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

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

Why hire a board certified attorney?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) the total fee is reasonable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety management by trucking companies

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

Speed

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

Driver impairment

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

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

Fatigue

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

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

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

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

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

Sleep apnea

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

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

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

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

Driver distraction

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

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

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

Direct solicitation of accident victims

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

—————-

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

A fiery crash on I-95 at Richmond Hill near Savannah in Chatham County on July 26^th caused the wrongful death of a woman and sent her husband to a specialized burn unit in Augusta. It appears all too typical of other truck accident cases we have handled throughout Georgia, including those in the Savannah area and along I-95 and I-16.

According to news reports, as a southbound tractor trailer approached the exit the driver moved from the center lane to the right lane. Approaching a line of cars slowed in traffic, the truck driver then tried to get back into the middle lane when struck another tractor-trailer, causing it to spin out of control and into the line of cars waiting to exit. The tractor-trailer struck two SUVs. One SUV was thrown over a concrete barrier onto railroad tracks.

The second SUV was pinned against a concrete barrier over the CSX railroad tracks and burst into flames. The occupants, a husband and wife, were caught in their burning vehicle. The wife was killed and the husband was badly burned and transported to a specialized burn unit in Augusta.

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

Safety management by trucking companies

.

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

Speed

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

Driver impairment

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

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

Truck driver fatigue

Hard working truckers tend to drive too long and sleep too little, with outcomes that are predictable. They have “hours of service limits” and are required to log their time driving, on duty but not driving, off duty and in the sleeper berth. The current limits are 11 hours driving out of 14 hours on duty, followed by at least 10 hours off duty, up to 60 hours in a week or 70 hours in an 8 day period on the road. But they can under certain circumstances restart the clock and get behind the wheel. That provision can allow a truck driver to drive up to 81 hours per week.

As many as one-third of truck drivers admit to falsifying their hours of service logs, often under pressure from employers and shippers to get the job done quickly, to meet financial incentives, or simply to make more money. In a truck crash we are handling at I-16 and I-95, we have a video of the truck driver at the scene saying, “I must have went to sleep.”

While there is no easy scientific test to determine when fatigue contributes to the cause of a crash, but we can often peel away the layers of deception through detailed review of trip records. Once after deconstructing his trip records, a trucker in Ohio admitted to me in deposition that he had been driving 20 of the previous 24 hours, had driven from Ohio to Atlanta, back to Ohio, and after a one hour nap started driving back to Atlanta. He ran over a family and killed their son. In another case, a truck driver actually admitted on police video at the crash scene, “I must have went to sleep.”

Sleep apnea

There is nothing in the news reports to suggest whether or not fatigue related to sleep apnea may have been a factor in this crash, but it is something we look into when appropriate.

The US Department of Transportation Medical Review Board has recommended that individuals with a Body Mass Index (BMI) over 40 “should be referred for diagnostic sleep evaluations.” The National Transportation Safety Board has reported, “Drivers with sleep apnea are seven times more likely to be involved in an automobile accident than those without sleep apnea” Drivers with undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea who are not receiving proper treatment are prone to making critical mistakes or even fall asleep while driving due to their fatigue.”  The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has warned truck drivers that, “Untreated sleep apnea can make it difficult for you to stay awake, focus your eyes, and react quickly while driving. In general, studies show that people with untreated sleep apnea have an increased risk of being involved in a fatigue-related motor vehicle crash.”

In one fatal truck crash we have handled, just a cursory review of the driver qualification file in the trucking company’s records revealed that the truck driver was “morbidly obese” with a BMI of 41.5, putting him severely at risk of obstructive sleep apnea. There was nothing in the records to indicate any evaluation or treatment for sleep apnea. After crashing into a clearly visible line of stopped traffic at a red light, he admitted to an officer that he was fatigued four and one-half hours after reporting for work.

Driver distraction

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

We often fight with trucking companies’ insurers over production and forensic download of data from smart phones that law enforcement typically does not attempt to access. A cell phone download may reveal vice and text connections and use of other communications apps such as Facetime, Facebook Messenger, etc. In addition, GPS data from the cell phone may be compared with electronic data from the truck regarding locations, speed and activity of the truck, and patterns and practices that may cast light upon the root cause of the crash. Cell phone data may reveal the truck driver’s off-duty activities contributing to dangerous fatigue on the job. For example, a driver was working a second job in his off hours which would have contributed to accumulated fatigue, chronic sleep deprivation, and irregular work and rest cycles which could likely lead to the inevitable result of a catastrophic truck crash.

Direct solicitation of accident victims

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

—————-

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

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. 

Truck crash on I-16 at I-95 on 5/19/2015 killed 5. Truck driver admitted falling asleep, is charged with 5 counts of vehicular homicide.

In the spring of 2015, there were two separate five-fatality truck crashes on I-16 in Georgia. The first one got most of the publicity because the victims were all beautiful young nursing students, but both were equally lethal and egregious. In both cases, there were at least indications that a truck driver fell asleep before running over a line of stopped traffic.

On April 22, 2015, in Bryan County, John Wayne Johnson, a truck driver from Louisiana driving for Total Trucking, a subsidiary of US Express, ran over vehicles stopped traffic. He killed five Georgia Southern University nursing students and injured two others. It appears he went to sleep as there was clear visibility on a long, straight stretch of road before he ran over the stopped vehicles. Johnson admitted he had been texting and exchanging sexually provocative message with a woman while driving but denied he was on the phone at the time of the crash.

Less than a month later, on May 19, 2015, on I-16  at its intersection with I-95, a line of traffic was stopped due to road work. David Gibbons of Pooler, driving from Georgia Freightways Corporation, while towing an intermodal container chassis trailer that carried a shipping container for CMA CMG (America), LLC, the US subsidiary of a French shipping line. The tractor-trailer was seen weaving for some distance prior to crashing into the line of stopped traffic, killing five people and injuring one. While the driver’s cell phone was allegedly destroyed in the resulting fire, phone bills indicated he was connected to the internet all day. He admitted to police on video at the scene, “I must have went to sleep.” The GBI crime lab found that he had a sleeping medication in his system, the most common trade name for which is Ambien. In deposition, he asserted his 5th Amendment right to remain silent on every question other than his name. (Disclosure: Our firm is involved as co-counsel in several of those cases.)

This spring, the Chatham County District Attorney charged Gibbons for five counts of vehicular homicide for the May 2015 crash.. This week, a Bryan County grand jury indicted Johnson for on nine counts based on the April 2015 crash, including five counts of first-degree vehicular homicide, serious injury by vehicle, reckless driving, following too closely, and failure to exercise due care. In an unusual move, the company that employed him was also indicted.

Several weeks ago, the civil cases arising from the Bryan County case were settled for substantial amounts. That was relatively simple as such things go since the trucking company and its parent company reportedly had $100 million in liability insurance coverage.

The Chatham County civil cases remain pending. It is more complex because a small trucking company with few assets had only had $1 million liability insurance coverage, so it is necessary to involve companies that are responsible for the flow of intermodal freight traffic into and through Georgia. Those cases remain actively in litigation with trial dates scheduled in 2017.

The conditions that led to both of these lethal crashes remain essentially unchanged. Truck traffic, largely to and from the Port of Savannah, may have had some cyclical waning but remains heavy. Tired and impaired truck drivers are still on the road. The Georgia Department of Transportation continues to repair sections of roadway, leading to lane closures and occasional traffic backups.

Moreover, trucking companies still resist use of forward collision avoidance technology and in-cab devices to monitor and alert drowsy drivers.  As Congress is concerned more about protecting trucking companies from implementation of more safety measures than with safety of the public on the roads, these tragedies will continue until being unsafe becomes more expensive than being safe.

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.

“TMI” for “too much information” is a common, joking expression for overdisclosure of personal details in conversation or social media.

Now it appears that trucking companies with bad safety records yelled “TMI!” loudly enough, and spent enough money on “K” Street lobbyists and campaign contributions to impede public access to their safety records.

Five years ago, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) launched a new trucking safety initiative called the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program.  At the heart of this program was a Safety Measurement System (SMS) designed to analyze violations from inspections and crash data. The idea was to be able to quantitatively identify carriers with a pattern of unsafe practices in order to intervene to correct safety violations before they result in catastrophic injuries or deaths.

The SMS assessment included seven safety improvement categories, called BASICs: unsafe driving, fatigued driving, driver fitness, substance/alcohol abuse, vehicle maintenance, cargo and crash indicators. Examining data category-by-category could shed light on repeat patterns of unsafe trucking practices.

A key element of the program was that companies exhibiting high-risk behavior would be notified and given an opportunity to correct safety violations before they matured into tragedies on the road. The FMCSA and state law enforcement were enabled to utilize a variety of tools including warning letters, roadside inspections and compliance reviews. If early warnings are not heeded by the carrier companies, the administration can apply costly fines & penalties.

For the past five years, CSA provided the public with improved access to safety data. Shippers and brokers could easily check online for a trucking company’s safety record when choosing who would haul their loads. If they selected a trucking company with a terrible and easily accessible safety record, that could create questions about negligent selection and retention in the event of a terrible crash. In addition, insurers could use the CSA data in liability insurance underwriting analysis.

Some of the benefits of public disclosure of  the SMS / CSA, as pointed out by my friend Steve Gursten in Michigan, have been the raising of awareness of the importance of commercial trucking safety, causing motor carriers to devote more attention and resources to safety initiatives due to accountability that comes with having the carrier data publicly displayed, and holding motor carriers accountable when conducting business. About 70 million users logged onto the Safersys website each year, creating a community of transparency that encouraged a culture of commercial motor vehicle safety, created incentives for motor carriers to improve their safety performance, and allowed other companies and members of the public to make informed decisions based on all available sources of FMCSA data.

My routine in reviewing potential truck crash cases in the past five years has included checking the SMS/CSA records at http://safersys.org, often during the initial phone call with a potential client.  While companies with good records had bad wrecks, and companies with bad records were not always at fault, a bad safety record was often telling.

Trucking companies and truck drivers did complain bitterly about the program. Much of the truck driver commentary is wrapped in general rage about being told how many hours they could drive (despite all the science about the limits of human fatigue and circadian rhythms), electronic data recorders and safety regulation in general.  Some of that reminds me of a truck driver whose deposition I took a while back who referred to his company’s safety director as “the safety moron.”

More articulate criticism of SMS and CSA has raised questions about the accuracy of the data and the scoring algorithms in the FMCSA methodology. A few months ago in Illinois, I took the deposition of the former CEO of what was once a large trucking company that had the worst CSA safety scores I have ever seen. He complained that the CSA formulas did not adequately take into account that his company’s size was declining due to business reversals of their largest hometown customer. Others complained about having wrecks that were not their fault counted against them in the formulas,

All the public and commercial use of the system (such as by shippers, brokers and insurance companies), was the focus of arguments against the CSA methodology, according to a media analysis by Todd Dills.  FMCSA compared the crash rates of carriers with sufficient and insufficient data in the system to produce a score. FMCSA said that carriers with scores above intervention thresholds had the highest average crash rates overall. Further, FMCSA looked at the crash rates of groups of carriers with scores above the intervention thresholds in BASICs other than the Crash Indicator, separating those populations by the number of inspections recorded by the system. The highest crash rates were shown for carriers with 11-20 inspections in the system.

The FMCSA report said that increasing the data sufficiency standards to as high as 20 inspections would make it more difficult for the agency to make appropriate safety interventions with the group showing that highest average crash rate. The SMS “ensures that there is oversight on the largest population possible—including both small and large carriers,” the FMCSA report summarizes. “Since introducing the use of the system, violation rates have dropped by 14 percent. Motor carriers are paying attention to their safety data more than ever before, which improves safety.”

Last August, ten trade associations representing companies that own and operate commercial trucks and buses have jointly asked the US DOT to remove the SMS data from public view, citing several reports highly critical of the SMS’ methodology in identifying high-risk carriers. They claimed that, “Removing carriers’ SMS scores from public view “will not only spare motor carriers harm from erroneous scores, but will also reduce the possibility that the marketplace will drive business to potentially risky carriers that are erroneously being painted as more safe.”

When Congress deliberated the massive five-year highway funding bill a little over a month ago, the trucking industry pulled out all the stops in lobbying key members of Congress to insert language to suppress public access to CSA / SMS data. I was not at the committee hearings where the 1,300 page bills was discussed, but I would bet there was not lengthy dialogue on the pros and cons of this public safety measure.

The bill removes from public view the bulk of the Compliance, Safety, Accountability system’s Safety Measurement System. The legislation removes from public view all carriers’ percentile rankings in the seven SMS BASICs It requires FMCSA and the Government Accountability Office to identify the program’s faults, develop a plan to fix them and then implement those fixes before the system can go live again. Congress in the bill directs FMCSA to study issues like carriers’ crash risk and its correlation to CSA scores, CSA’s rankings methodology, accuracy of the CSA data, incorporating crash fault accountability and how the public uses CSA scores in making business decisions or overall safety determinations of carriers. The bill requires the report to be produced within 18 months. Congress also prohibited FMCSA from continuing to use the system and its data to make safety determinations about carriers. Until FMCSA can implement a so-called “corrective action plan,” the CSA program will remain dormant.

Therefore, as of December 4, 2015, much of the information previously available on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) website related to a trucking company’s safety performance will no longer be displayed publicly. This will prevent easy access to the public and to others who want to know about a company’s safety rating. This also applies to information provided to the public through the QCMobile app.

As my friend, Morgan Adams in Chattanooga, has pointed out, “Now, instead of simply looking for what has been free, public safety information, you will have to pay for the records to find out how safe a trucking company is and wade through the labyrinth of regulations to do a formal request for information to the government. The government protected the trucking companies, not the people on this one. Looks like yet another reason to hire a lawyer for your truck accident case but in this instance you shouldn’t have to.”

In light of this congressional action, the handling of motor carrier crash cases will be slightly altered. We can no longer get safety performance data about trucking companies online. However, we can still submit Freedom of Information Act requests to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. While the FMCSA FOIA office is often overwhelmed with work, and that overloading of staff may increase, they do try to be cooperative.

To be effective in such requests, we will promptly upon being asked to evaluate a potential case, send a concise FOIA request by email to https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/foia/foia-requests. We will get the same information, at least for now, but it will take weeks or months longer to get it.

————

Ken Shigley, past president of the State Bar of Georgia, is chair of the American Association for Justice Motor Vehicle Collision, Highway and Premises Liability Section. He is also a national board member of the Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, a certified civil trial attorney of the National Board of Trial Advocacy and past chair of the Institute for Continuing Legal Education in Georgia Board of Trustees.

When I started practicing law in 1977, hardly anyone but TV stations had video cameras, which at the time were heavy, tripod-mounted and extremely expensive. The idea of being able to play a video recording of an event in court would have seemed like science fiction if anyone had been so fanciful as to suggest  it.

But today investigation of any serious injury or wrongful death case involves a hunt for video recordings from a variety of sources. We hardly could not have imagined this in my early days as a prosecutor.

In 1983, the first consumer camcorders began to appear. They were big, shoulder-held devices that recorded on large VHS cassettes. We had one of those to make video of our children when they were small. By the 1990s, compact digital tape technology became the dominant format. Formats continued to evolve until now cheap, compact, solid state video recording devices are incorporated into ubiquitous smart phones. While I seldom use the video recording feature on my iPhone, I discovered in a pinch that I could video record an hour-long doctor’s deposition on my phone.

Now the checklist for investigation of every significant case includes the search for video recordings as well as still photos from a wide variety of sources. Some include:

• 

  Police dashcam video. We routinely send an open records request for dashcam video from police vehicles. We recently concluded a case in which the Georgia State Patrol dashcam camera recorded a trooper’s questioning of a truck driver through an interpreter. On that video, he admitted that he had been on the phone and did not see the line of stopped vehicles before he ran over them, killing three people. Through phone records we determined that he was on the phone for 25 minutes with someone in South America. In another case, we have video of the defendant driver’s field sobriety test, resistance of arrest and refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test. That’s all golden.
• Police bodycam video. Good police officers love body cameras that

  

  corroborate what they report and save them from false accusations about their conduct. In one case, we obtained bodycam recordings of a truck driver who killed five people admitting before he “lawyered up” that, “I must have fell asleep.”
• Truck and bus cameras. A growing number of trucks and buses have Drivecam or similar video units recording what happens inside a truck cab or bus. Like a store security video camera, it can protect the company from allegations when the driver did nothing wrong. But the evidence can be impressive when it works for the victims of negligence. We have a case in the office now in which video inside a bus in another state clearly demonstrates a driver’s negligence.
• Inside security surveillance video. Video can make or break an injury claim. When a golf cart in an airport terminal mowed down a woman in the concourse, we immediately sent an open records request for surveillance video in the area where it happened.  Two cameras caught from different angles the golf cart speeding through the concourse and crashing into our client without warning. That eliminated all potential defenses on liability, which surely would have been hard fought. On the other hand, when a potential client came to me with a story of how his leg was broken at a “big box” home improvement store, I contacted the chain’s general counsel and suggested that we look at the video together. I went to their office, sat down in the law department office and watched the video of the incident. It was obvious that my potential client’s story was, to put it mildly, inaccurate. It saved me a lot of time and trouble.

• 

  Outside security cameras. Urban areas are increasingly blanketed with surveillance cameras. This was highlighted after the Boston Marathon bombing when the bombers were caught on numerous cameras. When we are hired early enough, we check out the surrounding area for cameras that might have inadvertently recorded anything of interest. Security cameras on stores, shopping centers, service stations, banks, ATM machines, etc. are of potential interest. In one of our cases, a security camera on a nearby store recorded not the crash itself but the last moments leading up to it.
• Public safety surveillance cameras. A higher level of video surveillance is operated by city governments and even the Department of Homeland Security. When a serious accident happens in a critical area of a city or in the national transportation infrastructure, we send an Open Records Act (state) or Freedom of Information Act (federal) for production of video recorded in the minutes surrounding the incident.People often ask if we can retrieve video from DOT traffic monitoring cameras, but they consistently deny that any recordings are retained. Usually we don’t get anything useful from any of the public surveillance systems, but when we do it can be really good stuff.
• Camera phones. Years ago, we would check with firemen who might have carried disposable cameras in their pockets when responding to major crashes. That led to discovery of some extremely dramatic scene photography. Now, in an era when virtually anyone at the scene is likely to have a cell phone that includes both still and video camera capabilities, investigation can include a broad search for individuals who may have recorded clips for themselves. That is a difficult search.

The downside of all this is that jurors may expect to see video in every case, much as TV shows like CSI lead some to expect DNA evidence in every case. Sometimes it is there, sometimes not. But jurors should understand the absence of particular forms of evidence does not preclude finding proof by a preponderance of evidence.

—————-

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.

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.

Many times we have combed through the paper logs maintained by truck drivers, sometimes referred to as “comic books,” and meticulously compared them to other records generated in the course of a cross-country trip. Time and again we have found that the trucker, pushed by employers and shippers to make impossible delivery schedules, had hardly slept for days before crashing into our clients. One truck driver who had run over a family vehicle, confronted by dissection of the evidence, admitted that he had been driving 20 of the previous 24 hours then broke down and cried over the child he had killed.

A solution that has been promoted for years is to require Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBR) that are at least more difficult to falsify than handwritten paper logs. Major trucking companies and the American Trucking Associations support the EOBR requirement, which they say will help them enforce anti-fatigue rules. But independent truckers, represented by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, say the mandate would impose unfair costs on drivers who own their own rigs.

Last week in Congress, the House sent conflicting messages to the trucking industry. On Friday, the House adopted both a highway bill conference report that mandates electronic data recorders in trucks and an amendment to a spending bill that would bar the Transportation Department from spending money to implement the requirement.

The conference report on the surface transportation reauthorization (HR 4348), adopted in both chambers on Friday, included Senate language requiring the devices. The agreement was adopted in the House by a vote of 373-52.

After opponents in the House failed to get the provision stripped from the agreement, Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La., offered an amendment to the fiscal 2013 Transportation-HUD spending bill (HR 5972) that would disallow any Transportation Department expenditures supporting the recorder mandate. The amendment – which would block any expenditures on rules to require global position tracking, event-data recorders or electronic on-board recording devices on passenger vehicles or commercial trucks – was adopted by voice vote. The appropriations bill passed, 261-163.

American Trucking Associations President Bill Graves complained that “opponents of honest, fair and efficient enforcement of important safety rules have used this back door to thwart the will of Congress.” Graves said he expected that the conference report language “will be the final word on the use of electronic logs and that [the Transportation Department] will quickly move to require this important safety technology on all trucks.”

Having watched the ongoing struggle about trucking hours of service rules and their enforcement over the years, I make no bold predictions about any definitive action.

Meanwhile, efforts to update the trucking insurance requirements, which have not been adjusted for inflation in over 30 years, remain stalled.

Ken Shigley is immediate past president of the 43,000 member State Bar of Georgia, double board certified in Civil Trial Advocacy and Civil Pretrial Advocacy by the National Board of Legal Specialty Certification, and a board member of the Trucking Litigation Group of the American Association for Justice. He may be contacted at ken.shigley@johnsonward.com.

I do not expect any favoritism from anyone as cases must be decided on their merits.  But if a friend or family member has a catastrophic injury or wrongful death case, would it be smarter to hire a lawyer based on a sleazy TV ad or to hire one who has recognized credentials and is known to decision makers?

Whether you choose me or someone else, by all means choose a serious lawyer for any serious case. Understand that the lawyers who spend millions on TV ads operate settlement mills, never take cases to trial, and insurance companies know they will generally settle for 10% of fair case value.

Now the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has issued a rule barring use of hand held cell phones by commercial truck drivers in interstate commerce. The agency stated the rationale for the rule in part as follows:

Using a hand-held mobile telephone may reduce a driver’s situational awareness, decision making, or performance; and it may result in a crash, near-crash, unintended lane departure by the driver, or other unsafe driving action. Indeed, research indicates that reaching for and dialing hand-held mobile telephones are sources of driver distraction that pose a specific safety risk.

The agency summarizes much of the research on cell phone distraction in explaining its conclusion that “it is the action of taking one’s eyes off the forward roadway to reach for and dial a hand-held mobile telephone … that has the greatest risk.”

Ken Shigley is president of the State Bar of Georgia, a Certified Civil Trial Attorney of the National Board of Trial Advocacy and has an Atlanta-based law practice focused on representation of people seriously injured in commercial trucking accidents.

Earlier this month, Illinois enacted a law to improve the GPS data available to truck drivers. The goal is to provide better routing details specific to trucking in the state, thus helping to reduce accidents and traffic.

Effective January 1, 2012, Illinois state and local governments will be required to inform the Illinois Department of Transportation about details of preferred trucking routes, weight restrictions on roads, and height limitations for bridges and overpasses. The Illinois DOT will then post this information on its website.

The new state law also requires streamlining the way cities and towns report designated truck networks and preferred routes, and merger of databases that contain important data such as overpass heights. The new law will also help educate truckers about the benefits of using GPS devices created specially for them.

This is an idea I hope our Georgia legislators will consider.

Ken Shigley is president of the 42,250 member State Bar of Georgia, a Certified Civil Trial Attorney of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, and has been listed as a “Super Lawyer” (Atlanta Magazine) and among the “Legal Elite” (Georgia Trend). He is a national board member of the Commercial Trucking Litigation Group of the American Association for Justice and a former chair of the Southeastern Motor Carrier Liability Institute.

———————-

Bar committee OKs rule change
Public defenders in same circuit would be allowed to represent co-defendants under proposed amendment

The State Bar of Georgia’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures Committee on Wednesday unanimously approved a rule change that would allow public defenders in the same circuit to represent co-defendants unless specific conflicts of interest are identified.

The proposed amendment to the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct on imputed disqualification, also known as Rule 1.10, states: “(d) A lawyer representing a client of a public defender office shall not be disqualified under this rule because of the representation by the office of another client in the same or a substantially related matter unless there is a conflict as determined by Rules 1.7, 1.8(f) or 1.9,” which determine conflicts of interest, according to Bar President Kenneth L. Shigley.

Backers of the amendment hope it serves as a compromise in a debate that has burned hot since April 2010, when the bar approved a formal advisory opinion prohibiting intra-circuit representation of indigent criminal co-defendants. Critics of that opinion, which is pending review by the state Supreme Court, said it would result in higher costs for the cash-strapped indigent defense system as more expensive outside lawyers would need to be hired to resolve conflicts.

But some lawyers questioned whether the proposed amendment would have any significant effect.

On Wednesday, Shigley said the new rules change allowing intracircuit representation of co-defendants should help public defender offices handling cases with multiple defendants where there is only a potential conflict.”The proposed amendment to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10 is a measured, moderate approach to representation of multiple defendants in the public defender context,” Shigley said in a written statement. “It recognizes the need for practical flexibility in administration of the statewide public defender system, without diminishing lawyers’ ethical standards or defendants’ rights to vigorous, conflict-free representation.”

. . . .

The proposed amendment will go to the bar’s Executive Committee, which is scheduled to meet on Oct. 6 in Macon. Then, it would need the approval of the bar’s Board of Governors, which will convene on Oct. 29 at Jekyll Island, and finally the state Supreme Court before going into effect.

The state high court agreed to review the formal advisory opinion last year, but in August it delayed any decision until January. Members of the bar, as well as the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council, began publicly discussing a rules change that would have exempted public defenders from the conflict rules applied to private firms late this summer.

Georgia Public Defender Standards Council Director W. Travis Sakrison spoke against the formal advisory opinion during Wednesday’s hearing of the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures Committee.

According to Sakrison, the formal advisory opinion would require all public defender offices to divest themselves immediately of all co-defendants in cases where there may be a potential conflict. That rule would balloon the number of conflict cases and drain the public defender system of resources, he said. The estimated cost of finding new conflict counsel would have required the GPDSC to ask the Legislature for millions more in its budget, he said.

Instead, many circuit public defenders wanted their offices to have the ability to represent co-defendants up until the point an actual conflict arose, as long as proper ethical screens, such as separate computers and filing areas, were in place the entire time. And then, if there were an actual conflict, the public defender office could retain one of the co-defendants.

But supporters of the formal advisory opinion said the opinion supported the existing rules, which already outline conflicts and are meant to ensure adequate representation of indigent criminal defendants—a statement the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures Committee chairman, John G. Haubenreich, agreed with on Wednesday.” . . . .

The ailing economy and strapped government budgets led the ARC to ax or defer beyond my likely lifetime:

– optional toll lanes alongside I-75 and I-575 in Cobb and Cherokee counties
– a component that would carry only tractor trailer trucks
– widening South Cobb Drive from Cobb Parkway to Atlanta Road, and from Atlanta Road to Bolton Road
– widening University Ave. from Metropolitan Parkway to the Downtown Connector
– new interchange at I-675 and and Cedar Grove Road
– mass transit line across northern I-285 from Cumberland to Perimeter Center

Ken Shigley is an Atlanta-based trucking accident trial attorney, and president of the State Bar of Georgia.

Today the U.S. and Mexico signed an agreement to allow Mexican tractor trailers and big rigs to operate in the U.S. and suspend retaliatory Mexican tariffs that added 5 to 25 percent to the cost of U.S. exports sold in Mexico.

This is the latest development in the long-running controversy to concerns about the safety standards of Mexican trucking, which long blocked North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) rules permitting Mexican trucks to cross beyond a 25- mile border zone.

The USDOT justifies today’s action by saying that Mexican trucks must comply with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and will have electronic monitoring systems to track hours on the road, and that Mexican tractor trailer truck drivers must take drug tests that are analyzed in the U.S., hand over complete driving records and prove their English-language skills.

A previous cross-border pilot program for trucking certification program in 2009 included only 157 Mexican trucks.

Reactions from interest groups has varied widely:

• The US Chamber of Commerce supports the agreement as “a vital step toward a more efficient U.S.-Mexico border,” according to a statement from COC president Thomas Donohue. Truckers drop trailers at the border before crossing. Older rigs, often called transfers, pick them up to cross and leave them for a long-haul truck waiting on the other side.

• Regarding safety concerns, the Conservative Daily News blog points out that while USDOT will pay for electronic on-board recorder (EOBR) to monitor hours of service of Mexican tractor trailers, an “EOBR cannot determine if the driver of the commercial vehicle is working other than driving, or if this driver is asleep or awake. It will not ‘automatically’ do anything as the driver still must manually enter whether a change of duty status has occurred or not.” It quotes a report issued from the Congressional Research Service in February of 2010 which stated:

“The rationale of eliminating the truck drayage segment at the border, and of NAFTA in general, is to reduce the cost of trade between the two countries, thus raising each nation’s economic welfare. However the cost to federal taxpayers of ensuring Mexican truck safety, estimated by the U.S. DOT to be over $500 million as of March 2008, appears to be disproportionate to the amount of dollars saved thus far by U.S. importers or exporters that have been able to utilize long-haul trucking authority. . . . Any accumulated savings in trucking costs enjoyed by shippers therefore should be weighed against the public cost of funding the safety inspection regime for Mexican long-haul carriers.”

• The American Association for Justice Interstate Trucking Litigation Group, of which I am a board member, urged USDOT to bring up to date liability insurance coverage requirements, which have been unchanged since 1980, prior to implementing the cross-border program. The $750,000 minimum liability coverage for interstate motor carriers adopted in 1980 would be nearly $2,000,000 today if simply adjusted for inflation. USDOT responded:

“Mexico-domiciled motor carriers must establish financial responsibility, as required by 49 CFR part 387, through an insurance carrier licensed in a State in the United States. Based on the terms provided in the required endorsement, FMCSA Form MCS-90, if there is a final judgment against the motor carrier for loss and damages associated with a crash in the United States, the insurer must pay the claim. The financial responsibility claims would involve legal proceedings in the United States and an insurer based here. There is no reason that a Mexico-domiciled motor carrier, insured by a U.S.-based company, should be required to have a greater level of insurance coverage than a U.S.-based motor carrier. Increasing the minimum levels of financial responsibility for all motor carriers is beyond the scope of this notice and would require a rulemaking. In accordance with section 350(a)(1)(B)(iv), FMCSA must verify participating motor carriers’ proof of insurance through a U.S., State-licensed insurer. As a result, participating motor carriers may not self-insure.”

• The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) is bitterly critical of the action, and is challenging it in court in Washington. OOIDA asserts that Mexico has failed to institute regulations and enforcement programs that are even remotely similar to those in the United States, and there would be no relevant corresponding reciprocity for U.S. truckers. According to OOIDA, “This program will jeopardize the livelihoods of tens of thousands of U.S.-based small business truckers and professional truck drivers and undermine the standard of living for the rest of the driver community.”

• Teamsters Union president Jim Hoffa also questioned legality of the program because it grants permanent operating authority to Mexican trucks after 18 months in the “pilot program” without Congressional authorization, and because DOT would use money from the Highway Trust Fund to pay for electronic on-board recorders for Mexican trucks. He said, “opening the border to dangerous trucks at a time of high unemployment and rampant drug violence is a shameful abandonment of the DOT’s duty to protect American citizens from harm and to spend American tax dollars responsibly.”

• Industry groups that export to Mexico, and are impacted by retaliatory Mexican tariffs, support the decision. They include the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) , California grape growers , and Washington State apple growers.

This Georgia truck wreck lawyer may run down to the mall to buy a Rosetta Stone home study course on Spanish.

Ken Shigley is president of the State Bar of Georgia, author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation and Practice, a Certified Civil Trial Attorney of the National Board of Trial Advocacy (one of 20 in Georgia), a board member of the Interstate Trucking Litigation Group, and designated as a “Super Lawyer” by Atlanta Magazine.

The latest Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published April 29 by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, part of DOT, would prohibit use of a handheld cell phone by drivers moving a quantity of hazardous materials that must be placarded under 49 CFR Part 172 or any quantity of a material listed as a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR Part 73 in intrastate commerce.

This would expand upon rules already proposed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (also part of DOT). FMCSA barred texting by commercial motor vehicle drivers in a September 2010 final rule. It proposed to restrict the use of hand-held mobile phones in a Dec. 21, 2010,

PHMSA estimates that there are approximately 1,490 intrastate motor carriers that could be affected by this rulemaking.

Ken Shigley is an Atlanta, Georgia, trial attorney. He has been designated a “Super Lawyer” (Atlanta Magazine), one of the “Legal Elite” (Georgia Trend), and rated “AV Preeminent” by Martindale-Hubbell Legal Directory. He is author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice (West, 2010), a Certified Civil Trial Attorney of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, and currently president-elect of the 42,000 member State Bar of Georgia. He has extensive experience in litigation and trial of cases involving serious personal injury, wrongful death, trucking accidents, automobile accidents, products liability, premises liability, and insurance. Mr. Shigley is a graduate of Furman University and Emory University Law School. This blog post is subject to our ethical disclaimer.

The study showed that the top 5 percent of drivers with the most driving distractions were distracted 67 percent of the time during which a risky driving maneuver was observed – nearly six times more often than the rest of the drivers.

Just 5 percent of the drivers accounted for the majority of events involving those devices – 57 percent of all mobile phone incidents captured and 52 percent of all operating-handheld-device incidents.

The nine most common distractions observed in conjunction with a risky driving maneuver were:

* Object in Hand, 44.5%, which includes mp3 players, PDAs and paperwork * Talking on a Handheld Mobile Phone, 13.4%
* Beverage, 12.7%
* Food, 10.1%
* Smoking, 9.9%
* Operating a Handheld Device, 9.1%
* Talking/Listening Mobile Phone – Hands Free, 5.2%
* Manifest, Map or Navigation, 1%
* Grooming/Personal Hygiene, 0.6%

Ken Shigley is an Atlanta, Georgia, trial attorney. He has been designated a “Super Lawyer” (Atlanta Magazine), one of the “Legal Elite” (Georgia Trend), and rated “AV Preeminent” by Martindale-Hubbell Legal Directory. In addition, he is author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice (West, 2010), a Certified Civil Trial Attorney of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, and currently president-elect of the 42,000 member State Bar of Georgia. He has extensive experience in litigation and trial of cases involving serious personal injury, wrongful death, trucking accidents, automobile accidents, products liability, premises liability, and insurance. Mr. Shigley is a graduate of Furman University and Emory University Law School. This blog post is subject to our ethical disclaimer.

The CSA has three components that measure safety performance, evaluating high-risk behaviors and crafting appropriate interventions.

For commercial motor carriers, the standards significantly alter how truckers and companies operate and maintain their vehicles and deal with federal compliance. Some of the changes include:

– CSA replaces the old SafeStat system with the Safety Measurement System (SMS). Under the SMS, safety fitness determinations are issued monthly; factors such as driver fitness, unsafe driving practices, vehicle maintenance, crash history and cargo loading or securing impact this monthly evaluation.

– Companies are required to modify their “on-duty” hours and maintain comprehensive electronic travel logs.

– Trucking companies that do not pass monthly safety evaluations are subject to earlier safety interventions, including:

– Early warning letters

– Targeted roadside inspections

– Focused compliance reviews

Ken Shigley is an Atlanta, Georgia, trial attorney. He has been designated a “Super Lawyer” (Atlanta Magazine), one of the “Legal Elite” (Georgia Trend), and rated “AV Preeminent” by Martindale-Hubbell Legal Directory. In addition, he is author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice (West, 2010), a Certified Civil Trial Attorney of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, and currently president-elect of the 42,000 member State Bar of Georgia. He has extensive experience in litigation and trial of cases involving serious personal injury, wrongful death, trucking accidents, automobile accidents, products liability, premises liability, and insurance. Mr. Shigley is a graduate of Furman University and Emory University Law School. This blog post is subject to our ethical disclaimer.