Georgia Truck Accident Lawyers Blog

"Regular Use" Exclusion Provisions in Atlanta Insurance Policies Defined by the Court in Vann v. Mercury

Sat, 12 May 2012 21:11:48 -0500

We pay insurance premiums in order to have a safeguard if we are ever involved in a car accident. But, how many times do we hear of insurance companies trying to get away with not releasing benefits?

If you are involved in an Atlanta truck accident, it is important to know what benefits you are entitled to. It is important to have an experienced Atlanta injury attorney advocating for you against the big insurance conglomerates. Our attorneys understand what it needs to get you the benefits you have paid for.

Vann v. Mercuryhttp://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2012/a4264-10.html is a recent truck accident case out of New Jersey. The case arose where the plaintiff, Richard Vann (plaintiff), was driving a truck for a company named Vann Trucking which was owned and operated by his father. Plaintiff was on his way to pick up a trailer to hitch to the truck. While the plaintiff was parked on a service road near Philadelphia, a train struck the truck. The plaintiff suffered injuries to his lower back, shoulders, neck and head.

At the time of this accident, plaintiff had an insurance policy with Mercury Indemnity Company (defendant) for his two personal vehicles. As part of plaintiff’s insurance policy with the defendant, he had coverage in the form of personal injury protection (PIP) and med-pay benefits. As the defendant points out, there were exclusions to the benefit payout.

Vann Trucking had a commercial insurance policy with National Independent Truckers Insurance Company (National). This commercial policy was for the truck being driven by the plaintiff. The problem arose because the commercial policy did not provide PIP or med-pay benefits.

In an attempt to seek additional benefits for medical care, plaintiff entered a claim with his personal insurer for med-pay benefits. This claim was rejected and the defendant cited that the “regular use” exclusion in the policy was applicable to the claim.

Most regular use clauses stipulate that the insurance company will pay medical expense benefits to an insured who suffers a bodily injury caused by an accident arising from the use, maintenance or ownership of an insured’s automobile. Additionally, the policy in this case adds that they will provide coverage for medical benefits for the insured where the insured is using a vehicle not owned by him, and not normally used by the insured. Essentially, if the insured regularly uses the vehicle not owned or insured by him, and is involved in an accident, the med-pay coverage benefits are excluded and the insured cannot collect.

Basically, insurance companies want to protect themselves from having to pay out benefits to the insured where the insured is regularly using a vehicle that is not under the policy. The purpose of this is to encourage people to insure each vehicle they have regular access to. Under this policy with the exclusion provision, the insurance company will only extend benefits where the insured is injured in a vehicle on the policy or where the accident occurred in a vehicle that the insured is infrequently driving.

Because the truck the plaintiff was in when he sustained the injuries was regularly and customarily used by the plaintiff, the insurance company would not extend med-pay benefits.

The court agreed with the insurance company because case precedent on this issue has found that exclusionary clauses like the one at issue here, apply to cases where the insured is using another vehicle for work.

Thus the plaintiff in this case could not collect med-pay benefits. Summary judgment was entered on behalf of the insurance company.

Blood v. VH-1 Music First Says Proof of Foreseeability is Essential in Georgia Trucking Accident Cases

Tue, 01 May 2012 13:24:26 -0500

Atlanta truck accident cases can seem very overwhelming because there is so much confusion over who is liable.

Is it the truck driver? The truck driver's employer? Or some third party you are not even aware of?

Our experienced Atlanta injury attorneys can help you identify the responsible parties and prove your case.

Blood v. VH-1 Music First is a case arising from a car accident caused by a commercial truck. Dennis Hernandez (Hernandez) was a commercial truck driver for MTV Networks. While he was traveling northbound on I-57 in Illinois he approached traffic. In an attempt to avoid getting stuck in the traffic jam, Hernandez crossed the center median of the highway to get onto I-57 northbound. This u-turn on the highway caused a severe accident that left a four to five mile traffic jam starting where Hernandez made the u-turn causing the severe three car accident.

Four hours after the accident, traffic was still jammed because of the accident caused by the driver. Brothers Paul and David Blood (plaintiffs) were driving on I-57 in their vehicle when they approached the beginning of the traffic jam. Behind the blood car a T.E.A.M Logistics (Logistics) truck driven by Milinko Cukovic (Cukovic) came and smashed into the pack of the plaintiff’s car. This impact left David Blood seriously injured and Paul Blood deceased.

The Blood family filed personal injury lawsuits against Cukovic, and T.E.A.M Logistics. Logistics removed the case to federal court and entered a third-party complaint against Hernandez, MTV Networks and VH-1 Music First (Hernandez defendants). Logistics argued that because of the negligence of the Hernandez defendants which caused the first accident, the second accident occurred. The plaintiffs then added the Hernandez defendants in an amended complaint.

In order to prove a case for negligence, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the four elements of negligence. The four elements of negligence are: the defendant had a specific duty of care; the defendant breached this duty of care; the defendant’s breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries; and there are damages.

Upon hearing the case, the district court entered summary judgment for the Hernandez defendants. This district court found that the Hernandez defendants were not the proximate cause of the injuries the plaintiff’s sustained. The plaintiff’s appealed this case to the circuit court.

This court first analyzed the validity of the lower courts summary judgment. The only time summary judgment is appropriate is where the moving party shows the court that there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case. Therefore, where there is a factual dispute it is improper for the court to grant summary judgment. A factual dispute is where a reasonable jury hearing the case could decide for either party.

The court in this case acknowledged that it is undisputed that Hernandez had a duty and that this duty was breached by Hernandez. However, to prove a case for negligence the plaintiff must show causation. Therefore, to establish if there was a factual dispute in this case, the court must examine the requirements of proximate cause.

To prove proximate cause the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s breach of duty was a substantial factor to the injuries the plaintiff suffered. Next, plaintiff must show that a reasonably prudent person would be able to foresee that as a result of their action, the plaintiff could sustain the type of injuries sustained.

Because plaintiffs could not show that Hernandez could have foreseen a car accident four hours after the time that he made the illegal u-turn, this court affirmed the summary judgment of the district court. Plaintiffs were therefore unable to collect damages from the Hernandez defendants.

Accidents in Atlanta Targeted by National Work Zone Safety Awareness Week 2012

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:52:49 -0500

During every April, the Georgia Department of Transportation participates in the National Work Zone Safety Awareness Week.

This year's event is taking place from the 23rd through the 27th of April and aims to help protect both workers and motorists in our nation's roadside construction zones. Every year, hundreds are killed in work zone-related accidents in Atlanta and elsewhere. It's really the passing motorists that face the most risks for a fatal accident in these areas, accounting for nearly 90 percent of the work zone fatalities nationwide. This year's theme is "Don't Barrel through Work Zones" and it's working to get more motorists to pay attention, slow down and curb the distractions when traveling through our state's work zones.

Our Atlanta accident lawyers understand that our state takes this event seriously. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the entire state will be sponsoring a stand-down hour at construction sites statewide to conduct work zone safety training focusing on halting distracted driving. This year's stand-down is being organized by the Georgia Struck-By Alliance, which includes a number of organizations determined to make our roadways safer for everyone, both workers and motorists.

The truth of the matter is that these accidents are completely preventable and only takes the practice of a few simple habits to avoid. It's getting drivers and workers to exercise these habits that's the tough part!

"The members of this alliance have demonstrated initiative and leadership organizing this safety stand-down industry-wide throughout Georgia to emphasize the importance of work zone safety," said Cindy Coe, OSHA's regional administrator for the Southeast.

Coe adds that the stand-down is to help to heighten construction workers' awareness about the need to locate, point out and eliminate work-related hazards. It's focusing on getting drivers to slow down, ways to reroute traffic, devices used to separate workers and motor vehicle traffic and ways to keep everyone safe in these zones. The truth of the matter is that these kinds of accidents are 100 percent preventable. It just takes a little time, knowledge and effort to point out and correct these dangers.

OSHA is offering workers and employers with informational flyers and toolboxes, available in both English and Spanish, to help get the word out to drivers and to workers nationwide.

Drivers are asked to slow down, to abide by posted speed limit and lane changes, to allow plenty of time to get through these areas, to avoid tailgating and to be a courteous driver. By practicing just a few safe and alert driving habits, we can help to increase the safety in these areas in no time!

If you would like to register your company to participate in this year's stand-down, contact Cherri Watson, Director of Safety with the Education and Workforce Development for Georgia Branch, by calling 678-298-4104 or sending an email.

Fairchild v. SCDOT: How You Can Get Punitive Damages in Your Georgia Truck Accident Case

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:39:17 -0500

As we go through our daily lives, the concentration is usually on rushing to the next thing and not on getting there safely.

When you are driving too fast, the likelihood of an accident increases. To avoid a trucking accident in Atlanta, it is important to maintain reasonable speed on highways where trucks are present. And if you have been involved in a truck accident, it is important to seek the assistance of an experienced Atlanta injury attorney to help get you the award necessary to help pay for medical bills, rehabilitation and other out-of-pocket expenses.

Fairchild v. South Carolina Department of Transportation is a recent trucking accident case out of South Carolina. In this case the court looked to the issues surrounding damage awards for negligence in trucking accidents.

There was a South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) driver who was driving a dump truck with an attached rear trailer. In an attempt to make a u-turn on a highway, the driver merged into the median of the highway. Because of the length of the dump truck and the attached trailer, the rear of the trailer stuck out into the left traffic lane on the highway. Fairchild (plaintiff) was driving in that left lane on the highway. Upon seeing the trailer in the road, the plaintiff slammed on her brakes to avoid an accident. In doing this, a truck that was behind the plaintiff driven by Palmer (Defendant), crashed into plaintiff. As this was also a truck with a rear trailer attached, the force of this crash caused the plaintiff’s minivan to flip over and roll onto the median of the highway. Plaintiff suffered serious injuries and property damage.

Plaintiff sued SCDOT and Palmer. Upon signing a covenant not to sue with the SCDOT, Plaintiff continued her negligence lawsuit against Palmer. She sought actual damages for her property damage and physical injuries, as well as punitive damages.

The court in this case heard the appeal by the plaintiff because of the lower courts failure to instruct a jury as to punitive damages.

There are several different types of damages awarded in personal injury cases. The main types of damages are compensatory damages, often referred to as actual damages. These damages are awarded to compensate a victim for injury, property damage and/or harm suffered. On the other hand, punitive damages are awarded in cases where the defendant’s actions were so egregious, malicious or reckless as to inspire the court to punish them. These types of damages were created to have a deterrent effect on the public at large.

The court in this case looks to statute and case precedent to guide its decision. Where punitive damages are sought, the jury is responsible for the decision of whether to award these damages. However, it is the responsibility of the judge to give the jury instructions as to the proof necessary and the way to quantify these damages. Because the lower court failed to instruct the jury regarding this type of damages, this South Carolina court reminds the state courts of procedural policy.

Additionally, this court analyzed the rules that are essential when determining the application of the damages. Every driver has a duty to drive as a reasonably prudent person in similar circumstance. Statute also indicates that in order to act reasonably as a driver, you are not to speed or follow another vehicle too closely. This is a duty of care imputed on all drivers.

Where a driver fails to drive at a reasonable speed or follows too closely behind another vehicle, reckless, willful or wonton conduct is inferred. Where this conduct is inferred, punitive damages are appropriate.

Thus, this court held that the jury is responsible for making this decision although the law surrounding standards must be set by the judge.

Distracted Driving Car Accident in Georgia Disables Young Teen Driver

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:18:46 -0500

Distracted driving car accidents in Atlanta and elsewhere took the lives of about 3,000 people in just 2010, according to My Fox Atlanta.

The problem grows larger and larger with every passing day. It's become such a big problem that there's an entire month devoted to helping to curb distractions on roadways nationwide. It's National Distracted Driving Awareness Month and it happens every April.

Pretty much every single one of us have done it behind the wheel -- made calls, sent texts, reached for something in the car. When around semis or other large trucks, the dangers are even more pronounced. And when these professional drivers don't obey federal rules governing texting and cell phone use while driving, fatal accidents often result.

Our Atlanta trucking injury attorneys understand that we've all been there, taking our eyes off the roadways for really no good reason. An Atlanta woman would like to use this awareness month to share her story and to help get drivers to pay more attention to the road and less attention to needless distractions. Her name is Danielle Vincent and just six years ago she was your typical 18-year-old driver. Her story starts as she reached for a case of CDs in her car.

“I thought to myself. I can hold the steering wheel with left hand and then reach with my right. If anything goes wrong, I'll just sit up and correct it,” Vincent said.

That's not really how it happened though. She ended up slamming into a tree, a tree that changed her life. The accidents resulted in a traumatic brain injury and broke a couple of vertebrae as well we her jaw. She ended up staying months in the hospital and spending even more time at the Shepherd Center for rehabilitating.

While she lived through the accident, she now relies on a walker and an electric wheelchair. Although disabled, she considers herself fortunate as she was able to live through the accident. Thousands aren't as lucky.

She says that she can't believe that she was willing to risk her life for something to trivial.

Her words of advice: "Don't for a second think you're above it. You're not above it. This can happen to anybody."

Vincent is joining the cause for Distracted Driving Awareness Month hoping that her voice and her story helps to save lives, if even one, during this month-long campaign.

“It’s time to start changing the social acceptance of cell phone use while driving,” said Janet Froetscher, of the National Safety Council.

Do your part and help make our roadways safer and make the pledge to drive distraction free. Keep your hands on the wheel, your eyes on the road and your mind on the task at hand.

In the state of Georgia, texting and driving is illegal for everyone and drivers under the age of 18-years-old are prohibited from using a cell phone while driving. In the spirit of the laws, let's all give up these dangerous distractions!

Georgia Trucking Acccident Watch: The Court Addresses a Question of “Great Public Importance"

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:28:44 -0500

Atlanta trucking accidents can cause serious injuries and damages. Confusion usually arises over who is responsible for the potential negligent trucker’s actions.

From whom can you actually recover these damages, and in what court do you need to bring your cause of action? Our experienced Atlanta injury attorneys can help you get the answers you need.

Kitroser et al. v. Hurt, et al. is a case that centers on a vehicle-truck collision. Dale Dickey (“Dickey”) was operating a commercial truck owned by his employer, Airgas Carbonic, Inc. (“Airgas”). Because Dickey was driving negligently, he struck the vehicle of Rhina Castro Lara (“Lara”). As a result of this collision Lara suffered from such severe injuries that she died.

Lara’s estate (“Kitroser”) filed suit against Dickey, Airgas and several Airgas employees. Airgas was a foreign corporation with an office in Florida.

Kitroser argued that through training and personal supervision of Dickey, the Airgas employees knew or should have known that Dickey was a careless and dangerous driver. Kitroser alleged that Airgas acted negligently when they hired him after they had actual and constructive knowledge that Dickey was unfit to drive.

Airgas employees claimed protection under the corporate shield doctrine because the actions they took were on behalf of Airgas and were not for their own benefit. If the court were to have found that the employees were subject to this doctrine, personal jurisdiction would be invalid.

Therefore, the question addressed by the court in this case is: where an individual, non-resident defendant acting on behalf of his corporate employer, commits negligent acts within the state of Florida, does the corporate shield doctrine operate as a bar to personal jurisdiction over the individual defendant?

The court in this case answered this question in the negative.

To analyze this “certified court question" there are several legal concepts that need to be explained. First, the court discussed the question of personal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the power of a court to decide issues involving you or your property. One type of jurisdiction is personal jurisdiction. This is the power of the court to make a decision regarding your interests when a defendant is domiciled within the state, the defendant is present within the state when served notice, or when the defendant consents to have the case heard in a specific court. When dealing with corporations, this issue becomes a little more complicated. A court has personal jurisdiction over corporations when a corporation is incorporated in the state, when the corporation has a place of business within the state, when a corporation has substantial activity within a state or through a long arm statute.

A long arm statute is state law that allows another state to exercise jurisdiction where an out of state defendant has sufficient minimum contacts. To determine whether the court has long arm jurisdiction the court discusses prior case law that states that where an employee acts physically within a state and when this action was civil negligence, that state has jurisdiction over the defendant although the defendant is not a state resident.

Employees in this case had no legal ties to the state of Florida although they were present in the state. The employees argued that a Florida court could not hear this case because the court would not have jurisdiction over them. Some of the things that were presented in the evaluation of personal jurisdiction were the facts that the employees were not Florida residents; they did not own or lease real estate in Florida; they did not have post office boxes or bank accounts in Florida; they did not hold any professional or vocational licenses issued by Florida; etc. However, it is uncontested that the Airgas employees were present in Florida office of the corporation and they were engaged in activities amounting to the training and supervision of Dickey. And it was held that personal jurisdiction applies to any person who commits a civil wrong within the state, regardless of whether they lived in the state.

The employees then argued that the court did not have jurisdiction over them because of the corporate shield doctrine. The court here held that the corporate shield doctrine is not applicable in this case to avoid personal jurisdiction.

Because of the reasons listed above, the Supreme Court of Florida did have jurisdiction over non-resident corporate employees who acted negligently within the state during the course of their employment.

Risks for Trucking Accidents in Georgia Ignored, Company Fined Nearly $200,000

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:01:55 -0500

A Georgia trucking company, Interline Logistics Group, has been ordered to reinstate one of its truck drivers and to dish out nearly $200,000 in damages and back wages. The truck driver was fired after voicing concerns and filing complaints about the company and roadway safety, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

The driver filed the complaints because he felt at risk for an accident because of the faulty brakes on his truck. He also was reportedly fired because he refused to go against the USDOT's regulations for hours of service (HOS). The driver was being instructed to work and drive more than was legally allowable. These HOS rules are in place to help keep drivers safe behind the wheel and to keep the surrounding motorists safe from drowsy drivers.

One of the biggest problems in the trucking industry is overworked drivers. When these drivers are not provided with the proper resting time, risks for trucking accidents in Georgia and elsewhere skyrocket and everyone on the road is at risk.

Our Atlanta trucking injury lawyers understand that the company allegedly sent the driver to the repair shop to have his truck's brakes fixed, but the job never got done. Before the job could be completed, he was sent out on a delivery -- with faulty brakes! He was fired shortly after the complaint. Safety should be everyone's concern. Safe company policies equate to safe roadways.

"The safety of all workers and everyone on the road is endangered when employees are afraid to report safety concerns because of threats from their employers," said Dr. David Michaels with the Occupational Safety and Health.

Aside from worrying about safety with the faulty brakes, the driver refused to make the delivery because he was over the federally-mandated number of hours that drivers are allowed to work. The next day he was fired.

After an investigation by the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), it was concluded that the driver was only concerned about the safety of himself and other motorists on our roadways. The completely disregard for these concerns landed the company with nearly $200,000 in fines.

"Trucking is a difficult job, and a big rig can be deadly when a driver is tired and overworked," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

The federally mandated HOS rules are in place to help keep our roadways safe. Drowsiness and fatigue is a big problem for truck drivers when they're overworked, as we've recently reported on our Georgia Truck Accident Lawyers Blog. The rules currently in place limit the number of hours that a driver can work in a day and in a week. The rules also allow them to take breaks when they feel necessary. Violating these rules puts everyone on our roadways at risk.

New HOS Rule to Help Reduce Risks of Trucking Accidents in Georgia and Elsewhere

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:36:40 -0500

Commercial truck drivers may not be as tired anymore after the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) passed a new hours-of-service (HOS) rule to limit the amount of hours they can spend behind the wheel. The move to stricter rules was made after our country experienced far too many drowsy driving-related trucking accidents in Atlanta and elsewhere. Officials believed that these accidents were the result of far too lenient rules. Truckers were practically living behind the wheel.

"A big rig can be deadly when a driver is tired and overworked," said the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Our Georgia trucking accident lawyers understand that this new HOS rule is one of the FMCSA's most transparent and public outreach efforts in the agency's history. What it did was spend days talking with the public and with trucking companies, law enforcement officials, and safe-driving advocates about their input regarding such a rule. Everyone had a little bit of say as to how the rule was constructed. The administration also used data from the most recent studies regarding fatigued driving and accident risks to come up with the new rule.

The FMCSA's New Rule Enforces That Truck Drivers:

-Work only 70 hours a week. The old rule allowed truck drivers to work a maximum of 82 hours in one week.

-Take at least one 30-minute break for every eight hours they spend behind the wheel. Drivers are also allowed to take as many 30-minute breaks as they feel necessary during each eight-consecutive hours of work.

-Work no more than 11 hours in a single day. When more research is done on a driver's abilities behind the wheel during 11 hours of daily driving then this rule may be changed, depending on the findings.

-Use the "34-hour restart" provision when maximizing weekly work hours. When drivers meet the weekly work hours allotted to them, they are required to take at least two nights' worth of rest. These resting periods are to be taken when the body's internal clock desires sleep the most: from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. Drivers need to restart their work week by completing at least 34-consecutive hours off duty. This must be done at least once in a seven-day work week.

Drivers who don't abide by these rules can face fines of nearly $2,800. Companies aren't off the hook either. If they're busted allowing their drivers to exceed these limitations, then they can be faced with fines of $11,000 for each offense.

The rule was put into effect late in February and the compliance date for these provisions is July 1, 2013.

Rhodes v. AIG Warns of Insurance Company Involvement in Georgia Trucking Accidents

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:44:26 -0500

Large companies have several types of insurance coverage to protect their drivers in the wake of an accident. It may seem daunting to get all of this information in order to bring a claim. Our Georgia injury attorneys understand that your main preoccupation should be getting better while we focus on your trucking injury case.

Rhodes v. AIG is a case arising out of an accident between a truck and a vehicle. The main issue discussed in this decision is the promptness and reasonableness of the settlement offers made by the insurers.

Plaintiff was driving in front of an eighteen-wheel truck when the truck rear-ended her vehicle. There was no dispute in this case as to whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant truck driver.

Defendant Carl Zalewski was a driver for Driver Logistic Services (DLS) which had a primary automobile insurance policy of $2 million with Zurich and an excess umbrella policy of $50 million with National Union Fire Insurance Company (“National Union”). AIG Domestic Claims (“AIGDC”) was the claim administrator for National Union.

Excess insurance is usually used to supplement primary insurance and it transfers the risk to an insurance carrier. This is commonly seen with larger companies as they try to protect themselves from losses associated with accidents.

Upon the impact of the defendant hitting the rear of the plaintiff’s car, plaintiff fractured her spinal cord causing her to become a paraplegic. Plaintiff was in the hospital for three months after a spinal fusion surgery. Her paraplegia created other medical conditions which she would not have had if she were never involved in this accident.

Victim and her family sued the truck driver, the truck driver’s employer, and the two insurance companies involved. Victim won an award in her case against the truck driver and his employer, however the case against the primary and excess insurance carriers continued.

Plaintiff indicated that the insurance companies failed to effect a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of the plaintiffs’ claims by engaging in willful and knowing unfair settlement practices. Because plaintiff believed the insurance companies were violating the statute that prohibits this type of action, plaintiff sued.

During the discovery process, plaintiff settled with the excess carrier and maintained their lawsuit against the primary.

This court was charged with dictating which law was applicable when measuring the damages the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The court cites the law which indicates that the plaintiff is required to prove that because of the defendant’s unfair and deceptive act, the plaintiff suffered an adverse consequence or loss. The reason for this law is to increase potential penalties for insurance companies who engage in these unfair settlement practices since the way to calculate the damages is to multiply the underlying tort award by two.

The court said that the primary insurer was not guilty of violated their duty to effectuate settlement. Because the plaintiff had already settled with National Union, the court stated that it became irrelevant if the plaintiff could prove the causal link between her injuries and the insurer’s pre-verdict violation, because the plaintiff could not collect damages twice.

But the court warns the legislature that in a case such as this, were the plaintiff not to have settled, the award would have been $22 million for punitive damages. This is because the controlling statute on punitive damage awards for unfair and deceptive acts in settlement.

Understanding when to sue and when to settle are tactical decisions which our experienced attorneys can help you make.

Atlanta Truck Accident Risk Rises with Daylight Saving Time

Fri, 09 Mar 2012 13:00:36 -0500

It's time to spring-forward your clocks. What you may not anticipate with this annual ritual of daylight saving time is an increased risk of trucking accidents in Atlanta and elsewhere in the country.

Our Atlanta truck accident attorneys are aware of a number of studies that prove the point.

A study in 1998 conducted by the Department of Psychology in Columbia found that when the clocks go forward, the accident rates go up - by an alarming 17 percent the Monday after the change.

In fact, the study analyzed fatal accident numbers from 1986 through 1995.

The same trend has not been observed when the clocks "fall back" just before winter, giving us an extra hour.

One theory for why this happens has to do with how much light people have on their way to work that morning. While they may be used to their morning commute being bright, the sudden shift backward an hour throws them into darkness.

Another reason is that some people may have forgotten to change their clocks. It's an easy enough mistake. When they realize it the following day, they find themselves rushing to work, speeding and engaging in other unsafe driving behaviors.

But researchers concluded that the main reason for this spike in spring crashes has to do with sleep, or rather a lack of it.

When daylight saving time was first implemented in March of 1918, it was a wartime measure aimed to reduce energy consumption and increase sunlight in the evening hours.

The thinking behind making the change on a Sunday is that most people have time to sleep in on the weekend when the time change actually occurs. Come Monday morning, however, some may find themselves especially fatigued. And studies have shown that just because people may have a little extra time on a Sunday to adjust and get used to the change, it doesn't mean they will use it that way. In fact, people tend to use it either watching television or socializing. This is going to make them more prone to tiredness behind the wheel on the way to work.

Truck drivers, in particular, are susceptible to a lack of sleep on a day-to-day basis as it is. With sleep-and-wake schedules that are already erratic, it leaves truckers particularly vulnerable to a crash.

An article published in the Journal of Public Health and Policy, called "Long Hours and Fatigue: A survey of Tractor-Trailer Drivers," investigators surveyed some 1,200 truckers at stations in four states. What they found was that more than 30 percent admitted to having exceeded their weekly hours-of-service limit required by law. Another 20 percent said they had dozed off behind the wheel at least once and sometimes more within the previous month. And while the federal government requires that truckers get a certain amount of rest time each week, travel logs are so often fudged that they are known in the industry as "comic books."

In an older study (that is no less valid today), researchers found in 1983 that a startling 41 percent of major truck crashes were at least partially attributable to truckers who had been on the road more than 15 hours without stopping.

Atlanta Trucking Accidents Involve Teens Too

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:39:17 -0500

Many teens - and maybe even their parents - may feel that an Atlanta trucking accident isn't something they need to concern themselves with. After all, you would be hard-pressed to find a teenager operating a big-rig.

However, because teens share the road with these large vehicles, it's important for parents to discuss how to navigate safely around them. Teens need to be reminded of the dangers around these vehicles, which can sometimes weigh upwards of 80,000 pounds. Many teens driving are familiar with passenger cars and trucks, but their chances of survival decrease exponentially if they tangle with a large truck. It's a topic many driver's education courses may simply gloss over, so it's crucial for parents to make sure their teen is educated about the dangers

Our Atlanta trucking accident attorneys believe this discussion is all the more important to have in light of a recent study that revealed the number of teens car accident fatalities is on an alarmingly upward incline.

According to a report released earlier this month by the Governors Highway Safety Association, the number of drivers aged 17 and under who died in passenger vehicles increased during the first half of 2011, compared to the first six months of 2010. This was true for all 50 states and Washington D.C.

The statistics showed that 16 and 17-year-olds killed in car accidents increased by 11 percent during that time frame. Once figures are tabulated for the end of 2011, if that is a trend that continues, it will mean the end of eight consecutive years of a decline in teen driver fatalities.

While there is no breakdown in this report of exactly how many of those specifically involved large trucks, what we do know from previous research is that those involved in Atlanta trucking accidents suffer more severe injuries than those who crash into other passenger vehicles.

In a large-scale study conducted by the National Highway Safety Association, researchers looked at trucking accident data from 1975 to 2005. What they found was that more than 7 percent of those killed in trucking accidents were teens ages 17 and under. The next-highest age group, those ages 18 to 25, suffered 17 percent of the total trucking accident fatalities - the most of any other age group. This alone should be evidence enough for parents to have a discussion with their teens about driving around large trucks.

The Geico Educational Foundation in 2009 released a brochure with tips for teens to avoid trucking accidents. The first of those is to be aware of the trucker's blind spots, also referred to as "no zones." A good general rule is that if you can't see the trucker's mirror, he or she is not going to be able to see you. If you need to pass a truck, make sure you can see the front of the rig in your rear view mirror before you pull ahead. Never swerve in front of a truck or come to an abrupt stop just ahead of a truck, as these large vehicles can't stop as quickly as the driver of a passenger vehicle. Lastly, avoid getting between a turning truck and the curb, as these vehicles often require a large amount of space to make their wide turns.

Georgia Truckers Await Rule on Electronic Speed Limiters

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:01:26 -0500

It's been almost a year since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced it would begin to work on a plan to require speed limiters on large trucks in an effort to reduce trucking accidents in Georgia.

The new rule, which would limit the top speed for large trucks to 68 miles per hour, is expected to be released sometime this year.

Our Atlanta trucking accident attorneys know it's been a long journey for the advocates at Road Safe America, who first proposed the speed-curbing devices to the U.S. Department of Transportation in 2006. According to RSA, the U.S. is the only developed country that doesn't require speed limiters to be installed in heavy commercial vehicles.

To illustrate why this is such a crucial measure to implement, RSA reports that the number of people killed by heavy trucks each year is equivalent to two commercial airplanes crashing each month, killing everyone inside.

According to thetrucker.com, such a measure would also likely help the industry to save on fuel costs, in addition to boosting the safety of both truckers and those who share the road with them.

A similar law has been in effect in areas of Canada since 2009. In Ontario and Quebec, for example, most large trucks are outfitted with speed limiters that cap their speed at about 65 miles per hour (or if you're there, 105 kilometers per hour).

According to Ontario's Ministry of Transportation, a 2007 study found that these devices are expected to save about 100 million liters of fuel annually (or about 280,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions).

There, truckers were given six months to adjust to using the new devices, and by all accounts, the integration process has gone smoothly.

Tom Hodgson, the executive director of RSA, says a rule that would reduce the maximum speed of large trucks will no doubt save lives. But he believes transportation officials need to take it a step farther.

He noted a fatal flaw in the way the industry operates, and it has to do with the pay schedule. Currently, most trucking companies pay their drivers by the mile. This is an incentive for truckers to drive very quickly for long periods of time. Hodgson said if the industry changed its policy by paying truckers for all the hours they are traveling - and not just those in which they are physically on the road - truckers would be more inclined to drive more slowly, carefully and get enough rest to ensure they are alert and can safely navigate the highways we all share.

In addition to speed limiters, the trucking industry is also anticipating the widespread implementation of electronic log books within the next three years, under federal guidelines. Currently, paper log books that record drive time and on-duty status are commonly called "comic books" because they are so often falsified by truckers and their companies.

It's hoped that by having those hours logged electronically, truckers and their companies will be more in line with federal laws and guidelines.

Georgia Trucking Accidents Highlight Need for Caution

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:56:27 -0500

It was a mess that took hours of meticulous clean-up, following a Dalton trucking accident.

According to authorities, the wreck involved a semitrailer that had been hauling a number of chemical compounds, some containing formaldehyde, which flipped on I-75.

Our Atlanta truck accident attorneys understand this happened near the Tennessee border.

Formaldehyde is a strong-smelling gas that is often used as a disinfectant and to preserve dead bodies. For the living, it is known to cause disease, namely, cancer.

In the wake of the accident, small vials of cleaning solution, each containing some of the dangerous chemical, had scattered across the roadway.

According to a sergeant for the Georgia State Highway Patrol, the truck had been hauling two trailers when it struck a guardrail and the rear trailer flipped. In a domino effect, two more accidents happened soon after, according to press reports. One woman even had to be sent to the hospital.

It occurred early in the morning, about 5 a.m. It was on I-75, about a half hour outside of Chattanooga.

The chemical bottles across the roadway forced the sheriff's office to close two of the interstate's southbound lanes.

Unfortunately, that was the second trucking accident in Georgia in as many days.

Other area news reports indicate that an accident that happened just a day before the chemical spill resulted in the death of a trucker in northwest Georgia.

The Associated Press reports that the driver, who was from Indiana, was operating a Freightliner truck. He was going south in Gordon County, near the 320 exit on I-75, when the truck drifted off the road. Investigators still aren't sure exactly what caused the truck to leave the road, but they determined the driver over-corrected, got back on the road and then flipped.

A spokesman for the state highway patrol said the driver wasn't wearing a seat belt, and was ejected due to the impact. He died a short time later.

No one else was hurt in the accident.

While we are saddened to hear of the passing of the Indiana trucker on our state highway, we were relieved to hear no one else had been hurt. Statistics indicate that often in crashes involving a large truck, other people are likely to be injured.

In fact, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, of those people who were killed in accidents involving large trucks in 2008, almost 75 percent - or three-quarters - were occupants of the other vehicle. Another 10 percent of those killed were non-occupants, meaning they were not in another car and they weren't in the truck either. In 16 percent of the cases, it was someone inside the large truck who died.

Injury statistics indicate the same trend. In the cases where serious injury occurred in crashes with large trucks, 71 percent were the people in the other vehicle. Three percent were non-occupants, and 26 were the people inside the large truck.

Georgia Truckers Face More Stringent Prescription Drug Rules

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:59:34 -0500

A new final rule handed down by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is intended to reduce the number of impaired commercial truck drivers and prevent trucking accidents in Atlanta and throughout the country.

Our Georgia trucking accident attorneys know that truck drivers have a difficult job, with grueling schedules that demand physical and mental stamina. Adding alcohol or narcotics to that mix - whether prescribed or not - can have deadly consequences.

The new rule expands earlier guidelines regarding truckers' use of medication or narcotics. Illegal narcotics, such as cocaine and heroin, are prohibited by every driver, as is alcohol.

Under the old rule, employers who had "actual knowledge" of a driver who had violated these laws were compelled to take action against that employee. But the administration determined that the term "actual knowledge" could mean the employer would have had to have seen or witnessed the drug use first hand. Under the new rule, employers merely have to be made aware, even if that knowledge comes from the trucker's previous employer.

The new rule also prohibits truckers' use of any Schedule I substance under any circumstances. Schedule 1 drugs are those that must be prescribed by a doctor, such as certain opiates, stimulants and depressants. These are drugs that would have a high potential for abuse and would impair the truck driver's ability to do his or her job safely. Under the old rules, truckers could use these substances on the job when they had a valid doctor's prescription. Not any more.

The advocacy group Road Safe America has long supported changes in this area. For years, the group has been calling for a central database where trucking companies could check the previous drug test results for truck drivers. The group says truckers that tested positive for drugs in one state would simply go to a neighboring state to apply for a job there. Without a central database to cross-reference information, the driver's prior record becomes essentially "lost."

With all the press given to impaired drivers of passenger vehicles, imagine how much more damage is often done when the intoxicated person is driving an 80,000 pound truck at speeds of up to 80 miles an hour. As Road Safe America puts it: "It's truly horrifying."

A recent Georgia trucking accident highlighted these dangers. According to The Newnan Times-Herald, a truck driver from West Virginia was found guilty earlier this month of a 2010 hit-and-run crash on I-85 that injured a sheriff's deputy.

The accident happened in 2010 as the deputy was initiating a traffic stop along I-85. As the deputy was walking back, his cruiser and the vehicle he had stopped was sideswiped by the trucker's 18-wheeler.

Both cars sustained damage, and the deputy was tossed to the ground. The trucker, who the newspaper reported had been legally using prescription drugs, did not stop, though he was located and arrested a short time later.

The trucker was found guilty of hit-and-run, violating the state's Move Over law and failing to maintain his lane.

FMCSA Working to Ensure Drivers Rest and Reduce Risks of Trucking Accidents in Georgia, Nation

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:08:45 -0500

A recent accident involving a semi-truck driver from Atlanta left a man in the hospital and more than 200 gallons of diesel fuel all over I-90. According to authorities, the accident happened shortly after 6 p.m., when the commercial tractor-trailer drifted off of the right side of the road. The driver tried to bring the large truck back on the road, but according to authorities, the driver lost control of his rig. His semi slammed into a concrete barrier and both of the truck's fuel tanks were punctured, spilling fuel all over the road. The semi flipped onto its side and finally came to rest at the side of the road, next to the barrier. The Atlanta driver has been found at fault and cited.

Every year, thousands of fatal trucking accidents happen on roadways across the nation. Many of the trucking accidents in Atlanta and elsewhere are the result of driver fatigue. Truck drivers work long hours behind the wheel with very little rest. These drivers are common victims to drowsy driving as they chug on toward meeting deadlines and delivering goods. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), there were nearly 300,000 large trucks on U.S. roadways in 2009. These trucks were involved in accidents that resulted in the death of nearly 3,400 people and injury to another 75,000.

Our Atlanta trucking accident lawyers understand that semi-truck drivers have demanding work schedules with hours and hours spent behind the wheel. To help to reduce the risks of drowsy driving-related trucking accidents, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) recently announced a new rule to regulate the work schedules of these drivers. These drivers operate potentially deadly vehicles if involved in an accident. Death is more likely in the event of a traffic accident involving a big rig, semi-truck, tractor-trailer or 18-wheeler.

The rules tighten the previous hours-of-service (HOS) safety rules for these truck drivers,

"This final rule will help prevent fatigue-related truck crashes and save lives," said USDOT Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

The new rule was open for discussion a number of times through FMCSA listening sessions. These were meetings held across the country in which trucking employers, truck drivers, safe-driving advocates and law enforcement officials were invited to share their input regarding these standards to help shape the rules

FMCSA Administrator Anne S. Ferro says this rule is the most thorough and extensive rule yet. She says that through public and private input, as well as extensive research, administrators with FMCSA feel they've created the most comprehensive and beneficial set of rules and regulations to help to reduce the risks of drowsy driving-related trucking accidents across the country.

Drivers are no longer allowed to work 82 hours a week. They are now limited to 70 hours a week. They are also required to take at least a 30-minute break for every 8 hours they spend behind the wheel. Lastly, they are no longer allowed to driver more than 11 hours in a day.

Companies and drivers will be fined if they break any of the new rules.

In 2009, the NHTSA reports that there were nearly 150 large trucks involved in fatal accidents in Georgia. The new rule is hoping to reduce this number significantly with the coming years.