Pennsylvania Handheld Device Driving Ban Now in Effect

Effective June 5, 2025, Pennsylvania’s new “Paul Miller’s Law” (Senate Bill 37, now Act 18 of 2024) significantly strengthens the state’s distracted driving laws by banning the use of hand-held electronic devices by drivers. Named in memory of Paul Miller Jr., who was tragically killed in 2010 by a distracted driver, this law aims to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities caused by driver distractions. Penalties for violations include monetary fines, and up to five years in prison if the violation causes a fatal crash. Even in less serious accidents, violating Paul Miller’s Law can provide strong evidence of driver negligence and fault in a personal injury claim.

Learn more about the new law below, and if you’ve been hurt in a crash in Philadelphia caused by another driver’s negligence, contact Benedum Law to speak with a caring and experienced Chestnut Hill car accident lawyer.

What the Law Prohibits & What It Permits

Under Paul Miller’s Law, drivers may not use hand-held interactive mobile devices while operating a motor vehicle. “Operation” includes when the vehicle is in motion and even when it is temporarily stopped, for example, at a red light, stop sign, or in traffic delays.

“Interactive mobile device” is broadly defined to include smartphones, tablets, PDAs, or similar devices that allow texting, emailing, internet browsing, instant messaging, taking or transmitting images or video, etc. Drivers may not hold or support such a device with their hand or body, dial or answer with more than a single button, reach for a device in a way that requires leaving the seated, restrained driving position, etc.

Certain uses of these devices while driving are still lawful under the law:

• Use of hands-free technology is permitted: for example, voice-command, Bluetooth or mounted devices that do not require holding the device.

• Emergency use: contacting law enforcement or emergency services as needed.

• Pulling over to a safe location: if the driver moves off the highway or to the side of the road and halts in a place where the vehicle can safely remain stationary, use of the device is allowed.

• Integrated vehicle systems or built-in GPS or mapping/navigation systems may be permitted if they do not require hand-held manipulation.

Penalties & Enforcement

Paul Miller’s Law is enforceable as a primary offense, meaning law enforcement can stop a vehicle solely for violating it. However, drivers are being given a year to get used to the law before the police start issuing citations. From June 5, 2025, through June 4, 2026, enforcement will be accomplished by issuing written warnings rather than fines. Beginning June 5, 2026, violations will be a summary offense with a $50 fine plus court costs and fees.

For serious outcomes, such as a fatality caused by distracted driving under this law, additional penalties may apply. Specifically, if a driver is convicted of homicide by vehicle while driving distracted, the law provides up to five years’ imprisonment in certain circumstances.

Negligence Per Se & How It Relates to Personal Injury Claims

Negligence per se is a legal doctrine by which the violation of a statute or regulation can automatically establish that the standard of care was breached. In other words, the defendant is presumed to have breached their duty simply by violating a law meant to protect against the type of harm that occurred.

In personal injury law, the doctrine of negligence per se can simplify a plaintiff’s burden: rather than proving what a reasonable person would have done, the statute (if applicable) defines what was required. If the statute was violated and that violation caused the injury, negligence per se may be established.

With Paul Miller’s Law in effect, a driver’s violation of the hand-held device ban can serve as evidence of negligence in a car accident case. If it can be shown that:

1. The driver was using an interactive mobile device in a hand-held manner in violation of the statute;

2. The driver’s use of the device caused or contributed to the accident; and

3. The kind of harm (injuries) is the type the statute was meant to prevent (e.g., distracted driving injuries)

then a plaintiff may assert negligence per se. This means the plaintiff does not have to prove that the driver’s behavior was unreasonable under all the circumstances, because the law itself has already declared certain behavior unlawful in those circumstances.

Of course, the other side (defense) may try to counter by arguing causation (that the device use was not what caused the crash), or that damage would have occurred anyway, or dispute whether the behavior actually violated the strict terms of the law. But citing a statutory violation of a safety law like Paul Miller’s Law is a powerful tool in building a personal injury claim.

How Paul Miller’s Law Could Be Used in a Car Accident Personal Injury Claim

• Suppose a driver rear-ends another driver, and during discovery or from witness/testimony, it is found they were holding their phone, texting, or otherwise using a hand-held device in violation of Paul Miller’s Law. That fact can be introduced in court or in settlement negotiations as evidence that they breached a legal duty — i.e., negligence per se.

• Even if the driver contends they weren’t using the device, physical evidence (e.g., phone records, device logs), witness statements, or video (dash cam, surveillance) can help prove the violation.

• Evidence of a violation does not guarantee recovery. The plaintiff still must prove that the violation was a cause of the crash and that damages resulted. If it cannot be proved that the distracted conduct caused the collision or injury, then negligence per se may not fully succeed.

• On the flip side, knowing this law gives plaintiffs more leverage: insurance companies or defense attorneys may be more likely to settle when there is a clear statutory violation.

Things to Watch & Considerations

• As with any new statute, how courts interpret its terms will matter: what counts as “holding” a device, how “temporarily stopped” is interpreted, etc.

• The grace period (first year) means violations in that period will only have warnings, not fines. But even warnings may help establish a pattern, or be used as evidence of distraction.

• Documenting everything is crucial: medical records, accident scene investigation, witness statements, video evidence, phone/device records — all strengthen the causation link.

Contact Benedum Law After a Car Accident in Philadelphia

Paul Miller’s Law marks a significant step in Pennsylvania’s efforts to reduce distracted driving. By making hand-held device use while driving a primary offense, with penalties in place, the law not only aims to prevent crashes but also offers injured persons a clearer path to holding negligent drivers accountable. Because violation of the law can serve as negligence per se in personal injury claims, it may help strengthen cases for victims of crashes involving distracted drivers.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a car accident potentially caused by a distracted driver, Benedum Law can help. We have experience investigating crash scenes, gathering the evidence, and building claims that properly use statutory violations to support liability. Contact us today for a free consultation to discuss how Paul Miller’s Law might be relevant to your case.