Due to the constant threat of accidents and injuries from trucks on the nation’s freeways, there has been a minimum coverage rate in place for the past 30 years. There is a proposed rule change for the trucking industry that would raise those minimums for the first time since 1985. The current minimums are:
Many feel the current thresholds are too small to cover modern liability claims for accidents that result in injury or death. A study by a lobbying group found that 42% of 9000 accident settlement claims were over the $750,000 threshold, signaling that the amount is probably too low to adequately insure trucking companies against liability claims.
Are the Current Minimums Inadequate to Compensate Victims?
Wrongful death suits in particular can easily exceed those amounts, exposing a company to financial risk, and more importantly leaving victims with no recourse for compensation. An underinsured trucking company also exposes the shipper or goods to vicarious liability if another source of settlement has to be found.
Although minor accidents are adequately covered by the current rates, major crashes with catastrophic injuries and deaths would not be covered. For example, a truck accident in Ohio recently settled for $34 million, underscoring just how insufficient the current minimums are.
Insurance Costs Must Be a Part of Doing Business As a Motor Carrier
Opponents of raising the minimums state that so few accidents exceed the current levels that it is an unnecessary measure, and that the additional costs imposed by higher premiums would drive some trucking companies out of business. This is a hard argument to swallow, since it is common knowledge that increases in the cost of doing business are typically passed on to the customer, in this case the shipper. Any worthwhile company would not lose its customers based on a price increase that was incremental and out of its control. The shipper in turn would add the increase to the cost of its goods, and the end user or consumer would be the one to pay the increase.
Another way to look at the issue is if a trucking company can only run a profitable enterprise using insurance price structures from 30 years ago, they may not be running a very good business. Especially those companies that ship hazardous materials must account for the enormous liability potential in the event of an accident, and then pass that on to shipping customers who need to transport the material.
In any case, the proposed changes would have to overcome several legislative hurdles, and given the strength of the trucking lobby in the US it may be a long process. There have already been recent law changes that decreased the safety inspection requirements for trucking companies, so there seems to be a very real interest in making sure that the backbone of the country’s transport system does not have to take on additional financial challenges. Unfortunately, the ones who suffer are victims of truck accidents who may find the liable party underinsured and unable to fairly compensate for injuries or deaths.
When one thinks of large truck accidents the most obvious danger is the size and speed of the truck, which has a devastating affect when the truck slams into other smaller vehicles. This can cause a chain reaction on the highway as multiple vehicles can be involved, none of which were expecting to be a victim of a pile-up. As bad as this is for motorists, one of the greatest hazards with large 18-wheelers is the cargo that they may be carrying, which may include:
Oil and gas products
Flammable materials
Autos that can break free in an accident
Radioactive materials
Other cargo ‘haz-mat’ that can create dangerous debris
There are numerous incidents where the cargo released creates an ongoing environmental hazard or danger to motorists as well as residents in the immediate area. In some cases the truck does not even have to be in an accident for the danger to manifest.
Examples of Truck Cargo Causing Injuries or Danger to Others
A few examples of dangerous truck cargo injuring others are:
There is an unforeseen danger in incidents involving ‘haz-mat’ or hazardous materials as cargo. Residents will often go and inspect an accident scene out of curiosity and could easily expose themselves to chemicals or radioactive materials that are frequently carried as truck cargo. Given the amount of trucking that transports ‘haz-mat’ cargo, it seems that public warnings and containment of the material should be a priority.
What Are The Standards for Liability?
Liability for public safety hazards from spilled cargo is an open question, since causation could be difficult to establish in some cases. However, there is no question that the trucking companies that transport this type of cargo have a duty to provide adequate protection for motorists or others in the area whenever there is an accident. Failure to clearly place warning signs on the truck, or refusing to accept responsibility for clean-up costs fall short of this duty of care. In future blog posts, we will explore several cases where liability suits have been filed for injuries resulting from hazardous truck cargo.
In 2008, a man in Valencia, California was hit by a rollercoaster at Six Flags Magic Mountain amusement park. He suffered a traumatic brain injury and filed suit against the park for negligence. In the seven years since the injury there have been two trials and an appeal of the second verdict in favor of Six Flags. However, the California appellate court upheld the lower courts ruling, and Six Flags avoided liability despite the grave nature of the injuries.
When Victims Contribute to the Cause of Their Injuries
This is an interesting case as the verdict relied directly on the actions of the victim in contributing to his injuries. He had actually already ridden the rollercoaster, and exited, but then entered a restricted area to retrieve a baseball cap that had fallen off of his head during the ride. Park employees told him not to enter the area, but he ignored them and went after his hat, scaling two fences in the process. At that point the rollercoaster hit him, and caused the injuries.
The situation is a bit different from scenarios where riders are actually injured during a ride, or spectators suffer injury from ride components that break free. The question before the court revolved around whether the park had done everything possible to warn of the danger of entering the area, as well as erecting sufficiently daunting barricades. The court decided that it was not required to make the area completely ‘impenetrable’, and that the victim had contributed to his fate by deliberately ignoring the warnings of park employees.
Negligence Lawsuits Must Be Based on Unreasonable Standard of Care
The core of a negligence lawsuit is whether the park used a reasonable standard of care in preventing injuries to attendees. Every park has areas that are off limits, and as long as there are clear warning signs, fences or barricades then it is hard for accident victims to claim they were exposed to unforeseen danger. There remains the question of whether the rollercoaster design brought it too close to areas where riders or spectators might wander, but the court seemed to feel that was not a central issue.
The ruling against the victim underscores how risky litigation can be, especially when protracted over many years. One has to assume that at some point the man did receive some type of settlement offer, but by holding out for a large damage award he ended up with nothing to show for eight years of court litigation.
As the GM ignition switch drama continues to unfold the automaker has disclosed the number of lawsuits and claims to be filed so far. Although GM states that “we cannot currently estimate the potential liability” there are some who believe that it could reach into billions of dollars worth of damage awards. In 2014 GM spent almost $3 billion on repairing recalled vehicles, so it is not hard to imagine class action personal injury awards that would be many times that amount.
Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Suits Begin to Mount
To date, there have been 104 injury and death suit filed for damages stemming from the defective ignition switch. While GM is defending most of the suits, the most controversial is the automakers assertion that it is not responsible for claims that date back to its pre-bankruptcy business form.
This is the ultimate smoke and mirrors claim, as GM attempts to use the restructuring of its debts available under federal bankruptcy laws to shield itself from liability. The automaker was bailed out of bankruptcy using taxpayer dollars, and now wants to use this event as a way of avoiding responsibility for its corporate actions and defective products. If considered in terms of social policy, the company has levied a cost on the public in two ways: by using federal tax dollars to bail out a failing business and then denying payment of claims to victims of injuries from before the bailout.
If allowed, this could set a dangerous precedent for other businesses to simply “reset” the clock on personal injury claims, and assert that their ‘old’ business no longer exists and they cant be responsible for any defects. This is even more disturbing given the fact that GM actually hid the known defect from consumers and regulators for years, and now attempts to avoid responsibility for their negligence.
Early Settlement Claims of $93 Million
In any event, it will be difficult for GM to successfully fight most of the claims since the defect has been clearly linked to at least 51 deaths. GM does have a program to compensate victims through an ‘early settlement’ process, that has paid our $93 million so far. The automaker has set aside $400 million for this fund, and any victims who take the offer would be barred from further personal injury claims in court. This is another attempt by GM to limit its eventual cost of liability, as the company is facing the barrage of claims from 10 years of concealing the defect from consumers.
Even if the entire fund is paid out, it is only a fraction of the profit the company earned in 2014 of $2.8 billion and $3.8 billion in 2013. The GM ignition switch case is sure to establish new ground in how auto defects are handled and claims paid, and should have a dramatic effect on the future of the auto industry.
The frequency of accidents involving 18-wheeler trucks seems to increase each year, bringing the potential for injuries to innocent drivers who share the road with these massive vehicles. Despite the ongoing hazard, regulations around truck inspections and safety reviews are actually becoming more lax, allowing drivers to operate trucks that may have operational or mechanical defects. All it takes is one fualty part or mistake in judgment, and multiple vehicles can be affected by a truck crash.
Essential Steps If You Are a Victim of a Truck Accident
If you have been involved in an accident with an 18-wheeler you should take the following steps right away:
All of these steps will give you the information that you will need if you want to pursue any type of claim for damages resulting from the accident. Sometimes you may be approached by an insurer with a quick settlement offer, especially if the truck driver was clearly at fault. Before accepting an offer, we recommend that you speak with an attorney to review your options.
The Advantages of Using an Attorney to Pursue Your Claim
Not every accident requires an attorney, and if damages or injuries were minimal then you can probably work out compensation directly. However, if you or your passengers were seriously injured or your vehicle was damaged then you may be entitled to a number of different claims. In that case, it is best to contact an attorney who has experience in 18-wheeler truck accidents since they can give you many advantages including:
When you are involved in a traumatic accident it is difficult to manage all of the different claims and processes, especially if you are recovering from any injuries. If the truck driver or company is liable then it is possible to recover a variety of damages including:
An attorney can advise you on the full extent of damage awards available and then you can decide how you want to proceed. If the 18-wheeler caused the accident and your injuries, then you are entitled to some type of compensation.
Every year millions of used vehicles are sold by dealers to consumers who may have no idea that their used car or truck has a safety defect. While there are extensive regulations for disclosure of defects to original buyers, those who buy used cars are on their own when it comes to discovering and repairing possible safety hazards.
A Used Car Buyer Is Killed By an Undisclosed Defect in a Used Car
Recently, the buyer of a used Honda was killed when the airbag exploded sending a piece of metal into his neck. He had no idea that the car he bought had one of the now infamous Takata airbags, which have been recalled globally for safety reasons. There are other instances of these airbags causing death to owners who were unaware that the used car they bought had the same defective airbag installed.
This further solidifies the poor reputation that many used car dealers have when it comes to their trade, but in this case it resulted in the tragic death of a customer. The fact that the death could have been prevented by a simple disclosure must have been less important to the dealer than simply closing the sale.
No Federal Regulations Requiring Used Car Dealers to Repair or Disclose Defects
The used car dealer has no responsibility under federal law to either repair defects or even disclose to buyers that there may have been a recall. This same lenient policy extends to rental car companies who often sell their aging fleet on the used car market. Of course, disclosing to a customer that a vehicle has a life threatening safety defect would definitely make it harder to sell, and would affect the re-sale value for the dealer. At the very least, they would have to repair the defect to make the vehicle safe.
Used car buyers are on their own when it comes to researching any open recalls on the car they plan to purchase. There are databases available where a consumer can check the recall status of any make and model of vehicle, and it continues to be the buyer’s responsibility to find out about the defect that the used car dealer may be concealing. However, a used car dealer cannot be shielded from any responsibility just because there are other ways to discover the defect.
Establishing Liability of Used Car Dealers Who Have Knowledge of Defects
There is a pending lawsuit against the used car dealer, and it does pose an interesting legal question of liability. Even absent federal regulations requiring disclosure of defects, there could be some basis for a negligence suit if the used car dealer had knowledge of the defect, but failed to tell the buyer.
This duty goes beyond the simple mechanical or historical information about a used car, since many defects can pose a threat of injury or death to unsuspecting buyers. Simply, if the dealer knew of a life-threatening defect and failed to tell the buyer, then they might be found liable for any injuries that could have been prevented by disclosure of the problem.
In a recent blog post, we discussed the increase in truck accidents in South Texas due to the oil and gas boom in the region. In the past four years, there has been a 50% increased in truck accidents, most of which are attributed to the increase in traffic and poor safety standards used by trucks in the oil and gas industry. http://denenapoints.com/texas-oil-gas-boom-may-blame-increase-truck-accidents/
A Fiery Crash Claims Five Lives in the Eagle Ford Shale Region
This month there was a spectacular crash that killed five oil field workers when their van slammed into an oil truck causing it to burst into flames. The oil truck had swerved to avoid a pickup, and the van could not avoid crashing into it, causing flames to cover the highway and both vehicles.
There have been similar incidents in the Eagle Ford Shale region, and in 2012 twelve people were killed in six-months in that area alone. As we noted in our previous post on this topic, the cause of these accidents are usually oil truck drivers or workers who are fatigued and fall asleep at the wheel. It is not unusual for workers to put in 20 hours a day, and then they get behind the wheel.
Naturally, the cargo of most of these trucks is crude oil, and anytime there is an accident there can be explosions and fire that make the situation even worse. The survivors of this month’s crash have extensive burns and a simple vehicle accident can turn fatal for this reason alone. Residents and others who use the highways are exposed to a regular and real danger from the oil and gas boom that has been a boost to the economy.
What Can Oil Companies Do To Increase Highway Safety?
The obvious question is what can be done to make the highways safer for everyone in this region. The oil companies who are profiting from the resources in the area have a responsibility to the general public, and should be reviewing the safety protocols and training of drivers. Due to the flammable cargo, it seems the emphasis should be on preventing accidents rather than encouraging long work hours or skipping vehicle maintenance practices.
When conditions are wet, mud can mix with the oil that comes off the 18-wheelers, creating an instant danger in case the truck has to make a sudden stop or maneuver. It is like the trucks are carrying their own oil slicks, and can be released at the time when it is too late to prevent a tragedy. Also, most of the roads are two lane highways, which makes passing or sudden turns difficult to predict. All of these factors add up to some of the most dangerous road conditions in the state of Texas, and it is only a matter of time before more accidents occur. Oil companies need to respond to this situation, or they may face the financial consequences of liability suits from innocent motorists that are injured or killed.
In a bizarre twist to the tradition of taking family photos during holidays and gatherings, family members in Kentucky recently suffered multiple injuries when a balcony and stairway collapsed during the photo shoot. There were 20 members of the family on a wooden stairway when under their combined weight it collapsed, bringing their Christmas Day photo to a swift conclusion.
Two Separate Christmas Day Photo Accidents
The top of the stairway was about 20 feet off the ground; so a few family members had a long fall. Six family members were taken to the hospital with fractures and broken bones, but no serious injuries. The family intends to keep taking the Christmas photo, but probably in a safer location. This rather innocuous tradition can carry hazards if people don’t think about the stability of a structure before assembling a small crowd.
This is not the only Christmas day photo to be reported that resulted in an accident. A similar incident occurred in Indiana when a family of 25 crowded onto a deck and it collapsed under them. Broken bones and neck fractures were the result, and the family ended up filing a lawsuit against the company that built the deck.
Who Is At Fault When A Balcony is Overloaded?
The question of liability in these unusual cases is similar to other balcony collapses. While the companies that build or design balconies have a duty to do so safely, there is also a limit to how much weight a structure can bear. People who have large parties on balconies, or in these cases assemble the entire family at once, have some responsibility for use of common sense.
For property owners or balcony construction companies, the use of warning signs and weight limits seems like the only way to avoid a lawsuit for unsafe or poor construction. The combined weight of 20 or more people can total almost 2 tons, and few balconies are constructed to hold that type of weight load. Nonetheless, liability law requires that users be informed about possible hazards or weight limits, since it is easy to claim that a balcony ‘should have been strong enough’. For this reason, any balcony or stairway that could accommodate many people should have warning signs clearly visible to make sure that those present are aware that they are on a structure with clear weight limits.
In some balcony collapses, the property owner or builder fails to maintain or construct a safe structure, and in those cases liability is warranted as a means to compensate victims for the negligent oversight. There are instances where a lawsuit has encouraged other property owners to review their own balconies for safety, and in this way may help to prevent more injuries. This is one example of how the personal injury lawsuit can provide an important economic and social role, and gives property owners some incentive to maintain a safe premises. Without the threat of liability, every decision might be made based on cutting costs regardless of the financial or medical expenses borne by victims of the unsafe balcony.
In the wake of the 60 million vehicles recalled in 2014, there is one inevitable result for automakers and consumers. The cost of cars and trucks is sure to rise, as automakers and parts manufacturers implement stricter safety measures. These costs will be passed on to consumers via higher sticker prices and fewer incentives to buy new vehicles. This occurs during a time where the auto industry is struggling and the margins for car dealers are shrinking. In the quest for securing a consistent percentage of the market, automakers are often forced to choose between safety and affordability, or risk losing customers to a competitor.
Is Risk an Inherent Element of Affordable Vehicles?
One of the natural questions to arise is whether the only way to make affordable vehicles is to compromise on safety. For example, as the 2014 recall numbers are evaluated, many auto parts manufacturers will be expected to increase their own safety inspection methods, which will add to the expense of the parts that go into vehicles. However, this does not mean that the actual design and manufacture of parts will improve. It seems like the money is better spent on research and development to create parts and vehicles that are inherently safer. If the affordability of vehicles is directly related to low safety standards, then it is possible that the auto industry has been operating in a “false economy” for decades.
There is an expectation in the auto market that anyone should be able to buy a car, and the use of low interest financing, rebates and other incentives are a key part of convincing consumers that vehicles are affordable. However, that may be changing as federal regulators take steps to increase inspection and defect repair rules, forcing automakers to increase prices on all vehicle types.
The Threat of Liability May Be Insufficient to Manufacture Safe Vehicles
The threat of liability has always been present as a means to encourage spending on manufacturing safe vehicles. But in a very competitive marketplace where margins are slim, there is the temptation to cut corners, or even conceal known defects to save the expense of repairs and recalls. Many parts makers are now saying the right things in response to the ignition switch and airbag recalls, but in truth they always had the option to make safer and more expensive parts.
Just like many product manufacturers, auto and parts manufactureres don’t change their approach until there is a financial incentive to do so. It is naïve to think that these companies are proactively trying to make the safest parts and vehicles possible. Their priority is to create a return for shareholders, and that often means selling a vehicle that is a compromise when it comes to safety. When a defect is discovered, there seems to be an articulate strategy of concealing the defect and selling vehicles that are unsafe. Only when injuries and deaths result are automakers motivated to increase their safety standards.
All across the country there have been nearly 500 accidents in recent days, killing at least nine people, caused by ice storms and freezing rain that turned highways into sheets of slick ice. In conditions like this, the greatest danger is always from large trucks and 18-wheelers that can easily jackknife and go sliding into multiple vehicles. Although the apparent cause can be dangerous road conditions, some truck drivers do not adjust to the slick roads, or as the largest vehicles on the highway they are not worried about their own personal injuries if an accident occurs.
Who Is Responsible for Accidents In Icy Conditions?
There is no hard and fast rule for assigning fault in icy conditions. In the event of an accident there can be so many vehicles involved that it can be difficult to determine the exact cause. Memories and perceptions can be confused and exaggerated by the trauma of the accident. However, when an 18-wheeler truck is involved, it usually means that the truck lost control at some point and began to careen into other vehicles. As the vehicle of greatest weight, the truck can start a chain reaction of cars beginning to hit one another, until there can be as many as 10 or 20 vehicles involved in the crash.
The first point of investigation has to be the driver of the truck, and whether they were caught off-guard by conditions, or simply failed to slow down for safety reasons. Many truckers are on tight deadlines and may just attempt to ‘cruise’ through dangerous conditions instead of slowing down and adapting. This attitude can easily result in an accident where a motorist may make an unexpected stop or the truck simply encounters slowed traffic from the weather.
Establishing Liability For Truck Accidents
If the truck tries to stop quickly, it can jackknife and turn into a multi-ton projectile on the highway. Two of the recent deaths occurred from a jackknifed truck that crushed two vehicles underneath its body and axles. Sometimes, the driver cant be blamed, but usually there is adequate warning for truck drivers of dangerous conditions. Electronic highway signs, weather forecasts, in-cab radio and warning systems and the advice of other truckers create a system of communication that makes it hard to miss an approaching ice storm.
If a truck driver could be cited for driving too fast for conditions, and that caused the accident, then that could form one basis for assigning fault and liability. The driver or their employer cannot simply point to the dangerous conditions as the sole cause if the driver failed to adapt to the unsafe roads. It is a tragedy when lives are lost as a result of any impatience on the part of a trucker to simply meet a deadline. While trucking is an essential part of commerce, drivers and their employers should take responsibility for their presence on the roadway, and truckers should not be penalized financially for driving safety and adding a few extra hours to the delivery time.