What is the average person’s recourse when someone in his family suffers grievous bodily injury in an automobile accident? I, who have had a recent education on the subject, would like to offer some advice. I became the accidental advocate for my wife following a serious head-on collision on the East Blue Hill Road in July 2004. Since then I have spent a considerable amount of time with medical professionals and legal advisers.

Before explaining the circumstances, let me make a few observations concerning our highways and byways. Over the course of the past decade a half-million fatalities have taken place on our roads while 30 million people have suffered grievous bodily injury as a result of drivers who are intoxicated, tired, sleepy, inattentive, distracted or speeding.

Contrary to what most people think, three times as many auto accidents occur on rural roads as on urban roads; cell phone use triples the likelihood of an accident; fiddling with the radio or CD, or driving while eating, also triples the likelihood of an accident. For those under 30, auto accidents are the major cause of death. Over an average life span of 70 years, the majority of us will experience a vehicle accident involving bodily injury or death.

The young man who struck my wife was driving on the wrong side of a narrow, winding rural road near the Village of Blue Hill. By sheer good luck she was not killed, but her hip and foot were badly fractured while her knee burst into fragments. She was hospitalized and spent many months recuperating and is now walking slowly while suffering daily from pain in her leg.

My son and I took turns attending to her home care needs until she could manage to use crutches. The driver’s insurance representative advised me that “it would be to your benefit to hire a lawyer.” It became necessary for the us, the “victims,” to become the plaintiffs who were expected to prove their case in a court of justice even though the “defendant” admitted his guilt, admitted driving on the wrong side of the road and admitted consuming beer prior to the accident.

Unfortunately for us, the police officer at the scene inexplicably decided not to give a blood test for alcohol, which meant that we could not pursue “punitive damages.” At the Hancock County Courthouse, where the driver had been given a summons to appear for “driving to endanger,” the punishment did not even begin to match the psychological and physical trauma he had caused. His license was suspended for 30 days and, at my urging, he was required to do 30 hours of community service in lieu of a $200 fine.

On Dec. 5-9 the trial took place in the federal courthouse in Bangor. The orthopedic surgeon who had inserted permanent metal plates and pins in my wife’s badly “burst knee,” was our witness and stated that another operation would almost certainly be necessary. Another medical expert stated that my wife could not drive because, as a result of the accident, she suffered from a serious case of PTSD.

After nine hours of deliberation the jury’s decision came as a shock. The small “compensatory damage” award did not even replenish half of our exhausted savings after legal and health insurance costs were paid. We will never know the jury’s motives nor how it justified a decision that has left us, the victims, much worse off financially than prior to the accident.

Obviously we were naive. We put our trust in the legal system and, in this instance, it proved untrustworthy. Being wholly unaware of arcane legal procedures, we had no choice but to hire legal counsel. But in the upside-down world we were dealing with, it was we, the victims, who were put on trial while our motives and way of life were challenged and our personal journals read out to judge and jury.

As a result of a verdict that left us in serious financial straits, the defendant returned to his home legally freed of charges and no longer being held to account for his wrongdoing while we will forever have to live with the consequences of his destructive behavior.

With the benefit of hindsight, I have some recommendations for those who are involved in accidents such as ours:

. Insist that the police officer who is at the scene of the accident administer a Breathalyzer or blood test to everyone concerned.

. Insist that “punitive damages” be sought if at all feasible.

. Be fully engaged with the jury selection from the jury pool because the jurors make the real decisions, not the judges or the lawyers.

. Make sure that at least a few of the jurors match your age and background.

. Insist that any jurors in the jury pool, who have suffered in any way from an auto accident, are included in your jury (the jury’s empathy-sympathy can mean the difference between a reasonable judgment and a

miserable judgment).

. Clearly understand that juries base their decisions as much on emotional reactions to the plaintiffs (or defendants) as on what may appear to you to be reasonable.

Despite the financial calamity we suffered, we are pursuing some changes that may prove of benefit to others: After petitioning for more adequate signs near the dangerous curve where the accident took place on the East Blue Hill Road, the DOT agreed to make the changes. We also asked our local selectmen to petition the DOT to place a 35 mph limit on both sides of the road where the accident took place. Now one side of the road has a 35 mph while the other side has a 45 mph limit.

Besides this, we are working with Jim Schatz and Michael Dunn, two state legislators, to sponsor legislation to change Maine law so that police officers are required to give Breathalyzer or blood tests whenever serious bodily injury takes place in an auto accident. Currently, Maine law requires such a test only if the accident victim is dead. Those who agree that this is a much-needed piece of legislation (New Hampshire and Vermont have already adopted it) should ask their representatives to support it.

Hugh Curran of Surry teaches in the Peace Studies Program at the University of Maine.