Distraction is the most commonly denied cause of a serious crash, because the only witness to it is the person responsible. The good news is that phones and vehicles both keep records, and those records can be obtained if someone asks for them in time.
Updated September 2026
This page is attorney advertising. It offers general information about Missouri law and is not legal or medical advice for your situation. Reading this page or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship, which is formed only by a written agreement signed by both you and the firm. Any case results described are specific to the facts of those cases; past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any other matter. Finney Injury Law is licensed to practice law in the State of Missouri. The full disclaimer appears at the bottom of this page.
A distracted driving case is an evidence problem, not an argument. The driver will say they were paying attention, and there is usually no witness who can say otherwise. What can say otherwise is data.
Phone carriers hold call and data records. Handsets log app activity and screen state. Many vehicles record whether a phone was paired and what it was doing through the infotainment system, and most modern cars store pre-crash speed, throttle, and braking. None of it depends on the driver's honesty.
Call and text metadata from the carrier establishes timing. The handset itself holds considerably more, including app usage, screen activity, and location history. Carrier retention windows are limited, and a preservation request has to be made before the relevant period rolls off.
Vehicle infotainment systems commonly log paired devices, calls, messages, and media activity, and the event data recorder captures speed, throttle position, braking, and seat belt status in the seconds before impact. A driver who claims to have braked early is often contradicted by their own vehicle.
The clearest signature of distraction is frequently what is missing: no skid marks, no braking in the recorder data, no steering input. A driver who is looking at the road brakes. A driver who never brakes at all was looking somewhere else, and reconstruction can demonstrate that.
Navigation, food, grooming, reaching for a dropped object, children in the back seat, and being absorbed in conversation all cause the same failure. Missouri restricts handheld phone use while driving, but a claim does not depend on a traffic citation; it depends on proving the driver failed to keep a careful lookout.
A driver ran a red light. Our client required multiple disc replacements and a lower back fusion, and developed blood clots during treatment. The case was tried, and a St. Louis County jury returned $10,000,000.
In another case, a young driver ran a red light and caused a head injury affecting our client's memory, vision, and quality of life. There we recovered the full $250,000 policy limit — the maximum available, which is a reminder that available coverage, not the severity of the harm, is sometimes the ceiling.
A driver does not run a red light while watching the road. These are distraction cases whether or not anyone ever admits to a phone.
Past results do not guarantee a future outcome, and every case depends on its own facts. These are public-record results that show what trial-prepared representation can produce.
A red light runner. Multiple disc replacements, a lower back fusion, and blood clots. A St. Louis County jury returned $10,000,000. Read full story →
A client on his way to Sunday mass faced an extended recovery and significant disruption to his life. The jury returned $4,000,000. Read full story →
A young driver ran a red light and caused a serious head injury affecting memory, vision, and quality of life. We secured the full $250,000 policy limit. Read full story →
If you observed the driver's head down, a lit screen, a phone in hand, or no reaction at all before impact, record it the same day with the time and your vantage point. A contemporaneous note is evidence. A recollection offered eighteen months later is impeachable.
Carrier records and handset data both have limited windows, and vehicles get repaired or sold, taking the event data with them. Written preservation demands to the driver, their insurer, and where appropriate the carrier are time-critical.
Photograph the roadway for skid marks or their absence, and note where debris came to rest. A driver who never braked leaves a very different scene than one who did, and that difference is measurable.
Intersection cameras, nearby business surveillance, doorbell cameras, and dashcams in other vehicles frequently capture the moments before a crash. Most overwrite quickly, so they must be identified and requested within days.
Through records rather than admissions. Carrier call and data logs establish timing; the handset holds app usage, screen activity, and location data; and vehicle infotainment systems commonly log paired devices and their activity. Combined with event data recorder information showing no braking, this evidence can establish distraction without the driver ever conceding it.
In litigation, yes, through discovery and subpoena, subject to the court's rules on relevance and scope. What cannot be undone is data that was already destroyed, which is why the preservation demand at the outset matters more than the subpoena later.
No. A citation is helpful evidence but it is not an element of your claim. The legal question is whether the driver failed to exercise the highest degree of care and keep a careful lookout, and that can be proved by data and reconstruction regardless of what law enforcement charged at the scene.
It is still negligence. Eating, grooming, reaching for an object, adjusting navigation, or being absorbed by passengers all produce the same failure to watch the road. The claim rests on the failure to keep a careful lookout, not on the particular source of the distraction.
That is the more common fight, and it is where cases are actually won or lost. Conceding liability costs an insurer nothing while it disputes causation and damages. In our St. Louis County red light case the injuries required multiple disc replacements and a fusion, and it took a trial to get to $10,000,000.
Then their employer may also be responsible, and a commercial policy with much higher limits may apply. Whether someone was driving for work, and whether they were using a phone for work when the crash happened, are among the first things worth establishing in a serious case.
No cost, no obligation, and nothing is shared outside our firm. We read every message and respond quickly.
The decisions you make in the days after an injury affect your ability to recover fair compensation. Free case review. An attorney personally reviews every case. English- and Spanish-speaking staff available.