Why Cellphone Use Can Cause Devastating Head On Crashes

Head-on collisions are among the deadliest crash types because the two vehicles are traveling in opposite directions and their speeds combine into the closing speed, leaving almost no time to react. Cellphone distraction is a well documented contributor to these crashes, because a driver who drifts while looking at a screen can cross the centerline before noticing. California Vehicle Code Section 23123.5 prohibits driving while holding and operating a handheld wireless device for exactly this reason. Attorney Damoun Yazdi at The Accident Network Law Group handles distracted driving accident claims throughout Southern California.

Key Takeaways

• Head-on collisions are among the deadliest crash types because the two vehicles’ speeds combine into the closing speed
• Federal data ties distraction to thousands of deaths a year, and the Federal Highway Administration reports that head-on collisions were the most harmful event in roughly 27 percent of roadway departure fatalities
• Vehicle Code Section 23123.5 bans holding and operating a handheld wireless device while driving, and Section 23123 requires hands-free operation for phone calls
• Drivers under 18 are held to a stricter rule under Section 23124: no wireless phone or electronic wireless communications device at all, even hands-free, except for emergencies
• A violation that causes a crash triggers the negligence presumption in Evidence Code Section 669, which is rebuttable but shifts the burden onto the distracted driver
• Carrier records, device data, and event data recorder downloads can show that a phone was in use at the moment of the crash, but they have to be pursued quickly

The Physics of Head-On Collisions

When two vehicles traveling in opposite directions collide, their speeds add together into a closing speed. Two vehicles each traveling 55 miles per hour meet at a closing speed of 110 miles per hour, which is why the window to perceive, decide, and steer away is so small. Each vehicle then undergoes a change in speed roughly comparable to striking a fixed barrier at its own travel speed, because both vehicles crumple and each absorbs part of the energy. That is still a violent event, and it is far more punishing than a same-direction collision at the same road speeds, where the difference between the two vehicles’ speeds is small and the energy to be absorbed is a fraction of the head-on case.

Head-on collisions produce a characteristic frontal injury pattern: chest and abdominal injuries from the steering wheel, seat belt, and airbag; facial and head injuries; traumatic brain injury even where the airbag deployed properly; lower leg, ankle, and foot fractures from dashboard and footwell intrusion; and cervical and lumbar spine injuries from the abrupt deceleration.

How Cellphone Distraction Causes Head-On Crashes

A driver who looks away from the road to read a text, check a navigation prompt, or scroll a feed takes their eyes off the road for what feels like a moment. At 55 miles per hour a vehicle covers roughly 80 feet every second. A two-second glance means about 160 feet traveled with no one watching the road. On a two-lane road with no median, two seconds of drift is enough to put a vehicle into the oncoming lane.

The driver who has drifted often does not register the error until an oncoming vehicle fills the windshield. At that point there may not be enough distance left to steer back, and an instinctive overcorrection can make the outcome worse.

The federal data on distraction is substantial. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 3,275 people were killed and roughly 324,819 were injured in distraction-affected crashes in 2023, and the agency cautions that these figures understate the problem because drivers rarely volunteer that they were on a phone and distraction is hard to detect after the fact. On the lane departure side, the Federal Highway Administration reports that roadway departure crashes, meaning crashes in which a vehicle crosses an edge line or a centerline, accounted for about half of all United States traffic deaths, and that head-on collisions were the most harmful event in roughly 27 percent of those roadway departure fatalities.

California enforcement volume tells a similar story. The California Highway Patrol issued more than 111,700 distracted driving citations in 2025, close to 20 percent more than the year before.

California’s Distracted Driving Laws

Vehicle Code Section 23123 prohibits driving while using a wireless telephone unless the device is specifically designed and configured for hands-free listening and talking and is actually used that way. It is the phone call provision.

Vehicle Code Section 23123.5 is the broader rule. It prohibits driving while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device unless the device is used in a voice-operated, hands-free manner. That reaches texting, browsing, email, and app use, not just calls. There is a narrow exception for a device mounted on the windshield or on the dashboard or center console that the driver activates or deactivates with a single swipe or tap of a finger.

Both sections set a base fine of $20 for a first offense and $50 for each later offense. The amount a driver actually pays is considerably higher, because California courts add statutory penalty assessments and fees on top of the base fine, and the total varies by county. Under Vehicle Code Section 12810.3, added by AB 47, a conviction under Section 23123, Section 23123.5, or Section 23124 that occurred on or after July 1, 2021 also adds a point to the driving record if it falls within 36 months of a prior conviction for the same offense.

Vehicle Code Section 23124 applies a stricter standard to drivers under 18. A minor may not drive while using a wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device at all, even with a hands-free device, except to make an emergency call to law enforcement, a health care provider, a fire department, or another emergency services agency.

A driver who was violating Section 23123.5 when the crash happened is exposed to the negligence per se doctrine. Under Evidence Code Section 669, a presumption of negligence arises when the driver violated the statute, the violation proximately caused the injury, the injury is the kind the statute was designed to prevent, and the injured person is within the class the statute protects. The presumption can be rebutted, so it does not end the case, but it moves the burden onto the distracted driver and it changes how an adjuster values the claim.

Proving Cellphone Distraction

Wireless carrier records can be subpoenaed to establish whether the device was transmitting at the time of impact. Call detail records, text message timestamps, and data session logs are all potentially discoverable, and the device itself may hold app usage and screen-state information. Carriers do not retain this material indefinitely, which is why a preservation demand should go out early.

Witnesses who saw the driver looking down at a phone before impact give direct evidence of distraction. Dashcam video from other vehicles, nearby business surveillance, and residential doorbell cameras sometimes capture the drift across the centerline. Modern vehicles also store pre-crash speed, throttle, braking, and steering data in an event data recorder, which can show whether the driver braked or steered at all before impact. A driver who never reacted is a driver who was not looking.

California Laws Relevant to Cellphone Distracted Driving Claims

• Vehicle Code Section 23123: hands-free requirement for phone calls
• Vehicle Code Section 23123.5: prohibition on holding and operating a handheld wireless device, with the mounted single swipe or tap exception
• Vehicle Code Section 23124: stricter rule for drivers under 18
• Vehicle Code Section 12810.3: point assessed for a repeat handheld device conviction within 36 months
• Evidence Code Section 669: rebuttable presumption of negligence from a statutory violation
• Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1: two-year statute of limitations for personal injury
• Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975): California follows pure comparative negligence, so a partially responsible plaintiff still recovers, reduced by their own share of fault
• Vehicle Code Section 16056: minimum liability insurance of $30,000 per person, $60,000 per accident, and $15,000 property damage since January 1, 2025 under SB 1107, which is often well below what a head-on crash actually costs

Contact The Accident Network Law Group About a Head-On Crash Caused by a Distracted Driver

A driver who crossed the centerline while looking at a screen almost never says so at the scene. Proving it takes a prompt subpoena for the carrier’s call and data records, a canvass for dashcam and doorbell video before it is overwritten, and a download of both vehicles’ event data recorders before the wreckage is released to a salvage yard. Attorney Damoun Yazdi, who brings more than 12 years in injury practice and earlier service as a law clerk at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, builds that record instead of waiting for the insurer’s version of events. The consultation is free, and our firm works on contingency under our No Recovery, No Fee policy.

We represent people hurt in head-on and distracted driving collisions from our offices in Costa Mesa, Riverside, Rancho Cucamonga, Apple Valley, Victorville, and Bakersfield, and throughout Southern California. Se habla espanol.

Legal Disclaimer

This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any case depends on its specific facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact The Accident Network Law Group for advice about your individual situation.