For the most part, motorists need to share the road with various types of vehicles, including large SUVs, trucks, motorcyclists, and cyclists. In most cases, claims against a negligent driver involve that driver, their insurance company, and possibly the vehicle owner. However, in claims against a truck driver, the lawsuit may include claims against the truck driver’s employer, truck manufacturer, shipping company, or other parties responsible for the care and maintenance of the truck. For those reasons, Tennessee accident claims involving tractor-trailers and large trucks tend to pose many challenges to injury victims.

One of the first issues is determining the cause of the accident. Truck accidents in Tennessee often result in chain-reaction accidents, and pinpointing an exact cause can be challenging. However, most truck accidents involve driver fatigue, driver distraction, impaired driving, and speeding. Most truck claims involve jackknife truck accidents, tire blowouts, unsecured loads, hazmat accidents, and underride accidents. However, because of these vehicles’ sheer size and strength, any slight error can result in devastating consequences.

For instance, earlier this month, local news sources described a harrowing tractor-trailer accident in Tennessee. According to reports, Tennessee Highway Patrol responded to an accident call between a tractor-trailer and a motorcycle. An investigation revealed that the tractor-trailer was traveling north along a curve when its trailer crossed the opposite lane. At the same time, a motorcycle driver was traveling south when his bike flipped over and skidded into the back of the truck’s trailer. The motorcycle driver was airlifted to a hospital, and the tractor-trailer driver did not suffer any physical injuries.

After narrowing the cause of the accident, the victim must establish the status of the at-fault truck driver. Typically, there are three types of truck drivers; owner-operators, company drivers, and independent operators. An attorney can help victims determine the driver’s classification and associated liability. The liable party may be responsible for covering the victim’s damages such as their medical treatment, lost wages, property damage, and pain and suffering.

Have You Suffered Injuries in a Truck Accident in Tennessee?

If you or someone you love has suffered injuries or died in a Tennessee truck accident, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm. The personal injury lawyers at the Hartsoe Law Firm have extensive experience handling complex injury cases involving negligent motorists, business owners, insurance companies, and employers. Our firm handles accident claims involving motor vehicle accidents, wrongful death, premises liability, dog bites, airplane accidents, product liability, birth injury, elder abuse, and more. We have recovered significant amounts of compensation on behalf of Tennessee injury victims and their families, and look forward to seeing how we can help you with your case. Contact our office at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free initial consultation with an attorney on our team.

Under Tennessee Code 24-5-113(b), this evidence creates a rebuttable presumption of the reasonableness of the bills. Here, the City conceded to its liability but objected to the reasonableness of the undiscounted medical bills the plaintiff presented. The City sought to rebut the presumption through the testimony of two witnesses. One witness was a doctor who offered his opinion on the hospital’s billing practices. The other witness was presented as an expert in medical billing practices. The billing expert was the owner and co-founder of a medical billing software system. The trial court found that the doctor’s testimony violated the collateral source rule and the billing expert’s methodology was not proven or tested.

On appeal, the court reviewed whether the trial court appropriately excluded the City’s evidence to rebut the reasonableness of the victim’s bills. Under the collateral source rule, a plaintiff can still recover the entire reasonable value of their damages, even if a third party paid some of the total damages. The doctor’s testimony sought to establish that the amount billed is not the actual amount paid because of private dealings between the hospital and the parties. The court concluded that the collateral source rule directly prohibits this type of testimony.

Further, the Tennessee Supreme Court has found that an expert’s testimony must be relevant and satisfy the state’s Rules of Evidence regarding reliability. Courts will look to various factors to determine whether a methodology is reliable, such as whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review. Here, the billing expert explained that he computes a “reasonable rate” by using the hospital’s data and state financial data to formulate an appropriate amount. While the expert possessed exemplary qualifications, his methodology has not been tested or subjected to peer review. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision finding in favor of the plaintiff.

Have You Suffered Injuries in a Tennessee Accident?

If you or someone you love has suffered serious injuries or died in a Tennessee truck accident, the Hartsoe Law Firm can help you determine your rights and remedies. Attorney Hartsoe maintains an active practice advocating on behalf of and representing Tennessee injury victims and their families. He handles claims stemming from motor vehicle accidents, premises liability, products liability, medical malpractice, and other catastrophic injuries. He utilizes his extensive experience, knowledge, and resources to ensure that his clients recover the damages the law entitles them. Contact the Hartsoe Law Firm at (865) 804-1011 to schedule a free initial consultation.

Securing service of process and answering discovery requests is also required, and many cases require the plaintiff to respond to various motions, including summary judgment motions seeking dismissal of the case. Of course, each case is unique and must be addressed on its own merits.

In some cases, a plaintiff may even have to go through the appellate process before having an opportunity to have his or her day in court. In a recent case, the plaintiff actually had his case go up on appeal twice during the pre-trial phase of the litigation.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a long-distance truck driver who sought to assert a personal injury action against a second truck driver, whom the plaintiff alleged caused a crash in which the plaintiff was injured in 2011. The plaintiff’s wife joined in the action to assert a claim for loss of consortium. The second truck driver’s employer was also named in the suit as a defendant, with the plaintiffs seeking to hold the employer vicariously liable for the second truck driver’s alleged negligence. Although process was issued for both defendants when the plaintiffs’ suit was filed in 2012, only the defendant employer was served, as the plaintiffs were unable to obtain service of process on the second truck driver.

In 2013, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claim against the second truck driver but continued their action against the defendant employer. In 2015, the defendant employer filed a motion for summary judgment. This motion was granted by the trial court, but that decision was reversed on appeal. After the case was remanded following the appeal, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal of their case, which they had filed in the Henderson County Circuit Court, and commenced a new cause of action against the defendant employer in the Wilson County Circuit Court. The defendant employer again sought summary judgment, this time on the grounds that it could no longer be held vicariously liable for the second truck driver’s actions because the plaintiffs cause of action against him was barred before the plaintiffs filed their new action against the defendant employer. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant employer appealed.

The Reviewing Court’s Decision

The Tennessee Court of Appeals framed the issue as “whether a common-law exception to the vicarious liability doctrine prevents a plaintiff from benefiting from the savings statute.” Answering the question in the negative, the court held that, in the particular case at bar, the plaintiffs’ case was “saved” because 1) the plaintiffs’ first action was instituted before their right of action against the second truck (i.e., the employee) was extinguished by operation of law and 2) the plaintiffs’ second complaint was timely filed pursuant to the Tennessee savings statute codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 28-1-105.

In so holding, the court noted that a recent case upon which the defendant relied had held that a plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim against an employer such as the defendant herein failed in situations in which the plaintiff’s claim against the agent was procedurally barred by operation of law before the plaintiff asserted his or her vicarious liability action. Such was not the case here, in the court’s view, as the plaintiffs had already sued the defendant employer when their claim against the second truck driver had been extinguished. Although the defendant employer argued that the holding of the case upon which it relied should be extended to a situation involving a non-suit of a vicarious liability claim and a refiling under the saving statute, the reviewing court declined to so hold.

Have Questions for an East Tennessee Attorney?

Negligent truck drivers and trucking outfits can cause serious personal injury and/or wrongful death to other motorists, pedestrians, and passengers. When this happens, the injured parties (and the families of those who perish) have a right to seek fair compensation in a court of law. To talk to an experienced Knoxville truck accident attorney about your case, call the Hartsoe Law Firm today at (865) 804-1011. We handle cases throughout east Tennessee, including Maryville, Sevierville, Oak Ridge, and the Smoky Mountains.

Loss of earning capacity can be temporary (until the plaintiff physically recovers from the accident and returns to work), or it can be permanent (when the plaintiff is unlikely to ever be able to go back to work). The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to provide evidence of his or her lost earnings, both past and future, resulting from the wreck.

Sometimes, a jury may award an amount of damages that, when considered by the trial court judge or the court of appeals, was not in line with the evidence introduced at trial. Rather than start over with a new trial, the court may issue a “remittitur,” which reduces the amount the plaintiff ultimately receives as to one or more elements of damages but does not otherwise disturb the jury’s verdict in his or her favor as to liability or other issues. In other words, the plaintiff still wins; he or she just gets less money than the jury awarded.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent appellate court case arising in the Circuit Court for Shelby County was a tractor trailer driver who was allegedly injured in a multi-vehicle accident in 2009. According to the plaintiff, after traffic on the interstate slowed and then stopped, another tractor trailer traveling directly behind him ran into the back of his truck. This collision was followed by a second accident that occurred when a third truck rear-ended the second truck. The plaintiff filed suit against the owners and operators of both of the trucks, alleging that he had suffered severe and permanent injuries to his back and neck as a result of the accident. All defendants except the owner of the second truck were dismissed prior to trial. The jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor, awarding him $3,705,000 in total damages, which included an award of $1,455,000 for loss of earning capacity.

The trial court reduced the jury’s award for loss of earning capacity by $355,000 to $1,100,000, and the plaintiff accepted the suggestion of remittitur under protest. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s remittitur and reinstated the jury’s award of $1,455,000. The state supreme court then vacated the court of appeals’ decision, remanding the matter to the trial court. The trial court once again reduced the plaintiff’s loss of earning capacity award from $1,455,000 to $1,100,000, and the plaintiff filed a second appeal.

The Court’s Resolution on Appeal

After reviewing whether the trial court had erred in suggesting the remittitur again on remand, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the lower tribunal’s order on the basis that the preponderance of the evidence did not support the remittitur to $1,100,000. In the appellate court’s opinion, a remittitur was appropriate based on the proof in the record, but the remittitur should have been $1,334, 647, not $1,100,000. This amount was based on testimony of an expert witness who opined that $1,334,467 represented the earning capacity of an average truck driver of the same age as the plaintiff while also considering certain factors unique to the plaintiff (including a significant reading deficiency). The jury’s verdict represented a sum that was $120,353 more than the expert’s calculated amount; in the reviewing court’s opinion, there was no evidence to support the decreased award to the plaintiff.

Call an Attorney for Advice About a Knoxville Personal Injury Case

An east Tennessee truck accident can cause serious permanent physical injuries and even death. If you or a loved one has been hurt by a crash caused by a negligent trucker, you need to speak to an attorney about your legal rights as soon as possible. There are time limits for filing a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit, and claims not filed within these time periods are rarely, if ever, successful. For a free case evaluation, call (865) 804-1011 and ask for an appointment to speak to Attorney Mark Hartsoe at the Hartsoe Law Firm about your truck accident case. We represent truck accident victims throughout east Tennessee, including Knoxville, Maryville, and the surround areas.

Facts of the Case

In a recent federal court case, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, seeking compensation for personal injuries he allegedly suffered in a rear-end collision involving his van and their tractor-trailer. The defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s treating physician and medical expert, arguing that the doctor did not state in his deposition that he was serving as an expert witness, the doctor did not examine any documents other than the plaintiff’s medical records and was not aware of any facts related to the accident, the doctor’s report lacked a method of reasoning as to his conclusion that the accident at issue caused the injuries complained of by the plaintiff, the doctor did not connect his experience to his conclusions, and/or the doctor did not take into account possible causes of the plaintiff’s injuries other than the accident.

The plaintiff responded that, even if the doctor’s report was “technically deficient,” it would not be appropriate for the court to exclude it because any alleged failure to disclose it was harmless in that it did not prejudice the defendants.

Decision of the Court

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga denied the defendants’ motion to exclude the doctor’s testimony. The court began by acknowledging that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 sets forth the standard for expert testimony: a witness who has “sufficient knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” may give an opinion if his or her knowledge will help the trier of fact determine a fact in issue and/or better understand the evidence offered by the parties at trial, the expert’s opinion is based on sufficient facts, the proffered testimony is based on reliable methods, and the expert witness has applied the established principles to the appropriate facts. The trial court judge serves as the “gatekeeper” is determining whether a particular expert’s opinion should be admitted at trial.

Here, the court found that the doctor’s report demonstrated that he relied upon information gained during his medical treatment of the plaintiff, along with his education, training, and experience as an orthopedic surgeon, and that there was no indication that he employed an unusual method as a treating physician. Insomuch as his testimony was reliable and would assist the jury in deciding the factual disputes regarding the plaintiff’s injuries, the court found that there was no reason to exclude his expert testimony at trial.

To Talk to a Truck Accident Attorney

Accidents involving big trucks can cause serious personal injuries and even wrongful death. To talk to a lawyer about filing a claim for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other damages caused by the driver of an 18-wheeler, call the experienced Knoxville truck accident legal team at the Hartsoe Law Firm. You can schedule an appointment by calling us at (865) 804-1011.

If the jury attributes 50% or more of the fault to the plaintiff, he or she cannot recover any compensation from the defendant. If the plaintiff is 49% or less at fault, he or she recovers the percentage of his or her damages assigned to the defendant. For instance, if the jury finds that the plaintiff suffered $100,000 in damages but was 25% at fault, the trial court will enter a net judgment of $75,000 in the plaintiff’s favor.

Facts of the Case

In a case recently reviewed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals at Nashville, the plaintiffs were a husband and wife who sought compensation for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident that they alleged was caused by a box truck driver who was traveling behind them through a construction zone on Interstate 65. The driver’s employer was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit on the ground that it was vicariously liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries.

The defendants produced a video from the driver’s truck that showed the plaintiffs signaling and merging into the driver’s lane, with the crash happening shortly thereafter. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that reasonable minds could not differ as to the plaintiffs being at least 50% at fault for the accident.

Decision of the Court of Appeals

The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court had erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants. While the defendants insisted that their video proved that the driver “acted as a reasonable person,” the court of appeals did not agree with this assessment. Admittedly, the video did show that the plaintiffs changed lanes in an “abrupt fashion,” but it also established that the truck driver did not slow his speed while passing through a construction area, despite police presence. In the court’s opinion, genuine issues of material fact remained. On remand, the trial court was to instruct the jury to determine whether the trucker breached the duty of due care under the existing circumstances and, if so, allocate the fault between the parties.

Speak to a Lawyer in Knoxville or Maryville

Being involved in an accident with a tractor trailer or another commercial vehicle can result in devastating injuries and even death. The Hartsoe Law Firm in Knoxville handles rear-end collisions and other truck accident cases throughout Knoxville, Maryville, and other cities in East Tennessee. To schedule a free consultation, call us at (865) 804-1011. Tennessee has a very short statute of limitations for personal injury lawsuits compared to other states, so it is very important to talk to an attorney about your case as soon as possible.

Related Blog Posts: Tennessee Court of Appeals Affirms Verdict in Favor of Injured Man in Tractor-Trailer Accident Case Tennessee Court of Appeals Orders New Trial Where Jury Verdict Was Not Supported by the Material Evidence in Shelby County Car Accident Case

In the case discussed below, a professional trucker allegedly presented an accident victim with a document releasing the trucker’s employer from all liability – at the scene of the accident! When that didn’t work, the trucking company hired an investigator, who contacted the victim later that day to discuss a settlement.

Even though the investigator was aware that the accident victim was hurt in the wreck and had been to the hospital, he asked the accident victim to sign a “Release of All Claims” document just two days after the accident. Of the $10,000 settlement, just $215 was allocated for the victim’s personal injury claim. Unfortunately, the man signed the document.

Facts of the Case

In a case recently decided by the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville, the plaintiff was a man who was hurt in a motor vehicle accident on March 13, 2012, in Hamilton County, Tennessee. The accident allegedly occurred after a semi-truck jackknifed and slammed into his vehicle, causing the plaintiff to lose control and strike a barrier wall. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants (the truck driver and the driver’s employer) on March 7, 2013, seeking to recover compensation for injuries he suffered in the crash.

Thereafter, the plaintiff amended his complaint to request reformation of the release document that he signed two days after the accident. As grounds for reformation, the plaintiff averred that he understood the release to only include the property damage portion of his claim, not “all claims,” as stated in the document.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the grounds that the plaintiff had not acted promptly in seeking reformation of the release.

Decision of the Appellate Court

The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s summary judgment order in the defendants’ favor, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the plaintiff’s actions to obtain equitable relief were sufficiently prompt. The court began its analysis by rejecting the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff had effectively waived the issues presented for review because his appellate brief failed to meet certain procedural requirements. Rather, the court opted to exercise its discretion and waive the technical briefing requirements in this particular case.

The court went on to agree with the plaintiff that the trial court had erred in determining, as a matter of law, that he had failed to act promptly in seeking a reformation of the release document at issue. In so holding, the court noted that the plaintiff’s delay in seeking reformation of the release was, at most, 14 months.

Talk to an Experienced Knoxville Truck Accident Attorney

As this case indicates, those in the trucking industry can be extremely aggressive in their attempts to avoid or limit payouts to those injured in big truck wrecks. If you or a loved one has been hurt in a tractor-trailer collision, the seasoned east Tennessee truck accident team at the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. can help. To schedule an appointment in our Knoxville or Maryville offices, call us at (865) 804-1011. There is no charge for your confidential case evaluation, and most cases are handled on a contingency fee contract – we get paid when you get paid.

Related Blog Posts Tennessee Court of Appeals Affirms Verdict in Favor of Injured Man in Tractor-Trailer Accident Case Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Creates New Rules to Go After Non-compliant Trucking and Bus Companies

When one of the parties is aggrieved by an evidentiary ruling at trial, that party may opt to appeal the judge’s decision to a higher court for review.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who was allegedly injured in an 18-wheeler accident in 2012. The plaintiff filed suit against the driver of the truck and the driver’s employer, asserting that the cause of the wreck was the trucker’s failure to yield the right-of-way at an intersection. In his case, the plaintiff sought compensation for injuries and related damages that he claimed he suffered due to the trucker’s alleged negligence.

As the parties prepared the case for a jury trial, the defendants filed a motion in limine in the trial court, signaling their intent to impeach the plaintiff’s credibility at trial by introducing evidence to the effect that the plaintiff had been convicted of three felony offenses in the past. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that his prior convictions should be excluded because their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

The trial court decided to allow the defendants to question the plaintiff about whether he had been convicted of the three felonies, but it barred any questions about specific details of the convictions. The case proceeded to a trial, and the jury ruled in the plaintiff’s favor, assigning 100% of the fault to the defendant and awarding the plaintiff $30,533 in damages. The defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court judge had incorrectly interpreted Tennessee Rule of Evidence 609.

Decision of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee

The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, determining that the trial court had correctly applied Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403 to the issue at hand. The court further agreed with the trial judge’s conclusion that the details of the plaintiff’s criminal convictions had very little probative value in an action seeking damages for injuries arising from an automobile accident and that, had the jury been informed of the details of the plaintiff’s convictions, they might have been offended or motivated to punish the plaintiff, irrespective of the facts of the case.

In so holding, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that a party to a civil action has an absolute right under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 609 to impeach a witness with evidence of prior felony convictions, including the details regarding the nature of his convictions, the types of convictions, and the facts and circumstances surrounding the convictions. Instead, the court ruled that, in such a situation, the trial court has the discretion to conduct a balancing test under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403 to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

To Talk to a Lawyer About Your East Tennessee Truck Accident Case

Truck accident litigation is seldom, if ever, simple. It takes a great deal of knowledge, skill, and perseverance to deal with big trucking outfits and insurance companies that are determined to keep settlements and judgments as low as possible to protect their own bottom lines. To talk to a seasoned Maryville truck accident attorney about your case, call the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., at (865) 804-1011 and ask for a free consultation. We serve families throughout the greater Knoxville area, including in Gatlinburg, Sevierville, Pigeon Forge, Vonore, Rockwood, Madisonville, Loudon, and Lenoir City.

Related Blog Posts:

Knoxville Appellate Court Upholds Personal Injury Verdict Related to Crash With Bradley County Emergency Responder Memphis Appeals Court Affirms Damages Award in Favor of Shelby County Car Accident Victim

The afternoon tractor-trailer crash purportedly closed the Interstate in both directions while a hazardous materials crew engaged in what was initially believed to be a radioactive materials clean-up effort. Thankfully, no such materials were discovered by authorities. Sadly, one of the semi-truck drivers died at the scene of the collision. The other driver and two firefighters who responded to the tragic wreck were reportedly transported to the University of Tennessee Medical Center for treatment. At least one patient was taken to the hospital via Lifestar helicopter. According to the Tennessee Highway Patrol, the exact cause of the fatal collision is still under investigation.

Due to the many state and federal trucking laws and regulations, a tractor-trailer wreck can involve a number of unique pieces of evidence that do not exist in other traffic accident cases, such as maintenance logs, on-board computer information, and driver logs. In addition, the victim of a Knoxville traffic accident that was caused by a semi-truck driver may be entitled to recover monetary damages for his or her lost wages and benefits, medical bills, any temporary or permanent disability that resulted from the truck crash, pain and suffering, and more. Certain relatives of someone who was killed due to a tractor-trailer driver’s negligent act may also be eligible to recover for their family member’s wrongful death.

Since Tennessee is a modified comparative fault accident state, a truck accident victim is only able to recover damages for his or her harm or loss if the individual was less than 50 percent at fault for the crash. Under this system of negligence, an accident victim is not entitled to recover any financial compensation from the party who caused the big rig wreck if he or she was more than 50 percent responsible for the collision or other accident. A skilled Tennessee injury lawyer can explain your right to recover damages in greater detail.

If you suffered a debilitating injury in a crash that was caused by an 18-wheeler, you need a knowledgeable Knoxville truck accident attorney on your side to help you protect your legal rights. The experienced lawyers at the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. provide excellent legal representation to clients across Eastern Tennessee. To discuss your case with a veteran attorney, please call the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. today at (865) 804-1011 or contact us through our website.

Additional Resources: 1 killed, 3 injured in fiery Campbell County crash on I 75, by Kayla Strayer, wate.com

Fiery head-on semi crash kills Ky truck driver, injures 3, by Alexandra Martellaro, wbir.com

Related Blog Posts: Knoxville Federal Court Dismisses Time Barred Car Accident Case: Hudson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., August 27, 2014, Knoxville Injury Lawyer Blog

Knoxville Appeals Court Affirms Damages Award in Farragut Car Accident Lawsuit: Pyle v. Mullins, August 20, 2014, Knoxville Injury Lawyer Blog

The driver of a Toyota Camry was travelling east on I-40 near the Campbell Station Road exit when a tractor trailer suddenly started merging into his lane. The Camry driver tried to alert the big rig by honking, but the rig continued to merge pinning the Camry against a concrete median.

Rescue workers tried to free the driver from the Camry with barely two feet of space between the tractor trailer and the concrete. The man finally emerged from the mangled metal Camry. Amazingly, he did not even have a scratch.

Even though the driver would make a great product endorsement, none of the media reports have indicated what saved the Camry driver. The results of this accident would have been unthinkable years ago. Safety features have been a large part of the evolution and history of the American automobile. Technological advancements, consumer information, governmental regulations, and personal injury lawsuits have all led to safer vehicles.

Personal injury lawsuits have played a large part in the shaping of vehicle safety features. In May we mentioned a Supreme Court of Tennessee (“SCT”) opinion in Lake v. Memphis Landsmen, LLC., holding that a federal law’s lack of a seatbelt mandate for passenger seats on buses did not preempt a state negligence claim against a manufacturer for producing a bus without seatbelts.

In Lake, a passenger had been thrown from a bus after a concrete truck collided with the bus. Expert testimony strongly indicated that the passenger’s injuries would have been avoided had a seatbelt prevented him from being thrown. The SCT ruled that the federal regulation did not preempt the negligence claim per a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.. However, the SCT also distinguished these cases from another U.S. Supreme Court decision, Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.

Geier v. American Honda Motor Co In Geier, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a federal regulation lacking an air bag requirement did preempt a state air bag mandate in the form of a negligence claim.

For some background, the doctrine of preemption comes from the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution that states, “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Under the Supremacy Clause a federal law will preempt a state law when the state law conflicts with the federal law, and the state law will be struck down.

Looking at the legislative history in Geier, the Supreme Court found that the regulatory agency did not pursue an air bag restriction because they wanted manufactures to experiment with other possible safety features. Also, the regulatory agency worried that an air bag mandate would inhibited seatbelt mandates. In Geier, a mandate might not prevent safety. The Court held that the federal lack of an air bag requirement did preempt the state negligence claim against a manufacturer for failing to put a driver side air bag in a vehicle.

Lake v. Memphis Landsmen, LLC. Returning to the SCT opinion in Lake v. Memphis Landsmen, LLC., the state court distinguished Geier by a distinction between an agency determining there is no need to adopt a safety requirement and an agency determining that a requirement should not be adopted.

A federal seatbelt mandate for bus passengers had been drafted in 1972, but the agency withdrew the requirement largely because the agency felt city bus passengers would not use the belts for short rides. The court found nothing forbidding states from imposing such a requirement nor did they find an authoritative policy against bus passenger seatbelts. The court held that the federal law did not preempt the state negligence claim.

Like the federal and state cases, personal injury lawsuits have had a long history in shaping state and federal vehicle safety regulations. There are many safety regulations that have come about because of personal injury cases.

If you or your loved one have been injured in a traffic accident, having an traffic accident attorney that knows the rules and and how they will affect your case can be critical to getting you the compensation that you deserve.

If you have been the victim of vehicle accident, contact Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. at (865) 804-1011.

Additional Resources: Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., May. 2000, United States Supreme Court.

Preemption, 2014, Legal Information Institute.

Timetoast Timeline: The History of Vehicle Safety, 2014, timetoast.com.

More Blog Entries: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Creates New Rules to Go After Non-compliant Trucking and Bus Companies, Jan. 22, 2014, Knoxville Injury Lawyer Blog

Tennessee Supreme Court Rules Bus Accident Victim May Pursue Injury Claim Appeal, May 15, 2013, Knoxville Injury Lawyer Blog

When a motor carrier accident happens it involves several parties, and the state and federal laws that apply can be complicated. If you or someone you know has been injured in a motor carrier accident, you are encouraged to contact an experienced Tennessee truck accident lawyer who knows how to get you the compensation you deserve.

On January 17th, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) announced new rules giving them authority to shut down motor carriers that have shown an “egregious disregard” for federal safety regulations. The FMCSA regulates the trucking industry in the United States. The new rules were created after frustration with companies and executives using “reincarnated” or “chameleon carriers” to move their assets or to establish complicated organizational structures to evade FMCSA violations.

We are intent on shutting down bus and truck companies that willfully endanger the public. [The agency will use] the rule to take stronger action against businesses and individuals that have a history of disregarding basic safety standards. — FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro

The new regulations were brought about after years of complaints from the U.S. Congress and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) when highly reported and extremely tragic accidents happened despite attempts by the FMCSA to remove carriers with severe safety violations from the road.

In 2011, a discount bus operator, Sky Express, crashed in Charlotte, North Carolina, killing four people and severely injuring several others. After an NTSB investigation, it was found that the carrier had received 204 violations from the FMCSA prior to the accident.

In February 2013, a bus crashed in San Bernardino County killing seven people and injuring a dozen others because it failed to slow down on a downhill grade. The FMCSA found every brake on the bus to be defective. The NTSB investigation found that the carrier company had failed several FMCSA investigations prior to the accident but alluded shut down.

In the summary to the new rules, the FMCSA cited a 2008 accident in Sherman, Texas that killed 17 people. The FMCSA had many safety violations by the carrier company and had revoked the registration of the company. After a thorough investigation, the FMCSA found the company had changed its sub companies and re-registered the vehicles to keep them on the road. The revoked companies and the company involved in the accident were under the control of the same person.

The new rules authorize the FMCSA to withhold, suspend, or revoke a carrier’s operating authority for failing to disclose common management or control by a person or entity that has failed to comply with FMCSA requirements. The regulations specifically target carriers that engage in wilful violations by forming new entities or affiliate relationships to conceal non-compliance.

The majority of motor carriers with trucks or buses on the road obey safety laws and have safe driving practices for their carriers and drivers. The new rules will make the road safe by taking dangerous carriers off the road. Unfortunately, there are trucking and bus companies that do not follow the rules or try to cloak their unsafe behaviour. If you have been injured in a motor carrier accident, it is important to consult with an attorney that understands the state and federal legislation and who is willing to take on these companies so that you can get the compensation you deserve.

If you have been involved in an truck accident, contact Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. at (865) 804-1011.

Additional Resources: Final Rule: Patterns of Safety Violations by Motor Carrier Management, Jan. 17, 2013, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Full Version: Patterns of Safety Violations by Motor Carrier Management, Jan. 17, 2013, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Jan. 17, 2013, Wikipedia.org

More Blog Entries: Tennessee Tractor-Trailer Crashes & the Risk of Increasing Size and Weight Limits., Jul. 10, 2013, Knoxville Injury Lawyer Blog

Mills v. Fulmarque Illustrates Time Limitations in Knoxville Injury Claims, Mar. 28, 2012, Knoxville Injury Lawyer Blog

It’s simple physics, really.

We know that the bigger a vehicle is, the more damage it is liable to cause. This is especially true when vehicles are only designed to hold a certain threshold of weight and are then overloaded. This poses a danger not only to the driver, but to everyone else who shares the road.

As it stands now, the maximum weight limit threshold is 80,000 pounds. A bill currently moving through the U.S. House of Representatives would up that to 97,000 pounds.

Increasing this weight limit will not serve to reduce overloading vehicles. That will still happen. It’s just that with a measure like this, these massive trucks will have the power to inflict even more damage in collisions with motor vehicles.

The only ones who benefit from this are large shipping and trucking firms, which will be able to fatten their pockets by increasing the amount they can deliver at a time.

However, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association, a group of about 150,000 smaller trucking operations, is staunchly opposed to HR612, mostly for safety reasons but also because the vast majority of trucking firms won’t be able to afford to upgrade their fleet – usually consisting of 20 or fewer vehicles – to compete with the newer, larger models in states that choose to adopt the new federal standards, should they get approval.

It wasn’t long ago that Congress grappled with this same issue. Last year, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), which revamped federal highway safety standards, rejected a proposal to increase tractor-trailer truck weight and size limits. Instead, it ordered a comprehensive study on the impacts of larger trucks on the integrity of highway infrastructure, motor vehicle safety and the economy. We are still awaiting the results of this research, though the Federal Highway Administration conducted its mandated listening session as part of that study at the U.S. Department of Transportation headquarters in Washington D.C. in late May.

In addition to opposition from OOIDA, the Automobile Association of America has come out against efforts to increase size and weight limits on commercial trucks. With a membership some 50 million strong, this could be a powerful voice in talking down these efforts.

As it currently stands, there are some 28,000 motor carrier companies across the country that are actively violating federal safety standards, having a direct impact on safety for all those who travel the highways. Increasing truck size limits won’t help to reduce that number. It will however give these companies more room to push the limits, which in turn puts us all at even greater risk.

And as the OOIDA underscores, the change is in no way necessary to help improve the greater good.

If you are involved in a Knoxville traffic accident, contact Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. at (865) 804-1011.

Additional Resources: Supersized trucks? The professionals on the road say no, June 6, 2013, By David Tanner, Land Line

More Blog Entries: Fatal Tennessee Tractor-Trailer Crash Precedes New Federal Safety Rules, June 14, 2013, Knoxville Truck Accident Lawyer Blog

The crash happened just two weeks ahead of implementation of federal rules designed to reduce the number of fatal tractor-trailer accidents here and across the country.

According to investigators’ accounts from the Tennessee Highway Patrol, the accident occurred shortly after midnight on a Thursday, as cars were slowing due to heavy traffic from an earlier accident near I-24 near Murfreesboro.

The driver of the truck was reportedly unable to halt in time. Eight other vehicles were struck. Two of those vehicles burst into flames. One of those vehicles became fully engulfed, causing the deaths of two people from Indiana, a 25-year-old woman and a 28-year-old man. Five other people suffered serious injuries. Seven others, including the trucker, were not injured.

The truck driver, from Kentucky, was cited for failure to exercise due care, and additional charges are pending.

Our Knoxville injury lawyers can’t say for certain that driver fatigue played a role in this crash, but it does seem to fit the mold: The crash occurred after midnight and involved the trucker’s delayed reaction time. By many accounts, drowsy driving affects reflex times just as much as alcohol consumption.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association reports that nearly 15 percent of all fatal trucking crashes are the result of drivers who were overworked and fatigued. It’s for this reason that over the past five years, the agency has been battling to enact a series of hours of service rules that would limit the amount of time a trucker could remain behind the wheel at any given stretch.

Now, those rules will be formalized July 1, 2013.

It should come as no surprise that the industry has put up a fierce fight on this issue, arguing that the changes will deliver a devastating blow not only to the trucking industry but to small businesses nationwide that depend on timely delivery of goods to provide their services. There is no question that the new rules will have some impact on the industry, but we believe the problems stated have been overblown.

What’s more, industry advocates’ assertions that current rules are doing more than enough to tamp down the number of fatal crashes simply doesn’t hold water when you consider crashes like the recent one that happened in Murfreesboro. In no other industry would it be acceptable to allow thousands of innocent people to die and become seriously injured every year, and then chalk it up to merely being a cost of doing business.

That’s why the FMCSA has pressed forward on these rules. They include limiting drivers to a maximum of 11 hours on the road at any given stretch. Drivers are also expected to take at least a 30-minute rest break every eight hours (so at least once a shift) and they have to be off-duty at least 10 hours before getting back on the road after a full shift. Drivers will go from being allowed to work a maximum of 82 hours in a seven-day week to being allowed to work only 70 in a work week. This will ensure that drivers have more time to rest and recharge so that when they do get back to the road, they will be refreshed – and less likely to fatal mistakes, like the one that senselessly claimed those two young lives in Tennessee.

If you are involved in a Knoxville traffic accident, contact Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. at (865) 804-1011.

Additional Resources: UPDATE: 2 Killed in 10-Vehicle Crash Near Murfreesboro, TN, June 13, 2013, Associated Press

More Blog Entries: Knoxville Crash Risk Heightened During Summer Travel, June 10, 2013, Knoxville Injury Lawyer Blog

Our Knoxville truck accident attorneys know that an underride crash happens when a car actually slides right underneath a truck. This can cause devastating injuries due to the extensive damage done to the car.

Semitrailers are typically designed with the aim of preventing these types of crashes as a primary concern. But unfortunately there are some design flaws and areas where the design is lacking. A recent report from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) highlights the potential problems that may occur in certain types of crashes involving large trucks.

Crash Test Reveals an Underside Accident Risk

According to the IIHS news release, a new type of crash test was conducted, which involved a car crashing into the back of a very large truck. The test was unique, however, because the car crashed only into a small portion of the rear of the truck.

When the car hit only a small portion of the side rear of the truck, there was a greater chance of the car getting trapped under the truck in an underride accident. As the IIHS points out, this means that the majority of trailers failed in preventing a potentially fatal underride accident.

When an underride accident occurs and the front of the passenger vehicle ends up underneath the bottom of the truck, the top of the occupant compartment is usually crushed or sheared away. Air bags, seatbelts and other safety devices in cars are virtually ineffective in this situation, and head and neck injuries are very common among those in the accident.

Crash Test Shows Underride Crashes a Serious Risk

Because underride crashes are so dangerous, trucks are designed to prevent this scenario from occurring. In fact, trucks are generally required to have steel bars called underride guards that hang from the rear of the trailer, with the aim of preventing a car from slipping underneath the truck.

Unfortunately, these underride guards may not be providing adequate protection. As IIHS points out, earlier studies indicated that the requirements for underride guards in the U.S. were inadequate both in terms of the dimensions and in terms of the minimum strength of the bars.

IIHS petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute (NHTSA) to make changes to the standards in 2011 to address these serious issues. IISH also asked NHTSA to apply standards regarding underride bars to certain other types of trucks that were not currently required to have them, such as dump trucks.

NHTSA has not responded to these requests or made any changes. However, Canada has tougher standards on underride bars and has since 2007, so many truck manufacturers have bars that exceed NHTSA standards even when the trucks are sold in the U.S.

The new crash tests, however, indicate that even trucks with better underride bars have vulnerabilities when a passenger car hits a truck from the side rear. Drivers of passenger cars need to be aware of the very serious risk of underride accidents that can exist when an accident of this type occurs.

If you are involved in a Knoxville truck accident, contact Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. at (865) 804-1011. Additional Resources: Knoxville Car Accident Prevention: Distracted Driving Awareness Month, Tennessee Injury Attorney Blog, April 10, 2013

Now, our Knoxville truck accident lawyers understand that truck driver has been indicted by a grand jury on criminal charges of aggravated assault, reckless driving, reckless endangerment and failure to drive within a single lane of traffic.

The 57-year-old truck driver admitted to emergency responders that he had been so tired just before the wreck, he had been splashing his face with cold water to stay awake. He had been hired by the Orlando-based trucking agency just two weeks before.

Alcohol is not believed to have been a factor in the crash.

Immediately after the wreck, the truck driver ran to the aid of the officer, helping to pull him from the cruiser, with the help of paramedics who happened upon the scene on their way back from transporting a different patient to the hospital. Paramedics also suffered burns as a result.

The trooper inside the burning vehicle, meanwhile, nearly died. He had his emergency lights flashing and was parked on the shoulder of the highway when the crash happened. Although it was touch-and-go for some time, he was later transferred to a rehabilitation facility, where he underwent months and months of intensive physical therapy. He has since returned home, but he has not been able to go back to work.

The truck driver is reportedly working to negotiate some sort of plea deal, though the details of what that might look like aren’t yet clear. The driver is said to be devastated by the crash and wracked with guilt over the injuries suffered by the trooper.

No doubt, most people who are involved in fatal or near-fatal accidents don’t set out that day to do so. But truckers who fail to adhere to hours of service restrictions or continue to drive when it’s obvious even to them that they are too tired to do so must be held accountable. In cases where the company’s scheduling prohibits adherence to federal hours of service operations, they too need to be held accountable.

According to the the AAA Foundation, it’s not just truck drivers, either. While nearly all drivers surveyed in 2012 reported that driving drowsy was a risk to their safety and was unacceptable, almost a third admitted to being so tired behind the wheel within the last month that they could barely keep their eyes open.

It’s estimated that about 17 percent of all fatal crashes involve drivers who were sleepy.

Every single driver has a responsibility to ensure he or she is alert and oriented to the road ahead. If you need to pull over and take a nap, do so. Here are some key warning signs that you need to stop driving:

• Your eyelids are getting heavy or you have difficulty keeping your eyes open and focused;
• You are having trouble keeping your head up;
• You find yourself rubbing your eyes or yawning;
• You are missing traffic signs or signals or driving past your exit;
• You can’t remember the last few miles you drove;
• You have drifted from your lane or hit the rumble strips.

If you are involved in a Knoxville truck accident, contact the Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. at (865) 804-1011.

Additional Resources: Trucker indicted in fiery crash that nearly killed THP sergeant, Feb. 27, 2013, By Jamie Satterfield, KnoxNews.com

More Blog Entries: Tennessee Traffic Deaths Spiked in 2012, Feb. 28, 2013, Knoxville Truck Accident Lawyer Blog

That fact is especially compounded when the vehicle that’s moving too fast is a tractor-trailer truck and is overweight.

This is why we are in firm support of regulations proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation that would require all heavy commercial vehicles to set their top speed at 65 miles per hour. It’s not a formal rule yet, but the department administration has indicated it intends to push such regulation hard in 2013.

That push is further fueled by recent reports like the one out of Atlanta, indicating there are a number of companies that, despite racking up dozens of tickets for overweight vehicles, continue to put overweight vehicles on the road – right beside you and your family. A recent Florida report found an estimated 30 percent of tractor-trailers and dump trucks are running overweight — that’s about 1 in 3! Fines for a first offense are often small and tight budgets have enforcement officers in short supply. Meanwhile, about 1 in 8 fatal collisions involves a large truck.

It’s cheaper and there is more money to be made — even if they got caught and are forced to pay the fine.

This is particularly troubling when you consider that in 2010, more than 3,600 people died and another 80,000 were seriously injured in crashes that involved a large truck. These trucks are defined as having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more.

Here in this country, there were more than a quarter million of these vehicles involved in traffic crashes in 2010. That represented a nearly 10 percent increase from the previous year.

It’s unsurprising that the majority of those hurt in these crashes are those in the other vehicles. In fact, these accounted for approximately three-quarters of the injuries and deaths.

Large trucks account for less than 5 percent of all vehicle miles traveled in this country. But when they are involved in crashes, they have a higher likelihood of fatalities, due to their size. They account for approximately 8 percent of all vehicles involved in fatal crashes. Being overburdened with weight and then speed – makes for a deadly combination.

In Tennessee, large trucks account for approximately 6.5 percent of the roughly 1,400 fatal crashes we see each year. Very few of these incidents involved truckers who had been drinking (about 2 percent). However, about a quarter of all truckers involved in fatal crashes did have at least one prior speeding conviction. That’s a higher rate than passenger car drivers, whose rate is about 18 percent.

All of this contributes to the transportation department’s recommendation to require trucks to lower their top speeds. Setting these limits won’t prevent every trucking accident, but it may go a long way in holding both the drivers and their employers accountable.

If you are involved in a Tennessee traffic accident, contact Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. for a confidential consultation to discuss your rights at (865) 804-1011.

Additional Resources: Help RSA Push Washington to Mandate Speed Limiters, Aug. 9, 2012, Road Safe America

More Blog Entries: Increase in Sleep Problems Exacerbates Drowsy Driving Dangers, Jan. 10, 2013, Knoxville Truck Accident Lawyer Blog

The $105 billion 2013-2014 transportation bill (MAP-21: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act), was signed by President Obama in July and is the first long-term highway authorization act passed since 2005.

Among the biggest improvements: The creation of a database for drug test results and the electronic logging of drive time. “These rules, along with the new drug and alcohol database, will go a long way towards reducing truck/car fatalities in America,” said Steve Owings, who founded RoadSafe America with his wife after their son was killed in an accident involving a commercial semi. Trucking accident lawyers understand there are many other improvements that could be made to reduce the risks for millions of motorists who share the road with trucks. Better Drug Testing: Even once a drug-testing database is up and running, a Congressional report indicates these federal tests are easily beat. Testing of hair (instead of urine) would drastically increase accountability. The other serious concern is medical exemptions for narcotic pain medication. There are safety concerns about allowing truckers to drive while using narcotic painkillers — even with a note from their doctor.

Collision Avoidance and Adaptive Cruise Control: Proven technologies, including speed-limiters, should be adapted to help improve safety.

Liability: Shippers and receivers must be held more accountable. The owner of freight has an obligation to ensure its safe transport. Entities hiring truckers to transport goods must be encouraged to put safety ahead of the cheapest transport option.

Trucker Health: The new law will establish a database of certified medical examiners. These doctors will be recognized by the USDOT as qualified to give annual trucker physicals. Under the current system, many drivers allegedly are paying unethical practitioners for the medical results they need to continue driving. However, there are a number of other serious health concerns — including sleep apnea — that need to be addressed by federal safety officials.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration was formed in 2000 with a primary mission of preventing commercial motor-vehicle related fatalities and injuries and continues to take steps to improve safety. This month, it announced that it was expanding its Pre-Employment Screening Program. While the system allows potential employers to access a driver’s immediate past history of accidents and inspections, it requires the driver’s written permission.

The system also cannot be used to check the status of current employees — only drivers under consideration for hire. Moving forward, regardless of who wins the election in November, there must be a renewed focus on the effort to pass some of these common-sense approaches meant to reduce the risk of Tennessee trucking accidents and serious and fatal commercial driving accidents nationwide.

If you are involved in a Tennessee traffic accident, contact Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. for a confidential consultation to discuss your rights at (865) 804-1011. Additional Resources: Tennessee Supreme Court Rejects Emotional Distress Claim Against Uninsured Motorist Policy – Garrison v. Bickford, Published by Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C., Oct. 5, 2012.

Rhodes v. AIG is a case that illustrates the deceptive practices of insurance companies. The issue addressed here is how to manage damages where the defendant insurance company is engaged in willful and knowing unfair settlement practices.

Rhodes was the driver of a passenger vehicle when the defendant Carl Zalewski, who was negligently driving an eighteen wheel truck, hit plaintiff in the rear of her car. While Zalewski was driving this truck, he was acting within his job duties as a driver for Driver Logistic Services (DLS). DLS had their primary insurance with Zurich and their excess policy with National Union Fire Insurance Company (“National Union”). Their coverage was $2 million and $50 million respectively.

Excess insurance coverage is used by large companies to shield themselves from the risks and liabilities of these highly dangerous accidents involving trucks.

Upon the impact to the plaintiff’s vehicle, Rhodes suffered a fractured spine leading her to become paraplegic. Plaintiff spent several months in the hospital after spinal fusion surgery. She also suffered from several other health issues because of this injury to her spine.

Through this case it is seen how tragic the injuries can be in trucking accident cases. This plaintiff, who was not at fault, will spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair. Also, her family suffered and will continue to suffer greatly because of the injuries Rhodes sustained.

The court in this case was charged with interpreting their state statute in determining how to establish a punitive damages award in the instance where one party fails to promptly, fairly and equitably negotiate settlement with the plaintiff. The Georgia Statute does not require insurance companies to settle with plaintiffs, but what is required is that the insurance companies act promptly and reasonably when the negotiations are taking place.

In order to find the defendant’s guilty of this, the court said that the plaintiff had to prove that the breaching party willfully and knowingly participated in these unfair settlement practices. Plaintiff alleges that both of the insurance companies involved were participating in this behavior, which was therefore a violation of the statute at issue.

Five months after the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the two insurance companies, plaintiff settled with National Union, the excess insurance carrier, through their claims administrators at AIG.

Although the plaintiff settled with one of the parties, the case continued to the superior court where the court heard the case. They found that the primary insurance company did not violate the statute because it did not infringe on the integrity of the settlement process. The court went on to explain that the issue of whether National Union or their claim administrators at AIG violated the statute was irrelevant because even if the plaintiff proved that those parties were engaging in this behavior, she would be barred from collecting damages from them two times.

What the court did explain was that the state statute that is controlling in deciding punitive damages associated with unfair settlement practices, awards damages where the plaintiff is able to prove that there is a link between their injuries and the unfair practices she is contending. If the plaintiff is able to prove this, the court held that the statute indicates the plaintiff’s award for punitive damages is two times the award plaintiff received in the original suit.

The application of the law to the facts in this case would have led the plaintiff to receive an exorbitant amount of money. Although the court was very sympathetic to plaintiff’s injuries, they do contend that they do not necessarily agree with doubling the original damages award as punishment for unfair settlement practices.

Rhodes is a case that warns the legislatures to make sure that the statutes that are used in determining damages, provide for an equitable award.

Had the attorney in this case warned her client not to settle, the client would have received an additional $22 million dollars.

You need the right attorney to help you navigate through all the law to get you the award you are entitled to.

If you have been injured contact Tennessee Injury Attorneys at Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. to schedule a free appointment. Call (865) 804-1011.

A new report released by the Governors Highway Safety Association indicates that for the first time in 8 years, teen driver deaths overall were increasing. For the first six months of last year compared to the first six months of 2010, there was an 11 percent increase in the number of teen drivers killed nationwide. That includes statistics analyzed from all 50 states, as well as Washington D.C.

While our Knoxville trucking accident attorneys understand the report doesn’t specifically break down how many of those were due to accidents involving big rigs, based on previous research, it is safe to say crashes with large trucks were at least partially to blame.

In fact, the National Highway Safety Association reported that between 1975 and 2005, more than 7 percent of all those killed in large trucking accidents were aged 17 and under. Drivers aged 18 to 25 accounted for 17 percent of all trucking accident fatalities – a larger portion than any other age group.

The new report from the governor’s association found that in a state-by-state examination of teen fatalities, driver fatalities for 16-year-olds increased by 16 percent, while driver fatalities for 17-year-olds is up by 17 percent. Overall, 19 states (including Tennessee) reported some decrease in fatalities, while 23 states reported a marked increase. Some states, including Florida, North Carolina and Texas, reported a skyrocketing increase.

Researchers pointed to the fact that the benefits of graduated driver’s license programs, such as the one implemented in Tennessee in 2001, are beginning to level off.

While many fatal trucking accidents in Knoxville involve truck driver error (most commonly, failure to maintain proper lanes, speeding or distracted driving), it pays for teens to be educated in how to maneuver around these large vehicles.

The fact is that when a passenger vehicle is involved in a wreck with a big rig, there is an increased chance that the injuries will be more severe or result in death.

This underscores how critical it is for parents to have some discussion with their teen about how to drive safely around large trucks, as they don’t operate under the same laws of physics as passenger vehicles.

The Geico Educational Foundation, an arm of the car insurance company, recently released an easy-to-read brochure that breaks down some of the ways teens can be sure to avoid a Knoxville trucking accident.

The brochure first goes over the basics of any safe driver: Don’t speed, drive aggressively or allow yourself to be distracted by your friends or cell phone.

Secondly, it urges teens to avoid the trucker’s blind spots. These cover pretty wide swaths of roadway around the truck, but the best rule to follow is to make sure you can see the trucker’s mirrors. If you can’t, the trucker can’t see you.

Thirdly, if you plan to pass a large truck, make sure you can see the front of the rig in your rear view. Don’t ever flash your brights at a trucker to signal that you plan to change lanes. This can be very confusing, as it sometimes signals a police cruiser is up ahead. Either way, simply use your turn signal.

Finally, don’t stop suddenly in front of a trucker or swerve abruptly in front of him or her. Truck drivers aren’t able to slow or stop as quickly as someone in an SUV or passenger car. It’s better to give yourself plenty of space so this won’t be an issue.

If you or someone close to you has been injured or killed a trucking accident in Knoxville, Maryville or elsewhere in the surrounding areas, contact Knoxville Accident Attorney Mark Hartsoe for a confidential appointment to discuss your rights. Call (865) 804-1011.

Additional Resources: New Study: Teen Driver Deaths Increase in 2011, GHSA

More Blog Entries:

Man Eludes Death Following Train Accident in West Knoxville

The recommendation comes after a recent meeting in which federal officials discussed the dangers of drivers’ bad habits. The meeting covered the catastrophic traffic accident that happened in 2010 in Gray Summit, Missouri, in which a distracted driver allegedly killed two people and injured dozens more. In Missouri, drivers under the age of 21 are prohibited from texting while driving, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). All other drivers are free to do as they wish behind the wheel. That’s the problem with current laws. Most states prohibit drivers from texting, but not from talking on a cell phone. It’s difficult for officials to determine if a driver is using a phone to call someone or typing a text message. A federal ban on all devices would help officials to bust drivers, and could help reduce the risks of distraction-related car accidents in Knoxville and elsewhere.

Our Knoxville car accident attorneys understand that NTSB doesn’t have the authority to enact such a law, but its recommendations typically have a significant influence on laws that are passed by state, local and federal lawmakers. If this proposal were to become law, there would be a few exceptions. For instance, devices used to aid driver safety would be permitted, as well as during emergency situations.

“States aren’t ready to support a total ban yet, but this may start the discussion,” said Jonathan Adkins, a spokesman for the GHSA.

Currently, there are 35 states that do not allow drivers to text at the wheel. Another nine states don’t allow drivers to talk on a cell phone while driving. In these states, enforcement of these laws has not appeared to be a top priority.

“Needless lives are lost on our highways, and for what? Convenience? Death isn’t convenient,” said Deborah Hersman with the NTSB. “So we can stay more connected? A fatal accident severs that connection.”

According to the National Safety Council (NSC), more than a million traffic accidents are caused by drivers who are distracted by cell phones every year. These accidents account for more than 20 percent of all recorded accidents.

Because of these alarming statistics, the NSC says it completely backs the NTSB and its decision to push for a nationwide ban on all electronic devices for drivers.

“This recommendation by NTSB is a national call to action to end distracted driving due to cell phone use. This is a growing public safety threat that needs to be addressed by legislators, employers and every person who operates a motor vehicle on our nation’s roadways,” said Janet Froetscher with the NSC.

If you or a loved one is injured in a distraction-related traffic accident in Tennessee, contact Hartsoe Law Firm, P.C. for a confidential appointment to discuss your rights with our Knoxville injury lawyers and Maryville accident attorneys. Call (865) 804-1011.

More Blog Entries: USDOT Promoting “OMG” Campaign to Halt Distraction-Related Car Accidents in Tennessee, Nation, Tennessee Injury Attorney Blog, December 10, 2011 Officials Crack Down on Trucking Accidents in Tennessee and Elsewhere, Tennessee Injury Attorney Blog, June 21, 2011