Distracted driving killed 54 people across Pennsylvania in 2025, a slight rise from the prior year, even as overall traffic fatalities hit a record low statewide. That number is almost certainly undercounted: PennDOT acknowledges that many drivers never admit to being on their phones at the scene of a crash. York, Cumberland, and Lancaster counties have collectively accumulated among the highest distracted driving citation totals in the state, with York County alone recording 433 offenses between 2021 and 2025. The roads through Central Pennsylvania aren’t an abstraction in this conversation.
Paul Miller’s Law took effect June 5, 2025, and it changed the legal landscape for distracted driving claims in ways that go well beyond a $50 fine. At Handler, Henning & Rosenberg LLC, we’ve represented injured Pennsylvanians for over 100 years, and we want Central Pennsylvania residents to understand what this law actually means for their rights after a crash.
What Paul Miller’s Law Actually Prohibits
Paul Miller’s Law, formally Act 18 of 2024, bans all use of an interactive mobile device while driving. An interactive mobile device (IMD) covers smartphones and any handheld electronic device capable of receiving or transmitting data. The prohibition applies not just to drivers in motion but also to those stopped at a red light or idling in traffic. Sitting still doesn’t create a legal exception.
The law is a primary offense, which means a police officer can pull a driver over solely for holding a phone, with no other traffic violation required. Hands-free Bluetooth, voice commands, vehicle-integrated systems, and emergency calls are still permitted, as is device use after fully pulling off the roadway. But picking up a phone at a stoplight to glance at a notification is a violation under the same terms as texting at highway speed.
Penalties: The Fine Is Not the Point
From June 5, 2025 through June 4, 2026, enforcement consisted of written warnings only. Citations and the $50 base fine plus court costs began June 5, 2026. For crashes involving a fatality, the stakes are considerably higher: a distracted driver whose violation contributed to a death can face homicide by vehicle charges with up to five additional years in prison.
For most people injured in a distracted driving crash, though, the $50 fine is almost beside the point. The citation’s real weight is in civil liability. A documented violation under Paul Miller’s Law becomes significant evidence in a personal injury claim and gives insurers far less room to argue that the cited driver was exercising reasonable care.
How the Law Strengthens a Distracted Driving Claim
Negligence per se is a legal doctrine under which a statutory violation itself serves as evidence that the driver breached their duty of care, without requiring the injured party to separately prove the behavior was unreasonable. The law defines the standard; the citation documents the violation. A traffic ticket doesn’t guarantee a favorable outcome in a civil claim, but it removes one of the most common defenses available to the at-fault driver’s insurer.
Even when no citation exists, phone records can still establish distraction. Call logs, data usage records, and app interaction timestamps can show whether a driver was actively using a device at the moment of impact. Our attorneys can subpoena carrier records through litigation, though the window to act is limited.
What Happens When No Citation Was Issued
Many distracted driving crashes produce no traffic citation. Officers may not observe the device use directly, and drivers rarely volunteer that they were on their phones. The absence of a ticket doesn’t mean the claim is lost.
Several types of evidence can establish device use independently of a police citation:
- Witness testimony from passengers, pedestrians, or other drivers who observed the at-fault driver before impact
- Dashcam footage from the victim’s vehicle or nearby vehicles
- Crash reconstruction that identifies reaction-time gaps consistent with inattention
- Phone carrier records showing call activity, data usage, or app interaction timed to the moment of the crash
The problem is that this evidence doesn’t last. Carriers retain detailed usage data for limited periods, and surveillance cameras near crash sites are often overwritten within days. Our on-staff investigator can move immediately after we’re retained to document crash scene conditions, identify nearby camera systems, and build the factual record before that window closes. That early action can be the difference between a provable claim and a dispute with nothing to back it up.
When the Victim Was Also on Their Phone
This is the angle that almost no one talks about, and it’s the one that can quietly undermine a claim. Pennsylvania follows a modified comparative negligence rule under 42 Pa. C.S. § 7102, which bars recovery entirely if the injured party is found 51% or more at fault. A victim who was holding a phone at the time of the crash (even if not the primary cause) can have that fact used to argue shared fault and reduce or eliminate their compensation.
Paul Miller’s Law works both directions. The same statute that helps an injured victim hold a distracted driver accountable also gives insurers a new tool to challenge victims who weren’t fully compliant themselves. An insurer’s adjuster will ask whether you were using your phone, and recorded statements made before you speak with an attorney can be used to build a comparative fault argument against you. If you were also holding a device at the time of the crash, that doesn’t necessarily end your claim. It does make the legal strategy more complex and the need for knowledgeable representation more urgent.
Full Tort vs. Limited Tort & What It Means for Your Claim
Pennsylvania drivers choose between full tort and limited tort coverage when they purchase auto insurance, and that election affects what damages a crash victim can actually pursue. Under limited tort, a driver generally can’t recover for non-economic damages like pain and suffering unless the injuries meet a threshold of “serious injury.” Full tort preserves the right to pursue all categories of damages without that requirement.
Paul Miller’s Law doesn’t override this election. A victim with limited tort coverage injured by a distracted driver still faces the serious injury threshold to recover pain and suffering damages, even when the at-fault driver’s violation of the handheld ban is documented. How your insurance election interacts with the new law is a practical question that affects the value of your claim and one worth reviewing with an attorney before accepting any settlement offer.
Steps to Take After a Crash Involving a Distracted Driver
What you do in the hours and days after a crash directly affects what our attorneys can do for you later. A few things matter most:
Tell the Responding Officer What You Observed
If you saw the other driver holding or looking at a device before the crash, say so at the scene. That observation belongs in the police report, and a report that documents it is more useful than one that doesn’t.
Don’t Give a Recorded Statement to the Insurer First
Insurance adjusters routinely request recorded statements quickly after a crash. Anything you say before speaking with an attorney can be used to build a comparative fault argument against you, particularly if you were also holding a phone.
Understand the Timeline
Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations gives personal injury claimants two years from the date of the crash to file a lawsuit. That deadline is real, but the evidence deadline is much shorter. Phone records, surveillance footage, and crash scene conditions don’t wait two years.
What the Law Changes & What It Doesn’t
Paul Miller’s Law creates a clearer legal standard for distracted driving than Pennsylvania has ever had. When a driver violates it and a citation follows, the civil claim benefits from that documented breach. When no citation exists, the evidence gathering that would have happened anyway now carries the added weight of proving a violation of a specific, enforceable statute.
What the law doesn’t change: the need to act quickly, the risk to victims who were also on their phones, and the reality that insurers will fight hard to minimize payouts regardless of what a traffic citation says. The legal advantages the new law creates can only materialize when the right evidence is preserved and the right legal tools are applied before that evidence disappears.
We’ve helped more than 40,000 clients across Central Pennsylvania recover from serious crashes, and we take cases on a contingency basis. No upfront costs, and you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.
If you were injured by a driver you believe was on their phone, Handler, Henning & Rosenberg LLC is ready to help you understand your options. Call us at (888) 498-3023.