Brain and Spine Injury Law Blog : Brain and Spine Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Tim Titolo Law Office : Personal Injury & Wrongful Death : Car, Truck, and Motorcycle Accident: Las Vegas, Nevada

The U. S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is pleased to announce the next step in the rollout of Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010).

CSA 2010 Data Preview
Commercial motor vehicle carriers may now view their individual safety assessments on the Data Preview Website. This updated Website provides motor carriers with information on where they stand in each Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category (BASIC) based on roadside data and investigation findings. Each motor carrier’s BASIC assessments are visible only to them (and to enforcement staff) until December of 2010. In December, assessments will be made available to the public. Also, enforcement agencies will use these assessments to prioritize the Agency’s enforcement and compliance assistance workload. By providing carriers with this information now, FMCSA’s approach gives carriers the earliest possible opportunity to improve compliance.

FMCSA is providing motor carriers with this early look at the new Safety Measurement System (SMS) so they can see their performance data, can address safety compliance issues right away and can update and verify their data online. Release of this safety performance information underscores FMCSA’s commitment to data integrity and the motor carrier industry’s responsibility for ensuring commercial vehicle safety. This important step is designed to allow motor carriers to identify and address unsafe behaviors that can lead to crashes. What can motor carriers do now to prepare for the new system? Motor carriers should look at their assessment on the Data Preview Website, identify any data mistakes, verify and update their motor carrier census data, in particular power units (PU) and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) on the MCS-150 form, and take the necessary steps to correct unsafe driver and/or company safety practices.

Last year I handled a case where one motor carrier failed to review another hired motor carrier's Safe Stat scores which hovered around a 97 which put it in the bottom 3%.  This type of negligent, even reckless. behavior may be reduced with new procedures like the new regulations being tested and passed. 

Conservative Republicans scream "no government regulation" until one of their own is critically injured in a crash with a semi tractor trailer.  Without regulation, truck corporations are governed by only one thing - profit.

More Information
Complete details on the Data Preview are available through Data Preview Guidance (FAQs), the new SMS Methodology Version 2.0 and SMS Changes Explanation. FMCSA has responded to field test results and stakeholder feedback to improve SMS.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I was pleasantly surprised by findings of a 2009 survey recently published by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administation. 

As a short prelude to the findings, I always wondered why the law could enforce seatbelt usage and buses rarely even came equipped with them.  Well, at least not for passengers.

Although the regulations distinguish school buses from other passenger carrying buses, do we want our kids buckled up on their way to and from school?  What do you think about that?

New data from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration show 74 percent of commercial truck and bus drivers are now using their safety belts. Only 65 percent of drivers were using safety belts in 2007.

A total of 20,818 commercial drivers operating medium- to heavy-duty trucks and buses were observed at 827 roadside sites nationwide for the survey. Key findings include:

• Safety belt use for both commercial drivers and their occupants was higher at 78 percent in states where law enforcement may stop drivers for not wearing a safety belt, versus 67 percent in states with weaker belt use laws.
• Commercial drivers for regional or national fleets showed higher safety belt use at 78 percent, versus 64 percent for independent owner-operators.
• Safety belt use rates for commercial drivers and their occupants were highest at 79 percent in the West, compared with 75 percent in the South, 68 percent in the Midwest, and 64 percent in the Northeast.

The executive summary for the Safety Belt Usage by Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers Survey and other safety belt educational materials may be found at www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safetybelt.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Washington Post is keeping us apprised of the very serious semi-tractor trailer crash with Nevada Senator Harry Reid's wife and daughter's van this week.

Police said the Reids' van was rear-ended and crushed by a fully loaded tractor-trailer while driving in heavy Virginia traffic.

Luckily, given the severity of the impact and variables making the crash especially dangerous, the outcome appears to be positive.  The tractor-trailer hit the Reids from behind pushing them into the car ahead of them and that car, inturn, into the car ahead of it.  The injuries were reported as a "broken back and broken neck!"

The Senator and his family will continue to receive the hopes and prayers of my family.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Truck driving safety is provided in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations published by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.  There are specific limitations on the number of hours a driver can be on duty.  Violation to these limits is unsafe and can create liability for a trucking company and its driver.  Fatigued drivers make highways and roads dangerous places for all of us.

A college student in Florida alleged that the tractor-trailer driver violated federal motor carrier safety rules by failing to take the required off-duty time after working a 24-hour shift as a county firefighter. Lymon v. Bohn No. 53-2007-CA-7728 (Fla., Polk Co. Cir. Mar. 20, 2009).

Kendra Lymon, 19, was driving through an intersection on a green light when Robert Bohn, driving a tractor-trailer truck, made a left turn into the intersection even though his view was obscured by another truck in the opposite turn lane. Bohn’s tractor-trailer T-boned Lymon’s car on the driver’s side, crushing the vehicle and sending it spinning off the highway.

Her injuries included brain damage that resulted in a motor speech disorder, difficulty swallowing, mild left hemiparesis, bowel and bladder incontinence, cognitive defects, and seizures. She also sustained a fractured left scapula.

Lymon’s mother, Vanessa, on her behalf, sued Bohn and his employer, Bynum Transport, Inc. Vanessa Lymon alleged that the trucking company had provided no ongoing safety training or defensive driver program for its drivers and that it failed to enforce federal motor carrier safety rules about driving hours and rest periods.

The plaintiff alleged that Bohn began his shift without taking the mandatory 10 hours of off-duty time after working a 24-hour shift as a battalion chief for the county fire services, a violation of federal rules. Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed, he violated basic traffic safety rules by turning without waiting for a clear view.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $65 million. The defendants have appealed.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 I am representing a man who was hit by a bus making a left turn in Las Vegas. The man was in the crosswalk and the driver simply did not see him. The man was hospitalized with brain injury. The Bus Company with Las Vegas offices alleged the man was walking against the pedestrian traffic signal. Somehow, the Bus Co. feels, this gave the bus driver the right to run him over. And the police officer cited the man who got hit!

The police report listed two witnesses who provided statements in Spanish. Today, I took their depositions. The witnesses were fine Mexican-American individuals, legally in this country, who told us that the bus driver was at fault and that the man had the right of way according to the traffic signal. The police never spoke to the unconscious man, and obviously did not understand or ignored the independent witnesses’ accounts. Instead police took the bus driver’s version of traffic control violation of the pedestrian had and cited the pedestrian.

This is a blatant example of how the wrong picture is frequently painted based on pre-existing prejudice. The two Mexican-American witnesses were simply discounted out of hand. The sad part was that the pedestrian had his citation dismissed partially because the cop never showed up in court, yet the stigma remains. And the bus company may have gotten away with it.

The witnesses not only stated the traffic signal allowed the man to walk into the cross walk, but that the bus was attempting, in their opinion, to flee the scene. Can you imagine: A bus company that hires drivers who would flee the scene after hitting a pedestrian and knocking him to the ground unconscious? The amazing thing is that the bus company’s own camera installed on the bus actually showed the man walk into the crosswalk; The bus make its left turn while the radio is blasting; and then the sound of “thud” when the bus hit the pedestrian.

These are situations when all the tort reform rhetoric falls short. These things really happen and consumers need protection from faceless corporations driven solely by profit and self-preservation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A number of years ago I was involved in representing plaintiffs against Las Vegas Paving in a lawsuit alleging the truck driver's loads were routinely in excess of limits.  During one such run, the trucker crashed into my client near a highschool.

Similarly, in Bryant v. APAC-Tennessee, No. CV2006-0261CD  (Miss., DeSoto Co. Cir. Nov. 18, 2009) a teen and his parents sued the paving company that hired the truck’s driver, alleging the company failed to monitor his loads and supervise his conduct. The plaintiffs offered evidence that the driver had made multiple trips on the company’s behalf, each with hauls that exceeded the state’s maximum weight limit.

Ethan Bryant, 16, was driving his pickup truck on a highway. When he entered a controlled intersection on a green light, a loaded gravel truck driven by Chad McCarty struck the driver’s side of the pickup at about 50 mph.

Bryant suffered severe brain injuries, and a 16-year-old passenger in his vehicle was killed. Bryant was comatose for eight months and developed a disorder that limits oxygen to his brain. He now suffers from quadriplegia and periodic seizures and will require 24-hour care for life.
 

 Local trucking companies all too frequently break the rules of the road.  They ignore safety protocol and all too often injure users of public roads.

Factors may effect which rules must be met.  For instance, Interstate Trucking, driving between states, and intrastate Trucking, driving within one state, are subject to different regualtions.  Although many rules bring about some responsibility for truck companies and their drivers, it is important to know the difference.  Likewise, the weight of trucks and loads may apply to different regulations and it is important to know the difference.

I have been working more closely with organizations advocating safety for public roads. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I ran across this timely article in the Washington Post written by Ashley Halsey III on January 27, 2010.  It speaks to the dangers arising from behaviors of truck and drivers.

On Tuesday, the federal government formally barred truckers and bus drivers from sending text messages while behind the wheel, putting its imprimatur on a prohibition embraced by many large trucking and transportation companies.

I intend to monitor trucking issues, changes to safety monitoring and regulations as part of my interest in trucking law.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link