Truck Underride Wrecks Preventable - New Article in TrialNews

 

Truck underride guards often fail, study says 

Courtney L. Davenport                                                                                                       May 5, 2011

 

Underride guards on the backs of large trucks frequently fail to prevent a passenger vehicle from sliding under a truck during a collision, according to a report issued last month by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

“Hitting the back of a large truck is a game changer,” IIHS President Adrian Lund wrote in the report. “You might be riding in a vehicle that earns top marks in frontal crash tests, but if the truck’s underride guard fails—or isn’t there at all—your chances of walking away from even a relatively low-speed crash aren’t good.”

The organization performed six crash tests involving three rear guards that complied with U.S. safety regulations and were attached to parked semi-trailers. In three of the tests, the car slid under the truck enough that the dummy’s head was hit, indicating that decapitation would likely occur in a real-world crash. The strongest guard prevented underride when the car struck the truck’s rear head-on and at a slight angle. In every other test in which the car struck the truck at an angle, all of the guards allowed underride.

“Damage to the cars in some of these tests was so devastating that it’s hard to watch the footage without wincing,” wrote Lund. “If these had been real-world crashes, there would be no survivors.”

Morgan Adams, a Chattanooga, Tennessee, attorney who has handled many underride cases, said that although the report highlights the dangers of faulty underride guards, the likelihood of injury is even greater than the report suggests.

“The underride guards used in the study are brand new, but in the real world, trucks back up to the loading docks, and the underride devices hit the docks time and time again,” he said. “They are bent, twisted, rusted, scraped, and have already received a huge amount of wear and tear.”

He said trucking companies refuse to replace the guards because stronger systems would create a slight increase in weight, which would raise the companies’ fuel costs.

The IIHS criticized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for a lack of meaningful regulations. The last safety standard governing underride guards was issued more than a decade ago, and it exempted many of the most commonly used heavy trucks, including single-unit vehicles like dump trucks. And guard manufacturers are allowed to test each part—the trailer, guard, bolts, and welding—separately, so there’s no way to know if the guard would be strong enough as a unit, argued the IIHS.

The organization and safety advocates are urging NHTSA to require stronger guards.

“The standard is a farce,” said forensic engineer Roy Crawford, of Whitesburg, Kentucky, who argued that the regulations need to address more than weak underride guards.

Many times, “the trucks are overloaded and going 40 mph below the speed limit. They don’t have enough lights or reflectors, so drivers can’t see them and crash into them,” he said. “There’s an old myth that if you run into something, it’s your fault. But people are just not seeing the trucks.”

In its rulemaking and research priority plan released last month, NHTSA acknowledged that truck underride is the third largest cause of fatalities in frontal collisions and said it “will assess research data and decide on the next steps” by 2012.

 

 

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.

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.

 

THE NEW RULES IN TRUCKING DISCOVERY

My article, The New Rules in Trucking Discovery, was published nationally in Trial magazine (February 2011, Volume 47, No. 02). If you are not familiar with the significant regulatory changes that have impacted the trucking industry in late 2010 and early 2011, and thought about how it impacts your cases, you should read it!

MCS-90 Endorsement Acts as Surety Not as Additional Insurance

A recent case will have significant impact on truck accident attorneys and lawyers litigating insurance coverage in trucking cases. In Carolina Casualty v. Yeates, 584 F.3d 868 (10th Cir. 2009) (en banc), the court held that the MCS-90 Endorsement applies as surety coverage when the underlying insurance policy to which it is attached provides no coverage for the loss and the motor carrier’s insurance coverage is not sufficient, IN AGGREGATE, to satisfy the federally prescribed minimum levels of financial responsibility.

As a result of Yeates, Defendant trucking companies and insurers will argue that an insurer’s MCS-90 coverage does not come into play when a plaintiff has already received a payment, from all sources, equal to the minimum statutory insurance coverage amount. See Also: Casper v. American Intl S. Ins. Co., 2009 WL 4984797 (Wis. App.)

 

 The Truck Accident Lawyers at the Law Offices of Morgan Adams concentrate in protecting the rights of those who were seriously injured or lost a loved one in an accident with a commercial truck or bus. Our lawyers are based in Tennessee, but serve clients throughout the nation. If you or someone you love has been seriously hurt by a careless driver, don’t sign anything the trucking company gives you -- contact us as soon as possible at 866-580-4878 or by email to learn more at a free, confidential consultation.

 Morgan Adams is a trial attorney licensed in Tennessee and Georgia. He is listed as a "Mid-South SuperLawyer" (Limited to the top 5% of the lawyers in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas), is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum (limited to lawyers who have recovered 1 million dollars or more for their clients), and is the Chair of the American Association of Justice's Interstate Trucking Litigation Group. He has served as chair of the Tennessee Association of Justice's Trucking Litigation seminars since 2004, and is a frequent speaker at national legal education programs, training lawyers to properly handle injury cases involving commercial vehicles. 

 

Brain Injuries are Common Injuries in Truck Wrecks. Does Your Lawyer Have Expertise With Brain Injuries?

One of the injuries that is of greatest concern for those involved in a truck wreck is a brain injury. While severe brain injuries are easy to identify, mild traumatic brain injuries are not. Explaining the way the brain was injured, and proving to a jury the long term impact of having a brain injury when the victim looks normal, requires training and expertise. I previously blogged on the requirements a competent trucking lawyer should have but I neglected including expertise in handling brain injuries.

Please keep in mind that even though doctors will frequently use the term "mild" to describe many brain injuries, there is nothing mild about brain damage. The use of "mild" by a doctor only means that the person isn' t dead or in a coma. If someones brain is damaged, they have lost their future. They may have memory problems that will have caused them to lose their past. They will never be everything they could have been, even if they do everything they can to try to recover. 

Mild brain injuries typically occur from a wave effect. The brain is like jello, made up primarily of water and is encased in one of the hardest bones in the body, the skull. Because the brain is somewhat fluid, in a wreck it can move and strike the skull. The cells are torn under the forces involved in a wreck. Current medical science makes it clear that it is not necessary for the head to have hit anything in order for brain damage to occur.

Personalities change, memory becomes a problem, frustration and anger are not uncommon. The victim however is able to talk. They don't want to admit anything is wrong, and the family is just so happy for the victim to be alive that they blame the changes on other problems. A questionnaire can help experts determine whether there is a mild traumatic brain injury such as the one that can be downloaded here: Symptom Questionnaire.

If you think someone you love has had some of the changes discussed above have them tested by a neuropsychologist. These are the trained professionals best able to determine whether or not a mild traumatic brain injury has occurred.

 

Preventing Tractor Trailer Rollovers

Training remains the number one way to prevent truck rollovers according to government and industry officials. A 2007 report by Battelle Memorial Institute for the FMCSA found “75% [of rollovers] are attributed to driver error.” The primary cause was running off the road, caused by driver fatigue or inattentiveness.”

Trucking companies could reduce rollovers by the following: Lowering a trailer 3” would reduce rollovers approximately 12% annually. A wider trailer track, from 96” to 102”, would reduce rollover’s 17%. The study found the average cost of a rollover was $600,000 and that for every dollar spent on stability control devices the company would save $2.20. According to Steve Niswander, vice president of safety and policy regulatory relations for Groendyke Transport, driver training is still the most effective way to present crashes. (See Transportation Topics, December 10, 2007, p11)

Responsibility for Truck Rollovers

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.