That’s what executives at retail giant Sports Authority are hoping they can achieve. Like many businesses focused on brick-and-mortar stores, the chain has struggled in recent years as consumers have shifted toward online shopping. The company has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, giving it a period of time to reorganize, during which it will be protected from creditors.

Some people mistakenly think that when a business declares bankruptcy, that means it goes out of business forever. And indeed, about 140 of the chain’s 463 stores will close, including at least two in the greater Tampa Bay area. However, CEO Michael Foss said the move will allow much-needed investments including upgrades to stores and website enhancements, resulting in an improved experience for customers.

In January, Sports Authority missed a $20 million interest payment to creditors.

Many companies have filed bankruptcy and later achieved stability, or even impressive growth. Examples include General Motors, Marvel Entertainment, Six Flags, American Airlines and Kodak.

O. Reginald (“Reggie”) Osenton is the Owner and President of Osenton Law Office If you need a Commercial Bankruptcy attorney in Brandon, Tampa business bankruptcy lawyer, call 813.654.5777 or visit http://www.brandonlawoffice.com.

Many large companies are jumping on the bandwagon. General Motors recently announced a $500 investment in ride-sharing company Lyft as part of a joint venture to develop self-driving vehicles. Shortly after that, Tesla announced it was hiring a former Apple and AMD software architect veteran to spearhead its Autopilot Engineering team. Other big companies – Google, Apple, Nissan, Uber, Mercedes-Benz, Bosch and Delphi Automotive – each have their own programs in development for self-driving cars.

Still, we may need to hit the brakes on the idea for a while. Aside from the technical challenges that remain, the bigger issue is the regulatory and liability issues.

Driverless cars would effectively give us a 3,000-pound death machine with no human at the helm. So then let’s say there is a crash. Let’s say someone is hurt. Who is going to be liable for that? The vehicle manufacturer? The software developer? The human who is not in control?

Human drivers may make driving judgments that technically break the law, but are in fact the safer option. An example would be crossing a yellow line to go around a double-parked car. But are software companies or vehicle manufacturers going to program their vehicles to break traffic laws? What about when traffic laws vary from state-to-state?

And then there is the question of insurance. Are insurance companies going to need to cover the individual car or the vehicle owner? And in that case, who is actually responsible for a crash? The navigation system? The software company? The manufacturer? The person in the car who isn’t driving?

In a recent survey taken by more than 200 experts in the autonomous vehicle field, the top three obstacles to driverless vehicles in our future would be:

• Legal liability
• Policymakers
• Customer acceptance

There are some who say that at least when it comes to long-distance trucks, driverless vehicles will be here sooner than we think. At the very least, automated systems could do the dangerous, long-distance work on the highway, and then the driver would take over once the vehicle reaches the destination city limits. That would potentially allow companies to have hauls delivered much faster, without running afoul of hours of service rules.

But this still leaves serious questions about who would be liable if that truck crashed? After all, no machine is full-proof.

There are a number of theories about this. Recently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced that when it comes to self-driving vehicles, the car manufacturer – not the human passenger – will be liable.

The Washington Post recently explored this issue in-depth. First, the report suggested that car accidents may increasingly become a matter of product liability. That is, vehicle manufacturers will face intense scrutiny in crashes, with victims likely asserting the maker is liable because the car didn’t operate as intended.

That could mean many crash cases could ultimately be filed against Google and other software giants. So if the courts establish a duty of care owed by software companies to road users, those software companies will need to make sure they are covered with adequate liability insurance, and most cases would likely be settled.

But even given the noted position of federal regulators, the states have yet to weigh in on it, and that’s really the basis of how insurance companies will structure their plans – and how injured parties will ultimately be paid.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

The big question about driverless cars no one seems to be able to answer, Feb. 17, 2016, By Brian Fung, The Washington Post

More Blog Entries:

Wrong-Way Driver Kills Self, Pedestrian and Injures 7, Feb. 25, 2016, Miami Car Accident Attorney Blog

Automatic braking technology uses laser, radar or camera systems to detect an impending collision and apply the brakes automatically, preventing or at least lessening the severity of crashes.

Volvo, Volkswagen, Toyota, Tesla, Mercedes-Benz, Mazda, General Motors, Ford, BMW and Audi will make these systems standard on all the car, SUV and truck models they sell. More than half of the new vehicles sold in the U.S. are sold by these companies.

The news was announced by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). IIHS is a research group funded by the insurance industry.

IIHS President Adrian Lund said that the systems have vast potential to reduce accidents, because most collisions are caused by human error. Lund said that automatic braking systems are always on alert, never getting distracted or tired.

Automatic braking technology is most effective at preventing rear-end crashes, which are extremely common. According to government statistics, rear-end collisions caused 1,700 deaths and 500,000 injuries in 2012.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended in June that automatic braking be required as standard equipment on all new cars.

IIHS said that its research indicates automatic braking could reduce auto insurance injury claims by approximately 35 percent.

Beginning with the 2012 model year, new cars have been required to feature electronic stability control, a system that helps prevent skids.

According to a study by Boston Consulting Group, if a number of auto safety technologies that are currently available as options, such as automatic braking and lane-departure warnings, were made more widely available, nearly 10,000 traffic fatalities per year could be prevented, and $251 billion saved.

If you were injured in an automobile accident, contact Briskman Briskman & Greenberg for a free consultation. To learn more call 1.877.595.4878 or visit http://www.briskmanandbriskman.com/.

By Mary Ellis LaGarde

The bill was introduced by Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. It may have little chance of passing this year, but the proposed legislation is seen as a response to car safety violations that have led to deaths. GM has been a particular target after a defective ignition switch on recalled vehicles was linked to at least 13 deaths. 

Sen. McCaskill called GM executives before a Senate committee on two occasions earlier this year to question them about the recall. GM engineers allegedly attempted to cover up the defect by changing a part without changing the part number. Investigators working for personal injury attorneys uncovered the change.

The proposed legislation, the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Enhancement Act, would raise penalties for car safety violations from $5,000 to $25,000 per violation. It would eliminate the current cap on penalties at $35 million. In addition, under the bill, federal prosecutors could seek sentences of up to life in prison for those involved with safety violations that cause death.

If you need to speak with a auto accident lawyer, Call Joyce & Reyes at 1.888.771.1529 or visit more of http://www.joyceandreyespa.com/.

The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) conducted a study of insurance claims on vehicles due to fires unrelated to crashes. The vehicles were divided into two categories: a group of those for which a recall was issued due to fire-related defects, and the control group, for which no such recalls were issued.

As you would expect, the study showed a significantly higher rate of fire-related insurance claims on the defective vehicles. During the time period before the recall was issued, claims on defective vehicles were 23 percent higher than non-defective vehicles. But, importantly, that gap shrank to 12 percent in the time following the issuance of the recall.

The study demonstrates that issuing a recall makes a significant difference in the rate of defect-related damage – in this case, it was cut in half. But it also shows that aggregate risk remains elevated even after the recall. An exact conclusion on this second point was beyond the scope of the study, but researchers reasonably theorized that some vehicle owners were unaware of the recall or failed to comply with it.

Auto owners can check for recalls on their cars by going to safecar.gov.

The biggest vehicle recall of the moment has been issued by General Motors. GM has recalled some 6 million cars of various models for faulty ignition switches and power steering. GM itself has linked the faulty ignitions with 13 deaths and 31 crashes. Some claim the number is higher.

The ignition switch may cause the engine to suddenly shut off while driving, which also prevents the airbags from inflating if the car then crashes. A crash is quite likely; many drivers are startled and confused when their vehicles suddenly turn off for no reason.

GM has issued urgent guidance to owners of the recalled vehicles. Owners should, of course, take their cars to GM service stations as soon as possible. But if they must drive in the meantime, they should drive with nothing extra hanging from the vehicle’s key – no extra keys or key fobs. Apparently, the weight of larger keychains pulling down on the key makes the defective ignition more likely to malfunction.

Recalls are almost always free of charge. Do your part to make driving safer – look for and heed vehicle recalls.

If you need to speak with a auto accident lawyer, Call Joyce & Reyes at 1.888.771.1529 or visit more of http://www.joyceandreyespa.com/.

According to the information released when this wrongful death lawsuit was filed, General Motors knew about an issue involving faulty ignition switches in some of its vehicles. Such a switch allegedly caused the death of 32-year-old Aubrey Williams in December 2013. Williams was driving on Alabama Highway 64 when the ignition switch failed. Her Cobalt lost power and veered into the westbound lane, where it collided with an 18-wheeler. Her airbag did not deploy.

Williams’ father filed the wrongful death lawsuit, naming several defendants, including General Motors, the ignition switch manufacturer, the auto dealership where she bought the car and the repair shop where she had her vehicle serviced. 

In light of multiple accidents caused by this defective switch, GM recalled 1.6 million vehicles, indicating that the defective switch could cause sudden loss of steering, braking and engine power. Despite the recall, the U.S. Department of Justice is launching a criminal investigation, and hundreds of Americans are filing lawsuits.

After the accident investigation was concluded, the police allegedly became aware of the recall and the faulty ignition switch. Their accident report was changed to name mechanical failure as the cause of the crash. 

According to the family attorney, GM knew about this issue for more than ten years before taking action. More than 300 deaths may be attributed to this particular switch. Currently, GM has admitted that the switch issue caused 12 of these deaths. In filing a wrongful death lawsuit, the family may be able to send the giant automaker a message. It is unacceptable, egregious and negligent to leave known errors unresolved before marketing their vehicles to an unsuspecting and trusting public. 

This lawsuit is likely to take a long time moving through the courts, and the family may face too many financial issues to cope with their bills. Litigation funding, also referred to as lawsuit loans or pre-settlement funding, would be a strong solution to their economic dilemma.

Plaintiffs with a winnable case may call a lawsuit loan company once they have hired an attorney. They will be asked to outline the case details and wait for approval. Once an applicant is approved, interim litigation funding is sent directly to the applicant’s bank account within 48 hours. Once there, the funds may be used to pay bills, including funeral and burial costs. In this case, Williams left behind two small children. Any monies obtained through a lawsuit loan could also help the family care for them.
Litigation funding is often crucial for cash-poor plaintiffs. Though such funding may not suit everyone, it can help many hang on until a settlement or trial is reached.

Daren Monroe writes for Litigation Funding Corp. To learn more about lawsuit funding and litigation funding, visit http://www.litigationfundingcorp.com/.

The GM recall includes the following models:

• 2005-07 Chevrolet Cobalt
• 2005-07 Pontiac G5
• 2003-07 Saturn Ion
• 2003-07 Chevy HHR
• 2003-07 Pontiac Solstice
• 2003-07 Saturn Sky
• 2006-11 Chevy HHR

By Richard LaGarde

Honda is introducing two new safety systems that alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians and motorcyclists using signals emitted by their mobile phones. The systems use Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC), the same type of technology currently used to collect some highway tolls and planned for future vehicle-to-vehicle safety systems.

When an approaching pedestrian is sensed by the system, which uses the GPS from the pedestrian’s phone, a warning sounds in the car and an alert is sent to the pedestrian’s phone. The car warning even lets the driver know whether the pedestrian is on the phone, texting or listening to music, which strikes some critics as invasive and unnecessary.

In the case of motorcyclists, a warning sounds in the vehicle but no alert is sent to the motorcyclist’s phone. The system could help warn drivers of pedestrians and motorcyclists who are hidden from view, for example a pedestrian who is about to step out from between two parked cars.

When the system senses a pedestrian or motorcyclist, it calculates the risk of a collision. If a risk is detected, then alarms sound in the vehicle and a display flashes reading “brake.” The pedestrian’s cell phone gets a message reading “watch out” and a honking sound.

The system is similar to one unveiled by General Motors last year, except that the GM system uses WiFi Direct to detect pedestrians, rather than DSRC.

Both systems have obstacles to overcome before they will be widely useful. In the case of GM’s system, most cell phones are equipped with WiFi Direct, but if users do not download GM’s app, they will not be detected by GM cars. In Honda’s case, DSRC is not usually found in cell phones, so the automaker would have to convince manufacturers to include the technology in future handsets.

Of course, neither system does anything to protect a pedestrian or motorcyclist who is not carrying a cell phone.

The new technologies are still in the experimental phase, and are part of a wave of advances focusing on so-called active safety, such as warnings of collisions ahead of the driver or lane-departure warnings. Honda sees the wireless technologies as a feature that could become widely available in vehicles, in contrast to built-in sensors and backup cameras that are only available on higher-end models.

Paul Greenberg is a Chicago personal injury attorney and lawyer with Briskman Briskman & Greenberg. To learn more call 1.877.595.4878 or visit http://www.briskmanandbriskman.com/.