I have tried serious injury cases for over forty years. Years ago, I saw terribly low verdicts for catastrophic harm. More recently, we have seen eight-figure verdicts that would have shocked judges when I was a puppy lawyer. What changed?

Insurance defense folks in their seminars have used phrases like “nuclear verdicts.” That makes it sound reckless or irrational. But in my experience, most juries take their job seriously. They discuss seriously the facts of the case and legal principles on which the judge instructs them.

They also bring into the jury room their experience in the world in which we live.

Here are ten reasons verdicts have grown.

1. Big Numbers Don’t Shock People Like They Used To

Inflation has reshaped expectations. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks the steady rise in consumer prices through the Consumer Price Index. Citizens who wind up on juries see that in real time every time they buy groceries, gas, or homes.

They hear news reports of tycoons and even some politicians reaping billions on wild-sounding deals in technology, crytocurrency, etc. The “b word” (billion) seems little more fanciful than the “m word” (million) did 50 years ago.

When an economist projects $6 or $8 million over a lifetime of care, it no longer sounds imaginary. It sounds expensive but credible.

2. Medicine Keeps People Alive But At a Cost

When I was growing up, the ambulance arriving at a wreck scene was often operated by the funeral home.  The after-school and weekend job of one of my high school classmates was to drive the “meat wagon.” There was no first responder training and no paramedic on the scene to stabilize a catastrophically injured person. Too often, they just went straight to the funeral home. 

Many catastrophic injuries were fatal. Today, emergency medicine and advanced trauma care and rehabilitation save lives. But survival comes at a price. Often, it requires decades of structured support. Life care planners build detailed projections based on medical research and standards published through sources like the National Institutes of Health.

Jurors understand that survival without resources can mean suffering. They award money to fund stability.

3. Corporate Trust Has Eroded

Public trust in major institutions has declined over the years since Watergate. Surveys from the Pew Research Center  egularly document this trend.

When  internal documents and emails show ignored safety complaints or cost-cutting decisions, jurors can easily connect it to a broader narrative about profit over people. That matters in the jury room with rules-oriented jurors who distrust institutions.

In planning mock jury focus groups, we have often deliberately limited the group to the most politically and socially conservative people. They have surprised us by coming up with numbers much higher than a mock jury that represented a broader cross-section of the population.

4. Safety Rules Are Clear and Public

In trucking, aviation, medicine, and manufacturing, safety standards are spelled out in black and white. For example, commercial motor carriers operate under federal rules issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which are simply explained in the Commercial Drivers License Manual. Commercial truck drivers and safety managers have no credible way to deny those are the industry standards they are supposed to follow.

Clear rules make liability feel concrete. When a company violates a clear safety rule, jurors see it not as just an accident but a deliberate and unsafe choice.

5. Social Media Changed the Background Noise

Years ago, corporate misconduct stayed local. Today, bad news travels fast. Anything that makes news anywhere seems local and immediate. Jurors have watched stories about defective products, data breaches, and regulatory failures. That background shapes how they interpret evidence. Jurors do not enter the courtroom empty-headed.

6. Trial Lawyers Tell the Story Differently Now

Modern trial strategy focuses on safety and preventability. Lawyers talk not about sympathy but about common sense safety  rules and how small decisions cascade into harm.

7. Anchoring Influences Damage Awards

When a lawyer suggests a specific figure for pain and suffering, that number becomes a reference point. Jurors may reduce it, but they rarely ignore it. Anchoring is not just  manipulation. It is human cognition at work. Psychologists have long studied how framing affects judgment. The concept of cognitive “anchoring” is well established, including in research summarized by the American Psychological Association.

The Georgia legislature in its latest “tort reform” tried to stop anchoring by enacting OCGA § 9-10-184, which provides, “ In the trial of a civil action for personal injuries, counsel shall be allowed to argue the worth or monetary value of pain and suffering to the jury; provided, however, that any such argument shall conform to the evidence or reasonable deductions from the evidence in the case.”

In legislative debate, politicians talked about stopping lawyers from analogizing to the price of paintings and race horses. However, an experienced trial lawyer has no need to talk about such crudely irrelevant distractions. A good advocate can easily suggest to jurors a way to calculate value based on the evidence and reasonable deductions. Nearly two decades ago, I gave jurors a methodology tied to the evidence and linked to reality in their rural county through which they calculated a verdict a million dollars more than I asked for.

8. Younger Jurors View Institutions Differently

Now on the senior end of the generation gap, I have seen several times how generational shifts are real. Many younger jurors grew up during the financial crisis, corporate scandals, and rising inequality. They carry student debt. They have seen layoffs. They question concentrated power more readily.

This does not mean they are anti-business. It means they may weigh accountability differently than their parents or grandparents.

9. Transparency About Corporate Wealth

Public companies disclose executive compensation and financial performance through filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. We all see news reports about individuals making billions on crypto or a tech tycoon closing in on a trillion dollars net worth, it registers. Even billboards for the lottery touting jackpots over a billion dollars feeds the idea that it could happen to them. At some level, all that registers. When jurors see astronomical CEO bonuses alongside safety violations, they calibrate verdicts accordingly.

A verdict that once seemed massive may now feel proportional.

10. Preventable Harm Sparks Moral Reaction

The most significant driver of large verdicts is not sympathy but preventability.

An impaired or fatigued trucker. A manufacturer that ignored a recall warning. A hospital that brushed aside red flags. When jurors conclude, “This did not have to happen,” damages climb. Moral judgment is powerful. It always has been but now it carries a bigger price tag.

Large verdicts do not come from thin air. They usually arise from clear liability and serious, permanent harm. Venue still matters. Facts matter more. I have seen conservative rural counties return modest verdicts in serious cases and urban juries surprise plaintiffs with restraint. But I have also seen the opposite, surprisingly adequate verdicts in the most conservative venues.

Money is the only remedy our civil system offers. Jurors know that. They cannot undo a spinal cord injury or restore a dead child. They can only assign responsibility in dollars.

After decades in the courtroom, I recognize that modern verdicts reflect modern expectations about safety, accountability, and dignity. When people on a jury believe a company or individual chose risk over safety, they are not afraid to respond firmly.

Ken Shigley, senior counsel at Johnson & Ward, Atlanta’s oldest personal injury specialty law firm, is a former president of the State Bar of Georgia. He was the first Georgia lawyer to earn three board certifications from the National Board of Trial Advocacy: Truck Accident Law, Civil Trial Practice, and Civil Pretrial Practice. He was the lead author of eleven editions of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice, and received the Traditions of Excellence Award from the State Bar of Georgia General Practice and Trial Section. B.A., Furman University; J.D., Emory University Law School; Certificates in mediation and negotiation, Harvard Law School. He began his career as an Assistant District Attorney, then worked a decade in an insurance defense law firm before entering plaintiffs’ practice.

Over decades of representing victims of catastrophic truck crashes and their families, we often have seen fly-by-night truckers hired by larger entities that knew or should have known of the dubious safety records of the truckers they hired. Sometimes we have been able to assert claims against the larger companies for negligent hiring of unsafe truckers.

For several years, insurers for trucking freight brokers have tried relentlessly to use the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) to preempt claims for negligent selection of unsafe motor carriers. The defense position has been that the FAAAA, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1)) trumps all other state and federal rules authorizing liability of motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders. That code section says:

“General rule.—Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of 2 or more States may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier (other than a carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier covered by section 41713(b)(4)) or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.”

However, the same section states includes a “safety exception”:

(2)Matters not covered.—
Paragraph (1) shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles, the authority of a State to impose highway route controls or limitations based on the size or weight of the motor vehicle, or the authority of a State to regulate carriers with regard to minimum amounts of financial responsibility relating to insurance requirements and self-insurance authorization.

This statute out of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which was codified in 1994 and recodified in 1995.  Though it was focused on contract and frieght claims, clever defense lawyers sought to expand it to block personal injury claims.

However, preemption of persoanl injury and wrongful death claims arising from truck crashes is based on an overly restrictive construction of what it means to “relate to” a service “with respect to the transportation of property.” The connection between the intended scope of the FAAAA on contractual and freight claims and claims for personal injury and wrongful death is too “tenuous, remote, or peripheral” for such preemption to pass the “smell test” of common sense.

In the case of C.H. Robinson v. Miller, a tractor trailer crossed the median on I-80, flipped over, blocked all lanes of travel, and caused a crash that rendered a 30-year-old man quadriplegic for life. C.H. Robinson was a freight broker that placed a load with a “chameleon” motor carrier—a truck company that changes names and applies for a new USDOT number to avoid government fines and insurance premiums. The lawsuit also asserted that the chameleon motor carrier has a history of  serious safety violations,  over 40% of its trucks were found illegally on the road when stopped for random inspections, that they had been cited many times for hours of service violations and false log books, and their percentage of out of service violations is twice that of the national average. All that information was accessible to the broker through the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration website.

However, the broker argued that all claims for negligent selection of the trucking company were barred by the FAAAA. A federal district judge in Reno went along with that argument. However, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that common law negligence claims against brokers are not preempted because they fall within the FAAAA’s “safety exception.”

The freight broker petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s rejection of the FAAAA defense. Several industry groups filed amicus (friend of the court) briefs supporting the broker’s position on FAAAA preemption. This week, the Supreme Court denied that petition. Lawyers for injury victims across the country breathed a sign of relief.

However, this is not a Supreme Court decision on the merits. Lawyers for frieght brokers, trucking companies, insurance companies, and their allies in big business will continue to argue for FAAAA preemption. As we have seen in other, more newsworthy court decisions, eternal vigilance is required to guard against  established rights being taken away by a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. Eternal vigilance is required to protect future victims of truck crashes.

Kudos to my friend, Rena Leizerman, and Public Citizen for their hard work in beating back the industry claims of preemption. She and her husband, Michael, from Toledo, Ohio, will represent the quadriplegic injury victim at trial in 2023

If you or a loved one has suffered a femur fracture in a truck, car or motorcycle crash in Georgia, contact us online or call us at 404-253-7862.

Johnson & Ward has been a leading personal injury and wrongful death specialty law firm in Atlanta since 1949.

senior counsel at Johnson & Ward, is a former president of the State Bar of Georgia (2011-12). He was the first Georgia lawyer to earn three board certifications from the National Board of Trial Advocacy (Civil Trial Advocacy, Civil Pretrial Advocacy, and Truck Accident Law). In 2019, he received the Traditions of Excellence Award for lifetime achievement. Mr. Shigley was lead author of  eleven editions of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice (Thomson Reuters, 2010-21). He graduated from Furman University and Emory University Law School.

Femur fracture injuries are serious, painful, and often cause some degree of permanent impairment. Your femur (thigh bone)  is the longest, thickest, and biggest bone in your body. It takes a lot of force to break the femur. A femur fracture may involve a break, crack, or crush injury of the bone. Auto and truck collisions are the most common cause of femur fractures.

The long, straight part of the femur is called the femoral shaft.  Femur fracture injuries anywhere along this length of bone is called a femoral shaft fracture. Fractures that break completely through the bone, or cause the bone to be displaced or crushed, require immediate surgery.  These are classified in several ways:

• Stable fracture: fragments of the broken bone line up correctly.
• Displaced fracture: broken bone fragments are out of alignment and must be put back in line.
• Closed fracture: the skin around the fracture remains be intact
• Open fracture: the broken bone has punctured the skin.
• Location of fracture:
  • Distal: near the knee
  • Middle: the long middle stretch of the femur
  • Proximal: in the femoral head or neck where the femur joins to the hip. This is a major cause of disability and the decline of older people.
• Pattern of fracture
  • Transverse fracture: a break is a straight horizontal line across the femoral shaft.
  • Oblique fracture: a break is an angled line across the shaft.
  • Spiral fracture: Twisting force causes a fracture line that spirals around the shaft like stripes on a barber pole or candy cane.
  • Comminuted fracture: bone has broken into three or more pieces.
  • Open or compound fracture: bone fragments stick out through the skin or a wound penetrates down to the broken bone, the fracture is called an open or compound fracture. This involves increased damage to the surrounding muscles, tendons, and ligaments, and higher risk for complications—especially infections—and take longer to heal.

Femoral fractures often require complex surgery. When a surgeon opens up the thigh to put bone fragments back in proper alignment that is call “open reduction.” That contrasts with “closed reduction” in which a surgeon is able to align bones fragments without cutting. When the surgeon uses rods (also called nails), screws and other hardware to secure the fragments together, that is called “internal fixation.” The entire procedure is “open reduction – internal fixation,” abbreviated as “ORIF.”   Rods (nails) inserted in the middle of the femoral shaft and secured with screws, plates, and wires. This internal hardware is usually left in the body long-term.

Some also required external fixation devices temporarily on the outside of the thigh. Complications may arise if these devices are misaligned in any way, or with infection, nerve damage, blood clots, and bones setting in incorrect positions. Sometimes more than one operation is required.

We have handled many cases involving complex femur fractures, working closely with treating orthopedic surgeons to accurately communicate the full reality of such injuries, including impairment ratings, disability factors, and custom medical illustrations.

In one femur fracture case arising from a truck wreck in a conservative,  rural Georgia county, Ken Shigley obtained a jury verdict of $2,345,940.17, roughly $1.2 million more than we asked for. That was the result of providing the jury a method of determining value in such a manner that the jurors decided to award more than the amount that we asked for in closing arguments.

If you or a loved one has suffered a femur fracture due to a truck crash or other traumatic injury, call us at 404-253-7862.

Johnson & Ward has been a leading personal injury specialty law firm in Atlanta since 1949.
Ken Shigley is a former president of the State Bar of Georgia (2011-12), triple board certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, recipient of the Traditions of Excellence Award for lifetime achievement, and was lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice (2010-21). He graduated from Furman University and Emory University Law School.
John Adkins specializes in personal injury and wrongful death litigation. He is an honor graduate of Kennesaw State University and Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.
Ed Stone specializes in personal injury and wrongful death litigation. He is a graduate of Kennesaw State University and John Marshall Law School in Atlanta.

Since 1981, forty years ago at the beginning of the Reagan Administration, minimum liability insurance required for large trucks in interstate commerce has remained unchanged at $750,000. Everything else has gotten more expensive in the past forty years. Nothing costs the same since then–not the truck, the repairs, the gas, or the tolls, so it is completely unrealistic for the truckers to have the same insurance as they did forty years ago.

If adjusted for the general rate of inflation over the past forty years, it would be $2,203,415.84 today. People who are injured by trucking negligence need to pay their medical bills so trucking safety advocates have sought for years to bring some balanced fairness to others on the road. If adjusted to the rate of medical inflation it would be about $5 million. But opponents of advancing public safety on the highways repeatedly have blocked an inflation adjustment on the amount of insurance required.

This year, a 2019 recipient of the “Tradition of Excellence” Award from the State Bar of Georgia General Practice & Trial Section. as a reasonable compromise.

The principal opposition to this inflation adjustment on minimum insurance coverage for large trucks is the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA). While portraying itself as the representative of individual truck drivers, OOIDA operates largely as an insurance company. That is a pattern familiar in several national organizations that portray themselves as grassroots groups but are essentially insurance companies.

On June 10, 2021, U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved a provision of the 2021 Highway Bill to increase the minimum insurance required for interstate motor carriers for the first time in forty years, from $750,000 to $2,000,000, over the opposition of congressmen allied with OOIDA.

The greatest threat of injury and death to truck drivers comes not from smaller vehicles on the highways, but from collisions with other large trucks. We have represented a number of semi-truck drivers over the years who were badly injured when their trucks were struck by other tractor-trailers. It is ironic that OOIDA would oppose the inflation adjustment of insurance that would protect its own members against the greatest threat of injury to themselves.

The legislative process is always difficult. The struggle to update trucking insurance coverage for forty years of inflation is far from over. Those that oppose that update will pull out all the stops in the House Rules Committee and in the Senate to block measures for improved trucking safety and adequate compensation for the victims of large truck crashes.

Call us today at our Atlanta office 404-253-7862 or submit your inquiry online, and find out if we can help.

A senior counsel in the firm of Johnson & Ward, Ken Shigley is

Mr. Shigley is the first Georgia lawyer to earn three national board certifications in his practice area from the National Board of Trial Advocacy – in Civil Trial Law, Civil Practice Law. and Truck Accident Law. He is one of only three Georgia lawyers to earn board certification in Truck Accident Law. He has served as a board member of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, and former chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, which includes the Trucking Litigation Group.  He was a 2019 recipient of the “Tradition of Excellence” Award from the State Bar of Georgia General Practice & Trial Section.

He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice, now in its eleventh annual edition with Thomson Reuters West. His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation, and burn injuries. 

In 2011-12, Mr. Shigley was president of the State  Bar of Georgia, which includes all the lawyers and judges in Georgia.  He also is a former chair of the Institute for Legal Education in Georgia (board member 2008-2020, chair 2012-13),  State Bar of Georgia Tort & Insurance Practice Section (1994-95), and the Georgia Insurance Law Institute (1994). A former prosecutor and former insurance defense lawyer, Mr. Shigley is a graduate of Furman University and Emory University Law School. Mr. Shigley is a widower, father of two adult children, and an elder in his church. 

The minimum liability insurance required for large trucks in interstate commerce was set at $750,000 forty years ago in 1981 at the beginning of the Reagan Administration. Everything else has gotten more expensive in the past forty years. Nothing costs the same since then–not the truck, the repairs, the gas, or the tolls, so it is completely unrealistic for the truckers to have the same insurance as they did forty years ago.

If adjusted for the Consumer Price Index, it would be $2,203,415.84 today. People who are injured by trucking negligence need to pay their medical bills so trucking safety advocates have sought for years to bring some balanced fairness to others on the road. If adjusted to the rate of medical inflation it would be about $5 million.

This year, legislation is moving forward in Congress to adopt a compromise increase to   $2 million as a reasonable compromise.

The principal opposition to this inflation adjustment on minimum insurance coverage for large trucks is the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA). While portraying itself as the representative of individual truck drivers, OOIDA operates largely as an insurance company. That is a pattern familiar in several national organizations that portray themselves as grassroots groups but are essentially insurance companies.

On June 10, 2021, U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved a provision of the 2021 Highway Bill to increase the minimum insurance required for interstate motor carriers for the first time in forty years, from $750,000 to $2,000,000, over the opposition of congressmen allied with OOIDA.

The greatest threat of injury and death to truck drivers comes not from smaller vehicles on the highways, but from collisions with other large trucks. We have represented a number of semi-truck drivers over the years who were badly injured when their trucks were struck by other tractor-trailers. It is ironic that OOIDA would oppose the inflation adjustment of insurance that would protect its own members against the greatest threat of injury to themselves.

The legislative process is contentious. The struggle to update trucking insurance coverage for forty years of inflation is far from over. Those that oppose that update will pull out all the stops in the House Rules Committee and in the Senate to block measures for improved trucking safety and adequate compensation for the victims of large truck crashes.

Call us today at our Atlanta office 404-253-7862 or submit your inquiry online, and find out if we can help.

A senior counsel in the firm of Johnson & Ward, Ken Shigley is a 2019 recipient of the “Tradition of Excellence” Award from the State Bar of Georgia General Practice & Trial Section.

Mr. Shigley is the first Georgia lawyer to earn three national board certifications in his practice area from the National Board of Trial Advocacy – in Civil Trial Law, Civil Practice Law. and Truck Accident Law. He is one of only three Georgia lawyers to earn board certification in Truck Accident Law. He has served as a board member of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, and former chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, which includes the Trucking Litigation Group. 

He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice, now in its eleventh annual edition with Thomson Reuters West. His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation, and burn injuries. 

In 2011-12, Mr. Shigley was president of the State  Bar of Georgia, which includes all the lawyers and judges in Georgia.  He also is a former chair of the Institute for Legal Education in Georgia (board member 2008-2020, chair 2012-13),  State Bar of Georgia Tort & Insurance Practice Section (1994-95), and the Georgia Insurance Law Institute (1994). A former prosecutor and former insurance defense lawyer, Mr. Shigley is a graduate of Furman University and Emory University Law School. Mr. Shigley is a widower, father of two adult children, and an elder in his church. 

Kenneth L. Shigley, Sr., of Atlanta, Georgia, has been named one of America’s Top 100 Personal Injury Attorneys ® for 2020.

Selection to America’s Top 100 Personal Injury Attorneys® is by invitation only and is reserved to identity the nation’s most exceptional litigators for high-value personal injury, catastrophic injury, wrongful death, product liability, and medical malpractice matters.
To be considered for selection, an attorney must focus more than 50% of their active legal practice on personal injury, catastrophic injury, wrongful death, product liability, and/or medical malpractice matters. These minimum qualifications are required for initial consideration. Thereafter, candidates are carefully screened through Advanced Data Analytics evaluating a broad array of criteria, including the candidate’s professional experience, litigation experience, significant personal injury settlements and/or verdicts, peer reputation, and community impact in order to rank the candidates throughout the state.

Only the top 100 qualifying attorneys in each state will receive this honor and be selected for membership among America’s Top 100 Personal Injury Attorneys®. With these extremely high standards for selection to America’s Top 100 Personal Injury Attorneys®, less than one-half percent (0.5%) of active attorneys in the United States will receive this honor — truly the most exclusive and elite level of attorneys in the community.

Mr. Shigley’s qualifications include:

• President, State Bar of Georgia, 2011-12
• Tradition of Excellence Award for lifetime achievement, 2019
• First Georgia lawyer to earn three board certifications from National Board of Trial Advocacy (Truck Accident Law, Civil Trial Practice, Civil Pretrial Practice)
• Chair, American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, 2015-16
• Lead Author, Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice
• Chair, Institute for Continuing Legal Education in Georgia, 2012-13
• Georgia “Super Lawyer” (since 2004)
• “AV Preeminent” rating in Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory (since 1989)
• Avvo 10.0 out of 10.0

See representative verdicts and settlements.

Log trucks crashes are distressingly common tragedies across rural Georgia, often causing death or terrible injuries.

Most log trucks operating in the middle of Georgia operate exclusively intrastate, inside the state of Georgia, and do not cross state lines. They are governed by the Georgia Forest Product Trucking Rules, which exempt applicability of numerous provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Log trucks operating near state lines may cross into neighboring states, subjecting them to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

Length of loads.

Log trucks in rural Georgia frequently operate in darkness with tree length loads extending 20 feet beyond the rear of the trailer. Often the logs sag down in the rear, obscuring trailer tail lights. This presents severe hazard both when drivers approach from the rear under circumstances in which the end of the load is not clearly visible.

Here a photo from a crash in which an eyewitness confirmed that the rear of the load was sagging and the amber light on the end of the load of logs had been flickering on and off for 10 miles before the log truck turned only to major highway. Miraculously, the driver of the pickup truck survived.

Extended log loads also create a hazard when a log truck turns and the end of the load swings out into another lane.

Conspicuity of projecting loads.

“Conspicuity” is a fancy word for visible. It means “easily seen or noticed; readily visible or observable.” When loads extend more than four feet from the end of the trailer, they are required to have a strobe or LED light flashing 60 times per minute and plainly visible from 500 feet. See O.C.G.A § 40-8-23  and Georgia Forest Products Trucking Rules, Section 4-393.11PL. Unfortunately, many local law enforcement officers and even state troopers have too little training to recognize violations and their significance. They often ignore violations and blame dead victims.

For daytime conspicuity, the end of the load must also be marked with a flag of bright red or orange fluorescent color and shall be not less than 18 inches square. Of course, a flag alone is no help in the ark.

In addition, the Georgia Forests Products Trucking Rules include specifications and diagrams for placement of reflectors and reflecting tape. In the real world, those rules are rarely enforced. Here is a comparison between the requirements and reality in a log trailer involved in a fatal crash when it made a U-turn across traffic lanes in predawn darkness,

With the overloaded log truck violating the rules on lights and reflectors, here is an illustration of what was visible to an oncoming driver about a second before impact with logs extending in the dark across his lane of travel.

Insurance.  Intrastate commercial trucks operating only in Georgia, including log trucks, are only required to carry $100,000 liability insurance coverage, which is horribly inadequate in any of the catastrophic crashes they are likely to cause. Many, however, are contractually bound by paper companies to which they haul logs to carry $1,000,000 liability insurance.

Logging trucks near state lines may cross to paper mills in neighboring states. When operating in interstate commerce, they are subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Interstate commercial motor vehicles are required to have at least $750,000 liability insurance coverage, but most have $1,000,000 coverage, sometimes more. When dump trucks haul certain agricultural commodities within 150 miles from the source, they are exempt from certain regulations.

Log truck drivers generally are paid less than over the road truckers in interstate commerce. We understand that most log truck owners and drivers are decent people. A high school classmate spent most of his life as a pulpwood hauler.  Some good, experienced truck drivers choose to make less money in order to be home every night. However, our observation in log truck crash cases has been that they are generally less experienced, less trained and less sophisticated. We had one case in which a log truck driver who had been fired from an over-the-road truck driving job could only find work driving a log truck. Within two months of starting, he made a U-turn in predawn darkness, leaving his unilluminated log of logs extended

Log truck drivers are required to have a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL).  He was intelligent and a good guy. However, the Georgia Forest Products Trucking Rules exempt a lot of driver qualification rules governing interstate truckers. They may drive a log truck at 18 rather than 21, need not be even minimally literate, are not required to pass road tests, or be subject to rules on background screening, safe driving hours, etc.,

Maintenance of log trucks is often substandard. The Georgia Forest Product Trucking Rules exempt intrastate log trucks from the daily safety inspection of trucks and trailers required under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Because log trucks often operate in rough areas at in forests, they take a beating. Without a requirement of daily pre-trip and post-trip inspections, it is common to see a log truck that has taken a beating. Tires, brakes and suspension may be in bad shape, and required lamps and reflectors are often missing or caked with mud.

If you or a loved one are badly harmed in a catastrophic accident involving a log truck in Georgia, it is important to act immediately to preserve crucial evidence.

 is a 2019 recipient of the “Tradition of Excellence” Award from the State Bar of Georgia General Practice & Trial Section.

Mr. Shigley is the first Georgia lawyer to earn three national board certifications in his practice area from the National Board of Trial Advocacy – in Civil Trial Law, Civil Practice Law and Truck Accident Law. He is a board member of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, and former chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, which includes the Trucking Litigation Group. 

He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice, now in its tenth annual edition with Thomson Reuters West. His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation and burn injuries. 

In 2011-12, Mr. Shigley was president of the State  Bar of Georgia, which includes all the lawyers and judges in Georgia.  He also is a former chair of the Institute for Legal Education in Georgia (board member 2008-2019, chair 2012-13),  State Bar of Georgia Tort & Insurance Practice Section (1994-95), and the Georgia Insurance Law Institute (1994). 

A former prosecutor and former insurance defense lawyer, Mr. Shigley is a graduate of Furman University and Emory University Law School. He is a widower,  father of two adult children, and an elder in his church.

Ken Shigley of Shigley Law LLC, based in Atlanta, Georgia, recently earned his third national board certification, in Truck Accident Law, from the National Board of Trial Advocacy. Certification is based upon exhaustive testing, documentation of extensive experience in the field of trucking accident litigation, writing samples, and professional recommendations from lawyers and attorneys familiar with the applicant’s work.

The National Board of Trial Advocacy operates under authority of the American Bar Association.   “There is no dispute about the bona fides and the relevance of NBTA certification…. Disclosure of information . . .  both serves the public interest and encourages the development and utilization of meritorious certification programs for attorneys.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stevens in Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 110 S.Ct. 2281 (1990). Mr. Shigley previously attained NBTA board certification in Civil Trial Law (1995) and Civil Practice Law (2012).

Why hire a board certified attorney?

Truck Accident Law deals with the procedural, substantive and practical issues unique to collision cases involving commercial tractor trailers, buses and other commercial motor vehicles and all of the people and entities in the transportation cycle.

The trucking industry is comprised of 3.5 million professional drivers. The size and weight of commercial motor vehicles and trucks in an accident cause significant damage to drivers, passengers and property. The US Department of Transportation reports that there are around 500,000 trucking accidents each year. According to the National Highway Traffic Administration approximately 4,000 people die and 104,000 are injured annually. One out of every eight traffic fatalities involves a truck collision. Trucking is regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, a division of the US Department of Transportation.

Shigley is a member of the Board of Regents of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys.  ATAA recognizes attorneys who have documentable knowledge, real experience and proven results in handling truck crash cases so that victims can choose lawyers with confidence. It provides lawyers who handle truck crash cases for victims with the very best cutting edge education and resources available to both improve their knowledge and skillset.  Lawyers can claim to be anything in TV ads, on the Internet or in promotional material, but every ATAA Board Certified member has been thoroughly vetted and tested.

The National Board of Trial Advocacy provides board certification for attorneys who have demonstrated skill and expertise in a particular field and have proven it through rigorous examination and testing by the NBTA. The NBTA is one of the organizations accredited by the American Bar Association to demonstrate that lawyers certified have an enhanced level of expertise and substantial involvement in the specialty area of certification. The standards are designed to enable the NBTA to evaluate thoroughly the objectives, standards and procedures of attorneys and to facilitate public access to appropriate legal services.

Similar to the medical profession in which the body of knowledge is so large that it’s impossible for one doctor to remain current in all specialty areas, the body of law has grown so large and complex that attorneys can no longer be all things to all people. Unlike the medical profession, which has embraced specialization and specialty certification, the legal arena has been slow to acknowledge publicly what it has known for years: nearly all lawyers specialize but do so without substantiation beyond “reputation” or simply saying it is so.

Mr. Shigley’s two prior NBTA board certifications are Civil Trial Law (1995) and Civil Practice Law (2012). 

Civil Trial Law may include civil litigation, personal injury litigation, and any other type of litigation that is not criminal in nature, such as property disputes, construction or insurance claims and a wide array of other civil controversies. Second, usually money damages are at stake in civil litigation.

Despite what is seen on television dramas, cases do not always have to go to trial. However, it is impossible to know in advance which cases will settle and which will go to trial, and because settlement amounts reflect predictions about the most likely result if the case is tried, it is wise for people to hire well qualified trial attorneys to handle their claims or defense of claims whether they think the case will be tried or settled out of court. It is important to understand

Trial attorneys must have knowledge,experience, great communications skills and a thorough understanding of group decision making dynamics and persuasion. In trial practice a misstep can end a case, so having a trial attorney who is making his trial debut may be dangerous, especially in a case involving substantial damages.

certification involves preparing and resolving cases before trial, including litigation proceedings from inception of litigation through discovery, pretrial motions and hearings, and alternative dispute resolution procedures in all areas of substantive law before state courts, federal courts, administrative agencies, and arbitrators.

 is a 2019 recipient of the “Tradition of Excellence” Award from the State Bar of Georgia General Practice & Trial Section.

Mr. Shigley has earned three national board certifications from the National Board of Trial Advocacy – in Civil Trial Law, Civil Practice Law and Truck Accident Law. He is a board member of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, former chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, which includes the Trucking Litigation Group. 

He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice, now in its tenth annual edition with Thomson Reuters West. His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation and burn injuries. 

In 2011-12, Mr. Shigley was president of the State  Bar of Georgia, which includes all the lawyers and judges in Georgia.  He also is a former chair of the Institute for Legal Education in Georgia (board member 2008-2019, chair 2012-13),  State Bar of Georgia Tort & Insurance Practice Section (1994-95), and the Georgia Insurance Law Institute (1994). 

A former prosecutor and former insurance defense lawyer, Mr. Shigley is a graduate of Furman University and Emory University Law School. He is a widower,  father of two adult children, and an elder in his church.

When a family member is killed or seriously injured in a crash with a tractor trailer, a normal human instinct is to wait a decent interval before consulting an attorney. Then one may be inclined to take one’s time talking with a hometown lawyer who handles an occasional car wreck case along with divorces, criminal cases and real estate closings.  Meanwhile, trucking companies and their insurance companies are busy burying incriminating evidence.

A recent case in our office illustrates the importance of striking hard and fast to preserve evidence. While a truck crash victim was in ICU at the local hospital for three days, lingering in a coma on the front porch of eternity, a relative reached out to one of my colleagues who immediately brought me into the case.

While the undamaged truck  was still in police impound, we immediately filed a petition in the Superior Court of the county where the crash occurred for temporary restraining order to lock down a long list of physical and electronic evidence for expert inspection. We recovered telematic data that proved the truck was going 10 MPH over the speed limit, still accelerating, until it crashed into a line of cars stopped at a red light.

We also recovered from the truck dashcam and driver view video. It dramatically showed in split screen the truck speeding into the line of stopped cars without slowing or braking while the truck driver idly gazed around with bleary eyes. That video concluded with our victim’s car exploding into the truck’s windshield.

If we had not acted quickly to obtain a court order to preserve evidence, much of that critically important data would have been “lost” and we never would have seen it.

I really wanted to try that case before a jury. Our focus groups felt the case was worth an impressive amount in “high eight figures.” But the clients chose to accept a confidential settlement in the “high seven figures” rather than go through the emotional ordeal of trial. I cannot argue with the family’s choice for quiet closure.

Standard operating procedure for trucking companies and insurers is to send a rapid response team to the crash scene before the vehicles are removed, sometimes before an ambulance can remove a victim. The rapid response team generally includes a defense lawyer, investigator and accident reconstruction expert. They work under the cloak of trial preparation under the supervision of legal counsel in an effort to keep their work secret.

When a victim’s traumatized family is in a hospital vigil or planning a funeral, the trucking company’s insurer has a rapid response team combing over the evidence. They may persuade police investigators to see the defense point of view and quietly delete telematics and video data that would be damning.

By the time the victim’s family hires a lawyer who knows anything about litigation of serious truck accident cases, the most important evidence may have disappeared. We have had cases where truck driver logs and other critical evidence was “lost” while State Troopers were focused on directing traffic and removing debris from the highway and a rapid response team combed over the truck.

Another mistake that families of victims often make is to choose a lawyer who does not litigate serious truck crash cases. That may a good hometown lawyer who handles regular car wreck cases but does not have expertise in trucking. Or it may be a “personal injury settlement mill” that advertises heavily but just tries to flip cases fast to get the easy money without of serious work.

That includes law firms that run expensive television ads and billboards with pictures of big trucks. They may claim to have legions of trucking lawyers, but are not involved in any of the national organizations of trucking law experts and do not do the serious work involved in such cases. If those firms can’t settle easily, they may associate a trucking specialist, but by then evidence is likely lost.

Too often families of crash victims, not knowing any better, hire a lawyer who solicits them directly or through an agent or “runner” in the days after the crash. Such solicitation of victims is an ethical violation punishable by disbarment in Georgia. If you want to hire a lawyer who is willing to commit a major ethical violation in order to get the case, remember that when you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

The Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys is a great place to find a real trucking attorney.

If a family member is the victim of a catastrophic truck crash  in the Southeast, call us at (404)253-7863.

Ken Shigley is a 2019 recipient of the “Tradition of Excellence” Award from the State Bar of Georgia General Practice & Trial Section.

Mr. Shigley is the first Georgia lawyer to earn three national board certifications in his practice area from the National Board of Trial Advocacy – in Civil Trial Law, Civil Practice Law and Truck Accident Law. He is a board member of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, and former chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, which includes the Trucking Litigation Group. 

He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice, now in its tenth annual edition with Thomson Reuters West. His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation and burn injuries. 

In 2011-12, Mr. Shigley was president of the State  Bar of Georgia, which includes all the lawyers and judges in Georgia.  He also is a former chair of the Institute for Legal Education in Georgia (board member 2008-2019, chair 2012-13),  State Bar of Georgia Tort & Insurance Practice Section (1994-95), and the Georgia Insurance Law Institute (1994). 

A former prosecutor and former insurance defense lawyer, Mr. Shigley is a graduate of Furman University and Emory University Law School. He is a widower,  father of two adult children, and an elder in his church.

You are a great lawyer in your area of practice. You are also smart enough to know when a big case may require prompt action outside your comfort zone.

Just as a trial lawyer may not feel comfortable handling a complex real estate, divorce or estate planning matter, a great lawyer in those fields may not want to risk a client’s rights by trying to figure out how to handle a catastrophic truck crash case.

When you get a call from a friend or client that a family member has been killed or seriously injured in a crash with a tractor trailer in Georgia, one common reaction is be to defer the trouble and expense of serious investigation, assuming you can settle quickly for the known policy limits.  You may get the “low hanging fruit” that way but miss millions of dollars in potential recovery for your client that is not immediately obvious on the surface. If that happens, you may miss a reporting deadline with your E&O carrier before you recognize the mistake.

It is common for trucking insurance companies to tender a first layer of insurance coverage and make soothing conversation while concealing additional layers of coverage. We had a case in which an excess insurance company denied in writing that it insured the trucking company. But we kept digging. A year later that insurer paid out $3 million for the trucking company it had denied insuring.

While victims and their family attorneys wait for the insurance company to “do the right thing,” trucking companies and their insurers may busy burying incriminating evidence. Standard operating procedure for trucking companies and insurers is to send a rapid response team to the crash scene before the vehicles are removed, often before an ambulance can remove a victim. A rapid response team generally includes a defense lawyer, investigator and accident reconstruction expert. They work under the cloak of trial preparation under the supervision of legal counsel in an effort to keep at least part of their work secret.

When a victim’s traumatized family is in a hospital vigil or planning a funeral, the trucking company’s insurer has that rapid response team combing over the evidence. They may bring in investigators who are retired state troopers to coax less experienced law enforcement officers to the the defense point of view. At the same time, they may be quietly deleting electronic data that would be damning.

By the time the victim’s family decides to aggressively push the case and gets a lawyer experienced in litigation of serious truck accident cases, the most important evidence may have disappeared. We have had cases where critical evidence was “lost” at the scene while State Troopers were focused on directing traffic and removing debris from the highway and a rapid response team combed over the truck.

A recent case in our office illustrates the importance of striking hard and fast to preserve evidence. While a truck crash victim was in ICU at the local hospital lingering in a coma before death, a relative reached out to a lawyer in another practice area he happened to know. That lawyer, whom I have known all his life, then immediately called me.

While the undamaged truck  was still in police impound, we immediately filed a petition in the Superior Court of the county where the crash occurred for a detailed temporary restraining order to lock down evidence. With the help of our expert, we recovered telematic data that proved the truck was going 10 MPH over the speed limit, still accelerating until it crashed into a line of cars stopped at a red light.

We also recovered from the truck dashcam and driver view video. It dramatically showed in split screen the truck speeding into the line of stopped cars without slowing or braking while the truck driver idly gazed around with bleary eyes. That video concluded with our victim’s car exploding into the truck’s windshield. It was a powerful exhibit.

If we had not acted quickly to obtain a court order in order to preserve evidence, the truck would have been put back in service  and much of that critically important data may have been “lost.” We would never have seen the video or the telematic data.

There was a discovery fight about access to the truck driver’s cell phone for a forensic download. Coincidentally, the solicitor general in the county where the crash occurred issued a search warrant to obtain the cell phone for forensic evaluation. Cell phone data showed that the truck driver had been texting on his phone rather than sleeping all but three hours the night before.

Further investigation revealed that a medical examiner had signed a document stating the driver was disqualified due to non-compliant obstructive sleep apnea, though the trucking company denied that it had received that report.

We also found that the company was on notice of a prior incident in which the truck driver rear-ended another car stopped at a stop light. Despite knowing of the incident, the company failed to obtain a copy of that accident report which would have revealed the driver lied about what happened.

I really wanted to try that case before a jury. Our two focus groups valued the case in “eight figures.” But the clients chose to accept a confidential settlement in the “high seven figures” rather than go through the emotional ordeal of trial. I cannot dispute the family’s preference for quiet closure.

While a good lawyer in an unrelated area of practice, the family’s attorney readily recognized that he did not have expertise in trucking litigation. By associating a trucking lawyer, he made over one million dollars for helping with client relations and serving as “second chair” without investing his own funds in the substantial case expenses.  Choosing to annuitize that fee seven figure fee, he now has a financial plan substantially improving the quality of the rest of his life.

Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(e) recognizes that clients are best served when lawyers can bring in other attorneys with needed areas of expertise, and still share in the responsibility and the fees. It provides:

(e) A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:

(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or, by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation;

(2) the client is advised of the share that each lawyer is to receive and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved; and

(3) the total fee is reasonable.

Fully complying with this rule and documenting the client’s consent to an appropriate allocation of fees and responsibility between counsel, we generously share fees with c0-counsel who bring cases to us. Thus,  attorneys in Georgia and across North America who are preeminent in bankruptcy, real estate, securities, probate or corporate law readily acknowledge when they need to refer a client to a lawyer who specializes in tort law. Similarly, we refer matters outside the scope of practice to experts in those specialties.

We work closely with referring lawyers, who may have as much or as little involvement as they wish. A lawyer who practices in another state or another area of law may net a greater fee than if they had done all the work themselves. But the main thing is that a referring lawyer can know that the client is in good hands.

When associated by attorneys in neighboring states, we have been admitted pro hac vice for individual cases.

If a client has a claim for a catastrophic truck crash anywhere in the Southeast, call us at (404)253-7863.

Ken Shigley is a 2019 recipient of the “Tradition of Excellence” Award from the State Bar of Georgia General Practice & Trial Section.

Mr. Shigley is the first Georgia lawyer to earn three national board certifications in his practice area from the National Board of Trial Advocacy – in Civil Trial Law, Civil Practice Law and Truck Accident Law. He is a board member of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, and former chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, which includes the Trucking Litigation Group. 

He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice, now in its tenth annual edition with Thomson Reuters West. His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation and burn injuries. 

In 2011-12, Mr. Shigley was president of the State  Bar of Georgia, which includes all the lawyers and judges in Georgia.  He also is a former chair of the Institute for Legal Education in Georgia (board member 2008-2019, chair 2012-13),  State Bar of Georgia Tort & Insurance Practice Section (1994-95), and the Georgia Insurance Law Institute (1994). 

A former prosecutor and former insurance defense lawyer, Mr. Shigley is a graduate of Furman University and Emory University Law School. He is a widower,  father of two adult children, and an elder in his church.

Death by decapitation due to trailer underride  can  result when tractor trailers park on the roadside.

The kneejerk response of most people seeing pictures of these incidents is to simply blame the dead person. But it’s not that simple. When an innocent passenger is killed or maimed, some portion of fault is normally apportioned to the driver who departed from the traffic lane for whatever reason. But it is necessary to also examine a trucking company’s decision to violate safety standards by parking a big rig on the side of the road.

A lot of people who see these collisions and are uninformed on the safety standards involved assume that it is always 100% the fault of the driver of the car that struck the parked tractor trailer. Thus, it is necessary to thoroughly investigate and, if possible, refute potential defenses. If the driver of the car had a cell phone, it is worth the cost to do a forensic download and rule out driver distraction from a cell phone at the time of the crash. A reliably conducted medical examination or autopsy is needed to rule out alcohol or drug use that may have contributed to cause of the crash.

In over 40 years of law practice, including 28 years representing individuals and families devastated by highway crashes with big commercial trucks, one of the least understood hazards is that of tractor trailers parked on the side of the road.

Just about every time I drive through Georgia late at night, I see unlit tractor trailers parked in the dark inches from the right traffic lane . Too many people even in the trucking industry do not understand how hazardous this can be.

It is foreseeable that cars will occasionally leave the traffic lane. That can happen for any of a number of innocuous reasons that should not be punished by decapitation. A driver may swerve to avoid another vehicle, a deer or a dog, or when distracted by a child or pet inside the vehicle. One may hydroplane and spin off the road when water pools in a low spot in pavement on a highway during heavy rain. (That happened to my wife at a spot on I-20 that was well known to state troopers for frequent hydroplaning.) Because innocuous departure from the traffic lane is common, highways include rumble strips at the end of the road.

The foreseeability of vehicles departing from the traffic lane is why highways built in the United States in recent decades have incorporated road design features to make roadsides forgiving for drivers who makes such mistakes.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommends construction standards for shoulder and right of way design. This includes clearance of obstructions such as, trees, steep slopes, or abutments which may hinder a motorist from being able to recover from an unintended departure from the roadway. They also recommend guardrails whenever feasible to redirect drifting vehicles back onto the paved portion of the roadway.

The Roadside Design Guide defines a clear zone as the total roadside border area, starting at the edge of the traveled way, available for safe use by errant vehicles. This area may consist of a shoulder, a recoverable slope, a non-recoverable slope, and/or a clear run-out area. The desired minimum width is dependent upon traffic volumes and speeds and on the roadside geometry. Simply stated, it is an unobstructed, relatively flat area beyond the edge of the traveled way that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that leaves the traveled way.

According to the Roadside Design Guide by the American Association of Highway Transportation Officials, highway shoulders, a clear zone is

The total roadside border area, starting at the edge of the traveled way, available for safe use by errant vehicles. This area may consist of a shoulder, a recoverable slope, a non-recoverable slope, and/or a clear run-out area. The desired minimum width is dependent upon traffic volumes and speeds and on the roadside geometry. Simply stated, it is an unobstructed, relatively flat area beyond the edge of the traveled way that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that leaves the traveled way.

The Clear Zone, is further defined as

An unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely, or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway. The width of the clear zone should be based on risk [of immediate danger]. Key factors in assessing risk include traffic volumes, speeds, and slopes. Clear roadsides consider both fixed objects and terrain that may cause vehicles to rollover.

The highway shoulder is not  designed for parking. It is a “clear zone” or “recovery zone,” not a parking area. But every day we see 18-wheelers parked in that “recovery zone” or shoulder, parked overnight and not illuminated.

Personal cars and trucks are doing the same thing, but the hazard they present is less severe. When a trucker parks a large Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) in on the shoulder of a highway in what is designed as a “Clear Zone,” that truck is a large, immovable, rigid barrier blocking the “clear zone.” That creates an eminent hazard to occupants of any vehicle which may depart, for whatever reason, from the travel portion of the roadway.

Tractor trailers parked in the “clear zone” or “recovery zone” create the equivalent of an unforgiving solid wall. This presents a vastly greater danger to people in approaching cars that would another car parked in the same position. When a car veers out of its lane and collides with a stopped car of the same size, there may or may not be injuries, either minor or serious. But when the same car collides with an 80,000 pound tractor trailer, the physics is vastly different.   Semi-trucks are not only larger and heavier than regular vehicles, but their trailers also stand high off the ground. If a car traveling at highway speeds comes into contact with the trailer of an 18-wheeler, the big rig is the perfect height to sheer off the top of the car and kill or perhaps decapitate anyone inside.

Conspicuity of big rigs parked on the roadside, especially in lighting and weather conditions affecting visibilty is a hazard well known in trucking. That is why the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations have strict rules on this. At § 392.22 on Emergency Stops, the regulations require, “whenever a commercial motor vehicle is stopped upon the traveled portion of a highway or the shoulder of a highway for any cause other than necessary traffic stops, the driver of the stopped commercial motor vehicle shall immediately activate the vehicular hazard warning signal flashers and continue the flashing until the driver places the warning devices” As soon as possible, and in all cases within 10 minutes, the driver must places three reflective triangles or flares.

Trucking company corporate management can reduce this risk of a deadly crash through management practices that include good trip planning so that drivers can reach safe places for planned stops before they run out of safe driving hours. Companies should manage their fleets to make frequent vehicle inspections and perform appropriate equipment maintenance.

Trucking company management should require drivers not to stop along the roadside in non-emergency situations, and instruct drivers to exit the highway and find a safe place to park when necessary. Truckers multiply this risk when they park large trucks park on the roadside at night without using hazard flashers and warning devices.

If due to mechanical breakdown a truck driver has no choice but to stop on the side of the road, trucking companies should train drivers and dispatchers on things they can do to  reduce the risk of a loss in the event of a breakdown or other roadside emergency. Such actions include:

• Immediately turn on hazard flashers when slowing and leave them on while stopped.
• Immediately set out warning devices (reflective triangles or flares) in accordance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 CFR § 392.22.
• Keep marker lights on after dark.
• Avoid parking on curves or on the downside of undulated roads that obscure the approach of oncoming traffic.
• Park as far off the traveled roadway as safely possible. Remember shoulders can be soft and have a steep drop-off or ditch.
• When stopped, set parking brakes.
• Notify employer as soon as possible to arrange roadside assistance.
• Avoid falling into traffic by using three points of contact exiting /entering the cab or climbing onto the catwalk or trailer.
• Walk along the side of the vehicle opposite traffic.
• Watch out for debris or uneven surfaces when outside the vehicle.
• Use a visible flashlight after dark.
• Wear reflective clothing (such as a high visibility safety vest) when exiting the vehicle.

Even if a parked semi-truck is illuminated at night, there is a recognized condition known as the “Moth Effect” which may contribute to an unwary driver running into a truck parked on the shoulder. The “Moth Effect” occurs when drivers are attracted to flashing lights or other things along the roadway, especially when fatigued.  The “Moth Effect” is most likely when visibility conditions are reduced at night or in fog or heavy rain which is common in Georgia. When required to stop due to extreme weather conditions, truckers should attempt to get to the next exit in order to avoid blocking the “clear area” on the roadside.

When presented with catastrophic crashes that involve a commercial motor vehicle parked by the side of the road, we investigate deeply and retain appropriate experts. We have to determine why the driver chose that particular spot to pull off and stop.  We normally download electronic control module data and other electronic records from both vehicles. How long had the truck been parked? Was there a dash cam video on either vehicle that could be evidence? Was it an actual emergency or mechanical failure? Was the driver failing to follow safety rules and simply stopped for a “break” on the roadside rather than in a safe place off the road? Did the truck driver have the ability to stop in a safer location?

If a family member is badly injured or killed in a collision with a tractor trailer parked on the roadside, call us at (404) 253-7962 for a consultation to see whether or not there is a viable case.

Ken Shigley is a 2019 recipient of the “Tradition of Excellence” Award from the State Bar of Georgia General Practice & Trial Section.

Mr. Shigley is the first Georgia lawyer to earn three national board certifications in his practice area from the National Board of Trial Advocacy – in Civil Trial Law, Civil Practice Law and Truck Accident Law. He is a board member of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, and former chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, which includes the Trucking Litigation Group. 

He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice, now in its tenth annual edition with Thomson Reuters West. His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation and burn injuries. 

In 2011-12, Mr. Shigley was president of the State  Bar of Georgia, which includes all the lawyers and judges in Georgia.  He also is a former chair of the Institute for Legal Education in Georgia (board member 2008-2019, chair 2012-13),  State Bar of Georgia Tort & Insurance Practice Section (1994-95), and the Georgia Insurance Law Institute (1994). 

A former prosecutor and former insurance defense lawyer, Mr. Shigley is a graduate of Furman University and Emory University Law School. He is a widower,  father of two adult children, and an elder in his church.

Over decades representing individuals and families devastated by highway crashes with large trucks, one of the most poorly understood hazards we have seen is that of tractor trailers parked on the side of the road. Among the hazards presented by semi trucks parked in the emergency lane is decapitation of people in an approaching car due to trailer underride.

Often late at night on Georgia highways, we see tractor trailers parked on what many people commonly refer to as the “emergency lane” next to the traffic lanes. Unfortunately, many people even in the trucking industry do not appreciate how dangerous this can be for the truck driver and for motoring public.

Stopping on the roadside increases risks of a potential deadly crash, which can be prevented through management practices that include good trip planning, vehicle inspections, and appropriate equipment maintenance.

Due to the severe risk posed by parking on the roadside, trucking company management should require drivers not to stop along the roadside in non-emergency situations. At the very least, trucking companies should instruct drivers to exit the highway and find a safe place to park when necessary.

The hazard is multiplied when large trucks park on the roadside at night without using hazard flashers and warning devices. Just about every time I make a road trip at night, I see an unilluminated tractor trailer parked in the dark inches from the traffic lane.

If a driver absolutely must stop on the side of the road, motor carriers should train drivers and dispatchers on actions that can be taken to reduce the risk of a loss in the event of a breakdown or other roadside emergency. Such actions include:

• Immediately turn on hazard flashers when slowing and leave them on while stopped.
• Immediately set out warning devices (reflective triangles or flares) in accordance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 CFR § 392.22.
• Keep marker lights on after dark.
• Avoid parking on curves or on the downside of undulated roads that obscure the approach of oncoming traffic.
• Park as far off the traveled roadway as safely possible. Remember shoulders can be soft and have a steep drop-off or ditch.
• When stopped, set parking brakes.
• Notify employer as soon as possible to arrange roadside assistance.
• Avoid falling into traffic by using three points of contact exiting /entering the cab or climbing onto the catwalk or trailer.
• Walk along the side of the vehicle opposite traffic.
• Watch out for debris or uneven surfaces when outside the vehicle.
• Use a visible flashlight after dark.
• Wear reflective clothing (such as a high visibility safety vest) when exiting the vehicle.

National highway design standards from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommend construction standards for shoulder and right of way design. This includes the removal of dangerous obstructions such as, trees, steep slopes, or abutments. The reason for this design standard is to clear the roadside of obstructions which hinder a motorist from being able to recover from an unintended departure from the roadway. They also recommend guardrails feasible to redirect errant vehicles back onto the paved portion of the roadway.

The Roadside Design Guide defines a clear zone as the total roadside border area, starting at the edge of the traveled way, available for safe use by errant vehicles. This area may consist of a shoulder, a recoverable slope, a non-recoverable slope, and/or a clear run-out area. The desired minimum width is dependent upon traffic volumes and speeds and on the roadside geometry. Simply stated, it is an unobstructed, relatively flat area beyond the edge of the traveled way that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that leaves the traveled way.

According to the Roadside Design Guide by the American Association of Highway Transportation Officials, highway shoulders, a clear zone is

The total roadside border area, starting at the edge of the traveled way, available for safe use by errant vehicles. This area may consist of a shoulder, a recoverable slope, a non-recoverable slope, and/or a clear run-out area. The desired minimum width is dependent upon traffic volumes and speeds and on the roadside geometry. Simply stated, it is an unobstructed, relatively flat area beyond the edge of the traveled way that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that leaves the traveled way.

The Clear Zone, is further defined as

An unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely, or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway. The width of the clear zone should be based on risk [of immediate danger]. Key factors in assessing risk include traffic volumes, speeds, and slopes. Clear roadsides consider both fixed objects and terrain that may cause vehicles to rollover.

Thus, the shoulder of the highway isn’t designed for parking at all. It is a “clear zone” or “recovery zone” and not a parking area. But every day we see 18-wheelers parked in the “recovery zone” or shoulder, over parked overnight and not illuminated.

Personal cars and trucks are doing the same thing, but the hazard they present is less severe. When a truck driver parks an 18-wheeler or other large Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) in on the shoulder of a highway in what is designed as a “Clear Zone,” the driver creates an eminent hazard to occupants any vehicle which may depart, for whatever reason, from the travel portion of the roadway.

Tractor trailers parked in the “clear zone” or “recovery zone” present a vastly greater danger to people in approaching cars that would another car parked in the same position. When a car veers out of its lane and collides with a stopped car of the same size, there may be serious injuries. But when the same car collides with an 80,000 pound tractor trailer, the physics of the collision is vastly different.   Semi-trucks are not only larger and heavier than regular vehicles, but their trailers also stand high off the ground. If a car traveling at highway speeds comes into contact with the trailer of an 18-wheeler, the big rig is the perfect height to sheer off the top of the car and kill or perhaps decapitate anyone inside.

Even if a parked semi-truck is illuminated at night, there is a recognized condition known as the “Moth Effect” which may contribute to an unwary driver running into a truck parked on the shoulder. The “Moth Effect” occurs when drivers are attracted to flashing lights or other things along the roadway, especially when fatigued.  The “Moth Effect” is especially likely when visibility conditions are reduced at night or in heavy rain which is common in Georgia.

When presented with catastrophic crashes that involve a commercial motor vehicle parked by the side of the road, we investigate deeply and retain appropriate experts. We have to determine why the driver chose that particular spot to pull off and stop.  We normally download electronic control module data and other electronic records from both vehicles. Was it an actual emergency or mechanical failure? Was the driver failing to follow safety rules and simply stopped for a “break.” Did the driver have the ability to stop in a safer location?

A lot of people who see these collisions and are uninformed on the safety standards involved assume that it is always the fault of the driver of the car that struck the parked tractor trailer. Thus, it is necessary to thoroughly investigate and, we hope, refute potential defenses. If the driver of the car had a cell phone, it is worth the cost to do a forensic download and rule out driver distraction from a cell phone at the time of the crash. A reliably conducted medical examination or autopsy is needed to rule out alcohol or drug use that may have contributed to cause of the crash.

If a loved one is killed or injured due to collision with a tractor trailer parked on the roadside, call us at (404) 253-7962 for a consultation to see whether or not there is a viable case.

Ken Shigley is recipient of the 2019 Tradition of Excellence Award from the State Bar of Georgia General Practice and Trial Section. He is a past president of the State Bar of Georgia, past chair of the State Bar’s Tort & Insurance Practice Section, past chair of the Georgia Insurance Law Institute, past chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, and a member of the board of governors of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys. He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice (Thomson Reuters West, 2010-2018). His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation and burn injuries. He is licensed to practice law in Georgia. Representation of clients in others states, which possible, can be undertaken only in strict compliance with the multijurisdictional practice and pro hac vice rules of the other state.

In handling Georgia wrongful death cases in which the victim had very little conscious survival time, we often have to address the question whether to make a claim for pain and suffering before death.

In Georgia, wrongful death cases may include two separate claims.

First is the wrongful death claim for “full value of the life” which belongs to family members designated by O.C.G.A. § 51-4-2 – spouse, children or parents. Recovery for the “full value of the life” includes both economic and intangible components and is not subject to claim of the decedent’s creditors and medical providers.

Second is a “survival action” authorized by O.C.G.A. § 9-2-41 and brought by the administrator or executor of the decedent’s estate for pain and suffering, medical expense and funeral expenses. Any recovery under this claim is subject to claims of creditors.

In many of the cases we see, particularly truck crashes, the decedent loses consciousness rather quickly and survival time is short. However, if a credible claim for pain and suffering can be made, it can add substantial value to a jury verdict.

Moreover, the estate’s claim may be a necessary piece of the puzzle in order to make a claim for punitive damages based upon months or years of the corporation’s independent negligence in hiring, training and supervising employees extending far beyond the momentary negligence of an employee, e.g., a truck driver, who should never have been entrusted with an 80,000 pound tractor trailer in the first place.

This is especially important when a corporation admits ordinary negligence on the part of the employee and admits that the employee was in course and scope of employment. Some judges apparently do not  understand or care how often the root cause of a tragic crash lies in management practices that turn a blind eye to safety. Such judges have created precedents exclude evidence of mismanagement leading to the crash in that scenario.

But if there is a claim for punitive damages for the company’s patterns and practices that show conscious disregard for safety, evidence of unsafe management practice may be admissible. Because punitive damages are not recoverable in wrongful death cases in Georgia, the survival action gains greater importance. Thus, the pain and suffering claim that might in other circumstances be superfluous becomes a key element in bringing corporate misconduct to light and obtaining full justice.

1. Mental pain and suffering in before and during a fatal crash.

In Georgia, a jury may infer consciousness of impending death, and thus mental pain and suffering, from evidence immediately prior to impact or following her injury. Department of Transp. v. Dupree, 256 Ga.App. 668, 570 S.E.2d 1(2002).

During a crash, even if the survival time before death was extremely brief, jurors may reasonably infer that the victim experienced both severe physical pain and fear of impending death in those moments. That alone can be sufficient to support a genuine issue of material fact for jury determination.

In Walker v. Daniels, 200 Ga.App. 150, 156 (3), 407 S.E.2d 70 76 (1991), the defense contended that the decedent could not have had any consciousness between injury and death due to a blunt impact to his neck in the diving area of a university swimming pool.  However, there was evidence from which a jury could have determined that he either was or not conscious when he inhaled water that was the immediate cause of drowning. Thus, the court held, “Under this evidence, questions concerning the decedent’s pain and suffering were for the jury to decide.”

2. Physician’s testimony about presuming pain despite apparent absence of consciousness.

Treating physicians may testify that they treat for pain even when a patient appears unconscious, and are careful talking about a comatose patient because so many patients wake up and report hearing conversations while everyone though they were comatose. Such medical testimony can be crucial in supporting a claim for pain and suffering despite a patient’s unresponsiveness.

The Reference Manual on Scientific Testimony recognizes that “treating physicians are generally permitted to testify” and “treating physicians’ testimony is often given greater weight than testimony from physicians who have not examined the patient.” Reference Manual on Scientific Testimony 449, n. 41(2d Ed.).

“A physician may be asked to testify about the physical condition of a plaintiff, diagnosis, treatment, causes of the plaintiff’s condition, or prognosis.” Id. at 439.  The methodology and data that treating physicians reasonably consider good grounds for opinions or inferences in medical practice are sufficiently reliable to form the basis of a qualified medical expert’s testimony in court. Whether a patient under his direct care experienced pain before her death is quintessentially a matter within the scope of a treating physician’s testimony.

It is well established that the opinion, diagnosis, and medical evidence of treating physicians should be accorded substantial weight unless “good cause” is shown for not doing so.  Treating physicians can generally “express an opinion as to ‘the cause of any medical condition presented in a patient, the diagnosis, the prognosis and the extent of the disability, if any, caused by the injury.”

See, e.g., Cohen v. Lockwood, 2004 WL 763961 (D.Kan. 2004) (unpublished opinion); Zanowic v. Ashcroft, 2002 WL 373229, 52 Fed.R.Serv.3d 702 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (unpublished opinion) at *2(quoting Shapardon v. West Beach Estates, 172 F.R.D. 415, 416 (D.Haw. 1997); Laski v. Bellwood, 132 F.3d 33 (6th Cir.1997)(trial court abused its discretion by not permitting treating physicians to testify about cause of plaintiff’s back pain); Mangla v. Univ. of Rochester, 168 F.R.D. 137, 139 (W.D.N.Y. 1996); Santoro v. Signature Const., Inc., 2002 WL 31059292 (S.D.N.Y., 2002)  (unpublished opinion). See also, Pittman v. ANR Freight Systems, Inc., 2002 WL 2026257 (6th Cir., 2002) (unpublished opinion); McGregor v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 2004 WL 68692 (9th Cir., 2004).

In a case we successfully handled recently, the attending physician who supervised the victim’s care from her arrival in the emergency room until her death gave expert testimony that in the hospital she was moaning, breathing on her own, and that he believed she experienced pain during her hospitalization until the time of death.

We contended that expert medical testimony was sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact for jury determination, and to require denial of summary judgment. The affidavit from Defendants’ specially retained medical expert did no more than set up an opposing argument to present to the jury.

There were no reported Georgia decision directly on point. However, decisions by courts in other jurisdictions with laws consistent with Georgia law are helpful. In Kretek v. Board of Commissioners of Luna County, 2014 WL 11621697 D. New Mexico, decided Feb. 26, 2014), testimony of the treating physician was equivocal about the nature and degree of suffering the patient may have experience while comatose prior to death. Thus, the court denied a motion in limine to exclude the physician’s testimony on this issue.

Thus, if the potential for financial recovery far exceeds any medical liens or creditor claims, it may be worthwhile to raise a claim for pain and suffering even if the decedent’s survival time was brief. Other times, if the potential for recovery is more limited and creditors’ potential claims are substantial, it may not be worth it.

Ken Shigley is a 2019 recipient of the “Tradition of Excellence” Award from the State Bar of Georgia General Practice & Trial Section.

Mr. Shigley is the first Georgia lawyer to earn three national board certifications in his practice area from the National Board of Trial Advocacy – in Civil Trial Law, Civil Practice Law and Truck Accident Law. He is a board member of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, and former chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, which includes the Trucking Litigation Group. 

He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice, now in its tenth annual edition with Thomson Reuters West. His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation and burn injuries. 

In 2011-12, Mr. Shigley was president of the State  Bar of Georgia, which includes all the lawyers and judges in Georgia.  He also is a former chair of the Institute for Legal Education in Georgia (board member 2008-2019, chair 2012-13),  State Bar of Georgia Tort & Insurance Practice Section (1994-95), and the Georgia Insurance Law Institute (1994). 

A former prosecutor and former insurance defense lawyer, Mr. Shigley is a graduate of Furman University and Emory University Law School. He is a widower,  father of two adult children, and an elder in his church.

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Georgia recognized that Georgia law of negligent entrustment follows the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390, without reservation or exception. Restatement § 390 provides:

One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them.

Zaldivar v. Prickett, 297 Ga. 589, 602-03, 774 S.E.2d 688, 697 (2015), et cit. (Majority opinion by Justice Blackwell, dissent by Justice Benham on apportionment issue only).

A 1997 Court of Appeals decision said that the Georgia rule on negligent entrustment is narrower than the Restatement rule, requiring actual rather constructive knowledge. Carolina Cable Contractors, Inc. v. Hattaway, 226 Ga.App. 413, 416 (4), 487 S.E.2d 53 (1997)(Smith, J.) (physical precedent only). However, because that decision is “physical precedent only” it is not binding on lower courts.

Moreover, circumstantial evidence can be used to prove actual knowledge. Carolina Cable, 226 Ga. App. at 416-17.  The direct evidence of degrees of actual knowledge is circumstantial evidence from which jurors may reasonably infer a greater degree of actual knowledge than that to which a trucking company admits.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 CFR § 391.23, requires interstate motor carriers to investigate the driving background of driver applicants. “The investigation may consist of personal interviews, telephone interviews, letters, or any other method for investigating that the carrier deems appropriate.” 49 CFR § 391.23 (c)(2). The minimum required includes requests for information to prior employers and checking state motor vehicle records.

However, that is only the “minimum” required. 49 CFR § 391.23(d). “By the regulations’ own terms, employers may investigate driver employment histories and driving records beyond the minimum standards established by the regulations themselves. The trucking industry’s needs and concerns involving drivers extend to a range of past accidents, incidents, mishaps, occurrences and events well beyond those encompassed by § 390.5.” Cassara v. DAC Services, Inc., 276 F.3d 1210, 1225 (10^th Cir., 2002) It is a floor not a ceiling, for checking driver backgrounds. If a motor carrier has actual knowledge of a collision within the previous three years that is not revealed in those records, a duty arises to check the accuracy of the driver applicant’s self-serving description of the incident.

A Plaintiff may get to a jury “by showing that an employer had actual knowledge of numerous and serious violations on its driver’s record, or, at the very least, when the employer has flouted a legal duty to check a record showing such violations.” Mastec North America, Inc. v. Wilson, 325 Ga.App. 863, 755 S.E.2d 257, 259-60 (2014); Western Indus. v. Poole, 280 Ga.App. 378, 380(1), 634 S.E.2d 118 (2006); Smith v. Tommy Roberts Trucking Co., 209 Ga.App. 826, 829–830(3), 435 S.E.2d 54 (1993).

Circumstantial evidence of knowledge of such factors of incompetency is sufficient to create a question of fact for jury determination on the issue of negligent entrustment. It is sufficient to show knowledge on the part of the entruster by presenting facts from which it could reasonably be inferred that the entruster knew of the driver’s poor driving habits or skills. CGL Facility Management, LLC v. Wiley, 328 Ga. App. 727, 732-33 (2), 760 S.E.2d 251 (2014) (allowing the claim to go to the jury because there was a question of fact where the employer could have had knowledge of the driver’s incompetence based on prior incidents); Dougherty Equipment Co., 327 Ga.App. 434, 439(2), 757 S.E.2d 885 (2014); Ed Sherwood Chevrolet v. McAuley, 164 Ga.App. 798, 802(1), 298 S.E.2d 565 (1982). Cf., Gill Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Macon, 187 Ga.App. 481, 483 (2) 370 S.E.2d 657, 659 (1988)(sufficient to show facts from which knowledge of driver’s poor driving habits or skills could be inferred).

Even if any one of these factors standing alone might be enough to create a jury question on negligent entrustment, the overlapping combination of several pertinent factors may be sufficient to authorize jurors to rationally conclude that a trucking company was aware that it was unsafe to entrust an employee to operate a large truck, at least without further training or in some instances evaluation of sleep disorders.

Such claims are extremely fact-sensitive and must be evaluated in light of the specific combination of facts in each case.

If you have questions about a serious injury or wrongful death case in Georgia, contact us at 404-253-7862.

Ken Shigley is a 2019 recipient of the “Tradition of Excellence” Award from the State Bar of Georgia General Practice & Trial Section.

Mr. Shigley is the first Georgia lawyer to earn three national board certifications in his practice area from the National Board of Trial Advocacy – in Civil Trial Law, Civil Practice Law and Truck Accident Law. He is a board member of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, and former chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, which includes the Trucking Litigation Group. 

He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice, now in its tenth annual edition with Thomson Reuters West. His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation and burn injuries. 

In 2011-12, Mr. Shigley was president of the State  Bar of Georgia, which includes all the lawyers and judges in Georgia.  He also is a former chair of the Institute for Legal Education in Georgia (board member 2008-2019, chair 2012-13),  State Bar of Georgia Tort & Insurance Practice Section (1994-95), and the Georgia Insurance Law Institute (1994). 

A former prosecutor and former insurance defense lawyer, Mr. Shigley is a graduate of Furman University and Emory University Law School. He is a widower,  father of two adult children, and an elder in his church.

However, in many cases the claim of negligent hiring is not “merely duplicative” as the company’s  corporate conduct in turning a blind eye to safety that may have been the actual root cause of the tragedy. Negligent hiring of a truck driver  is a separate and distinct theory of liability from negligent entrustment of a truck to the driver.

The Georgia Supreme Court has approved Restatement of Torts 2d, § 213 Principal Negligent or Reckless. See e.g., Munroe v. Universal Health Services, Inc., 277 Ga. 861,862 (1), 596 S.E.2d 604, 405-06 (2004); Harvey Freeman & Sons, Inc. v. Stanley, 259 Ga. 233(2), 378 S.E.2d 857 (1989).

Restatement of Torts 2d, § 213 states:

A person conducting an activity through servants or other agents is subject to liability for harm resulting from his conduct if he is negligent or reckless: . . .

. . .

(b) in the employment of improper persons or instrumentalities in work involving risk of harm to others:

(c) in the supervision of the activity . . . .

In  Munroe, supra, the Supreme Court held that “a defendant employer has a duty to exercise ordinary care not to hire or retain an employee the employer knew or should have known posed a risk of harm to others where it is reasonably foreseeable from the employee’s ‘tendencies’ or propensities that the employee could cause the type of harm sustained by the plaintiff.”

The Court held, “the relevant question is whether [the defendant] knew or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known that … the employee it hired and retained to perform duties …. was unsuitable for that position because he posed a reasonably foreseeable risk of personal harm” to persons like the plaintiff.”  Accord, Coe v. Carroll & Carroll, Inc., 308 Ga.App. 777, 786 (2011); Cooper v. Marten Transport, Ltd., 2012 WL 12358220 (N.D. Ga., decided Feb. 23, 2012); Munroe v. Universal Health Services, Inc., 277 Ga. 861,862 (1), 596 S.E.2d 604, 405-06 (2004); Piney Grove Baptist Church v. Goss, 255 Ga.App. 380(2), 565 S.E.2d 569 (2002); Georgia Electric Co. v. Smith, 108 Ga.App. 851, 854(1), 134 S.E.2d 840 (1964).

The Georgia Supreme Court has repeatedly held that in order that a party may be liable as for negligence, “it is not necessary that he should have contemplated or even be able to anticipate the particular consequences which ensued, or the precise injuries sustained by the plaintiff. It is sufficient if, by exercise of reasonable care, the defendant might have foreseen that some injury would result from his act or omission, or that consequences of a generally injurious nature might have been expected.” See, e.g.,  Smith v. Finch, 285 Ga. 709, 712, 681 S.E.2d 147 (2009).

We have seen truck crash cases in which truck drivers had driving records or medical conditions, either when hired or that developed over time, that were medically disqualifying to drive a tractor trailer, but employers just turned a blind eye to information that was right in front of their eyes. Some of those hazards could have been remedied if an employer had simply required the employee to go to a sleep specialist.

Thus, it is important to explore the root causes  of a tragedy that started long before the moment in which a truck driver did something that was the immediate cause of a crash. Often the forces were set in motion by the very act of hiring an incompetent truck driver, leading inexorably to disaster on the road.

If you have questions about a serious injury or wrongful death case in Georgia, contact us at 404-253-7862.

 is a past president of the State Bar of Georgia, past chair of the State Bar’s Tort & Insurance Practice Section, past chair of the Georgia Insurance Law Institute, past chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, and a member of the board of governors of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys. He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice (Thomson Reuters West, 2010-2018). His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation and burn injuries. He is licensed to practice law in Georgia. Representation of clients in others states, which possible, can be undertaken only in strict compliance with the multijurisdictional practice and pro hac vice rules of the other state.

When my father’s generation came home from World War II, many of them carried psychological scars about which they kept quiet. My parents married young, at 21 and 18, the week he returned from combat in 1945. My mother said that dad fought the air war over Europe every night in his sleep for at least a decade. The longer-term ramifications of that played out in many ways throughout his life. As he lay dying over six decades later, he began to tell me for the first time the war experiences that had haunted him most through his life.

Recently, I was with a nurse practitioner and a community mental health counselor during their impromptu discussion of the ramifications of PTSD that they see regularly in dealing with people on the front lines of medicine and mental health. They rattled off numerous examples of what they almost daily among veterans of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and survivors of a variety non-combat traumas.

When dad came home from WW2, there was no widely accepted medical name for this condition. The terms “shell shock” and “battle fatigue” were used, but were generally limited to debilitating short term reactions to battle in wartime rather than the chronic reactions that can stretch out over decades.

The term PTSD was not given a standard psychiatric definition until 1980 when the American Psychiatric Association (APA) added PTSD to the third edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice.

PTSD through history

From cave men attacked by saber tooth tigers to victims of twenty-first century terrorists, humans have always suffered similar psychological outcomes of violence. Over 400 years ago, Shakespeare in “Henry IV” presaged the modern diagnostic criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), describing the post-battle condition of a character:

Tell me, sweet lord, what is ‘t that takes from thee
Thy stomach, pleasure, and thy golden sleep?
Why dost thou bend thine eyes upon the earth,
And start so often when thou sit’st alone?
Why hast thou lost the fresh blood in thy cheeks
And given my treasures and my rights of thee
To thick-eyed musing and curst melancholy?
In thy faint slumbers I by thee have watched,
And heard thee murmur tales of iron wars,
Speak terms of manage to thy bounding steed,
Cry “Courage! To the field!” And thou hast talk’d
Of sallies and retires, of trenches, tents,
Of palisadoes, frontiers, parapets,
Of basilisks, of cannon, culverin,
Of prisoners’ ransom and of soldiers slain,
And all the currents of a heady fight.
Thy spirit within thee hath been so at war
And thus hath so bestirred thee in thy sleep,
That beads of sweat have stood upon thy brow
Like bubbles in a late-disturbèd stream;
And in thy face strange motions have appeared,
Such as we see when men restrain their breath
On some great sudden hest. O, what portents are these?
Some heavy business hath my lord in hand,
And I must know it, else he loves me not.”
—Henry IV, Part 1 (2.3.39-67)

As a lawyer accustomed to dealing with clients who have been seriously injured or lost a loved one killed in a crash with a car or tractor trailer, the tendency is often to focus on the physical injuries – broken bones, back injuries, neck injuries, chronic pain, etc. It is easy to overlook the silent injury of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), or to confuse it with a traumatic brain injury.

What is PTSD?

PTSD is officially recognized as a mental health condition that some people develop after experiencing or witnessing a life-threatening event.  The diagnostic criteria are outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, currently in the Fifth Edition, known as the DSM-5©.

In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association revised the PTSD diagnostic criteria and included PTSD in a new category Trauma- and Stressor-Related Conditions.  The diagnostic criterion for all of the conditions included in this new classification require exposure to a traumatic or stressful event.

The DSM-5 criteria for PTSD, ICD-9 309.81 or ICD-10 F43.10, for adults, adolescents and children over 6 years old are as follows (the DSM-5 has separate criteria for children 6 years and younger) 2:

Criterion A (one required) – the person was exposed to death or actual serious injury in the following way(s):

• Directly experiencing the traumatic event
• Witnessing the event as it occurred to others
• Learning the traumatic event occurred to a relative or close friend
• Indirect exposure to aversive details of the trauma

Criterion B (one required) – the traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s):

• Unwanted upsetting memories
• Nightmares
• Flashbacks
• Emotional distress after exposure to traumatic reminders
• Physical reactivity after exposure to traumatic reminders

Criterion C (one required) – avoidance of trauma-related stimuli after the trauma in the following way(s):

• Trauma-related thoughts or feelings
• Trauma-related reminders

Criterion D (two required) – negative thoughts or feelings that began or worsened after the trauma in the following ways:

• Inability to recall key features of the trauma
• Overly negative thoughts and assumptions about oneself or the world
• Exaggerated blame of self or others for causing the trauma
• Negative affect
• Decreased interest in activities
• Feeling isolated
• Difficulty experiencing positive affect

Criterion E (two required) – trauma-related arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the trauma in the following ways:

• Irritability or aggression
• Risky or destructive behavior
• Hypervigilance
• Heightened startled reaction
• Difficulty concentrating
• Difficulty sleeping

Criterion F (required) – symptoms last for more than 1 month

Criterion G (required) – symptoms create distress or functional impairment

Criterion H (required) – symptoms are not due to medication, substance abuse or other illness

When can PTSD appear after trauma?

Symptoms of PTSD usually begin within the first three months after the trauma, although there may be a delay of months, or even years, before criteria for the diagnosis are met. The DSM-5 refers to this as “delayed expression” with the recognition that while some symptoms typically appear immediately, others are often delayed.

Often a person’s reaction to trauma initially meets criteria for Acute Stress Disorder immediately after experiencing a traumatic event, but Acute Stress Disorder is distinguished from PTSD because the symptoms are restricted to a duration of three days to one month. The duration of PTSD symptoms varies with complete recovery within three months occurring in approximately 50% of adults. I had some of this after I was hurt in an explosion. For months, I looked away whenever there was an explosion on TV and was timid about lighting a gas grill. But that reaction passed.

However, some individuals remain symptomatic for more than 12 months and some for more than 50 years. There were times when an elderly neighbor stood in his driveway and openly wept about things he had experienced over sixty years earlier as a Marine on Peleliu and Iwo Jima.

Research indicates that PTSD is more prevalent in females and they experience PTSD for a longer duration on average than do males.   PTSD is associated with high levels of social, occupational and physical disability as well as considerable economic costs and high levels of medical utilization.

What are risk factors for PTSD in some people but not others?

Risk factors may increase a person’s chances of getting post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) compared to others who seem mentally unscarred by similar experiences Some of those risk factors include experiences of:

• Long-lasting, never-ending trauma
• Intense, severe trauma
• Situations that put one at greater risk for harm, such as first responders or those in the military
• History of substance, alcohol, or drug abuse
• A loss earlier in childhood, such as abuse or neglect.
• History of other mental health concerns or mental illness
• Few friends or close family members they can rely on for emotional support
• A history of mental illness within their family

How is PTSD involved after motor vehicle collisions?

Most people who are hurt in routine car and truck wrecks do not have PTSD. They may have some short term anxiety but nothing that rises to the level of PTSD. We have all had stressful conditions that we endured, sucked it up, and went on. When I was an insurance defense lawyer, I routinely sliced and diced psychologists who testified for exaggerated claims of PTSD that stretched beyond the diagnostic criteria.

However, there are vehicles crashes in which PTSD is a realistic issue. One study found that about 9% of motor vehicle crash survivors have symptoms of PTSD. Examples can include:

• A crash survivor who witnesses the death and sees the mangled corpse of a parent, spouse or child in the wreckage.
• A guy who was spun out of the line of impact when a tractor trailer ran over stopped traffic, so that he had minor physical injuries while everyone in the vehicle behind and in front of him was killed.
• A person trapped wide awake with the lifeless corpse of a family member until they are discovered, and as first responders labored to extract them.
• People who survived crashes in which they feared the immediate death of themselves or family members.

Any such experience in a car or truck crash is frightening, and it’s very common to experience a number of symptoms associated with PTSD, including:

• Feelings of anxiety and increased heart rate when you’re faced with reminders of the event.
• Hearing a horn honk or brakes screeching may automatically activate a fear response.
• Because of the anxiety that often follows an MVA, it’s natural that you may want to avoid some situations or experience hesitation at times, such as driving on the highway.
• Nervousness when driving or riding as a passenger, startling easily in traffic.
• Being more watchful. You’re more likely to scan your environment for potential sources of threats (for example, people driving too fast).

While we are careful to avoid exaggeration of on minor degrees of PTSD symptoms in auto and truck crash cases, we are alert to the need to have clients evaluated when appropriate for more serious and long-term PTSD symptoms. Whether mild or severe, credible PTSD symptoms can be presented as part of mental pain and suffering in car and truck crash cases.

If you have questions about a serious injury or wrongful death case in Georgia, contact us at 404-253-7862.

 is a past president of the State Bar of Georgia, past chair of the State Bar’s Tort & Insurance Practice Section, past chair of the Georgia Insurance Law Institute, past chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, and a member of the board of governors of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys. He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice (Thomson Reuters West, 2010-2018). His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation and burn injuries. He is licensed to practice law in Georgia. Representation of clients in others states, which possible, can be undertaken only in strict compliance with the multijurisdictional practice and pro hac vice rules of the other state.

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled on 11/7/2016 that outgoing text messages found in a cell phone are admissible in evidence as admissions of the person who sent them. However, incoming text messages are inadmissible hearsay, though their admission in evidence was “harmless” under the circumstances of the case. Glispie v. State, decided November 7, 2016.

This ruling arose in the context of the criminal prosecution of an alleged drug dealer. That would have been a great interest in my past life as a prosecutor, though of course cell phones had not been invented when I was sending criminals to prison.

Text messages can be obtained by law enforcement with a search warrant based upon probable cause to examine the contents of a cell phone. If I were still a prosecutor, I would probably seek search warrants for contents of cell phones in a lot of cases.

In the civil context, however, we do not have that option. We cannot get search warrants in civil cases. Cell phone service providers, e.g., AT&T, Verizon, etc., typically do not keep text messages in the system more than perhaps 72 hours.

The only way to obtain those in a civil case is to obtain a court order for a forensic download of the phone. In addition to records of voice calls placed and received (though not the content of the calls, and text messages, forensic examination of wireless devices such as cell phones can reveal patterns of conduct and communication, including the times that the driver was using an app, typing a text, or watching a video.  It has location history for the phone, showing where the driver was at various points in time.  It includes calls, texts and emails between the driver and the trucking company.  It may include records of communications with employer personnel inconsistent with prudent driver supervision by a motor carrier regarding fatigue management.

Parties opposing forensic download of a cell phone may assert claim of personal privacy. However, where the cell phone user killed someone, that fact may outweigh personal privacy. A trial court judge would be justified in ordering the download subject to a protective order limiting delicate personal information to use in the case after in camera review by the court.

Ken Shigley was an Assistant District Attorney in Paulding County in the last 1970’s. he is a past president of the State Bar of Georgia, past chair of the State Bar’s Tort & Insurance Practice Section, past chair of the Georgia Insurance Law Institute, past chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, and a member of the board of governors of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys. He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice (Thomson Reuters West, 2010-2018). His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from auto accidents, commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation and burn injuries. 

A tractor-trailer pulled from the highway shoulder in front of an approaching SUV on I-95 in Jasper County, SC, just north of Savannah, about 9:30 PM Wednesday night, August 8, 2018. The impact killed Raymond Jackson, Jr., driver of the approaching vehicle, a 1999 Ford Expedition. This happened about 3 miles north of the Georgia-South Carolina line, between the Savannah River and Hardeeville.

Initial news reports  of this crash involving vehicles emerging from Georgia do not identify the trucker, the trucking company or the person killed.  If all had Georgia residence at the time, then potentially a Georgia court might apply some points of Georgia law different from South Carolina law, such as the measure of damages and procedures regarding wrongful death claims.

Visibility of tractor trailers at night is a huge problem nationally.  All large commercial motor vehicles are required to have red and white reflective tape and/or conspicuity sheeting  to help make them visible to oncoming traffic. The tape often becomes dirty and worn, making it less effective. In addition, it loses effectiveness when viewed at an angle, such as when a truck is merging from the shoulder into traffic. The regulations are a bare minimum and prudent trucking companies exceed the minimum.

Recently I participated in a national truck driving and safety program for lawyers at a truck driving school’s proving ground in Montana. We went through night time exercises to check the distance and time for recognition of hazards on a dark road. Without getting into stopwatch and distance measurement numbers, it would be nearly impossible for a motorist approaching at the speed limit in the dark to perceive that a poorly illuminated tractor trailer is slowly merging from the shoulder into the roadway in time to react and avoid the hazard. In such situations, the driver of an oncoming vehicle may be a “sitting duck” unable to avoid a tragic crash.

In addition, merging a tractor trailer from the emergency or breakdown lane of the highway into oncoming traffic is highly dangerous even in daylight. The truck driver was charged with failure to yield right of way. South Carolina Code Section  56-5-2350, vehicle entering roadway, provides,

“The driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed.”

If a wrongful death claim were made in South Carolina for the surviving spouse, children or other heirs of the person killed, it would be under the South Carolina wrongful death statute.

Any vehicle that stops on the shoulder of a highway must eventually merge back onto the highway from the shoulder emergency lane.  For trucks, because of their great size and weight, this is very dangerous. It takes a lot more time for a tractor trailer to accelerate to highway speed than it does for a passenger car.  That is why truck drivers are trained not to use the shoulder emergency lane unless they absolutely must. Because of their great weight, large trucks also take much longer to accelerate and safely match the speed of traffic so they can merge.

Experts such as my Ohio friend Michael Leizerman say that once a truck is ready to move from the shoulder emergency lane and reenter the flow of traffic, the truck driver should first deactivate the emergency hazard flashers. Then the truck driver should activate the left turn signal and and begin to accelerate the truck while still  in the shoulder lane.  Using the emergency lane as an acceleration lane the truck driver should reach a speed close to that of traffic and watch for an safe space to merge into.  The duty is on the truck driver to make sure that he can safely merge into traffic without causing an accident.

Turning the left turn signal on notifies other motorists that the semi-truck is going from a stopped condition to a mobile condition. The left turn signal should not be activated until the truck is ready to move — while the truck is immobile the emergency lights should be on at all times.

The Commercial Drivers License (CDL) Manual is essentially identical in all states though each state issues it with different cover and introductory material. In handling truck crash cases, we refer to the CDL manual of the state in which the truck accident occurs, the state in which the truck driver is licensed and the state in which the company is based. The South Carolina version of the CDL manual includes the following instructions:

2.4 – Seeing. To be a safe driver you need to know what’s going
on all around your vehicle. Not looking properly is a
major cause of accidents.

. . .

2.4.2 – Seeing to the Sides and Rear
It’s important to know what’s going on behind and to
the sides. Check your mirrors regularly. Check more
often in special situations.

Mirror Adjustment. Mirror adjustment should be
checked prior to the start of any trip and can only be
checked accurately when the trailer(s) are straight.
You should check and adjust each mirror to show
some part of the vehicle. This will give you a
reference point for judging the position of the other
images.

Regular Checks. You need to make regular checks
of your mirrors to be aware of traffic and to check
your vehicle.

Traffic. Check your mirrors for vehicles on either
side and in back of you. In an emergency, you may
need to know whether you can make a quick lane
change. Use your mirrors to spot overtaking
vehicles. There are “blind spots” that your mirrors
cannot show you. Check your mirrors regularly to
know where other vehicles are around you, and to
see if they move into your blind spots.

. . .

Special Situations. Special situations require more
than regular mirror checks. These are lane
changes, turns, merges, and tight maneuvers.
Lane Changes. You need to check your mirrors to
make sure no one is alongside you or about to pass
you. Check your mirrors:

Before you change lanes to make sure
there is enough room.
After you have signaled, to check that no
one has moved into your blind spot.
Right after you start the lane change, to
double-check that your path is clear.
After you complete the lane change.

. . .

Merges. When merging, use your mirrors to make
sure the gap in traffic is large enough for you to
enter safely.

. . .

2.5 – Communicating
2.5.1 – Signal Your Intentions
Other drivers can’t know what you are going to do
until you tell them.
Signaling what you intend to do is important for
safety. . . .

An 80,000 pound semi truck does not take off with great speed from a standing stop when entering the highway from a parked position on the shoulder of a highway. The handling is simply not the same as a sports car. Thus, a professional truck driver must allow plenty of time and space to enter traffic lanes from the highway shoulder.

We have handled truck accident cases in which truck drivers decided it was a great idea to pull into a traffic lane within a few car length of a car approaching at highway speed, with predictable results. In one such incident, the truck driver was medically impaired by chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), a disqualifying condition. It would have barred him from driving if disclosed to the DOT medical examiner. When I took the deposition of the truck driver’s personal physician, he testified that the trucker’s COPD was so severe he was not supposed to go anywhere without an oxygen tank and the lack of oxygen to the brain could have cognitive effects.

News reports of the crash on I-95 this week do not indicate why the truck driver chose to park on the shoulder at night. Nothing short of unforeseeable mechanical breakdown would justify that dangerous choice. Media reports also do not indicate why the trucker pulled into the path of an approaching vehicle without yielding the right of way. Was it due to fatigue, physical or cognitive impairment, distraction, or some other cause?

For an experienced trucking attorney, this appears to be a case of clear liability even though the insurance company’s lawyers would undoubtedly try to blame the victim who happened upon a truck executing a highly dangerous maneuver in the dark.

Ken Shigley is a past president of the State Bar of Georgia, past chair of the State Bar’s Tort & Insurance Practice Section, past chair of the Georgia Insurance Law Institute, past chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, and a member of the board of governors of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys. He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice (Thomson Reuters West, 2010-2018). His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation and burn injuries. He is licensed to practice law in Georgia. Representation of clients in others states, which possible, can be undertaken only in strict compliance with the multijurisdictional practice and pro hac vice rules of the other state.

Much of our Atlanta-based litigation law practice is based upon referrals from other attorneys around Georgia and North America for catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases in Georgia. Most of these are not simple, slam-dunk cases. Often we have to contend with a rat’s nest of convoluted, multi-layered liability defenses. Among those is often the “independent contractor” defense. The company that is the prime mover in an activity may cloak itself behind an “independent contractor” shell game, capturing most of the profits while trying to outsource all the risks of harm to others.

Here is a paper I presented on overcoming the independent contractor defense at a national continuing legal education program in New Orleans in 2012. While I haven’t updated it lately, covered all the nuances or included all the Georgia case citations, it does outline major issues in seeking to get through this particular maze.

Effective representation of a seriously injured person requires that counsel reach the pockets of a responsible entity with sufficient insurance coverage or assets to pay a judgment. That often requires reaching behind a screen of independent contractor business relationships erected to evade financial responsibility. The general rule is that a defendant is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, but there are many exceptions.  While not comprehensive, this paper seeks to outline major theories for overcoming the independent contractor defense.

Interstate Motor Carriers

Prior to 1956, interstate motor carriers commonly sought to evade financial responsibility by hiding behind “independent contractor” arrangements. In 1953, while addressing carriers’ evasion of  accountability similar to that engaged in by the ATF in this case, the United States Supreme Court described such practices as “evils that had grown up” in the industry, and that the ICC need not “sit idly by and wink at practices that lead to violations of its provisions.” American Trucking Ass’ns v. United States, 344 U.S. 298, 301, 311 (1953).  Those “evils” were summarized in Rediehs Express, Inc. v. Maple, 491 N.E.2d 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986):

The history of the regulations of motor carriers reveals that after the commencement of regulation in 1935, . . .  a substantial number of carriers . . . began to use equipment owned and driven by truckers who had no such ICC operating authority. This use was accomplished by a variety of leases, trip leases, and by other arrangements under which owner-operator truckers carried on the operations of the carriers with operating authority.  In contracting with such persons the carriers took care to constitute the lessors as independent contractors which enabled them to avoid the commission’s safety, financial, and insurance regulations that had been prescribed for equipment and drivers in order to protect the public. Many of the owner-operators without authority were itinerant truckers known as “gypsies,” fly-by-night truckers with poor, unsafe equipment who had little financial ability. They may or may not have had adequate insurance. The hard core of the problem was the trip lease and its attendant evils which permitted an indifferent carrier to evade its safety and financial responsibility. . . . The practice of leasing made it difficult in accident cases to fix responsibility, and certified carriers could thus escape the consequences of the regulations and responsibility for accidents by employing irresponsible persons as independent contractors who were not financially accountable and who had no insurance or were under-insured.

“The use of non-owned vehicles led to public confusion as to who was financially responsible for accidents caused by those vehicles.” Graham v. Malone Freight Lines, Inc., 948 F.Supp. 1124, n.3 (D. Mass. 1996).   Thus, interstate motor carriers often “were able to escape liability for virtually all motor vehicle accidents occurring in the motor carrier’s business.”  Cincinnati v. Haack, 708 N.E.2d 214 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). In such cases, it was “clear that the scheme as a whole is a mere subterfuge, an unpermitted evasion, not a real avoidance of the provisions of the law.”  Georgia Truck System, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 123 F.2d 210 (5^th Cir. 1941), as it was “the motor carrier who has put the entire trip in motion,”American Transit Lines v. Smith, 246 F.2d 86, 87 (6^th Cir. 1957).

Since 1956, federal law has treated independent contractors as statutory employees of a motor carrier in the interstate motor carrier context.  The 1956 amendment to the Interstate Common Carrier Act was intended to require a motor carrier to be fully responsible for the maintenance and operation of the leased equipment and the supervision of the borrowed drivers, thereby protecting the public from accidents, preventing public confusion about who was financially responsible if accidents occurred, and providing financially responsible defendants.  Price v. Westmoreland, 727 F.2d 494 (5th Cir. 1984); Morris v. JTM Materials, supra. “These are basic requirements that are inherent in the relation of the for-hire carrier to the public. When they are lacking, the chaotic conditions that preceded enactment of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935 inevitably ensue.” Cox v. Bond Transp., Inc., 249 A.2d 579 (N.J. 1969).  The purpose is “to protect persons who are injured in highway accidents, by increasing the likelihood that a substantial entity will be available to respond to any judgment rendered.”  Johnson v. Pacific Intermountain Express Co., 662 S.W.2d 237 (Mo. 1983).  This eliminates “the defense of independent contractor by making the owner/operator of the equipment the ‘statutory employee’ of the carrier.”  Shell v. Navajo Freight Lines, 693 P.2d 382 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 390.5, defines the term“employee” as,

any individual, other than an employer, who is employed by an employer and who in the course of his or her employment directly affects commercial motor vehicle safety.  Such term includes a driver of a commercial motor vehicle (including an independent contractor while in the course of operating a commercial motor vehicle), a mechanic, and a freight handler.

The Regulatory Guidance to 49 C.F.R. § 390.5 , at Question 17, explains:

The term “employee,” as defined in § 390.5, specifically includes an independent contractor employed by a motor carrier.  The existence of operating authority has no bearing upon the issue.  The motor carrier is, therefore, responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs by its driver employees, including those who are owner-operators.

62 Fed. Reg. 16,407 (April 4, 1997). 49 C.F.R. Chapter III: Regulatory Guidance for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, Interpretation to § 390.5, question 17 (1997)(emphasis added).  See also 49 C.F.R. § 390.5 (2002).

The definition of “motor carrier” includes “a motor carrier’s agent,” “employee” includes “an independent contractor while in the course of operating a commercial motor vehicle.” 49  C.F.R.§ 390.5, and “lease” includes a “contract or arrangement in which the owner grants the use of equipment, with or without driver . . . .” 49  C.F.R.§ 376.2. The alternative and disjunctive reference to “contract or arrangement” must have some significance other than mere redundancy. Moreover, “[e]very motor carrier, its officers, agents . . .  shall be instructed in and comply with the rules . . . .” 49  C.F.R. § 392.1.

These Regulations were intended to safeguard the public by preventing motor carriers from circumventing applicable regulations by leasing the equipment and services of independent contractors exempt from federal regulation. The definition of “lease” as “contract or arrangement” extends to any arrangement by which a carrier allows another to haul its freight for compensation. Any other construction would defeat the Congressional policy of requiring financially responsible interstate transportation. Hartford Ins. Co. v. Occidental Fire & Cas. Co., 908 F.2d 235 (7^th Cir. 1990); Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Ins. Co., 166 Ariz. 219, 801 P.2d 454 (1990).

Restatent of Torts 2^nd – Liability Of An Employer Of An Independent Contractor

The Restatement includes 15 exceptions to the general rule that an employer is not responsible for the negligence of an independent contractor.  These exceptions are sometimes referred to as non-delegable duties. This paper is not intended as a comprehensive analysis of court decisions applying, approving, rejecting or distinguishing these Restatement provisions.

Contractor’s Conduct In Obedience To Employer’s Directions

Restatement (Second) of Torts  § 410 provides:

The employer of an independent contractor is subject to the same liability for physical harm caused by an act or omission committed by the contractor pursuant to orders or directions negligently given by the employer, as though the act or omission were that of the employer himself.

 Comment b states that this section deals only with the “liability of an employer who does not intend that the contractor shall cause physical harm to any other person, but who either employs a contractor to do work which, no matter how carefully done, involves an unreasonable risk of physical harm to others to whom he owes a duty to exercise care, or who employs a contractor to do work which could be safely done but for the fact that he directs the contractor to do it in a manner involving such risk. The liability is based upon the fact that the employer has been negligent in directing his contractor to do work which is dangerous in itself or in the manner in which it is done. Therefore, the employer is subject to liability, under the rule stated in this Section, for only such physical harm as is caused by the dangerous character of the work or the dangerous manner in which it is directed to be done. He is not subject to liability for any harm caused by some improper method which the contractor, without any direction of his employer, adopts in doing the work.”

Comment c clarifies that “the orders and directions are not negligently given if the employer neither knows nor should know that the work involves such risk even though the contractor discovers during the progress of the work that such risks will be involved in following the orders and directions.”

Comment d explains that “this Section is most usually applicable where construction or repair work is entrusted to an independent contractor under plans and specifications provided by the employer, which prescribe the result to be attained and the material to be used in the work and the manner in which it is to be used. It is, however, equally applicable wherever an employer otherwise directs his independent contractor to do work which, in itself or as ordered to be done, is unreasonably dangerous to others.”

One of the illustrations in the comments is as follows: “A hires a taxicab, tells the driver, B, that he has only five minutes to catch his train, directs B to ignore traffic signals, and offers him a reward of five dollars if he will get to the station in time for the train. While B is driving the taxicab at an excessive rate of speed, it collides with the car of C, causing harm to C. A is subject to liability to C.” It would seem this should be applicable to a shipper, freight broker or logistics company who knowingly establishes positive or negative incentives for a trucker or trucking company to ignore hours of service and other safety regulations,

Comment h provides: “The act of the contractor which subjects the employer to liability under the rule stated in this Section is usually negligence on the part of the contractor. But this is not necessarily true. It may happen that the employer knows or should know of circumstances of which the contractor is excusably ignorant, and which make the work or the manner in which it is directed to be done unreasonably dangerous. In such a case, the contractor would not be subject to liability since he, as a reasonable man, would not realize the risk involved in his conduct. On the other hand, the employer, as a reasonable man, should realize the danger and is negligent in directing the work to be done.”

In Posner v. Paul’s Trucking Service, Inc., 380 F.2d 757 (1^st Cir.,1967), a freight broker required delivery by an independent contractor on a schedule that could not be made in compliance with hours of service rules, thus creating a jury question of the broker’s liability in negligently giving those instructions. Restatement § 410 has been seldom followed in Southern states but has been applied in at least a couple of Tennessee cases. See Givens v. Mullikin ex rel. Estate of McElwaney, 75 S.W.3d 383, 394 (Tenn., 2002)(Insurer and insured could be held vicariously liable for insurance defense lawyer’s abuse of process directed, commanded, or knowingly authorized by insurer or insured), and Waggoner Motors, Inc. v. Waverly Church of Christ, 159 S.W.3d 42, 53 (Tenn.Ct.App.,2004)(Where a church acting as its own general contractor retained and exercised control over independent contractor’s work, knew or had reason to know of the unreasonable risks posed by overspray, and ordered contractor to proceed despite his warnings of potential overspray damage, it was liable for the negligence of the subcontractor).

Negligence In Selection Of Contractor

Restatement (Second) of Torts  § 411 provides:

An employer is subject to liability for physical harm to third persons caused by his failure to exercise reasonable care to employ a competent and careful contractor

(a) to do work which will involve a risk of physical harm unless it is skillfully and carefully done, or

(b) to perform any duty which the employer owes to third persons.

Safety rather than financial responsibility is the focus of this section, so merely hiring an independent contractor that is not financially responsible is not enough

Failure To Inspect Work Of Contractor After Completion

Restatement (Second) of Torts  § 412 provides:

 One who is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain land or chattels in such condition as not to involve unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others and who entrusts the work of repair and maintenance to an independent contractor, is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to them by his failure to exercise such care as the circumstances may reasonably require him to exercise to ascertain whether the land or chattel is in reasonably safe condition after the contractor’s work is completed.

 Comment c enumerates factors considered under this section as follows: “(1) the danger involved in the condition of the structure or chattel if the work is entrusted to the contractor is not carefully and skillfully done; (2) the character of the work—whether it is of the kind which a competent contractor is so likely to do properly that it is reasonable to rely entirely or to a certain extent upon his competence as a sufficient assurance that the work has been safely done; (3) the ability which the employer has or should have to appreciate the proper or improper character of the work done for him by the contractor; (4) the ease or difficulty of ascertaining the actual character of the completed work; and (5) the existence of a relation between the contractor’s employer and those injured by the careless or incompetent work of the contractor which entitles them to expect that the employer will personally exercise care for their safety.”

Comment e states that “[t]he rule stated in this Section subjects the employer of an independent contractor to liability only if, as a result of his failure to exercise such care as the circumstances require in inspecting the completed work done by his contractor, he fails to discover its bad condition and as a result bodily harm is caused to someone to whom he owes a duty of maintaining his land or chattels in reasonably safe condition.”

The extent of the employer’s knowledge and experience in the field of work to be done is to be taken into account.

Duty To Provide For Taking Of Precautions Against Dangers Involved In Work Entrusted To Contractor

Restatement (Second) of Torts  § 413 states:

One who employs an independent contractor to do work which the employer should recognize as likely to create, during its progress, a peculiar unreasonable risk of physical harm to others unless special precautions are taken, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to them by the absence of such precautions if the employer

(a) fails to provide in the contract that the contractor shall take such precautions, or

(b) fails to exercise reasonable care to provide in some other manner for the taking of such precautions.

 This section is not concerned with routine precautions such as driving at a safe speed with good brakes. Rather, it deals with “peculiar risks” such as demolition of buildings, excavations, etc.

Negligence In Exercising Control Retained By Employer

Restatement (Second) of Torts  § 414 states:

One who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for physical harm to others for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care.

This requires more than a general right to determine objectives. There must be some retention of control of operative details, such as when a principal has a foreman on site to supervise work of contractors.

Duty Of Possessor Of Land To Prevent Activities And Conditions Dangerous To Those Outside Of Land

 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414A provides:

A possessor of land who has employed or permitted an independent contractor to do work on the land, and knows or has reason to know that the activities of the contractor or conditions created by him involve an unreasonable risk of physical harm to those outside of the land, is subject to liability to them for such harm if he fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against it.

 This does not create a duty to inspect, or any reason not to assume that an apparently contractor will not perform work properly. However, when the principal “knows or has reason to know that the contractor is engaging or is about to engage in an activity, or that he has created or is about to create conditions, which will involve such an unreasonable risk to others outside of the land, it is his duty to interfere, and to exercise reasonable care to prevent physical harm to such persons. . . ”

Duty To Supervise Equipment And Methods Of Contractors Or Concessionaires On Land Held Open To Public

Restatement (Second) of Torts  § 415 states:

A possessor of land who holds it open to the public for any purpose is subject to liability to members of the public entering for that purpose for physical harm caused to them by his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect them against unreasonably dangerous activities of, or unreasonably dangerous conditions created by, an independent contractor or concessionaire employed or permitted to do work or carry on an activity on the land.

 This is “based upon the failure of the possessor of the land in question to exercise reasonable care to supervise the equipment or methods of his contractor or concessionaire who carries on an activity which endangers the public attracted to the possessor’s land. In order that the liability shall exist, it is, therefore, necessary, not only that the contractor shall be negligent, but also that the possessor shall have a reasonable opportunity to ascertain the improper equipment or method of his contractor and to secure the substitution of safe equipment and methods.”  Comment c.

Harm Caused By Negligence Of A Carefully Selected Independent Contractor

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 416 states:

One who employs an independent contractor to do work which the employer should recognize as likely to create during its progress a peculiar risk of physical harm to others unless special precautions are taken, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to them by the failure of the contractor to exercise reasonable care to take such precautions, even though the employer has provided for such precautions in the contract or otherwise.

“[T]he employer remains liable for injuries resulting from dangers which he should contemplate at the time that he enters into the contract, and cannot shift to the contractor the responsibility for such dangers, or for taking precautions against them. . . . the fact that the contract contains express stipulations for the taking of adequate precautions and that the contractor agrees to assume all liability for harm caused by his failure to do so, does not relieve his employer from the liability stated in this Section. . . . It is sufficient that it is likely to involve a peculiar risk of physical harm unless special precautions are taken, even though the risk is not abnormally great. A “peculiar risk” is a risk differing from the common risks to which persons in general are commonly subjected by the ordinary forms of negligence which are usual in the community. It must involve some special hazard resulting from the nature of the work done, which calls for special precautions.” For example,” if the principal employs an independent contractor to operate a truck this does not apply to speed, maintenance of brakes, etc., but “if the contractor is employed to transport giant logs weighing several tons over the highway, the employer will be subject to liability for the contractor’s failure to take special precautions to anchor them on his trucks. . . . It is sufficient that it is a risk which the employer should recognize as likely to arise in the course of the ordinary and usual method of doing the work, or the particular method which the employer knows that the contractor will adopt.”  Comments a, c and d.  Cross reference with Restatement §427, infra.

Work Done In Public Place

Restatement (Second) of Torts 417 states:

One who employs an independent contractor to do work in a public place which unless carefully done involves a risk of making the physical condition of the place dangerous for the use of members of the public, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to members of the public by a negligent act or omission of the contractor which makes the physical condition of the place dangerous for their use.

It is not necessary for work be done under or require a franchise, license or permit, or that such a franchise, permit, or license. It is enough that the work, unless carefully done, will involve making the physical condition of the public place dangerous for the use of the public. The words “public place” denote any place includes public highways, parks and public buildings, etc.

Maintenance Of Public Highways And Other Public Places

 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 418 provides:

(1) One who is under a duty to construct or maintain a highway in reasonably safe condition for the use of the public, and who entrusts its construction, maintenance, or repair to an independent contractor, is subject to the same liability for physical harm to persons using the highway while it is held open for travel during such work, caused by the negligent failure of the contractor to make it reasonably safe for travel, as though the employer had retained the work in his own hands.

(2) The statement in Subsection (1) applies to any place which is maintained by a government for the use of the public, if the government is under the same duty to maintain it in reasonably safe condition as it owes to the public in respect to the condition of its highways.

Insofar as this section is directed to liability of governmental entities, its application is in many localities limited by statutory limitations on governmental liability. However, it may also apply to a contractor who undertakes to repair, construct, or maintain a highway, and entrusts the work to a subcontractor;

Repairs Which Lessor Is Under A Duty To His Lessee To Make

 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 419 provides:

 A lessor of land who employs an independent contractor to perform a duty which the lessor owes to his lessee to maintain the leased land in reasonably safe condition, is subject to liability to the lessee, and to third persons upon the land with the consent of the lessee, for physical harm caused by the contractor’s failure to exercise reasonable care to make the land reasonably safe.

 This rule “applies only where a legislative enactment imposes the duty of repair or where the lessor by a covenant in the lease or otherwise has assumed a contractual duty to make repairs.”  Comment a.

Repairs Gratuitously Undertaken By Lessor

 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 420 provides:

 A lessor of land who employs an independent contractor to make repairs which the lessor is under no duty to make, is subject to the same liability to the lessee, and to others upon the land with the consent of the lessee, for physical harm caused by the contractor’s negligence in making or purporting to make the repairs as though the contractor’s conduct were that of the lessor.

Maintenance Of Structures On Land Retained In Lessor’s Possession Necessary To Tenant’s Enjoyment Of Leased Land

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 421 provides:

 A possessor of land who, having leased a part of the land, is under a duty to maintain in reasonably safe condition the part retained by him, and who entrusts the repair of such part to an independent contractor, is subject to the same liability to the lessee, and to others upon the retained part of the land with the consent of the lessee, for physical harm caused by the negligence of the contractor in failing to maintain such part of the land in reasonably safe condition, as though the lessor had himself retained the making of the repairs in his own hands.

 Work On Buildings And Other Structures On Land

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 422 states:

A possessor of land who entrusts to an independent contractor construction, repair, or other work on the land, or on a building or other structure upon it, is subject to the same liability as though he had retained the work in his own hands to others on or outside of the land for physical harm caused to them by the unsafe condition of the structure

(a) while the possessor has retained possession of the land during the progress of the work, or

(b) after he has resumed possession of the land upon its completion.

This applies “only to injuries occurring while the possessor has retained possession of the premises during the progress of the work, or after he has resumed possession of the land upon the completion of the work. The rule stated in this Section has no application to injuries occurring while the land is turned over to the contractor and he is in exclusive possession of it. Thus where the employer moves out of his building and surrenders it to the contractor while it is undergoing construction, demolition, or repair, there is no liability under the rule here stated.” Comment c.

Work Withdrawing Lateral Support

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 422A states:

One who employs an independent contractor to do work which the employer knows or should know to be likely to withdraw lateral support from the land of another is subject to the same liability for the contractor’s withdrawal of such support as if the employer had retained the work in his own hands.

“[O]ne who employs an independent contractor to do work involving excavation, or other work of a kind which the employer knows or should know to be likely to result in the withdrawal of lateral support from the land of another, is subject to the same liability for a withdrawal of such support by the contractor as if he had retained the work in his own hands.” Comment b.

Making Or Repair Of Instrumentalities Used In Highly Dangerous Activities

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 423 provides:

One who carries on an activity which threatens a grave risk of serious bodily harm or death unless the instrumentalities used are carefully constructed and maintained, and who employs an independent contractor to construct or maintain such instrumentalities, is subject to the same liability for physical harm caused by the negligence of the contractor in constructing or maintaining such instrumentalities as though the employer had himself done the work of construction or maintenance.

This has been applied to high voltage electric lines and appliances, brakes on vehicles, explosives, radioactive materials, etc.

Precautions Required By Statute Or Regulation

  Restatement (Second) of Torts § 424 provides:

One who by statute or by administrative regulation is under a duty to provide specified safeguards or precautions for the safety of others is subject to liability to the others for whose protection the duty is imposed for harm caused by the failure of a contractor employed by him to provide such safeguards or precautions.

This has been applied to support a nondelegable duty to comply with a variety of building and safety codes.

Repair Of Chattel Supplied Or Land Held Open To Public As Place Of Business

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 425 provides:

One who employs an independent contractor to maintain in safe condition land which he holds open to the entry of the public as his place of business, or a chattel which he supplies for others to use for his business purposes or which he leases for immediate use, is subject to the same liability for physical harm caused by the contractor’s negligent failure to maintain the land or chattel in reasonably safe condition, as though he had retained its maintenance in his own hands.

This has been applied to elevators (Gaffney v. EQK Realty Investors, 213 Ga.App. 653, 445 S.E.2d 771 (1994)), escalators, hotel water heaters, security systems, premises safety and a wide variety of other context.

Negligence Collateral To Risk Of Doing The Work

 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 426 provides:

Except as stated in §§ 428 and 429, an employer of an independent contractor, unless he is himself negligent, is not liable for physical harm caused by any negligence of the contractor if

(a) the contractor’s negligence consists solely in the improper manner in which he does the work, and

(b) it creates a risk of such harm which is not inherent in or normal to the work, and

(c) the employer had no reason to contemplate the contractor’s negligence when the contract was made.

This “collateral negligence” or “casual negligence” in the operative detail of the work, as distinguished from the general plan or method followed or the result to be accomplished. It relates to negligence which is unusual or abnormal, or foreign to the normal or contemplated risks of doing the work, as distinguished from negligence which creates only the normal or contemplated risk. Comment a.

Negligence As To Danger Inherent In The Work

 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 427 states:

One who employs an independent contractor to do work involving a special danger to others which the employer knows or has reason to know to be inherent in or normal to the work, or which he contemplates or has reason to contemplate when making the contract, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to such others by the contractor’s failure to take reasonable precautions against such danger.

This is closely related to Restatement §16. However, It is not, necessary to the employer’s liability that the work be of a kind which cannot be done without a risk of harm to others, or that it be of a kind which involves a high degree of risk of such harm, or that the risk be one of very serious harm, such as death or serious bodily injury. It is not necessary that the work call for any special skill or care in doing it. It is sufficient that work of any kind involves a risk, recognizable in advance, of physical harm to others which is inherent in the work itself, or normally to be expected in the ordinary course of the usual or prescribed way of doing it, or that the employer has special reason to contemplate such a risk under the particular circumstances under which the work is to be done. Comments a and b.

Work Involving Abnormally Dangerous Activity

 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 427A provides:

One who employs an independent contractor to do work which the employer knows or has reason to know to involve an abnormally dangerous activity, is subject to liability to the same extent as the contractor for physical harm to others caused by the activity.

This has been applied in a wide variety of cases involving premises security, explosions, structure collapses, electrocution, toxins, etc.

Work Likely To Involve Trespass Or Nuisance

 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 427B provides:

One who employs an independent contractor to do work which the employer knows or has reason to know to be likely to involve a trespass upon the land of another or the creation of a public or a private nuisance, is subject to liability for harm resulting to others from such trespass or nuisance.

This provision has been invoked in a variety of circumstances, especially in cases involving flooding, pollutants or fire spreading to another’s property. 

Public Franchise / Unreasonable Risk of Harm

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 428 states:

An individual or a corporation carrying on an activity which can be lawfully carried on only under a franchise granted by public authority and which involves an unreasonable risk of harm to others, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to such others by the negligence of a contractor employed to do work in carrying on the activity.

Prior to adoption of the statutory employer rules in the interstate motor carrier context, this Restatement rule was used to overcome the independent contractor defense. See, e.g., Black v. Montgomery Trucking Co., Inc., 129 Ga.App. 36,(followed Restatement rule), reversed on other grounds without mention of either Restatement rule or federal statutes or regulations, 231 Ga. 211 (1973)(compare Dove v. National Freight, Inc., 138 Ga.App. 114 (1976)); Venuto v. Robinson, 118 F.2d 679 (3rd Cir., 1941)( Restatement 428 applied to hold interstate motor carrier liable for negligence of independent contractor driver); Hodges v. Johnson, 52 F.Supp. 488 (D.C.VA. 1943); War Emergency Co‑op. Ass’n v. Widenhouse, 169 F.2d 403 (4th Cir. 1948); Lehman v. Robertson Truck‑A‑Way, 122 Cal.App.2d 82, 264 P.2d 653 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 1953); Louis v. Youngren, 12 Ill.App.2d 198, 138 N.E.2d 696 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., 1956); Eli v. Murphy, 39 Cal.2d 598, 248 P.2d 756 (Cal, 1952)(nondelegable duty of motor carrier to public).

However, some jurisdictions have declined to classify trucking as an unreasonably dangerous activity giving rise to a nondelegable duty under this statement of the Restatement, reasoning that “[t]he operation of any motor vehicle may be said to involve some risk to others but the use of [this independent contractor’s] equipment involved no more risk than that of any other.” Gaskill v. Calaveras Cement Co. 102 Cal.App.2d 120, 226 P.2d 633 (1951).   Lebrun v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 67 Mass.App.Ct. 1102, 851 N.E.2d 478 (Table)(Mass.App.Ct.,2006).See also, Brown v. Truck Connections Intern., Inc., 526 F.Supp.2d 920 (E.D.Ark.,2007); Walker v. Wittenberg, Delony & Davidson, Inc., 241 Ark. 525, 531, 242 Ark. 97, 412 S.W.2d 621, 625 (1967).

There are also cases holding this inapplicable to a shipper which does not have a public franchise. See, e.g., Wilson v. IESI N.Y. Corp., 444 F.Supp.2d 298 (M.D.Pa.,2006).

Exempt commodity loads. In Serna v. Pettey Leach Trucking, Inc., 110 Cal.App.4th 1475, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 835 (2003), the California Court of Appeals held that the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 428 applied to a interstate motor carrier even though that carrier was carrying a commodity (poultry) that was exempt from the economic regulations of the DOT.

Taxi cabs. Courts in several jurisdictions have applied Restatement § 428 to operation of taxi cabs under a public franchise so that taxi companies that lease cabs to drivers as independent contractors are vicariously liable. See, e.g., Belder v. Dandridge, 2002 WL 32076963 (Va.Cir.Ct. 2002); Teixeira v. Car Cab Three, Inc., 1994 WL 413034 (Mass.App.Div. 1994); Paige v. Red Top, Inc., 255 A.2d 279 (NJ App. Div. 1969).

Negligence In Doing Work Which Is Accepted In Reliance On The Employer’s Doing The Work Himself

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 428 provides:

One who employs an independent contractor to perform services for another which are accepted in the reasonable belief that the services are being rendered by the employer or by his servants, is subject to liability for physical harm caused by the negligence of the contractor in supplying such services, to the same extent as though the employer were supplying them himself or by his servants.

Where a customer relies upon the principal to provide goods or services, and the principal substitutes goods or services from an independent contractor, the principal may be liable for the contractor’s negligence.

Conclusion.  Counsel for plaintiffs facing an independent contractor defense may use this paper as  a starting point for research, exploration and perhaps a bit of creativity, weaving together Restatement, statutes, regulations, local ordinances and common law to obtain fair compensation for their clients.

Ken Shigley is a past president of the State Bar of Georgia, past chair of the State Bar’s Tort & Insurance Practice Section, past chair of the Georgia Insurance Law Institute, past chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, and a member of the board of governors of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys. He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice (Thomson Reuters West, 2010-2018). His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation and burn injuries. Work on all these types of cases requires expertise in insurance law.

A chain reaction crash involving four big rig tractor trailers on I-285 near Camp Creek Parkway in south Fulton County, GA, killed a woman in a passenger car on June 19, 2018.

According to the Georgia State Patrol, A tractor-trailer was traveling northbound when it struck three other big rigs and the rear of a car, pushing the car underneath another tractor-trailer.

News photos showed that at least one truck’s cab was badly crushed and the roof of the passenger car was caved in.

In addition to the one fatality, five others were taken to Grady Memorial Hospital. It took several hours to clear the debris.

As with most fatal traffic crashes on Georgia highways, the Georgia State Patrol Specialized Collision Reconstruction Team (SCRT) is undertaking a painstaking reconstruction of the chain reaction collision. While news reports have not identified the cause of the fatal truck crash, experience in handling many tractor trailer accident cases over the years suggests likely factors, all of which are related to failure of safety management in trucking companies. Truck driver fatigue and distraction are common factors.

Safety management by trucking companies

Most often when commercial truck drivers crash due to fatigue, the root cause analysis leads back to corporate management issues as the motor carrier had a duty under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to require observance by their drivers of safety rules. Trucking companies are required to manage safety so as to require their drivers to follow the rules. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. §390.11 provides: “Whenever . . . a duty is prescribed for a driver or a prohibition is imposed upon the driver, it shall be the duty of the motor carrier to require observance of such duty or prohibition.” In addition, “No person shall aid, abet, encourage, or require a motor carrier or its employees to violate the rules of this chapter.” 49 C.F.R. §390.13.

Speed

Speed too fast for conditions is almost always a factor when a tractor trailer crashes into a line of vehicles slowed by traffic conditions or in a construction zone. Excessive speed is involved in 58% of crashes and attributable to the large truck in 65% of those. I suspect that is underestimated because the data comes from police reports. The SCRT unit will gather data from electronic control module and possibly other electronic data sources in the tractor trailers and possibly other vehicle to show the speed, braking and deceleration in each vehicle.

Driver impairment

One of the most important and most frequently violated safety rules for truck drivers, as to which motor carriers have a duty to enforce among their drivers, is one related to impaired driving. “No driver shall operate a commercial motor vehicle, and a motor carrier shall not require or permit a driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle, while the driver’s ability or alertness is so impaired, or so likely to become impaired, through fatigue, illness, or any other cause, as to make it unsafe for him/her to begin or continue to operate the commercial motor vehicle. . . .” 49 C.F.R. §392.3.

News reports are silent on possible fatigue factors in this crash, but among those we see most often are violation of work hours rules and untreated sleep apnea.

Fatigue

News reports are silent on whether fatigue related was have been a factor in this crash, but it is something we look into when appropriate.

Truck drivers work long, hard hours, and some tend to drive too long and sleep too little, with tragic outcomes. Trucking safety rules include “hours of service limits.” Truck drivers required to log their time driving, on duty but not driving, off duty and in the sleeper berth. The current limits are 11 hours driving out of 14 hours on duty, followed by at least 10 hours off duty, up to 60 hours in a week or 70 hours in an 8 day period on the road. But they can under certain circumstances restart the clock and get behind the wheel. That provision can allow a truck driver to legally drive at 80,000 semi rig up to 81 hours per week.

As many as one-third of truck drivers admit to falsifying their hours of service logs, often under pressure from employers and shippers to get the job done quickly, to meet financial incentives, or simply to make more money. Electronic logging systems now automate that process, but the systems are subject to being hacked in order to squeeze in more hours than are legal.

In a big rig semi truck crash we are handling in the Savannah area, we have a video of the truck driver admitting to an officer, “I must have went to sleep.”

While there is no blood test to determine when fatigue contributes to the cause of a crash, we often can dig through layers of of trip records to prove violation of the work hours rules. In once case we deconstructed trip records in the deposition of an Ohio truck driver until he admitted that he had been driving 20 of the previous 24 hours, had driven from Ohio to Atlanta, back to Ohio, and after a one hour nap started driving back to Atlanta. He ran over a family and killed their son.

Sleep apnea

When physical characteristics of at-fault big rig truck drivers suggest the likelihood of obstructive sleep apnea that if untreated can contribute to dangerous driver fatigue, we explore whether the trucking company failed to monitor that as part of safety management. The US Department of Transportation Medical Review Board has recommended that individuals with a Body Mass Index (BMI) over 40 “should be referred for diagnostic sleep evaluations.”

The National Transportation Safety Board has reported, “Drivers with sleep apnea are seven times more likely to be involved in an automobile accident than those without sleep apnea” Drivers with undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea who are not receiving proper treatment are prone to making critical mistakes or even fall asleep while driving due to their fatigue.”

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has warned truck drivers that, “Untreated sleep apnea can make it difficult for you to stay awake, focus your eyes, and react quickly while driving. In general, studies show that people with untreated sleep apnea have an increased risk of being involved in a fatigue-related motor vehicle crash.”

In one fatal big rig crash we have handled, our review of the driver qualification file in the company’s records shoed that the truck driver was “morbidly obese” with a BMI of 41.5, putting him severely at risk of obstructive sleep apnea. The company had not done anything to get evaluation or treatment for sleep apnea. After crashing into a line of stopped traffic stopped at a red light, he admitted that he was impaired by fatigue only  four and one-half hours after reporting for work.

Driver distraction

There is nothing in news reports to indicate whether the big rig truck driver in this crash was distracted, but that is a common factor we investigate in major truck crashes. Cell phones, texting, fiddling with GPS units, food and beverages are among the common causes of driver distraction leading to crashes.

When fitting, we fight discovery battles with trucking companies’ insurers over production and forensic download of data from smart phones that law enforcement typically does not attempt to access. A cell phone download may reveal voice  and text connections and use of other communications apps such as Facetime, Facebook Messenger, etc.

In addition, GPS data from the cell phone may be compared with electronic data from the truck regarding locations, speed and activity of the truck, and patterns and practices that may cast light upon the root cause of the crash. Cell phone data may reveal the truck driver’s off-duty activities contributing to dangerous fatigue on the job. For example, a driver was working a second job in his off hours which would have contributed to accumulated fatigue, chronic sleep deprivation, and irregular work and rest cycles which could likely lead to the inevitable result of a catastrophic truck crash.

Direct solicitation of accident victims

Victims in such big rig semi truck crashes should be aware that any lawyer who directly solicits them is violating both a State Bar ethics rule punishable by disbarment and a Georgia criminal law.

—————-

Ken Shigley‘s “singular focus has been filing lawsuits for people hit by trucks.” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 7, 2018. He is a past president of the State Bar of Georgia, past chair of the State Bar’s Tort & Insurance Practice Section, past chair of the Georgia Insurance Law Institute, past chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section, and a member of the board of governors of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys. He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice (Thomson Reuters West, 2010-2018). His law practice is focused on catastrophic injury and wrongful death including those arising from commercial trucking accidents and those involving brain, neck, back, spinal cord, amputation and burn injuries. Work on all these types of cases requires expertise in insurance law.