An amendment was recently offered by Reps. Defazio (D-OR), Boyda (D-KS), Hunter (R-CA) and Miller (R-CA), and included unanimously in HR 3074, the fiscal year 2008 DOT appropriations bill, to prohibit the use of any funds to establish or implement the proposed Mexican-domiciled truck pilot program.
While the amendment is not yet law, I have high hopes that the current, poorly executed legislation will be killed, and killed quickly.
The International Risk Management Institute states that:
"The MCS-90 endorsement is a highly misunderstood and increasingly often litigated one-page endorsement required by the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 to be attached to insurance policies covering auto liability exposures of certain types of businesses. Its purpose is to certify that the insured maintains a minimum level of financial responsibility for compensating others involved in truck-related accidents that result in bodily injury, property damage, or environmental damage. The most obvious category of businesses for which this endorsement applies is truckers of all types. Additionally, however, it is often necessary for other types of businesses that transport or deliver their products or services using their own fleets of vehicles (i.e., private carriers)." They put out a very helpful book for anyone trying to understand the area. The book may be found at: www.irmi.com/IrmiCom/Cart/Default.aspx
According to the government, "Financial responsibility means having insurance policies or surety bonds sufficient to satisfy the minimum public liability requirements. Public liability means liability for bodily injury, property damage, and environmental restoration. Environmental restoration means restitution for the loss, damage, or destruction of natural resources arising out of an accidental discharge of toxic or other environmentally harmful materials or liquids.
Requirements for Financial Responsibility
Motor carriers of property operating commercial motor vehicles in interstate, foreign, or intrastate commerce, and for-hire carriers of passengers operating in interstate or foreign commerce must have at least the minimum amount of insurance required by law."
Proof
The motor carrier must have proof of the minimum level of insurance at the company's principal place of business. Proof may be shown by any of the following:
A MCS-90 Form should be carried on board the cabin.
Endorsements for Motor Carriers policies of insurance for public liability under Sections 29 and 30 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (Form MCS-90) issued by an insurer.
Endorsements for Motor Carriers of Passengers policies of insurance for public liability under Section 18 of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982 (Form MCS-90B*) issued by an insurer.
A Motor Carrier Surety Bond for public liability under Section 30 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (Form MCS-82) issued by a surety.
A Motor Carrier of Passengers Surety Bond for public liability under Section 18 of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982 (Form MCS-82B*) issued by a surety.
A written decision, order, or authorization of the Interstate Commerce Commission authorizing the motor carrier to self-insure under 49 CFR 1043.5.
FORMS:
Motor Carrier Public Liability Surety Bond Under Section 18 of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982. www.truckinjurylawyerblog.com/BOND.pdf
Endorsement for Motor Carrier Policies of Insurance for Public Liability Under Section 18 of the Bus Regulatory reform Act of 1982. www.truckinjurylawyerblog.com/Bus.pdf
Endorsement for Motor Carrier Policies of Insurance for Public Liability Under Sections 29 and 30 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980. www.truckinjurylawyerblog.com/Motor Carrier Act.pdf
Motor Carrier Public Liability Surety Bond Under Sections 29 and 30 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980. www.truckinjurylawyerblog.com/Section 29 & 30 Bond.pdf
A reporter for the Chattanooga Times Free Press stated that, according to the American Trucking Association, 1/4 of its drivers have problems with sleep apnea. See the front page of the July 19, 2007, Chattanooga Times Free Press, "Truckers get physical."
Sleep apnea is a sleep disorder characterized by pauses in breathing during sleep. People with sleep apnea are often sleepy during the day. They find that they are still tired even after a nap. When you stop breathing, your body wakes up. It happens so quickly, you aren’t even aware of it. This disrupts your sleep process. Individuals with sleep apnea can stop breathing hundreds of times in one night. This makes them feel very tired the next day. Generally sleep apnea is most prevalent in overweight middle aged men who snore and have neck sizes greater than 17".
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations forbid drivers with sleep apnea from driving until the sleep apnea is treated. FMCSR 392.3 specifically states a trucking company shall not allow a sleepy driver to drive. For a copy of the regulation see: www.truckinjurylawyerblog.com/49cfr392.3.pdf
The National Sleep Foundation states:
Sleepiness and driving is a dangerous combination. Most people are aware of the dangers of drinking and driving but don’t realize that drowsy driving can be just as fatal. Like alcohol, sleepiness slows reaction time, decreases awareness, impairs judgment and increases your risk of crashing.
It's nearly impossible to determine with certainty the cause of a fatal crash where drowsy driving is suspected. However, there are a number of clues at a crash scene that tell investigators that the person fell asleep at the wheel. For example, drowsy driving accidents usually involve only one vehicle where the driver is alone and the injuries tend to be serious or fatal. Also, skid marks or evidence of other evasive maneuvers are usually absent from the drowsy driving crash scene.
Unlike alcohol-related crashes, no blood, breath, or other objective test for sleepiness behind the wheel currently exists that investigators could give to a driver at the scene of a crash. This makes police training in identifying drowsiness as a crash factor very difficult.
Definitions of drowsy driving or driver fatigue rely on how the concept of "fatigue" is defined. Fatigue is a general term commonly used to describe the experience of being "sleepy," "tired," "drowsy," or "exhausted." While all of these terms have different meanings in research and clinical settings, they tend to be used interchangeably in the traffic safety and transportation fields.
There are many underlying causes of sleepiness, fatigue and drowsy driving. Including sleep loss from restriction or too little sleep, interruption or fragmented sleep; chronic sleep debt; circadian factors associated with driving patterns or work schedules; undiagnosed or untreated sleep disorders; time spent on a task; the use of sedating medications; and the consumption of alcohol when already tired. These factors have cumulative effects and a combination of any of these can greatly increase one's risk for a fatigue-related crash.
Sleepiness or Fatigue Causes the Following:
Impaired reaction time, judgment and vision
Problems with information processing and short-term memory
Decreased performance, vigilance and motivation
Increased moodiness and aggressive behaviors
In addition to the dangers of driving under the influence of fatigue, several states are considering legislation that would allow police to charge drowsy drivers with criminal negligence if they injure or kill someone while driving if they have not had adequate sleep. See: www.sleepfoundation.org/site/c.huIXKjM0IxF/b.2485279/k.A2A4/Drowsy_Driving.htm
Unfortunately truckers who report they have sleep apnea can't drive until it is treated, and the whole time they are under treatment they are not getting paid. Further, if the sleep apnea can't be cured, the drivers will be forbidden from driving. The sad result for the American public is that most trucking companies turn a blind eye to the problem, well known in the trucking industry, to avoid losing drivers for any length of time, placing profits over people. A simple solution would be to find work for the driver, that does not involve driving a tractor trailer, until the illness is treated.
President Bush, Dec. 4, 2006, signed into law a provision that will in time grant Mexican trucking companies access to roadways throughout the U.S
According to the U.S. Customs Service, 2,383,471 trucks crossed the border from Mexico to the U.S. in 2000 and, as of September 2001, 1,681,526 trucks had entered the U.S. from Mexico.
According to a study published in February 2001 by Public Citizen, about 1 percent (35,000) of every one million Mexican trucks that cross the border undergo safety and licensing inspections. Of that 1 percent, more than one-third, about 12,250, are turned away because of safety deficiencies.
In all, the Transportation Department (DOT) estimates that opening the border will increase traffic from Mexican trucks to about 7 million from its current level, according to the study. At the time the report was published, there were 101 state commercial truck inspectors and 60 federal inspectors at the border. The DOT estimates covering every one of the 7 million Mexican trucks would require about 32,000 inspectors.
A letter from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, admittedly an interested party, states it this way:
Dear President Bush:
On behalf of hundreds of thousands of American small business truckers, the Owner?Operator Independent Drivers Association (“OOIDA”) asks you to maintain the current border restrictions on Mexican trucks until there is a system in place to ensure that Mexican trucks comply with U.S. laws related to safety, immigration, and customs.
Our initial concern is with the safety of trucks and motor carriers from Mexico. Our members own the trucks they drive and spend most of their time working on our nation’s highways. They believe that the Mexican trucks that already use our highways are in terrible physical shape and fall well short of compliance with our safety regulations. Indeed, this fact has been backed up by research by the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation.
Additionally, there are no weight limits on trucks in Mexico as we have in the U.S. It is not unusual for one load on a truck from Mexico to be split up onto two American trucks in order to be legally hauled on U.S. highways. If our current border enforcement can only inspect a minute percentage of Mexican trucks that come into the U.S. today, we will surely see a major influx of unsafe, overweight Mexican trucks should we further open our border.
This safety concern also encompasses Mexico’s relatively lax regulation of its truck drivers. Although Mexico does require that a truck driver obtain a Commercial Drivers License (“CDL”) and receive a physical exam, these requirements are much less stringent than those required of U.S. drivers. In addition, U.S. drivers also face periodic, unannounced drug testing, and are subject to hours-of-service limits. Mexican drivers do not face either requirement. There is no way for federal or state enforcement officials to reasonably believe that a Mexican driver is drug-free, or know how many hours that driver has been working behind the wheel. These are two driver issues that our Department of Transportation and state enforcement agencies take very seriously in regard to U.S. drivers.
Whereas U.S. officials can use a computer to check a U.S. drivers identity, the validity of the CDL, a record of the driver’s history of violations, and the validity of a liability insurance certificate, none of this information about Mexican drivers and motor carriers is automated. We understand that U.S. border officials have become experienced in spotting a counterfeit Mexican CDL, but once that trucker is past the border, our non-border state officials have no expertise to do this job.
Similarly, U.S. motor carriers are required to register with the U.S. Department of Transportation where a safety rating is maintained on computer. This information is used to identify unsafe carriers who then receive on-site safety audits. No safety record is now kept on Mexican Carriers in Mexico or the United States, and even if such records were kept, the Mexican carriers would be outside of the jurisdiction of DOT enforcement personnel to perform on-site safety audits.
Our members must share the road with every vehicle, and safety is a high priority. Without a comprehensive system in place to enforce the physical standards for a safe truck, the minimal requirement for a safe driver, or the ability to verify liability insurance, public safety on our highways is greatly compromised. Furthermore, it is simply unfair to U.S. businesses that Mexican drivers and motor carriers will not face the same level of scrutiny as U.S. trucks, drivers, and motor carriers for the privilege of using U.S. roads.
Safety is not the only challenge Mexican trucks and drivers pose to the United States. OOIDA is concerned that neither the Immigration and Naturalization Service nor Customs Service are prepared to oversee the compliance by Mexican drivers and trucks with laws enforced by those agencies. Under NAFTA, a Mexican truck can only deliver a cross-border shipment to a destination in the United States, pick up another shipment for return to Mexico, or drive through the United States on the way to Canada. We have no system in place to ensure they adhere to these restrictions.
When a Mexican truck driver begins to illegally haul between two points within the United States (as they are already doing, virtually unchecked[1]), he or she has begun to perform domestic work within the U.S. and must have proper documentation (such as a green card) to do so. When a Mexican truck begins to haul between two points within the United States, that truck has technically been imported into the U.S. and all applicable duties and tariffs must be paid on it. The INS and Customs Service are unprepared to supervise compliance with these rules by thousands and thousands of Mexican drivers and trucks. If these laws are not enforced and low paid Mexican drivers are allowed to operate freely within our borders, they will quickly depress already inadequate truck driver earnings in the United States and drive many experienced and capable American drivers out of business. This is not the old labor argument against cheap foreign labor in another country. This is about cheap labor being used to undercut our workers and small businesses on our own soil.
Federal agencies have been unsuccessful in enforcing our laws with the limited numbers of Mexican trucks coming into our country today. States and localities, who perform the primary trucking enforcement role in the U.S. are completely unprepared to assist in the enforcement with these federal issues.
In order to mitigate the adverse effects of the NAFTA panel decision, OOIDA requests that you and your administration delay implementation of that decision until the relevant agencies have in place the manpower and procedures necessary to enforce our laws as we have the right to do under NAFTA.
You can also go to the Truck Safety Coalition www.trucksafety.org and see that consumer advocates agree that allowing trucks from Mexico onto US roads, as the law is currently written, is dangerous.
On July 24, 2007 The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the plaintiff's petition to "vacate those portions of the 2005 Rule that increases the daily driving limit from 10 to 11 hours, and that permit an off-duty period of 34 hours to restart the weekly on-duty limits." This is a significant victory for the safety of anyone traveling the highways with a tractor trailer as fatigue has been shown to be one of the leading causes of fatalities involving tractor trailers. For the complete opinion please see: www.truckinjurylawyerblog.com/Extending Hours of Service Rejected by 11th Circuit.pdf
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration stated:
“We are analyzing the decision issued today to understand the court’s findings as well as determine the agency’s next steps to prevent driver fatigue, ensure safe and efficient motor carrier operations and save lives. This decision does not go into effect until September 14, unless the court orders otherwise.” The Press Contact for this issue is: Melissa Mazzella DeLaney (202) 366-2309; Cell: (202) 465-5650
Please see the topic of "Driver Problems" in my Blog for more on fatigue.
It is not uncommon for someone to run into the rear of a tractor trailer on the open highway. In fact there have been reports on critical problems of side and rear under-ride impacts for a long time. One news report shows how horrific these collisions can be, see: www.youtube.com/watch In court we frequently hear everyone testify that the taillights on the trailer were on, which begs the question: "Why did the driver of the car run into the back, or side, of the tractor trailer?"
.jpg)
Part of the problem is driver expectation. What can a reasonable and prudent person expect when driving at night? Car drivers expect that trucks will obey the minimum speed limit if they are traveling on the interstate. If a tractor trailer is traveling below the minimum posted speed limit, a motorist may see the taillights and clearance lights but gains on the truck faster than expected. By the time the driver realizes the truck is going much slower than normal, he or she may be too close to avoid it. At 55 miles per hour (80.85 feet per second) the approaching car will cover 485 feet in only six seconds. At night it takes longer for a driver to see and react to unexpected situations in the highway. It takes a driver MUCH longer to realize that the tractor trailer isn't moving, or is moving slowly, which is why almost 100% of these collisions happen at night.
One "decision sight-distance time model" indicates that at 30 MPH it takes 10.5 seconds and 460 feet from the time an "unexpected fixed object" becomes visible for the driver to "see" it, recognize the hazard, decide on action, initiate action, and complete maneuver. At 60 MPH, the distance could be 1275 feet. This of course does not involve hitting the brakes, but in steering around the hazard. It would take longer to brake.
Pre-collision skidmarks are rare. Occasionally investigators will find some, but the marks are usually not very long. This means that the driver identified the problem far enough back to brake, but too close to stop before impact.
Due to an issue in manufacturing, the air brake system in the Cheetah 2006 Container Chassis and Remac Container chassis could fail, causing the air brakes to engage suddenly. Apparently some of the pipe fittings were drilled too deep during the manufacturing process. A thin wall in the male pipe thread resulted, leading to the possibility that the male pipe thread could break off during or after assembly. If the parts fail during use, the air brake system depressurizes. For more on how the air brake system works in tractor trailers see the link on my site to Tractor Trailer Brake Systems.
I will try not to stray from my posts on Tractor Trailer issues but as a lawyer, and a lawyer who gets some degree of abuse in the press, and elsewhere, for trying to fight for the families and individuals who have been devastated by the negligence of others, there are times when I need to add my 2 cents about the American legal system. The article by Jeffery Pfeffer, copied below, echoes my sentiments and I thought it worth posting for your consideration.
In defense of lawyers (no joke)
With fewer regulators acting as watchdogs over business, attorneys - love 'em or hate 'em - are everyone's best defense, writes Business 2.0's Jeffrey Pfeffer.
By Jeffrey Pfeffer, Business 2.0 Magazine columnist
July 9 2007: 6:21 AM EDT
(Business 2.0 Magazine) -- Decades after Tylenol bottles were tampered with and Ford Pintos exploded, you'd think that product-safety panics would be nearing extinction.
No such luck. Consider just the past few months: Pet food laced with poison killed more than a dozen dogs and cats. Toothpaste shipped from China to Latin America turned out to be tainted with a potentially fatal thickening agent. And the FDA issued yet another recall for defective defibrillators, bringing the total number of heart devices that need to be replaced to nearly 200,000.
Here's another frighteningly persistent trend: The drumbeat for weakening the ability of people to seek redress in court by curtailing product-liability suits continues unabated.
A recent study by the nonprofit Pacific Research Institute estimated that the cost of tort law in the United States had reached $865 billion, equivalent to an 8 percent tax on consumption or a 13 percent tax on wages. But much of that analysis leans on faulty logic, and while most of my friends in business consider lawyers at best a necessary nuisance, for the most part, they're dead wrong.
Let's begin with the obvious: There could be no commerce of any kind unless there were some way to enforce promises and to ensure that businesses were truthful and honored their obligations.
Employees expect to be paid for the work they do, and they know that if they aren't, they have the means of legal redress. Purchasers of securities expect the information in the offering documents to be accurate, and they have recourse if it isn't. And people who buy pet food trust that the food won't contain poison.
Simply put, what makes transactions possible is the knowledge that if trust is abused, the abuser will pay a penalty.
There are two ways to enforce that trust. The first is through an independent or government agency that monitors business behavior and imposes sanctions when companies break the rules.
Yet that's become an increasingly arduous task in the United States, where the staffs of many oversight agencies have either shrunk or barely increased in size while the economy has continued to grow. Between 1998 and 2004, for instance, the staff of the federal agencies charged with overseeing food safety, occupational safety and health, and mine safety all declined slightly in size, and between 1990 and 2005, the agency that enforces fair employment laws shrank almost 16 percent.
The other mechanism for holding companies' feet to the fire is the court system.
Tort-reform advocates love to rail against the skyrocketing costs of litigation and multimillion-dollar damage awards, yet one definitive study from Rand showed no increase in the percentage of tort cases won by plaintiffs and no statistically significant increase in the median award paid by businesses. Comparisons with other countries can also be misleading because they have more stringent regulatory regimes.
True, regulatory agencies cost billions, and so does our legal system. But I would argue it's a pretty good deal -- simply a necessary cost of running an economy in which people rely on the promises and products of strangers.
The alternative is precisely what we see in the case of the pet-food mess: agencies and companies sending people to inspect factories and raw materials more carefully, and increased testing of products coming into the country.
The next time you want to complain about "frivolous" lawsuits, picture doing business in a world where promises can't be relied on and you can only deal with people and organizations you already know well. There are undoubtedly abuses and problems in our current system, but the cost of punishing malfeasance is a necessary and small price to pay for running a modern economy.
Business 2.0 columnist Jeffrey Pfeffer is the Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business.
A Greyhound bus crashed July 10, 2007, injuring or shaking up the 49 people on board. A passenger with known mental issues grabbed the steering wheel from the bus driver. See: www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp
This crash is reprehensible because it was not only easily preventable, but because Greyhound has known for years this type incident occurs without protective barriers for the driver. In fact our firm sued Greyhound over a similar crash in 2001 which resulted in our clients death. The Greyhound bus driver in our case stated that drivers had been asking Greyhound for years for protection from passenger assaults and interference with the the drivers. Greyhound records show that, before the crash my firm handled in 2001, there were 42 similar incidents of passengers interfering with the driving of a bus, with 5 of the incidents resulting in an accident. The experts in our case agreed that an inexpensive protective barrier was called for, readily available, and should be installed on passenger buses.
After significant discovery, effort, and work we were able to prove Greyhound's poor practices and decisions endangered our client and the motoring public. Our clients eventually made a decision to settle their case prior to trial and Greyhound stated they were going to install protective barriers on their buses. Clearly they did not. A companion case to ours, with a paralyzed passenger, went to trial and received a multimillion dollar verdict which was upheld on appeal. See: Surles ex rel. Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288 C.A.6 (Tenn. 2007)
Greyhound should be punished for allowing this type of accident to happen again. They clearly don't understand the need to protect their passengers!
Often trucking companies hire allegedly "independent " contractors to work for them and claim they have no responsibility for their actions. They deny they have to provide insurance coverage or that they need to accept any responsibility for these drivers and the poorly maintained tractor trailers they place on the road. DON'T FALL FOR IT!
49 CFR 376.12 (c) (1) states that a carrier may utilize equipment it does not own only when “the authorized carrier lessee shall have exclusive possession, control and use of the equipment for the duration of the lease. The lease shall further provide that the authorized carrier lessee shall assume complete responsibility for the operation of the equipment for the duration of the lease.” In Shell v. Navajo Freight Lines, 693 P.2d 382 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984), the Colorado Court of Appeals noted that “[t]he regulations, which have the force and effect of law, eliminate the defense of independent contractor by making the owner/operator of the equipment the "statutory employee" of the carrier.”
There are two lines of cases. Some courts have have concluded that the leasing regulations were intended to impose to impose strict vicarious liability when a leasing agreement is in effect, not withstanding the driver's "independent contractor" status. See: Morris v. JTM Materials, Inc, 78 S.W.2d (Tex. App. 2002) Other courts have concluded a state law respondeat superior and "scope of employment" analysis is required as a prerequisite to the determination of vicarious liability. See: Parker v. Erixon, 473 S.E.2d 421 (N.C. App 1996)
The rules and regulations governing tractor trailer collisions are complex and are not for the beginner or the faint at heart. Make sure that anyone hired to handle your case has a thorough grounding in these complex regulations.
On May 11, 2007 the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) issued a statement supporting 100% use of Electric On Board Recorders (EOBR's) and acknowledging the problems with fatigued truck drivers on the roads. The CVSA said:
To enable significant positive changes to commercial vehicle drivers’ hours of service (HOS) compliance, CVSA is advocating universal adoption of electronic on board recorder (EOBR) technology. Captain John E. Harrison, President of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), outlined before a Senate subcommittee how EOBR technology could help solve problems as well as making recommendations on the current Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) EOBR Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
“Compliance with the HOS regulations continues to be a significant problem encountered by law enforcement, both at roadside and in the motor carrier’s place of business,” said Harrison to the subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate on EOBRs and Truck Driver Fatigue Reduction.
Unfortunately, drivers operating in excess of drivers’ HOS limits and falsified driver logs continue to represent a significant risk to safety. In 2006, HOS violations were represented in seven of the “Top 20” driver violations discovered during roadside inspections, representing 34.2 percent of the total. Of those, 78.8 percent were for HOS. During compliance reviews, five of the “Top 12” critical violations cited were HOS related, or 34.6 percent of the total. The results from the 2006 Large Truck Crash Causation Study indicated that fatigue was reported as an associated factor in 13 percent of all large truck crashes.
“We believe EOBRs hold great promise and is one of a number of tools for helping improve compliance with HOS regulations and providing a positive impact on safety and crashes related to driver fatigue. EOBR technology is proven--more than 50 countries have mandated electronic data recorders for driving and standby time recording and/or speed and distance recording.” said Harrison. “We also believe that wide-scale adoption of EOBRs will help curb the challenges with limited resources available at the state and federal levels for overseeing the motor carrier industry.”
CVSA is an international not-for-profit organization comprised of local, state, provincial, territorial and federal motor carrier safety officials and industry representatives from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Our mission is to promote commercial motor vehicle safety and security by providing leadership to enforcement, industry and policy makers. In addition, CVSA has several hundred associate members who are committed to helping the Alliance achieve its goals; uniformity, compatibility and reciprocity of commercial vehicle inspections, and enforcement activities throughout North America by individuals dedicated to highway safety and security. For more on CVSA visit www.CVSA.org
Five teens were on their way to a vacation home when they hit a Tractor Trailer. Everyone in the car died. The tragedy in western New York's Finger Lakes region happened just five days after the teens graduated from Fairport High School.
The police have indicated the cause of the collision is under investigation. An investigation to determine who is at fault takes place anytime there is a motor vehicle collision and someone is seriously injured or killed.
A person who sustains serious injuries from an SUV, truck, car, or motorcycle accident because someone else was at fault may have grounds to file a personal injury claim. If someone was killed in a traffic accident because another person was negligent, the victim’s family members may have grounds to file a wrongful death lawsuit.
A good personal injury lawyer can determine who was at fault for causing the accident. He or she also has the knowledge, tools, and experience to figure out if a defect in the vehicle caused the accident and a manufacturer or distributor is to blame. Common grounds for a motor vehicle product liability claim include defective tires, defective airbag, defective seat belts, and defective breaks.
Recovering from an accident is stressful enough without having to worry about medical or recovery costs.
If you or someone you love was hurt contact The Law Offices of Morgan Adams. We have the experts needed to review your case and are here to help.
For more on the Cheerleader story see: www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/28/teens.crash.ap/index.html
Enter keywords:
