Morgan Adams Quoted In Chattanooga Times Free Press on Trucking Safety

Bill ignites war of words over trucking safety

 

Ringgold, Ga., widow Cindy Whitaker lost her husband, brother and niece in 2009 when a bucket truck hit their vehicle head-on.

Now she’s pushing for tighter federal regulations for truckers, even as the trucking industry points to federal statistics indicating that America’s roads are safer than ever.

Whitaker, in conjunction with the Truck Safety Coalition, threw her support Tuesday behind the newly reintroduced Safe Highways and Infrastructure Protection Act during a press conference in Washington, D.C.

The bill would freeze current federal truck size and weight limits, disallow the operation of overweight trucks and establish an enforcement program, the organization said.

The coalition released poll results that said 74 percent of Americans oppose heavier trucks and 79 percent favor lowering the maximum number of hours truckers may drive daily.

But a spokesman for the American Trucking Associations slammed the Truck Safety Coalition’s poll results, calling them slanted and misleading.

The questions begin with a sentence or statistic from a safety advocate point of view before getting to the questions, according to the methodology posted on trucksafety.org.

“This is a push poll of the worst kind, and proves that while figures don’t lie, liars can figure,” said ATA spokesman Sean McNally.

Bill Graves, president of the American Trucking Associations, accused the bill’s backers of co-opting the grief of Americans who have lost family members in accidents “to advance an agenda designed to hurt our economy and our industry, and benefit trucking’s competitors and well-heeled union interests.”

Trucking has improved its fatality and injury crash rate by 30 percent since the current rules were implemented in 2004, Graves said.

The rate of trucking accident fatalities fell to 1.17 per 100 million miles in 2009, the safest year since the government began tracking the statistics in 1975, according to data from the Federal Highway Administration and National Highway Safety Administration.

However, the Truck Safety Coalition released statistics showing that 4,000 people are still killed each year and 100,000 more are injured in truck crashes, according to Joan Claybrook, chairwoman of the Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways.

“Families and truck drivers are being slaughtered on our highways because of the trucking industry’s relentless push for bigger, overweight trucks operated by drivers who are exhausted and pressured to meet unreasonable delivery deadlines,” Claybrook said.

Morgan Adams, a Chattanooga-based lawyer who specializes in truck accident cases, called for restructuring driver pay to an hourly rate instead of by the mile as an incentive toward safety.

“Truck drivers are the last sweatshop industry in America,” Adams said.

“Almost 20 percent of the trucks and drivers have a safety violation every year,” he said. “Two percent of the drivers have alcohol and drug safety violations.”

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)

 

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. 

 

Injured by a Swift Transportation Truck? Why it is Critical to Hire an Experienced Lawyer Immediately in All Swift Transportation Cases!

I have a client that was hit by a Swift Transportation Truck in mid-May 2009. Some weeks later, after my client left the hospital, I was hired. I sent a spoliation letter to Swift on June 5, 2009 by fax, mail, and certified mail alerting them to the fact my client was injured and they needed to keep documents that might help figure out who was responsible for the wreck. A spoliation letter is a letter that asks a company to preserve evidence that would show why the wreck happened. Often the major cause of a wreck is not the driver, but the trucking company. The trucking company is typically found at fault for failing to train its drivers, refusing to fire dangerous drivers or hiring them in the first place, failing to properly maintain trucks and not giving drivers the tools they need to drive safely, and for not supervising the drivers while they are on the road. Click her to see a sample spoliation letter.

Swift responded to this letter by stating they refused to save all the documents requested but only to "preserve information [Swift] believe is relevant..." If that isn't putting the fox in charge of the hen house I don't know what is! They went on to say "we will not preserve each and every item enumerated on your list. ...If you believe this response to your request is inadequate, you may wish to file a lawsuit..." They say they will only preserve documents "as required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration..." which allows documents, relevant to determining fault in a wreck, to be destroyed in 30 days. (Specifically, post trip inspection documents are only required to be saved for 30 days according to  FMCSR 396.11(c)(2). ) Electronic material is frequently only kept for days and can be critical in a case. Many of the most important liability documents are destroyed in 6 months while a minority of documents are required to be kept for 3 years.

The ironic thing is that Swift will have insurance adjusters actively discouraging surviving family members from hiring a lawyer, even though the company itself is destroying documents which are critical to proving Swift was responsible for the wreck. Families typically are told to "wait and see what we offer before hiring a lawyer," even though the proof a lawyer needs to prove your case is actively disappearing." This is the worst sort of corporate abuse.

PLEASE DON'T THINK SWIFT, OR ITS INSURANCE AGENTS, IS ON YOUR SIDE. For more on problems caused by insurance adjusters see my prior post  "Insurance Companies Trick Victims in Trucking Cases"

The Law Offices of Morgan Adams concentrates in protecting the rights of those who were seriously injured or lost a loved one in a serious accident with a commercial truck. 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 truck driver, don’t sign anything the trucking company gives you -- contact us as soon as possible at 800-580-4878 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 "2008 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-Elect 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 trucks.