Do Electric Vehicles (EVs) Pose a Higher Crash Risk?

electric vehicle parked at a charging station Electric vehicles have become a lot more popular over the past decade. People concerned about the environment appreciate that they put out fewer greenhouse gasses and pollutants than other vehicles. Consumers also believe electric vehicles to be safer, but could they actually pose a higher crash risk?

From improved driving performance to lower fuel costs, there is no doubt that there are a lot of positives to driving an electric vehicle. That said, it is important that drivers understand the inherent risks of these vehicles as well. To that end, Schmidt Kramer talks about some electric vehicle features that are more dangerous to drivers, occupants and others sharing the road.

Injured in a collision caused by a negligent driver? Not sure if you have a valid claim? These are both great reasons to contact our law offices. We have staff available to take your call anytime, night or day.

An initial consultation with one of our experienced auto accident lawyers in Harrisburg is completely free. Request yours today to find out if you have legal options.

Do Electric Vehicles Pose a Higher Crash Risk?

Research shows that electric vehicles are widely advertised as being environmentally friendly, economical and safe. It is true that there are many impressive safety features in these vehicles. However, some electric vehicle components may actually increase the risk of a crash.

The Silent Approach of Electric Vehicles Can Be Deadly

Electric vehicles are known to be exceptionally quiet. This feature may be appreciated in many residential neighborhoods, but it also poses a serious crash risk for pedestrians and cyclists.

The problem is that anyone out riding a bike or enjoying a walk will be unable to hear these vehicles approaching. This is dangerous enough even when a driver is paying attention. If the driver is distracted, impaired or speeding in a school zone or other busy traffic area, it could greatly increase the risk of a crash.

Those most at risk of being hit by an approaching electric vehicle include:

Children playing in residential areas or school zones
Pedestrians with headphones on or texting and walking
Impaired or drowsy pedestrians walking at night
Cyclists
Motorcycle riders
Visually impaired people who rely on sound to warn them of danger
Elderly pedestrians

Are Electric Vehicles More Dangerous if a Crash Occurs?

Electric vehicles may be safer in some ways. However in a collision, the lithium batteries could make these vehicles far more dangerous than their gas-powered counterparts.

Lithium Batteries May Explode, Burn and Reignite Multiple Times

The smooth and quiet operation of electric vehicles is powered by lithium batteries. If a crash occurs, there is a chance these batteries could ignite or explode. With a gas-powered vehicle, it is well-known that a wayward spark could cause the vehicle to catch fire. With electric vehicles, no spark is required. The impact of a crash alone could cause lithium batteries to overheat and ignite or explode.

The other unique and dangerous issue with these batteries is that once they ignite, they are extremely difficult to put out. Lithium batteries can also reignite multiple times after the initial fire is extinguished. This could happen not only right after the collision, but days or even weeks later.

One real-life example of this happening is the Tesla Model S that caught fire three weeks after it had been taken to a junkyard. Firefighters extinguished the fire multiple times only to have it repeatedly reignite. They ended up submerging the vehicle in a pit of water.

An Exploding Battery Emits Hazardous Fumes

Another concern if a lithium battery explodes or ignites is that it puts out toxic fumes that could be extremely hazardous to anyone in or near the vehicle.

The Increased Weight of EVs Can Cause Catastrophic Injuries in a Crash

The weight of an electric vehicle in a crash is even more concerning than the possibility of batteries igniting, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The driver and occupants of an electric vehicle might be more protected. However, lighter vehicles involved in a collision with an EV would not fare so well. The damage to these vehicles would be significant, which is also more likely to result in severe or catastrophic injuries.

There is a Risk of Electric Shock Following a Crash

Any contact with battery components could cause an electric shock, which could be fatal. Therefore, after a crash with an electric vehicle, it is important to take these precautions:

Always assume an electric vehicle is still at full power, even after a collision
Immediately roll down the windows of an EV before turning the car off and removing the key from the ignition
Never touch the engine compartment, any exposed wiring, the battery or anything else under the hood

When calling 9-1-1 to notify them about a traffic accident, let them know if one of the vehicles involved in the crash is electric.

Increased Weight May Make Drivers More Careless

Electric vehicles are heavier, which means in a crash the drivers and passengers may be more protected during the impact. Just knowing this makes certain types of drivers more likely to be reckless or take risks behind the wheel.

For example, these drivers may be more likely to speed or aggressively tailgate other vehicles. Studies of behavioral data call this the car cushion hypothesis. The safer drivers feel in a car, due to the size or weight, the more likely certain some drivers are to engage in risky driving behaviors.

Is it a Bad Idea to Buy an Electric Vehicle?

Not at all. However, as with any large piece of machinery, it is important to understand both the advantages and inherent risks. Drivers owe a duty of care to prevent causing harm to others. If you drive an electric vehicle, this means being aware that a pedestrian or cyclist may not hear you approaching. Taking greater care to adhere to traffic laws and being mindful of potential road hazards, including those caused by bad weather, are vital. Whether or not you drive an electric vehicle, driving defensively can help you to avoid causing a serious or catastrophic crash.

As a pedestrian or other vulnerable road user, it is also important to know about electric vehicles. You can protect yourself by:

Paying closer attention to the road while walking – i.e. putting away your cellphone
Not automatically walking into the street without checking for traffic and ensuring vehicles have stopped
Checking for other potential hazards, such as an approaching vehicle that is swerving
Wearing clothing or even reflective gear that will help you to be seen better by drivers

Call to Discuss Your Crash With an Experienced Lawyer

At Schmidt Kramer, we work hard for victims injured by the negligence of others. We have decades of experience and a history of proven results. While we are able to negotiate a fair and just settlement in most cases, we are also prepared to represent you in a trial.

Contact our law offices to learn about your legal options today. Your initial case review is completely free, and if you choose our firm to represent you, there are also no upfront costs to pay.

Schmidt Kramer. We get you results. (717) 727-1403

Free Case Review

No Upfront Fees

Testimonials

Greg W
Badreddine Saadoune
Michael Kosik was great, I couldn't have asked for a better lawyer. He worked to make sure my medical bills were adjusted appropriately to state law (since I was a victim) and worked hard to make sure I got an appropriate settlement. He is a very kind and understanding person who took the time to explain everything to me in great detail.
Darryl
Jessica Mitchell is lovely, she took care everything in a wonderful way. Definitely I would recommend her.
Mogart Febres
Abbie Trone!! I love her!! She’s amazing! She made everything easy. She was very nice to me! She took very care of my case & If need be i will use her again!!
Desiree Cannon

Recent Results

$10,043,952.13 Personal Injury
Schmidt Kramer, P.C.partner Gerard C. Kramer won a personal injury action for $10,043,952.13 in Northumberland County on behalf of a volunteer firefighter who was the victim of Intentional Tort. The 50-year-old volunteer firefighter was seriously injured when a barn collapsed, causing a spinal injury which left him a paraplegic. The claim was brought against the arsonist who intentionally started the fire. It is believed that the verdict is the highest ever in Northumberland County.
View Results
$4,034,000.00 Personal Injury
Yesterday a Judge in Union County (Lewisburg, PA) awarded a couple from New Berlin, Pennsylvania, over $4,000,000 because the husband was shot while turkey hunting.You might ask yourself, how does a turkey hunting accident end up with that type of verdict? In order to understand the verdict you would have to know our clients. They are good people who had their life wrecked. Plus, you would have to know the defendant, who should not have been hunting with a gun because he was prohibited after a previous criminal conviction.It is a good verdict, because the Judge was able to do two things with his decision. First, he communicated to two very good people that their losses were something that those of us on the outside could appreciate and value. Mike Hobbins (our client) is a 51 year old guy who lost his sight because a convicted felon --who should not have even possessed a gun-- went hunting illegally, and broke with impunity the most fundamental rule in hunting: identify your target before you pull the trigger. The Judge accepted the financial loss Mr. Hobbins' suffered, but listened closely to the evidence of less tangible losses. When Mike broke down on the stand, because his daughter would end up walking him down the aisle at her wedding, as opposed to how it was supposed to go, the Judge was listening. When Mike could not keep it together, because of how emasculating it was for him not to be able to provide financially for his family, the Judge was listening. It was facts like these that the Judge cited to support the $2,000,000 award for non-economic damages. Second, the Judge wanted to send a message. Union County is a hunting county. Many of the residents hunt there, and people from outside the area come to Union County to hunt. It was my impression, from the Judge's statements as he rendered his decision, that he wanted to send a message to the people in Union County to protect them in their sport. The rules in place to restrict people convicted of crimes not to have a gun are not to be broken. Hunting is serious and you have to identify your target before you shoot. When you turn your back on the rules that are set to provide safety in a sport, you risk being an example. Here, the $1,000,000 punitive damage award sends that message loud and clear.When it really comes down to brass tacks, the right action was taken against a Defendant who may never truly appreciate what kind of impact his reckless choices caused.At Schmidt Kramer, we are injury lawyers. That means we work with people who were hurt in car accidents, who were hurt by the neglect of nursing homes, or those that were seriously injured because of the reckless, thoughtless acts of others. If you or a loved one have been injured in Pennsylvania, we may be able to help. While the verdict yesterday is not one that is representative of every case we do, it does show that serious and dedicated representation can bring good results.Joe ChapmanJanuary 18, 2013
View Results
$2,200,000.00 Auto Accidents
On Monday, January 6, 2014, Schmidt Kramer accident lawyer Scott Cooper obtained a verdict on behalf of his client who is the widow of a man who died in a fiery crash on Interstate 78 in Lebanon County. The awarded verdict of $2.2 million was in a nonjury proceeding before a federal judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. That verdict includes $100,000 in punitive damages assessed against the owner of the trucking company.Kamilah Claxton won summary judgment in November after the defendants, Sukhwinder Singh and the trucking company for which he worked, failed to file a brief in opposition to Claxton's motion, which was made in September. The verdict in Claxton v. Singh was issued after the court held a non-jury assessment of damages earlier this month."Mr. Sukhchan Singh, the employer, is liable on the basis of respondent superior, but was also grossly negligent in failing to maintain his vehicle in compliance with state and federal law, particularly with regard to having required safety inspections and correcting defects in its braking equipment," said U.S. District Judge William W. Caldwell of the Middle District of Pennsylvania in his opinion accompanying the verdict."He was also grossly negligent in entrusting his vehicle to Sukhwinder Singh, an inexperienced truck driver who had failed the written test and driving test multiple times before finally earning his commercial driving license," Caldwell said.
View Results
$1,200,000.00 Personal Injury
A Dauphin County jury has awarded a $1.2 million verdict to the parents of a 5-year-old who had an anoxic brain injury and stopped breathing after he had a tonsillectomy.2012-06-26 10:00:00 AMDate of Verdict: June 19. 2012Court and Case No.: C.P. Dauphin County No. 2009-CV-14003-MMJudge: Scott EvansType of Action: Medical malpracticeInjuries: Anoxic brain injuryPlaintiffs Counsel: Terry S. Hyman, Schmidt Kramer, HarrisburgPlaintiffs Experts: Dr. Anna H. Messner, liability; Lucille Packer, Pediatric Otolaryngology, Palo Alto, Calif.; Terry P. Leslie, vocations and earning capacity, Lancaster; Dr. Hilary B. Berlin, pediatric psychiatry, Great Neck, N.Y.Defense Counsel: Andrew H. Foulkrod, Darlene K. King, Foulkrod Ellis, Camp Hill, PADefense Experts: James C. Reilly, Pediatric Otolaryngology, Wilmington, DEComment: A Dauphin County jury has awarded a $1.2 million verdict to the parents of a 5-year-old who had an anoxic brain injury and stopped breathing after he had a tonsillectomy.The entire verdict came against Dr. Andrew M. Shapiro, the doctor who plaintiffs Reginald Graham and Tykeisha Metz alleged chose to have the boy monitored at a pediatric ward. The plaintiffs argued Shapiro failed to tell nurses caring for the baby about, and how to care for, the boy's enhanced risk for respiratory failure.The jury came back on June 19 and awarded Reginald Graham and Tykeisha Mets $500,000 in non-economic damages and $686,170 in loss of future earning capacity, according to the plaintiffs counsel.According to the statement, the baby's mother brought him to Shapiro because she was "'afraid that he might stop breathing during his sleep,'" the plaintiffs' pretrial statement said. Shapiro performed a sleep study and observed the baby's Apnea Hypopnea Index to be 43 — four times higher than what's considered severe. A tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy were performed.According to the plaintiffs, the baby's sleep study results put him at an increased risk for post-operative respiratory complications. Despite this, they argued in the statement, Shapiro ordered the pediatric nurses at the Harrisburg Hospital general pediatric ward to observe the boy as they would any other patients — about once every four hours.The pretrial statement said that one in four children who have an AHI in the 40s and oxygen desaturation below 80 have some type of respiratory problem. The younger the child, the greater the risk of a respiratory problem, the statement said.According to the statement, Shapiro took off the child's pulse oximeter, the finger-mounted device used to measure blood oxygen, and ordered a heart and respiratory rate monitor. The child was 11 months old at the time.The plaintiffs pled that the baby was last seen at 4 a.m. There was no record of his oxygen saturation for the next hour and 45 minutes. He stopped breathing a 6:40 a.m., and his brain was without oxygen long enough to cause demonstrable injury on an MRI."Immediately prior to his surgery, [the child] was a normal child, who could say mama, eat finger foods, and was just on the verge of walking," the statement said. "After his code, [he] was like a newborn. He could not lift his head or sit up. He could not talk. He could not move."In his pretrial statement, Shapiro argued that he recognized the child's pre-operative sleep study showed he was driven to breath by decreased blood oxygen saturation, which he said was typical in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.He argued the American Academy of Otolaryngology dictates that admission to the intensive care unit is not the standard of care. In the statement, he said nurses did not observe signs of respiratory distress. No alarms sounded until the child arrested, the statement said.He said the baby likely arrested as a result of hypoglycemia and/or an acute aspiration, which he argued would not have been identified by blood oxygen saturation.— Ben Present, of the Law Weekly
View Results
$1,024,040.80 Auto Accidents
Scott Cooper settled a wrongful death case on behalf of the widow of a police office who was killed in a car accident in the line of duty for $1,024,040.80. The claim against the other driver was amicably resolved before suit was filed for the entire available policy limits for the other driver. The case took place in Adams County, PA.
View Results

Electric Vehicles – Do They Pose a Higher Crash Risk?