Setting the Table in Catastrophic Truck Crash Cases
In catastrophic truck crash cases, the negligent motor carrier often is a mom and pop carrier with few assets, and insurance with only the minimum…
October 19, 2017 at 03:47 PM
6 minute read
In catastrophic truck crash cases, the negligent motor carrier often is a mom and pop carrier with few assets, and insurance with only the minimum limits required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration — $750,000. These insurance limits will be woefully inadequate in such a case. The crash victim's lawyer and the trucker's lawyer share an interest in locating all potential defendants and sources of insurance coverage, and ensuring that they are in play and have a place at the table.
Answers to the following questions will help to identify all potential defendants:
- Who is the driver?
- Who is the motor carrier?
- Who is the broker/logistics company?
- Who is the driver's employer?
- Who is the safety company?
- Who owns the tractor?
- Who owns the trailer?
- Who loaded the trailer?
- Who is responsible for maintenance?
- Who is the shipper?
- Who is the operations company? and
- Who planned the rig's route?
In addition to the parties revealed by the answers to these questions, “statutory employers” of the driver are potential defendants. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) make the driver the statutory employee of the motor carrier, regardless of whether the carrier nominally designates the driver as an independent contractor. The statutory employee doctrine arose out of the recognition that motor carriers were using independent contractor status to thwart the regulation of safety and the assignment of financial responsibility.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTexas Legal Awards: Litigation Departments of the Year, Intellectual Property Finalists
Texas Legal Awards: Q&As With Managing Partner Finalists
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 4Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Burr & Forman partner Garry K. Grooms has entered an appearance for 4M Acquisitions and Wallace D. Tweden in a pending environmental lawsuit. The action, filed July 22 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the McKellar Law Group and Mark E. Martin LLC on behalf of Tennessee Riverkeeper, contends that the defendant's violated the Clean Water Act and Tennessee Water Quality Control Act by allowing for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. without obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge permit. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger, is 3:24-cv-00886, Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Tweden et al.
Who Got The Work
Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Gene W. Lee and Stevan R. Stark of Perkins Coie have entered appearances for R-Pac International in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 12 in New York Southern District Court by PinilisHalpern LLP and Friedman Suder & Cooke on behalf of Adasa Inc, asserts a single patent related to wireless sensors used for tagging products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, is 1:24-cv-06102, Adasa Inc. v. R-Pac International LLC.
Who Got The Work
Walmart has tapped lawyer Nicole M. Wright of Zausmer PC to defend a pending product liability lawsuit. The action was filed Aug. 12 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Wolfe Trial Lawyers on behalf of a plaintiff claiming burns from a defective propane tank. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman, is 2:24-cv-12100, Hill v. Ferrellgas, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Kevin Simpson and James Randall of Winston & Strawn have stepped in to represent Comcast in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 11 in Georgia Northern District Court by Kaufman PA, contends that the defendant placed pre-recorded debt collection phone calls to the plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, is 1:24-cv-03553, Pond v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC.
Who Got The Work
Potter Anderson & Corroon partners Christopher N. Kelly and Kevin R. Shannon have stepped in to represent cloud computing company Fastly and its top executives in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 23 in Delaware District Court by deLeeuw Law and Bragar Eagel & Squire on behalf of Mark Sweitzer, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that revenue growth in 2023 was primarily driven by a 'consolidation trend' in which companies simplified operations by reducing the number of content delivery network vendors under management, thereby reducing competition and increasing the defendant's market share. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gregory B. Williams, is 1:24-cv-00969, Sweitzer v. Nightingale et al.