Governor Haslam Tells Brain Injured Tennesseans, and Parents of Special Needs Children, Their Injuries are not Catastrophic

Governor Haslam has proposed that non-economic damages should be capped in injury (tort) cases. In Tennessee juries are trusted to sentence a man to death, but apparently the Governor does not trust a jury, in injury cases, to determine the proper amount of compensation for victims of someone else’s wrongdoing. Did you get that? Governor Haslam is protecting the wrongdoers at the expense of their victims. This law does not apply to corporations, only to people like you and me. Corporations, who can only be injured economically, get every penny a jury finds owed to them, even if it is a lot.

Whether you agree or disagree with that doesn't really matter, as the Tennessee Legislature is controlled by Governor Haslam's party and they can pass whatever legislation they want. Apparently they want to limit the amount of non-economic damages that can be received from someone injured by a wrongdoer. 

So what does this mean? First, let’s talk about the wrongdoers. 

If you intentionally injure someone in the process of committing a crime (that doesn't constitute a felony) you don't have to pay as much. The Governor is going to protect you from a runaway Tennessee Jury!  The Governor is looking out for the rights of Mr. Wrongdoer and the victims' damages are going to be capped. (Lets be fair, the money coming to you as compensation for your actual damages will be limited or capped, there is still a chance to get punitive damages, but these are rarely awarded and, if they are awarded, are taxable. So the only full damages you get in these case are the ones in which the government gets a part.). A sexual abuse victim has personal problems? "Suck it up" says the Governor. The wrongdoer causes your child or spouse to be brain injured so that they can never interact socially with their class or peers? Move on says the Governor, “I need to protect these wrongdoers.” So that is the first part of the reform Governor Haslam feels compelled to pass on behalf of the wrongdoers in the state of Tennessee.

The second part of this tragedy is that the Governor will allow some catastrophically injured  Tennesseans to receive more than others. According to KnoxNews.com The administration late last week released changes to the bill that would create a special category for "catastrophic loss," which would raise the cap for non-economic damages in cases involving serious spinal cord injuries, severe burns or the death of a parent of minor children. Now these few categories excludes all brain injuries, apparently they are not catastrophic. Having to wear a urine drainage bag or diapers to catch your excrement and fluids as a twenty year old, chronic pain, etc... not catastrophic. Unable to ever have children because of someones wrongdoing? Not catastrophic. Does the Governor really believe he is all seeing and all knowing? Shouldn't we let a jury, on a case by case basis, decide this after hearing all the facts? I guess if you don’t trust the people of the state of Tennessee to do the right thing…

Now I have to admit many of my clients are brain injured, and catastrophically so even if they are able to walk and talk. Their lives, as they knew them prior to the wreck, are over. In many cases their personalities have changed and they are not the same spouse or parent they used to be. They get divorced and estranged from their kids. They have to move in with their children and need to be monitored. They essentially died, but their life goes on. 

This bill will impact many of my clients with brain injuries, and they will get less, and their families will get less. I find it arbitrary, and frankly an abuse of power, that the Governor has decided who can be classed as catastrophically injured in advance of knowing all the facts. I believe he should leave it up to a jury of 12 Tennesseans, hearing the facts of a case, to decide the issue.

Then their are the parents of special needs children. If you die it is not a catastrophic loss according to the Governor. Only if the children are minors can you get more, but still not the full amount of your damages. If you have adult special needs children? So sorry, you are out of luck. That is not catastrophic says the Governor. Take care of a parent that now needs to go into a nursing home? Not catastrophic says the Governor. It seems to me that if the legislature allowed catastrophic damages to any Tennessean that dies with a dependent it would be fairer (still limited in recovery, but at least not pitting one group against another and saying you don't deserve as much as others with dependents.).

Finally, no one, not even the judge, can tell members of the jury this travesty is happening. After the jury renders a fair verdict, the judge is required to cut it down and make it unfair to the victim. Note that if the original verdict was against the evidence, and unfair to the defendant, the law already requires the verdict to be reduced. This new law only impacts victims.

A copy of the Governor's shameful bill may be found here. You don’t think this is fair? Call your state representatives now (you can find your representatives here), but don’t expect them to change their minds, because you are just the sort of whacked out Tennessee citizen that might one day be on a jury... and the Governor doesn't trust you.

The Governor's proposed law, relevant sections in bold:

29-39-102.

(a) In any personal injury or wrongful death action, the prevailing

plaintiff may be awarded:

(1) Compensation for economic damages suffered by the

injured plaintiff; and

(2) Compensation for any noneconomic damages suffered

by each injured plaintiff not to exceed seven hundred fifty

thousand dollars ($750,000).

(b) If multiple defendants are found liable under the principle of

comparative fault, the amount of all noneconomic damages, not to

exceed seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) for each injured

plaintiff, shall be apportioned among the defendants based upon the

percentage of fault for each defendant, so long as the plaintiff's

comparative fault is not equal to or greater than fifty percent (50%).

(c) All noneconomic damages awarded to each injured plaintiff,

including damages for pain and suffering, as well as any claims of a

spouse or children for loss of consortium or any derivative claim for

noneconomic damages, shall not exceed in the aggregate a total of seven

hundred fifty thousand dollars ($750,000).

(d) If an injury or loss is catastrophic in nature, as defined below,

the seven hundred fifty thousand dollar ($750,000) amount for

noneconomic damages, as set forth in subsections (a)(2) through (c) may

be increased to, but shall not exceed, one million two hundred fifty

thousand dollars ($1,250,000).

(e) "Catastrophic loss or injury" means one or more of the

following:

(1) Spinal cord injury resulting in paraplegia, hemiplegia or

quadriplegia;

(2) Amputation of two hands, two feet or one of each;

(3) Second or third degree burns over forty percent (40%)

or more of the body as a whole or third degree bums up to forty

percent (40%) percent or more of the face; or

(4) Death of a parent who is survived by one or more

minor children.

(f) The limitation on the amount of noneconomic damages

imposed by subsections (a)(2) through (e) shall not apply to actions

brought for damages or an injury resulting from an act or omission by a

defendant:

(1) If the defendant committed an act or omission that

would constitute a felony under the laws of this state or under

federal law and that act or omission caused the damages or

injuries; or

(2) If the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or

under the influence of drugs other than lawfully prescribed drugs

            administered in accordance with a prescription.

Spoliation Letter - Version 4 - Did Your Lawyer Send One?

Every so often I need to revise and update my standard spoliation letter (a letter telling the trucking company to save evidence). In part because of changes in the industry, in part because it can always be made better.

In this latest version I fix some typo's, add in some FMCSR cites, and I added a section about the truck and trailer inspection. For those of you counting, here is version 4!

Do you have a good tractor trailer lawyer? If your lawyer has not sent a spoliation letter within a month I suggest you strongly consider hiring another lawyer unless he can articulate why they didn't send a spoliation letter.

If we know the trucking company and driver involved we typically send our spoliation letter out the same day we are hired, or the next day if the mail has run. In some cases our clients are hospitalized or worse and we have to wait till the police report is available to identify the trucking company and driver so we know to whom we need to send the letter.

FMCSA CAVES AGAIN TO INDUSTRY - CHANGES DISCLAIMER ON SMS DATA

The trucking industry has again gotten the Obama administration to weaken how the SMS data available for public review can be used. The current warning never went through the approval process and the industry brought a lawsuit to change the warning. The FMCSA could have done away with the warning all together adopt the industry language. The FMCSA adopted the industry language.

Currently deficient carriers are placed on an alert status (FMCSA already changed the color from red to amber with the introduction of CSA 2010 at the request of industry). Alert status has now been modified again as shown below. Additionally under the old system alerts were saved in the historical data. Alerts are no longer placed by the historical information.

The announcement from the FMCSA states:

FMCSA 03-11 
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Contact: Candice Tolliver
Tel: (202) 366-9999 or (202) 306-4580

FMCSA Reaches Settlement Agreement in National Association of Small Trucking Companies Litigation on the Compliance Safety Accountability Program

Washington, DC – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) today announced it has reached a settlement agreement with three trucking associations that will end litigation over information published on the website of FMCSA’s motor carrier enforcement program, Compliance Safety Accountability (CSA).

"CSA is a safety-critical program that helps to reduce commercial motor vehicle-related crashes and save lives,” said FMCSA Administrator Anne S. Ferro. “Through this settlement agreement, we addressed the concerns raised by petitioners without compromising the CSA program and its safety benefits.”

The National Association of Small Trucking Companies, Inc. (NASTC), the Expedite Alliance of North America (TEANA) and the Air & Expedited Motor Carriers Association (AEMCA) filed suit on Nov. 29, 2010 challenging FMCSA’s CSA program. Under the agreement, FMCSA will make changes to CSA’s Safety Measurement System (SMS) public website to address concerns regarding the display of information on a commercial motor carriers’ safety performance.

The key changes that FMCSA will make to the SMS public website by March 25, 2011 are as follows:

  • Replace any ALERT symbol currently displayed in orange on the SMS website with the following symbol of the exclamation mark inside a yellow triangle
  • Revise the disclaimer language on the SMS website to read: 
    “The data in the Safety Measurement System (SMS) is performance data used by the Agency and enforcement community. A symbol, based on that data, indicates that FMCSA may prioritize a motor carrier for further monitoring. The symbol is not intended to imply any federal safety rating of the carrier pursuant to 49 USC 31144. Readers should not draw conclusions about a carrier’s overall safety condition simply based on the data displayed in this system. Unless a motor carrier in the SMS has received an UNSATISFACTORY safety rating pursuant to 49 CFR Part 385, or has otherwise been ordered to discontinue operations by the FMCSA, it is authorized to operate on the nation’s roadways. Motor carrier safety ratings are available at http://safer.fmcsa.dot.gov and motor carrier licensing and insurance status are available at http://li-public.fmcsa.dot.gov.”

On Dec. 13, 2010, FMCSA launched its CSA enforcement program that is used to analyze all safety-based violations from roadside inspections and crashes to measure a commercial motor carrier's on-road safety performance. CSA allows FMCSA to reach more carriers earlier and deploy a range of corrective interventions to address a carrier's specific safety problems before crashes can occur.

To learn more about the CSA settlement agreement, visit the CSA website at http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/.

The current Safety rating, moved to the initial SMS screen from its original location, states:

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) Safety Management System (SMS) is an automated data system used by FMCSA to monitor motor carrier on-road safety performance. FMCSA analyzes safety performance by grouping carrier data in the SMS into seven Behavioral Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs) which are, in turn, used to identify potential safety problems with individual carriers and determine when an enforcement intervention might be appropriate.

The data and BASICs are used by the enforcement community to prioritize investigations and roadside inspections. The SMS data system is not a Safety Fitness Determination (SFD), is not a Safety Rating pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 385, and does not represent FMCSA’s final determination regarding the accuracy of the data contained in the SMS.

Use of the SMS data system for purposes other than those identified above may produce unintended results and inaccurate conclusions. FMCSA highly recommends that all motor carriers periodically review the SMS data system and when necessary verify the accuracy of their SMS data through DataQs, an electronic data correcting system in which carriers can request a data review. The DataQ system is available online at http://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov/. 

Underride Collsions Preventible Tragedies

A new study, discussed below, by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows that rear truck underride guards are inadequate, and collisions like the one shown above should never have the catastrophic damages that they so often do in the US.

Now there are many reasons that cars hit tractor trailers in the rear, sometimes it is the cars fault, sometimes it is the trucks fault. I have handled many of these cases when it has been determined that it has been the trucks fault. However the third party involved in these collisions, the 800 pound gorilla that is often overlooked by lawyers not familiar with trucking cases, is the trailer manufacturer. Why should they be involved? Because trailer manufacturer's have know since at least the 1970's (that I personally know of) how to decrease the severity of these collisions by making solid underride guards, at minimal cost and expense, and have done nothing about it.

So what did the IIHS report of March 1, 2011 (link to the study here), find? At a 35 MPH collision the guards would "buckle or break away from their trailers - with deadly consequences [for the occupants of cars]." Europe and Canada have stronger standards that protect the occupants of the car from passenger compartment intrusion.

 

Thus a car in a 35mph impact with a trailer with a weak underride guard looks like this: 

 

A car in a 35mph impact with a strong underride guard looks like this: 

Since industry steadfastly refuses to act I can only hope that the government will respond favorably to IIHS' s Petition for stronger underride guards.

50,000 Warning Letters to be Sent by FMCSA to Unsafe Trucking Companies

Warning letters (a sample may be viewed here) are the first step the FMCSA takes to notify trucking companies that they are deficient in a safety area. It is anticipated that 8% of all carriers (about 50,000) will receive warning letters in the next few months according to an article in the March 7, 2011 edition of Transportation Topics, an industry newsletter. This means almost one in every 10 trucks on the roadway is being operated by a trucking company that is unsafe in some fashion.The new government safety system, CSA 2010, will now cause these identified companies to have heightened roadside inspections.

Over time it is hoped that the need for warning letters will decrease as trucking companies become safer in response to these identified problems, or have their authority to operate removed if they fail to fix problems. Currently the trucking industry is starting to boom, with more freight being shipped and more trucks being purchased. In a rising freight environment the temptation for trucking companies  to hire any driver, as long as the loads get moved and the company makes money, is significant. I will continue to post on these issues as the new safety system is implemented and its full ramifications ripple out through the industry, and the legal system. 

Knight Transportation Destroys Evidence - Even After Told To Save it by Police - You Need a Lawyer ASAP!

Knight Transportation was sanctioned by the Federal District Court in Texas for the destruction of evidence, called spoliation in legal circles. This happens frequently in trucking cases after accidents, and is major reason why you should hire a lawyer as soon after a wreck as you can find an experienced tractor trailer lawyer (See my prior blogs on how to hire a good trucking lawyer here).

The case, whose opinion was issued Feb 22, 2011, may be found here (2011 WL 734282 (N.D.Tex.)). The court stated: 

[T]he evidence is clear and convincing that [Knight Transportation], purposefully, over a sustained period of time, engaged in a concerted effort to hide and destroy evidence.

 

Truck Deal WIth Mexico

A deal has been announced with Mexico, reportedly allowing Mexican trucks to drive in the US. The new deal has some stricter requirements for these than originally proposed under NAFTA. I have previously posted on safety issues with Mexican trucking companies here, here, and here amongst others.

I have not had a chance to digest the current agreement, but will post more when able. 

Inter v. Intrastate Transportation under the FMCSR - Does Your Lawyer Know the Difference?

I frequently see cases that make it clear the lawyers do not understand the term "intrastate" and "interstate" as used in the trucking industry. Probably because the terms are used in everyday conversation, the lawyers fail to check on the whether the load in question is actually inter or intrastate. Also many lawyers handling trucking cases are actually car wreck lawyers, and not truck wreck lawyers, a critical difference with huge implications for anyone hiring a trucking lawyer (You can test your lawyer by asking him the difference!)

So do you think you know the difference between intra and interstate as used in the trucking industry? The difference is actually very important and impacts, amongst other things, insurance coverage. So how are these terms used in the trucking industry? 

The following material from some recent decisions make it clear that: 

It is well settled in the trucking industry that the movement of goods and the intent of the shipper determines whether the goods are shipped in interstate commerce. See In the Matter of American Truck and Trailer Repair, Docket RI-92-001, 58 Fed. Reg. 16916 at 16921, March 31 1993 (Order, August 6,1992). In United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U.S. 218, 228-229 (1974) the United States Supreme Court held "when persons or goods move from a point of origin in one state to a point of destination in another, the fact that part of the journey consists of transportation by an independent agency solely within the boundaries of one state does not make that portion of the trip any less interstate in character. That portion must be viewed in its relation to the entire journey rather than in isolation. So viewed, it is an integral step in the interstate movement". The term "interstate commerce" within the meaning of the FMCSRs and underlying statutes is not synonymous with transport across state lines, and can include operations conducted wholly within a single state. Whether transportation between two points in one state is considered to be part of an interstate movement is determined by the essential character of the commerce, manifested by the shipper's fixed and persisting intent at the time of the shipment, and is ascertained from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the transportation. See In the Matter of Solomon Trucker, Jr., Docket No. FHWA-1997-2417 (Final Order, June 2,1998) citing to Baltimore & o.s. WR. Co. V. Settle, 260 U.S. 166 (1922) and Texas v. u.s., 866 F.2d 1546 (5 th Cir.), reh'g denied, 874 F.2d 812 (1989). When the intent of the transportation being performed is interstate in nature, even when the route is within the boundaries of a single State, the driver and commercial motor vehicle are subject to the FMCSRs. See In the Matter of Gunther's Leasing Transport, Inc., Docket No. FHWA-1997-2400 (Decision of Chief Administrative Law Judge Mathias, January 17, 1996). So long as the cargo transported originates and terminates in different states, an interstate portion of the transportation must still be viewed as interstate. See Id. citing to In the Matter of National Transportation Service, Inc., Docket No. 92-FL-028-FR (Final Order, October 21,1994).

See also: Texas & No.R.R. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U.S. 111, 123 (1923); and Central Freight v. l.e.e., 899 F.2d 413, 419 (5th Cir. 1990)(the crucial factor in determining whether a shipment is interstate in nature is the shipper's fixed and persistent intent at the time of shipment). See also In the Matter of Gunther's Leasing Transport, Inc., Docket No. FHWA-1997-2400 (Decision of Administrative Law Judge, January 17, 1996, at 45)

 

Idaho Trucking Seminar - How to Hire an Idaho or Utah Trucking Lawyer

Last week I was in Boise, Idaho speaking at the Idaho Trial Lawyers Association seminar with some great trucking lawyers.

If you need a lawyer for a case involving a truck wreck (see the Guide below)  you want to hire a lawyer that other lawyers are willing to pay money to go and learn from. You should also consider hiring a  lawyer who is willing to learn the subject by attending a trucking seminar. (All lawyers should be able to show you a transcript of the continuing legal education courses they have attended, ask to see the transcript! Read here as to why this is important.)  If they have not either attended, or taught, a trucking program RUN, don't walk, from the office. So who was at this seminar?  

First there was my long time friend and mentor Andy Chasan (Andy was named Idaho Trial Lawyer of the year for 2003, a former President of the Idaho Trial Lawyers, and a past Chair of the AAJ Trucking Litigation Group). Andy did a great job and went deep into the damage aspects of a number of the significant trucking cases he has handled.

Also speaking was a lawyer from from Utah, Jeffery Eisenberg, who represented a catastrophically injured family with great results, and explained how he did it. Jeff is also an extremely accomplished lawyer in that he has been:

  • Named one of the 5 state Intermountain Region's 75 top lawyers (across all practice areas), in a survey of attorneys conducted by Mountain States Super Lawyers, 2008
  • Named one of the Super Lawyers (honoring Utah's top attorneys in each field of practice as named by a survey of Utah Lawyers) each year for the past 5 years.
  • Nominated to the Inner Circle of Advocates

By my estimation there were 50 lawyers in attendance from both Idaho and Utah. Hiring the right lawyer for your trucking case is important. Make sure you hire someone that makes an effort to learn about these complicated cases, not someone that has a good ad and no experience. A great car wreck lawyer IS NOT necessarily a great truck wreck lawyer. For more see:  Guide to Hiring A Great Truck or Bus Accident Attorney