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.

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. 

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.

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.

Photo our expert used to identify negligent maintenance issues even though trucking company had sold their dump truck out of state.

Tom was having a good day. Between sales calls, he stopped his pickup truck at a red light at the end of bridge waiting to turn left onto a freeway ramp. He had been sitting there about thirty seconds when he heard a loud screeching sound. A dump truck fully loaded with gravel crashed into his rear, crushing the bed of his pickup and knocking the top of his toolbox through his rear window. By the time Tom hired us, the dump truck company had sold the truck and “lost” all the maintenance records. However, we had an expert who could tell from photos of the property damage that there were rusty cracks in mechanical components that may have contributed to the crash. While driver distraction and speed were bigger parts of the case, proof of poor maintenance helped establish that the company had been sloppy about safety for a long time.

Although many of the commercial truck crash cases we handle are caused by some combination of speed, fatigue or distraction, some also involve mechanical failure. That may be discovered by a motor carrier enforcement inspection after a crash, in an expert inspection we arrange if we are hired quickly enough, or it may be disclosed later in expert examination of photos of property damage.

When mechanical problems are found after a crash, most often the root cause is in the company’s systemic failure to follow the well-established rules in maintenance management. Perhaps just as important, evidence of poor maintenance over a long period of time helps jurors believe that the company neglected everything else about safety.

Federal Regulations require trucking companies and key personnel involved with vehicle inspection and maintenance to understand and comply with rules on vehicle safety.  The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 396.1 mandates:

“Every motor carrier, its officers, drivers, agents, representatives, and employees directly concerned with the inspection or maintenance of motor vehicles shall comply and be conversant with the rules of this part.”

One of photos in which our expert pointed out evidence of negligent maintenance, even though trucking company had gotten rid of the truck before we were hired.

But too often when we dig out the truth behind a catastrophic truck crash, we learn that truck maintenance personnel were not trained and did not adequately understand what is required.

Regarding brake system, for example, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 396.25 outlines the following requirements for anyone who performs maintenance, inspection or repairs on air brake systems:

(a) The motor carrier shall ensure that all inspections, maintenance, repairs or service to the brakes of its commercial motor vehicles, are performed in compliance with the requirements of this section.

(b) For purposes of this section, “brake inspector” means any employee of a motor carrier who is responsible for ensuring all brake inspections, maintenance, service, or repairs to any commercial motor vehicle, subject to the motor carrier’s control, meet the applicable Federal standards.

(c) No motor carrier shall require or permit any employee who does not meet the minimum brake inspector qualifications of §396.25(d) to be responsible for the inspection, maintenance, service or repairs of any brakes on its commercial motor vehicles.

(d) The motor carrier shall ensure that each brake inspector is qualified as follows:

(d)(1) Understands the brake service or inspection task to be accomplished and can perform that task; and

(d)(2) Is knowledgeable of and has mastered the methods, procedures, tools and equipment used when performing an assigned brake service or inspection task; and

(d)(3) Is capable of performing the assigned brake service or inspection by reason of experience, training or both as follows:

(d)(3)(i) Has successfully completed an apprenticeship program sponsored by a State, a Canadian Province, a Federal agency or a labor union, or a training program approved by a State, Provincial or Federal agency, or has a certificate from a State or Canadian Province which qualifies the person to perform the assigned brake service or inspection task (including passage of Commercial Driver’s License air brake tests in the case of a brake inspection); or

(d)(3)(ii) Has brake related training or experience or a combination thereof totaling at least one year. Such training or experience may consist of:

(d)(3)(ii)(A) Participation in a training program sponsored by a brake or vehicle manufacturer or similar commercial training program designed to train students in brake maintenance or inspection similar to the assigned brake service or inspection tasks; or

(d)(3)(ii)(B) Experience performing brake maintenance or inspection similar to the assigned brake service or inspection task in a motor carrier maintenance program; or

(d)(3)(ii)(C) Experience performing brake maintenance or inspection similar to the assigned brake service or inspection task at a commercial garage, fleet leasing company, or similar facility.

(e) No motor carrier shall employ any person as a brake inspector unless the evidence of the inspector’s qualifications, required under this section is maintained by the motor carrier at its principal place of business, or at the location at which the brake inspector is employed. The evidence must be maintained for the period during which the brake inspector is employed in that capacity and for one year thereafter. However, motor carriers do not have to maintain evidence of qualifications to inspect air brake systems for such inspections performed by persons who have passed the air brake knowledge and skills test for a Commercial Driver’s License.

Tom’s neck after surgery required when negligently maintained dump truck crushed the rear of his pickup

But when a truck crash is caused, in whole or in part, by brake failure, we usually find that the person responsible for maintenance at the trucking company had no idea what a certified brake was, much less qualifying as one.

In addition, 49 C.F.R. § 396.13 requires:

“Before driving a motor vehicle, the driver shall:

(a) Be satisfied that the motor vehicle is in safe operating condition;

(b) Review the last driver vehicle inspection report; and

(c) Sign the report, only if defects or deficiencies were noted by the driver who prepared the report, to acknowledge that the driver has reviewed it and that there is a certification that the required repairs have been performed. The signature requirement does not apply to listed defects on a towed unit which is no longer part of the vehicle combination.”

However, when mechanical failure contributes to the cause of a truck crash, we are likely to find in depositions of the maintenance supervisor and the truck driver that the driver vehicle inspection report was never shown to any driver, either the driver that filled out the report or the next driver.

Another section of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 396.11, states:

“(c) Corrective action. Prior to requiring or permitting a driver to operate a vehicle, every motor carrier or its agent shall repair any defect or deficiency listed on the driver vehicle inspection report which would be likely to affect the safety of operation of the vehicle.Every motor carrier or its agent shall certify on the original driver vehicle inspection report which lists any defect or deficiency that the defect or deficiency has been repaired or that repair is unnecessary before the vehicle is operated again.”

When we dig into the records, we are likely to find the company did not comply with this rule either.

Requirements for annual truck inspections are outlined in 49 C.F.R. § 396, Appendix G. However, it is not unusual to find that the person in charge of maintenance was unfamiliar with this requirement, and therefore could not credibly sign off on inspection requirements with which he is unfamiliar.

That very knowledge on the part of maintenance personnel is required of trucking companies. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 396.19 requires:

“(a) It shall be the motor carrier’s responsibility to ensure that the individual(s) performing an annual inspection under §396.17(d) (e) or is qualified as follows:

(a)(1) Understands the inspection criteria set forth in 49 CFR Part 393 and Appendix G of this subchapter and can identify defective components;

(a)(2) Is knowledgeable of and has mastered the methods, procedures, tools and equipment used when performing an inspection; and

(a)(3) Is capable of performing an inspection by reason of experience, training, or both as follows:

(a)(3)(i) Successfully completed a State or Federal sponsored training program or has a certificate from a State or Canadian Province which qualifies the person to perform commercial motor vehicle safety inspections, or

(a)(3)(ii) Have a combination of training and/or experience totaling at least 1 year. Such training and/or experience may consist of:

(a)(3)(ii)(A) Participation in a truck manufacturer sponsored training program or similar commercial training program designed to train students in truck operation and maintenance;

(a)(3)(ii)(B) Experience as a mechanic or inspector in a motor carrier maintenance program;

(a)(3)(ii)(C) Experience as a mechanic or inspector in truck maintenance at a commercial garage, fleet leasing company, or similar facility; or

(a)(3)(ii)(D) Experience as a commercial vehicle inspector for a State, Provincial or Federal Government.

(b) Evidence of that individual’s qualifications under this section shall be retained by the motor carrier for the period during which that individual is performing annual motor vehicle inspections for the motor carrier, and for one year thereafter. However, motor carriers do not have to maintain documentation of inspector qualifications for those inspections performed either as part of a State periodic inspection program or at the roadside as part of a random roadside inspection program.”

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 396.25 requires that the brake inspector must be “knowledgeable of and has mastered the methods, procedures, tools and equipment used when performing an assigned brake service or inspection task.” But when brakes fail, we are likely to find that the maintenance personnel lacked the knowledge of how to deal with a simple brake out of adjustment with an automatic slack adjuster, which disqualifies them as brake inspectors.

When there is a truck crash in which mechanical problems are an issue, when we review personnel files of trucking company mechanics, we are likely to find that they too are deficient in training, experience or certification.

While we seldom see a truck crash case in which mechanical failure is the sole cause, if hired early enough we are able to get a thorough inspection to find what mechanical issues are involved. In representing the victims of a catastrophic truck crash in which mechanical issues are involves, we work closely with experts who inspect the truck and guide us through the technical details required to build the case.

——–

Ken Shigley is an Atlanta-based trucking, personal injury and wrongful death trial attorney. He is past president of the State Bar of Georgia, past chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway and Premises Liability Section, past board member of the AAJ Trucking Litigation Group, and a member of the board of governors of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys. He is also lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice and a chapter author of Handling Motor Accident Cases, both published by Thomson Reuters, and one of just eighteen Georgia lawyers who have earned double board certification in Civil Trial Advocacy and Civil Pretrial Advocacy from the National Board of Legal Specialty Certification. He may be contacted at ken.shigley@johnsonward.com or 404-253-7862. 

People may enjoy watching “Ice Road Truckers” on television. But there is nothing entertaining about a tractor trailer bearing down upon you at excessive speed, out of control on an icy highway.

A truck driver from Georgia has been charged with three counts of “three charges of grossly negligent driving with death resulting,” the Vermont equivalent of vehicular homicide.

Last December 29, Lashawn Jones, 41, of Alpharetta, Georgia, was driving Roehl Transport Inc. tractor trailer on slush and ice on U.S. 4 near the Killington Ski Resort in Vermont. The truck driver lost control on slush and ice and collided head on with a vehicle occupied by three people – Ryszard and Anita Malarczyk from Hastings-on-Hudson, NY, and their friend, Jaroslaw Karczewski from Poland. All three were killed in the crash.

While we don’t see a lot of ice and snow in Georgia, when it does happen we see how often truck drivers ignore the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and the industry standards embodied in the Commercial Drivers License Manual regarding driving on ice. In a major ice storm that paralyzed metro Atlanta a couple of years ago, a Georgia Department of Transportation spokesperson said the next day that all the major problems involved tractor trailers.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 C.F.R. §  392.14 provides:

“Extreme caution in the operation of a commercial motor vehicle shall be exercised when hazardous conditions, such as those caused by snow, ice, sleet, fog, mist, rain, dust, or smoke, adversely affect visibility or traction. Speed shall be reduced when such conditions exist. If conditions become sufficiently dangerous, the operation of the commercial motor vehicle shall be discontinued and shall not be resumed until the commercial motor vehicle can be safely operated. Whenever compliance with the foregoing provisions of this rule increases hazard to passengers, the commercial motor vehicle may be operated to the nearest point at which the safety of passengers is assured.”

The Model Commercial Drivers License Manual, adopted with only stylistic differences in all states, and  referred to in 49 C.F.R. § 383.131(a)(1),  states the following in Section 2.6.2:

“Slippery Surfaces. It will take longer to stop, and it will be harder to turn without skidding, when the road is slippery. Wet roads can double stopping distance. You must drive slower to be able to stop in the same distance as on a dry road. Reduce speed by about one-third (e.g., slow from 55 to about 35 mph) on a wet road. On packed snow, reduce speed by a half, or more. If the surface is icy, reduce speed to a crawl and stop driving as soon as you can safely do so.”

Trucking companies that have insufficient focus on safety fail to train and supervise their drivers to assure compliance with these safety standards. When the inevitable crashes occur, they send their lawyers and “experts” to disingenuously argue that the rules don’t mean what they say, that the rules do not apply to them, that is the victims’ fault for being on the road in bad weather, and that their drivers did a magnificent job of trying to stop when driving highway speed on ice, etc.

If trucking companies would instruct their drivers to crawl or pull over when road conditions are icy, even if it throws off delivery times, a lot of lives could be saved in America.

Ken Shigley is a  double board certified trial lawyer in Atlanta, Georgia. He has served as president of the State Bar of Georgia, chair of the largest practice area section of the American Association for Justice (Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section), and chair of the Institute for Continuing Legal Education in Georgia board of trustees. He is a member of the Board of Governors of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys,lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice (2010-2016) and a chapter author of the 2016 edition of Handling Motor Vehicle Accident Cases, both published by Thomson Reuters.  He can be reached at ken.shigley@johnsonward.com.

Once again, a tractor trailer making a u-turn in dark or fog on a rural Georgia road has proven fatal. Once again, a turning tractor trailer forms a deadly and virtually invisible fence across a highway.

On September 30th at Lenox, Georgia, a man was killed when he collided with a Scruggs Concrete semi-truck attempting to make a u-turn in the roadway in foggy conditions. He was killed when the collision sheared off the top of his pickup truck.

This is an all too common form of truck crash across the United States, largely due to poor training and management at companies that operate the trucks.

A poorly trained, poorly manged and poorly supervised truck driver might not know better than to make a u-turn in the road at night or in the fog. But the intelligent, trained action is to avoid this. The fundamental duty of any driver is to exercise reasonable care. A lot of things can go into that. For a professional driver of tractor trailers, safety regulations, vehicle size, professional training and industry standards must be considered.

Because of its size — 80,000 pounds (or more for some types) and 48 to 60  feet in combined length — a tractor trailer cannot move quickly from a starting position.   A widely quoted estimate is that it takes 15-30 seconds for an 18-wheeler to execute a u-turn.  During that time, the trailer will have the highway blocked in both directions for roughly 12 seconds.  If the truck driver has difficulty executing the turn in the space available, the truck will block the road even longer.

An approaching motorist, especially at night or in fog, may not have time to perceive, react to, and avoid the tractor-trailer during the time that the highway is blocked. The result, as in this tragic incident, is often that the approaching motorist cannot stop in time to avoid going under the trailer that blocks the road.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations include rules on conspicuity (visibility) commercial motor vehicles such as tractor trailers. In general, trailers must meet the conspicuity standards found at FMVSS 108 (49 C.F.R. § 571.108). In a u-turn case, rules about visibility from the side are most significant. These vary slightly between federal and state rules for intrastate operations in some instances, but generally the rules require lights and reflective tape or sheeting to make the trucks visible to other motorists. The reflective material must have alternating red and white colors and be positioned horizontally, beginning and ending and the front and rear ends of the trailer.

Often in cases where a tractor trailer is attempting a u-turn in low light conditions, all an approaching driver sees is headlights in the opposite lane. By the time the driver perceives that a tractor trailer is straddling both sides of the highway, there is too little time to react and avoid a crash.

Conspicuity tape and reflectors are cheap. Going another half mile down the road to a place where a turn can be made safely off the highway is cheap. Lives are precious. Too often companies operating big trucks on the highway fail to weigh those values.

We often see tractor trailers that do not comply with conspicuity standards. In one recent case involving a log truck making a u-turn on a rural Georgia highway in the dark, side lights and reflectors were missing and what little reflective tape was on the trailer was worn and dirty. In sum, it had less than one-third of the conspicuity devices required by even the relatively slack rules governing log trucks in Georgia. With logs extending 20 feet off the rear of the trailer and lights not working properly, it formed a black fence across the highway in the dark.

Georgia Code Section 40-6-121 says, “No vehicle shall be turned so as to proceed in the opposite direction: (1) Upon any curve; (2) Upon the approach to or near the crest of a grade where such vehicle cannot be seen by the driver of another vehicle approaching from either direction; (3) Where such turn cannot be made in safety and without interfering with other traffic; or (4) Where a prohibition is posted.” Trucking industry standards go beyond that, taking into account vehicle size and visibility.

Drivers of tractor trailers are professionals who require special training and licensing. Operating vastly larger vehicles than a passenger car or pickup truck, their standard of reasonableness in driving takes into account the type of vehicle they are operating. The basics of that are outlined in the Commercial Drivers License (CDL) manual, which is essentially the same in all states.

Driver manuals from major trucking companies with good safety programs include industry standards higher than the minimum requirements of statutes. Some flatly state that truck driver should never make u-turns in roads under any circumstances. Some command that their drivers never make a left turn on a highway. They should go to the next place they can turn around off the road without blocking the road by making a u-turn.

The concrete industry has a wealth of driver training videos through the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, covering most any situation that can arise in operation of those specialized vehicles. Every time I have handled a case involving a concrete truck, I have found that there were great training materials that if used would have educated the driver to avoid the hazard. And every time, I have found that the company did not bother to use those training materials. Once a concrete driver, upon seeing the training video for the first time in his deposition, exclaimed, “them [expletive deleted] never showed me that; if I had known, this wouldn’t have happened!”

Root cause analysis of these totally preventable and unnecessary crashes usually goes back to corporate management, training and supervision.  If a driver was lost, it is likely because dispatch failed to provide good directions and GPS systems. If the driver was tired, we need to consider whether the company adequately monitored fatigue and hours of service compliance, including the auditing driver logs against available documents to catch log falsification.

The bottom line is that an 18-wheeler driver simply cannot safely make a u-turn on a public road, especially in conditions of reduced visibility. Every time a tractor-trailer driver makes a u-turn in a highway, he creates a clear and present risk of injury or death just to save the time it would take  to go a little way down the road to a place he
could safely change directions. Every company that fails to train its drivers to avoid u-turns has an unspoken policy of endangering the public.

——————

Ken Shigley is a trial attorney practicing statewide in Georgia, focused on serious personal injury and wrongful death cases, especially arising from commercial truck accidents. He is currently chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section. Previously he served as president of the State Bar of Georgia and chair of the board of trustees of theInstitute for Continuing Legal Education in Georgia. He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice and a board certified civil trial attorney of the National Board of Trial Advocacy.  Ken Shigley is a candidate for election to the Georgia Court of Appeals in 2018.

What do you do when insurance coverage is grossly inadequate for a catastrophic truck crash personal injury or wrongful death case?

Big truck wrecks can cause a lot of carnage. When a small passenger car is run over at highway speed by a 80,000 pound tractor trailer bigger than a Sherman tank, a tremendous amount of kinetic energy is unleashed. The results are often than catastrophic.

Unfortunately, the liability insurance required for big trucks has not been adjusted since President Reagan’s administration. Minimum insurance for general freight tractor trailers in interstate commerce was set at $750,000 in 1981. Minimum coverage for interstate hazmat trucks and passenger buses was set at $5,000,000 in 1985.

There has been a lot of inflation in the past 30 years. If the $750,000 minimum insurance limit were adjusted for inflation from 1981 according to the Consumer Price Index, it would be about $2 million. If adjusted at the medical inflation rate, which a lot of folks say is more relevant for personal injury claims, it would be $4,422,000. But a dysfunctional Congress that can’t seem to accomplish anything on this except responding to lobbyists by blocking action in an Appropriations subcommittee markup of the transportation funding bill.

The situation is even worse for trucks operating only inside Georgia, where the minimum required coverage for big commercial trucks is only $100,000. That has remained unchanged for decades.

Confronted with inadequate insurance for catastrophic claims, we have to think outside the box. What other sources of insurance coverage are legitimately accessible?

•  From $400,000 to ~ $3 million.  A tractor trailer driver distracted by an international cell phone call ran over a line of traffic stopped due to another accident up the road, killing three people and injuring several others. The trucking company’s insurer insisted there was only a single $1,000,000 policy. The insurer’s representatives insisted that all the victims’ families should just figure out how to split that.  Our client’s share would have been around $400,000. The family had a relative who was a corporate counsel for a major corporation in New York find a lawyer in Georgia, and ultimately chose me. Everyone else agreed to divy up  that $1 million policy. We declined and pursued a combination of intermodal freight and maritime law theories. That led to uncovering a lot more insurance. A year later we settled a hair under $3 million, more than the record verdict in the small county in south Georgia. Ironically, that was paid mostly by an insurance company that had before suit denied in writing that it had ever heard of the company it insured.
• From about $200,000 to several million. Another tractor trailer ran over a line of traffic stopped in a construction zone, killing 5 people and injuring others. Again, the trucking company’s insurer insisted there was only a single $1 million policy. The trucking company itself had no unencumbered assets, just a bunch of leased equipment. We should just divide that between the give wrongful death  claims and go away. Lawyers for several of the families brought me in to lead the hunt for more coverage. Knowing where to look, I found another $50 million of insurance coverage. That case is still pending.
• From $250,000 to $2 million. In another case, involving a defective piece of warehouse equipment rather than a tractor trailer,  the insurer for the Florida welding shop that made a knockoff work stage on special order, represented that there was only $250,000 insurance for a wrongful death claim. We kept digging and found that company had a cumulative total of $1 million coverage under insurance policies they did not realize overlapped. After collecting that million in Florida, we then came back to Georgia, classified a forklift as an office supply to due the distributor for violation if the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, and collected their $1 million policy limit. In the end we collected $2 million after the first insurance company insisted there was only $250,000 coverage.

  

• From $25,000 to $400,000.  In one recent case, a log truck was making a u-turn in the dark on a rural highway without proper lights and reflectors. Witnesses said it was not visible until they were “slap up on it.” A man driving to work in predawn darkness was killed. The 18 wheeler log truck incredibly had only $25,000 insurance coverage.  After litigating over insurance coverage and bankruptcy issues as well as the original wrongful death claim, we collected about 16 times that much from the insurer for the logger who loaded the truck and the insurance agent that improperly handled the logger’s phone call reporting  the claim. It was less than the theoretical value of the claim but it was enough for the decedent’s daughters to get a good launch in adult life.

All this requires a bit of creativity, approaching problems with old knowledge, curiosity and a fresh eye. Creativity can be productive if it is accompanied by hard work and perseverance.  Creativity is not the same thing as IQ. The world is full of people with high IQ scores who are not creative and those with average IQ who are. Combine IQ, creativity and grit, and you really have something. I don’t claim any particular genius, but sometimes curiosity leads to creative approaches to solving legal problems.

The approaches to finding significant additional insurance coverage are not voodoo or alchemy.  But they do involve a critical knowledge of subtle complexity gathered over 38 years in law practice.  I will not publish the methods for free on the internet. But I am happy to assist clients and lawyers who hire me for that purpose.

——————

Ken Shigley is an Atlanta trial attorney focused on serious personal injury and wrongful death cases. He is currently chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section. Previously he served as president of the State Bar of Georgia and chair of the board of trustees of theInstitute for Continuing Legal Education in Georgia. He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice and a board certified civil trial attorney of the National Board of Trial Advocacy.

NOTE TO TRUCK DRIVERS:
Our law practice focuses on representation of people who are seriously injured, and families of those killed, in crashes with large commercial vehicles. While those are often truck drivers, we do not handle truckers’ employment law matters. For legal advice on issues with your employer or truck driving schools, see Truckers Justice Center. 

One day in Kansas City, I took the deposition testimony through an interpreter of a Bosnian immigrant truck driver. He was driving with a Florida Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) when he crashed an 18-wheeler into my client on a Georgia interstate highway.

I asked where he got his truck driver training. He said some Russian guy in North Carolina, whose name he could not recall, trained him. How did he study the Commercial Drivers License manual, published in English?   He said his 10-year-old daughter read it and translated it for him. She may have been a precocious child, but really? I didn’t think then to dig into how he was able to take and pass the Florida CDL tests.

For several years, a high percentage of our serious truck crash cases have involved immigrant truck drivers who have to testify through interpreters. They drive the highways of America in little bubbles of their home countries, talking by cell phone as they drive with people in their home countries, listening to music in a native dialect, and never really interacting with America language or culture.

When I look back over the past several years, all the truck drivers with inadequate English whom I have encountered in truck crash cases had obtained their CDL’s in either Florida or New Jersey. Perhaps that is just a coincidence. Perhaps.

I deeply respect the immigrant work ethic that leads many newcomers to this country to work hard in jobs that it is hard to find enough Americans to do. Occasionally I have represented hard-working immigrant truckers, visited in their homes and met their wives and children.  But language proficiency has real implications for safety. That is why interstate commercial truck drivers are required to be able to read and speak English well enough to read signs, make entries on records and interact with the public and police. (49 C.F.R Section 391.11)

Now FBI and Florida law enforcement officials have charged four people, including three Russian immigrants, with operating a fraudulent business to provide CDL’s to unqualified immigrants.

Ellariy Medvednik,, Natalia Dontsova, Adrian Salari, and Clarence Davis  have all been indicted for conspiracy to aid and abet the unlawful production of Florida driver licenses and commercial driver licenses. According to the indictment, they were associated with Larex, Inc., a commercial truck driving school that marketed itself online to Russian speakers.

Russian speaking people from elsewhere seeking Florida CDLs would contact Medvednik to arrange for Larex’s services at a price of $2,000 to $5,000. It only took a few days to get a license through the school. A typical truck-driving school lasts three or four weeks and costs at least $6,000.

Many of the CDL applicants were Russian-speaking immigrants living in New York, Illinois, California and Virginia. These  would travel to Florida to obtain their CDLs with the intention of returning to those states immediately afterward.

However, to obtain a Florida CDL, an individual must first possess a Florida driver license. Florida restricts its driver licenses and CDLs to Florida residents. The Russian defendants would provide false documentation that the applicants resided with them in Florida, so that the applicants could obtain Florida driver licenses.

They would then proceed to fraudulently obtain a Florida CDL.  Dontsova, using covert communication equipment, provided answers to the students during the written portion of the CDL exam, leading to issuance of a CDL permit.

Second, Larex hired Davis, a third-party tester authorized by the State of Florida, to administer vehicle inspection tests, basic control skills tests, and road tests. According to the US Attorney, Davis routinely passed and certified students who should have failed based on their test performance. Based on Davis’s certifications, these Russian applicants were able to obtain Florida CDLs. At least 600 people have been identified as utilizing Larex’s services with Davis as the third-party tester to obtain a CDL.

The FBI started investigating the school in June 2013 after the Orange County Tax Collector’s Office noticed that many people had applied for a CDL using the same home address. This led to a sting investigation in which a Russian-speaking informant posed as an applicant and went through the whole process, and ultimately a federal search warrant for the records at Larex.

The implication for public safety across the United States is that hundreds of unqualified truck drivers, who are not sufficiently proficient in English to qualify for a CDL, and who could not pass either the written or the road tests, were authorized to drive 80,000 tractor trailers on every highway in the United States. Most probably were hired for small, fly-by-night trucking companies that to turn a blind eye to  driver qualifications and compliance with safety rules.

I hope they do not run into my future clients on the road.

—————-

Ken Shigley is an Atlanta trial attorney focused on serious personal injury and wrongful death cases. He is currently chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section. Previously he served as president of the State Bar of Georgia and chair of the board of trustees of the Institute for Continuing Legal Education in Georgia. He is lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice and a board certified civil trial attorney of the National Board of Trial Advocacy. Ken Shigley is a candidate for election to the Georgia Court of Appeals in 2018.

But too often tractor trailer rollovers result in serious injury or death to the truck driver and sometimes others. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has worked for years to reduce the incidence of truck rollovers, which are a major safety concern for both truck drivers and other motorists on the highway.

The Large Truck Crash Causation Study documented over a decade ago that tractor-trailers are particularly vulnerable because of the trailer’s high center of gravity and frequently unstable loads. In that study, the great majority were driver errors, including excessive speed in curves, often misjudging sharpness, drifting off road, often counter-steering abruptly, not adjusting to the trailers high center of gravity, being impaired physically (e.g. fatigue, drowsiness) or emotionally (reckless, angry). Vehicle-related problems include top heavy and badly distributed or unsecured loads, poorly maintained brakes or suspension and under-inflated tires, many of which were the driver’s responsibility to check. Improved driver training, especially for tanker truck and concrete mixer truck drivers, is a big part of rollover prevention.

Equipment improvements are another part of the solution. This week, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a new rule requiring electronic stability control (ESC) systems on truck tractors and certain buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of greater than 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds).

ESC systems in truck tractors and large buses are designed to reduce untripped rollovers and mitigate severe understeer or oversteer conditions that lead to loss of control by using automatic computer-controlled braking and reducing engine torque output.

It is expected that this final rule will prevent 1,424 to 1,759 crashes, 505 to 649 injuries, and 40 to 49 fatalities at $0.1 to $0.6 million net cost per equivalent life saved, while generating positive net benefits.

NHTSA does not intend that this rule preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by this rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard announced here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action

Let’s hope that over the years as ESC equipment is found in an increasing share of truck and bus fleets, we will see a steady reduction in rollover crashes.

—————–

Ken Shigley is a past president of the State Bar of Georgia (2011-12) and will be chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway & Premises Liability Section for 2015-16. He is a board certified civil trial attorney of the National Board of Trial Advocacy.

To be clear, most interstate truck drivers are highly responsible, safety conscious and would never dream of driving when impaired from alcohol or drugs.

But there are those who use stimulants, sometimes including meth or cocaine, to stay up for long driving hours, or who get behind the wheel after drinking. Others use either prescription or over the counter drugs which can affect attentiveness.

Aware of that risk, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations require mandatory post-accident alcohol and drug tests whenever anyone is killed or removed from that crash scene by ambulance, and when any vehicle is towed from a wreck with an interstate commercial vehicle and when.

Until now, however, there has not been an easy way to check on whether a truck driver has a history of driving under the influence.

On February 20th, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published a proposed rule that would establish a database of drivers with a commercial driver’s license (CDL) who have failed or refused to take a drug or alcohol test. This clearinghouse may help improve roadway safety by making it easier to determine whether a truck or bus driver is prohibited from operating a commercial motor vehicle for failing to comply with federal drug and alcohol regulations, including mandatory testing.

Current federal regulations require employers to conduct mandatory pre-employment screening of CDL driver qualifications based upon their driving record. However, there are not been a single federal repository recording positive drug and alcohol tests by CDL holder that employers would be able to search to ensure the driver is able to perform at a job where safety is the number one concern.

“Safety is our highest priority, and we will continue to embrace new tools and opportunities that protect the travelers on our nation’s roads,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “Today’s proposal will help ensure dangerous drivers stay off the road, while encouraging the employment of the many safe drivers who follow our drug and alcohol requirements.”

The proposed rule would give employers access to invaluable information with ease. The new rule also require employers to conduct pre-employment searches through the repository for all new CDL drivers and annual searched on drivers they currently employ.

“We are leveraging technology to create a one-stop verification point to help companies hire drug and alcohol-free drivers,” said FMCSA Administrator Anne S. Ferro. “This proposal moves us further down the road toward improving safety for truck and bus companies, commercial drivers and the motoring public everywhere.”

Under the proposed regulation, FMCSA-regulated truck and bus companies, Medical Review Officers, Substance Abuse Professionals, and private third-party USDOT drug and alcohol testing laboratories would be required to record information about any driver who:

• Fails a drug and/or alcohol test
• Refuses to submit a drug and/or alcohol test; and
• Successfully completes a substance abuse program and is legally qualified to return to duty.

Private, third-party USDOT drug and alcohol testing laboratories would also be required to report summary information annually so that they can help identify companies that do not have a testing program. To ensure the privacy of the drivers involved, each CDL holder would need to provide their consent before an employer could access the clearinghouse.

Drivers who refuse to provide their testing information could still be employed by the truck or bus company; however, they could not occupy safety-sensitive positions such as operating a commercial motor vehicle.

It is a violation of federal regulations to drive a truck or bus under the influence of a controlled substance or under the influence of alcohol. Federal safety regulations require that truck and bus companies that employ CDL drivers conduct random drug and alcohol testing programs. Carriers must randomly test 10 percent of their CDL drivers for alcohol and 50 percent of their CDL drivers for drugs each year.

Ken Shigley is past president of the State Bar of Georgia (2011-12), double board certified in Civil Trial Advocacy and Civil Pretrial Advocacy by the National Board of Legal Specialty Certification, and lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice. His Atlanta-based civil trial practice is focused on representation of plaintiffs in cases of castastrophic personal injury and wrongful death.

As a trucking accident personal injury and wrongful death lawyer based in Atlanta, I get a chance to see the trucking safety issues from the point of view of both innocent folks who are run over by tractor trailers and truck drivers who are themselves put at risk by companies that care too little about safety.

A blogging truck driver at Go By Truck News wrote this week that “A rogue motor carrier is a truck driver’s worst nightmare.”

He wrote that last year, D.A. Landis Trucking, Inc. was charged with conspiracy for ordering drivers to falsify their daily logbooks, maintain two sets of logs, falsely certify accuracy of the lying logs, had dispatchers also knowingly dispatched drivers on trips that were truck accidentto exceed hours-of-service requirements.

That is old news to those of us who have been digging through truck drivers’ logs and trip documents and both deposing and interviewing truck drivers.

He also gathered these tweets from tired truck drivers:

– “My dispatcher goes retarded when I tried to tell them I have only 1 hr left to drive.”

– “I have heard this from many dispatchers before. Come on we need you for one more.”

– “When it comes to driving we have 65mph trks n 100mph dispatchers with 26 hrs in a day!”

– “Dispatch was kind enough to plan my first load for 4am central time. My paperwork is invalid and dispatch won’t be in for another 3 hrs.”

Go By Truck News urges truck drivers to check the safety records of any company they consider working for, and to make sure they know the rules, including these:

FMCSR 392.6 Schedules to conform with speed limits. “No motor carrier shall require a run nor permit nor require the operation of any commercial motor vehicle between points in such period of time as would necessitate the commercial vehicle being operated at speed greater than those prescribed by the jurisdictions in or through which the commercial motor vehicle is being operated.”

FMCSR 390.13 Aiding or abetting violations. “No person shall aid, abet, encourage, or require a motor carrier or its employees to violate the rules of this chapter.”

FMCSR 392.3 Ill or fatigued operator. “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, 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.” (This regulation was mentioned in my prior article and worth repeating again here).

He is spot on in stating that, “A good safety director will educate a driver about these regulations, rewarding and not penalizing a driver for declining to take a load if they are too fatigued. A good company with a pattern of safe behavior will give a trucker an opportunity to develop a disciplined sleep routine.”

He urges that, “it’s often the employer / load planner / dispatcher pushing the trucker beyond their limits. However, all truckers should take a stand with the Trucker Mike’s ‘Mantra’ – ‘I will NEVER let anyone ‘push’ me, instead I’ll be fired for being SAFE if need be!’”

This afternoon, my friend Steve Gursten in Michigan forwarded this plea he received from a truck driver who wants to drive safely but works for a rogue trucking company that won’t allow him to follow the law:

The company that I drive for has me doing illegal runs. I feel if I don’t do them my miles will be cut or they will find a way to get rid of me. I need to care for my family. I have been too many companies and they are all the same. The one I’m with now is the worst. I’m looking for other employment and coping the best I can. Is there anyone I can talk to like a whistle blower organization? Or maybe a letter too the sec of transportation? Companies, dispatchers, shippers and receivers need to be held accountable. Until we have better legislation in place to address this, us truckers will always be at the bottom of the hill. And of course we know which direction s##t rolls.

Wow!

That is right in line with my impression over the years that most truck drivers are just ordinary good guys working hard to make a living, but are too often pushed by employers, motor carriers, shippers, brokers, etc., to make illegal runs on impossible schedules, so that they are often pushed beyond the limits of human endurance.

That is why I generally try to handle these cases by digging for a root cause analysis in the corporate safety management system — or lack thereof.

I suggested referring this guy to Truckers Justice Center in Minnesota, operated by a lawyer who represents whistle blowing truck drivers nationwide
If your or a family member were run over by a tractor trailer, or if you are a truck driver badly injured in the line of duty, I would be glad to talk with you with no obligation.

Ken Shigley is an Atlanta-based trial attorney who served as president of the State Bar of Georgia in 2011-12, is listed in Georgia “Super Lawyers” and “Legal Elite,” is double board certified by the National Board of Legal Specialty Certification, and focuses his practice on serious personal injury and wrongful death cases arising for truck, car and defective product accidents.

Despite the political gridlock and recent shutdown of the federal government, Congress has managed to pass legislation to address the danger of sleep apnea in the trucking industry. At this writing, it awaits the President’s signature.

House Resolution 3095 is a simple, two-page bill sponsored by two members of Congress sped through Congress. It requires the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to commit to formal rule making on sleep apnea testing and treatment for truckers and other professional drivers.

The trucking industry, predictably enough, estimates that “the impact of screening, diagnosis, and treatment for obstructive sleep apnea could exceed $1 billion annually.” But that is a bargain compared to the carnage on the highways due to drivers of 80,000 pound tractor trailers falling asleep at the wheel.

The downside of this, warns my friend Michael Leizerman in Ohio, is that by requiring the FMCSA to go through full rulemaking and cost-benefit analysis when addressing screening, testing or treatment of sleep apnea, it may delay rather than speed up efforts to address the very real problem of sleep apnea. As Michael pointed out in a recent blog post, the FMCSA has already published the online Fatigue Management Training program and has many simple and inexpensive ideas to make fatigue awareness part of a motor carrier’s safety culture.

Untreated sleep apnea can lead to fatigued driving and is thus a medically disqualifying condition for truck drivers. FMCSR 391.41(b)(5). We have seen too many cases in which our clients were run over by truck drivers who were often good folks but were dangerous behind the wheel due to fatigue, drowsiness and untreated sleep apnea.

As Michael Leizerman has pointed out, this legislation requires the FMCSA to go through a full rule making process which will add years of delay to the implementation of much needed efforts to forcefully address the problem of sleep apnea among truck drivers.

Ken Shigley is an Atlanta trial attorney whose practice focuses on trucking accident litigation. He is a past president of the State Bar of Georgia, board certified trial attorney and lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice.

What most lawyers do not know is that the regulations may also apply to many commercial vehicles, including many work vehicles such as large pickups towing utility trailers.

A CDL isn’t required to drive smaller utility vehicles and trailers, but they may still be governed by federal or state trucking safety regulations. There are two definitions with which a lawyer handling these cases should be familiar in order to understand how to apply trucking safety regulations to non-CDL drivers
First is Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and it is what a vehicle manufacturer defines as the vehicles loaded weight. This weight is usually printed on a plate that can be found on the inside of the driver’s door. Most passenger cars have a GVWR of 5000 or less and full-sized pick up trucks will have a GVWR of 6000 to 8000 pounds.

Second is Gross Combination Weight Rating (GCWR). This is the GVWR of the power unit (the towing vehicle) plus the weight of the unit being towed with any load that it is carrying.

The FMCSR contain two definitions of what constitutes a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle. The first definition, found at 49 CFR § 390.5, defines it as “any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a highway or interstate commerce… (that) has a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating or Gross Combination Weight Rating of 10,001 pounds or more.”

The second definition, found at 49 C.F.R. § § 383.5, defines a commercial motor vehicle as a vehicle used in interstate or intrastate commerce that has a gross combination weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds inclusive of a towed unit with a gross vehicle rating of more than 10,000 pounds.

When both the definitions and regulations are put together, a business vehicle that weighs over 10,001 pounds (alone or in combination with a trailer) can be considered a commercial motor vehicle.

This means that a 7000 pound pickup truck pulling 3001 pound trailer can meet the definition of a commercial motor vehicle, even though a commercial drivers license isn’t required for CMVs that are under 26,001 pounds.

Whenever we evaluate a case that involves any size truck or van towing a trailer, we must determine the GCWR because it could be a commercial vehicle required to comply with either federal or state trucking regulations.

If the vehicle qualifies as a commercial motor vehicle, the next step is to determine what safety regulations apply. That will depend initially on whether the commercial vehicle operates in interstate commerce
With some minor variations, most of the FMCSRs apply to the operation of non-CDL commercial motor vehicles. The only extra regulations that govern over 26,001 pound CMVs are those that specifically address CDL licensing ( 49 CFR §383) and drug and alcohol testing (49 CFR §382.)

Here are some of the most important regulations and how they apply.

• Most of the FMCSR and the state equivalent thereof are applicable to all commercial motor vehicles regardless of whether a commercial driver’s license is required to operate the vehicle or not.
• Businesses that operate commercial motor vehicles must register and obtain authority from state and federal trucking authorities. This means everyone from landscape companies to plumbing companies that own and operate vehicles alone or together with a towed trailer weigh over 10,001 pounds must register and follow the regulations that are not just for “trucking companies.”
• Employers of non-CDL CMV drivers are required to “qualify” each driver in the same way as employers of CDL drivers and must maintain an up-to-date Driver Qualification File on each driver (49 CFR §391.) This includes ensuring that drivers meet minimum requirements of being over the age of 21, having the ability to read and speak English, and have both the physical and medical qualifications as CDL drivers. This also requires the employer to obtain a detailed application for employment, perform a detailed background check, obtain annual review of driving records, and perform annual re-qualification of the driver. The only significant difference for CDL drivers is that they are required to give 10 years of employment history instead of the 3 years for non-CDL drivers.
• Most regulations pertaining to the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles apply to the operation of both CDL and non-CDL motor vehicles. This includes prohibitions against drugs, alcohol, radar detectors, unauthorized passengers, texting, handheld devices while operating the vehicle, and operating while ill or fatigued. It also includes requirements for seat belts, emergency equipment, inspections, stopping at railroad crossing, use of extreme caution when operating in poor conditions including rain and fog. See 49 CFR §392 for detailed information on these items.
• For the most part, the same hours of service rules apply to both CDL and non-CDL drivers. The biggest exception has to do with driver daily logs. Except when operating only in a 150 air-mile short haul radius zone drivers that operate CMVs that require a CDL are typically required to keep a detailed 24 hour driver log that shows all changes in duty status although there are some exceptions to this. Most drivers of CMVs that don’t require a CDL are under the qualification of short-haul drivers. As long as they operate within a 150 air-mile radius and return to their base at the end of each trip, they typically aren’t required to keep such a log. However, the employer is required to keep accurate time records showing the time the driver reported for work, when they were released, and total work time for the day as well as the previous seven days. The employer is also required to keep these records for six months.
• Many employers fail to maintain accurate time records for non-CDL drivers. Failure to keep these records raises a presumption of violation. You should also be on the lookout for drivers who hold more than one job. Hours of service regulations apply to all work performed regardless of how many jobs a driver has during the reporting period.

But mere applicability of the regulations to smaller commercial vehicles does not make either the physics of a collision or the dynamics in the courtroom or jury room the same as when an 80,000 pound runs over a family vehicle. The advocate for individuals and families hurt in these collisions must evaluate the whole situation, taking into account the facts, the law and the psychological factors in play.

Ken Shigley is past president of the State Bar of Georgia (2011-12). His law practice focuses on representation of plaintiffs in cases of serious personal injury and wrongful death, including those occurring in commercial truck and bus accidents.

Possible charges are pending against the driver of the tractor-trailer operated by Millis Transfer, Inc. According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration records, that company is based in Black River Falls, Wisconsin, but the company website lists a terminal in Carterville, Georgia. News reports to not mention whether the alcohol and drug tests required under federal law were done.

It is speculative to guess why this tragedy happened, but some of the likely suspects in similar truck crashes are:

• Illegal left turn. Georgia law requires that the driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction that is within the intersection or so close to it as to constitute an immediate hazard.
• Possible hours of service violation. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations require that drivers of commercial vehicles in interstate commerce drive no more than 11 hours out of 14 hours on duty, then take a 10 hour rest break, and to get longer weekly breaks. We often see hours of service violations in truck drivers from the Midwest traveling to Georgia. I don’t know whether that is the case here.
• Truck driver impairment due to fatigue, medication, illness, etc. This often goes hand in hand with hours of service violations, but we also often see drivers impaired by medication.
• Possible use of a hand held cell phone or other driver distraction. A relatively new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration rule restricts the use of all hand-held mobile devices by drivers of commercial vehicles. My guess is that the Georgia State Patrol Specialized Collision Reconstruction Team (SCRT) is checking any cell phone SIM card and billing records.

Georgia wrongful death law gives designated survivors the right to bring a wrongful death action against the responsible parties. In Georgia, there can be two separate claims that may be asserted against a person or corporation who negligently causes a death:

– A “wrongful death” claim for the “full value of the life” which belongs to survivors designated by statute. If there is neither a spouse nor child surviving, then the decedent’s parents have the right to sue under Georgia law. If the parents of a deceased child are divorced or living apart, the trial court has full discretion to allocate the wrongful death recovery between them, considering any pertinent factors.
– A “survival action” which belongs to the estate and is brought by the executor or administrator of the deceased for pain and suffering before death, medical expense and funeral expense. This claim may be filed by the administrator or executor of the decedent’s estate.

Ken Shigley is past president of the State Bar of Georgia (2011-12), past chair of the Institute for Continuing Legal Education in Georgia board of trustees (2012-13), board certified civil trial and pretrial advocate (National Board of Legal Specialty Certification) lead author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice (2010-13). His Atlanta-based practice focuses on cases of wrongful death and catastrophic personal injury, including brain injury and spinal cord injury.

Ken Shigley is an experienced trucking trial attorney in Atlanta, Georgia, and immediate past president of the 42,000 member State Bar of Georgia.

His practice is focused on high end personal injury and wrongful death cases, primarily resulting from motor carrier accidents – commercial trucks, buses, tractor trailers, big rigs, dump trucks, tanker trucks, cement trucks, straight trucks, delivery trucks, log trucks, etc.

He is on the national board of the Interstate Trucking Litigation Group of the American Association for Justice, and has taught other lawyers from coast to coast about aspects of litigating trucking cases

Reports have surfaced that the deceased was driving a Nissan Pathfinder on I-85 in Gwinnett County when a tractor trailer switched lanes and forced the vehicle into another lane which was occupied by a box truck. After the vehicle hit the box truck, it left the road at high speeds crashing into a steep hill between I-85 and the interstate ramp at Steve Reynolds Boulevard.

Gwinnett police spokesman Cpl. Jake Smith said the vehicle flipped several times which caused the woman to be ejected from the front passenger seat. The children and the man in the vehicle were taken to Children’s at Egleston Hospital where Cpl. Smith said they are likely to survive. Smith reports that the box truck stopped at the scene and was cooperative with investigators. However, the tractor trailer failed to stop and was later found in Cobb County, according to investigators.

“The truck driver was questioned,” Gwinnett County police spokesman Cpl. Edwin Ritter said. “Investigators are following up on all leads.”

When fatal crashes such as this one occur, the Georgia State Patrol Specialized Collision Reconstruction Team (SCRT) is called to the scene. The mission of this specialized team is to provide a means by which fatal crashes can be investigated by specially trained investigators. The SCRT works to collect and document all evidence so their can be a successful court hearing. The SCRT is also responsible to gathering information that could help avoid future collisions. There are five teams of investigators throughout the state to assist officers with deadly crashes. These officers are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week and help with cases ranging from fatal crashes to officer involved shootings.

It is still speculative to guess the cause of the crash, but a few of the many Federal Motor Carrier Regulations that could be implicated in this case include:
– Improper lane change in violation of Georgia traffic law: This would become a violation if investigators find the truck failed to use a signal, failed to be within a reasonably safe passing distance, or failed to signal a stop or sudden decrease in speed.
– Possible hours of service: This would become a violation if the investigation reveals the truck driver was a long haul driver in interstate commerce and had not complied with the rule requiring a 10 hour rest break after operating no more than 11 hours in a 14 hour work day.
– Possible use of a hand held cell phone or other driver distraction: A new FMCSA rule restricts the use of all hand-held mobile devices by drivers of commercial vehicles. Unless the call can be made with a single button, hands-free phone in close proximity. It would be considered a violation if the driver is also reaching for a mobile device in a way that requires the driver to move out of the driving position.

– Truck driver impairment due to fatigue, medication, illness, etc.

Continue reading “Hit and Run by Tractor Trailer Kills Woman in Gwinnett” >>

Kenneth L. Shigley Past President, State Bar of Georgia (2011-12)
Board Certified Civil Trial Advocate & Civil Pretrial Advocate,
National Board of Legal Specialty Certification Attorney Referrals:
https://www.atlantainjurylawyer.com/attorney-lawyer-1008566.html

Shigley Law, LLC One Midtown Plaza 1360 Peachtree Street, Suite 910 Atlanta , Georgia 30309 Phone: 404.253.7862 Fax: 678.791.1728 Email: ken.shigley@johnsonward.com

According to early news reports, a car pulled over to yield to the approaching ambulance, with its lights and siren activated, as required under Georgia law, and the tractor trailer then jackknifed into the path of the ambulance.

The Georgia State Patrol’s Specialized Crash Reconstruction Team is investigating. It is early to speculate about what laws may have been violated, but possibilities include:
– Following too closely
– Speed too fast for conditions – Failure of semi driver to yield to approaching emergency vehicle
– Possible hours of service violation if investigation reveals trucker was long haul driver in interstate commerce and had not complied with rule requiring 10 hour rest break after operating no more than 11 hours in 14 hour work day, etc.
– Possible driver distraction theories.

Investigation will probably include examination of data in the truck engine’s electronic control module (ECM) if it was turned on, in any Qualcomm or other satellite communications system, and in any GPS device in the truck. We find that sometimes when ECM data is lost or destroyed a GPS provides speed and hours of service data.

Ken Shigley is past president of the State Bar of Georgia (2011-12). His law practice focuses on representation of plaintiffs in cases of serious personal injury and wrongful death, including those occurring in commercial truck and bus accidents.

But most of us have personal experience to know that a driver can be dangerously sleepy in far less than 11 hours of driving.

Australian researchers have confirmed what we intuitively know. Caffeine can help maintain driver alertness. But caffeine alone is not enough, and naps can help too. In “Use of caffeinated substances and risk of crashes in long distance drivers of commercial vehicles: case-control study,” published at BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1140 ( 19 March 2013), Lisa N Sharwood and her collaborators reported on their study.

Their bottom line:

– Caffeine helps, but that alone is not enough.

– Breaks help, whether used for naps, exercise or drinking coffee.

All this seems like common sense, but it bears repeating. One problem in the trucking industry is that trucking companies and shippers sometimes insist on driving the maximum hours allowed (or longer), so that no credit is given for drivers who take breaks to help maintain alertness within those hours.

However, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations include not just the hours of service rules but also a more general restriction against operating a commercial vehicle when too fatigued or ill to safely do so.

Ken Shigley is former president of the State Bar of Georgia, which includes all lawyers licensed to practice in Georgia. His practice is focused on representation of individuals and families in serious injury and death cases arising from truck and bus crashes in Georgia.

You may pray that they are well-trained, well-managed, safe and responsible. Most are. Some are not.

The duties of a commercial truck driver are spelled out in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, Commercial Drivers License (CDL) manuals, training materials published by industry associations and companies such as J. J. Keller, and company policies and procedures. While only statutes and regulations have the force of law, the others may be used as evidence of standards of care and of negligence when violated.

Some of the truck driver’s duties include:

– Know and understand the safety regulations and policies.

– Perform pre-trip and post-trip inspections, carefully going through a detailed checklist of the tractor and trailer.

A proper pre-trip inspection takes an experienced truck driver 20 to 30 minutes.Too often in truck accident cases we find inspections were no more than a quick walk-around or less, with a vertical line hurriedly drawn down the checklist rather than even bothering to inspect and check off each item. Earlier this week I was at a truck stop for my expert’s inspection of a tractor trailer involved in a fatal accident when we saw another truck driver do a 20 second “pre-trip inspection” that involved glancing at his tires. The result of inadequate pre-trip inspection can be operation of an 80,000 pound truck on the highway with unsafe equipment.

– Understand and comply with hours of service regulations, and truthfully log their driving, on-duty but not driving and off-duty time.

They are limited to driving 11 hours in a 14 hour work day, after which they must take a 10 hour rest break. The driver is responsible for planning a route with the hours of service rules in mind, and for notifying dispatch when he is out of legal hours.

I have handled cases in which drivers falsified logs in order to appear legal far beyond exhaustion of both their legal hours of operation and their bodies. Sometimes they are pressed to drive far beyond legal hours by trucking company dispatchers, third party logistics companies, freight brokers, shippers and consignees who turn a blind eye to safety. Those companies may share the legal blame, but the truck driver is still responsible as the pilot of the ship.

– Inspect his cargo to make sure it is safely distributed and secured before the trip, at particular points en route, and at the end of a trip.

Except when taking a sealed trailer that he is not allowed to open without special permission, the driver is required to inspect inside the trailer to make sure weight is properly distributed and the right methods and equipment have been employed to prevent the lad from shifting.

When operating a truck with a flatbed trailer, the driver must assure that the load is and remains securely tied down, following commodity-specific rules in order to prevent spilling, leaking, falling or blowing of cargo.

A while back, I handled a case in which a truck driver failed to secure a forklift on a flatbed trailer, with the result that the forklift came loose in a curve on a mountain road and landed on top of an oncoming vehicle. Police and the coroner were picking pieces of people out of that flattened car for days.

– Plan a route that takes into account weight limitations on roads and bridges, low height restrictions of bridges and tunnels, railroad crossings, one way streets and awkward turns.

A confused or careless truck driver can kill people when attempting a u-turn that blocks a highway in the dark or stuck in a railroad crossing or low bridge.

– Use extreme caution when road or adverse weather conditions affect traction or visibility, and if necessary pull off the road and wait for conditions improve. CDL manuals instruct truck drivers to reduce speed by one-third in rainy conditions.

When a tractor trailer hydroplanes in a rain slick curve and knack knifes at highway speed into oncoming traffic, only a miracle an prevent deaths or catastrophic injuries, including that of the truck driver himself.

– Stop driving when ill or fatigued, even if still within the legal hours of service.

Sometimes we find that truck drivers work second jobs or pursue other activities during the required rest periods, so that. They are unsafely fatigued even when inside legal hours of operation. Other times we find truckers returning to work too soon after an illness, such as one who got a chiropractor to issue DOT medical certificate two weeks after open heart surgery.

Safety should always come first.

– Whenever stopped on the side of the road, truck drivers must activate hazard flashers, then put out reflective triangles or flares at specified locations behind the trailer.

– Hang up and drive.

Federal rules now ban use of hand held cell phones as well as text messaging during operation of a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce.

– Obey all state and local traffic laws.

Truckers must also obey local peed limits, traffic control devices, etc.

There is much more that could be included, but this may give you a taste of the issues we examine regarding truck driver duties.

Ken Shigley is a past president of the 43,000 member State Bar of Georgia, which includes all lawyers licensed in Georgia. In his own law practice, he specializes in representation of plaintiffs in serious injury and wrongful death cases including those arising from large commercial truck and bus accidents. He is available for free consultations in such cases.

When we share the road with semi tractor trailer drivers who pilot 80,000 pound big rigs on highways across the country, we hope they are well-qualified and safety conscious. Most are but some are not.

Among the many things I examine as a trucking accident litigation trial attorney in Georgia are the qualifications, experience and background of the truck driver.

Commercial truck and bus drivers are required to have knowledge of and comply with all government trucking safety regulations and company policies. Motor carriers operating truck and bus lines are required to make sure drivers are adequately trained and monitor drivers’ performance.

Entry level truck drivers must obtain a Commercial Driver’s License, usually referred to as a CDL. That requires training in driver qualifications, hours of service, safe operations and whistle blower protection. The CDL manuals for all states in the US are materially identical. Drivers are required to know and understand pertinent provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, so the CDL manual explains the regs in simpler, graphic terms.

Drivers of specialized commercial vehicles need additional training specific to those types of vehicles. Trade organizations and safety materials publishing companies produce training videos and manuals for a wide variety of specialized commercial vehicles such as concrete mixer trucks, crane trucks, etc.

These CDL manuals and specialized training materials are extremely useful in cross examining truck drivers after they crash.

In applying for a truck driving job, a truck driver must provide his or her CDL, employment history, driving records, record of convictions and violations, medical history, drug and alcohol history, and physical exam.

Trucking companies are required to conduct a road test of the driver, testing knowledge, skills, experience and training, using the same type vehicle the driver is expected to operate. The test must be conducted by an employee who is qualified to do so.

When representing the victims of a catastrophic semi tractor trailer crash, all this fair game for thorough and sifting examination. Any lawyer who thinks a commercial truck crash is just a bigger car wreck will be clueless and unprepared, vastly reducing the prospects for success in representing his client. That is why our years of experience in trucking litigation matters.

Source: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; Truck Accident Litigation (3d edition)

Ken Shigley is a former president of the State Bar of Georgia, which includes all lawyers licensed to practice in Georgia. His own law practice is specialized in representation of plaintiffs in cases of serious personal injury and wrongful death, especially those occurring in commercial truck and bus accidents.