Tennessee Truck Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Morgan Adams : Trucking Accident, Truck DUI DWI, Semi-Truck Accidents

A tour bus carrying 65 family members crashed at 3AM when the driver fell asleep at the wheel. While everyone onboard was injured, there was one fatality when a 71 year old passenger was ejected from the bus.

The fact that she was ejected from the bus is not surprising, as buses, unlike airplanes, don't have seatbelts. The issue centers around a concept known as "compartmentalization." Buses that weigh more than 10,000 pounds are built to offer "passive restraint" to riders: closely-spaced seats that protect passengers in the same way an egg carton protects its contents. Our firms experience in bus crashes shows compartmentalization doesn't offer adequate protection in side impacts or rollovers, where passengers don't get thrown forwards, but are ejected through the bus windows or thrown against the floor or ceiling. In fact seatbelts would help retain passengers in the "compartment", making buses even safer. Experts estimate seatbelts would cost about $1,000, or $15.15 a passenger for a 66 passenger bus. This works out to less than a nickle a day per passenger in the first year, far less than this over the life of a bus. In short it makes no sense not to have seatbelts on buses.  

Many states now require school buses to have seatbelts. Early this month Texas enacted a law which would require  all buses purchased on or after Sept. 1, 2010, to have seatbelts. While that doesn't help folks today, it is a step in the right direction for Texas. If the bus you or your children are on are on does not have seatbelts what do you do?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Trucking Companies have long been aware that tractor trailers have blind spots if drivers fail to use all the mirrors available to them. Typically you will see two types of mirrors on a truck, a flat mirror and a round mirror. By using both of these mirrors a truck driver can see into the "blind spot" of a tractor trailer. Trucking Companies call these alleged blind spots "No Zones." For an example of a "No Zone" see the link at the bottom of this post.

So why have "No Zones?" Defense lawyers use "No-Zones" to shift blame onto drivers who were run over by a tractor trailer! They argue to the jury: 1) Everyone knows about the no-zone, there is even a picture of it on the back of the truck. 2) The dead driver should have paid more attention because he/she knew, or should have known,  they were in a "blind spot" Since you have read this far it now means YOU are responsible if you are passing a truck and the driver changes lanes, running you over!

The truth is the professional tractor trailer driver is 100% RESPONSIBLE for this type of collision. 1. They have specialized training about the blind spots 2. They have mirrors which, if they chose to use them, would eliminate blind spots and 3. They can use electronic systems, in use and available today, to trigger warnings to the tractor trailer driver whenever vehicles are in a blind spot. See: truck.eaton.com/vorad_how_works.htm  For example, Schneider National, a trucking company with 15,500 drivers, would save approximately 6.2 lives EVERY YEAR with this system in place.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has proposed that only the worst trucking companies be required to have electronic onboard recorders (EOBR) to determine if there are hours of service violations by the drivers. Why? The FMCSA knows that fatigue is the leading cause of death in thousands of accidents and collisions on the roadways every year. The EOBR monitors the drivers identity, duty status, date, time, location, and carrier distance traveled. The trucking company instantly knows about violations and if the driver needs time off to avoid becoming fatigued.

The problem from my point of view is that they are not mandating that EOBR's be used in throughout the trucking industry. Given the acknowledge shortage of drivers, the desire to work longer hours by some drivers and  trucking companies in order to make more money, and the fear of getting fired by some drivers if their load isn't delivered on time, it seems as if these devices would prevent drivers from overwork and fatigue, and thus collisions. It comes as no surprise that the trucking industry is in favor of limited use of EOBRs despite the fact that a study done by the American Trucking Association showed 76% of the drivers had their moral improve! Clearly the drivers know they are being forced to overwork!

In a recent case, Trotter v. B & W Cartage Company, Inc., 2006 US Dist LEXIS 19074 (S.D. Ill. 2006) a truck driver was in serious violation of the hours of service regulations, fatigued and had been submitting false logs for weeks to the trucking company. The driver's employer admitted that they couldn't audit the driver's logs because they got "too big too fast." If they had an EOBR, a horrible crash would likely never have happened.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Federal regulations have long mandated that, prior to hiring a truck driver, trucking companies must check with the drivers' employers for the past three years to see if the driver was dangerous to the motoring public. See 49 C.F.R. 391.23(a) & (a)(2) Specifically, prior employers were to be asked: 1)identification and employment verification information; 2) information about accidents defined under the FMCSR's including the date, location, and whether injuries, fatalities or hazardous chemicals were involved; 3) information about any other accidents the prior employer maintains and, if applicable for safety functions; 4) whether the driver has complied with all alcohol and drug regulations. The industry standard is for a trucking company to go back six years. See: Strub v. Stillmunkes Salvage and Trucking, Inc., 2003 Iowa App. LEXIS 546 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003)

Unfortunately, prior to 2004, the prior employer was not obligated to provide the information. These rules changed in 2004, requiring the prior employers to respond to the requested information on drivers within thirty days. www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/391.23.htm 

False reports from prior employers, stating the driver was in good standing when he left without any blemishes on the driver's records, may now allow the falsely reporting company to be held liable for the damage these dangerous drivers cause. Only a thorough investigation by experts knowledgeable in trucking will reveal whether a prior employer has any liability for deceiving a subsequent employer.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a Tractor Trailer rollovers, who is to blame is frequently a major issue. Federal regulations generally require the driver to bear responsibility for the loading, and faulty loading, of the trailer. However an exception is made for loads that are sealed. www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp Who then is responsible? Generally speaking it is the company that loaded and sealed the trailer. Frequently these companies point at the driver and blame him for excessive speed and allege this is the real cause of the collision. While this may be a cause in wrecks, there are a number where the driver is as much of a victim as any other innocent party and,  it is the company that improperly loaded the trailer who is truly at fault.

In 2002 new rules on securing cargo were adopted that went into effect  Jan 1, 2004. www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/truck/vehicle/cs-policy.htm The new rules require motor carriers to change the way they use cargo securement devices to prevent articles from shifting on or within, or falling from commercial motor vehicles. The changes may require motor carriers to increase the number of tie-downs used to secure certain types of cargo. If you have a case where a truck rolled over, or material fell off of a truck. these rules would also apply to those companies loading and sealing trailers. It is critical that experts be retained as soon as possible to determine if a cargo securement issue is involved in a collision, and to determine who is at fault for the improperly loaded trailer.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Truck Drivers are at risk every time they step into a truck because the cab of the truck they are driving can easily be crushed in a rollover. While manufacturers have long know of this problem, little has been done about it. The fix is cheap and inexpensive, yet the manufacturer's refuse to admit responsibility despite government data and lawsuits which have highlighted the problem.

If someone you know was injured or killed in a cab crush, whether multiple vehicles were involved or just a single vehicle accident, you should immediately act to preserve the tractor. Without the cab there is little a lawyer can do to bring a case. Trucking company insurance companies know this, frequently destroying the tractor after a wreck. This is why it is critical to send a spoliation letter to preserve evidence. Please see my earlier post for an example.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One of the easiest things to do for a trucking company is to follow the law on how much material you can put into, or onto, a truck. Just because it is easy doesn't mean it is done.

Overloaded trucks are a real problem on our roads. For example on June 5, 2007, in College Park, Maryland, a truck was pulled over weighing 70,300 pounds, far exceeding the 17,000 pounds which the truck was lawfully allowed to carry. The State Trooper in charge of the stop, Trooper Eric White of the Maryland State Police, stated overweight trucks are a major source of highway accidents. "When they hit their brakes, they're so heavy that they can't stop." The overweight violation resulted in a $16,155 fine, but it could have been much worse. See: www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx

So why do trucking companies overload their trucks? Trucking companies generally overload their trucks to save money. The trucks have to make fewer trips and the companies have less expense in fuel and driver salary. The money the company saves comes at the expense of the motoring public. Not only is the impact greater when the accident occurs, the driver's aren't trained on how to drive overloaded trucks. Every driving rule they know is invalid because the training and rules drivers are taught are based on trucks within legal limits. In short, overloaded trucks put drivers in situations they are not trained for and the results are far too often deadly crashes. The least significant cost is damage to the highway as the overloaded trucks put more pressure on the pavement than the highway was designed to handle. This in turn causes deterioration of the highways and greater expense to the taxpayers as the highways have to be replaced sooner than expected and the publics' daily misery of having to live with the pot holes and damaged roads caused by these trucks.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A recent MSNBC report  video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm, shows how drivers of the 3.2 million tractor trailers registered in the US are being driven by problem drivers. In this instance the driver had 56 violations on his license and had his license suspended seven times by the State of Delaware. Because this was information was not communicated,  he was still allowed to drive. The Trucking Companies choice of drivers, and failure to do an adequate background check as required by law, resulted in the death of an innocent man who was simply using the roads to get from point A to point B.

Drivers of Tractor Trailers are allowed to have only one license by federal law. States are supposed to timely communicate information on drivers to a database to allow other states to revoke a bad driver's license. The failure to timely submit the information to the database by a state results, as in the above case, with death on the highways. The States unwillingness to get this information into the hands of the folks who need it for enforcement, and the Federal Government's lack of oversight in this area, is shameful.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

"Safety Director" is now a firmly entrenched title at all trucking companies. Everyone likes to say they are safe, but are they? First look at what a the responsabilities of a safety director. The certification course for Safety Directors given by the NATMI, an affiliate of the American Trucking Association, shows that safety directors are responsible for: driver hiring, training and supervision; accident investigation and prevention; fleet maintenance; and DOT/OSHA/HazMat regulatory compliance. It is the safety director that is responsible for the trucking companies compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

Questions safety directors should be asked by those involved in a collision include: How many other jobs do you have and how much time is spent on safety? What training have you had? Has the trucking company ever paid for you to have training in safety? Has the trucking company ever adopted a suggestion from the safety director which cost money?  If the trucking company has grown from 50 trucks to 500 trucks has the safety departments budget grown? Is there a safety newsletter or column?

Ironically, safety is frequently only given lip service at trucking companies although studies have shown that safety actually saves money over the long term for the trucking companies. Safety is "JOB ONE" because it saves money, it is also the right thing for a responsible company to do.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks