Driven to Distraction: Some Tragic Accidents from a Pre-automotive Age
| Jurisdiction | Colorado,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 39 No. 3 Pg. 61 |
| Pages | 61 |
| Publication year | 2010 |
2010, March, Pg. 61. Driven to Distraction: Some Tragic Accidents From a Pre-Automotive Age
March 2010
Vol. 39, No. 3 [Page 61]
About the Author
Frank Gibbard is a staff attorney with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and Secretary of the Tenth Circuit Historical Society-(303) 844-5306, frank_gibbard@ca10.uscourts.gov. The views expressed are those of the author and not of the Tenth Circuit or its judges. The author is grateful for the research assistance of Dan Cordova and Lynn Christian of the Colorado Supreme Court Law Library. Readers are encouraged to contact Frank Gibbard with topic suggestions or to volunteer to write Historical Perspective articles.
Effective December 1, 2009, drivers 18 years of age or older are forbidden from text messaging (texting) while operating a motor vehicle in Colorado.(fn1) Drivers under 18 are forbidden any use of a cell phone while driving.(fn2) It's not surprising that the legislature has imposed these restrictions. Eighty-nine percent of American adults surveyed in a 2007 Harris Interactive poll believed texting while driving was dangerous and should be banned.(fn3) Studies have shown that persons talking on cell phones while driving are four times as likely to have an accident than those not distracted by a cell phone; for those texting while driving, the likelihood of an accident is six times greater.(fn4)
Driving is an activity that can be carried on subconsciously while the conscious mind is otherwise engaged.(fn5) This may cause us to overestimate our ability to multitask while driving, leading to accidents. Similar lapses in concentration have allegedly contributed to recent incidents involving railroad conductors(fn6) and airline pilots.(fn7)
As evidenced in a number of pre-1900 Colorado cases, however, such accidents cannot be attributed solely to the ubiquity of wireless communications and other modern digital distractions. They also are due to limits in the attention system of the human brain, which scientists believe has not changed much in at least 20,000 years.(fn8) As these old cases demonstrate, one need not be driving an automobile to be "driven to distraction."
Warnings Ignored-
City of Denver v. Peterson (1894)
On April 7, 1892, the City of Denver (City) sent a steamroller northbound up Market Street toward City Park "to be there used by its board of public works in rolling the park."(fn9) An engineer and a fireman were on board.(fn10) Mounted policemen were supposed to precede the steamroller, alerting other traffic of the oncoming machine. In this instance, however, a witness later testified that he did not notice any mounted escort.
The plaintiff, Karen Peterson, was driving a horse-and-buggy southbound on Market Street. The City presented testimony that before she reached the corner of Market and 25th Streets, a policeman warned her that the steamroller was ahead. He told her she should turn onto 25th Street to avoid it. However, "she was absorbed in conversation with a woman who was her companion in the buggy, and gave no heed to the warning."(fn11) She was warned a second time; the engineer riding the steamroller called out to her to turn around and go back. Peterson later testified that "she did not see the policeman or the engineer, and heard no warning from any source."(fn12) Peterson's companion in the buggy corroborated this testimony.
When Peterson failed to turn around, the engineer shut off the steam and stopped his machine. Moments later, as Peterson's buggy approached the steamroller, the safety valve on the machine opened and let off a "snort of steam." The noise or the sight of this so frightened Peterson's horse that it "turned suddenly around, overturned the buggy, throwing [Peterson] violently to the ground, and causing her to sustain serious injury."(fn13) A jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial