Truck Injury Lawyer Blog

TANKER ROLLOVERS

Morgan Adams — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:04:47 -0500

Tanker rollovers are incredibly dangerous as we have blogged about repeatedly in the past. Currently there are no government mandates requiring anti-rollover technology despite it being readily available and over 725 tanker rollovers a year. A recent amendment to a bill would require the government to report on tanker rollovers and methods and recommendation to reduce them, such as anti-rollover technology.

Past studies have concluded that 75% of tanker rollover's are due to the tanker driver's error. I conclude from that that well over 50% of tanker drivers are inadequately trained.

US SUPREME COURT DETERMINES PRINCIPLE PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR CORPORATIONS

Morgan Adams — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:19:04 -0500

The United States Supreme Court recently held that the principle place of business for a corporation, for purposes of determining whether a federal court has diversity jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(c)(1), is that place where:

a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. It is the place that Courts of Appeals have called the corporation’s “nerve center.” And in practice it should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters—provided that the headquarters is the actual center of direction, control, and coordination, i.e., the “nerve center,” and not simply an office where the corporation holds its board meetings (for example, attended by directors and officers who have traveled there for the occasion).

Determining the proper "principle place of business" for a trucking company is critical because it tells an experienced truck accident lawyer where the proper place to file a truck injury lawsuit.

Read the full opinion in Hertz v. Friend, No. 08-1107 (USSC 2/23/10) here.

MCS-90 Endorsement Acts as Surety Not as Additional Insurance

Morgan Adams — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:47:45 -0500

A recent case will have significant impact on truck accident attorneys and lawyers litigating insurance coverage in trucking cases. In Carolina Casualty v. Yeates, 584 F.3d 868 (10th Cir. 2009) (en banc), the court held that the MCS-90 Endorsement applies as surety coverage when the underlying insurance policy to which it is attached provides no coverage for the loss and the motor carrier’s insurance coverage is not sufficient, IN AGGREGATE, to satisfy the federally prescribed minimum levels of financial responsibility.

As a result of Yeates, Defendant trucking companies and insurers will argue that an insurer’s MCS-90 coverage does not come into play when a plaintiff has already received a payment, from all sources, equal to the minimum statutory insurance coverage amount. See Also: Casper v. American Intl S. Ins. Co., 2009 WL 4984797 (Wis. App.)

The Truck Accident Lawyers at the Law Offices of Morgan Adams concentrate in protecting the rights of those who were seriously injured or lost a loved one in an accident with a commercial truck or bus. Our lawyers are based in Tennessee, but serve clients throughout the nation. If you or someone you love has been seriously hurt by a careless driver, don’t sign anything the trucking company gives you -- contact us as soon as possible at 800-580-4878 or by email to learn more at a free, confidential consultation.

Morgan Adams is a trial attorney licensed in Tennessee and Georgia. He is listed as a "Mid-South SuperLawyer" (Limited to the top 5% of the lawyers in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas), is a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum (limited to lawyers who have recovered 1 million dollars or more for their clients), and is the Chair of the American Association of Justice's Interstate Trucking Litigation Group. He has served as chair of the Tennessee Association of Justice's Trucking Litigation seminars since 2004, and is a frequent speaker at national legal education programs, training lawyers to properly handle injury cases involving commercial vehicles.

IS EVERY VIOLATION OF THE FMCSR A NEGLIGENCE PER SE VIOLATION?

Morgan Adams — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:19:06 -0500

Recently I have seen many plaintiff lawyers trying to claim that the defendant truck driver or trucking company is liable, as a matter of law (Negligence Per Se), for technical violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. I believe this is an incorrect approach and would strongly encourage lawyers to think through their position before giving judges a chance to make bad law.

In order for a violation to be a negligence per SE violation, requiring the court or the jury to find the defendant at fault as a matter of law, they must find:

(1) "the defendant violated a statute or ordinance which ‘imposes a duty or prohibits an act for the benefit of a person or the public;"

(2) “the injured party was within the class of persons whom the legislative body intended to benefit and protect by the enactment of that particular statute or ordinance;" and

(3) “such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.”

Technical violations of the FMCSR, while satisfying prongs 1 and 2, don't satisfy prong 3. Save your ammunition for issues that will make a difference in your case.

Does the MCS-90 Form Need To Be Attached to the Insurance Policy?

Morgan Adams — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:06:25 -0500

The MCS-90 endorsement should be read into every interstate trucking policy, even if not attached. However, in order for the MCS-90 policy to to be found to be read into an insurance policy, when it was not specifically made part of the policy, you need to hire an experienced truck accident attorney from the beginning. What makes me say that? Take a look at a recent blog post on the Water's Case. In his Florida Insurance Blog, Mark Nation noted that:

The Progressive policy at issue did not contain an MCS-90 endorsement, however, Miller argued that one should be incorporated into the Progressive policy because Progressive knew or should have known that Waters was engaged in interstate travel. The 11th Circuit held that Waters did not present sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that Progressive knew or should have known Miller was driving the tractor-trailer interstate.

Importantly, the 11th Circuit specifically held that because Waters failed to provide sufficient evidence that Progressive knew or should have known that Miller was engaged in interstate trucking the Court found it "unnecessary for us to reach the issue of whether the endorsement can be read into a policy that does not contain it, and we expressly decline to do so."

The issues required to be addressed, to obtain coverage, in the Waters case were not fully developed at the trial court level in my opinion. Thus, once the case went up to the Court of Appeals, there was little that could be done by a really smart, knowledgeable, appellate counsel but go down swinging trying to save the case. Footnote 3 to the Water's case lists a series of cases that did find coverage when the issue was addressed appropriately. My take on Water's, and footnote 3, is as follows:

Waters v. Miller, 564 F.3d 1355 (11^th Cir. Ct. App. 2009) The court held that a Florida based truck, with a catastrophic accident in Georgia, was not covered by an MCS-90 even though involved the truck was clearly involved in interstate transportation. The court held:

… In this case, however, the Policy did not include the endorsement. Waters urges this Court to incorporate the endorsement into the Policy as a matter of law, arguing the evidence presented to the district court showed Progressive knew or should have known Miller was engaged in interstate travel. Even if we assume arguendo such knowledge on the part of the insurer is justification for incorporating the endorsement into a policy that does not contain it,[FN3] Waters did not present sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Progressive knew or *1358 should have known Miller was driving the tractor-trailer interstate. For this reason, it is unnecessary for us to reach the issue of whether the endorsement can be read into a policy that does not contain it, and we expressly decline to do so. The district court did not err in refusing to rewrite the Policy to include the MCS-90 endorsement, and we affirm its order granting summary judgment in favor of Progressive on the federal law issue.

FN3. Some courts have incorporated the endorsement into policies as a matter of law. See Prestige Cas. Co. v. Mich. Mut. Ins. Co., 99 F.3d 1340, 1348 n. 6 (6th Cir.1996); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Tranp. Ins. Co., 787 F.2d 1133, 1139 (7th Cir.1986); Hagans v. Glen Falls Ins. Co., 465 F.2d 1249, 1252 (10th Cir.1972). At least one other, while not incorporating the endorsement, indicated it may be read into a policy if the insurer knew it was insuring an interstate motor carrier. See Howard v. Quality Xpress, Inc., 128 N.M. 79, 989 P.2d 896, 900 (1999).Progressive was entitled to summary judgment under the facts of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders granting summary judgment to Progressive.

FMCSR 387.15 - The MCS-90 Form and Interpretation

Morgan Adams — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:23:33 -0500

Truck and bus accident lawyers and attorneys will have another issue to worry about while representing accident victims. This is a Tennessee case so I know my clients will be at the forefront of this battle. Lawyers who fail to stay up on this ever changing area of the law, Truck Accident Litigation, will find they lose more cases than they win for their clients. The following is a brief case description:

Armstrong v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 606 F.Supp.2d 794, (E.D. Tenn. 2009) is the first case to apply DOT’s interpretation of FMCSR 387.15 - In 2005, the FMCSA adopted regulatory guidance that limits an insurer’s exposure to pay under the MCS-90 endorsement to judgments obtained against the motor carrier—not the driver, lessor, or any other party. The Court held that the MCS-90 requires the insurer to pay only a judgment obtained against the named insured motor carrier and not the driver or any other person or entity that qualifies as an “insured” under the policy to which the MCS-90 is attached. This is the first case applying the FMCSA’s 2005 guidance. The court stated it disagreed with the prior case law that held:

…that an insurance company may be obligated to compensate an injured party under an MCS-90 endorsement even if the motor carrier who purchased the underlying policy was not the negligent party responsible for causing the injuries ( er words, the motor carrier who purchased the insurance-the so-called “named insured”-need not have been negligent; all that is required is that the accident resulted from negligence and that a judgment was entered implicating the coverage provisions of the policy and endorsement…

Given the DOT guidance, expect that this issue will be tested in every case going forward. Armstrong was followed in Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Thompson, ---- F.Supp.2d----, 2009 WL 3366938 (E.D. Va.) where the Pf’s received in excess of 750K.

Old Spare Tires Can Also Be Dangerous!

Morgan Adams — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:53:28 -0500

I was speaking to my friend Leigh May in Atlanta, a great products liability lawyer who has handled a number of defective tire cases with major results, and she was kind enough to review my blog on old and defective tires. She made an excellent point that the spare tire is often overlooked when people change their tires. I have always looked at tire issues from the standpoint of a truck accident attorney and how the tire defect contributed to truck rollovers and loss of control by drivers. However, from my own experience, I can tell you I used to change out all my tires - except the spare - as routine practice! The fact is that by the time the spare is actually used, it is often way beyond its safe shelf life.

The lesson to be learned is that, for safety, when you change out your tires make sure you include the spare! The few extra dollars it costs you to replace a spare tire are worth it to prevent some of the horrible tragedies that Leigh and I have seen over the years.

DISTRACTED DRIVING AS A CAUSE FOR TRUCK ACCIDENTS

Morgan Adams — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:43:47 -0500

If you or a family member were involved in a wreck with a tractor trailer chances are the professional truck driver was distracted in some manner. Proving that the driver was distracted, and how he was distracted, will likely require a lawyer. The trucking insurance companies hope you sit on your hands as the more time that passes the harder it will be for your lawyer to prove how the driver was distracted, and the more likely the defense lawyer will be able to claim that some portion of the wreck was your family member's fault..

There is no question that distracted driving is a major contributor to serious truck accidents. Congress is aware of this as is the FMCSA. Recently the FMCSA banned texting by drivers, a danger we had blogged about since early 2008. Proving texting may be difficult as truckers may use a co-drivers phones.The driver may also have a throwaway phone so they are not calling on their "official" phone. Early aggressive work by an experienced trucking lawyer will give you the best chance of proving your case.

EOBR MANDATE EXPECTED FOR COMMERCIAL TRUCKS

Morgan Adams — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:33:04 -0500

I predict within the next three years that Congress will mandate Electric On Board Recorders (EOBR) because EOBR's make the trucking industry safer. While the FMCSA has a final rule to require EOBR's on about 1,000 motor carriers, I would expect that this rule will be significantly expanded. While EOBR's can still be faked, and I have blogged on the subject before, they are much more difficult to fake making it easier to show violations of the FMCSR.

TRACTOR TRAILER BRAKES IN DEPOSITIONS

Morgan Adams — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:43:27 -0500

One of the most common errors in the depositions of truck drivers is failing to determine how they stopped their tractor trailer. Unlike a car, there is more than one way to brake a tractor trailer. Inexperienced lawyers fail to realize this and allow a tractor trailer driver to say "I braked the truck" prior to impact. Consider that a tractor trailer driver can brake his rig by:

Jake Brake (engine retarder)
Parking Brakes
Trailer Brakes
Tractor Brakes
Tractor and Trailer brakes
Emergency Brakes (disconnect)
Hitting a car

Depending on what brake, or brakes, that was used by the driver you will get different stopping distances, a critical factor in determining cause in any truck accident case.

TEXTING BANNED FOR TRUCKERS

Morgan Adams — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:19:18 -0500

The banning of texting, and the use of cell phones in a moving vehicle, is something I predicted would happen in an earlier blog. My prediction has come to pass and the article reporting the complete ban on texting for truck drivers is posted below:

The U.S. bans truckers, bus drivers from texting while driving

By Ashley Halsey III, Washington Post Staff Writer - Tuesday, January 26, 2010; 1:22 PM

The government Tuesday formally barred truckers and bus drivers from sending text messages while behind the wheel, putting the federal imprimatur on a prohibition embraced by many large trucking and transportation companies.

"We want the drivers of big rigs and buses and those who share the roads with them to be safe," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "This is an important safety step, and we will be taking more to eliminate the threat of distracted driving."

LaHood has made the effort to curtail driver distractions a centerpiece of his tenure as the nation's top transportation official. Some saw his announcement as a step that might ultimately fuel a push to ban cellphone use by all drivers.

LaHood's announcement followed a study released in July by Virginia Tech's Transportation Institute that found that when truckers text, they are 23 times more likely to be involved in a crash or near miss.

Although both houses of Congress are considering bills restricting texting and 19 states have banned the practice, LaHood said existing rules on truckers and bus drivers give him authority to issue the prohibition. LaHood said drivers of commercial vehicle caught texting could be fined up to $2,750.

"It's an important first step," said Jonathan Adkins, spokesman for the Governors Highway Safety Association, a coalition of state highway safety directors. "It's will start a cultural shift away from texting and cellphone use. We'd like to see a ban on all cellphone use by drivers of commercial vehicles."

Texting and cellphone use have been banned in many major commercial fleets, including FedEx's 43,000 vehicles and the 100,000 used by United Parcel Service.

Enforcement of LaHood's ban is so problematic that it might prove more symbolic than practical. "The enforcement problem here is enormous," said Russ Rader of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "It's not clear this is going to make any difference on the road in terms of crashes."

Rader said the challenge for police officers is daunting. "How does anybody spot a trucker or any driver on the road who is using some device that they're holding below window level?" Rader said. Vernon Betkey, chairman of the GHSA and a retired Maryland State Police trooper, acknowledged the challenge and said he hoped federally funded demonstration projects in Connecticut and New York might develop better enforcement tools.

"Right now, law enforcement has to be somewhat creative," Betkey said. "A driver constantly looking down while they're driving might be a clue, or you might have some lane departures."

Last year, President Obama banned federal employees from texting while driving government vehicles and from texting in their own cars if they use government-issued phones or are on official business.

With LaHood leading the effort, supported by mounting evidence of the danger, Adkins predicted that this year could see an effort to ban cellphone use by all drivers. "At some point we'll have to address that issue," Adkins said. "We think 2010 will be the year when we do something about distracted driving. We can't remember a secretary every taking the issue of highway safety so seriously."

Statistics released two weeks ago by the National Safety Council indicated that 28 percent of traffic accidents occur when drivers are talking on cellphones or sending text messages. The nonprofit council said that texting was to blame for 200,000 of the crashes, while cellphone conversations caused 1.4 million. Those numbers come in the context of federal statistics that show that about 812,000 drivers are using cellphones at any given moment during daylight hours.

In announcing the ban Tuesday, LaHood pointed to data compiled by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration last year, which show that drivers who send and receive text messages take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds out of every six seconds while texting. At 55 mph, he said, that means that during that time, the driver travels the length of a football field, including the end zones, without looking at the road.

Click here for the article.

Donate to the Truck Safety Coalition

Morgan Adams — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 09:39:20 -0500

For the last several years my firm has been donating to the Truck Safety Coalition. I would encourage you, and the lawyers that represent you, to donate to this organization. So what is the Truck Safety Coalition and why should you care?

The Truck Safety Coalition is a partnership between The Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH) Foundation, and Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T). The Truck Safety Coalition is the only non-profit organization solely dedicated to reducing the number of deaths and injuries caused by truck-related crashes, providing compassionate support to truck crash survivors and families of truck crash victims, and educating the public, policy-makers and media about truck safety issues. They keep everyone safer on the road even when you don't know it is happening.

It may seem funny that a law firm, that makes a living representing those injured in truck crashes, is actively working with a group that is trying to stamp crashes out, but if you met just one of my clients you would understand why these collisions need to be stopped. Lives are forever changed in these collisions and if we can stop just one wreck from claiming another victim it is money well spent. Additionally, this is a passionate organization where money goes a long way to impact safety. In short this is an organization worthy of support.

Tire Tread Separation Causes Wrecks - Do You Know How Old Your Tires Are?

Morgan Adams — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:54:40 -0500

Tire separation is a huge danger on the roadways, both for personal vehicles and for commercial vehicles.

With personal cars the danger lies in the fact that most people are unaware of how to determine how old their tires are, and that old tires, even with good tread, pose a danger. The service centers that sell old tires to the public are under no such illusion and need to be held accountable for pushing these tires on the unsuspecting public.

With commercial vehicles the danger lies in the fact that some professional drivers will buy old tires because they are cheaper, deliberately ignoring the safety risk.The accidents caused by commercial drivers with bad tires are willful, wanton acts of gross negligence.

When the tire was made. Every tire has a Department of Transportation (DOT) number following the letters on the sidewall. The last four digits determine the week and year the tire was made; for example, the digits 2204 would signify that the tire was made during the 22nd week of 2004. Don't buy tires more than two years old and replace tires if they are six years old (although manufacturers generally recommend 10 years). For the risk posed by old tires see the excellent ABC News Video Special Report

Tire manufactures don't want you to know the age of their product for some reason. The websites they put out show how to "read a tire" but neglect to inform consumers how old the tire is. See: Goodyear, Perelli, or Michelin to name just a few.

TRUCK MANUFACTURERS CREATE UNSAFE CABS FOR TRACTOR TRAILER DRIVERS

Morgan Adams — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:25:21 -0500

Truck manufacturers have successfully lobbied to keep roof crash standards, required for passenger cars, from applying to the cabs of tractors. The light weight cabs made by some in the trucking manufacturing industry have long been known to put driver's lives at risk. Trucking companies buy these cabs on the simple math of less weight equaling lower fuel costs, resulting in greater profits for the trucking company. Thus there is a rush to the bottom by cab manufacturers who ignore safety of the driver for greater profits for the trucking company. Simple and common safety improvements such as adding a roll cage, or strengthening the cab roof support structure, would cost only a few dollars and would reduce fuel efficiency by a minuscule amount. Because of this I would have thought that cabs would have soon been made stronger in America. In fact I have previously posted on the need for roof crush standards in the US. I was surprised to see that instead of making cabs safer, Volvo and Daimler were planning on cutting additional steel from the cabs of the tractor trailers they manufactured. In fact the folks at Daimler (who also own Frieghtliner) made no bones about cutting out steel in the cabs they make.

According to Transportation Topics, a trucking industry magazine, Kathrin Fritz (a Daimler spokeswoman at the the corporate headquarters in Germany) stated that Daimler would be offering weight saving features such as more aluminum in the cabs. Aluminum cabs are shunned in Europe for cost and crash worthiness reasons. (See generally: Transportation Topics, Equipment and Maintenance Update, November/December 2009, Page 12)

Crash worthiness is the ability of the cab to help a driver to survive a wreck. Using aluminum, while resulting in a lighter cab, would result in more drivers getting killed in wrecks as the cab would not be as strong as a steel cab and would be unable to protect the driver as well. I urge the NTSB to take a look at this issue and protect truck drivers by mandating a stronger cab. Cab crush is the leading cause of truck driver deaths in the United States according to studies and something needs to be done before the whole cab is replaced with plastic.

GUIDE TO HIRING A GREAT TRUCK OR BUS INJURY ACCIDENT LAWYER FOR YOUR CASE

Morgan Adams — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:28:10 -0500

Hiring a lawyer to handle your truck or bus accident case is probably the most important decision you will make. Every lawyer in the world says they handle truck and bus collisions, how do you find one that is experienced and will actually help, not hurt, your case? This is a guide I hope helps that just published on Avvo.

Why You Should Hire a Lawyer as Soon as Possible

In truck and bus cases evidence constantly disappears. The earlier you hire a great lawyer to help you in your case, the more likely there will be a full recovery for you and your family. Evidence in a trucking case starts to vanish in as little as 14 days, with less time for evidence at the accident scene. Insurance companies have worked hard to create methods to pay you and your family less than you deserve, often delaying you in hiring a lawyer. The delay in having someone actively protecting your rights hurts your chances at a full recovery. A lawyer can obtain witness statements, have the accident scene photographed, preserve evidence at the trucking company and handle the other 1,001 things necessary to protect your rights. This allows you to focus on healing. (See my blog at www.TruckInjuryLawyerBlog.com on "Insurance Companies Trick Victims in Trucking Cases" for some of the many ways insurance companies cheat victims out of full recoveries.)

Find an Expert Not a Beginner

So how do you find a great lawyer? Lawyers have to take continuing legal education (CLE) classes and must report the classes they take to the authorities that regulate lawyers in their state. You want to make sure your lawyer has attended seminars that specifically focus on truck and bus cases for the last several years. It is even better if the lawyer has been an instructor at the seminar and not just an attendee. The seminars should be full day, if not several day, programs focusing exclusively on truck and bus wrecks. A lawyer that neither teaches nor attends continuing legal education courses in the area you need help is not the lawyer you should hire for your case.

Significant Cases Should be Handled by the Best Lawyer, Not Just the Closest Lawyer

If your case involves significant injuries, paralysis, or death you should consider hiring the best lawyer you can find, wherever they are located. That lawyer, if he needs to, will associate the best local lawyer on your case AND IT WONT COST YOU ANY MORE IN ATTORNEY FEES! For example my firm has handled trucking cases across the country in association with local lawyers. The lawyers I associated with had lots of knowledge about the local judges and juries, were some of the best lawyers in that state, but generally lacked the specific truck and bus experience required to maximize recoveries in this complicated area of the law. In short we made a great team and the clients had the benefit of two lawyers for the price of one. Nationally there are at least 10-15 firms that focus specifically on truck and bus wrecks and have the experience I describe in this guide.

Car Wreck Lawyers are not Truck and Bus Wreck Lawyers - Find A Specialist

Just because someone successfully handled a car wreck case does not mean they are competent to handle a truck or bus case. There are special rules (The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations amongst many) that cover truck and bus wrecks. The experts required to prove liability in these cases have unique expertise, and are much harder to find than in car wreck cases. You can't risk someone learning on the job with your case. Hire someone who already has truck and bus wreck experience and who can get experts to the scene of the wreck immediately. When you talk to them they should be able to tell you the types of experts they may need in your case. Note that most states won't allow lawyers to call themselves "specialists" in truck and bus wreck cases. That is why you have to look at the lawyers continuing legal education courses (CLE) to see where they actually spend their time. Lawyers can say lots of things, they cant fake their CLE attendance record.

Have They Handled Significant Cases Before?

There are a number of organizations that recognize lawyers that have recovered millions of dollars for their clients. Once you have found a lawyer that is recognized for their expertise in handling trucking cases, you also want to make sure they have handled sizable cases. Check to see if they are a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum (www.milliondollaradvocates.com) or similar organizations.

Are They a Member of One or More Lawyer's Groups That Focus on Truck, Bus, and Commercial Vehicle Wrecks?

Generally this means that a lawyer you want to hire should not only be a member of his state trial lawyers association, and the national trial lawyers association (called the American Association for Justice [AAJ] (www.justice.org), but should also be a member of the AAJ Interstate Trucking Litigation Group and/or the Association of Plaintiff Interstate Trucking Lawyers of America (www.apitlamerica.com). Then there are other groups that, while not specifically related to trucking, indicate a special level of competence of a lawyer in representing the injured. These groups include, amongst others, the Belli Society and The Academy of Trial Advocacy. Both groups are invitation only with a strict membership criteria.

Check the Internet to See What the Lawyer Really Does

Does the lawyer have a blog? On what subject? If it is not on trucking then you should reconsider whether the lawyer truly focuses on truck and bus wrecks or focuses on another area. For example my blog is www.TruckInjuryLawyerBlog.com. What about the lawyers web site? Do they have a trucking specific web page or is that just one page among many? What is their AVVO (www.Avvo.com) rating?

Ask for Their Spoliation Letter

Spoliation is when the trucking company is placed on notice of a lawsuit and destroys evidence anyway. If the evidence is destroyed after notice, the jury can find that the destroyed evidence would have been favorable to your case. In order to put the trucking company on proper notice of a lawsuit a spoliation letter should be sent. Any lawyer who handles this type of case should be able to print off a spoliation letter in a single (1) minute. If they don't have a form on file, and cant give one to you right away, they don't handle truck and bus cases on a regular basis. If you already have a case going, and a spoliation letter was not sent, you have bigger problems. To get a copy of a sample spoliation letter (and to give you an idea of how complicated these cases can can become) see: www.truckinjurylawyerblog.com/2009/11/articles/legal-issues/the-revised-spoliation-letter

The Truck Accident Lawyers at the Law Offices of Morgan Adams concentrate in protecting the rights of those who were seriously injured or lost a loved one in an accident with a commercial truck or bus. Our lawyers are based in Tennessee, but serve clients throughout the nation. If you or someone you love has been seriously hurt by a careless driver, don’t sign anything the trucking company gives you -- contact us as soon as possible at 800-580-4878 or by email to learn more at a free, confidential consultation.

What Gets Inspected by The FMCSA? Standards Required of Truck Drivers and Trucking Companies

Morgan Adams — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:54:14 -0500

One of the issues in any case is what are the standards the truck driver and trucking company required to meet? There are industry standards, which are frequently higher than that required of the government, but at a minimum all drivers and trucking companies must meet the government standards for safe operation. These standards are what are inspected by the FMCSA's field investigators.

In order that inspections are uniform, and everyone in the industry knows what to expect from the field investigators, the FMCSA puts forth Field Operators Training Manual. Any serious trucking lawyer should have a copy on file in his or her office. For example Chapter 1.4.7 deals with driving of commercial motor vehicles and 1.4.9.1 deals with Hours of Service violations, topics I have blogged on extensively in the past.

Dupre Logistics Takes Steps to Become Safer by Paying Drivers Hourly

Morgan Adams — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:52:19 -0500

It is well know in the trucking industry that paying drivers by the mile gives them an economic incentive to speed and violate hours of service regulations (resulting in fatigued drivers) in order to pack on the miles and earn more money. In fact many drivers have told me "if the wheels aren't turning I ain't earning." Trucking companies turn a blind eye to the violations created by a rate per mile system creating a huge safety issue for the motoring public who has to share the roadway with these dangerous drivers and companies.

Dupre Logistics appears to be an exception and is to be commended for shifting all of its drivers over to an hourly rate for driving its trucks instead of paying drivers a set amount per mile. The company has also moved to EOBR's which more accurately track drivers work habits and time spent on the road. The President of Dupre Logistics, Tom Voelkel stated moving to hourly pay has reduced the company's accident related expenses by 70%! The company also has an active safety culture which has resulted in numerous safety awards.

Congratulations to Dupre Logistics for getting it right and making the roadways safer. I almost wish I could tell you that they were unique in their ability to provide safe drivers because then the tragic deaths involving drivers from other companies would be less painful. In looking at Dupre's website it becomes clear that the steps they took could easily be taken by other companies if they choose to do so. Other trucking companies simply choose not to follow Dupre's lead, by continuing to run unsafe driver's, putting us all at risk.

EOBR's TO BE REQUIRED ON ALL TRUCKS?

Morgan Adams — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:31:50 -0500

Requiring Electric On Board Recorders (EOBR's) on every truck would be a significant step forward for safety in the trucking industry. EOBR's keep better track of a drivers hours than the paper log books (frequently referred to as "comic books") that are currently used within the trucking industry. EOBR's are not perfect, but they are much safer and harder to fake than paper logs.

Keeping drivers within the legal hours helps prevent fatigued driving, a dangerous condition which is acknowledged to be a contributing factor in over 1/3 of all crashes involving commercial motor vehicles. Recently the Chairwoman of the NTSB, Debbie Hersman, called for EOBR's on all trucks since NTSB "investigate accidents on a regular basis where we find two sets of log books [with one being false]."

Chairwoman Hersman's comments came after her speech at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on November 16, 2009.

The Revised Spoliation Letter

Morgan Adams — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:02:51 -0500

I have previously posted on the importance of sending a spoliation letter in a trucking case as evidence can vanish quickly. The origianal post included a sample spoliation letter which is now outdated in many respects. Over time my materials get updated and, because this issue is important, and so many lawyers have requested my spoliation letter, I am posting my revised spoliation letter to assist lawyers handling commercial vehicle cases. The letter should be modified to fit the facts of the specific case.

Spoliation is the destruction of evidence. A spoliation letter informs the trucking company of the documents and things it must keep and preserve prior to litigation being filed. It is CRITICAL that this letter be sent as soon as possible whenever a tractor trailer is involved in a collision. Once the letter is sent, failure to save the evidence can result in an inference that the trucking company had something to hide, sanctions, or even in some states a direct cause of action against the trucking company for the destruction of evidence.

It is our practice to send our spoliation letters by fax, regular mail, certified mail, and FedEx to the president of the company, the safety director, and/or the risk manager.

The Truck Accident Lawyers at the Law Offices of Morgan Adams concentrate in protecting the rights of those who were seriously injured or lost a loved one in an accident with a commercial truck or bus. Our lawyers are based in Tennessee, but serve clients throughout the nation. If you or someone you love has been seriously hurt by a careless driver, don’t sign anything the trucking company gives you -- contact us as soon as possible at 800-580-4878 or by email to learn more at a free, confidential consultation.

DOT RECONSIDERS HOS RULE - NEW HOS RULE EXPECTED BY AUGUST 2011

Morgan Adams — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:35:07 -0500

I have many post on the Hours of Service (HOS) issues for professional commercial drivers. I am pleased that the DOT has decided to reconsider the current, ill conceived, hours of service regulation. Truck drivers are generally treated like slave labor by trucking companies. In fact tractor trailers have frequently been referred to as rolling sweat shops. Regulations allowing drivers to drive longer do nothing but increase the chance of fatigued drivers, a factor in at least 1/3 of all commercial vehicle crashes.

The new HOS rule is expected to be issued by August 2011.