Tennessee Truck Accident Lawyer Elected to National Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Board

One of the most common injuries for survivors of a truck accident is a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). These are actually traumatic brain damage cases because people don't get well from these injuries. As a result of handling large numbers of these cases for clients I have developed a sub-specialty in the area of TBI. Recently my hard work paid off and I was elected to the Board of the American Association for Justice's Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group (TBILG). This is the largest group of lawyers in the country representing those injured through the negligence of others. I look forward to helping other lawyers across the country handle these cases.

Some facts have become apparent in these cases : 

  1. ER doctors don't focus on TBI injuries because they wont kill you immediately, and that is all the ER doc is concerned about.
  2. In Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI) cases family members are in the best spot to determine the extent of the injury and the changes to the victim.
  3. A loss of consciousness is not needed in order for a TBI to occur

I highly recommend that anyone that believes they, or a loved one, has a MTBI or a TBI, review the government's Center for Disease Control website and publications on TBI's. The government website can be found HERE.

 

NEED A TRUCK ACCIDENT LAWYER IN RHODE ISLAND?

I have written several articles on what you should look for when you hire a truck accident attorney for your case (See Here and Here). One of the attorneys I have learned from over the years, and who knows his stuff,  is Bob Karns, a phenomenal Rhode Island truck accident attorney . Bob Karns also has a sub concentration in traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries which is a necessary focus of any lawyer handling trucking cases. I had the pleasure of catching up with Bob recently while speaking at the Rhode Island Bar Association.

Bob Karns' knowledge and experience in these areas is immense, and he is well respected by defense lawyers and insurance companies. Since insurance companies routinely lie to victims of trucking accidents (See HERE for an article on how insurance companies trick the victims of truck accidents), hiring a lawyer that is known for making insurance companies pay when they are unfair is critical. There is no question that Rhode Island truck accident victims are better off, and able to focus on healing and getting better, when Bob Karns is handling their case.

So what makes Bob different? He is a nice guy, but there are lots of "nice guys." Bob, however, is one of those nice guys that the bad guys just don't want to cross and get angry. He continues to attend trucking specific legal seminars and stays current on truck accident litigation trends and the trucking industry. He not only stays current on trucking law, he also stays current on the cutting edge medical treatment and needs required by his seriously injured clients. Just like there is special knowledge and materials needed to handle a trucking case not found in every car wreck lawyer's office, there are even more stringent needs and requirements required to handle clients with the special needs that arise from TBI (traumatic brain injuries) and spinal cord injuries.  

 

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.

 

 

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.”

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!

Morgan Adams Published Nationally on Trucking Accident Litigation

I am happy to announce that my book chapter "Trucking Accident Litigation" has been published by West Publishing, the nations largest and most respected legal publisher. The chapter is published in the multi-volume set Handling Motor Vehicle Accident Cases, 2d.

West allows one author per topic and I was chosen to write the chapter on commercial truck and bus litigation.

Interested in hiring a truck accident lawyer? While there are thousands of lawyers advertising for truck and bus accident victims, consider how much of that lawyer's practice is actually devoted to handling commercial motor vehicle accident cases before hiring them. For more information on this subject I previously posted on how to hire a great truck and bus accident lawyer here, here, here, and here.  

A picture of the four volume treatise, with CD, is below, and you can order a copy here.Handling Motor Vehicle Accident Cases, 2d

 

Why You Need a Lawyer if Dealing with Allstate: Allstate Agrees To $10 Million Regulatory Settlement for Colossus Use - The Bodily Injury Claims Handling Software Used Against Accident Victims

In my experience lawyers are  needed to handle injury claims for accident victims that involve $5,000 or more in medical bills. Part of the problem is computer systems that use "One Size Fits All" solutions for individual cases. Generally these systems work to lower the recovery paid to the victims of wrecks, which, of course, is why they are used by insurance companies. Allstate uses, and uses improperly in many instances as shown below, such a system called Colossus.

Here is what the news release from the State of New York's Insurance Superintendent said: 

Allstate has agreed to pay New York $1.2 million as part of a $10 million regulatory settlement over Allstate's claim handling software, New York State Insurance Superintendent James J. Wrynn announced today. The agreement follows an 18-month targeted National Association of Insurance Commissioners(NAIC) multi-state market conduct examination of Allstate's claims handling practices.

"Allstate has agreed to implement procedures to ensure transparency and fairness for consumers who have bodily injury claims," Wrynn said. "The new processes ensure that claims will be handled consistently in different regions of the country, and consumers will have the right to get the information they need in order to understand how Allstate evaluates their claims and make sure they are fairly treated."

The NAIC examination, for which New York was one of the lead states, focused primarily on Allstate's use of claims handling software, particularly the software program, Colossus.

Colossus is a software program Allstate used to guide its settlement offers for bodily injury claims after automobile accidents. The examination found inconsistencies in Allstate's management and oversight of the Colossus software program. In particular, the examination found that Allstate had failed to modify or "tune" the software in a uniform and consistent manner across its claims handling regions.

Under the settlement agreement, Allstate agreed to make a number of changes to its claims handling process, including:

Providing notice to claimants that the Colossus software program may be used in the adjustment of their bodily injury claims; Enhancing its management oversight of Colossus to ensure that it adheres to established criteria and a uniform methodology in selecting claims to be used to "tune" or modify the software to reflect recently settled claims; Strengthening its internal auditing of Colossus and bodily injury claims handling to ensure adherence to written guidelines and procedures; Consolidating its bodily injury claims handling practices into a single claims handling manual; and Not establishing a policy or rule requiring claims adjusters to settle bodily injury claims solely on the value recommended by Colossus and not providing incentives for claims adjusters to settle claims at or near the value recommended by Colossus.

"It is important to note that we found no systemic underpayment of bodily injury claims,"

Wrynn said. "While the issues addressed were serious, Allstate cooperated fully with our examination and is working to correct these deficiencies. Here in New York, we will continue to review the use of claims handling software by property/casualty companies.

"This settlement shows how state insurance regulators work together to protect consumers,"Wrynn said. "The four lead states - Florida, Illinois, Iowa and New York - worked

cooperatively to conduct this examination and will keep working with the other 41 states that have signed on to this agreement to ensure it is fully implemented and consumers are properly protected."

Allstate's payment will be used to establish a regulatory fund. The fund will be used by the 45 signatory states, to the extent consistent with applicable state laws, to develop and train examiners to review and monitor the property/casualty industry's use of software technology in adjusting claims.

New York State Insurance Department

NEWS RELEASE

Contact:

Public Affairs

(212) 480-5262

www.ins.state.ny.us

James J. Wrynn Superintendent of Insurance 25 Beaver Street New York, N.Y. 10004

ISSUED 10/18/2010 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

State Laws Regarding Cell Phone Use and Texting While Driving

Driver distraction, to include cell phone use, is a major cause of wrecks. This is a huge issue in the trucking industry as truck drivers are required to frequently update their company and are on the road weeks at a time, leaving the cell phone their only means of communication with vendors, friends, and family.

Proving that a truck or bus driver was actually texting while driving, or on a cell phone, is difficult and generally requires a lawyer. Records must be subpoened from the service provider. These records are often destroyed after a few months, thus having a lawyer fighting for you in a serious truck or bus accident case is critical.

Paralegal superstar Janabeth Fleming Taylor recently sent me the link to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's list of cell phone laws in the US. The list can be seen here and is pasted below for your convenience.

 

Cellphone laws

July 2010


A jurisdiction-wide ban on driving while talking on a hand-held cellphone is in place in 9 states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) and the District of Columbia. Utah has named the offense careless driving. Under the Utah law, no one commits an offense when speaking on a cellphone unless they are also committing some other moving violation other than speeding.

Local jurisdictions may or may not need specific state statutory authority to ban cellphones. Localities that have enacted restrictions on cellphone use include: Oahu, HI; Chicago, IL; Brookline, MA; Detroit, MI; Santa Fe, NM; Brooklyn, North Olmstead, and Walton Hills, OH; Conshohocken, Lebanon, and West Conshohocken, PA; Waupaca County, WI; and Cheyenne, WY.

The use of all cellphones while driving a school bus is prohibited in 19 states and the District of Columbia.

The use of all cellphones by novice drivers is restricted in 28 states and the District of Columbia.

Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 30 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, novice drivers are banned from texting in 8 states (Alabama, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia) and school bus drivers are banned from text messaging in 2 states (Oklahoma, and Texas).

The table below shows the states that have cellphone laws, whether they specifically ban text messaging, and whether they are enforced as primary or secondary laws. Under secondary laws, an officer must have some other reason to stop a vehicle before citing a driver for using a cellphone. Laws without this restriction are called primary.

 
  Laws restricting cellphone use and texting
State Hand-held ban Young drivers all cellphone ban Bus drivers all cellphone ban Texting ban Enforcement
Alabama no drivers age 16 and 17-year-old drivers who have held an intermediate license for fewer than 6 months no drivers age 16 and 17-year-old drivers who have held an intermediate license for fewer than 6 months primary
Alaska no no no all drivers primary
Arizona no no school bus drivers no primary
Arkansas drivers 18 or older but younger than 21 drivers younger than 18 school bus drivers all drivers primary: texting by all drivers and cellphone use by school bus drivers; secondary: cellphone use by young drivers1
California all drivers drivers younger than 18 school and transit bus drivers all drivers primary; secondary for hands-free cellphone use by young drivers1
Colorado no drivers younger than 18 no all drivers primary
Connecticut all drivers drivers younger than 18 school bus drivers all drivers primary
Delaware all drivers (effective 01/02/11) learner's permit and intermediate license holders school bus drivers all drivers (effective 01/02/11) primary
District of Columbia all drivers learner's permit holders school bus drivers all drivers primary
Florida no no no no not applicable
Georgia no drivers younger than 18 school bus drivers all drivers primary
Hawaii no no no no not applicable
Idaho no no no no not applicable
Illinois drivers in construction and school speed zones drivers younger than 19 and learner's permit holders younger than 19 school bus drivers all drivers primary
Indiana no drivers younger than 18 no drivers younger than 18 primary
Iowa no learner's permit and intermediate license holders no all drivers primary for learner's permit and intermediate license holders; secondary for texting
Kansas no learner's permit and intermediate license holders no all drivers primary
Kentucky no drivers younger than 18 school bus drivers all drivers primary
Louisiana with respect to novice drivers, see footnote2 with respect to novice drivers, see footnote2 school bus drivers all drivers primary2 (effective 08/15/10)
Maine no learner's permit and intermediate license holders no learner's permit and intermediate license holders primary
Maryland all drivers (effective 10/01/10) learner's permit and provisional license holders younger than 18 (effective 10/01/10) school bus drivers (hand-held ban) (effective 10/01/10) all drivers secondary; primary for texting
Massachusetts no drivers younger than 18 (effective 09/30/10) school bus drivers (effective since 4/12/01) and passenger bus drivers (effective 09/30/10) all drivers (effective 09/30/10) primary
Michigan no no no all drivers primary
Minnesota no learner's permit holders and provisional license holders during the first 12 months after licensing school bus drivers all drivers primary
Mississippi no no no learner's permit and intermediate license holders primary
Missouri no no no drivers 21 and younger primary
Montana no no no no not applicable
Nebraska no learner's permit and intermediate license holders younger than 18 no all drivers secondary
Nevada no no no no not applicable
New Hampshire no no no all drivers primary
New Jersey all drivers learner's permit and intermediate license holders school bus drivers all drivers primary
New Mexico no no no no not applicable
New York all drivers no no all drivers primary; secondary for text messaging
North Carolina no drivers younger than 18 school bus drivers all drivers primary
North Dakota no no no no not applicable
Ohio no no no no not applicable
Oklahoma learner's permit and intermediate license holders (effective 11/01/10) no3 school bus drivers and public transit drivers (effective 11/01/10) learner's permit holders, intermediate license holders, school bus drivers and public transit drivers (effective 11/01/10) primary (effective 11/01/10)
Oregon all drivers drivers younger than 18 no all drivers primary
Pennsylvania no no no no not applicable
Rhode Island no drivers younger than 18 school bus drivers all drivers primary
South Carolina no no no no not applicable
South Dakota no no no no not applicable
Tennessee no learner's permit and intermediate license holders school bus drivers all drivers primary
Texas drivers in school crossing zones intermediate license holders for the first twelve months bus drivers when a passenger 17 and younger is present bus drivers when a passenger 17 and younger is present; intermediate license holders for first twelve months; drivers in school crossing zones primary
Utah all drivers no no all drivers primary for texting; secondary for talking on a hand-held cellphone4
Vermont no drivers younger than 18 no all drivers primary
Virginia no drivers younger than 18 school bus drivers all drivers secondary; primary for school bus drivers
Washington all drivers learner's permit and intermediate license holders no all drivers primary
West Virginia no drivers younger than 18 who hold either a learner's permit or an intermediate license no drivers younger than 18 who hold either a learner's permit or an intermediate license primary
Wisconsin no no no all drivers (effective 12/01/10) primary (effective 12/01/10)
Wyoming no no no all drivers primary

1The laws in Arkansas and California prohibit police from stopping a vehicle to determine if a driver is in compliance with the law. Clearly, that language prohibits the use of checkpoints to enforce the law, but it has been interpreted as the functional equivalent of secondary provisions that typically state the officer may not stop someone suspected of a violation unless there is other, independent, cause for a stop.

2In Louisiana, all learner's permit holders, irrespective of age, and all intermediate license holders are prohibited from driving while using a hand-held cellphone and all drivers younger than 18 are prohibited from using any cellphone. Effective April 1, 2010 all drivers, irrespective of age, issued a first driver’s license will be prohibited from using a cellphone for one year. The cellphone ban is secondary for novice drivers age 18 and older.

3In Oklahoma, learner's permit and intermediate license holders are banned from using a hand-held electronic device while operating a motor vehicle for non-life-threatening emergency purposes.

4Utah's law defines careless driving as committing a moving violation (other than speeding) while distracted by use of a hand-held cellphone or other activities not related to driving.

 

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.