Vanessa McGrogan never noticed the car ahead of her own speeding vehicle until it was too late. Jeffrey Stasium didn't see the auto crossing the intersection until his pickup truck slammed into the driver's door.

The crashes, separated by three years and 160 miles, had two things in common. Both drivers were distracted by their cellphone use, according to lawsuits filed against them. And their employers wrote big checks in

Daniel Hulshizer/AP (ENLARGE)

A lawyer said it will become common for plaintiff's attorneys to seek cellphone records in serious wrecks to find out whether the other driver was on the phone.

BUSINESS Latest Headlines: One consolation for Atlanta: jobless woes worse elsewhere  Restaurants offering summer freebies  Weather Channel changing up 'On the 8s' tunes  AGL to pay $5M fine for violating gas pipeline policy  Financing renewed in Peachtree Hills Place project  • More business news • Business photo galleries

recent months to settle those suits in Fulton County.

Cellphones have spurred fantastic advances in business productivity and employee availability, allowing workers and bosses to stay in constant contact. A 2007 study says three-quarters of Americans use cellphones while driving. And a good percentage of them are surely doing company business.

But for all the work-related benefits, the devices also allow personal-injury attorneys to reach into companies' deep pockets.

In December, McGrogan's employer, International Paper, agreed to pay $5.2 million to settle an accident in which a woman's car was forced off the road and her arm was later amputated. In February, Modern Continental Construction Co. agreed to pay $750,000 to a woman whose car was struck by Stasium. A jury was deliberating at the time.

Recent settlements such as these and other big-money cases nationwide have caused companies to move to protect themselves from financial liability. With increasing frequency, businesses are mandating that workers not use cellphones when driving or at least employ hands-free sets.

"Sophisticated employers are saying, 'We need a policy,' " said Atlanta attorney Stephen Schatz, who defended Modern Continental. "In Georgia, if you're going to or from work [and you crash], your employer is not liable. But if you're using the phone for business purposes — even with your own phone — [the business] can be held liable."

Last year, the Georgia Appeals Court overturned a Fulton judge who threw out the suit against Modern Continental. The appeals court, citing a 2003 ruling, said it was up to a jury to determine whether Stasium was on the phone at the time of the crash and whether his call was work-related.

In 2003, the appeals court ruled a company could be held liable if a "servant was at the time serving his master" via cellphone when a crash occurred.

"The question is whether you're doing the employer's business [on the cellphone]," said H.J.A. Alexander, attorney for Pamela Hunter, a hair stylist seriously injured in the crash with Stasium.

Modern Continental argued it was not liable because Stasium, a company supervisor, was in his own truck, on his own cellphone and not on the clock when he got a call from a co-worker and later hit redial. But what a jury might decide in cases like this worries companies, causing many to settle.

Katherine McArthur, a Macon attorney who represented Debra Ford, who was injured in the wreck with McGrogan, said International Paper settled for $5.2 million "because they didn't want the jury hearing it."

"My case was clear: The company provided the phone and she was on the job" when the crash occurred, McArthur said.

Still, the settlement "was reached even though the employee had violated her [International Paper's] policy of requiring the use of hands-free headsets while driving," according to the Insurance Information Institute, which monitors such cases.

An International Paper spokeswoman agreed the policy had been in effect for several years, but she had no other comment.

McArthur said even though cellphone use while driving is dangerous, attorneys are getting mixed messages. She recently attended a seminar for lawyers and said they got advice on how to call in and dictate messages from the car. "It's a way to get things done while driving," McArthur said.

But she pointed to a study that shows drivers on cellphones are as inattentive as those who are legally drunk and another that says drivers using hands-free devices are no better off than those using hand-held cells. She said it will be common for plaintiffs' lawyers to seek cellphone records in serious wrecks to see whether the other driver was on the phone.

In response to her own research, McArthur has instituted a policy for her firm prohibiting cellphone calls, texting and checking messages "while rolling." Does she abide by it?

"No," she said, laughing. "I can't stop myself. It's too insidious."

Daniel O'Meara, a labor and employment attorney and adjunct professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, is seeing some change. O'Meara was speaking with a client from his car when the woman heard some background traffic noise. "She said, 'We have to end this call,' " O'Meara recalled. "It was their company policy."

Such policies, if widely known by employees and enforced, "can go a long way toward protecting your company," he said. "It should be part of the culture."

Skanska USA Building Inc. instituted a policy after paying nearly $5 million in 2004 to settle a suit in metro Atlanta. It says "you are prohibited from using hand-held cellphones or Blackberrys while driving on company business and/or company time. If your job requires that you keep your cellphone turned on while you are driving, you must use a hands-free device."

The issue is vexing for those trying to determine the liability in such cases.

Adrian Avila, a juror in the Modern Continental case, said nearly all prospective jurors raised their hands when asked whether they used cellphones when driving.

Later, as deliberations began, he said several jurors wanted to hold the company liable. Avila argued the company was not liable because testimony indicated there were a few minutes between the driver's one-minute cellphone call and a 911 call immediately after the crash. That indicated to him that the driver was not on the phone at impact.

In the end, the jury ruled for Modern Continental, although the decision was moot because the two sides settled during deliberations. But the case has stayed with him.

"I know it has personally affected me," said Avila, who works for a car sales company. "I try to avoid calls on the way to work. I don't want to get my company involved. It's changed my mind that your car cannot be your desk — that the cockpit of a car is not your office."

WHY TALK ISN'T CHEAP

States that ban driving with hand-held cellphones:

• California

• Connecticut

• New Jersey

• New York

• Washington

Driving and talking on cellphone: like being drunk?

•Drivers using cellphones are as impaired as drivers who are legally drunk, even on hands-free, according to a 2006 study by University of Utah psychologists.

•The cellphone drivers were distracted by "inattention blindness," and the alcohol-impaired drivers were more aggressive, the study said.

•All three crashes in the study's simulator were caused by cellphone users — not drunks.

SOURCE: Governors Highway Safety Association