From the information given it is conceivable that the ‘accident’ was that he poked himself in the eye with his phone antenna.

I think the original post does illustrate – as a side-effect – that all language carries sub-texts, and that no matter how carefully you say something, you cannot control how other people hear it.

I didn’t recommend avoiding or omitting these phrases. I merely objected to the single example when I read it as a statement or politically sensitive message.

“It should rain tonight, due to an approaching cold front,” is common and easily understood. But now I am conflicted about whether it is correct usage. . .

And I confess, I am more familiar with Owings Mills, MD, home of the late Louis Rukeyser broadcasts, than using “owing to” correctly or otherwise.

His accident was due to excessive alcohol consumption.
His accident occurred owing to the fact that he was talking on his cell phone.

Accident is the Subject followed by a linking verb and ostensibly the cobbled prepositional phrase “due to…consumption.” Now, when I read this, I don’t see due to as adjectival as asserted in the response; rather, I see a simple adverbial prepostional phrase emanating from lazy colloquial writing. I would have marked the student paper with “‘Colloq.’ consider using a sub. conj. and recast with action verb/adverb clause” or something. The result would be a better sentence, a much better objective than quibbling the colloquialism:

The accident was caused by excessive alcohol consumption.

Seems to me that “owing to” screams for “because of”; hence, the following also pared down from the wordiness of the original:

His accident occurred [because of] his use of a cell phone.

Both are adverbial, and the split hairs of “due to” and “owing to” can be thrown out as irrelevant unless one is a language historian attempting to clarify their original uses and the devolution into common speech.

My goodness…my head hurts due to all of this.