discuss their legal options.

For more information, or to seek counsel from our Personal Injury & Wrongful Death group, please reach out to request a consultation or call us at 216-696-1422.

_____________________________________________

[1] R.C. 955.01.
[2]  R.C. 955.21.
[3] R.C. 955.28.
[4] Schneider v. Kumpf, 2016-Ohio-5161 (2d Dist.).

The post Avery’s Law Brings Significant Changes to Ohio’s Dog Laws appeared first on McCarthy Lebit - A Cleveland/Ohio Law Firm.

How Patient Injuries Happen During Transport

Unfortunately, patients are injured by the careless conduct of the medical transport company. These injuries occur at each stage in the transport process:

• Carelessly moving a patient from the original location to a stretcher;
• Carelessly transporting the patient to a vehicle;
• Carelessly loading the patient into a vehicle;
• Carelessly and improperly securing the patient during transport;
• Carelessly unloading the patient;
• Carelessly moving the patient into the new location.

Common Causes

Injuries to medical transport patients have many causes. These include lack of proper training on how to properly transport and restrain patients, failing to hire appropriately qualified workers, hiring workers with poor work records, failing to provide written instructions, distracted transport team members and providing defective equipment for transporters to use.

The Role of Equipment in Patient Safety

Modern stretchers and wheelchairs are highly specialized pieces of equipment designed to prevent injuries to patients. However, when such equipment is improperly used, it can be extremely dangerous to patients. Accordingly, proper training and proper attention to every detail by transport personnel are of paramount importance.

Who Is Held Responsible?

In most cases, both a medical transport worker and the company they work for can be held liable for injuries caused to a patient under their care. Unfortunately, many people who are injured by medical transport companies are already quite vulnerable or recovering from serious medical conditions, and their transport injuries can be very severe.

Attorneys Christian Patno and Colin Ray regularly represent patients who are injured by the carelessness of medical transport companies. They often work with expert witnesses both in the field of proper standards in the medical transport industry, as well as medical expert physicians who examine medical evidence to opine about what specific injuries and damage has occurred.

If you have been injured by a medical transportation company, or to seek counsel from our Personal Injury & Wrongful Death practice group, please reach out to request a consultation or call us at 216-696-1422.

The post Medical Transport Negligence: Causes and Liability appeared first on McCarthy Lebit - A Cleveland/Ohio Law Firm.

The advent of spring typically means that many dog owners will begin enjoying the warmer Cleveland weather by taking their canine friends on longer walks, bringing them along to dog-friendly bars and restaurants, or exposing them to interactions with friends who have come over for cookouts. Unfortunately, with the rise of more human-to-dog contact, the warmer months also usually see an increase in the number of bites and attacks by dogs. Dogs, and larger dogs in particular, often cause injury to others, leading to medical care, treatment, and sometimes long-lasting harm like scarring or orthopedic injury. The question then arises: who is legally responsible for injuries caused by dog attacks?

Since most dogs never harm anyone, dog owners may be surprised to learn that under the Ohio Revised Code,[1] the owner, keeper, and/or harborer of a dog is generally strictly liable for harm caused by the dog. The law does not require that the dog bite or attack another person; any type of damage it causes can result in liability. Exceptions precluding legal responsibility exist in cases where another person was trespassing, teasing, or tormenting a dog at the time the dog caused harm. However, typically, the owner or person keeping or harboring the dog is responsible.

Unfortunately, when a large or aggressive dog does attack someone, the victim’s medical bills can pile up quickly, creating a difficult situation. Many homeowner’s and renter’s insurance policies provide coverage for harm caused by dogs, so long as the dog owner disclosed that they had a dog at the time of applying for coverage. What many dog owners fail to realize is that many insurance policies contain specific exclusions from coverage for harm caused by certain breeds of dogs or dogs that have previously bitten a person. This can lead to a very serious situation where a dog owner is legally liable for substantial medical bills caused by the dog but has no insurance coverage for them or the claim.

In a recent Ohio case, a homeowner’s policy excluded coverage for bodily injury caused by “full or partial breed Dobermans, German Shepherds, Pit Bulls, Chows, Akitas and Rottweilers or any other dog or dogs, regardless of breed, that have been involved in past human biting incident.”[2] After a Rottweiler mix attacked two people and an insurance claim was brought, the insurance company filed an action in court for declaratory judgment declaring that it had no duty to provide coverage. The court upheld this exclusion and ruled that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the owner of the Rottweiler. Other similar policy exclusions apply to other breeds, such as Presa Canarios, Great Danes, or Chihuahuas. They may also exclude dogs over a certain weight, wolves, coyotes, hybrids of such animals, or any dogs used for fighting.

In another case, a policy exclusion denied coverage for a dog that “[h]as previously caused: (1) Bodily injury to a person.”[3] The dog had previously nipped people on some five occasions. The court upheld this restriction and ruled that there was no duty for the insurance company to provide coverage.

Accordingly, it is prudent for dog owners, keepers, and/or harborers to review their insurance policies to ensure coverage is available for their dogs in case they cause injuries, and I strongly recommend it. This is particularly important where:

1. A policy is new or has not been reviewed for a period of years, if the policy language has changed;
2. If a dog has bitten a person during the previous year, even if the injury caused was not severe;
3. If a person has obtained any new dog, particularly if it is large or a working dog of any sort whose breed may be one of the types that are mentioned in a policy exclusion such as a Rottweiler or Pit Bull;
4. If the person is not the owner of a dog but can be deemed a harborer or keeper by having the dog on their property or by helping care for or keep the dog around the time of the bite or attack.

If a dog bites someone or causes harm and coverage is denied, dog owners, keepers, and/or harborers who find themselves without insurance coverage can be in a very difficult position where they are still legally liable for the harm but have no paid-for defense or insurance indemnity. This can be even more frustrating when payment of insurance premiums has been made with the assumption that there would be coverage in the event of a dog attack.

Attorneys Colin Ray and Chris Patno regularly represent individuals in this legal subspecialty who have been bitten or seriously injured by dogs. They have even set legal standards and beneficial case law in Ohio in this regard. Those injured in a dog attack or those who have questions about a dog attack may contact them for a free, no-obligation consultation. To see counsel from our Personal Injury & Wrongful Death attorneys, please reach out to request a consultation or call us at 216-696-1422.

_____________________________________________

[1] R.C. 955.28.
[2] Garlock v. Jordan, 2025-Ohio-82 ⁋3 (6^th Dist.).
[3] Grange Indem. Ins. Co. v. Hinds, 2023-Ohio-4085 ⁋19 (3^rd Dist.).

The post Is My Dog Covered by My Homeowner’s or Renter’s Insurance Policy? appeared first on McCarthy Lebit - A Cleveland/Ohio Law Firm.

The medical research evidences that a missed diagnosis is not a new problem and has sought to analyze the reasons behind missed diagnoses. For instance, with regard to colorectal cancer, only 40% of cases are diagnosed at an early stage. [5] It has been noted that delays in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer occur when physicians fail to recognize cardinal symptoms of bleeding, anemia, and abdominal pain as cancer symptoms rather than symptoms of less serious medical problems. Studies also reveal that women are twice as likely to experience a misdiagnosis of colorectal cancer than men. [6]

Missed Medical Diagnosis Lawyers Can Help in Cases of Serious Injury or Death

In cases where serious injury or death results from a missed medical diagnosis, lawyers can evaluate a potential case. Many cases begin with establishing an attorney-client relationship with patients or surviving relatives. Then, attorneys typically obtain and review the medical records to confirm whether a diagnosis was missed. Attorneys then consult with expert physicians in the appropriate medical specialty. For instance, if an emergency room physician misses a stroke diagnosis when a patient comes to the hospital with symptoms consistent with a stroke, attorneys will often consult with an independent emergency room doctor to review the records and discuss the case. In a case where a diagnosis is missed, it is often possible to objectively verify through imaging studies, lab results, or other methods, that an error was objectively made. This allows for an evaluation of the outcomes and a determination of whether legal action is warranted.

Attorneys Christian Patno and Colin Ray often handle medical malpractice litigation in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County based on diagnoses that were missed or mistaken by doctors. These include cases of cancer, sepsis, vascular conditions such as strokes or blood clots, and other matters. They draw on a combined 40+ years of experience in pursuing medical malpractice cases. They apply many of the methods above on a case-by-case basis to pursue justice and accountability for individuals harmed by missed diagnoses and their loved ones.

Patients or loved ones of a patient who believe that a medical professional has made a mistake and missed a diagnosis of a serious condition or incorrectly diagnosed a condition may call for a free, no-obligation evaluation of their potential case. Most cases are taken on a contingency-fee-basis, meaning no fees are owed until settlement or jury verdict, and case expenses are advanced on behalf of clients. To seek counsel from our Personal Injury & Wrongful Death attorneys, please reach out to request a consultation or call us at 216-696-1422.

_____________________________________________

[1] “Report Highlights Public Health Impact of Serious Harms from Diagnostic Error in U.S., Johns Hopkins Medicine, July 17, 2023, available at https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/2023/07/report-highlights-public-health-impact-of-serious-harms-from-diagnostic-error-in-us
[2] BMJ Quality and Safety, “Burden of serious harms from diagnostic error in the USA,” https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/33/2/109
[3] Id.
[4] Newman-Toker, D., et al, “Rate of diagnostic errors and serious misdiagnosis-related harms for major vascular events, infections, and cancers: toward a nation incidence estimate for the “Big Three,” DeGruyter, May 14, 2020, available at https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/dx-2019-0104/html?ref=geektime.com.
[5] Siminoff, et al., “Missed opportunities for the Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer,” BioMed Research International, Oct. 4, 2015, available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1155/2015/285096.
[6] Id.

The post Missed Diagnosis in the Medical Field: How Often Does it Happen & What Are the Outcomes? appeared first on McCarthy Lebit - A Cleveland/Ohio Law Firm.

The Ohio State Highway Patrol has maintained statistics on distracted driving since at least 2019. According to the Highway Patrol, in September of 2023, immediately before imposition of criminal penalties, troopers were citing approximately 12-13 people per day for violations of the distracted driving law. After October 1, criminal penalties immediately jumped to around 50 per week and in 2024 have been around 60-70 per week. In 2024, as of February 19, 2,291 violations have been issued by the Patrol for only the first month and a half of this year.

At the same time, the number of crashes caused by distracted driving appears to have markedly fallen. According to OSHP statistics, crashes classified as “serious injury or fatal crashes” are currently down 60% in 2024 compared with 2023.

The Patrol explains in brochures and on its website that distracted driving affects a driver in three ways. Visual distractions take a driver’s eyes off the road. Manual distractions like holding a device or eating food involve drivers taking their hands off the wheel. Cognitive distractions take drivers’ thoughts and focus off of driving. Operation of a hand-held device while driving can represent all three types of distractions.

Crashes caused by distracted driving under the criminal law are likely to be handled differently than ordinary crash cases. Under Ohio’s civil law, drivers who engage in dangerous behavior like operating a vehicle while intoxicated are liable not only for harm they cause but can also be held liable for punitive damages above and beyond an award of compensatory damages. As of February 19, 2024, no reported Ohio cases have yet been issued explaining whether a violation of the new distracted driving law can also lead to an award of punitive damages. However, it seems likely that attorneys representing individuals who have been injured in crashes caused by a willfully distracted driver will seek such damages. If it is proven that the violation of the distracted driving statute specifically caused the automobile crash in question, trial courts will very likely allow the issue of whether to award punitive damages to be decided by jurors in civil trials.

Attorneys Christian Patno and Colin Ray regularly represent individuals who have been seriously injured in distracted driving crashes caused by drivers who were knowingly using their phones or were otherwise distracted or operating their vehicles unsafely at the time of a crash. Evidence from the phone as well as the hard drive from the vehicle which the phone may have been connected with Bluetooth must be preserved and obtained. Unfortunately, even in the most serious collisions, law enforcement sometimes fails to gather or obtain this information which may prove critical to a claim.

If you were injured in an automobile crash and have questions about your legal options, reach out to request a consultation or call us at 216-696-1422 for a free, no-obligation consultation with one of our personal injury attorneys. In the meantime, please make sure you, your family, your co-workers, and your friends wait until arrival at their destinations before sending that text message or posting on social media. It is not only safe and prudent as it always has been, but it is now probable cause on its own for a traffic stop under the law of the State of Ohio.

The post Impact of Major Changes in Ohio’s New Distracted Driving Law appeared first on McCarthy Lebit - A Cleveland/Ohio Law Firm.

The law that holds liquor permit holders responsible for drunk driving crashes is known as “Dram Shop.” In general, the law states that a liquor permit holder (typically a bar or restaurant) that serves a noticeably intoxicated person additional alcohol may be legally responsible for the drunk person’s later actions proximately caused by their intoxication. Some bars and restaurants provide training for their employees in order to prevent such harmful events. But often for the sake of profit over safety, the training is ignored, or not even provided. This can lead to patrons being improperly served.

When intoxicated persons cause harm, it stems not solely from drunk driving, but also equipment operation or physical conduct such as fighting or sexual assault. For example, if a person is simply out at a restaurant where the bartender has served a noticeably intoxicated person additional alcohol, and the intoxicated person assaults the person without provocation and causes injury, the restaurant may be liable for the actions of the intoxicated person.

Commonly in Ohio, the majority of the harm is caused by the actions of a drunk driver. According to the Ohio State Highway Patrol, in 2021, the most recent year for which there is complete data, there were 11,084 OVI (operating a vehicle while intoxicated) crashes, of which 404 were fatal and an additional 895 of which caused “serious” injury. In these crashes, if the driver was overserved by a bar, restaurant, or other liquor permit holder, that permit holder can be held responsible for the actions of the drunk driver. Expert witnesses are often utilized to evidence this fact after forensic evidence is gathered by experienced attorneys.

Attorneys Chris Patno and Colin Ray have decades of combined experience in handling Dram Shop drunk driving cases. In numerous cases, they have investigated the drunk driver and their actions at establishments prior to a crash and held the liquor permit holder responsible. If you or a loved one have been harmed by an intoxicated person or have questions about a Dram Shop case, you may reach out to request a consultation or call us at 216-696-1210 for a free, no-obligation consultation.

The post Bar and Restaurant Liability for Serving Intoxicated Patrons appeared first on McCarthy Lebit - A Cleveland/Ohio Law Firm.

According to the CDC, salmonella bacteria cause a disease known as salmonellosis. Common symptoms include diarrhea, fever, and stomach cramps. Symptoms can begin between six hours and six days after the bacteria is ingested. These symptoms can lead to other medical problems such as dehydration, which can lead to hospitalization in severe cases. In even more severe cases, infection can spread to blood, joints, or organs and lead to septic arthritis and other long-term consequences.

McCarthy Lebit attorney Colin R. Ray is currently investigating the Jif salmonella outbreak and has been retained by some of those who have been hospitalized with symptoms consistent with salmonella infection after unknowingly eating recalled Jif peanut butter. Compensation for those injured by tainted foods often includes payment for hospital bills, pain and suffering, and other expenses incurred as a result of illness. Colin typically investigates and handles such cases on a no-obligation basis with no legal fees unless there is a recovery. Those who may have been sickened by tainted peanut butter or other food products can contact Colin for a free, no-obligation evaluation of their legal options. Please reach out to request a consultation or call us at 216-696-1422.

Additional Reading:

“Outbreak Investigation of Salmonella: Peanut Butter (May 2022),” United States Food and Drug Administration

“Questions and Answers,” Salmonella Homepage, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The post LEGAL ADVISORY: Jif Peanut Butter Salmonella Claims – A Sticky Situation appeared first on McCarthy Lebit - A Cleveland/Ohio Law Firm.

With new technology comes new data and new ways to learn from and improve safety in reliance on it. In late 2021, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) released its findings on “micromobility” injuries, including injuries from e-scooters and similar devices. According to its findings, such electronic mobility devices led to over 190,000 emergency room visits between 2017 and 2020, the last year for which data was available. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it was reported that the injuries increased each year, from 34,000 emergency room visits in 2017 to 57,800 visits in 2020. The CPSC noted that the largest portion of the increase was specifically related to e-scooters, which gained a larger proportion of visits each year.

The CPSC stated that it is working with industry groups to improve safety. One important recommendation for e-scooter riders to was a caution to check scooters for damage prior to riding. It noted that damage to the handlebars, brakes, throttle, and other parts can often cause loss of control and lead to a crash.

Another study, published in the Journal of Safety Research in 2021 examined outcomes from 131 scooter and other crashes in Nashville. According to the study, e-scooter crashes do not have national or statewide standardization, unlike bicycle and car crashes. This study also confirmed that the largest proportion of bicycle and e-scooter riders are aged 19-30. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it found that two-thirds of all crashes occurred at intersections and the remaining third occurred at other places. The study’s findings also included that some 10% of bicycle and scooter crashes resulted in injury or fatality.

The takeaways to avoid e-scooter related injuries include:

• Make sure the scooter is properly functioning and not defective;
• Allow only one rider per scooter and wear a helmet;
• Be aware of how to safely operate the scooter and read directions;
• Be aware of potholes and uneven surfaces;
• Be aware of traffic and pedestrians around you;
• Do not carry objects while operating the scooter;
• Only operate the scooter at a safe speed;
• Do not operate a scooter while impaired.

Given the relative recent introduction of e-scooters, and the continuing rise in crashes and injuries, there is still much room for improvement in the safety of e-scooters, e-bicycles, and other “micromobility” products. Attorney Colin Ray has experience in handling bicycle and other crash cases for injured riders. People who have been injured while riding a bicycle or a scooter may contact Colin for a no-obligation evaluation of their potential case. Please reach out to request a consultation or call us at 216-696-1210.

The post What Can Be Learned From E-Scooter Crash Data? appeared first on McCarthy Lebit - A Cleveland/Ohio Law Firm.

In response, in 2006 Ohio’s General Assembly passed the most recent version of R.C. 4301.69, which generally forbids anyone to knowingly allow persons under the age of 21 to possess beer, wine, or intoxicating liquor, subject to certain exceptions. This gave rise to the now-widespread “Parents Who Host Lose The Most” public safety campaign, which reminds parents that they can be convicted of a misdemeanor, fined up to $1,000, and jailed for up to six months if they do knowingly allow underage persons to drink at their home. It is therefore strongly advised that parents refrain from such illegal social hosting of parties for minors.

In Ohio, historically there was very little potential liability for “social hosts” as there is in other states. Additionally, “dram shop” law, or law requiring that liquor permit holders such as bars and restaurants do not overserve their patrons, generally does not apply to private citizens entertaining at their own homes or elsewhere. The 2006 Ohio law imposing criminal liability on adults who allow underage people to drink was a narrowly tailored exception aimed at curbing potentially dangerous alcohol abuse involving minors.

Changes to Ohio civil law may also increase risk of civil liability to parents or adults who knowingly allow underage persons to imbibe. Under a 2020 Supreme Court of Ohio decision, persons harmed by commission of a crime may bring a civil cause of action against the person convicted of the crime. Under the law, parents can be held civilly liable for harm stemming from their commission of the crime of allowing underage persons to drink. This could arguably extend to people being injured by underage drunk drivers leaving such a gathering or to physical injuries or sexual assaults suffered or committed by attendees. However, this responsibility only applies where the parents knew underage persons were drinking on their property.

Unfortunately, when injuries occur to minors as a result of drinking, they can be severe and even life-altering. Recent media stories have shown all too clearly that unsupervised teens are often the victims of sexual assaults, accidents, or acute alcohol intoxication resulting in serious injury or death. No parent ever wants to learn that their child has been harmed in such a way. Where a teen sustains life-changing injury such as paralysis as a result of being provided alcohol by an adult, a family may need help in adjusting their lives. In such cases, it may be beneficial to discuss legal options with a lawyer. McCarthy Lebit’s personal injury attorneys often handle cases where a person has suffered a life-changing injury and can assist a family with many of the aspects of planning for a different future and exploration of legal options.

If someone in your family has suffered an unexpected life-changing injury due to allowing a minor to possess alcohol, please reach out for a free, no-obligation consultation with attorney Colin Ray to discuss your legal options.

Please reach out to request a consultation, give us a call at 216-696-1422, or visit Colin’s bio for his contact information to reach out to him directly.

The post Do Parents Who Host Actually Lose the Most? appeared first on McCarthy Lebit - A Cleveland/Ohio Law Firm.

Using 2018 and 2019 as a reference point, there were 297,826 reported crashes in 2018 and 296,579 crashes in 2019. In 2020, that number plunged to 245,838, a difference of nearly 52,000 fewer crashes from 2018 that amounts to a 17% decline in crashes. This certainly makes sense with what many would assume—fewer cars on the road in 2020 led to fewer crashes.

What may be interesting is when these crashes occurred. Ohio’s crash data is subdivided by many categories, including crashes in specific calendar months. In the month of April 2019, Ohio saw 22,268 crashes of any sort. That evaporated to just 11,483 crashes in April of 2020, when many Ohioans were subject to stay-at-home orders from the state or from local municipalities. 2020 generally saw fewer crashes in each calendar month when compared to 2019, as might be expected given that fewer drivers were on the roads.

The OSHP’s data can be further analyzed by county and otherwise. Cuyahoga County followed the statewide trends, falling from 34,060 crashes in 2019 to 28,686 in 2020. Crashes in Cuyahoga County were also down by about half in April 2020, from 2,632 to 1,342.

The trends were not all positive. One tragic aspect of the crash database is that fatal crashes actually increased in 2020 despite there being fewer overall crashes. In 2019 there were 1,041 fatal crashes within the state, but this number rose to 1,153 in 2020. And unfortunately, the number of alcohol-related crashes in the state also increased in 2020, from 13,047 in 2019 to 13,136 last year. On a monthly basis, these crashes, which are classified as “OVI-related” by the Highway Patrol, were sharply down statewide in April, but greatly increased over the 2020 summer months. Interestingly, during the first six months of 2020, statewide OVI-related crashes have generally been higher than they were even in 2020. While these crashes occur at all hours of the day, some 45% of OVI-related crashes occur between the hours of 8 p.m. and 3 a.m.

Speed is also a factor in nearly every crash. Speed-related crashes, as classified by the Highway Patrol, were nearly unchanged, with 30,354 in 2019 and 30,120 in 2020, with 15,168 through the first portion of 2021. And interestingly, school bus-related crashes were down from 1,330 in 2019 to just 577 in all of 2020, while deer-related crashes were down slightly, from 19,375 to 17,688.

The traffic safety changes from 2019 to 2020 will be interesting to track as much of the state returns to pre-pandemic activities. Many news reports have suggested that workers have left the workforce, perhaps permanently, which could lead to fewer cars on the road for lengthy commutes and, accordingly, to fewer crashes. On the other hand, other news reports have suggested that more people have taken up drinking to cope with pandemic-related isolation, which could sustain the trend of increased OVI-related crashes.

Catastrophic injury and death resulting from car crashes represent a substantial portion of McCarthy Lebit’s Personal Injury practice. Crashes involving excessive speed or drunken driving by the at-fault party often result in more severe injuries and those cases require careful attention. Sometimes these require testimony from accident reconstruction experts, engineering experts, and others, so having confidence in your legal counsel’s understanding of these concepts is critical.

Our team doesn’t provide a “one size fits all” form of representation—we believe each case and each client is unique and deserves the kind of careful attention and analysis that comes from years of experience. Since car crashes can happen to anyone, including and often, to safe drivers, we routinely represent family members of current or former clients who may simply need help navigating the difficult time in the aftermath of a crash when dealing with insurance companies. Regardless of who the client is or whether we’ve represented them in other areas of our firm, we strive to deliver the kind of extraordinary service that all our clients have come to expect.

The post The Pandemic Effect: Car Crash Data in Ohio appeared first on McCarthy Lebit - A Cleveland/Ohio Law Firm.