Law Alerts
TEXAS LAW ALERT — SPRING 2006 ISSUE
COLLISIONS WITH BIG RIG TRUCKS
———————————————————————————————————–
We all know the feeling: that uncomfortable tightening of the chest we get when we look into our rearview mirror and see an 80,000 pound 18 wheeler truck barreling down on our back bumper. According to federal statistics, commercial trucks are involved in thousands of collisions each year. Some of the reasons are obvious:
• Trucks are bigger, heavier, and longer than cars;
• Trucks need more room to maneuver;
• Trucks take a lot more road to come to a stop.
Given their size and weight, common sense tells you that a collision between a big rig and a car, or even an SUV, is likely to come out badly for the car. In fact, commercial truck crashes killed over 5,300 people in 2001 and injured over 125,000 more, many of them seriously.
Reasons for Crashes
As with other kinds of automobile collisions, there are various causes of big rig accidents. Many of these collisions are the result of the same things that cause run of the mill car accidents: poorly maintained trucks, speeding, overly aggressive driving, failing to yield the right of way, or bad driving conditions caused by rain or snow. However, some of the collisions are related to other factors unique to commercial trucks.
For example, some collisions occur because a truck is overloaded and therefore cannot stop in time. Other collisions are caused by the driver’s inexperience in operating a particular kind or size of truck. Still other collisions are the result of tired truckers who have been on the road for too long and who are fatigued. Tired truck drivers are now more likely to be on the road, with the deregulation of the trucking industry, changes in the way goods are shipped to a “just in time” delivery system, and recent changes in the rules governing how long a trucker may drive before he is required to stop for a rest.
People injured by the negligence of commercial truck drivers are entitled to compensation for their injuries. But, be aware that suits involving truckers are often more difficult than other kinds of collision suits, for several reasons. First, it may be difficult to find the trucker after the collision. The nature of a trucker’s job means that he might be involved in a collision in a state far from where he lives and to which he will never return.
Trucking companies are also very skilled in defending themselves against negligence claims (which, to them, are just a part of doing business), and they can be very aggressive in denying claims because every dollar they pay out in compensation to accident victims is a dollar that does not go into their pockets.
Further complicating matters is the fact that most commercial big rig accidents involve far more parties than the typical fender bender. Parties can include the truck driver, the trucking company, the shipper(s), the insurance adjuster, and the insurer, and the legal relationships among all of these parties can be difficult to unravel.
Persons who have been involved in a collision with a trucker are entitled to recover compensation for items such as medical bills, time lost from work, pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement, and loss of earning capacity. The complexity of these cases means that you should consult an experienced attorney and should NOT rely on the trucking company’s insurance adjuster to look out for your interests.
If you or someone you know has been involved in a big rig collision, call us. We will be happy to discuss the matter with you and work to get you the compensation that you deserve.
———————————————————————————————————–
Trucker fatigue is one of the leading causes of accidents involving big rigs. However, the federal government recently reenacted controversial rules permitting truckers to drive even more hours.
These rules—which in 2003 a court found had been enacted improperly—have recently been reinstated, virtually unchanged. They raise the number of daily hours that a trucker may drive from 10 to 11, and change the rules regarding how much a trucker may drive each week to permit up to 77 hours of driving in a single 7 day period, almost twice as much as the standard 40 hour workweek.
As you might imagine, the trucking industry is delighted with the change, which permits the movement of the same volume of goods with fewer drivers. What effect these changes will have on the number of trucking accidents remains to be seen.
ORTHO EVRA: CONVENIENCE OR DANGER?
———————————————————————————————————–
In 2002, the first contraceptive patch for women came on the market. This prescription drug, which is sold under the name “Ortho Evra,” allows women to receive birth control medicine through a patch placed on their skin. One patch delivers its dosage over the course of a whole week, whereas birth control pills must be ingested daily. Since its introduction, over five million women have used the Ortho Evra patch.
FDA Warning
This past November, the FDA warned that women who use the patch are being exposed to levels of estrogen far higher than women who use birth control pills—as much as 60% more. Exposure to high levels of estrogen has been linked to an increased danger of blood clots, and information obtained from the FDA shows that women who use the Ortho Evra patch are three times more likely to develop blood clots than women who use birth control pills.
The FDA information also discloses that 23 of the women using the patch died, and as many as 17 of the deaths may have been related to blood clots. This is cause for concern, because the FDA itself estimates that it receives reports in only 1% to 10% of cases involving adverse drug reactions, and so the number of clot related problems and deaths could very well be much higher.
For the time being, the FDA has approved of a change in the warning labels placed on the Ortho Evra patch, making users aware of the risk, but it has not pulled the drug from the market. The maker of Ortho Evra has vowed to launch its own study of the incidence of so called “thrombotic injuries”—which include blood clots and strokes—associated with the use of the patch. However, there are reports that crucial data relating to thrombotic injuries from the original clinical trials was downplayed in the marketing campaign that was launched after the drug was approved.
Symptoms of blood clots are varied and can include sharp chest pain and coughing of blood (caused by clots in the lungs), pain in the calves (caused by clots in the legs), sudden loss of vision (caused by clots in the eye), or sudden and severe headaches, vomiting, dizziness, falling, and problems with speech and eyesight (a stroke, possibly caused by clots in the brain). Of course, if you use the Ortho Evra patch and have any of these symptoms, go to a hospital immediately. If you have used the Ortho Evra patch and have been treated for clotting, call us to discuss your legal options.
———————————————————————————————————–
Thank you for trusting our firm with your legal needs. If you or someone you know has been injured due to somebody else’s carelessness, please call us. We want to help.
———————————————————————————————————–
Bus Should Have Had Seatbelts
In a recent decision that demonstrates that the law is dynamic and ever changing, a jury found a bus manufacturer liable for failing to install seatbelts in a bus that it had built, and ordered it to pay $17.5 million to the victims of a fatal bus crash.
The case arose out of a crash near Waco, Texas, that occurred on Valentine’s Day in 2003. The bus driver lost control, crossed the median of the highway, and hit an oncoming car. The bus turned over and five members of a church group traveling in the bus were killed, as were two occupants of the car that the bus hit. Many other bus passengers were injured in the collision, and several of them were actually ejected from the bus when it rolled over.
The families of the victims argued that the chance of death or injury would have been much lower if the bus had been equipped with seatbelts. The bus manufacturer countered that it should not be liable for not installing seatbelts because federal law does not require buses to have seatbelts. The families of the victims responded that seatbelts are required by most other countries in the world, are readily available, and would make bus travel safer. The jury accepted this argument and ruled against the bus manufacturer.
This decision represents a potentially significant change in the law, one that might result in bus manufacturers voluntarily equipping their products with seatbelts even if they are not legally required to do so. If this happens, it will show how the courts can be used not just to help compensate those who have been hurt by someone else, but also to encourage positive change that will result in fewer people being injured in the future.
———————————————————————————————————–
You may have noticed that when a big lawsuit makes the news, the jury in the case is often asked to figure out if one of the parties was “negligent.” But just what does it mean to say that someone is negligent, in a legal sense?
The answer is that it means pretty much the same as it does in everyday conversation—that someone was careless. A basic statement of legal negligence is that a person “did not act as a reasonably prudent person would under the same circumstances.” However, a finding that a person has been legally negligent involves several different elements.
For example, most people would agree that a driver who runs a stop sign and hits a pedestrian has been careless, but has he been negligent? To find legal negligence, a court must first find that the person “breached” a duty owed to others. In our example, every driver owes a duty to others to be careful when driving a car, and running a stop sign violates this duty.
The negligent act must also cause damage. If the driver broke the pedestrian’s arm, this injury could mean that the driver was negligent. Finally, the damage caused by the negligence must have been “foreseeable.” Because most people would expect that a driver who runs a stop sign might hit someone, chances are that a court would find that the driver was legally negligent. In real life, most negligence questions are more complex than this example and can be complicated even more by the fact that sometimes more than one person was negligent.
CLOTHES DRYERS CAN CAUSE FIRES
———————————————————————————————————–
It may surprise you to learn that one of the most dangerous home appliances you own may be your clothes dryer. It is estimated that dryers are responsible for over 15,000 fires every year—fires that cause millions of dollars in property damage and over 300 injuries and 10 deaths each year!
What Makes Dryers So Dangerous?
The primary cause of dryer fires is the failure to clean the lint trap regularly. In order to work, dryers use a tremendous amount of heat, and a build up of lint provides perfect tinder for a potential fire. People sometimes allow dryer vents to become blocked, which permits excessive heat to build up inside the dryer. Also, people dry items (such as plastic shoes or rugs with foam backing) made of materials that can melt or catch fire if heated in a dryer.
In order to operate your dryer safely, be sure to clean the lint filter after each load. Periodically check the vent to make sure it is clear, and do not dry either flammable materials or any clothes that have been soaked in flammable substances such as alcohol, gasoline, and spot removers. Follow the instructions that come with the dryer and, if you suspect your dryer has an electrical problem, have it repaired before use. These simple steps will not only make your dryer last longer, but will ensure that you are not the victim of a dryer fire.