Georgia Truck Accident Lawyers Blog

The use of medical marijuana by truck drivers will continue to constitute a violation of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Drug and Alcohol Testing Regulations, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has announced.

It is an important clarification. As our Atlanta trucking accident attorneys reported recently on our Georgia Truck Accident Lawyers Blog, truckers are permitted to use narcotic pain relievers and other prescription medication under a doctor's care. The same medication would be refused to a commercial airline pilot.

An announcement last year concerning the fed's tolerance for medical marijuana left open the possibility that truckers could justify smoking marijuana for medical purposes.

The Department of Justice issued a memorandum that essentially said that prosecutors should not spend federal resources in prosecuting cases involving marijuana in situations where a defendant was legally using the drug in accordance with a state's medical marijuana law.

The clarification means that stance will have no bearing on drug testing for truckers.

"Medical Review Officers will not verify a drug test as negative based upon information that a physician recommended that the employee use 'medical marijuana,'" the Department of Transportation said in the announcement. "It remains unacceptable for any safety-sensitive employee subject to drug testing under the Department of Transportation's drug testing regulations to use marijuana."

Fourteen states have now legalized marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

And earlier this week, the federal government announced that veterans would not face loss of VA benefits for using medical marijuana.

Continue reading " Truckers in Georgia not permitted to use medical marijuana, even if it's legal in their home state " »

Fatigued drivers are a common cause of truck crashes. In an effort to reduce the injuries and deaths caused by drivers operating large trucks while fatigued, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has issues hours-of –service regulations governing the time periods during which driver’s may operate large trucks.

In January 2004, the FMCSA implemented new hours-of-service regulations for truck drivers, increasing the required daily off-duty period but also increasing daily and weekly allowable driving times. Under the current rules, interstate commercial truck drivers are not allowed to drive more than 11 hours or drive after 14 hours since starting a duty shift until they take a 10-hour break.

Drivers cannot drive after accruing 60 work hours during a 7-day period or 70 work hours during an 8-day period, but a "restart" provision allows truckers to get back behind the wheel after 34 hours off duty. Using this provision, a driver may log up to 77 hours in 7 days or 88 hours in 8 days.

Further modifications to the work rules took effect Oct. 1, 2005. These revisions provide that drivers who use sleeper berths in their trucks may split the required minimum 10-hour daily off-duty period into a period of at least 8 hours in the sleeper berth and a period of at least 2 hours in the sleeper berth or off duty. Short-haul truckers may extend their work day twice a week, and these drivers are exempt from a requirement to carry a logbook of their hours of work.

Federal courts overturned the rules in 2004 and again in 2007. In October 2009, the FMCSA reached a court settlement with safety groups. Under the terms of the deal, the FMCSA agreed to review and reconsider the rule and to publish a final rule by July 2011.

Even with the regulations, studies show that the rate of accidents involving fatigued drivers has not significantly declined. A study by the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety based upon surveys of long-distance truck drivers in two states (Pennsylvania and Oregon), found drivers are spending more hours behind the wheel since the work rules changed in January 2004. They also report more instances of falling asleep at the wheel.

In Pennsylvania, 19 percent of truck drivers admitted to dozing at the wheel at least once during the past month in 2005, up from 13 percent in 2003, under the old rule. The proportions in Oregon were 21 percent in 2005 compared with 12 percent in 2003.

Current regulations allow truck drivers to record their hours in written logbooks that are reviewed by inspectors. Studies of long-distance truck drivers and our own experience has shown that work rules commonly are violated.

About a third of drivers interviewed by the Institute in 2003, 2004, and 2005 admitted to often or sometimes omitting hours from their log books. Some truck drivers refer to logbooks as "comic books" because they are so easily falsified.

Our experience in these cases has shown that it is common for truck drivers to carry two sets of log books – one correct and the other falsified to show driving within the regulations in case the driver is inspected or involved in a collision.

The Georgia State Patrol is investigating a tractor-trailer accident that occurred on Interstate 85 in Jackson County last Wednesday morning. Although the cause of the accident has not been announced, officials found a vehicle lodged under the rear of the tractor-trailer.

The Georgia injury lawyers at Finch McCranie, LLP have represented clients in all types of tractor-trailer trucking cases, including what have been called “under-ride” cases. These accidents occur for a variety of reasons. In some of the cases we have seen, the tractor-trailer is not properly illuminated with working lights and required reflective tape and in some of the cases, the trailer had defective or missing safety equipment.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) address all of these issues, including requiring rear guards on the trailers. Specifically, the regulations require that every trailer must have a rear impact guard to protect against a vehicle going under the trailer during a rear impact collision with the except of pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, low chassis vehicles, special purpose vehicles and wheels back vehicles. The FMCSR specifies the required dimensions of rear guards and requires them to be substantially constructed and attached by bolts, welding, or other comparable means. If it breaks in a rear-end collision the carrier can be held liable for improper welding and attachment of the guard. As with any case, it is important to document the condition of the tractor-trailer with photographs and to preserve any physical evidence that is available, including the rear guard.

A Texas man has been charged with a fatal Atlanta trucking accident that occurred on I-285, Channel 2 reported.

The 43-year-old driver is accused of crossing over the fog line and striking a minivan that was parked in the emergency lane. The Georgia semi accident happened on I-285 near Riverside Drive.

The crash claimed the life of a 44-year-old Sandy Springs motorist. The defendant is charged with a lane violation and second-degree vehicular homicide.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that the woman was taken to Grady Memorial Hospital, where she was pronounced dead. Police say the tractor trailer hit the Toyota minivan as it traveled in a westbound lane.

The media has not reported on what caused this accident.

The leading causes of commercial trucking accidents include prescription drug use, speed, unfamiliar with road, over-the-counter medications, distracted driving, fatigue, illegal maneuvers and aggressive driving. As we reported recently on our Georgia Truck Accident Lawyers Blog, some safety advocates argue that treating truckers more like pilots would reduce the risk of serious and fatal tractor-trailer accidents on the nation's roads.

Current law permits truckers to use prescription medication under the advice of a doctor and relies upon paper logbook reporting of hours-worked, maintenance, and other safety requirements. Reducing work-hours, and relying upon automatic recorders -- similar to the black boxes we hear about in airliners -- could go a long way toward reducing the number of Georgia semi accidents.

Continue reading " No cause given for fatal Atlanta trucking accident; data recorders would improve safety, assist investigators " »

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations require that all trucking companies “systematically inspect, repair and maintain, or cause to be systematically inspected, repaired, or maintained, all motor vehicles subject to its control.” Obviously, this safety regulation is designed to insure that all trucking companies maintain their vehicles in good working order. Carriers must maintain repair and inspection reports, (which have to be filed each day a vehicle is driven), which records must also evidence periodic inspections of each vehicle owned by the motor carrier. A failure of a trucking company to fulfill its repair and maintenance obligations can be an independent basis of liability against the trucking company. Some courts have held that if a motor carrier does not maintain its vehicles in good working order and as a result of such a breach an accident occurs that this can also be the basis of punitive damages against the motor carrier. Essentially, the courts have recognized that putting an unsafe vehicle on the road is a willful and wanton disregard of public safety which justifies punitive damages.

In any case involving a tractor-trailer accident, counsel should subpoena and obtain from the trucking company all of its inspection, maintenance and repair records for the vehicle involved to make sure that the carrier fulfilled its duties under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

Any driver of any vehicle, much less trucks, knows that when the weather is bad extra precaution must be taken in the operation of the vehicle. This is especially true for large tractor-trailer trucks that are much heavier in weight and therefore more difficult to slow down. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations require that drivers of motor carriers use “extreme caution” in the operation of trucks during hazardous conditions such as those caused by snow, rain or any other weather event which adversely affects visibility or traction. Speed must be reduced when such conditions exist.

Most state Commercial Driver Licenses Manuals require that truck drivers slow down at least by one-third (⅓) of the posted speed limit in order to insure the safe operation of their heavy tractor-trailer rigs. Because it takes longer to stop and is harder to do so without skidding or losing control if it is raining or snowing, the driver must slow down from 55 to 35, as an example, on any wet road. On packed snow most commercial drivers’ manuals require that speed be reduced by half (½).

The motor carrier safety regulations are very important in helping to establish negligence of a truck driver who is speeding during adverse weather conditions. Even if a truck driver is traveling within the posted speed limit, he may still be in violation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations because traveling at 55 miles per hour, which may be the posted speed limit in any particular area, may still be too fast for conditions and under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations is too fast for conditions when the weather is adverse.

In any case involving adverse weather conditions, counsel should investigate very carefully whether excessive speed was involved and/or whether the driver and carrier used “extreme caution” for the safety of the motoring public. If not, a proven violation of these safety regulations can help to establish liability against the trucking company and its driver.

Yesterday, a Georgia tractor-trailer accident shut down Interstate 85 north near Hamilton Mill Road in North Atlanta. The tractor-trailer, which appeared to be loaded with several steel beams, overturned and spilled its load all over the roadway. Fortunately, no injuries were reported and the reason for the crash has not been reported. Given the size of the truck, the size and weight of the cargo, and the fact that the crash occurred in the middle of an Interstate highway, this accident could have resulted in the wrongful death or serious injury of numerous people.

As Georgia injury lawyers who have handled numerous tractor-trailer accident cases over the span of 40 years, we have seen similar accidents which were caused by the load shifting during transit. Often the load was not properly secured. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations clearly outline the carriers responsibilities for proper loading of a truck. Commercial vehicles must be loaded in such a manner as to prevent its cargo from leaking, spilling, blowing or falling from the vehicle. The cargo must be immobilized or secured to prevent shifting to the extent that the vehicle’s stability or maneuverability is affected. There are also specific regulations that deal with specific cargo such as logs, boulders, concrete pipes, metal coils, etc. The driver of a commercial vehicle is charged with the responsibility of making sure that the truck is loaded in compliance with federal law. A driver cannot operate a commercial vehicle unless (1) the load is properly distributed and adequately secured, (2) the means of fastening the cargo is secured, and (3) the cargo does not obscure the drivers view or interfere with the movement of his arms or legs. The Regulations not only require that the driver of a commercial vehicle check the load before beginning the drive but also requires that he must examine the load again within the first 50 miles after beginning a trip and make any adjustments that are necessary to secure it. In addition, the driver must re-examine the load and the devices securing the load when he makes a change of his duty status, after the vehicle has been driven for three(3) hours or after the vehicle has been driven 150 miles, whichever comes first.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations set out very strict requirements for pre-employment investigation of truck drivers. Any motor carrier is required to obtain information about the prospective driver/employee’s driving record and his/her employment history for the preceding three (3) years. The driver/applicant must provide a list of employers for the prior three (3) years and must also provide a list by name and address of all employers for the previous ten (10) years for whom the applicant operated a commercial motor vehicle. Once obtaining this information, the motor carrier is required to investigate the same.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations require that the trucking company inquire into the applicant’s driving record for the prior three (3) years in every state in which he/she held a license and investigate the driver’s employment record for the preceding three (3) years as well. This investigation must take place within thirty (30) days of the date of that a driver’s employment begins. As with any other violation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, a failure to conduct this pre-employment investigation can be an independent basis for liability against the trucking company and potentially a basis for punitive damages as well.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations provide certain minimum physical qualifications necessary to drive most trucks. These provisions require that drivers have adequate vision in both eyes, adequate hearing, be free from psychiatric disorders, epilepsy, high blood pressure, insulin dependent diabetes and certain heart conditions. All drivers must have adequate use of his or her extremities and have no current clinical diagnosis of alcoholism.

Any trucking company that uses a driver who fails to meet the physical qualifications of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations can be liable to the innocent victim of the negligence of such a driver. Again, if a trucking company negligently hires an unqualified driver and in the process violates Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations regarding minimum physical qualifications, and it can be established thereby that the driver was not qualified to drive a truck, liability can be established for the violation of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulation in and of itself as both the driver and the trucking company have a responsibility to conform to these minimum requirements.

Our firm has handled several case where the driver was not qualified to drive for physical reasons. Obviously, we discovered this after the fact of an accident involving one of our clients. Unqualified drivers should not be allowed to operate commercial tractor trailer rigs--plain and simple. Such drivers are dangerous. Thus, in any case involving a serious accisent, the driver's qualifications should be reviewed. As an example, in one case we handled, the driver's feet were numb from a prior electrical accident! And yet, he was allowed to drive. Needless to say, he never should have done so and both he and his carrier were required to pay our client above actual damages because of such negligence.

A Georgia man was injured in a tractor-trailer accident on Tuesday afternoon when a semi truck slammed into the back of his pickup truck. The Postlight Searchlight reported that the accident occurred the accident occurred about 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday on U.S. 84 near Brinson, Georgia. Apparently, the pickup truck was following a slow moving front-end loader as an escort when the Volvo tractor trailer came up from behind. When the semi driver realized that he was going to slam into the rear of the pickup, he tried to swerve to miss him. Upon impact, the pickup truck was pushed into the front-end loader and then off the road where in overturned. The semi continued on across the median and came to rest in a wooded area.

Why the tractor trailer driver failed to see and appreciate the slower moving vehicles in front of him is unknown at present; however, a thorough investigation is warranted. Georgia injury lawyers that there many be many factors from distracted driving to driver fatigue to poor maintenance or training that may have led to or contributed to the crash of this tractor trailer.

Continue reading " Tractor Trailer Accident Injures Georgia Man " »

Georgia injury lawyers often file serious injury and wrongful death lawsuits on behalf of families of guest passengers, against their host driver in cases, where the host driver was negligent. Although details of the accident are limited, such may have happened last week in DeFuniak Springs, Florida. The Associated press reported that a Georgia man, 45 year old Morris Hamontree, died last Thursday night in a one vehicle tractor-trailer accident in Interstate 10. According to the article, Hamontree was a passenger in the tractor trailer rig which drove off of the highway into the median. It is though that the driver over-corrected and crossed back over the westbound lanes of I-10 before striking a large tree.

When Georgia injury lawyers hear of circumstances such as what has been reported in this case, we always wonder whether driver fatigue could have been a factor. It is a fact that driver fatigue may be the number one safety problem in the trucking industry today, and is a factor in nearly 40% of all crashes nationwide. No doubt there will be a diligent investigation by authorities concerning all of the circumstances surrounding this tragic accident.

Continue reading " Tractor Trailer Accident Results In Death Of Georgia Man " »

To be qualified to drive a tractor-trailer in interstate commerce, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations require that an individual must meet the followed specified separate criteria: The driver:

1. Must be at least 21-years old;
2. Must be able to read and speak English;
3. By reason of experience and/or training, must be able to safely operate a vehicle;
4. Must be physically qualified to drive a commercial vehicle in accordance with the physical qualifications and examinations required;
5. Must have a commercially valid motor vehicle license issued by only one state;
6. Have prepared and furnished the hiring motor carrier a list of prior violations;
7. Is not disqualified under the rules;
8. Has successfully completed a driver’s road test and has been issued a certificate or has presented an operator’s license or certificate of road test which the motor carrier that employee’s has accepted as equivalent to a road test.

An individual driver who fails to meet any of these criteria subjects both himself and his employer to liability which may include a claim for punitive damages. In short, if a motor carrier driver is not qualified and/or competent as set forth herein, then he or she has no right to operate a tractor-trailer rig in interstate commerce and liability for a collision by an unqualified driver can be established on this basis alone.

Because these criteria for minimum qualifications and competence are so important to minimum federal safety standards, they shall be discussed separately in future blogs. If a trucking company fails to determine whether a driver is qualified to drive, fails to give a driving test or obtain an adequate employment history of prior traffic violations and/or fails to conduct pre-employment screening and otherwise fails to observe all of the safety regulations applicable to interstate trucking companies, then in that event, the trucking company can be held not only for any damages caused by the unqualified driver but also can be held liable for punitive damages for a willful violation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. See Smith v. Tommy Roberts Trucking Company, 209 Ga. App. 826 435 S.E. 2d 54 (1993).

Any time an accident occurs involving a fatality, an interstate trucking company must perform a drug and alcohol test on its driver. Testing by the company is also required where an investigating police officer issues a traffic citation to one of its drivers involved in an accident and the accident causes bodily injury. Such tests should be performed by an independent lab as soon as possible after an accident. If it cannot be performed within 8 hours, the driver cannot be allowed to continue driving. If the test cannot be performed within two hours the motor carrier must provide written explanation as to why the test could not be promptly administered. Obviously, these are for alcohol tests. A controlled substance test must be performed within 32 hours and if not completed, then again, the carrier must provide a written explanation as to why the test could not be promptly performed. If federal, state or local officials have already conducted a breath or controlled substance test following an accident, the carrier does not have to do so.

Because the responsibility of testing its driver rests with the employer, all responsible employers must make sure that their employees have been properly tested following an accident in which a fatality has occurred or in which a citation has been issued against its driver. Failure to administer the test can be used against the employer if they do not fulfill their legal obligations in connection with the same. Accordingly, in any serious case in which a truck driver is involved counsel should check to see of local, state or federal officials have conducted independent tests themselves arising from the occurrence. If not, the employer’s records should be subpoenaed to make sure that federal law has been observed and that independent laboratory tests were obtained as soon as possible after the incident.

Some of the more enlightened insurance carriers are well aware of the fact that their greatest exposure to liability claims comes from fatigued drivers. Drivers who operate tractor-trailer rigs for an excessive number of hours on long interstate trips are likely to become fatigued and therefore less careful in their operation of these large trucks. Some insurance carriers have conducted sleep apnea tests and have devices that are used to study those who seem to suffer from the ill effects of this disorder. Whether a driver is overweight, snores too much or otherwise is sleep deprived can all have an effect on what is known as sleep apnea. This condition, which can exacerbate pre-existing fatigue, obviously is potentially a danger to the public.

The federal regulations governing truck drivers provides that no driver shall operate a commercial motor vehicle while the driver’s ability or alertness is impaired or so likely to become impaired through fatigue, illness or any other cause so as to make it unsafe for him to begin or continue to operate a commercial motor vehicle. In other words, sometimes the driver causes an accident because he is tired and fatigued. If the injured claimant can show that the driver suffered from sleep apnea and the trucking company was aware of this, the injured claimant may be able to establish that the trucking company failed to take appropriate steps to makes sure that its driver complied with federal law.

Because federal law mandates that no fatigued driver may operate a commercial motor carrier if the driver is fatigued or suffers from a condition that can make him so unsafe as to either begin or continue to operate the motor vehicle due to such impaired condition, counsel in these cases should be on the look out for evidence of sleep apnea by the driver. While sleep apnea, of course, does not have to be proven to establish liability for an accident, if it is proven this would be circumstantial evidence which could form the basis of why a particular collision occurred. Fatigued drivers are dangerous drivers and where fatigue is proven to exist, it is more likely than not that it may have been a contributing factor in a particular collision. Again, experienced counsel should look into these matters so as to protect the rights of innocent victims from trucking company negligence.

Road Safe America, a traffic safety organization founded by parents who lost a son in a trucking accident, is pushing for legal changes in the trucking industry to improve safety and reduce the risk large trucks pose to other motorists on the road.

Our Georgia trucking accident lawyers note with interest the organization's comparison of truck drivers to airline pilots -- both take the lives of hundreds of travelers into their hands each time they climb into the driver's seat.

-Age Limit: Pilots must retire at age 65. No such limit exists for truckers, drivers older than 80 remain on the road.

-Prescription drugs: Pilots are forbidden from consuming some prescription narcotics, while truck drivers are permitted to consume narcotics under a doctor's orders.

-Physicals: Pilots are required to under go a physical every six months. Truckers are required to get a physical every two years.

-Hours of work: Pilots are limited to 1,000 hours a year, or 30 hours a week. Truckers can work four-times longer, up to 4,000 hours a year.

-Electronic Tracking: Work hours for pilots are tracked electronically, while trucking regulations entrust truckers with keeping paper records.

-Deaths: Fewer than 100 people have died in airline crashes during the last three years, while more than 15,000 have been killed in trucking accidents and as many as 400,000 motorists have been injured.

Among the changes in the trucking industry that Road Safe America is pushing for:

-Require all trucks to have speed limiters, which would prevent them from traveling faster than 65 mph.

-Require on-board data recorders that will accurately report a driver's driving time, hours of service and location.

-Increase pay for truckers.

-Improve and standardize training requirements.

-Require use of available safety technologies, including collision warning systems, stability control and active braking.

-Limit the use of cruise control.

-Standardize requirements for intrastate (travel within a state) and interstate (travel across country) truckers.

-Increase insurance requirements.

-Require advanced medical screening of truck drivers.

-Limit the ability of truck drivers to consume prescription narcotics, even with a doctor's note.

Continue reading " Treating truckers like pilots could reduce the risk of Georgia semi accidents " »

Under federal law, an interstate motor carrier must conduct random alcohol and drug testing of a certain percentage of their drivers each year regardless of their conduct. The testing must be unannounced and the dates for administering the tests must be spread throughout the calendar year. More specifically, however, if an employer has a reasonable suspicion that one of its drivers, based on either appearance, or behavior may be under the influence of alcohol, then they are under a duty to conduct what is called “reasonable suspicion testing” within two hours of the observed/suspected conduct. After determination that a reasonable suspicion exists for a potential violation, a carrier may not allow a driver to remain on duty until the test is completed (with a result of less than .02%) or until 24 hours has elapsed since the alleged suspicion arose.

In any case involving a driver suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, counsel should request all drug and alcohol testing records of the motor carrier including reasonable suspicion testing, pre-employment alcohol and drug screening testing, dissemination of information to the drivers concerning alcohol and controlled substance policies and procedures as well as the actual test performed by employers upon their drivers. A failure to abide by these safety regulations can be the basis for establishing liability against the trucking company.
The tests we mention here are in addition to other mandatory tests that must be performed after an accident and are in addition to pre-employment screening tests that are also mandatory. We will address these tests in other entries.

We have blogged before about the problem with so-called independent contractors and the attempt by unscrupulous operators to insulate themselves from the negligence of its drivers. To address this problem, Congress amended the Interstate Motor Common Carrier Act to require that a registered motor carrier assume “full direction and control” of leased vehicles. In order to effectuate this responsibility, federal law mandates that insurance policies for all motor common carriers contain an MCS-90 Endorsement. The required language in the form MCS-90 Endorsement is standardized and applies to the operation, maintenance and use of motor vehicles subject to the financial responsibility requirements of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980. In essence, those sections apply to motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce. Thus, insurance companies who insure vehicles owned or leased by interstate trucking companies must include the MCS-90 Endorsement in their policy. This endorsement makes the motor carrier responsible for any leased vehicle, so much so as to practically guarantee that an independent contractor argument will fail where such an MCS-90 Endorsement is proven to exist and a lease agreement between the carriers is involved.

The MCS-90 Endorsement applies to interstate motor carriers operating in interstate commerce. State laws are different, but if there is a interstate carrier involved and an interstate shipment is involved as well, an injured individual may claim the benefit of the MSC-90 Endorsement to claim minimum federal limits of liability insurance coverage which typically are $750,000.00. Because the damages caused by collisions with big tractor-trailer rigs are usually more serious than a routine automobile accident, the MCS-90 Endorsement can become extremely important particularly if a third party leased vehicle is involved and the injuries and damages caused by such a negligent operator are serious.

Because of the importance of experienced counsel in these areas, once again, anyone who is injured by a so-called “independent contractor” should confer with counsel as soon as possible to protect their rights. The MCS-90 Endorsement may be the best protection one can have in this context.

Interstate trucking companies must complete a pre-employment screen for alcohol and drugs before a driver is allowed to operate a rig on the road. The controlled substance test must be negative and the alcohol test must come back at a consummation level less than .04%. If the driver has been tested within six months of being hired and already has acceptable results, then he or she may be allowed to operate a truck in interstate commerce. However, if there is no such testing record available to the employer, then the employee must be screened.

In addition to performing the screening test mentioned, all trucking companies must provide their drivers with educational materials explaining its policies and procedures about alcohol and controlled substances. Obviously, neither may be used while on duty unless the controlled substance has been prescribed by a physician and will not adversely affect the driver’s ability to safely operate a vehicle.

For responsible motor carriers, obviously, it make good business sense to screen potential employees to make sure that they are not liability risks. However, whether it makes good business sense or not, federal motor carriers are required by law to screen their employees before putting them on the road. Thus, in any case involving an accident where a driver is found to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, counsel should request all pre-employment drug and alcohols screens as well as information provided to drivers about company policies and procedures concerning the same. If the carrier failed to abide by its obligations, it can be held liable on this basis alone and may also be held liable for punitive damages.

As all trial lawyers who practice in this arena know, that the central purpose of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) is to create uniform standards of travel on our interstate highways for large tractor-trailer trucks and to promote their safe operation by helping to prevent collisions. There are many safety regulations in the FMCSR that help to fulfill these uniform standards and promote safety. Regrettably, many thousands of accidents occur each and every year in this country. Typically, in any given year, over 100,000 people are injured and 5,000 people killed in tractor-trailer collisions. While the purpose of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations was designed to prevent these incidents from occurring, it cannot be seriously debated that the numbers quoted would be substantially higher without their existence.

The obligations and responsibilities set forth by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations are legally shared by both truck drivers and their employers. 49 C.F.R. § 390.11 provides that when “a duty is prescribed for a driver or a prohibition is imposed upon the driver, it shall be the duty of the motor carrier to require observance of such duty or prohibition.” Thus, motor carriers have an obligation to instruct their drivers regarding all applicable rules and regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Failure to properly train drivers can be an independent basis of liability against a trucking company. Moreover, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations embrace the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Indeed, the regulations require that all motor carrier employees and drivers shall be knowledgeable of and comply with the same. Because a violation of the provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations can establish negligence in and of itself, it is important in any trucking case that each and every applicable safety regulation be reviewed to make sure that the truck driver and/or motor carrier employer observed the applicable regulations (whether they be mechanical inspections, driver training, alcohol testing and the like) that were designed to prevent the collision from occurring in the first place. To the extent that counsel can establish that safety regulations were ignored and/or violated, then in that event, liability can be established and damages obtained for the innocent victim of such violations.

Under federal law, an interstate trucking company must have a minimum of $750,000.00 in liability insurance available to satisfy any judgment that might arise out of a accident in which innocent third parties are injured. This is a minimum amount set by law. Most companies have coverage greater than this amount to protect their assets. If someone were to be killed or seriously injured, given the seriousness of accidents involving large tractor-trailer rigs, it is not uncommon that the damages inflicted will be substantial. Accordingly, it is not uncommon that these minimum limits are exceeded. Many carriers have one, five, ten and 20 million dollars in coverage and others have even greater amounts dependent upon the size of the trucking operation and the amount of assets of that a particular trucking company may wish to protect in the event of a serious claim.

If a trucking company only has the minimum coverage and a judgment greater than $750,000.00 is obtained by the innocent victim or their family, then in that event, the family of the victim can attempt to collect the excess amount of the judgment directly from the motor carrier’s assets. Thus, in many ways, the minimum coverage required by law is irrelevant because most carriers have far greater coverage. The minimum coverage typically is relevant only when smaller carriers are involved with few business assets.

Many carriers are in the business of transporting hazardous substances in interstate commerce. With respect to such substances, because they can be deadly if spilled or involved in an accident, the minimum coverage for such substances is typically $5 million in liability coverage. This is because if a toxic chemical is spilled many people may be affected and thus higher limits of liability coverage are required by law. Again, the more responsible carriers provide even greater coverage because $5 million may be woefully inadequate if there is a spill of toxic substances on an interstate highway.

The good news about federal law is that the minimum limit of $750,000.00 is far greater than Georgia state law minimum limit of only $100,000.00 for intrastate operations. If a trucking company is operating in intrastate commerce only, that is in the State of Georgia by itself, as an example, then in that event, the minimum coverage required by state law is $100,000.00. Again, the more responsible companies which have assets that they need to protect for their own reasons against an excess judgment will have greater amounts of coverage. Fly-by-night or smaller companies may only have the minimum.

We have long advocated that the minimum amounts currently set forth under both state and federal law need to be increased because of the tremendous damage inflicted by these vehicles when involved in accidents. When serious injuries and/or death or involved, the minimum limits are insufficient to compensate the innocent victim. Thus, while the minimum limits, in our judgment, are inadequate, nonetheless, they do provide a minimum safety net for the motoring public.

When a tractor-trailer is involved in a serious collision, serious injuries usually are involved, if not wrongful death. The size of these large rigs usually means that the damage involved in a collision will be significant. Accordingly, obviously, a key issue in all of these cases is the nature and extent of available liability insurance coverage to provide redress to innocent third parties who are injured due to the negligence of tractor-trailer trucking companies and their employees.

If a tractor is hauling a trailer for another party, it may be that multiple policies of insurance can be stacked on top of each other to provide for greater coverage for the innocent victim. If a tractor-trailer company has insurance on its tractor and is hauling a trailer that is also involved in the collision and also inflicts damage then the coverage on the trailer and its owner may be stacked on top of the tractor’s coverage to provide for an additional layer of protection to the injured individual. While these cases are all factually specific, nonetheless, this possibility must be thoroughly investigated, particularly where serious injuries or wrongful death cases are involved. Thus, a factual investigation should be undertaken immediately to determine in whose name the tractor is registered as well as in whose name the trailer is registered. Federal and state inquiries must be made of both owners to determine the extent of their involvement in federal registrations and the extent of their coverages. While there may be available coverage under the tractor’s policy which might be sufficient depending upon the nature of the case, when multiple parties are injured in one of these serious collisions, it may take multiple policies to provide redress for all those injured by the negligence of a large tractor-trailer rig.

When a trucking company is sued, typically it is sued on the basis of an employer/employee relationship. The truck driver/employee falls asleep due to fatigue and injures an innocent third party on a highway. A lawsuit can be filed in such a case against both the employee and the trucking company. Here in Georgia, there is a statute (O.C.G.A. § 46-7-12) which also permits the injured individual to file a direct action against the insurance carrier for the trucking company. The legislative intent here was to recognize that the insurance contract between the trucking company and the insurance carrier, was in reality, a contract for the benefit of the innocent member of the public injured by the trucking company’s employee. Thus, in an accident where an innocent member of the public is injured by a trucking company operating in interstate commerce, the injured individual may sue either the truck driver alone, the trucking company and the truck driver or all three or any combination thereof.

For strategic reasons, if the jury knows that there is insurance coverage available to provide redress for the injured victim, this may assist the jury in making sure that the injured individual is adequately compensated for their damages without worrying about the economic impact upon the driver and/or the company. Of course, defense attorneys would argue that the availability of such insurance coverage could drive jury verdicts upwards but, this was considered by the Georgia Legislature when this unique statute was passed. Thus, all practitioners should be aware that they have the right to name in a direct action the insurance carrier at the inception of a lawsuit. In Georgia, this rule is quite different from any other rule because by operation of law as a general proposition, one may never sue an insurance carrier until a judgment is first obtained against the insured covered by the insurance contract. The exception is in the trucking context and in that regard the injured victim does have a right to sue the insurance carrier at the beginning of the lawsuit naming the insurance carrier as a defendant. This option should be exercised in most all cases except where there are legitimate reasons to do otherwise.

Because of these unique provisions of Georgia law, again, an injured individual with a claim against an interstate trucking company should confer with experienced counsel as soon as possible to explore all available options.

For years unscrupulous trucking companies have utilized the services of so-called independent contractors. An employer/trucking company will “hire” an independent contractor to drive a truck on their behalf. If an accident occurs because the leased vehicle is unsafe or is negligently operated, the hiring employer/trucking company will attempt to distance itself from liability by arguing that the negligent truck driver was “an independent contractor” and not an employee. The good news is that there are laws that protect the public from unscrupulous trucking companies that would seek to avoid liability through these independent contractor arguments. The bad news, depending upon the facts, is that such liability might be limited particularly if the independent contractor/trucking company is involved in intrastate commerce and not interstate commerce.

When a legitimate company hires or leases a truck from another third party, the Federal Trucking Regulations make the leased vehicle a statutory employee of the lessor. Thus the lessor’s coverage would apply because the truck driver, by operation of law, becomes the employee of the employing leasing company. The problem is that if the accident occurs in intrastate commerce minimum limits under state law may apply, whereas, if the accident happens in interstate commerce, then federal limits may apply which typically are far greater than state imposed limits of liability.

Anytime there is a leased vehicle involved counsel should be retained immediately. Insurance companies are likely to seek to avoid liability of at all possible under the independent contractor rule and/or under arguments that the trucking lease arrangement was not interstate in character but rather intrastate, thus seeking to minimize the amount of their insurance obligations. As all of these cases involve factually specific issues, which must be fully investigated, again, any victim of a so-called “independent contractor” trucking company should confer with counsel experienced in these areas as soon as possible.

Georgia injury lawyers who have handled serious injury and wrongful death cases against trucking companies closely examine any representations made by truck drivers and this is particularly true when it comes to representations made by the safety departments of trucking companies.

This week, CBS.Com published an article about a Georgia trucker employed by Con-Way Freight who was fired after he had a single vehicle truck accident in his 14-wheeler. According to the driver, as he was exiting the expressway on his way to Knoxville, his brakes failed to work resulting in the tractor and both trailers overturning. The driver claimed that he was unaware of any problems with the brakes until he tried to apply them as he got off of the expressway. Interestingly, the Knoxville police came to the conclusion that the brakes had failed and the driver was not at fault for the accident. Accordingly, the driver was not charged with the accident. When the driver returned to work, he was fired.

When the CBS Atlanta reporter contacted Con-Way Freight to inquire about the incident and the firing, he was referred to their corporate communications department who released a statement that said in part, “if for any reason, a driver has any question about the safe operation of a vehicle, the instructions for what to do are crystal clear: pull the vehicle to the side of the road, park it, call operations, and wait for instructions.”

Although Con-way Freight now claims there was nothing wrong with the brakes, this is completely contradicted by the Knoxville police and their former driver. Our experience has shown that when a motorist claims brake failure at the scene of an accident, the authorities always check the vehicle out for themselves as was no doubt done in this case. Fortunately, no one was injured in this accident; however, had that not been the case, it would have been crucial for an immediate inspection to have been made by an expert to document the condition of the truck and trailer.

Continue reading " Georgia Tractor-Trailer Overturns After Experiencing Brake Failure " »

Georgia injury lawyers representing victims of tractor-trailer accidents look carefully at the facts of the these cases to determine who may be liable. Just this week, a Georgia man died after his truck slammed into the side of a semi trailer Wednesday night. According to the Georgia State Patrol the collision happened around 9:30 p.m. on Highway 84 at Clancy Lane. Troopers said Willie Houston, 54, was driving a 1993 Chevy pickup westbound when he collided with a the side of the trailer. The impact wedged the cab of the pickup under the tractor trailer. Troopers said the driver of the semi, 39 year-old David Hines of Midway, was parking his truck for the evening when the accident happened.

As Georgia injury lawyers, we would want to know more about the circumstances surrounding this collision. It would appear that the pickup truck broadsided the trailer at night. Was the trailer visible? Was it properly illuminated? The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has specific rules and regulations on this subject. All lighting devices required on vehicles must be capable of being operated at all times. Guidelines for the color and positioning of lights on commercial vehicles are set out in 49 C.F.R. §393.11. Lights and reflectors on the vehicle must meet visibility requirements under nighttime conditions. Reflectors must be applied to the side and rear of the trailer. Reflective sheeting must be applied to each side of a trailer from as close to the front and rear as practicable.

Whether or not the tractor trailer was in compliance with these federal regulations is unknown; however, these would be key points of investigation for any Georgia injury lawyer investigating the possible wrongful death of the pickup truck driver.

Continue reading " Truck Slams Into Tractor Trailer, Killing One " »

The Georgia trucking accident lawyers at Finch McCranie wish each of you a safe and enjoyable Fourth of July holiday and urge you to celebrate responsibly and stay safe on the road.

State officials believe that 18 people will not survive the weekend, having been involved in a fatal accident on Georgia roads, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports. Last year, 15 people died in Georgia car accidents over the Fourth of July holiday.

In all, the Governor's Office of Highway Safety estimates more than 2,000 crashes will injure 1,000 motorists and claim 18 lives between now and Monday.

While not every accident is preventable, there are steps motorists can take to stay safe on the road.

“Most of these crashes aren’t just random events caused by too many cars navigating through too much congestion," said Bob Dallas, director of the GOHS. “Drivers need to pay attention to Georgia State Patrol warnings that alcohol, speed and failure to use safety belts are the primary contributing factors in fatal crashes during the holiday travel periods.”

Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July have been the deadliest holidays on the nation's roads in recent years, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Nationwide Holiday Traffic Fatalities in 2008:

New Year's: 104

Memorial Day: 370

Fourth of July: 437

Labor Day: 423

Thanksgiving: 439

Christmas: 364

New Year's Eve: 37

Fatal Holiday Traffic Accidents in Georgia in 2008:

New Year's: 7

Memorial Day: 12

Fourth of July: 16

Labor Day: 13

Thanksgiving: 17

Christmas: 25

Atlanta trucking accidents remain a real threat through the holiday weekend. As a major trucking center, many rigs are expected to be on the roads, either attempting to get home to be with family, or starting a long haul after a short break. Millions of motorists will also pass through Atlanta on their way to visit family or while returning South after the long holiday weekend.

Continue reading " Georgia injury lawyers wish each of you a safe and enjoyable Fourth of July " »