I was involved in a serious personal injury accident. Mr. Grossman's experience and aggressiveness in handling my case resulted in a great settlement!
-
E. McClure
Commercial Vehicle Accident Case
Causes of Dallas Truck Accidents
Texas Injury Lawyer Michael Grossman Discusses Common Causes of Trucking Accidents
In today's high-pressure economy, truck drivers are put under enormous amounts of pressure, often times in an attempt to save time and meet quotas. Nowhere is the phrase "time is money" more true than in the world of shipping and transportation.
Law makers recognize the dangers associated with trucking companies putting profit ahead of safety and they have enacted various laws and statutes which clearly define many aspects of the trucking world in an attempt to reduce the number of wrecks. Unfortunately, many trucking companies continue to gamble with our safety and put profits first.
In the 20 years that our firm has practiced 18-wheeler accident law, we have seen hundreds of examples of truck driver negligence that precipitates a vehicle collision, all in the name of profitability. We have seen numerous examples of trucks being grossly overloaded, truck drivers who have failed to meet the proper training requirements, drivers who drive with suspended licenses and/ or horrendous driving records, drivers who drive well in excess of the daily limit of hours they are allowed to be behind the wheel, and numerous other violations.
In the summer of 2008 and 2009, the Texas Department of Transportation launched an initiation whereby they would randomly stop 18-wheelers as they passed certain check points, and subject them to a routine safety inspection. A staggering 25% of the trucks tested were found to be unsafe for use on a public road and were immediately pulled out of commission until repairs could be made.
But what do these seemingly nominal violations means in the big picture? According to the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, tens of thousands of American motorists die each year in accidents with large trucks such as 18-wheelers, tractor-trailers, semis, cargo containers, dump trucks, or any other type of vehicle weighing in excess of 10,000 lbs.
In 2003 alone, large trucks accounted for 8 percent of all vehicles involved in fatal crashes and 4 percent of all vehicles involved in injury and property-damage-only crashes.
Some of the most common causes of trucking accidents are:
- Tire Failure
- Speeding
- Driver Inattentiveness
- Driver Fatigue caused by strenuous schedules imposed by trucking companies
- Brake failure, brake over-heating
- Faulty mechanical components
- Poor safety and road-worthiness tests performed on the trucks
Other than driver error, often it is the actual rig that malfunctions or fails causing 18-wheeler accidents. Some examples of potential failures are brake failure or malfunction, faulty mechanical components and dis-proportioned loads.
All of these things make these 18-wheelers a potential danger on our roadways. Naturally, there are other factors that contribute to the car accident claims process.
Related articles:
Questions answered by this article:
What are the causes of trucking accidents?Are tractor trailers or 18-wheelers checked for safety?
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$300,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back Injury Requiring Surgery)
A delivery driver hired our firm to pursue a negligent trucking company following a collision with insecure cargo. Our client was driving his work vehicle when numerous large metal pipes fell from the back of a flatbed trailer onto the roadway. Our client took evasive action but was unable to avoid the debris, which resulted in a fairly severe accident. As a result, our client sustained lower back injuries including two herniated discs which required surgery to correct. The defendants conceded liability early on but would not make a reasonable settlement offer. As such, suit was filed and the case was ultimately successfully resolved through litigation.
A delivery driver hired our firm to pursue a negligent trucking company following a collision with insecure cargo. Our client was driving his work vehicle when numerous large metal pipes fell from the back of a flatbed trailer onto the roadway. Our client took evasive action but was unable to avoid the debris, which resulted in a fairly severe accident. As a result, our client sustained lower back injuries including two herniated discs which required surgery to correct. The defendants conceded liability early on but would not make a reasonable settlement offer. As such, suit was filed and the case was ultimately successfully resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$300,000.00
$300,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$250,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) A young mother was killed in an accident involving two commercial vehicles, one an 18-wheeler. The accident occurred as the young woman was a passenger in a vehicle that was traveling down a highway in the early morning hours. Without warning, the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a stalled 18-wheeler that parked in the right of way, resulting in catastrophic injuries that claimed the young woman's life soon thereafter.
The authorities initially faulted the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was a passenger, stating that he was using an electronic device rather than paying full attention to the roadway. However, the 18-wheeler was indeed blocking the roadway and plaintiff alleged that the vehicle did not follow the requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act in regard to providing adequate reflective or laminated warning at specific intervals. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to remove his vehicle from the roadway when he first noticed signs of mechanical failure.
Had he simply moved to the shoulder of the road, plaintiffs argued, his lack of adequate warning signs would have been inconsequential. An initial settlement has been obtained in this case, yet litigation has commenced in full against the remaining defendant, and is currently ongoing.
(policy limits) A young mother was killed in an accident involving two commercial vehicles, one an 18-wheeler. The accident occurred as the young woman was a passenger in a vehicle that was traveling down a highway in the early morning hours. Without warning, the vehicle in which she was a passenger collided with a stalled 18-wheeler that parked in the right of way, resulting in catastrophic injuries that claimed the young woman's life soon thereafter.
The authorities initially faulted the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was a passenger, stating that he was using an electronic device rather than paying full attention to the roadway. However, the 18-wheeler was indeed blocking the roadway and plaintiff alleged that the vehicle did not follow the requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act in regard to providing adequate reflective or laminated warning at specific intervals. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to remove his vehicle from the roadway when he first noticed signs of mechanical failure.
Had he simply moved to the shoulder of the road, plaintiffs argued, his lack of adequate warning signs would have been inconsequential. An initial settlement has been obtained in this case, yet litigation has commenced in full against the remaining defendant, and is currently ongoing.
Total Recovery:
$250,000.00
$250,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$78,000.00
$78,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$370.00
$370.00
$145,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back and Neck Injury)
Recovery for driver struck from behind by 18-wheeler: Driver sustained back and neck injury.
Recovery for driver struck from behind by 18-wheeler: Driver sustained back and neck injury.
Total Recovery:
$145,000.00
$145,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$48,333.00
$48,333.00
Litigation Expenses:
$2,696.00
$2,696.00
$150,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Nerve Damage)
Recovery for client who suffered nerve damage and required steroid injections as a result of a car accident.
Recovery for client who suffered nerve damage and required steroid injections as a result of a car accident.
Total Recovery:
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$4,800.00
$4,800.00
$102,500.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Both Legs Broken)
Recovery for client who suffered injuries to both legs in a truck accident.
Recovery for client who suffered injuries to both legs in a truck accident.
Total Recovery:
$102,500.00
$102,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$40,833.00
$40,833.00
Litigation Expenses:
$19,984.00
$19,984.00
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(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.
(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.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential
$875,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Back Injury Requiring Surgery)
Plaintiff suffered a back injury resulting in spinal fusion surgery when her car was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler. The defendants argued that the accident was unavoidable, thus denying liability. Litigation commenced and the case was satisfactorily resolved soon thereafter.
Plaintiff suffered a back injury resulting in spinal fusion surgery when her car was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler. The defendants argued that the accident was unavoidable, thus denying liability. Litigation commenced and the case was satisfactorily resolved soon thereafter.
Total Recovery:
$875,000.00
$875,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$288,750.00
$288,750.00
Litigation Expenses:
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$300,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Facial Fractures and Head Trauma)
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
Total Recovery:
$300,000.00
$300,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$9,807.00
$9,807.00
$335,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
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.
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.
Total Recovery:
$335,000.00
$335,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$134,000.00
$134,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$63,000.00
$63,000.00
$225,000.00 Recovery - Automobile Accident (Back Injury)
Our firm was hired to pursue a claim against a negligent following a rear-end car accident. The plaintiff was driving her vehicle in traffic on I-30 in Dallas, TX when the defendant approached from behind and collided with her vehicle, pushing it into the vehicle in front of her. The plaintiff sustained disc compression and herniation at C3-4 which required surgery to rectify. The defendant's ultimately accepted liability but heavily disputed the damages. Under threat of litigation, the defendants raised their offer. Our attorneys continued to aggressively negotiate on behalf of our client and a satisfactory result was eventually obtained.
Our firm was hired to pursue a claim against a negligent following a rear-end car accident. The plaintiff was driving her vehicle in traffic on I-30 in Dallas, TX when the defendant approached from behind and collided with her vehicle, pushing it into the vehicle in front of her. The plaintiff sustained disc compression and herniation at C3-4 which required surgery to rectify. The defendant's ultimately accepted liability but heavily disputed the damages. Under threat of litigation, the defendants raised their offer. Our attorneys continued to aggressively negotiate on behalf of our client and a satisfactory result was eventually obtained.
Total Recovery:
$225,000.00
$225,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$95,000.00
$95,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$2,500.00
$2,500.00