Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

This blog will continue in our series of providing our readers with answers to frequently asked questions in the context of a serious injury case. This blog will address FAQ number 10:

10. Is my case likely to settle or will it go to trial and, if so, how long will the process take?

Answer: Over 90% of all serious injury claims are settled by means of compromise. While every case is different and dependent upon the facts involved, most cases do settle but sometimes it takes considerable time to achieve a settlement. This is because there are always unique issues concerning whether the at fault defendant’s liability is indisputably established and whether they have sufficient insurance coverage to pay all damages caused by their negligence. If there is sufficient coverage, and damages are clearly demonstrated, settlements can occur on a quicker basis than those cases where liability is disputed and/or the damages are difficult to assess.

Many times, injured individuals have prior medical histories which complicate settlement discussions. If someone with a bad back is injured in a hypothetical automobile collision, in such a case it is always difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Was the back already injured such that the new injury merely constituted an aggravation and, if so, to what extent was the problem aggravated by the trauma? These are difficult questions to resolve and many time reasonable men can differ over the value of such claims. The good news, again, is that in 90% of all cases, a compromise is worked out and a settlement achieved.

The time it takes to resolve a serious injury case, again, is dependent upon the facts involved. The clearer the evidence the quicker the settlement. The more ambiguities are involved in the case with respect to the issue of liability for the damages and the damages, the longer the process takes.

Continue reading "Georgia Serious Injury Cases: Frequently Asked Question Number 10" »

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Our Atlanta truck wreck lawyers handle automobile accidents involving personal injury and death claims frequently. Many of those accidents involve tractor trailers owned and operated by trucking companies, also known as motor carriers. These trucking companies fall into two categories: (1) interstate carriers and (2) intrastate carriers. Interstate carriers are those that operate and carry cargo across state lines and intrastate carriers operate entirely within the boundaries of a particular state. Those trucking companies that operate across state lines are required to register with the federal government and comply with various federal laws. Intrastate carriers need only comply with state laws although some states have adopted federal regulations as their own. Lawyers who litigate truck wreck cases are familiar with these laws and carefully scrutinize the facts of a case to determine whether there has been compliance by the truck driver and the trucking company. There are very important differences between the federal regulations that apply to interstate carriers and those regulations that apply only to intrastate carriers, none the least is the difference in the amount of liability insurance they are required to carry.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

This blog will continue in our series of providing our readers with answers to frequently asked questions in the context of a serious injury case. This blog will address FAQ number 7:

7. If the at fault driver has no insurance coverage whatsoever, can I recover for my injuries under my own policy?

Answer: The answer is yes but only if you have uninsured/underinsured coverage under your own automobile policy. If an at fault driver is driving illegally without insurance, he or she is considered to be uninsured by operation of law. There simply is no insurance coverage and therefore they meet the definition of an uninsured driver. Thus, if you are injured by an at fault driver who has no insurance coverage policy at all, if you have been wise enough to purchase uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage as part of your own policy, you can file a claim against your carrier.

The good news here is that the premiums for an innocent insured cannot be raised if a claim is made for uninsured motorist coverage. Thus, in a hypothetical case where an individual causes an accident and he or she has no insurance coverage, one can make an application under one’s own policy for uninsured motorist coverage without a rise in their premiums. The law forbids an insurance company from raising the premiums of their insured simply because a claim is made particularly in the context of a claim being made by an innocent third party who has done nothing wrong but has only made a claim for paid coverage, the claim being necessitated by the acts of an at fault third party.

All of our readers are well advised to review their insurance policies carefully to determine whether they have uninsured/underinsured coverage. If they do not, we would recommend that they meet with their insurance agent, review their budget and purchase as much uninsured/underinsured coverage as is possible. This type of coverage protects the policyholder from the situation where the at fault driver has no insurance coverage or is underinsured, meaning that they have less insurance coverage than would provide complete compensation for the damage inflicted. We encourage all of our clients to study their policies to make sure that they have carefully reviewed this very significant issue and in situations where the family budget will allow the purchase of such coverage, it is a wise investment and form of protection that may be needed and could be crucial in a particular case, particularly where serious injuries are involved.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

This blog will continue in our series of providing our readers with answers to frequently asked questions in the context of a serious injury case. This blog will address FAQ number 4:

4. If I obtain a settlement from the at fault defendant, do I have to pay taxes on my settlement?

Answer: Restitution for a loss is not considered to be income. According to the majority view and interpretation of current IRS law, if an injured individual obtains a settlement from an at fault third party, that settlement is not taxable. There are exceptions to this rule, however, with respect to punitive damages. If a jury returns a verdict for punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages, the punitive damage portion of the verdict is taxable. To date, most experts seem to agree that any verdict returned in a personal injury case is not taxable absent a verdict for punitive damages as well. This is the general view of the tax laws as pertains to personal injury settlements. While different variations of a claim could subject a particular claim to taxation, most tort claim settlements are not taxable because the monies obtained in settlement are not considered to be income by the IRS but rather are considered to be restitution for a loss, something by definition separate and distinct from traditional forms of income.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Uninsured Motorist Coverage , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

As personal injury attorneys who handle many cases involving very serious injuries, we are frequently asked questions by clients and family members about matters commonly of concern to them. In order to provide our readers with some general guidance about serious injury cases in Georgia, we have decided to do a series of blogs on frequently asked questions in the context of such cases. This entry shall address the first of many of such questions, with future blogs on other FAQs to follow.

1. Who pays for my medical bills while I am recovering from my injuries?

Answer: You do. In Georgia, we do not have a “Pay As You Go” rule. In a hypothetical automobile accident where it is admitted that the other driver is at fault, there is still no duty of that driver or his insurance company to pay medical expenses for the injured victim as they are being incurred. Instead, the injured individual is required to use his or her own resources to pay for medical expenses as they are being incurred. If the expenses incurred exceed available insurance coverage, the insurance carrier for the at fault driver may decide to tender available coverage without further delay, but there is no legal requirement that they do so. However, if the medical expenses being incurred do not exceed available coverage, typically, such bills will not be paid until all medical reports are made available for review to make sure that the incurred medical expenses are related to the injuries caused in the hypothetical collision. Thus, in Georgia, as in many other states, it is imperative that the public protect itself through health insurance where it is possible to do so for budgetary and other reasons. If someone does not have health insurance, it then becomes difficult to obtain necessary medical treatment after one has been injured. Nonetheless, the at fault driver and its insurance carrier do not have to pay for necessary medical treatment after an accident, rather, the injured individual must pay for his or her own treatment and then seek reimbursement from the at fault driver and insurance carrier for those expenses later.

Another way that the public can protect itself is to purchase as part of their own automobile insurance policies what is known as Medical Payments coverage. Medical Payments coverage is paid regardless of fault if such medical expenses are incurred as a result of an automobile accident. Even without health insurance coverage, the public can protect itself by purchasing Medical Payments coverage as a part of their own automobile liability insurance policy. While all drivers are required to purchase minimal amounts of liability insurance coverage to protect other drivers, the public may protect itself through Medical Payments coverage which can pay medical expenses up to the limits of such coverage regardless of fault provided the expenses are proven to have arisen out of an automobile accident. This coverage can be important in serious injury cases because if the injured individual does not have other available health insurance then the medical payments coverage can pay medical expenses as they are being incurred, regardless of fault.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Uninsured Motorist Coverage , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Our truck accident attorneys constantly handle cases involving dangerous trucks and tractor-trailers on the highways. Now, it appears even more dangerous trucks will begin appearing on the U.S. highways after the Bush Administration last week opened the roads of this country to another Mexican trucking firm. There are now 12 Mexico based trucking carriers which have been granted authority to operate in the United States.

The consumer interest group Public Citizen has issued a strong condemnation of this action taken under a provision of the NAFTA treaty which has started to allow large trucks and tractor - trailers open access to U.S. highways. Through its President, Joan Claybrook, former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the organization issued the following statement:

Today, the Bush administration spat in the public’s face by allowing full access to U.S. roads to yet another Mexico-based carrier — despite Congress’ clear intent that the reckless NAFTA trucking pilot program be brought to an end.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announced today that the Baja-based carrier Madereria Las Lomitas is now authorized to send a truck throughout U.S. roads. That means 12 Mexico-based carriers are now sending 57 trucks across the U.S. and are no longer restricted to the border zone. This announcement comes on the heels of the administration’s shocking statement that it would continue with the NAFTA trucks pilot program even though President Bush last month signed into law an omnibus appropriations bill that cut all funds for the program.
FMCSA’s purposeful defiance blatantly disregards the newly passed federal law. The appropriations provision prohibits using any funds to “establish” a pilot program. The dictionary’s definition of “establish” includes “to introduce and cause to grow and multiply.” FMCSA has told reporters that the law bars only the “establishment” of new pilot programs and that its current pilot program — the exact same one that prompted Congress to cut off funding — was “established” in September 2007. Yet FMCSA continues to authorize new carriers, further “establishing” the program in any meaning of the term.

This dubious interpretation isn’t just tortured logic — it’s a willful repudiation of the clear intent of Congress to end this pilot project. Congress has repeatedly and overwhelmingly denounced the flawed program as dangerous and unjustified. The Bush administration’s insistence on pushing forward, despite requirements to put the public’s safety first, forced Congress to cut funding for the project.

It is absolutely unacceptable for the administration to pick and choose the laws it will respect. FMCSA has no basis to ignore this law and in doing so shows it has no regard for the well-being of American drivers.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents

Bookmark:

On November 15th, United States Senator Dianne Feinstein of California wrote to the U.S. Department of Transportation urging the department to revisit its efforts to improve highway safety by requiring electronic onboard computers on all large trucks and tractor trailers. Senator Feinstein’s letter was prompted by two recent deadly accidents on California interstates involving tractor-trailers. In the letter, Senator Feinstein discussed the risk of long distance truck driver fatigue and requested information about current efforts to address what she deems to be a growing problem.

According to Senator Feinstein’s letter, the regulations which require truck drivers to record their hours of service in written log books continues to tempt drivers to falsify their books, and allow them to drive in excess of the hours deemed safe.

A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety revealed that about a third of the drivers admit to often or sometimes omitting hours from their log books. Feinstein’s letter pointed out that even more disturbing, the Institute report disclosed that the percentage of drivers who reported dozing at the wheel at least once during the past month rose from 13% in 2003 to 21% in 2005.

In February, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) proposed to mandate electronic onboard recorders for motor carriers that display a pattern of violating the hours of service regulations. The FMCSA estimated that if its proposed rule were in effect, about 930 motor carriers employing about 17,500 drivers would be subject to it. The threshold for mandatory onboard recorders would be a finding based on review of hour of service records on each of two compliance reviews conducted within a two-year period that the carrier had a 10% or greater violation rate for any of the major hour of service regulations. Such carriers would be required to install recorders on all their commercial vehicles for a period of two years.

As previous blogs have disclosed, it is relatively easy and cost effective to install electronic monitoring devices on large trucks and tractor-trailers. Senator Feinstein’s efforts which would require all trucking companies to monitor and record electronically hours of service, would no doubt lead to safer highways for everyone.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents

Bookmark:

Our serious injury lawyers handle many cases involving collisions between large trucks and automobiles. As large truck and tractor-trailer traffic rises on the nation’s highways, at least nine states are considering proposals to separate big rigs from cars on interstate highways. By designating certain lanes as “truck only” lanes, the states are hoping to reduce congestion, improve safety and increase commerce by allowing goods to move faster. Georgia, Ohio, Nevada, and several other states are studying a design to build or designate “truck only” lanes on various stretches of interstate highways. Georgia’s plan, would initially give consideration to “truck only” lanes on a 27 mile stretch of Interstate 75 northwest of Atlanta and a 20 mile stretch of Interstate 285 around the city. This proposal was considered after truck congestion in the area was predicted to increase by up to 60% in the next 20 years. At this time, we are aware of only the state of California having “truck only” lanes. California presently has two “truck only” lanes which cover only very small sections of highway.

Some experts contend that “truck only” lanes are a good idea for safety reasons alone. In 2005, it is estimated that 442,000 large trucks were involved in crashes. As we have blogged before, many of these tractor-trailer and large truck accidents involved automobiles, and in many of the cases, the drivers or passengers in automobiles were seriously injured or killed.

Many trucking advocates contend the “truck only” lanes would increase the opportunities for significant improvements in the transportation of freight on highways. According to these advocates, the key benefits of “truck only” lanes would be four fold. First, the public would be far less exposed to the risk of car/truck crashes. This wouldnot only save lives and prevent injury, but would also be an economic benefit to the trucking industry. Second, with lower traffic volumes in the lanes, trucks could operate more efficiently with reduced need for braking, accelerating and overtaking. Third, the added capacity would help alleviate congestion thereby reducing travel time and uncertainty of arrival time. Fourth, the argument for greater use of longer vehicles would be strengthened because they would not operate in the same lanes as passenger vehicles.

In general, passenger vehicles would benefit from “truck only” lanes in three ways. First, safety would improve. Second, the quality of the traveling experience would improve as motorists would be less concerned with having to move around large trucks. Third, “truck only” lanes would help improve speeds for passenger cars.

However, the issue of financing the construction of “truck only” lanes is extremely controversial. One estimate is that the cost of constructing a “truck only” lane alongside an existing rural interstate would cost approximately $2.5 million per lane mile, plus land acquisition costs. Obviously, the cost would vary considerably, depending on right-of-way availability, the topography of the land, the need for bridges and additional entrance and exit ramps.

Most proposals have assumed that the new lanes would be paid by tolls. Many questions arise about the appropriate level of tolls, which users should pay the tolls, and the extent to which tolls can cover the full cost. Predictably, most trucking industry representatives are opposed to placing the cost of constructing such lanes solely on the back of the trucking industry. The American Trucking Association has argued that truck operators help pay for the cost of current lanes so they have an equity position in them. They argue that to the extent this is true, a credit for this equity should be applied to the cost responsibility for the additional lanes to be constructed.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents

Bookmark:

Our wrongful death and serious injury lawyers work with our clients on a contingency fee basis. The contingent fee is perhaps the one device that gives seriously injured people, no matter what their financial means, an even break in the courtroom against giant corporations and insurance companies. Contingent fee practice has been an essential part of the United States justice system for more than a hundred years. It permits every American regardless of wealth or social standing the opportunity to pursue a valid claim against even the most powerful corporation or individual. In a large measure, it has made our judicial system the envy of the world. It is no surprise that it has been under almost constant attack for years by corporations and insurance companies.

Increasingly, there have been calls by organizations sponsored in secret by large corporations and insurance companies, to abolish the contingency fee. Big businesses and individuals who want to avoid accountability for their negligent and reckless acts are pushing for special protections in state legislatures and in the U.S. Congress. These wrongdoers have initiated a less obvious line of attack on the American consumer, an attack that directs itself not of the consumer, but an easier target, the lawyers that represent them. Many of these attacks are coordinated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Without the contingency fee, many people would never be able to bring a claim to redress wrongs done by large corporations and powerful individuals. In essence, the contingency fee allows a lawyer to advance his services and time in return for a percentage of the recovery. In this day and age, due to increasing burdens placed by the legislatures on claimants, the cost of bringing a lawsuit are extremely high. In fact, almost none of our clients could afford to bring a lawsuit without the contingency fee.

The assault on the contingency fee is nothing more than an attempt by powerful interests to deny access to justice to tens of thousands of Americans who are injured each year due to another’s wrongful acts.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Brain Injury , Medical Malpractice , Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Liability , Police Chases , Products Liability , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

In serious injury and death cases our attorneys consistently face challenges from the defense to the testimony of our highly qualified expert witnesses. These challenges are based upon the rule of evidence known as the Daubert standard.

The Daubert standard is a legal precedent set in 1993 by the United States Supreme Court regarding the admissibility of expert scientific testimony during legal proceedings. In Daubert, the Supreme Court ordered federal trial judges to become the “gatekeepers” of scientific evidence. Trial judges were instructed to evaluate expert witnesses to determine whether their testimony is both “relevant” and “reliable”.

A two-prong test of admissibility was established. The relevancy prong refers to whether or not the expert’s evidence fits the facts of the case. The relevancy requirement has always existed in the law.

The reliability prong was new. The Supreme Court explained that in order for expert testimony to be considered reliable, the expert must derive his or her conclusions from the scientific method. The court then offered general observations of whether proffered evidence was based on scientific method including such things as empirical testing, peer review, the potential error rate, and whether the theory or technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.

In practice, this standard has been burdensome, and grossly unfair to claimants in courtrooms. Trial judges are simply in no better position than juries to serve as “gatekeepers” to scientific evidence. In fact, many of these judges bring their own biases to their determinations. One example given is that under this standard, if Christopher Columbus were required to appear in a courtroom during his lifetime using the Daubert standard, his opinion that the world is round would have been inadmissible.

As part of the so-called Governor’s tort reform of 2005, the Daubert standard was adopted by the state legislature for use in Georgia. However, bowing to pressure from the Prosecuting Attorney’s of the state, who realized how gross unfairness of the Daubert standard, the governor and legislature exempted criminal cases from the Daubert standard. However, catering to the demands of the insurance industry and large corporations, the legislature adopted the Daubert standard for civil cases.

Currently pending before the Georgia Supreme Court is a case in which the Daubert standard is being challenged on constitutional grounds. An argument is being made that it denies equal protection to adopt the standard in civil cases and not in criminal cases. It will be very interesting to see how the Georgia Supreme Court handles this challenge, especially in light of the fact that in recent years, large insurance companies and corporations have thrown millions of dollars into the judicial races in attempts to elect candidates who will follow their agenda.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Brain Injury , Civil Procedure , Dangerous Drugs , Medical Malpractice , Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Liability , Police Chases , Products Liability , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Our truck accident attorneys review cases every week in which large trucks, exceeding the posted speed limits or traveling too fast fopr conditions, have been responsible for serious injuries and deaths.

We have previously blogged concerning the organization, Road Safe America, located here in Atlanta, Georgia, describing the excellent work they do in attempting to make the nation’s highways safer. Road Safe America has been leading a campaign to influence federal transportation officials to promulgate regulations requiring devices on commercial trucks to limit their top speed to 68 mph. Interestingly, the idea is supported by many large trucking companies and opposed by many smaller independent carriers.

Data for the year 2005 revealed that truck accidents involving large trucks and/or tractor trailers killed 5,212 people. Of those, 803 were truck occupants, 3,944 occupants of other vehicles, and 485 pedestrians or bicycle riders.

Steve Owings, founder of Road Safe America, whose son was killed in a big rig accident in 2002, has enlisted the support of the American Trucking Association for his effort to limit the speed of large trucks on the nation’s highways. The proposal has already been approved by the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, which advises states on traffic safety issues. The Governor’s Highway Safety Association Board of Directors found the speed limit proposal to be “very reasonable”.

Most independent truckers oppose the idea because it would force them to drive slower. As we have blogged before, in the trucking industry, miles covered equals money earned. Therefore, the incentives are for independent truckers to drive faster speeds to cover more miles in order to earn more money.

Many of the large tractor trailers on the road today are already equipped with ECM devices which could be easily programmed to act as governors, limiting the speed the big rigs can travel. We feel this is an imminently reasonable proposal, which will more than likely save many lives every year on the highways.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents

Bookmark:

Our serious injury lawyers have previously written about the importance of uninsured motorist coverage. There are many nuances in the Georgia uninsured motorist coverage statutes and case law with which every attorney should be familiar.

One principle, pronounced by the Supreme Court in Thurman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company, 278 Ga. 162, 598 S.E.2d 448 (2004) involves uninsured motorist benefits after payment of subrogation claims to health and/or workers’ compensation insurers. In Thurman, the Supreme Court held that reimbursement to a health or workers’ compensation insurer reduced available coverage under the liability policy, thereby making UM coverage available.

The plaintiff in Thurman was a postal carrier for the United States Postal Service who was injured on the job when her truck was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for more than defendant’s insurance policy with limits of $100,000. Eventually, the plaintiff and her husband settled with the defendant for the amount of $95,550.19, policy limits reduced by the amount paid the United States Postal Service for damage to the postal truck.

Because the plaintiff had received payments for lost wages and medical expenses from her employer’s workers’ compensation carrier pursuant to the Federal Employees Compensation Act and from her employer’s group health insurance carrier pursuant to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, those two carriers claimed subrogation rights from the proceeds of the settlement. The defendant’s liability insurance carrier issued three checks, one to the plaintiff, one to the worker’s compensation carrier, and one to the group medical insurance carrier. As a result, the plaintiff received $60,887.87.

The plaintiff then turned to her uninsured motorist carrier, State Farm, contending that the defendant was uninsured since their $75,000 in UM coverage exceeded the net proceeds, $60,887.87, which they received from the liability carrier. The trial court granted summary judgment to State Farm and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court granted plaintiffs petition for writ of certiorari. In it’s holding, the Supreme Court determined that the subrogation payments made by the defendant’s liability insurer for the worker’s compensation carrier and to the group medical insurance carrier constituted a “payment of other claims or otherwise” which thereby reduced the amount of available coverage under the defendant’s insurance policy to less than the amount of UM coverage the plaintiffs had with State Farm.

This is a very important holding. It is essential that every attorney practicing serious injury law be aware of this case. Failure to obtain available coverage under a UM policy under the circumstances addressed in Thurman would be a disservice to one’s clients.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Uninsured Motorist Coverage

Bookmark:

Our lawyers frequently encounter heavy truck collision cases involving death and serious injury where the truck driver is in violation of federal regulations concerning the hours that can be driven in a given period. As we have written before, driver fatigue is a serious and potentially deadly problem.
Federal regulations permit a truck driver to drive a maximum of 11 hours after 10 consecutive hours off duty. They can drive a maximum of 60 hours in a seven-day period or 70 hours during an eight-day period. Before starting a shift that will run for seven or eight days straight, they must take off 34 or more consecutive hours.Last year authorities investigating a Florida crash that killed seven children discovered that, except for a brief nap, the truck driver involved had been awake but not necessarily driving for more than 34 hours before the accident. The tractor-trailer he was driving struck the rear of a car carrying the children. The car had been stopped behind a school bus dropping off students.

Estimates on the role driver fatigue plays in truck accidents differ. As many as 30 percent to 40 percent of heavy truck accidents may be related to truck driver fatigue, according to data from the National Transportation Safety Board.

Florida ranked 21st, tying with Delaware, for the number of truck crash deaths per 100,000 people in 2004, with 2.17 deaths, according to data from the 2004 Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the National Center for Statistics Analysis. Wyoming was first with 8.08 deaths per 100,000 people. Hawaii was last with 0.32.

Many in the trucking industry blame shippers, not trucking companies, for the pressure some drivers are under to deliver. We have seen many cases in which truck drivers falsify logbooks so they can make up time and mileage. In many of these instances, when confronted with the falsified data, the drivers have responded that if they did not drive in excess of the mandated hours they would lose their jobs.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents

Bookmark:

As Georgia injury lawyers, it is not uncommon for us to review potential wrongful death claims involving truck driver fatigue. We often see this in the context of tractor-trailer accidents where the truck driver has fabricated his driver’s log and/or driven far in excess of his allowable hours. Many times there is demonstrated sleep loss involving the use of amphetamines, methamphetamines or other stimulants used by the driver to overcome the fatigue.

According to a newsletter we recently ran across published by a well respected truck safety organization, there is an interesting correlation between sleep loss, fatigue and the serious impairment caused by being legally drunk. Studies have shown that the impairment from sleep loss and long working hours are almost the same caused by alcohol consumption. The longer one is awake, the slower the reaction time. If one gets too little sleep (4 or less hours) this is equivalent to the effects of .05% blood alcohol for the long working hours. In one study, where people were kept awake for 24 straight hours, the slowed perception reaction time had approximately the same effect as .10% blood alcohol level which is above the level (.08%) now nationally recognized as being legally drunk. Thus, it can be clinically demonstrated that if one loses sleep for a long period of time one’s perception and reaction time is dangerously slowed.

In our personal injury practice we often see the evidence of serious impairment caused by fatigue and lack of sleep. The end result of such fatigue we see in our practice is a serious collision. Increasingly, we see this particularly in the context of truck drivers who are trying to increase their wages by driving longer and longer hours and greater and greater distances. Even though large trucks make up just 4% of all registered vehicles, and 7% of all vehicle miles traveled, the same trucks are involved in 11% of all crash fatalities. This year, as in years past, approximately 5,000 people will be killed in truck crashes and collisions throughout the country. We know from our experience that many of these crashes are preventable and would not occur if drivers kept shorter hours and were not seriously impaired by fatigue. While commercial airline pilots typically fly only about 30 hours a month, most truck drivers drive around 300 hours a month. For some reason, this has become acceptable in the workplace even though the number of people killed in truck crashes annually exceed the number of people that are killed in major airline crashes. Query why this is so?

With improvements in technology, before long, employers and trucking companies will be able to monitor precisely the hours being kept by their truck drivers. We can only hope that legislation will follow which mandates that employers not only monitor the number of hours driven but also the number of hours taken by the driver to rest. Too many hours driving means too much fatigue which also means possible impairment of perception and reaction times. Because we see the end result of this, which is serious injury, death and tragedy for our client’s families, and we can only hope that the speed of technology will continue to develop to the point where trucking companies will have no choice but to monitor and address the significance safety issues caused by driver fatigue.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

As a Georgia personal injury lawyer, it never ceases to amaze me how the trucking industry lobbies to limit the rights of victims who either suffer wrongful death or serious injuries in truck accidents caused by negligent, careless, or drunk drivers.

In researching an issue last week, I ran across a website of the American Trucking Association who proudly listed, on a state-by-state basis, some of their legislative efforts to deny accident victims fair compensation. They published their "Tort Reform Scorecard 2006". Rather than concentrating their efforts on driver safety and other ways of preventing human tragedy caused by the negligent, if not criminal, operation of their trucks, they invest in trying to change the laws to limit what they have to pay to fairly compensate people with serious injuries. They seek to eliminate joint and several liability, limit or eliminate punitive damages and attorney fee awards. In some states, like Georgia and Alabama they have backed legislation limiting damages for non-economic damages.

Our firm recently settled a wrongful death case involving a truck driver using drugs who was found to have been hiding vials of urine under his belt in case he got caught and was subjected to drug testing!

In another recent case involving serious spinal injuries to our client, the truck driver switched driving positions with his friend who happened to be riding along for company. This friend who had no commercial drivers license had recently been scheduled for back surgery because he had a spinal cord injury as a result of being struck by lightening. The friend was taking prescription narcotic pain medication to ease his back pain and he had numbness in one of his legs. To top it all off they switched seats going south on I-75 at 70+ mph with a load of steel on the trailer!!

It is maddening to hear the trucking industry and other groups tout their alleged accomplishments which they refer to as tort reform. Trucking companies as well as all other businesses should be able to be held accountable for the actions of their employees who injure or kill innocent people and they should be required to make such victims completely whole for all of the damages those victims or their families sustain. "Reform" which limits an innocent victim's rights in favor of a corporations bottom line is wrong.

Posted by Finch McCranie, LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automobile Accidents , Brain Injury , Torts , Truck and Tractor Trailer Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark: