Truck Accident Lawyer Blog

This case involves the danger of 18-wheelers backing up without a warning alarm. By now, back-up alarms are a common feature on all kinds of vehicles and equipment. The reason they are so common is simple. They work. The alarms are very good at preventing injuries. However, the trucking companies haven't always followed suit with the latest in safety technology.

In this case, a 55-year old warehouse worker's pelvis was crushed, his ureter was severed, and he had to undergo a colostomy because a tractor trailer without a back-up alarm crushed him between the trailer and a loading dock. There was an apparent miscommunication between the worker and the truck driver. According to the warehouse worker and an expert forensic engineer, the worker would never have been hurt if there had been a back-up alarm. The tractor trailer and its equipment were therefore unreasonably dangerous and defective because there was no back-up alarm. The worker had $715,000 in medical costs, and $250,000 in income losses.

At trial, the members of the jury evaluated the evidence and agreed that the cause of the worker's injuries was the missing back-up alarm. They found that the truck and its equipment were unreasonably dangerous, and awarded $14,000,000 in damages for the warehouse worker's losses.

Continue reading "Verdict for Illinois 18-Wheeler Products Liability Case Involving No Back-Up Alarm" »

Trucking companies, or motor carriers, are legally responsible (vicariously liable) for the acts and negligence of their drivers. In addition, the trucking company may be responsible itself (independently liable) for its own behavior, when an 18-wheeler wreck causes injury or a wrongful death. This is particularly true when it comes to negligently hiring, training, or monitoring the company's truckers. The trucking company must ensure that the truck drivers comply with all the safety rules set forth in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Virtually all interstate trucking companies must carry at least $750,000.00 worth of insurance coverage. Many of these companies are required to carry more coverage still. It is not uncommon for a carrier to be required to carry at least $1,000,000.00 in coverage. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration lists the insurance requirements, and the insurance coverage confirmation filed by each company under its aegis.

As I was writing this blog entry, I did a random check of several trucking companies based in South Carolina. Here is what I found:

Company "A" is required to have $750,000 in coverage. No insurance coverage is on file.
Company "B" is required to have $750,000 in coverage. No insurance coverage is on file.
Company "C" is required to have $750,000 in coverage. $1 million in coverage is on file.
Company "D" is required to have $750,000 in coverage. $1 million in coverage is on file.
Company "E" is required to have $5 million in coverage. $1 million in coverage is on file.
Company "F" is required to have $750,000 in coverage. No insurance coverage is on file.
Company "G" is required to have $1 million in coverage. $1 million in coverage is on file.
Company "H" is required to have $1.5 million in coverage. No insurance coverage is on file.
Company "I" is not subject to the coverage requirements. No insurance coverage is on file.
Company "J" is required to have $750,000 in coverage. $1 million in coverage is on file.

In other words, just 5 out of the 10 I looked at were complying with the insurance coverage requirements. Let's hope they are at least following the other safety rules.

Continue reading "Trucking Company Liability and Insurance Requirements" »

Everyone on the roadways has a duty to drive reasonably, and to obey the rules of the road. So, a collision involving a tractor trailer or a large commercial vehicle is just like any other traffic accident, right? Wrong!

They are not the same. Tractor trailers are profoundly larger and heavier than ordinary vehicles on the road. Collisions involving these trucks cause thousands of life-altering injuries and fatalities each and every year. They pose a tremendous safety hazard to everyone on the roads and interstates, when they are not safety maintained, inspected, and driven. These facts were recognized by lawmakers decades ago, and so interstate truck drivers and the trucking companies for whom they drive, are subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and often state safety regulations, as well. When a trucking company puts profits over the safety of the human beings out on the roads and interstates, they may be engaged in recklessly or intentionally disregarding those Safety Regulations and even the company's own internal safety rules. It happens all the time. And when it happens, the trucking company's disregard of those safety rules and safety regulations can end up being the cause of catastrophic injuries and fatalities.

There are thousands and thousands of lives on the line. That is why it is so important that the safety rules be respected by the truck drivers and the trucking companies.

Continue reading "What's So Unique About Truck Accidents?" »

Andrew Chasan, a well-known Boise, Idaho personal injury lawyer, is the current chairman of the Interstate Trucking Litigation Section of the American Association for Justice. Andy recently published a checklist of key statutory requirements that attorneys can use in analyzing a trucking accident case. Here is an abbreviated version of Andy's excellent checklist:

NEGLIGENT OPERATION The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) rules for operating a truck under the following circumstances:
* When the driver is fatigued or ill. 49 CFR 392.3.
* When the driver is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. 49 CFR 392.4 and 392.5.
* During use and equipment inspection. 49 CFR 392.7.
* During the loading of trailers. 49 CFR 392.9.
* During conditions deemed hazardous ("extreme caution" requirement) 49 CFR 392.14.
* Methods of securing loads properly. 49CFR 392.9, 393.100-.136.

NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE
The CFR requires:
* Well-maintained, clean and unobstructed lights, lamps and reflectors in specific places. 49 CFR 392.33, 393.11, .17-.26
* Installation and proper calibration of specified brake systems. 49 CFR 393.40.
* Minimum standards of brake performance. 49 CFR 393.52.
* Specific equipment inspection. 49 CFR 392.7, .8.

NEGLIGENT HIRING & RETENTION A truck driver may not be hired, nor may he operate a tractor trailer, unless certain criteria are met.
* All generated or collected records about the driver must be maintained at the trucking company's principal place of business for as long as the driver is employed, plus three years after the truck driver no longer is employed. Records regarding the investigation into the safety performance history of the truck driver are part of what is required to be maintained. 49 CFR 391.51, .53.
* A road test must be passed by the truck driver. 49 CFR 391.31, .35.
* The driver's driving record must be checked for the past three (3) years in every state in which the driver has held a license. 49 CFR 391.23(a)(1). (In South Carolina, the fee and procedure for obtaining a 10-year record is exactly the same for obtaining a 3-year record. A responsible South Carolina trucking company, concerned about safety would go ahead and request the 10-year record - MJ).
* Prior employers before the past three years must be contacted, and the trucking company must ask about the truck driver's employment status and quality of work. Written notes must be retained regarding each contact. 49 CFR 391.23(d).
* Every 12 months, there must be a personal review with each truck driver about all driving violations in the preceding year. 49 CFR 391.25.
* A driver must be physically able and qualified to drive. 49 CFR 391.41.
* A driver must receive a certificate of medical examination. 49 CFR 391.43.
* Drug testing must take place pre-employment, post-accident, and randomly. 49 CFR 382.301, .303, .305.
* There are strict limits on the number of hours a trucker may drive or stay on duty. 49 CFR 395.3, .5.
* Truck drivers must maintain accurate and up-to-date logs of their time on duty and on the road. 49 CFR 395.8.
* Truckers generally may not drive after the end of the 14th hour, after coming on duty following 10 consecutive hours off duty. Truckers may not drive at all once a driver has been on duty 70 hours in any 8 consecutive days. 49 CFR 395.3.
* The driver must file the logs with the trucking company. 49 CFR 395.8(i).

DRIVER FATIGUE In addition to the hours on-duty and hours on-the-road restrictions:
* Truck drivers may not drive while the driver's ability to drive is so impaired (or so likely to be impaired) through fatigue, illness, or any other cause, that it is unsafe for him to drive. 49 CFR 392.3.
* Drivers' logs must be kept for at least 6 months. 49 CFR 395.8(k). (Trip receipts, bills of lading, dispatch and delivery orders, fuel, food and toll receipts may independently verify the truthfulness of the logs).
* On-board recorders may be used in lieu of (or in addition to) the driver's record of duty status. 49 CFR 395.15. GPS systems used to track location and cargo may also assist in independent verification, but these records are often deleted by the GPS company within one or two weeks.
* Trucking companies must require all its truck drivers to comply with all the safety regulation requirements. 49 CFR 390.11. Most responsible trucking companies will audit its drivers' logs periodically. A trucking company which fails to discover fraudulent logs - thereby failing to prevent violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations - can result in the imposition of punitive damages, if injuries result.

Continue reading "Key Safety Requirements for Truck Operation" »

The victim in this case was a 35-year old worker, who was stopped in traffic along I-610 inside a boxed cargo van. A truck driver for G&D Trucking was loaded down with grain, and slammed into the rear of the van. The truck driver did not have a driver's license. There was very little damage to the vehicles, and G&D claimed that the van's brake lights were not working at the time of the collision.

The victim had soft-tissue injuries to his neck and back, and identified two herniated discs. His doctor also found an annular tear in the L3-4. As a result, the victim suffered pain and stiffness, and underwent extensive physical therapy. He also missed time from work. G&D Trucking countered that the disc injuries were due to something other than the collision, and found an expert to testify that the time the victim spent away from work was excessive.

The jury found for the victim in the amount of $102,000, which was increased to $118,462.53 when pre-judgment interest was factored in. The jury arrived at the verdict as follows: $22,000 for past medical expenses; $5,000 for past physical impairment; $35,000 for past lost earning capacity; and $40,000 for past mental pain and anguish.

Continue reading "18-Wheeler Wreck Verdict in Starr County, Texas for I-610 Rear Ender" »

In this case, the victim was working along I-95 as a construction engineer. A crossover across the median of I-95 had been installed as part of a road construction project. As he was driving, the victim noticed that a construction sign was blocking the deceleration lane leading into the median crossover. This was a threat to the safety of those on the interstate, so the victim drove into the deceleration lane, where he intended to remove the construction sign. The traffic behind the victim was slowing down, but a tractor trailer owned by CRST, Inc., traveling at a higher rate of speed, swerved left and into the deceleration lane. The 18-wheeler slammed into the victim's vehicle, and sent it careening 150 feet into the median ditch, where the 18-wheeler crushed the vehicle the victim was driving. Both the victim and another passenger were trapped inside the burning vehicle. The tractor trailer was found to have defective and inoperable brakes. The victim relied on thorough investigation and expert testimony to find CRST's responsibility for the collision, due to the driver's lack of qualifications, insufficient maintenance to the truck, and a number of safety and equipment violations.

The 56-year old victim was airlifted from the scene to the University of Pennsylvania Hospital, where his left leg was amputated below the knee. His right leg was also amputated a few days later. He was fitted with prosthetic legs, and he was eventually able to return to work after several months. His medical bills came to about $150,000, and he lost income of $24,600.

CRST agreed to pay $3,000,000 in damages to the victim.

Continue reading "Truck Accident Settlement in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in Defective Brakes Incident on I-95" »

In this case, two big rigs crashed into one another near Madison, GA. One of the trucks, owned by Crain Plumbing, was being driven by a truck driver who was blind in his right eye! This condition deprived him of depth perception. The Crain truck driver was traveling north, but swerved into the southbound lane, where the second tractor trailer was traveling. (The Crain driver later said a pickup truck had pulled out in front of him). The second truck was being driven by a 44-year old driver. Her 45-year old husband was in the cabin with her, asleep. The driver was killed, and her husband was very seriously injured.

Given the circumstances, the parties reached a settlement for $12,000,000. $6,000,000 was allocated to the deceased driver's estate, and $6,000,000 to the surviving husband.

Continue reading "18 Wheeler Wreck Settlement for Madison, Georgia Wrongful Death" »

This case involves Old Dominion Freight Line I. A 23-year old man was on the job, using a pressure washer to clean an 18-wheeler. His co-worker motioned to the truck driver to pull forward. The truck driver did so, reportedly without checking the truck's blind spots before moving the rig. If he had done so, the accident apparently would have been avoided. In addition it was reported that Old Dominion failed to provide necessary safety training to the driver, failed to adequately supervise the truck driver, and did not provide a required area specifically for maintaining Old Dominion's trucks. The 23-year old was run over by the rear wheels of the truck's trailer. His injuries included: disfiguring scars, multiple foot, ankle, hip, rib and skull fractures, an ear laceration, loss of hearing in one of his ears, and resulting post-traumatic stress disorder. He required surgery to repair his ankle and foot. His past medical expenses totaled $40,428. He lost wages in the amount of $9,600. His future medical expenses were projected at $60,000 and his future lost income was $215,000.

The trial lasted 11 days. After deliberating for 1 1/2 days, the jury awarded the young man $1,600,000 plus $141,676 in prejudgment interest against Old Dominion and the truck driver.

Continue reading "Tractor Trailer Accident Verdict in Greensboro, North Carolina in Failure to Check Blind Spots Case" »

In this case, the victim was a 32-year old man who was killed instantly when an 18-wheeler reportedly ran a stop sign at an intersection. The victim's family also asserted that the trucking company had negligently hired the truck driver, and had negligently entrusted the truck to him.

The case was settled for $2,300,000.

Continue reading "Tractor Trailer Accident Settlement in York County, South Carolina Stop Sign Run / Wrongful Death Case" »

A 3-year-old little girl was riding in her car seat in her father's vehicle. A Heafner Tire Group truck was traveling in the opposite direction, and crossed over the center line. The little girl's father swerved to avoid the head-on collision and lost control. He briefly went onto the shoulder of the road, and then steered back onto the roadway, colliding into the Heafner truck. The little girl's jaw was broken, and she received a liver laceration. The jaw fracture alone required three surgeries, and her past medical expenses totaled about $40,000.

At trial, after deliberating for about three hours, the jury awarded the little girl $500,000 in actual damages. Her attorney had previously requested $425,000 from the at-fault company to settle the case, but Heafner reportedly refused.

Continue reading "Tractor Trailer Accident Verdict in Allendale County, South Carolina for Center Line Cross Case" »

As a resource for other attorneys and members of the public, I have decided to begin featuring verdicts and settlements that have come down in recent years in truck accident cases. I will emphasize verdicts and settlements from North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and adjoining states, but we will also include cases from other states.

The first case we will examine involves a pedestrian in downtown Charleston, South Carolina. A man in his mid-30's was walking across Meeting Street at the same time a truck owned by Sysco Food Services was backing out of a loading zone and into the street. The pedestrian was hit by the truck, and sustained soft tissue neck and back injuries, which caused a partial permanent impairment. The pedestrian said he was hit because the trucker failed to keep a proper lookout, was going too fast, and failed to maintain control over the truck. Sysco denied all responsibility, and said that the pedestrian was solely at fault.

At trial, after deliberating for two hours, the jury awarded the pedestrian $78,500 in actual damages, with no punitive damages. The jury found the pedestrian to be partly at fault, but less than 51% negligent.

Continue reading "Tractor Trailer Accident Verdict in Charleston, South Carolina for Backup Case" »

In a move likely to seriously impact trucking safety on our interstates and highways, the Bush administration recently announced a test program, which will allow trucks from 100 selected Mexican companies to haul freight all over the United States. Safety groups, truck drivers, and trucking companies in the U.S. are expressing the most concern over this program - over safety, jobs, and homeland security issues. Of course, U.S. drivers are required to comply with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). Those regulations govern every aspect of interstate trucking, including hours of service, insurance, drug and alcohol testing, and, of course, safety and security. Mexican standards and regulations pale in comparison to the requirements in the U.S. Many of those opposed to the program are also concerned about language. According to them, although drivers in this pilot program may have above-average English skills, the public has a right to be concerned about future drivers, if the Bush administration decides to expand further in this direction. Also, there is the question of jobs. American truck drivers could be impacted significantly by an onslaught of lower-cost competition.

As it stands now, Mexican trucks are checked from top to bottom, for security reasons and safety compliance, every time they cross into the U.S. Loosening these standards will not do anything to promote safer highways for the American public. Let's hope this pilot program comes and goes, without any erosion of our current safety standards.

Sources: Los Angeles Daily News, The Trucker News Service, KFOX (El Paso, TX)

Continue reading "Mexican Truck Driver Pilot Program Stirs Controversy" »

Railroad crossings can be incredibly dangerous, no matter what you are driving. In this video, you will see what happens when a train collides with an 18-wheeler's trailer.

Continue reading "VIDEO: Semi-Truck and Train Accident" »

In tractor trailer wrecks, one of the most common causes of severe injuries and wrongful death fatalities is the underride collision. An 18-wheeler underride collision happens when an automobile crashes into a truck, and penetrates ("underrides") beneath the side or rear of the trailer. In the usual case, the top of the car may be crushed, or shorn off completely. These kinds of collisions are completely preventable - provided the trucking company has installed the necessary equipment. Watch this short video to learn more.

Continue reading "VIDEO: Tractor Trailer Underride Dangers" »

Driver fatigue is a huge problem, which has reared its ugly head in tractor trailer accident cases for many years. The fact is, thousands of truck drivers just don't get enough sleep. This puts all of us on the roadways at risk. Truck drivers have been known to fall asleep at the wheel, and even so-called "drowsy driving" can really impact the truck driver's ability to drive safely. Many observers point to the pressure from trucking companies that drivers are sometimes subjected to, which may lead drivers to be on the roads and interstates for so many hours that there is not sufficient time for sleep.

This problem has been addressed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which govern how drivers and trucking companies do business - to help ensure the safety of the public and the drivers themselves. For example, under the rules, a truck driver may not drive more than 10 hours, after having 8 straight hours off-duty, OR for any period of time at all, after the driver has been on duty for 15 straight hours, after having 8 straight hours off-duty. Also, a motor carrier (trucking company) may not require (or even allow) a truck driver to drive at all after 60 hours in any single week. In a similar vein, a truck driver also may not drive a truck, if he has been driving 70 hours in any 8-day period. You can find these regulations at 49 C.F.R. Section 395.3.

Truck accident lawyers have discovered numerous violations of these kinds of safety rules over the years after major tractor trailer crashes. It is critically important that when these safety rules are broken, that those responsible are held accountable, so that future wrongful death fatalities and life-shattering injuries don't occur.

Continue reading "Driver Fatigue and the Problem of Exceeding Maximum Driving Time Limits" »

I let you know about this intersection collision and the resulting fatalities back on March 27. According to WIS-TV and other media reports, the logging truck driver, George Rogers, has been charged with two counts of reckless homicide for the crash in Chester County that killed two children, Hannah Quinton (9) and Nicholas Cherry (7). The logging truck slammed into the van in which the two children were riding at an intersection along Highway 9, not far from Lewisville Elementary School near Richburg. The children had just been picked up from school. Almost the entire driver's side of the van was ripped off in the collision, and logs were scattered across the four-lane highway. This is truly a tragic loss for the loved ones of these two children. What's worse, if the Highway Patrol is right, it looks like this tragedy could have been prevented.

Continue reading "Logging Truck Driver Charged in Fatalities of Two Children After Richburg, South Carolina Collision" »

Just like in every other tort case, the choice of where to file suit is important in making sure that an injured person can recover for all of the damages caused by the persons (or companies) who caused a tractor trailer accident. In fact, the choice of the forum can make the difference between a meaningful recovery for the injured person, and no recovery at all. For the most part, you always have the right to file suit in two places: (1) where the collision occurred, and (2) the defendant's principal place of business. The law in different states may vary tremendously. For example, there may be caps on noneconomic damages. There may be a cap on punitive damages, or punitive damages may be disallowed altogether. Comparative negligence laws can also vary significantly. The statute of limitations may be different. Some states will not allow for joint and several liability, and some states may have a collateral source rule.

All of these factors play a huge role, and the skillful truck accident lawyer will know and compare each of these factors, before choosing a forum.