Foley Automotive Update 22 January 2025
Foley is here to help you through all aspects of rethinking your long-term business strategies, investments, partnerships, and technology. Contact the authors, your Foley relationship partner, or our Automotive Team to discuss and learn more.
Key Developments
Foley & Lardner assessed automotive supply chain implications of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Final Rule prohibiting the import and sale of connected vehicles and related components linked to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Russia.
Foley & Lardner evaluated a number of import risks and opportunities under the Trump administration. On January 20, President Trump stated he intends to establish 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico on February 1. Trump on January 20 indicated he is “not ready” to impose universal tariffs, but he subsequently mentioned the possibility of a 10% tariff on Chinese imports, as well as potential levies on goods from the European Union. Multiple federal agencies were directed to evaluate U.S. trade policy and provide recommendations by April 1.
The Canadian government developed a draft list of C$150 billion ($105 billion) of U.S.-manufactured items that could be subject to retaliatory tariffs.
Unspecified sources in The Wall Street Journal suggest the Trump administration may pursue early renegotiation of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement instead of maintaining the timetable for statutory review scheduled in 2026.
Foley & Lardner reviewed potential scenarios for the regulation of vehicle, engine, and equipment emissions under the new Trump administration.
President Trump on January 20 issued a broad Unleashing American Energy executive order directing all agencies to “immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-169) or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58), including but not limited to funds for electric vehicle charging stations.” The same order called for “terminating, where appropriate, state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles,” and it revoked an August 2021 executive order that established a goal for 50% of all new light vehicle sales to be zero-emissions by 2030.
S&P Global Mobility assessed the automotive industry impact of the executive orders and announcements issued during Trump’s first day in office. Shifting policies in areas that include tariffs and emissions regulations are expected to present notable risk to suppliers in 2025.
Bain & Company analysis published this month suggests a growing number of automotive suppliers are at risk for liquidity challenges that will require OEM support to prevent insolvency.
Cox Automotive estimates total U.S. new-light-vehicle inventory reached 2.88 million units at the start of January 2025, representing a 75 days’ supply industrywide and an increase of 18% compared to January 2024.
Foley & Lardner provided an overview of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) final rule formalizing its whistleblower program under the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act.
Auto industry consolidation may increase in the coming decade, due to factors that include the high development costs for automated, autonomous and software-defined vehicles, as well as increased competition from Chinese automakers. Certain legacy automakers may experience a “slow contraction” as they eliminate brands, close plants, and exit underperforming markets.
Market research firm Gartner predicts several North American and European auto plants are at risk of being closed or sold in 2025, as automobile brands struggle with overcapacity and price competition.
The China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) estimates China’s automotive exports rose 19% year-over-year in 2024, and exports across all engine types are forecast to rise by 5.8% YOY to 6.2 million units in 2025. CAAM predicts vehicle sales within China will increase 4.7% YOY to 32.9 million units in 2025, from sales of just under 23 million units in 2024. The nation’s domestic battery electric vehicle (BEV) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) sales are projected to rise 24.4% in 2025, compared to a jump of 35.5% in 2024.
New vehicle registrations in the European Union reached 10.6 million units in 2024, up by 0.8% YOY, according to analysis from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA). In 2024, registrations of BEVs fell by 5.9%, PHEV registrations fell by 6.8%, and hybrid-electric registrations increased 20.9%.
OEMs/Suppliers
Chrysler owner Stellantis, in a January 9 brief, asked a California federal judge to preserve its lawsuit accusing the United Auto Workers of making an unlawful strike threat. Foley & Lardner recently provided a summary of the ongoing litigation between Stellantis and the UAW and its local chapters regarding the union’s threats to strike if Stellantis does not move forward with planned investment in its U.S. operations.
BMW, GM and Volkswagen reported their China sales volumes declined by double-digit percentages YOY in 2024.
Toronto-based Markdom Michigan Plastics Inc. will invest over $19 million to establish its first U.S. operations near Lansing, Michigan later this year.
Italian automotive design and engineering company Italdesign will invest $20 million to establish its new U.S. headquarters in Bloomfield, Michigan.
Nikkei Asia reports certain automotive suppliers from China are evaluating manufacturing opportunities in the U.S. in pursuit of growth opportunities.
Aptiv announced plans to separate its electrical distribution systems business into a new company.
Following the departure of former CEO Carlos Tavares, Stellantis has pursued plans to strengthen its U.S. brands by reviving certain Jeep and Dodge models. Separately, a Stellantis executive indicated that certain vehicle production decisions are on hold while the automaker awaits clarity on the Trump administration’s policies.
Electric Vehicles and Low Emissions Technology
Global sales of BEVs and PHEVs rose 25% to over 17 million units in 2024.
Global BEV sales in 2025 are forecast to represent 16% of total light-vehicle sales, according to analysis from S&P Global Mobility and BloombergNEF. The combined category of BEVs and PHEVs could rise 30% YOY to 22 million units globally in 2025, for a global light-vehicle market share of 27%. However, S&P expects significant cuts in North American BEVs, “with over 1.7 million units of dedicated BEV nameplate production removed from projections through 2032.”
Automotive News provided a summary of EV launch delays and production pauses.
The California Air Resources Board withdrew an Environmental Protection Agency waiver request to implement the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) rule. The ACF regulation would have required medium- and heavy-duty vehicle fleets in the state to adopt a phased transition to zero-emission vehicles. A separate rule, the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, requires manufacturers to only sell zero-emission trucks in the state beginning in the 2036 model year.
UBS estimates Tesla could earn over $1 billion in compensation this year from competing automakers that pursue regulatory credits in response to stricter emissions standards in the European Union. The ACEA recently stated the industry’s most urgent action for EU leaders is identifying a solution for “compliance burden relief” in regard to 2025 CO2 emissions targets in the bloc, and pursuing realistic decarbonization goals that are not “penalty-driven.”
Lithium-ion battery prices are projected to decline 3% to roughly $112 per kilowatt-hour in 2025, compared to declines of 20% in 2024 and 13% in 2023.
Robert Bosch LLC, a part of the Bosch Group, will invest $13 million to create a Regional Hydrogen Research and Development Hub at the company’s headquarters in Farmington Hills, Michigan.
GM signed a multibillion-dollar supply deal with Norway’s Vianode for synthetic anode graphite battery materials in North America beginning in 2027. The supply agreement is expected to reduce reliance on imports of the critical mineral from China.
Panasonic Energy intends to eliminate reliance on Chinese suppliers in its U.S. vehicle battery production.
Rivian closed a loan agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy for up to $6.6 billion to support construction of a new manufacturing facility in Georgia.
European battery recycling company Envergia Inc. will invest $33 million to establish an EV battery recycling facility in Detroit.
Reuters reports Ford joint venture battery plant workers in Kentucky petitioned the National Labor Relations Board for a vote to unionize with the UAW.
Canada’s federal rebate program for qualifying EV purchases was abruptly paused this month when the program ran out of funding ahead of its original termination date of March 31, 2025. The Incentives for Zero Emissions Vehicles program (iZEV) received consumer rebate claims that surpassed $1 billion last year.
The Associated Press provided an update on the electric vehicle production plans and investments of electronics manufacturers, including Foxconn, Huawei Technologies, and Xiaomi.
Autonomous Technologies and Vehicle Software
The proportion of vehicles impacted by software-related recalls rose to 42% in 2024, up from 13% in 2023, according to a report in Forbes. The article estimated that as little as 13% of software-related recalls can be resolved through over-the-air (OTA) updates.
Over half of the U.S. survey respondents in Deloitte’s 2025 Global Automotive Consumer Study would be willing to pay more for connected services such as collision detection, automatic detection of vehicles and pedestrians, and anti-theft tracking. However, a significant percentage of respondents do not trust automakers, dealers, financial services providers, insurance companies or other entities to manage drivers’ connected vehicle data, and this could present challenges for companies hoping to monetize certain connected services.
Autonomous tech company Aurora announced a strategic partnership with Continental and NVIDIA to deploy driverless trucks at scale, beginning in 2027.
Market Trends and Regulatory
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with GM over claims the automaker collected and shared drivers’ location and driving data without consent. As part of the settlement, the FTC will ban GM from sharing drivers’ data with consumer reporting agencies.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to overturn a Biden administration regulation that requires nearly all new light vehicles to be equipped with “no-contact” automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems by 2029. The finalized AEB rule “requires all cars be able to stop and avoid contact with a vehicle in front of them up to 62 miles per hour and that the systems must detect pedestrians in both daylight and darkness.”
The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) averted a strike and tentatively agreed to a six-year labor contract covering U.S. East and Gulf Coast ports.
NHTSA is investigating reports of engine failures in certain GM models that could affect over 877,000 vehicles produced between 2019 and 2024.
Analysis by Julie Dautermann, Competitive Intelligence Analyst
Flying Taxis Brisbane 2032—Olympic Dream or Reality?
Over the next eight years as elite athletes train with their eyes on winning gold at the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Brisbane, there is another Olympic dream that edges closer to reality—that of flying taxis transporting competitors and spectators around South East Queensland to Olympic venues.
It was hoped that a small fleet of flying taxis would make their Olympic debut at the 2024 Paris Olympics. Unfortunately, flying taxis ‘missed the flight’ in Paris as there were delays in obtaining the requisite air safety certifications from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in time for the Games. Nevertheless, a test flight was carried out on the last day of the 2024 Olympics over Versailles palace, carrying luggage but no people.1
Now air taxi manufacturers have turned their hopes towards the Los Angeles Games in 2028.2 In a positive step forward, in October 2024, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a final rule for operating air taxis and how pilots will be trained to fly them.3 If flying taxis are successfully integrated into the airways for the Los Angeles Games, then in a further four years’ time, they could play an important role at the Brisbane Games.
Flying taxis could assist in managing congestion, with the RACQ Red Spot Congestion Survey 2023 raising concerns about how Queensland roads would cope in 2032.4 Flying taxis could also support Queensland’s tourism industry to allow fast access to regions from Brisbane. The recent Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games Arrangements and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 inserted a new requirement on the Games Independent Infrastructure and Coordination Authority that the Games deliver legacy benefits for all of Queensland, including regional areas.5
The last few months of 2024 have seen flying taxis progress further towards becoming a reality at the Brisbane Olympics:
In November 2024, it was announced that Archerfield Airport Corporation (AAC) and Wisk Aero had signed a Strategic Alliance Agreement to support electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft (eVTOL) air taxis at Archerfield Airport, Queensland. AAC Executive General Manager Rod Parry said at the time that the airport was uniquely well-placed to service the emerging advanced air mobility (AAM) sector given “Archerfield’s central location only 11 kilometres from Brisbane’s CBD and between three 2032 Olympic and Paralympic zones.” He further noted that “By the time of Brisbane’s Olympic Games, eVTOLs will likely be providing essential emissions-free transport services from vertiports around the region, keeping traffic off our busy roads and ensuring the efficient transfer of personnel to key sites throughout South East Queensland.”6
November 2024 also saw AMSL Aero announce that it had completed the first free flight of Vertiia, its passenger-capable, emission-free, long range eVTOL aircraft. The flight was heralded a landmark as it was the first made by an Australian-designed and built eVTOL.7
In December 2024, it was reported that three Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) senior certification engineers had travelled to Santa Cruz, California, to look at how the FAA and Joby Aviation (Joby) are working together to certify the company’s eVTOL Advanced Air Mobility aircraft, the JAS4-1. Joby has applied for the aircraft to be certified by CASA for use in Australia. CASA is collaborating with other aviation authorities on standardising type certification of AAM aircraft.8
Also in December 2024, CASA issued its updated ‘RPAS and AAM Strategic Regulatory Roadmap’ which charts a path for safely integrating remotely piloted aircraft systems and advanced air mobility into Australian airspace and the future regulatory program.9
Over the last three years since it was announced that Brisbane would host the 2032 Games, a lot of conjecture has focused on the location of the stadium. Whichever venue is ultimately selected, to deliver an Olympic legacy that will be fit for purpose for years to come, the stadium and indeed any new infrastructure built for the Games like new hotels and transport hubs, will need to incorporate vertiports and other facilities to cater for flying taxis as they become a way of life in the future.
There is a complex web of Australian laws that govern the innovative technologies of AAM, including flying taxis. AAM operations fall within the domain of regulation by CASA to ensure aviation safety under the Civil Aviation Safety Act 1988 (Cth) and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1988 (Cth).
Beyond CASA requirements, AAM operations and their vertiports are also governed by a broad but fragmented system of different pieces of legislation ranging from town planning to environmental, privacy, safety, property damage, personal injury and radio-communications.
We have extensive experience in assisting clients comply with CASA requirements and advising on the rapidly evolving legal framework that governs AAM operations.
Footnotes
1 Caroline Petrow-Cohen, ‘Aviation startup seeks to bring air taxis to Los Angeles in time for Olympics’, Los Angeles Times (online, 26 September 2024) https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-09-26/startup-seeks-to-bring-air-taxis-to-los-angeles
2 Jack Daleo, ‘Air Taxis Missed Paris Olympics Goal – Could They Soar in LA?’, Flying (12 August 2024) https://www.flyingmag.com/modern/air-taxis-missed-paris-olympics-goal-could-they-soar-in-la/
3 The Associated Press, ‘Flying air taxis move closer to US takeofff with issuing of FAA rule’, AP (online, 23 October 2024) https://apnews.com/article/faa-air-taxis-regulation-electric-aviation-85fd3c8b905a003eff64590afb5da339
4 Rebecca Borg, ‘Making things difficult: New survey finds QLD roads aren’t match fit for 2032 Olympics’, News.com.au (2 July 2023) https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/news/making-things-difficult-new-survey-finds-qld-roads-arent-match-fit-for-2032-olympics/news-story/d2c63c828589679cb3772156dcb637be
5 S.53AE(b) Brisbane Olympics and Paralympics Games Arrangements Act 2021 (Qld)
6 ‘Archerfield Airport and Wisk Aero Sign Strategic Agreement’, Archerfield Airport News (21 November 2024) https://archerfieldairport.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Archerfield-Airport-and-Wisk-Aero-Sign-Strategic-Agreement-1.pdf
7 ‘AMSL Aero Makes Aviation History by Completing Landmark Free Flight of Zero-Emissions Aircraft “Vertiia”, AMSL Aero (18 November 2024) https://www.amslaero.com/news/landmark-free-flight
8 Civil Aviation Safety Authority, ‘Collaboration on advanced air mobility’ (3 December 2024) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/collaboration-advanced-air-mobility-umytc/?trackingId=WNO26%2BqGI0SQocvEDS44RA%3D%3D
9 Civil Aviation Safety Authority, ‘Our updated RPAS and AMM Strategic Regulatory Roadmap is now available’ (11 December 2024) https://www.linkedin.com/company/civil-aviation-safety-authority-casa-/posts/?feedView=all
US Treasury and IRS Unveil Proposed Regulations for Commercial EV Tax Credit, Sparking Questions on Recapture Provisions
On January 10, the US Treasury Department (Treasury) and the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released proposed regulations under Section 45W of the US Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), which provides a US federal income tax credit (Commercial EV Credit) for the purchase and placing in service of a qualifying commercial electric vehicle (EV) after 2022 and before 2033. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-169) added the Commercial EV Credit to the Code along with two other EV tax credits: the current new clean vehicle tax credit under Code Section 30D (originally enacted in 2008) and the previously owned clean vehicle tax credit under Code Section 25E. The proposed regulations, among other things, would provide rules with respect to determining the qualification of an EV for the Commercial EV Credit, the amount of the Commercial EV Credit for a qualifying vehicle, and the situations in which the Commercial EV Credit would be unavailable or subject to recapture. Certain requirements of the Commercial EV Credit under Code Section 45W and under the proposed regulations are discussed more fully below.
The proposed regulations leave many important questions open, especially with respect to the recapture provisions. In the last section below, we discuss these issues and others that will likely become topics for taxpayer comments on the proposed regulations, which are due by March 17.
Commercial EV Credit, Generally
The Commercial EV Credit provides for a US federal income tax credit in an amount equal to the lesser of (x) 15 percent of the taxpayer’s basis in the commercial EV (30 percent in the case of a commercial EV not powered by a gasoline or diesel internal combustion engine (ICE)), or (y) the “incremental cost” of the commercial EV. The “incremental cost” of a “qualified commercial EV” is an amount equal to the excess of the purchase price for the EV over the purchase price of a comparable ICE vehicle in both size and use. The Commercial EV Credit for each qualified commercial EV cannot exceed $7,500 in the case of an EV with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 14,000 pounds, or $40,000 in the case of a heavier commercial EV.
The Commercial EV Credit is a general business tax credit under Code Section 38. It is available for qualified commercial EVs that are “placed in service” by a taxpayer during the taxable year. The proposed regulations would provide that a qualified commercial EV is considered “placed in service” on the date that the taxpayer takes possession of the EV.
Qualified Commercial EVs
Under Code Section 45W, a “qualified commercial EV” for purposes of the Commercial EV Credit includes a commercial EV that:
is made by a qualified manufacturer that has registered as such with the IRS;
is acquired for use or lease by the taxpayer and not for resale;
either is a motor vehicle for purposes of title II of the Clean Air Act, or is manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads and highways, or is mobile machinery;
either is propelled to a significant extent by an electric motor that draws electricity from a battery that has a capacity of not less than 7 kWh (for a commercial EV with a GVWR of less than 14,000 pounds) or 15 kWh (for a commercial EV with a higher GVWR) and is capable of being recharged from an external source of electricity, or is a motor vehicle that is a new qualified fuel cell motor vehicle; and
is used by the taxpayer in a trade or business in the United States (and, therefore, is subject to an allowance for depreciation).
Incremental Cost
Code Section 45W provides that the “incremental cost” of a qualified commercial EV is an amount equal to the excess of the purchase price for the EV over the purchase price of a comparable ICE vehicle in both size and use. The IRS released safe harbors for determining the incremental cost of commercial EVs in 2023 and 2024 (Notices 2023-9 and 2024-5).
Under the proposed regulations, incremental cost is determined by multiplying the manufacturer’s cost of the components necessary for the powertrain of the qualified commercial EV by the retail price equivalent (RPE) of that EV and then subtracting from that amount the product of the manufacturer’s cost of the powertrain of the comparable ICE vehicle and the RPE of the comparable ICE vehicle. The IRS stated that it intends to determine incremental cost based on the propulsion technologies of the vehicles while eliminating, to the extent possible, any cost differences unrelated to those propulsion technologies. The IRS further stated that it intends to issue RPE safe harbors for different vehicle market segments.
The proposed regulations provide that a vehicle powered solely by a gasoline or diesel ICE is comparable in size and use to a qualified commercial EV if the vehicles have substantially similar characteristics, including GVWRs, number of doors, towing capacity, passenger capacity, cargo capacity, mounted equipment, drivetrain type, overall width, height and ground clearance, and trim level. Where a qualified manufacturer produces an ICE vehicle and a qualified commercial EV of the same model and model year with substantially similar characteristics, such ICE vehicle will be the only comparable vehicle to determine incremental cost. If no comparable ICE vehicle exists for a qualified commercial EV, the proposed regulations would provide that a taxpayer may use the incremental cost safe harbors that the IRS may publish on an annual basis. If a qualified manufacturer discloses its incremental cost calculation for a qualified commercial EV, then taxpayers may rely upon that incremental cost calculation to determine the amount of Commercial EV Credit. In addition, taxpayers may rely on the incremental cost safe harbors in Notices 2023-9 and 2024-5, as any subsequent safe harbors issued by the IRS.
Previously Owned Commercial EVs
Unlike the EV tax credit under Section 30D, the Commercial EV Credit under Code Section 45W is not limited to “new” commercial EVs. The proposed regulations would provide that the incremental cost of a qualified commercial EV previously placed in service by another person is calculated by multiplying the incremental cost of that EV when new by a residual value factor determined by the age of the vehicle and as provided in the residual value factor table in the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations also would provide that the age of such a vehicle is determined by subtracting the vehicle’s model year from the calendar year in which the taxpayer places the vehicle in service as a qualified commercial EV.
Although a previously used commercial EV may be eligible for the Commercial EV Credit under Code Section 45W, the Commercial EV Credit is only allowed once per EV, and the Commercial EV Credit is not allowed for any EV for which an EV tax credit under Code Section 30D was previously allowed. A taxpayer claiming the Commercial EV Credit under Code Section 45W for an EV previously placed in service must maintain evidence in their books and records sufficient to establish that no EV tax credits under Code Sections 30D or 45W have been allowed previously with respect to the EV, and in the case of any prior EV tax credit allowed under Code Section 25E, the amount of such prior credit and the taxpayer must provide such information to the IRS upon request. That evidence may include signed attestations from all previous owners of an EV that a credit was not claimed with respect to that EV.
Ineligibility for the Commercial EV Credit and Recapture
Cancelled Sales. If the sale of a qualified commercial EV is cancelled before the taxpayer places the EV into service, then the proposed regulations would provide that the taxpayer cannot claim the Commercial EV Credit for that EV and a subsequent buyer of that EV will not be required to apply the proposed residual value rules applicable to previously owned commercial EVs in determining the incremental cost of the EV.
Returned Commercial EVs. If a taxpayer returns a qualified commercial EV to the seller within 30 days of placing that EV into service, then the proposed regulations would provide that the taxpayer cannot claim the Commercial EV Credit for the returned EV, the returned EV may still be eligible for the Commercial EV Credit, and a subsequent buyer of that EV must apply the proposed residual value rules applicable to previously-owned commercial EVs in determining the incremental cost of the EV.
Commercial EVs Sold Within 30 Days. If a taxpayer sells a qualified commercial EV within 30 days of placing that EV into service, then the proposed regulations would provide that the taxpayer is treated as having acquired the EV with the intent to resell, the taxpayer cannot claim the Commercial EV Credit for that EV, the EV may still be eligible for the Commercial EV Credit, and a subsequent buyer must apply the proposed residual value rules applicable to previously-owned commercial EVs in determining the incremental cost of the EV.
Commercial EVs With Less Than 100 Percent Business Use. If a taxpayer’s trade or business use of a qualified commercial EV for the taxable year that the taxpayer places the EV into service is less than 100 percent of the taxpayer’s total use of that EV for that taxable year (other than incidental personal use, for example, a stop for lunch on the way between two job sites), including because the EV is sold or otherwise disposed of, then the proposed regulations would provide that the EV is ineligible for the Commercial EV Credit.
General 18-Month Recapture Rule. If a taxpayer ceases to use the qualified commercial EV for 100 percent trade or business use during the 18-month period beginning on the date that the EV is placed in service — including because the EV is sold or otherwise disposed of — then the taxpayer cannot claim the Commercial EV Credit for that EV (and if the taxpayer already claimed the Commercial EV Credit for that EV then the credit is recaptured), the EV may still be eligible for the Commercial EV Credit. A subsequent buyer must apply the proposed residual value rules applicable to previously owned commercial EVs in determining the incremental cost of the EV.
Reporting Requirements
Code Section 45W provides that no Commercial EV Credit is allowed for an EV unless the taxpayer includes the vehicle identification number (VIN) of such EV on the taxpayer’s tax return for the taxable year the EV is placed in service by the taxpayer. To report the VIN, the proposed regulations would provide that the taxpayer must attach to its US federal income tax return for the year the qualified commercial EV is placed in service, a completed IRS Form 8936, Clean Vehicle Credits, along with a completed IRS Form 8936 Schedule A, Clean Vehicle Credit Amount.
The proposed regulations would provide that the Commercial EV Credit may only be claimed by a single taxpayer, and the credit cannot be allocated or prorated if a qualified commercial EV is placed in service by multiple individual taxpayers who do not file a joint tax return. In the case of a qualified commercial EV placed in service by a grantor trust, the Commercial EV Credit is allocated among the trust’s grantors. In the case of a qualified commercial EV placed in service by a partnership or S corporation, the Commercial EV Credit is allocated among the partners or shareholders under the partnership tax rules or S corporation rules, respectively.
Comments and Public Hearing
Written or electronic comments on the proposed regulations under Code Section 45W must be received by March 17, 2025. A public hearing on the proposed regulations is scheduled for April 28, 2025.
Effective Date
The proposed regulations under Code Section 45W will generally apply to qualified commercial EVs placed in service in taxable years ending after the date that final regulations are published in the Federal Register and to taxpayers’ taxable years ending after the date that final regulations are published in the Federal Register.
Further Considerations and Subjects for Taxpayer Comments
Code Section 45W(d)(1) provides that rules similar to the rules of Code Section 30D(f), including the recapture rules under Code Section 30D(f)(5), shall apply for purposes of Code Section 45W. The recapture rules in the proposed regulations deviate from Code Section 30D(f)(5) in several significant ways. For example, the regulations under Code Section 30D provide for the recapture of that credit if a sale is cancelled or if an EV is returned or sold within 30 days. That credit does not otherwise provide for recapture upon a later sale or other disposition of the EV. The proposed regulations, however, would provide for recapture if a commercial EV is not used for 100 percent business use (other than incidental personal use) or if the commercial EV is sold or otherwise disposed of within 18 months of the date of the commercial EV is placed in service. This longer and broader recapture provision raises several questions:
Why is the proposed recapture period 18 months? The notice of proposed rulemaking states that Treasury and the IRS considered longer and shorter periods of time to require as a minimum period for the vehicle to be used in a trade or business. “Based on knowledge of commercial vehicle leasing practices (fleet leasing), the Treasury and the IRS determined that it was appropriate to require a qualified commercial clean vehicle to be used for 100 percent trade or business use for 18 months after it is placed in service.” The drafters’ focus on fleet leasing does not seem to take into account the practices of the large consumer lease market. A recapture period ending after 12 months of business use would be less burdensome for taxpayers and still prevent the “lease for sale” abuses that could occur with a shorter recapture period (e.g., 30 days). A 12-month period coordinates well with depreciation rules and “pull ahead” incentives sometimes offered to consumer lessees.
Why are there no reasonable exceptions from recapture for certain sales or dispositions occurring in fewer than 18 months? When most leased vehicles come off-lease and are returned to the lessor, they are not re-leased and are sold to third parties. The proposed recapture rule does not take into account or provide reasonable exceptions for many common events that result in a consumer lessee returning a vehicle (that will then be sold) in less than 18 months. Casualty losses: EVs are moveable property and often are subject to casualty losses such as accidents and weather events. These can happen at any time and are not indicative of the lessor’s intention to sell the vehicle or to stop using the vehicle for a commercial purpose. Death of the lessee: Most consumer leases are terminated at the lessee’s death. Upon termination of the lease and return of the vehicle, the vehicle generally will be sold. Recapture in this circumstance doesn’t serve the purpose of incentivizing uninterrupted business use of the vehicle. SCRA: The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act allows active duty military members to terminate consumer lease obligations. Upon termination of the lease and return of the vehicle, the vehicle generally will be sold. Recapture in this circumstance doesn’t serve the purpose of incentivizing uninterrupted business use of the vehicle. Similar exceptions were allowed under the regulations issued under former Code Section 30 (Credit for Qualified Electric Vehicles) and apparently were not considered for inclusion in the proposed regulations.
Why are there no exceptions for certain returned commercial EVs? If a lessee leases a vehicle and immediately regrets the transaction, the lessee often may return the vehicle to the lessor within a fairly short period. Sometimes the lease agreement is cancelled then as a matter of courtesy, and other times, it is required to be cancelled under state law (i.e., during a 3-5 day contract rescission period). That vehicle may then go on to be leased again as a “new” vehicle because of its excellent condition and low mileage; however, the proposed regulations would treat that vehicle as a previously owned vehicle for the purpose of determining the Commercial EV Credit.
IRA Developments to Watch in the EV and Battery Supply Chain for 2025
The incoming Trump Administration’s approach to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and tax policies is generating significant interest within the electric vehicle (EV) sector.
Generally, reports indicate that some Republican politicians, including individuals connected with the Trump Administration, intend to repeal or limit certain IRA tax incentives. US Congress could limit tax incentives by capping a tax credit, for example, or narrowing the activity or outputs eligible for a tax credit.
However, Republican states have invested substantial amounts into projects that benefit from IRA tax incentives. Accordingly, the repeal or limitation of many of the IRA tax incentives could negatively affect Republican constituents, and the Republican-controlled Congress and Trump Administration may seek to avoid such a result.
While exact policy directions are still unfolding, here are some critical areas to follow.
Key Points to Watch in 2025
1. Changes to EV Tax Credits
Reports indicate that Trump’s transition team aims to eliminate the $7,500 consumer tax credit for EV purchases, which was enacted as part of the IRA.
However, other reports suggest that Republicans might leave the IRA largely untouched because Republican states and constituencies have largely benefited from the IRA.
Modifications to the EV tax credits could make EVs more expensive for consumers, potentially slowing adoption and affecting industry growth. The outcome will depend on legislative negotiations and pressures from various constituencies.
2. FEOC Restrictions
Under the IRA, Foreign Enemy of Concern (FEOC) restrictions prevent taxpayers from claiming the $7,500 consumer tax credit if certain critical minerals contained in the EV battery of the purchased EV were extracted, processed, or recycled by an FEOC. Reports indicate that the Trump Administration may extend such FEOC restriction to other IRA tax incentives.
For example, it has been suggested that Congress impose FEOC restrictions on the IRA tax credit available to manufacturers under Section 45X (Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit).
Revisions to the FEOC restrictions under the Trump Administration might impact trade dynamics.
3. FEOC Equity Thresholds
The FEOC restriction limits eligibility for the $7,500 consumer tax credit for EV purchases if certain critical minerals contained in the battery of such EV were extracted, processed, or recycled by a foreign entity that is owned by, controlled by, or subject to the direction of another entity connected with certain foreign governments (generally, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea). A foreign entity is owned by, controlled by, or subject to the direction of another entity if 25% or more of the entity’s board seats, voting rights, or equity interests are held by the other entity.
The Trump Administration may choose to maintain or adjust the current 25% equity threshold for FEOC entities.
If the Trump Administration opts to make the FEOC rules more stringent or tightens other investment regulations for FEOC entities, the Trump Administration may prevent such FEOC entities from benefitting from certain IRA tax incentives.
Investments by these entities in free trade agreement countries or the United States could face additional scrutiny or restrictions, although the extent of permissible equity stakes in such ventures remains uncertain and could be influenced by broader trade considerations, national security, and economic priorities. The Trump Administration’s stance on China and related economic strategies will significantly influence these policies.
4. National Security and IRA Coverage
Changes to the IRA’s coverage of components and constituents, particularly in the context of battery-related products, could be influenced by national security considerations. The Trump Administration might prioritize restrictions on Chinese-made energy storage systems (ESS) and related components due to their strategic importance in critical infrastructure and grid security.
The new Republican Congressional majority could seek amendments through tax reform aiming to address these concerns, potentially modifying or phasing out certain IRA incentives related to clean energy and battery production.
As discussed above, the Trump Administration may seek to impose FEOC restrictions on certain IRA incentives and may cite to national security concerns as a reason for imposing restrictions at certain points in the supply chain through changes to these incentives. However, specific policy directions will also depend on the Trump Administration’s assessment of risks and priorities at the time of such legislative developments.
ETA Travel Requirement for Visitors to The United Kingdom
Most individuals who are visiting the UK or transiting through the UK, and who are exempt from obtaining a visitor visa, will now need to obtain an Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA) prior to travel. The ETA requirement takes effect for US citizens (as well as citizens for nearly 50 other countries) for travel to the UK on January 8, 2025 or later. The ETA is also required for those who are transiting through the UK.
The cost to apply for an ETA is UK £10. The UK Home Office states that processing will be completed within three business days, and possibly sooner. An approved ETA is valid for a period of two years, or until the applicant’s passport expires, and can be renewed.
The link to electronic registration is here. Travelers can also utilize the UK ETA app on their smartphones.
Additional information about the ETA scheme can be found here:
UK Home Office ETA scheme factsheet: ETA Factsheet
Guidance from our friends at Kingsley Napley: Kingsley Napley ETA guidance
PHMSA Suggests Tighter CO2 Pipeline Safety Regulations Amid Growing Infrastructure for Carbon Capture
On January 15, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation released a pre-publication version of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would propose new safety regulations for pipelines that transport carbon dioxide (CO2). The NPRM would extend PHMSA’s regulatory oversight to pipelines transporting CO2 in all phases, to include the first-ever safety requirements for pipelines transporting CO2 in gas and liquid-phase, while also reinforcing existing standards for transporting CO2 in its supercritical phase. This much-anticipated NPRM introduces several significant and targeted proposals that would create a uniform nationwide set of safety regulations for CO2 transportation by pipeline. Comments on the proposal will be due 60 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register.
Background on CO2 Pipelines
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has projected a major expansion of the nation’s CO2 pipeline network, driven by global efforts to capture and store excess CO2. According to a December 2023 Congressional Budget Office report, the number of carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects is expected to increase nearly tenfold by 2050. A substantial increase in commercial development of CO2 pipelines has occurred in the past several years and is expected to continue.
Although CO2 pipelines historically have a clean safety record, a major incident, coupled with the expanding CO2 pipeline infrastructure, prompted PHMSA to revisit the need for targeted safety regulations for pipelines transporting all phases of CO2.
PHMSA’s Proposed Rule
While PHSMA has long regulated pipelines transporting CO2 in a supercritical phase (at a 90% or more concentration of CO2 in the product stream), PHMSA’s proposed rule expands its authority over CO2 pipelines significantly, in part to address the growing need for expanded carbon capture and storage (CCS) infrastructure, driven by significant new incentives from the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. If adopted, the rule will introduce several key changes, including:
The first-of-its-kind requirements for the design, installation, operation, maintenance, and reporting of CO2 gas and liquid-phase pipelines.
New guidelines for operators converting existing pipelines to transport CO2 in different phases.
Mandates for CO2 pipeline operators to train emergency responders and ensure access to CO2 detection equipment for effective emergency management.
Enhanced public communication protocols during emergencies.
Detailed vapor dispersion analysis requirements to safeguard public health and the environment in the event of a pipeline failure.
First-of-its-kind Requirements
The proposed rule will enhance safety standards for newly constructed, replaced, relocated, or converted CO2 pipelines through the introduction of updated fracture control requirements. Among the key provisions, operators would be required to evaluate and adjust pipeline toughness based on operating conditions, ensuring fracture arrest within specific pipe lengths (320 feet for 99% probability and 200 feet for 90%), conduct toughness tests per industry, and meet toughness requirements outlined in API Specification 5L, which could lead to mandated crack arrestors.
The proposed rule also seeks to add several new sections; §§ 195.263 (Fixed vapor detection and alarm systems), 195.309 (Spike hydrostatic pressure test), 195.429 (Maintenance and testing of fixed vapor detection and alarm systems), and 195.456 (Vapor dispersion analysis). Each of these proposed new regulatory sections introduce new concepts that are prescriptive in nature and may raise practical considerations that are ripe for comment and discussion with PHMSA as the rulemaking process progresses.
Operational Guidelines
PHMSA proposes enhanced requirements for pipelines converted to CO2 and hazardous liquid service under part 195. Operators seeking to convert a pipeline to CO2 transportation would need to meet design and construction standards from subparts C and D. Specifically, pipelines converted to CO2 service must undergo a spike hydrostatic pressure test before being placed into service. Additionally, operators would be required to conduct in-line inspections within 12 months and close-interval and coating surveys within 15 months of the service initiation. These measures are designed to ensure the integrity and safety of converted pipelines by identifying and addressing any defects or issues early on.
Training Key Individuals
PHMSA’s proposed rule includes three key safety improvements for CO2 and hazardous liquid pipelines. First, it calls for enhanced training for emergency responders, ensuring they have the necessary equipment and expertise to handle pipeline emergencies, particularly asphyxiation risks. Second, the proposal mandates additional safety equipment for operators, including tools to detect hazardous vapor and gas concentrations in excavated areas. Lastly, it requires pipeline operators to communicate with affected entities and the public during emergencies, ensuring clear and consistent messaging and coordination with emergency response organizations.
Enhanced Public Communication Protocols
PHMSA’s NPRM proposes enhanced emergency response plans for CO2 pipelines, building on the Valve Rule to address safety risks. The proposal includes additional training for emergency responders, requiring operators to provide equipment and training on CO2-related emergencies, including asphyxiation risks. It also mandates the provision of safety equipment in excavated trenches and tools for detecting hazardous vapor and gas concentrations. Lastly, operators would be required to communicate with affected entities, including the public, using population density data to ensure clear, coordinated messages during emergencies. These changes aim to improve emergency response effectiveness and public safety, but details surrounding the level of training and type of equipment provided to first responders remains unclear and will need to be flushed out in comments and public meetings as the rulemaking matures.
Detailed Vapor Dispersion Analysis
PHMSA is proposing new requirements for vapor dispersion analyses for hazardous liquid and CO2 pipelines. Operators would be required to update their models every 15 months, or at least once a year, to reflect updates to software and changes in relevant factors. These updates aim to ensure that operators’ assessments of pipeline segments potentially affecting High Consequence Areas (HCAs) are accurate and based on the latest science. However, recognizing potential resource challenges, PHMSA proposed to allow operators the option to use a default 2-mile radius on either side of the pipeline as a basis for determining impacts on high consequence areas. This proposal aims to improve pipeline safety by ensuring up-to-date risk assessments and enhancing regulatory oversight.
The Big Picture
About 5,000 miles of CO2 pipelines exist in the United States, and their main purpose is to improve oil drilling operations. However, according to a 2020 Princeton research study, 65,000 miles of CO2 pipes will be required by 2050 to achieve net-zero emissions targets. As a result of worldwide CO2 collection and storage initiatives, the DOE has also predicted a large growth of the CO2 pipeline network. According to a Congressional Budget Office assessment released in December 2023, the number of CCS projects might nearly double, and by 2050, the length of CO2 pipelines could increase by 10 times their current size.
BIS Finalizes Rule Prohibiting Connected Vehicle Imports Linked to China and Russia: Key Compliance Requirements Announced
The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has promulgated a Final Rule prohibiting the import and sale of connected vehicles and related components linked to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Russia, citing critical national security concerns. These rules represent a pivotal shift in U.S. automotive supply chain regulations, emphasizing the need for vigilance and proactive compliance by stakeholders across the industry.
Expanded Compliance Obligations
Although the final rule does not mandate formal certification, suppliers are now required to scrutinize the origins of Vehicle Connectivity Systems (VCS) hardware and Automated Driving Systems (ADS) software to ensure compliance. Suppliers must exclude components with links to the PRC or Russia, with significant implications for sourcing practices and operational processes.
To address these challenges, many suppliers are exploring partnerships with third-party certification firms to assist in supply chain mapping and regulatory compliance. These firms provide specialized support to ensure alignment with U.S. regulations:
Regulatory Compliance Consultants
Offer tools, training, and industry-specific strategies for supply chain compliance.
Assist in establishing robust processes for meeting evolving regulatory requirements.
Cybersecurity and IT Compliance Firms
Evaluate and certify software and hardware for security vulnerabilities.
May expand their offerings to include BIS-specific compliance as the rule is fully enacted.
Automotive-Specific Compliance Firms
Focus on connected vehicle systems, offering cybersecurity testing and risk assessments tailored to the automotive industry.
Limited OEM Guidance
Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) have provided limited direction on how they will interpret and implement the final rule. However, several have engaged in the rulemaking process through public comments and requests for compliance extensions. OEMs may eventually require declarations or certifications from their supply base, even in the absence of a formal BIS mandate. This highlights the importance of proactive supplier engagement and preparation to meet potential OEM requirements.
Implications for Automotive Suppliers
The final rule is poised to profoundly impact automotive suppliers, particularly those sourcing components from the PRC or Russia. As we previously advised, key considerations include:
Supply Chain Transparency: Suppliers must conduct thorough due diligence to identify components with links to the PRC or Russia. This requires comprehensive mapping of supply chains and ensuring traceability down to sub-suppliers.
Increased Costs: Transitioning to alternative suppliers or technologies may drive up costs and disrupt existing contracts.
Collaboration Challenges: Suppliers must work closely with OEMs and industry organizations to navigate evolving requirements.
Recommendations for Compliance
To mitigate risks and align with the new regulations, automotive stakeholders should take the following steps:
Conduct a Supply Chain Assessment
Map the origins of all hardware and software used in connected vehicles.
Identify and mitigate risks associated with PRC- or Russia-linked components.
Engage Third-Party Certification Firms
Partner with firms specializing in supply chain mapping, cybersecurity evaluations, and compliance certifications to streamline processes and ensure regulatory alignment.
Collaborate with Industry Groups
Engage with organizations like the Alliance for Automotive Innovation and Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) to share insights and develop collective strategies for compliance.
Prepare for OEM Requirements
Anticipate the possibility of OEM-mandated certifications and declarations, and begin preparing the necessary documentation and processes to meet these demands.
While the regulatory landscape remains dynamic, proactive planning, thorough due diligence, and strategic collaboration will be critical for suppliers and manufacturers to adapt to the BIS’s final rule. By aligning their practices now, companies can minimize disruptions and position themselves for long-term compliance and competitiveness in a rapidly evolving market.
Elizabeth Morales-Saucedo contributed to this article
Car Accident vs. Slip-and-Fall Claims in Philadelphia: What’s the Difference?
Accidents happen daily in Philadelphia, and when they do, it’s often hard to know what to do next. Whether you’re injured in a car accident on I-76 near the Schuylkill River or take a bad fall on an icy sidewalk at Rittenhouse Square, the results can be life-changing. Injuries can interrupt your work, limit your mobility, and put significant financial strain on you and your loved ones.
If you’ve been hurt in an accident, you’re likely considering filing a claim to recover damages. However, not all personal injury claims are the same. Car accident claims and slip-and-fall claims are among the most common, but they are very different in terms of legal processes, types of evidence, and the challenges involved. A skilled slip and fall accident lawyer can help navigate the complexities of such cases and ensure you receive the compensation you deserve.
Understanding Car Accident Claims in Philadelphia
Car accidents happen every day in the bustling streets of Philadelphia. From fender benders on Roosevelt Boulevard to multi-car pileups on I-95, car accidents can lead to severe and even life-altering injuries. When an accident occurs, understanding the process for filing a claim is essential for recovering the compensation you need.
Common Causes of Car Accidents
Car accidents can result from various factors, including but not limited to:
Distracted driving, such as texting while driving on Broad Street.
Speeding through residential neighborhoods like Northern Liberties.
Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Failing to obey traffic laws, such as running red lights at busy intersections like the one at City Avenue and Belmont Avenue.
Weather-related hazards, like icy roads during Philadelphia’s harsh winters.
Each of these causes involves potential negligence, which is the legal basis for most car accident claims. If another driver’s negligence caused the accident and your injuries, you have a right to pursue compensation.
Legal Processes for Car Accident Claims
Car accident claims in Pennsylvania involve several steps, starting with dealing with insurance companies. Pennsylvania follows a no-fault insurance system, which means that your own insurance policy, specifically your personal injury protection (PIP) coverage, pays for your medical bills and other out-of-pocket expenses, regardless of who caused the accident.
However, you may also file a claim directly against the at-fault driver. This process typically involves:
Reporting the Accident to your insurance company and law enforcement.
Gathering Evidence, such as police reports, traffic camera footage, and witness statements.
Proving that the at-fault driver was negligent (for instance, they were texting while driving on Market Street).
Negotiating a settlement with the at-fault driver’s insurance company.
If a settlement isn’t possible, you may need to file a personal injury lawsuit and potentially go to court.
Potential Compensation in Car Accident Cases
Car accident claims in Philadelphia allow you to pursue both economic damages and non-economic damages:
Economic damages include medical expenses, lost income, and property damage. For example, if your car was totaled in an accident outside The Philadelphia Museum of Art, you could recover the cost of repairs or replacement.
Non-economic damages include compensation for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment in life.
Who May Be Victims of a Car Accident?
Car accidents can impact a wide range of individuals, each with their own unique circumstances and challenges. Victims may include drivers, whether operating their own vehicle or someone else’s. Passengers are often innocent bystanders, suffering injuries from situations entirely out of their control.
Pedestrians are especially vulnerable, as they lack the protection of a vehicle and may face severe or life-altering injuries from even low-speed collisions. Cyclists and motorcyclists also account for many car accident victims, and their lack of physical shielding often puts them at greater risk of traumatic injuries like fractures, spinal damage, or head trauma.
From parents commuting to work to children crossing the street to delivery drivers on the job—car accidents can touch the lives of anyone. The physical injuries, emotional scars, and financial strain these accidents impose can drastically alter someone’s future.
Challenges in Car Accident Claims
Car accident claims often involve dealing with the complexities of insurance policies. Insurers may try to minimize payouts by questioning the severity of your injuries or blaming you for the accident. For example, they might argue you were partially responsible for the collision on Walnut Street because you were speeding. Pennsylvania follows a modified comparative negligence rule, which could reduce the compensation you receive if you’re found partially at fault. And, if you are found to be more than 50% at fault, you are barred from recovering any damages.
Understanding Slip-and-Fall Claims in Philadelphia
Slip-and-fall accidents, while often dismissed as minor incidents, can result in serious injuries with long-term consequences. These accidents can happen anywhere in the city—from slipping on spilled coffee at Reading Terminal Market to tripping over a cracked sidewalk on South Street.
Common Causes of Slip-and-Fall Accidents
Slip-and-fall incidents can occur for many reasons, such as:
Wet or slippery floors at local businesses like Wawa or Giant supermarkets.
Uneven or poorly maintained sidewalks, common in some parts of Old City.
Hazardous conditions like snow and ice that aren’t cleared promptly, particularly during Philadelphia’s snowy winters.
When someone else’s negligence causes these conditions—like a property owner failing to provide a safe environment—you may be eligible to file a slip-and-fall claim.
Legal Processes for Slip-and-Fall Claims
Unlike car accidents, slip-and-fall claims often focus on premises liability law. Premises liability holds property owners and managers responsible for maintaining safe conditions for visitors. However, to succeed in a slip-and-fall case, you must prove:
Unsafe Conditions Existed – For example, a shop owner failed to put up a “Caution Wet Floor” sign after mopping at their store in Liberty Place.
The Property Owner’s Negligence – You must show the owner was aware (or should have been aware) of the hazardous condition and failed to address it in a reasonable time.
Causation – You must prove the dangerous condition caused your injuries.
Pennsylvania follows the comparative negligence rule for slip-and-fall claims as well. If you’re partially responsible for the accident (for example, if you were running and not watching where you were going), your compensation can be reduced.
Potential Compensation in Slip-and-Fall Cases
Like car accident claims, slip-and-fall cases may include both economic and non-economic damages:
Economic damages often cover medical expenses, ongoing treatment, or adaptive devices (like a wheelchair). For instance, if you broke your ankle slipping on icy steps at a condo building in Point Breeze, you’d likely seek compensation for hospital bills and physical therapy.
Non-economic damages aim to compensate for pain, emotional suffering, or loss of mobility caused by the accident.
Invitees, Licensees, and Trespassers in Premises Liability
When it comes to slip-and-fall accidents, the duty of care a property owner owes someone often depends on that person’s status on the property. Under premises liability law, individuals typically fall into one of three categories—invitees, licensees, or trespassers—and each category is owed a different level of protection.
Invitees: These are people who are on the property for a purpose that benefits the property owner, such as customers in a store like Target or Giant supermarkets. Property owners owe the highest duty of care to invitees. This includes regularly inspecting the property for hazards, promptly addressing dangerous conditions, and warning invitees about any risks that can’t be immediately fixed, such as wet floors or loose steps.
Licensees: Licensees are people who have permission to be on the property but are there for their own purposes, like a social guest visiting a friend’s home. Property owners owe licensees a reasonable duty of care, which means they must warn them of known dangers that aren’t obvious, such as a broken handrail or a hidden hole in the backyard.
Trespassers: Trespassers are individuals who enter a property without permission. Generally, property owners do not owe a duty to keep trespassers safe from hazards. However, they must refrain from willfully or recklessly causing harm. A special exception exists for child trespassers under the attractive nuisance doctrine, which applies to hazards like unsecured swimming pools or abandoned construction sites that could lure children onto the property.
Understanding these distinctions is key to determining whether a property owner acted negligently and to what extent they may be held accountable in a slip-and-fall case.
Challenges in Slip-and-Fall Claims
One of the biggest challenges is proving negligence. Property owners often argue that the hazardous condition was “open and obvious,” meaning you should have noticed and avoided it. Additionally, it can be difficult to prove that the property owner had enough time to address the hazard before your fall occurred.
Key Differences Between Car Accidents and Slip-and-Fall Claims in Philadelphia
While both types of accidents involve personal injury claims, key differences set car accident claims and slip-and-fall claims apart:
Aspect
Car Accident
Slip-and-Fall
Nature of Negligence
Focuses on driver negligence (e.g., texting, speeding).
Focuses on property owner negligence (e.g., failing to maintain safe conditions).
Evidence
Includes police reports, traffic footage, witness statements, and vehicle damage.
Includes photos of hazards, incident reports, and maintenance logs.
Legal Framework
Often involves no-fault insurance and third party liability claims.
Relies on premises liability and proving owner responsibility.
Challenges
Insurers may shift blame or question injury severity.
Owners may argue hazards were “open and obvious” or unavoidable.
What Both Claims Have in Common
Despite their differences, car accident claims and slip-and-fall claims share one important similarity—they are both about making victims whole again. Injuries from either type of accident can make life incredibly challenging, from dealing with chronic pain to losing the ability to work.
Compensation isn’t just about money—it’s about securing the resources you need to move forward, whether that means covering medical bills, paying rent, or undergoing physical therapy to regain mobility.
The Importance of Legal Representation in Personal Injury Claims
Dealing with the aftermath of a personal injury—whether caused by a car accident or a slip-and-fall—can be overwhelming. Physically and emotionally, you may feel drained as you deal with medical bills, time away from work, and the uncertainty of what lies ahead. At the same time, the legal process can be complex, with unfamiliar jargon and procedural hurdles that can make it hard to know where to begin. That’s where having the right legal representation makes all the difference.
An experienced personal injury lawyer acts as your advocate, guiding you through every step of your claim. They’ll help you understand your legal rights and options, ensuring you don’t accidentally waive any protections you’re entitled to. Insurance companies, in particular, often underestimate claims or look for ways to minimize payouts. Without someone on your side, it’s all too easy to accept an offer that falls short of meeting your financial needs. A personal injury attorney has the knowledge to evaluate the true value of your case, including factors like lost wages or income, medical expenses, and the emotional toll of your injuries, to ensure you receive the full compensation you’re entitled to.
Beyond negotiating with insurance companies, your lawyer will handle the paperwork, gather evidence, and work with experts to strengthen your case. If your claim turns into a lawsuit, having skilled legal representation is even more critical. The courtroom requires a deep understanding of rules, procedures, and strategies that only a seasoned attorney can bring to the table.
But it’s not just about the legal complexities—it’s about the peace of mind professional guidance provides. When you have an attorney by your side, you can focus on what truly matters: your recovery and well-being. They’ll lighten your burden, fight for justice, and give you the confidence to move forward, knowing a legal professional is in your corner, advocating for your best interests every step of the way.
How to Get Started with Your Claim
Filing a claim—even for an injury that seems obvious—can be overwhelming, especially when you’re already focused on recovery. That’s why it’s critical to have experienced legal support. A skilled personal injury attorney can help you gather evidence, deal with insurance companies, and build a strong case while you concentrate on healing.
NHTSA Adopts Final Rule to Formalize its Whistleblower Program under the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act
On December 17, 2024, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA” or “Agency”) adopted a final rule to formalize its whistleblower program under the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act (Whistleblower Act).[1] Under the final rule, which adopts the April 14, 2023[2] proposed rule without significant changes, whistleblowers who share original information related to violations of NHTSA’s regulations could receive an award between 10% and 30% of any civil penalties over $1 million paid by the violating entity.
To qualify for this bounty, the whistleblower must provide original information – information that is derived from independent knowledge or analysis that is not already known to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) or NHTSA. The information cannot be exclusively derived from an allegation made in a judicial or administrative proceeding or other outside source (such as a government report or investigation, or a media report). Whistleblowers must also first report the information through internal channels, except in limited circumstances, such as for good cause shown.
Therefore, manufacturers should act now to ensure they have internal policies in place that, among other things, provide reporting processes that include clear protections against retaliation for whistleblower actions. Fostering a culture of vehicle safety throughout the manufacturing process further reduces the risk of civil penalties and bounties for whistleblowers.
“Original Information”
Under the final rule, a whistleblower who submits “original information” to NHTSA related to violations of NHTSA’s regulations may receive a monetary award in the form of a percentage of any civil penalties over $1 million paid by the violating entity. NHTSA’s final rule clarified that any restitution required of the violating entity is not considered a “civil penalty” for purposes of determining the amount of civil penalties assessed against the violating entity.
Under the Whistleblower Act, Congress defined “original information” as information:
derived from the independent knowledge or analysis of an individual;
that is not known to NHTSA from any other source (unless the whistleblower is the original source); and
that is not exclusively derived from an allegation made in a judicial or an administrative action, in a governmental report, a hearing, an audit, or an investigation, or from the news media, unless the whistleblower is a source of the information.
However, whistleblowers are not required by the final rule to “have direct, first-hand knowledge of potential violations.” Rather, whistleblowers “may have ‘independent knowledge’ of information even if that knowledge derives from facts or other information that has been conveyed by third parties.”
NHTSA excludes from consideration certain categories of information submitted by whistleblowers, including information:
Derived solely from attorney-client privileged communications;
Derived solely from attorney work product; or
Obtained in violation of Federal or State criminal law, as determined by a court.
Therefore, manufacturers should properly mark all attorney-client privileged communications and any attorney work product to prevent them from forming the basis for whistleblower reporting.
Whistleblower Reporting Requirements
To be eligible for the bounty, a potential whistleblower must file a claim for a whistleblower award by completing the WB-AWARD form and submitting it to NHTSA no later than 90 calendar days from the date NHTSA publishes a “Notice of Covered Action,” which notifies the public of its intent to assess civil penalties against a violating entity.
The potential whistleblower must also first report original information through the violating entity’s internal procedures, when such procedures are in place, unless[3]:
The whistleblower reasonably believed that such an internal report would have resulted in retaliation, notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 30171(a);
The whistleblower reasonably believed that the information: (A) was already internally reported; (B) was already subject to or part of an internal inquiry or investigation; or (C) was otherwise already known to the motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or dealership; or
The Agency has good cause to waive this requirement.
Thus, manufacturers should take steps now to implement internal reporting procedures and foster a culture of vehicle safety to increase the likelihood that they will first receive reports of suspected violations and have an opportunity to act, reducing the potential for civil penalties assessments and whistleblower fees.
Next Steps for Manufacturers
Manufacturers should remember that the best defense against Safety Act violations and civil penalties is to foster a culture of vehicle safety throughout their organizations. Consistent and clear messages that vehicle safety is a priority, coupled with robust internal processes and procedures that encourage reporting and proper evaluation of potential safety issues, can mitigate a manufacturer’s risk on multiple fronts, including the emergent risk associated with NHTSA’s whistleblower program and the risk of civil penalties assessments.
Manufacturers should also ensure that they have internal policies that provide clear protections against retaliation (including protections for whistleblowers, such as an anonymous reporting option) for anyone that reports a potential violation, as well as an appropriate level of transparency for the reporter (such as confirming an issue is being investigated by the relevant safety team). These policies and messages are important steps for fostering a safety culture and should be part of the manufacturer’s regular training programs. Finally, all documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege or protected under the work product doctrine should be properly marked and stored.
[1] The Whistleblower Act is part of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2015.
[2] See NHTSA Publishes Proposed Rule to Formalize its Whistleblower Program under the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act for a discussion of the proposed rule.
[3] See 49 C.F.R. 513.7(g)
What to Expect After a Car Accident in Philadelphia
If you’ve been injured in a car accident caused by another person’s carelessness, your life might feel uncertain and overwhelming. The physical injuries, emotional distress, and financial burden from the crash can seem like a lot to handle. In these difficult moments, it’s important to know that you’re not alone. A compassionate car accident attorney can help you understand your options and fight for the compensation you deserve.
Read on to explore what to expect after a car accident, from handling the immediate aftermath to understanding the insurance and legal processes. We’ll also highlight the importance of having a legal team on your side to protect your rights and guide you through each phase of your claim.
Immediate Aftermath
The moments immediately following a car accident can be disorienting, but you need to try and stay calm and focused to ensure your safety and protect your future claim. Here are the crucial steps to take:
Safety First: Moving Vehicles, Checking Injuries
Your first priority should always be safety. If you’re able, move your vehicle out of traffic to avoid additional collisions. Turn on your hazard lights to alert other drivers. If anyone is seriously injured, call 911 right away.
If possible, check for injuries—yours and others’—before doing anything else. Even if you don’t feel hurt immediately, some injuries might not show up until later. It’s a good idea to seek medical attention right away, just to be sure.
Documenting the Scene: Photos, Witness Information, Police Reports
Documenting the accident is essential for your claim. Take clear, detailed photos of the accident scene, vehicle damage, tire marks, road conditions, and any other relevant details. These photos can provide important evidence for your case.
If there are any witnesses to the accident, ask for their contact information. Their statements could support your version of the events.
When the police arrive, file a report. The report will serve as an official record and can be vital in proving your case. Be sure to get a copy of the police report once it’s available.
Medical Evaluation Timeline
Even if you don’t feel any pain right away, it’s important to seek a medical evaluation within 24 hours. Some injuries, like whiplash, may take time to show symptoms. A timely medical evaluation helps establish the connection between the accident and your injuries, which will be important if you pursue a claim later on.
Insurance Process
The insurance process can feel like a maze, but knowing what to expect can help you move through it with confidence. Here are the steps involved:
Filing the Claim
After the accident, you’ll need to file a claim with your insurance company. Be prepared to provide all the necessary documentation, including accident details, medical reports, and photos.
Speaking with Adjusters
Insurance adjusters will review your claim, assess damages, and determine compensation. Be cautious when talking to them. Insurance companies may try to minimize your compensation offer. It’s helpful to have a personal injury lawyer on your side to ensure that you’re treated fairly and that you don’t settle for less than you deserve.
Common Coverage Issues
Insurance coverage can be complicated. In some cases, the at-fault party may not have sufficient coverage or may be uninsured. This can lead to delays or complications in getting the compensation you need. Your own insurance policy may offer additional coverage in such situations, such as underinsured or uninsured motorist coverage.
Timeline for Settlements
The timeline for settling a claim can vary. Some claims are resolved within a few months, while others may take longer, especially if negotiations are required or the case goes to court. Keep in mind that each case is unique, and an experienced attorney can help you understand the process and manage your expectations.
Medical Treatment
After a car accident, receiving the proper medical treatment is not only crucial for your recovery but also essential for building a strong case if you decide to pursue a claim. Injuries from car accidents can vary greatly, ranging from minor cuts and bruises to severe, life-changing conditions.
Types of Common Accident Injuries
Car accidents can lead to a wide range of injuries, some of which may not be immediately noticeable. Common injuries include:
Whiplash and Neck Injuries: Often caused by sudden stops or collisions, whiplash can lead to neck pain, stiffness, and headaches.
Back and Spinal Injuries: These can vary from mild strains to serious injuries, such as herniated discs or spinal cord damage.
Head and Brain Injuries: Concussions, traumatic brain injuries (TBI), and other head injuries can have lasting effects.
Fractures: Broken bones in the arms, legs, ribs, or other parts of the body are common in severe accidents.
Soft Tissue Damage: Injuries to muscles, tendons, or ligaments can cause significant pain and swelling.
Internal Injuries: Damage to organs, including the lungs, liver, or kidneys, may not be immediately visible but can be life-threatening.
Documentation Requirements
To support your claim, it’s important to keep accurate and detailed documentation of your medical treatment. This includes:
Medical Records: Keep a record of all your doctor visits, diagnoses, treatment plans, and prescriptions.
Bills and Receipts: Save all medical bills, receipts for medications, physical therapy, and any other out-of-pocket expenses.
Test Results: Document the results of any tests or imaging (such as X-rays or MRIs) that are necessary for diagnosing your injuries.
Treatment Plans: Keep track of the treatments prescribed, including physical therapy or follow-up appointments, and any changes in your condition.
Following Treatment Plans
Adhering to the treatment plan recommended by your healthcare providers is critical to your recovery. This not only ensures that you have the best chance at healing but also shows the insurance company that you are taking the necessary steps to recover. If you miss appointments or fail to follow medical advice, it could be used to argue that your injuries are less severe or not related to the accident.
Long-Term Care Considerations
Some injuries may require long-term care, especially if they involve the spine, brain, or other critical areas. Long-term care could include ongoing medical treatments, surgeries, rehabilitation, or lifestyle changes. When pursuing compensation, it’s essential to consider these future medical needs. The costs associated with long-term care—whether physical therapy, assisted living, or home care—should be factored into the claim to ensure you’re fully compensated for the lasting impact of your injuries.
Legal Considerations
As you deal with insurance companies and medical providers, legal considerations will also come into play. Here’s what to keep in mind:
Statute of Limitations
In Pennsylvania, you typically have two years from the date of the accident to file a personal injury lawsuit. While this may seem like a long time, it’s essential to act quickly, as evidence and witness testimonies can fade over time. Consulting with an attorney early on will ensure you don’t miss important deadlines.
When to Hire an Attorney
You must hire an attorney if you suffer severe injuries or experience complications with the insurance claim. If the at-fault party disputes liability, an attorney can help protect your rights and push back against any attempts to unjustly blame you for the crash and your injuries. Even if you only suffer minor injuries, an attorney can still help ensure you obtain the compensation you need to cover your medical bills and other related expenses.
Evidence Preservation
You must have strong evidence to support your claim. An attorney can help preserve key pieces of evidence, such as photos, witness statements, and medical records. They can even obtain surveillance video footage, if applicable. A lawyer knows how to use the evidence effectively in your case.
Dealing with the Other Party’s Insurance
Insurance companies are often focused on minimizing payouts. Having a lawyer who understands how to interact with the at-fault party’s insurance company can protect your rights and ensure you don’t get pressured into accepting an unfair settlement.
Settlement Process
Reaching a settlement is often the preferred outcome, as it saves time and avoids the stress of going to trial. Here’s how the settlement process typically works:
Calculating Damages
To determine how much compensation you may be entitled to, your attorney will calculate your damages. This includes medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, property damage, and any future costs related to your injuries.
Negotiation Phases
Once the damages are calculated, your attorney will enter negotiations with the insurance company. The goal is to reach a fair settlement. The insurance company may offer a lower amount initially, but your attorney will advocate on your behalf in an effort to secure you full compensation.
Settlement vs. Litigation
Most car accident cases are settled out of court. However, if a fair settlement can’t be reached, your attorney may recommend filing a lawsuit. If your case does go to court, you’ll have someone who understands the process and can guide you through each step.
Timeline Expectations
The timeline for reaching a settlement or resolving a lawsuit can vary. While some cases may be settled in a few months, others could take much longer, especially if they go to trial. Your attorney will provide you with a more specific timeline based on the specifics of your case.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Making certain mistakes can hurt your chances of getting the compensation you deserve. Here are some things to avoid:
Social Media Activity
Avoid posting about the accident or your injuries on social media. Insurance adjusters may use your posts against you, claiming that your injuries aren’t as severe as you’ve reported.
Early Settlement Acceptance
Insurance companies often offer settlements quickly, but these offers are usually much lower than what you deserve. Always consult with an attorney before accepting any offer.
Missing Documentation
Keep all documents related to the accident, including medical bills, repair estimates, and any correspondence with insurance companies. Missing or incomplete documentation can hurt your claim.
Gaps in Medical Treatment
If you miss medical appointments or delay treatment, the insurance company might argue that your injuries aren’t as serious as you say. Stay consistent with your treatment plan to avoid this issue.
Steps to Protect Your Rights
To protect your rights and maximize your compensation, consider the following steps:
Medical Record Collection
Gather all medical records related to your injuries, including doctor’s notes, test results, and receipts for treatments. These documents will support your claim.
Communication Documentation
Keep records of all communication with insurance companies and other parties involved in the case. This ensures that there is a clear record of what was discussed and agreed upon.
Expert Consultations
Consulting with a medical expert or accident reconstruction specialist can strengthen your case by providing additional evidence of the extent of your injuries and the cause of the accident.
Settlement Evaluation
Before accepting any settlement, your attorney will carefully evaluate the offer to ensure it reflects the full extent of your damages, both current and future.
Know Your State’s Insurance Laws
Understanding your state’s insurance laws is important when filing a claim. Pennsylvania follows a no-fault system. This means your own insurance covers your medical expenses, regardless of who caused the accident. If your injuries are severe, you may still pursue a claim against the at-fault driver.
Consult a Philadelphia Personal Injury Attorney
Hiring an experienced Philadelphia personal injury attorney can make a significant difference in the outcome of your claim. A skilled attorney will handle the legal complexities, negotiate with insurance companies, and advocate for your rights to ensure that you receive the compensation you deserve.
Is the Rider or the Company Liable in a Bike Share Accident in Philadelphia?
Bike share programs have revolutionized the way people travel in cities across the country. With names like Indego in Philadelphia, these programs offer a convenient, eco-friendly alternative to other forms of public transportation. The bikes can be found at kiosks near major landmarks such as Penn Station, Rittenhouse Square, and Millennium Park, making them a practical choice for commuters, tourists, and residents alike.
But as bike share usage grows, so does the potential for accidents. And when accidents happen, the question of liability arises. Who is responsible — the rider or the bike share company?
Understanding who bears responsibility in a bike share accident is not always straightforward. Multiple factors come into play, requiring an analysis of rider responsibility, company obligations, and the circumstances that led to the accident.
What’s clear, however, is that victims of such accidents often face physical injuries, emotional challenges, and financial hardships. For these individuals, securing compensation through a personal injury claim isn’t just about the money — it’s about getting the resources they need to recover and move forward with their lives.
The Growing Popularity of Bike Share Programs
Over the past decade, bike share systems have become an integral part of urban transportation. Major cities like Philadelphia have embraced these programs to reduce traffic congestion, cut carbon emissions, and promote healthier lifestyles. Companies like Lyft and Lime operate many of these systems, and cities often partner with private entities to maintain and expand their programs.
The convenience of bike shares has made them incredibly popular, but the increase in usage has also brought to light safety concerns. Riders often find themselves navigating busy streets alongside cars, buses, and pedestrians. And while most bike share programs require riders to agree to terms and conditions before using the service, many people don’t understand the legal implications of those agreements until an accident happens.
Common Causes of Bike Share Accidents
Bike share accidents can happen for a variety of reasons, ranging from rider error to poor bike maintenance. Some of the most common causes include:
Rider Mistakes
Riders often take to the streets with the best intentions, but certain common errors can significantly increase the risk of accidents:
Failure to obey traffic laws: Riders are required to follow the same rules of the road as drivers. Running red lights, ignoring stop signs, or riding against traffic can lead to collisions.
Lack of experience: Many bike share users aren’t regular bicyclists and may lack the skills needed to safely navigate urban environments.
Distractions and negligence: Just like drivers, cyclists can become distracted by their phones, GPS, or surroundings, increasing the likelihood of an accident.
Bike Share Company Negligence
While riders rely on bike share programs for convenience and safety, lapses in company responsibilities can lead to preventable accidents:
Poor bike maintenance: Users expect bikes to be safe and in good condition, but improper maintenance can result in brake failures, tire blowouts, or other mechanical issues.
Faulty docking stations: Broken or poorly maintained docking stations can create hazards, especially in high-traffic areas.
Failure to provide adequate safety guidance: Some bike share companies don’t make it clear how to inspect a bike for issues or provide information on safe riding practices.
External Factors
Beyond rider actions and company obligations, outside conditions can also play a major role in causing bike share accidents:
Road hazards: Potholes, debris, or uneven pavement can cause accidents, particularly for inexperienced riders.
Collisions with motor vehicles: Sharing the road with cars and trucks poses a significant risk, especially when drivers fail to give riders the space they need.
Weather conditions: Rain, snow, or ice can make riding more treacherous, increasing the likelihood of slipping or loss of control.
Rider Responsibilities
When a customer rents a bike through a bike share program, they agree to a set of terms and conditions. These agreements often include clauses stating that the rider assumes responsibility for following traffic laws and riding safely. However, this doesn’t mean the rider is always at fault in the event of an accident.
For example, if a rider causes an accident by running a red light or weaving through traffic recklessly, they may be held liable for any injuries or property damage. However, if the accident was caused by a mechanical failure due to the company’s negligence, liability may shift away from the rider. It’s also worth noting that in some states, bicyclists have limited insurance coverage, leaving many riders to bear the financial burden of accidents.
Bike Share Company Obligations
Bike share companies have a duty to provide safe and functional equipment to their users. This includes regularly inspecting and maintaining their bikes, ensuring docking stations are operating properly, and addressing any safety concerns promptly. When they fail in these duties, accidents can happen.
Another consideration is the legal language in user agreements. Many bike share companies include disclaimers in their terms and conditions designed to limit their liability. While these disclaimers can make it harder to hold companies accountable, they are not always enforceable, especially if the company’s negligence can be proven.
Multi-Party Liability in Bike Share Accidents
Sometimes, liability isn’t limited to just the rider or the company. Other parties could also bear responsibility, depending on the circumstances of the accident. These parties might include:
Local governments: Poorly maintained roads or bike paths can create hazards for riders, putting some liability on local municipalities.
Motorists: Drivers who act negligently, such as failing to yield to a cyclist or driving under the influence, can be held accountable for bike share accidents.
Third-party manufacturers: If a bike fails due to a design defect or faulty part, the manufacturer may be responsible.
Each case is unique, and the specific facts of an accident will determine the parties involved in a liability claim.
Determining Liability in a Bike Share Accident
When it comes to personal injury claims, negligence serves as the foundation for determining liability. Negligence occurs when someone fails to act with the level of care that a reasonable person would exercise under similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another person. Understanding this concept is crucial in bike share accident cases, as proving negligence is often the key to securing fair compensation for injuries and damages.
To establish a successful bike share accident claim, victims must demonstrate four key elements of negligence:
Duty of Care: The first step in proving negligence is showing that the defendant owed the victim a duty of care. This means the responsible party was obligated to act in a reasonable manner to ensure the safety of others. For example, bike share companies have a duty to maintain their bicycles, while drivers must follow traffic laws to avoid endangering cyclists.
Breach of Duty: Next, it must be shown that the defendant breached their duty of care. This could involve a bike share company failing to properly maintain its fleet, leading to faulty brakes, or a motorist texting while driving and colliding with a cyclist. A breach occurs when someone’s actions—or inaction—fall below the level of reasonable care expected in that situation.
Causation: Once a breach of duty is established, the victim must prove that this breach directly caused their injuries. For instance, if a rider is injured because of a defective bike, they need to demonstrate that the bike’s malfunction—not some unrelated factor—directly led to the accident.
Damages: Finally, the victim must provide evidence of actual damages, whether physical, emotional, or financial. This includes medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, or even the cost of replacing damaged personal items.
Negligence, with its intricate components, is at the heart of bike share accident claims. Proving these four elements requires a careful gathering of evidence and a strategic approach to presenting the case. By successfully demonstrating negligence, victims increase their chances of obtaining the compensation they need to recover and move forward.
Steps to Take After a Bike Share Accident
If you’re involved in a bike share accident, knowing what to do immediately afterward can make a significant difference in protecting your rights and securing compensation. Here are some steps you should take:
Seek medical attention: Your health and safety should always be the top priority. Even if you feel fine, get checked out by a healthcare professional to rule out serious injuries.
Report the accident: Notify the bike share company and, if necessary, file a police report. This helps document the accident and establish an official record.
Gather evidence: Take photos of the accident scene, your injuries, and any damaged equipment. Collect contact information from witnesses and other parties involved.
Preserve the bike: If possible, see if you can keep the bike in its post-accident condition. This can be crucial in proving mechanical failure or company negligence.
Consult an attorney: Bicycle accidents can involve complex legal issues, and an experienced attorney can guide you through the process of determining liability and pursuing compensation.
Compensation for Bike Share Accident Victims
Seeking compensation is an essential step in helping victims rebuild their lives, not just by covering their expenses but by restoring their sense of stability and security. Here’s a closer look at the different types of compensation available.
Medical Expenses
The cost of medical care can be a significant burden after a bike share accident. Compensation for medical expenses typically covers everything from emergency treatments, such as ambulance rides and ER visits, to long-term care, like physical therapy or specialized rehabilitation. It may also include the costs of necessary medical equipment, prescription medications, and future treatments required to address ongoing health issues.
Lost Income
Bike share accidents can disrupt a victim’s ability to work, often resulting in the loss of wages. Compensation for lost income accounts for the time away from work during recovery. If the injuries have long-term effects that reduce the victim’s ability to earn, they may also seek damages for diminished earning capacity.
Pain and Suffering
The physical pain and emotional distress caused by a bike share accident often extend far beyond the initial impact. Victims may experience ongoing discomfort, limited mobility, and chronic pain, all of which take a significant toll on their quality of life. Emotional and psychological effects like anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are also common, especially after a particularly traumatic accident.
Property Damage
While personal safety is the top priority, accidents involving bike shares often lead to damaged personal property as well. Smartphones, laptops, clothing, or other items that were damaged or destroyed in the accident can create additional financial strain for victims.
Wrongful Death
The loss of a loved one in a bike share accident is a devastating experience, and no amount of compensation can truly replace their presence in your life. However, wrongful death claims can provide financial support to the families left behind. Wrongful death compensation often covers expenses such as funeral and burial costs, medical bills incurred prior to the victim’s passing, and the loss of future financial contributions from the deceased. Additionally, it can address the emotional toll by compensating for the loss of companionship, guidance, and emotional support that the family relied upon.
Although compensation might initially seem like just a financial transaction, its purpose goes much deeper. It’s not simply about the dollar amount awarded; it’s about giving victims the resources to put their lives back together.
NHTSA Proposes National Voluntary Framework for Autonomous Vehicle Oversight
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has proposed a voluntary national framework to evaluate and oversee certain vehicles equipped with automated driving systems (ADS). This proposal aims to enhance transparency and safety in autonomous vehicle (AV) operations through the ADS-Equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and Evaluation Program (AV STEP).
Participation Requirements
Entities with operational control over subject ADS-equipped vehicles would be able to apply to participate in AV STEP at one of two “steps,” depending on whether their ADS requires “fallback personnel” — a human supervisor who is expected to intervene and exercise control over the vehicle in necessary circumstances. Approval would involve an evaluation of an applicant’s safety case, including a third-party independent assessment, and each step would set minimum eligibility requirements relative to the extent of ADS operations.
Ongoing Obligations
Once admitted into AV STEP, a participating entity would be required to submit periodic quarterly reports, event-triggered reports, and reports of operational changes above a certain threshold. Information required in such reports ranges from the number of vehicles operated and miles traveled to vehicle recovery events and contact events. NHTSA will also publicly publish a subset of information gathered in the application and participation process in an effort to promote transparency surrounding ADS technology.
Exemption Pathways
AV STEP would also add two exemption pathways for ADS-equipped vehicles:
A Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Exemption under 49 U.S.C. 30114(a); and
A Make Inoperative Exemption under 49 U.S.C. 30122.
NHTSA states these additional exemption pathways will exist alongside current exemption processes to offer more regulatory flexibility.
Building on Existing Initiatives
The AV STEP proposal builds on current NHTSA programs and actions related to AV regulation. NHTSA has encouraged AV companies to complete a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment to demonstrate their safety approaches, testing methods and technological developments to regulators and the public. Additionally, NHTSA has issued a Standing General Order (SGO), amended in April 2023, requiring certain manufacturers and operators of ADS technology to report details of collisions involving vehicles equipped with Level 2 advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) or higher autonomous technology.
NHTSA’s AV STEP proposal will be open for public comment for 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register and will appear on Regulations.gov as docket No. NHTSA-2024-0100. The unofficial version of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is currently available on NHTSA’s website. The outcome of the NPRM remains unclear with the incoming administration, and industry feedback is likely to shape the proposed program.