Articles Posted in Trucking Accidents

Texas personal injury victims not only have to prove that a defendant is liable for their injuries but also the extent of the victim’s damages. In a recent personal injury case on appeal, the court considered the standards for awarding certain damages under Texas law, and whether the $2.8 million award could stand.

In that case, another truck crashed into the plaintiff’s truck. The plaintiff filed a negligence claim against the driver and his employer, a trucking company. The crash caused the plaintiff back injuries, requiring him to undergo back surgery and causing him continuing pain. The case went to trial and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him over $2.8 million in damages. The jury awarded damages in the amounts of: $150,000 for past physical pain, $120,000 for past mental anguish, $94,243 for past medical expenses, $200,000 for past physical impairment, $1,000 for past disfigurement, $15,000 for past lost wages, $1 million for future physical pain, $140,000 for future mental anguish, and $1.1 million for future physical impairment.

On appeal before a federal appeals court, the defendants argued there was no support for the future mental anguish award and that the future pain award was excessive. The court first considered which standards applied. Federal law in the jurisdiction allows a verdict at 150% of the highest inflation-adjusted recovery in a published decision involving comparable facts. In contrast, Texas does not use a maximum recovery rule, and instead looks at whether the evidence would allow a reasonable, fair-minded jury to come to reach the verdict that the jury reached. However, in a case that is “so factually insufficient or so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust,” strong deference to the jury’s verdict is not necessary.

One of the most critical decisions a Texas car accident victim must make when pursuing a claim for compensation is which parties should be named as defendants. Naming all potentially liable parties is important for several reasons. First, plaintiffs typically only get “one bite at the apple,” meaning that an injury victim can only bring one case based on their injuries. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to name all potentially liable parties, and if an essential party is not named a plaintiff will not likely be able to file a subsequent lawsuit against the unnamed party. Thus, a plaintiff should name all potentially liable parties because a failure to do so could result in the named defendants shifting a portion of the fault for the accident onto a non-present party.

Another important reason for naming all potentially liable parties is to increase the likelihood that a successful plaintiff will be able to collect on an award. Serious Texas personal injury cases can result in substantial monetary damages. Often, individuals may not have sufficient assets to fully compensate a successful plaintiff and, in some cases, they may not carry enough insurance coverage. By naming additional parties, a plaintiff has the ability to collect a damages award from several parties, increasing the chance that the plaintiff will be able to collect the entirety of what she is entitled to.

Texas Woman Killed When Delivery Truck Runs Red Light

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a Texas truck accident case requiring the court to determine if the lower court properly excluded evidence of the plaintiff’s mental health diagnoses. Ultimately, the court concluded that such evidence was relevant and that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any potential prejudice caused by the admission of the evidence. Thus, the court reversed the jury’s verdict.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s recitation of the facts, a pedestrian was killed after she was run over by a semi-truck that was in the process of making a turn. Evidently, the truck was negotiating a tight corner that was complicated by the presence of another motorist on the road. As the truck driver made the turn, the side of the truck clipped the pedestrian, knocking her to the ground. The truck’s rear tires then ran over the pedestrian, killing her instantly.

The pedestrian’s family members filed a Texas wrongful death lawsuit against the driver and his employer. As a part of their defense, the defendants intended on introducing evidence that the pedestrian suffered from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and had alcohol, cocaine, and oxycodone in her blood at the time of her death. The plaintiffs objected to the admission of the evidence and the trial court precluded its admission, finding that it was relevant but that any probative value was outweighed by potential prejudice. The defendants appealed.

Continue reading →

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in a Texas truck accident requiring the court to determine if the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff should be reversed based on inadmissible expert testimony from a state trooper. Ultimately, the court concluded that the trial court correctly admitted the trooper’s testimony; however, the court remanded the case on an unrelated issue so that the plaintiff’s damages could be recalculated.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was a truck driver who was involved in a serious Texas truck accident when a truck traveling in the opposite direction crossed over the center median and crashed head-on into the plaintiff’s truck. The collision caused a massive explosion, resulting in the plaintiff being severely burned. The driver of the out-of-control truck died in the accident. The plaintiff proceeded with a personal injury claim against the company that hired the truck driver to transport the load he was carrying at the time of the accident.

At trial, the plaintiff presented testimony from the state trooper who first responded to the scene. Apparently, the trooper was behind the at-fault truck driver and saw the explosion from a distance. The trooper testified regarding his on-scene investigation immediately after the accident. Among the issues the trooper mentioned were the road conditions, the fact that the truck driver was using a cell phone at the time of the crash, and his belief that the truck had hydroplaned causing the driver to lose control. The trooper could not estimate how much the truck weighed or how fast it was traveling.

Continue reading →

Any party in a Texas bicycle accident claim or other legal proceeding is required to preserve evidence relevant to that claim. Texas courts have held that a duty to preserve evidence arises when a party knows or reasonably should know “that there is a substantial chance that a claim will be filed and that evidence in its possession or control will be material and relevant to that claim.”

Spoliation of evidence is a failure to preserve evidence. If a party fails to preserve evidence, it can harm the opposing party’s ability to present or defend a claim. Therefore, if a party fails to reasonably preserve discoverable evidence, it is a serious issue with potentially drastic consequences.

Texas courts have discretion in addressing the issue of spoliation. In a Texas Supreme Court case, Brookshire Bros. v. Aldridge, the court held that the judge, rather than the jury, must decide whether a party spoliated evidence and then determine the appropriate remedy. Possible remedies include an instruction to the jury, an award of attorney’s fees, exclusion of evidence, and dismissal of a party’s claims.

In a recent Texas wrongful death case, a car that drove into oil-based mud cuttings slid from the roadway and rolled over. A passenger was ejected and killed. An oil company had loaded mud into a dump trailer operated by an independent trucking company. Neither the trucking company nor the oil company had made sure the truckload of mud was adequately attached before the truck left the drill site.

The decedent’s parents, the next friend of her minor daughter, and the estate administrator sued the oil company and others for negligence. The oil company moved for summary judgment. It argued it didn’t have a duty to the decedent by law because the trucking company owed a non-delegable duty to secure the load, and its internal policies didn’t generate a duty to secure an independent contractor’s load. It also argued it wasn’t foreseeable that the trucking company would act negligently. The trial court granted the motion.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that it was an error for the lower court to grant summary judgment based on the argument the oil company didn’t have a duty to secure the mud load. The oil company needed to present evidence to show it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court explained the parties hadn’t relied on conflicting evidence. An oil company operated a drilling rig and hired another oil company to control solids. The solids control operator provided evidence that he owed a duty to load trailers transporting mud from the drill site and that he hadn’t relied on the driver of the trailer for how to load the trailer.

Continue reading →