Distracted driving is a real problem on Schaumburg’s busy roads, where drivers face crowded intersections, changing lights, highway entrances, pedestrians, and lots of traffic. Even glancing at a phone for a few seconds means a driver can travel far without watching the road. If this leads to a serious crash, proving distraction is often key in an Illinois personal injury case. I don’t just take the other driver’s word for what happened. I look for physical, electronic, documentary, and witness evidence to show what the driver was doing right before the crash.
One of the first issues I consider in a suspected distracted-driving case is whether the driver was using a phone around the time of the collision. Illinois law restricts drivers from operating vehicles while using electronic communication devices, subject to statutory exceptions. The law specifically addresses activities such as watching or streaming video, participating in video conferences, and accessing social media while driving. 625 ILCS 5/12-610.2 also provides enhanced consequences when prohibited electronic-device use is a proximate cause of a crash resulting in great bodily harm, permanent disability, disfigurement, or death.
Phone records can help show when calls or other activity happened. Depending on the situation and the legal process, more evidence might reveal if a driver was texting, using an app, on social media, or handling a device near the time of the crash.
The timing matters. Evidence showing device activity seconds before impact can be particularly significant when combined with other facts indicating that the driver failed to brake, drifted from a lane, ran a red light, or never reacted to stopped traffic.
Other drivers, passengers, pedestrians, or people nearby may have seen the driver right before the crash. A witness might say they saw the driver looking down, holding a phone, turning to talk to someone, eating, putting on makeup, or doing something else that took their attention off the road.
I try to identify witnesses early because memories can become less precise over time. Their testimony can become even more persuasive when it matches physical evidence from the scene.
For example, if a witness saw a driver looking down before hitting stopped traffic, that can support evidence showing there were no skid marks or real braking before the crash.
Schaumburg and nearby areas have many businesses, shopping centers, apartments, offices, parking lots, and homes with security cameras. Dash cameras are also becoming more common.
Video can show how a vehicle moved before a serious crash. Depending on the camera angle, it might show a driver holding a device, looking away from the road, drifting between lanes, not reacting to traffic changes, or entering an intersection the wrong way.
I think it’s important to save video evidence early because some cameras automatically erase old footage after a short time.
Modern vehicles may contain electronic information that assists in reconstructing a collision. Depending on the vehicle and circumstances, data may provide information concerning speed, braking, throttle position, steering inputs, and other actions shortly before impact.
This information does not necessarily prove phone use by itself. It can, however, support a distraction theory.
If a vehicle traveling at roadway speed approaches stopped traffic without meaningful braking until the final moment, electronic data may support the argument that the driver was not properly watching the road. When that information is combined with phone records or witness testimony, the evidence can become considerably stronger.
I also examine what the driver told police officers and others after the crash. A driver may admit to looking at a phone, adjusting something inside the vehicle, turning toward a passenger, or simply failing to see another vehicle.
Statements can also become important when they conflict with physical evidence. A driver may claim that another vehicle “came out of nowhere,” while video footage or crash reconstruction shows that the vehicle had been plainly visible for several seconds.
A traffic citation for improper electronic-device use can be relevant, but the absence of a citation does not automatically mean distraction did not occur. A civil personal injury investigation can uncover evidence that was unavailable to officers during the initial crash investigation.
Distracted-driving cases are not limited to texting. Drivers can lose attention while eating, reaching for an object, adjusting vehicle controls, interacting with passengers, looking at activity outside the vehicle, or attempting to manage children or pets.
The legal issue is often whether the driver failed to use reasonable care under the circumstances and whether that failure caused the collision and injuries.
That distinction matters because a serious accident claim may still involve distraction even when no electronic device was being used.
When a crash results in traumatic brain injuries, spinal injuries, fractures, permanent impairment, surgery, or significant lost income, establishing exactly why the collision occurred becomes especially important.
Evidence can disappear quickly. Vehicles may be repaired or destroyed, surveillance footage may be overwritten, witnesses may become difficult to locate, and electronic information may become harder to obtain.
Illinois generally applies a modified comparative negligence system under 735 ILCS 5/2-1116. A plaintiff whose contributory fault is more than 50 percent of the proximate cause of the injury cannot recover damages. If the plaintiff’s fault is 50 percent or less, recovery may still be available but is reduced according to the percentage of fault attributed to the plaintiff.
For that reason, proving what the distracted driver did before the collision can also be critical when an insurance company tries to shift responsibility to the injured person.
I may look for several types of evidence rather than depending on one single source. Phone records can help establish the timing of certain communications, while additional electronic information may help determine whether a device or application was being used around the time of impact.
Witness statements, surveillance video, dash-camera footage, vehicle data, photographs, and the driver’s own statements can also support the claim. Evidence is often strongest when multiple sources tell the same story. For example, phone activity combined with a witness who saw the driver looking downward and vehicle data showing little or no braking before impact can provide a much clearer picture of what happened.
Potentially, yes. Cell phone information may become obtainable through formal discovery procedures when a lawsuit is filed, and the information is relevant to the collision.
That does not necessarily mean an injured person can simply request unrestricted access to everything on another driver’s phone. Courts consider relevance, scope, privacy, and the specific facts of the case. I focus requests on information that may help determine whether device use occurred during the relevant period surrounding the crash.
Deleting information does not necessarily mean the evidence is permanently unavailable. Depending on the circumstances, relevant information may exist in carrier records, application records, backups, connected devices, or other electronic sources.
The destruction of evidence after someone knew or reasonably should have known that litigation was likely may also create separate legal issues. That is one reason preservation requests can be important in serious distracted-driving cases. Acting early can improve the ability to identify and preserve potentially relevant electronic evidence.
No. A traffic citation and a civil personal injury claim are separate matters. Police officers make decisions based on the evidence available to them during or shortly after the crash investigation.
Additional evidence may emerge later, including surveillance footage, witness testimony, phone-related information, or vehicle data. I can still investigate whether distraction contributed to the collision even when the police report does not specifically accuse the driver of distracted driving.
Compensation depends on the injuries, financial losses, insurance coverage, liability evidence, and other circumstances of the crash. A claim may involve medical expenses, future medical care, lost wages, diminished earning capacity, pain and suffering, disability, and other legally recoverable losses.
Permanent injuries generally require a careful evaluation of future consequences. I consider not only what the accident has already cost but also how the injury may affect someone’s ability to work, function independently, participate in normal activities, and obtain future medical treatment.
Illinois generally requires personal injury actions to be filed within two years after the cause of action accrues under 735 ILCS 5/13-202. Certain circumstances can involve different rules or deadlines, so the general two-year period should not be treated as universally applicable to every accident.
Waiting can also damage a case even when the formal filing deadline has not expired. Important electronic records, video evidence, vehicle data, and witness information may become unavailable much sooner. I prefer to investigate a serious crash while the evidence is still available.
A distracted driver may deny using a phone or insist that the collision happened too quickly to avoid. Those statements do not end the investigation. Electronic records, vehicle data, video footage, witness accounts, physical evidence, and inconsistencies in the driver’s explanation may help establish what actually occurred before impact.
At SJ INJURY LAW, I represent people injured in serious vehicle accidents in Schaumburg, Arlington Heights, Buffalo Grove, Des Plaines, Elk Grove Village, Mount Prospect, Northbrook, Palatine, Rolling Meadows, Prospect Heights, Wheeling, Park Ridge, Rosemont, and Glenview, as well as Chicago and communities throughout Illinois.
If you believe a distracted driver caused your serious car accident, contact SJ INJURY LAW to discuss your legal options. Contact our Schaumburg motor vehicle accident attorney at SJ INJURY LAW by calling (847) 434-3555 to receive your free consultation.
Client injured by a distracted driver who was texting at the time…
Student was injured and fractured several bones and required surgery to…
While at work operating a piece of manufacturing equipment, the safety…
Woman was bitten on her face by what she believed to be a vicious…
Our client suffered a back injury and will undergo spine surgery…
Client's vehicle was forced into oncoming traffic, colliding with a semi-truck...
We are highly experienced personal injury lawyers. We know how to help accident victims receive the full financial compensation they deserve. Our Winning Team is focused, dedicated, and sensitive to each of our client's needs. We are here to help you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.