It was pretty easy. Whatever I needed, they were there. I'm happy. I'm glad. I'm satisfied. [If someone I knew was ever injured] I would say, 'Hey, go with Grossman!'
-
J. Fernandez
Automobile Accident Case
Intoxicated Truck Driver Accident Attorney
In an Accident With a Drunk 18-Wheeler Driver? You May be Entitled To Recover Damages
If you or your family has been injured in an accident with an intoxicated truck driver, you likely wish to seek legal restitution. Unfortunately, even the most “open and shut” cases can turn into legal nightmares without experienced help.
Cases involving intoxicated truck drivers often have multiple defendants. Even an accident involving a sober truck driver can be incredibly complex due to the large amounts of money involved when dealing with commercial insurance carriers, but when the driver is intoxicated, the dram shop cause of action often comes into play.
Dram shop law essentially states that, when an intoxicated person injures someone else, the establishment that served the intoxicated person the alcohol might be partially liable. For instance, if a restaurant served an already-intoxicated truck driver more alcohol and then the truck driver was in an accident, the victim could file a claim against the restaurant as well as the driver.
These cases are further complicated by a gross negligence charge. When a driver of a commercial vehicle knowingly operates that vehicle while intoxicated, the driver is considered grossly negligent. This fact may help your case, but only if you have an experienced attorney who knows how to use it. The attorneys employed by the defendant’s commercial insurance carrier will do whatever they can to dispute any claims of gross negligence.
There are even technicalities in place that can make this exceedingly simple for them. For instance, some insurance policies are considered null if the holder of the policy commits an intentional tort. This means that you may not be eligible for any money if the defense attorneys succeed in presenting your case in a particular way.
In other words, you need a team of experienced personal injury attorneys to make sure your case is seen for what it is. The attorneys at Grossman Law Offices in Dallas have twenty years of experience with cases just like yours. An experienced intoxicated truck driver accident attorney can help you secure the compensation you deserve and bring the negligent parties responsible for your injuries to justice. Furthermore, insurance companies and trucking companies are likely to cooperate with us because they know who we are and they don’t want to face us in the courtroom. Our attorneys will do everything they can to make sure you get back on your feet after this type of accident. So if you have been hurt by an intoxicated truck driver, contact our truck driver accident attorneys today.
Do I need to hire an attorney?
Who else may be liable in a drunk driving accident?
Recovery for client who suffered soft tissue injuries when she was struck by an 18-wheeler.
$41,000.00
$13,666.00
$135.00
The family of a deceased woman hired our firm following a fatal 18-wheeler accident. The fatal accident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered out of his lane, resulting in a massive collision. The decedent, a passenger in a vehicle, died on the scene.
Her adult children consulted our firm to initially investigate the accident and make sense of the facts and circumstances since the family felt that the police report did not make it clear enough precisely what occurred. We launched a full investigation an immediately deposed the investigating officers.
Upon the completion of our investigation, it was apparent that the trucking company was indeed negligent and a lawsuit was soon filed. The defendant's launched an aggressive defense whereby they initially claimed that the truck driver was overcome by his passenger who allegedly grabbed the steering wheel and deliberately drove the truck off the road, despite the truck driver's best efforts.
We refuted this claim by illustrating that the tire marks that were present clearly show the truck gradually moving across the road and eventually onto the grass, which is entirely inconsistent with an abrupt lane change caused by someone taking control of the wheel. It was quite an unusual defense strategy that we were frankly surprised to even find ourselves having to refute.
The defendants then argued that a tire blowout may have contributed to the accident, which is significant because it would enable the defendant to offset some portion of their liability to a tire manufacturer or installer. Through deposition testimony of the investigating officer we established that there was absolutely no indication at the scene of the accident that a tire had blown out.
Finally, the defendants argued that the company which loaded the trailer may have improperly loaded the cargo. This argument was most plausible considering that the precise cause of the decedent's death was that she was essentially pummeled by cargo that broke through trailer and struck her person.
Our firm consulted several experts in the fields of heavy cargo transportation and physics. Our experts felt that the cargo was secured in a manner that is perfectly consistent with industry standards and that due to the forces involved, the cargo would not have behaved any differently irrespective of how it was secured. In short, the collision caused the cargo to break free and the negligence lay squarely on the trucking company and not any other entity. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
$2,000,000.00
$775,000.00
$25,000.00
The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
$335,000.00
$134,000.00
$63,000.00
Recovery for car accident victim who suffered back injury resulting in surgery.
$100,000.00
$33,000.00
$100.00
(policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an underide 18-wheeler accident. In addition to being a decorated veteran, the decedent worked both professionally and on a voluntary basis to establish numerous learning institutions and vocational programs for at risk youths. The accident occurred as the decedent was traveling on a rural highway when an 18-wheeler failed to yield the right of way and made a rolling stop through a stop sign.
This placed the trailer of the 18-wheeler in a position whereby it blocked the entire roadway and shoulder, leaving the decedent no option but to collide with the trailer. Witnesses on the scene attempted to revive him but to no avail. Furthermore, while two female eye witnesses struggled to pry open the decedent's door to provide emergency care, the truck driver stayed in his truck and offered no assistance. Despite what appeared to be an incredibly apparent case of negligence on behalf of the defendant, defense counsel refused to accept liability resulting in rather lengthy litigation.
The defendants initially denied the claim based on the allegation that the decedent was speeding and the truck driver therefore could not adequately gauge the amount of time he had to pause at the stop sign. The physical evidence contradicted this notion entirely, notwithstanding the fact that even if the decedent had been contributorily negligent, that would not have outweighed the severe degree of negligence on the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, our attorneys were able to conclusively refute this argument based on eye-witness testimony and the testimony from police investigators who calculated the decedent's speed to be precisely at the posted speed limit. In a desperate and largely unprecedented move, the defendants then designated the state as a responsible third party.
Generally speaking, a defendant will often threaten to designate a third party in order to leverage their position but it is rare that such an arbitrary and arguably frivolous designation is actually carried out. However, that is precisely what occurred and the state was thusly incorporated into the lawsuit by the defendants. The basis of the defendant's argument was that the state erected a large street sign that obstructed the truck driver's view of approaching traffic.
Several months of intense litigation were required to before the defendant finally acquiesced in regard to this argument. The argument was finally abandoned by the defendants when in the first mediation our attorneys presented video footage shot (in a controlled setting) from the perspective of an 18-wheeler driver which showed that the sign simply did not obstruct enough of the roadway in order to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Plaintiff, a delivery driver, suffered a back injury resulting in spinal fusion surgery when he was injured in an accident involving falling cargo from an 18-wheeler. The defendants cited the plaintiff's failure to take evasive action as a source of contributory negligence and litigation commenced accordingly which culminated in an acceptance of liability and eventually satisfactory resolution.
$530,000.00
$210,000.00
$5,000.00
Recovery for client who suffered nerve damage and required steroid injections as a result of a car accident.
$150,000.00
$50,000.00
$4,800.00
Recovery for worker who suffered soft tissue injuries when his fork lift was struck by a delivery truck.
$75,000.00
$25,000.00
$350.00
Recovery for client who sustained a pulled muscle in an 18-wheeler accident.
$19,000.00
$6,270.00
$100.00
Recovery for client who suffered soft tissue back injuries when he was rear ended by a delivery truck.
$75,000.00
$25,000.00
$100.00








