Trucking Accident Attorney Blog

A bill that would permit heavier tractor-trailers on some Missouri highways is winding its way through the Missouri General Assembly.

The bill, SB761, would allow semis weighing as much as 85,500 pounds to use U.S. 65 and U.S. 36 highways. Currently, trucks can weigh no more than 80,000 pounds in order to use the roadways.

Sponsored by Sen. Bill Stouffer, R-Napton, SB761 would permit certified local law enforcement officers to conduct random roadside inspections to ensure tractor-trailers comply with weight and size limit laws.

In addition, the bill would ban indemnification clauses in motor carrier transportation contracts that state carriers must be indemnified for any damages arising out of a negligent or intentional act.

On April 28, the Senate approved the bill and moved it to the House Transportation Committee. On May 6, that committee voted to pass the legislation. This appears to me to be putting special interests over the interests of public safety on the highways. With the price of gas getting higher and higher cars are going to get smaller. We don't need bigger and heavier trucks on our highways.

Big trucks will be banned from using the far left lane of Interstate 70 through St. Charles County, starting January 1, 2008.

The prohibition covers a six-mile stretch that begins at Mid Rivers Mall Drive in St. Peters and ends at Zumbehl Road in St. Charles. It prevents 18-wheeler trucks weighing more than 24,000 pounds from using the far left lane except in emergency conditions or if other lanes are closed for construction.

In an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Rep. John Griesheimer, R-Washington, said, “Most people feel trucks are a menace and a danger to them on the highways. Anything we can do to curb the trucks and provide more rules and regulations for them, the better off we are.”

I agree. As someone who has represented the victims of reckless truck drivers, I have witnessed the lifetime of devastation, pain and suffering an 18-wheeler can inflict in just fractions of a second. This is Missouri’s first big truck ban. I hope the General Assembly will broaden the ban during the upcoming 2008 legislative session.

A tractor-trailer owned by Swift Transportation in April 2004 killing the driver of a Suburban when the truck driver drove 65 mph across three sets of rumble strips which were designed to warn of an approaching stop sign, and then ran the stop sign. Under Federal Regulations all truck drivers and trucking companies are required to keep a log of the number of hours the truck driver has driven to comply with the Federal Hours of Service Regulations. During the discovery phase of this case, the trucking company claimed it could not locate the driver logs .Under the rules of evidence call the adverse inference rule of evidence, this raised the inference that the driver was fatigued. Driver fatigue is the cause of many truck accidents

At trial, the truck driver did not have an explanation why he failed to slow down. The jury apparently apparently did not believe the trucking company regarding why it could not produce the driver logs, and it awarded $23.1 million in compensatory damages and $13.5 million in punitive damages.

This shows when selecting a personal injury lawyer who handles trucking accident cases, it pays to have a lawyer who is knowledgeable about trucking regualtions and asks to right interrogatories and request for production of documents to the trucking company. This discovery should always ask for the truckers logs, any downloads from the truck's black box if it has one as well as GPS readings that the trucking company maintained. Also you should always investigate the possibility that the trucking company was negligent in hiring the driver. That is why you should always investigate the drivers past employment and driving record.

If you need an experienced trucking accident lawyer, contact Jeff Lowe at the Lowe Law Firm, 877-678-3400.

Truck Accidents have been linked to driver fatigue. There have been studies that demonstrate that the number of accidents involving trucks increase dramatically between the !0th and 11th hour of the truck driver's shift. The Federal Court of Appeals used these studies to invalidate the The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ("FMCSA") regulations allowing truck drivers to drive those extra hours.

The FMCSA has now submitted an interim final rule on hours of service to the Office of Management and Budget on Tuesday, Nov. 27. This will replace the one invalidated by the Court of Appeals. The OMB notice, however, did not include a date when the review will be complete.

On July 24, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit tossed the provision that increased driving time to 11 hours from 10 hours and the 34-hour restart provision. In that same decision, the court denied a petition by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association asking the court to consider the impact of changes to the sleeper-berth provision.

Once OMB approves the interim final rule, it will be published in the Federal Register. Hopefully the FMCSA will err on the side of safety and not bend to the pressures of the trucking industry to allow drivers to drive longer with less rest so they can make more money. With the make of the FMCSA and its past actions I think that is doubtful. The current administration sides with big business as well as the agencies it controls through appointments and the FMCSA is no exception. Hopefully I will be proven wrong when the interim rule is make public but I doubt it.

When truck are involved in accidents the frequency of deaths, and the severity of injuries increase substantially. Causes of trucking accidents include driver intoxication, brake failure, reckless driving, overloaded trucks, over sized trucks, driver fatigue, and driver inexperience. When a big rig driver engages in the same illegal behavior as some car drivers, the consequences can be far worse. Picture the scene when a big rig driver collides with a car because of speeding , failure to yield right of way, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or driver fatigue.

Concerns regarding the truck accident and the increasing number of 18-wheelers led to the formation of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to improve big-rig driver responsibility. Drivers were required to meet minimum national standards before they could obtain a Commercial Drivers License (CDL). Interstate trucking is regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). In addition, each state his its own set of regulations and laws. The FMCSR regulates such issues as: safe loading, use of alcohol and drugs, diver qualifications, and emergency equipment.

Truck drivers are also required to keep trucking logs, recording their driving times and hours of rest, among other things. Before each trip, the driver must inspect his truck systematically and this is governed by FMCSR 392.7. The driver must: (1) Review any previous inspection reports, (2) Double-check that anything marked for repair was in fact repaired, (3) Check the overall condition of his truck, looking for flat tires, suspension problems etc., (4) Check underneath the truck for any evidence of oil, coolant or fuel leaks, and (4) Examine the area around the truck for anything that might present danger to its movement, such as objects on the ground or low hanging wires.

Driver fatigue is also regulated by the FMCSR, in an attempt to cut down on accidents caused by sleepy or slow-reacting drivers. For instance, truck drivers may drive for 11 hours if they've just had 10 consecutive hours off but may not drive after being on the road for 60 hours in a 7-day period. They must take at least 34 consecutive hours off before they can begin another driving cycle. Because of pressure over the profit margin, drivers are sometimes drive more hours than these regulations permit with the companies tacit permission or purposely turning a blind eye to the truckers violations.

If you or a loved one is hurt in a semi-truck accident you should consult an an attorney experienced in handing truck accidents In addition time is of the essence because relevant evidence may disappear as time passes, such as the truck drivers log, which may legally be destroyed after 6 months a truck accident. These log books can supply evidence of: Maintenance and repairs. Also, memories fade, people move away, become ill, even die. All of this makes gathering evidence company will want to resolve things as quickly as possible, even right at the scene of the accident.

Also never sign any document presented to you by an insurance representative without first consulting an attorney. You could be signing away your right to proper compensation. Keep in mind that insurance companies make their money by investing. That means that the less they can pay out in compensation to their customers, and the longer they can delay any such payments, the more income they can be drawing on their invested money. The interests of an insurance company are directly opposite to yours as an accident victim. Don't delay in consulting an experienced truck accident attorney.

Truck drivers hours of service regulations are the laws that truck drivers have to follow regarding the number of hours they can drive per day and how long they must rest. The federal court struck down new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ("FMCSA") regulations that would allow an 11-hour driving day followed by 10 hours of rest with a 34-hour reset. The court did not think that was safe and struck down the new law which would result in going back to 10 hours of drive time followed by an 8-hour rest.

The American Truckers Association ("ATA") President Bill Graves stated that: "The ATA believes the existing rules have proven to be a significant improvement over the old rules in terms of reducing driver fatigue and related incidents. Motor carrier experience and FMCSA data dramatically illustrate this. The ATA plans to provide additional real-world documentation of the effectiveness of the current rules."

FMCSA administrator Annette Sandberg: "We have a very aggressive goal at the Department of Transportation to reduce fatalities on our nation's highways, so safety is the top issue in our rule-making process. We developed the new hours-of-service rule with the priority in mind of reducing fatigue-related truck crashes, most notably in the long-haul sector where truck driver fatigue is 18 times greater than that of the short-haul sector. It is important to note that the research supporting the new rule estimates that only 5.5% of all large truck crashes are fatigue-related."

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety president Judith Stone stated "In today's ruling, the court has once again sided with public safety and rejected FMCSA's illogical proposition that driving longer hours and working longer days will somehow solve truck driver fatigue."

Judge David Sentell who struck down the FMCSA new rule held that: "The agency [FMCSA] admits that studies show that crash risk increases, in the agency's words, 'geometrically' after the eighth hour on duty." He also chastised the agency for "ignoring its own evidence that fatigue causes many truck accidents" in a December 2006 ruling on the proposed HOS rules.

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety VP Jackie Gillan: "In the last 10 years, 56,935 people have died and a million more were injured in truck crashes in communities across the country. American families are paying a steep personal and financial price for this public health disaster. ... It's time to stop coddling the trucking industry and make the safety of all motorists, including truck drivers, a priority."

Public Citizen president Joan Claybrook: "Large trucks are rolling time bombs on our highways, with tired truckers allowed to work 14 and 16 hours a day under the new DOT rules, making truck driving the most dangerous occupation in America."

PATT (Parents Against Tired Truckers) founder Daphne Izer: "The trucking profession has become 'sweatshops on wheels' because of the excessive and unsafe hours of work and driving time required of truck drivers."

It is odd that the agency that is charged with protecting public safety is so intent on allowing truckers to drive longer and ignores the studies that show that after 8 hours the number of accidents involving trucks increases dramatically. Could it be that the FMCSA is promoting profits over safety because of contributions to politicians? The current administration is intent on helping big business whenever it can and if it is at the expense of safety of drivers on our Interstate Highways so be it. Luckily this time the courts are looking out for our safety and protecting us from the FMCSA and the interests of big business.

Trucks in Illinois are currently required to travel 10 mph below the 65 mph speed limit for other vehicles. Under the bill that passed the Illinois legislature the Illinois Department of Transportation Truck will be allowed to travel 65 mph, the speed limit for cars.

Illinois Governor Blagojevich has vetoed the bill twice before. In his latest veto message, the governor made it clear he doesn’t want trucks traveling at higher rates of speed. “This bill compromises safety by allowing trucks to travel at higher speeds. I remain opposed to increasing the speed limit to 65 miles per hour for large trucks,” Blagojevich wrote.
State transportation officials have called on legislators to uphold the governor’s veto of the bill. They refer to data from the Illinois DOT that shows nearly 140 people died in truck-related crashes in the state a year ago, The Southern Illinoisan reported. That number is down from an average of about 177 people who have been killed in truck-related crashes on roadways in the state in each of the past 10 years. Nevertheless, the Illinois legislature is expected to override the veto barring any unexpected change in their votes on the issue.

A truck driver on Interstate 44 in Missouri could not recover the injuries he suffered when he suffered injuries from witnessing when he got out to check defendant’s car and saw the driver and his wife badly hurt and their young daughter killed. The trucking accident happened when the a care driven by the defendant crossed over the median and hit plaintiff’s tractor trailer head-on. The truck driver sued the driver of the car that hit him, even though he was not physically injured. The truck driver claimed that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and sued the driver for negligent infliction of emotional distress the truck driver was not treated for physical or emotional injury from the impact itself or any pre-impact fear of collision. Plaintiff’s diagnosable emotional distress, mental treatment and lost time from work were from viewing the deceased child after the collision.

The truck driver claimed his damages were recoverable under Bass v. Nooney Co., 646 S.W.2d 765, 772-73 (Mo. Banc. 1983). This case replaced the impact rule with a requirement that to warrant recovery, emotional distress must be medically diagnosable and serious enough to require medical attention. The truck driver claimed his damages were the result of his post-accident viewing of the injured parties.

The trial court granted summary judgment since the truck driver, when viewing the deceased child, was not in the zone of danger and did not reasonably fear injury to himself. The court also held that the defendant, who was unconscious after the accident, had no duty to protect plaintiff from seeing his deceased child.

On August 6, 2007, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against the truck driver. The court held that people who escape injury from the collision itself but then are harmed by seeing injured persons thereafter are seeking “bystander recovery”. Missouri courts have not permitted bystander recovery. See Jerrett v. Jones, 28259 (Mo. Ct. of Appeals, Southern District, August 6, 2007). In Jerrett, the court held that while the tortfeasor has a duty to project persons from physical harm, there is no duty from preventing emotional distress arising from viewing the results of an accident. In essence, the court held while defendant did have a duty to prevent injury to his own daughter, there is no basis for plaintiff to recover and defendant had no duty or ability because of being unconscious, to protect plaintiff from seeing defendant’s deceased child.

The court also affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment because bystander recovery, is generally limited to someone closely related to the victim. The Restatement Second of Torts, §436(c), standard limits recovery to the immediate family. The third Restatement of torts will allow a "close family member" to recover damages for witnessing a negligently caused injury.