Trucking Accident Attorney Blog

As a Missouri semi truck accident lawyer, I was interested to read a court decision about how arbitration affected recovery for one serious truck accident. In IFA Insurance Co. v. American Trucking and Transportation Insurance Co., IFA sought to recover the considerable costs incurred by its insured, driver Donika Lamcaj, after she was hit by a negligent trucker. A judge compelled arbitration between the two companies, but American Trucking didn’t like the outcome and sought to vacate the award. The New Jersey trial court declined to do so, and after consideration, the Appellate Division agreed, but for different reasons.

Lamcaj was hit by Harold Mercer, who the arbitrator found was negligent and proximately caused the accident. No accident details were provided, but the total paid to Lamcaj by IFA, her PIP insurer, was $101,914.48. IFA sought to recover the same amount from American Trucking, the insurer covering Mercer’s truck. The arbitrator found Mercer negligent and denied American Trucking’s claim for comparative negligence, saying that principle did not apply to IFA’s reimbursement claim because it was not a subrogation claim. IFA then moved in New Jersey Superior Court to confirm the award, but American Trucking opposed this and sought to vacate it, arguing that state law requires a finding of comparative negligence. The Superior Court ultimately confirmed the award, finding no legal authority for the comparative negligence claim and saying arbitration awards must be confirmed unless there’s fraud or other wrongdoing. American Trucking appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling, though not on exactly the same grounds. As a preliminary matter, it agreed with American Trucking that the trial court applied the wrong standard, using a law about arbitration of collective bargaining rather than New Jersey’s version of the Uniform Arbitration Act. However, the appeals court said, the laws have “essentially identical standards” for overturning arbitration awards. American Trucking argued that the arbitrator overstepped his authority (a violation of both laws) by failing to consider comparative negligence. Nonetheless, the appeals court said, the trial court found no legal authority for that argument and indeed, American Trucking provided none. And New Jersey caselaw is clear that courts have only narrow authority to overturn arbitration awards when those awards are tainted by fraud, corruption or other wrongdoing. As no such factor exists in this case, the appeals court upheld the award in favor of IFA.

This case may be a good example of the lengths to which insurance companies will go to avoid paying what they owe. As a St. Louis tractor-trailer accident attorney, I know that this can be a big and unexpected problem for people who have suffered serious injuries through a trucker’s negligence. Most individuals don’t have the financial resources to take a case all the way through the appeals system, which means even an apparently baseless appeal like American Trucking’s might be enough to scare away a plaintiff without IFA’s money. And even before any legal action is taken, some trucking companies have been known to approach the victims to offer small financial settlements, knowing that the settlement will be enough to prevent them from pursuing more money later. If you’re in this position, never take the money or sign anything before speaking to our experienced southern Illinois 18-wheeler accident lawyers.

Continue reading "New Jersey Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Requiring Trucking Company to Cover Accident – IFA Insurance Co. v. American Trucking" »

A semi truck collided with a train early in the morning of October 25th in the town of Fairbanks, Minnesota.

The St. Louis County Sheriff's Department is investigating the cause of the crash. Semi truck driver Shane Mumm was traveling westward on Townline Road at the time. He reported to police that his brakes malfunctioned as he was approaching the moving train, apparently at a railway crossing. Mumm said he tried to avoid the impact by steering his malfunctioning truck into a ditch, but his momentum carried his vehicle into the last few cars of the train. The train suffered minor damage, and the front of Mumm's truck was reportedly destroyed in the impact. Shockingly, however, nobody was hurt in the collision, not even Mr. Mumm.

This is a happier result than a similar accident which took place earlier this year, in which a semi truck continued forward to crash into the side of a passing train, partially derailing the larger vehicle. The driver, a train engineer, and several others were killed in the impact, and many more were injured as well.

Semi trucks are massive vehicles, and while a train surpasses them on several orders of magnitude, the fact that they travel on narrow tracks means a semi truck is quite capable of derailing one.

There are a number of questions that remain to be answered in the Sheriff's investigations. Did the brakes actually fail? This question could be tricky to answer because of the damage to the front of the truck. If they did fail, what do the vehicle's maintenance logs say? Were all maintenance requirements scrupulously followed according to schedule and properly logged as a result? Neglected maintenance is a leading cause of equipment failure in semi trucks, particularly as companies push drivers to spend more total time on the road and less time "down" for sleep or vehicle repair.

As a Missouri semi truck accident attorney, I’ve written here many times about the elevated standard of conduct required to get and maintain a commercial driver’s license. A CDL authorizes the holder to operate buses and trucks of many tons and with a lot of destructive potential, so it carries special obligations. These include a reduced legal limit for DUIs, random alcohol testing and other measures designed to weed out intoxicated drivers. Those measures resulted in a license revocation for trucker James T. Robbins in 2006, in State of Wyoming Department of Transportation v. Robbins. Robbins sued to challenge his license revocation and succeeded at the trial court. But the Wyoming Supreme Court ultimately reversed, finding that the correct standard of evidence for license revocation should be “a preponderance of the evidence,” not “clear and convincing evidence.”

Clerks at a Wyoming port of entry smelled alcohol on Robbins’s breath and called state troopers, who administered a breath test that reported a BAC of 0.073. Further breath tests turned up results of 0.05, 0.041 and 0.04. He was cited for violating Wyoming and FMCA regulations forbidding drivers on duty to have a BAC of 0.04 or higher. Not long after, Robbins received a notice that his commercial driver’s license was disqualified by the Wyoming Department of Transportation. He requested a hearing, where he argued that the Wyoming statute at issue required a conviction. He lost and petitioned a Wyoming state court for a declaratory judgment finding the law unconstitutional and reinstating his license. That court found in Robbins’s favor, but using arguments not raised in the petition, so the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed and remanded. On remand, the trial court again found for Robbins, ruling that although the statute is not facially unconstitutional, the state DOT should have used a “clear and convincing evidence” standard because a “preponderance of the evidence” standard denies due process. Robbins again appealed.

On appeal, Robbins took up trial court arguments that due process of law requires that the standards for any professional license case — which require a clear and convincing evidence standard — should apply to a CDL case like his. In fact, the Wyoming Supreme Court wrote, due process is flexible and should be judged according to the private interest involved, the risk of depriving a private entity of that interest and the government interest involved. Wyoming statutes regard a CDL as a privilege, not a right, the court said. While it noted that caselaw distinguishes CDLs from non-commercial licenses, it said it has consistently found that the same standard of care applies to both. Furthermore, it said a CDL is distinguishable from other types of professional licenses because holding it is a privilege not involving any fundamental right. Thus, it does not require a heightened clear and convincing evidence standard of proof, the high court said, and thus the Wyoming statute at issue is not unconstitutional. It reversed the lower court on all issues.

This decision pleases me as a southern Illinois tractor-trailer accident lawyer. Every state regulates professional licenses, and some deference is justified because professional licenses are required for doctors, attorneys, hairdressers and many others to make a living. However, professional licenses should not be given so much deference that their holders are permitted to endanger the public, and that seemed like a likely result of the lower court’s finding in this case. Driving at all is a responsibility; driving a heavy truck with the power to kill passers-by is a serious responsibility that should never be done under the influence. By applying a higher evidentiary standard in the CDL disqualification case, the court could have allowed drivers to end-run around federal safety regulations. As a St. Louis big rig accident attorney, I’m pleased that it kept those regulations relevant.

Continue reading "Wyoming Supreme Court Upholds License Revocation for Trucker Found Drunk on Duty – Wyoming DOT v. Robbins" »

North Carolina police are likely to charge a Kinston, N.C., resident with reckless driving after he dozed off then drove off the road in his semi truck late last month. The case is likely to reignite the debate over mandatory rest periods, the maximum time semi truck drivers should be permitted to drive and the oversight process for making sure semi trucks are operating safely on the interstate and other highway systems.

According to N.C. Highway Patrol Trooper R.C. Riley, the 52-year-old operator of the truck, one David Jarman, was not seriously injured in the impact. Quite luckily, he struck no one else with his vehicle as he went off the road, and suffered only a few cuts and bruises himself from the impact with terrain alongside the highway before going into the highway ditch.

The truck was apparently empty at the time of the accident. Jarman was reportedly on his way to pick up a new batch of cargo for another run when he fell asleep. It was unclear from current reports how long Jarman had been awake at the time of the semi truck accident. Jarman refused transportation to a nearby medical facility, Lenoir Medical Hospital, when paramedics offered. Instead he was checked out on the scene and declared to be in no medical danger from his minor injuries.

As said before, officer Riley has stated he will likely charge Jarman with reckless driving. The accident shut down U.S. Highway 70 for about half an hour while a wrecker was called to remove the semi truck from the embankment on the side of the road.

There have been numerous debates in recent years about the number of hours truckers drive between rest, with many attempts at passing legislation requiring companies to limit the number of hours their drivers are on the road in the name of protecting the safety of other drivers.

As a Missouri tractor-trailer accident attorney, I very frequently am called upon to handle semi truck crash cases where the correct venue for the lawsuit is in doubt. A crash that takes place here in Missouri might easily involve residents of southern Illinois, a trucker from Arkansas and a trucking company incorporated in Delaware with headquarters in Texas. All of these states are potential venues for a lawsuit, and parties will sometimes push for one or another to gain a perceived or actual advantage. A dispute over venue and choice of law brought Edwards et al. v. Erie Coach Lines et al to the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court). Ultimately, the court decided that New York was the correct venue to hear the case, but its courts should respect Ontario provincial law in cases between the Ontario plaintiffs and the bus defendants, also from Ontario.

The case arose out of a serious accident in which a bus carrying a women’s hockey team from Ontario crashed into the back of a parked tractor-trailer in New York. The crash killed the trucker and four passengers from the bus; several other passengers were seriously hurt. The survivors of the crash and their families brought six New York lawsuits against the trucking company, the trucker’s estate, the company that hired the trailer, the bus driver’s employer and the company that leased the bus. This choice was in part because Ontario has a cap on noneconomic damages in personal injury cases caused by negligence, and New York does not. The cases were consolidated in New York, and defendants successfully moved for an order that Ontario law applies. The parties eventually reached a settlement on liability, but the choice of law issue, which would govern damages, was appealed to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division affirmed the ruling in favor of Ontario law, then granted the plaintiffs leave to appeal.

The New York Court of Appeals ultimately agreed as to the bus defendants, but not the trailer defendants. The plaintiffs argued for a single choice-of-law analysis as to all the defendants, but the high court disagreed that this was appropriate, pointing to past caselaw. Indeed, under 1972’s Neumier v. Kuehner, past cases demand that the court consider each plaintiff vis-à-vis each defendant, it said. That case also says that when a plaintiff and defendant share a common domicile, that area’s law should prevail — thus, the Court of Appeals found that Ontario law should apply to the liability of the Ontario-domiciled bus defendants to the Ontario-domiciled plaintiffs. The trailer defendants are a different story, the court said; they are domiciled in Pennsylvania. Under Neumier, the law of the place of the tort — New York — applies when that place is different from either party’s domicile. Thus, it reversed the lower courts only as to the trailer defendants and affirmed as to the bus defendants. Judge Ciparick, dissenting, argued that a single analysis should apply to all defendants, and their case is governed by New York law.

As a St. Louis semi truck accident lawyer, I sympathize with the Ontario plaintiffs who have fought this case through the New York state court system for so long. They have already settled liability, so there’s no serious dispute that the defendants caused their injuries or the deaths of their family members. Rather, the dispute is over whether the defendants have a chance to pay less than the full amount of damages because of a technicality of Ontario law. The court says New York law must respect Ontario’s choices, but the situation creates a somewhat arbitrary distinction based on where plaintiffs happen to live. A bus full of New Yorkers in the exact same wreck would have a much greater chance of collecting damages. This is why, in my work as a southern Illinois 18-wheeler accident attorney, I work hard to locate disputed cases in venues that are both proper and fair to plaintiffs.

Continue reading "Appeals Court Applies Different Jurisdictions’ Laws to Defendants in New York Truck Accident – Edwards et al. v. Erie Coach Lines et al." »

According to Nebraska State Patrol officers, an Ohio resident is in a local hospital with serious injuries after he flipped his truck over near the city of Grand Island, Nebraska.

Around 1:45 a.m. on October 11, the driver was heading eastbound on Interstate 80. Around 4 miles east of the highway's Aurora Interchange, the driver of the semi apparently lost control of his rig. The truck drifted into the median, hitting the guard rail. The truck then pushed all the way into the westbound lanes, driving entirely across opposite-bound traffic before it finally flipped over, ending up in the north-side ditch of the highway.

Thankfully, no one was hurt except for the 54-year-old driver of the truck. The driver currently remains unidentified. The injured man was first taken to Saint Francis Hospital in Grand Island before being transferred to another hospital in nearby Lincoln.

There are no other details at this time. Still, the incident serves as another illustration of how potentially serious a semi truck accident can be.

This truck went entirely from the eastbound lanes across all of the westbound lanes. To get there, it went over the median, stopping to push through an entire guard rail on the way. Semi trucks are several orders of magnitude larger than other vehicles, and common roadway safety items like most guard rails aren't always enough to restrain them if they go out of control.

It is likely that the early hour of day prevented anyone else from being hurt, thanks to relatively few drivers being on the road. But the semi crossed multiple lanes of traffic and overturned. That no one else was hurt is surprising, and the fact that the truck didn't catch fire is also a relief.

Drivers are advised to always exercise caution when driving around semi trucks and similar large vehicles.

One challenge I face as a Missouri semi truck accident attorney is where to sue when the defendants come from multiple states. Trucking companies are mobile by definition, so they may be headquartered in a state very far from the state where a crash takes place. Truck drivers may be from yet another state, and sometimes, the drivers who are hurt are away from their home states as well. Courts in the state where the accident took place will usually agree to hear a case, but for reasons of convenience or as a way to draw out the case, either side may try to relocate it. Whether Alabama was the proper venue to hear a semi truck crash case was the issue in In re Ivey v. Lewis Trucking Company. In that case, the Alabama Supreme Court found no personal jurisdiction over three of four defendants from other states.

In early October of 2008, American Timber & Steel Company sold some lumber from a Texas lumber yard to a Florida fencing company. To arrange shipping, ATSC used a website called Getloaded.com, which allows truckers and trucking companies to bid on jobs, to find and hire Lewis Trucking. The contract was honored even though ATSC discovered through independent research that Lewis had a federal safety rating of 98.22 out of a possible 100, with 100 being the lowest possible score. On Oct. 3, 2008, as the driver made his way through Alabama, he attempted to pass another truck driver, who reportedly signaled that it was clear. It was not clear; the lumber truck hit a van head-on as it tried to pass. The resulting fire killed six applicants for jobs at the Alabama Department of Corrections, as well as a driver. Their families sued both truck drivers, both trucking companies; the driver and trucking company that gave the incorrect all-clear signal settled early. They consolidated in July of 2010 and added ATSC and several companies related to Getloaded. The amended complaint alleged that ATSC negligently hired Lewis despite knowing its terrible safety record and negligently loaded the truck, and that the Getloaded defendants negligently failed to investigate the safety record of the carriers it listed. These new defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the trial court denied, finding they had sufficient minimum contacts with Alabama. The defendants appealed.

The Alabama Supreme Court reversed in part, finding no personal jurisdiction over the Getloaded defendants but jurisdiction over ATSC. Assuming without comment that the claims against ATSC are viable, the court said ATSC could reasonably have assumed its truck would travel through Alabama in the journey from Texas to Florida. Similarly, it said ATSC could reasonably have assumed that if the truck driver was unsafe or the truck had been loaded negligently, this could cause problems while the truck was in Alabama. Thus, it would not be unreasonable or unfair to require ATSC to respond to a lawsuit located in Alabama. However, the high court declined to make the same ruling about the Getloaded defendants. Assuming the viability of the plaintiffs’ allegations that Getloaded and its relatives failed in a duty to screen carriers, the court said there was still no reasonable expectation that this failure would cause problems in Alabama. Indeed, the court noted that the Getloaded defendants were not even aware of the job. Thus, the high court dismissed the charges as to the Getloaded defendants and denied a dismissal to ATSC.

As a southern Illinois tractor-trailer accident lawyer, I suspect we will be seeing more cases involving businesses like Getloaded.com. Online companies arguably operate in every state, since they are available to clients located anywhere there’s a working Internet connection. However, there’s a difference between arranging shipping in every state and actually doing the shipping in every state. That difference may be what underlies the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision in this case. In trucking cases, which involve defendants and insurers from many states, there are occasionally disputes over which venue is correct, even when no Internet businesses are involved. Sometimes these are real disputes and sometimes, they are attempts to prolong the case and strain the resources of the plaintiffs, who are usually individuals or families struggling with a serious injury or death in the family As a St. Louis commercial truck crash attorney, I represent clients whose crashes or residences are in Missouri or Illinois, and can team up with attorneys in other states when necessary.

Continue reading "Alabama Supreme Court Rules Against Personal Jurisdiction over Defendants in Truck Accident – In re Ivey v. Lewis Trucking Co." »

A semi truck accident left one woman seriously injured and part of New York's state Route 19 near the thruway and the town of LeRoy shut down.

The accident took place just north of where Route 19 meets Interstate 90 and is reported to have involved a tractor-trailer and two other cars on the highway.

According to Genesee County Sheriff's officials, the accident took place just before 8 a.m. on September 30. The tractor-trailer, carrying a large supply of ground stone or gravel, was heading south on Route 19 toward I-90. For reasons unknown, the vehicle abruptly swerved, hitting two nearby cars before overturning and landing on its side in the middle of the highway.

Moments after the accident, the driver managed to jump out of the cab, which had already started burning; after the driver got out, the cab became engulfed entirely in flames.

One of the women in the cars that the semi truck hit was injured, and trapped in her vehicle following the wreckage. Rescue crews had to pry the car open in order to get her out, and her injuries were severe enough that she was transported by medical helicopter to the nearby Strong Hospital. She is still listed in serious condition as of this writing.

The others involved in the accident were not seriously hurt. However, the driver of the semi truck and two other women who were in vehicles hit by the semi were all taken to nearby hospitals by ambulances as a precaution.

Cleanup of the highway took several hours to complete, as ground rock was covering large portions of the highway. This of course shut down the highway for some time, as large piles of loose material can be difficult to quickly clean up. The semi truck itself was reported to have landed in the front yard of a nearby bed and breakfast.