News & opinion Who is at Fault in a Semi Truck Accident?

Who is at Fault in a Semi Truck Accident?

Trucking accident lawyer fault | SJG
hile big t

ucks

em

in vit

l to the tnspo

t

tion of goods

c

oss the count

y, they

lso pose

subst

nti

l

ccident

isk to othe

people on the

o

d. In 2017,<

h

ef="https:

/

.fmcs

.dot.gov/s

fety

d

t

nd-st

tistics/l

ge-t

uck-

nd-bus-c

sh-f

cts-2017" tget="_bl

nk”

el="noopene

no

efee

“>

lmost 5,000

ccidents > involving semi-t

ucks

nd buses

esulted in f

t

lities. ,116,000 big t

uck

nd bus

ccidents left victims

ith se

ious, life-

lte

ing inju

ies. Most of the f

t

lities in those

ccidents

e

e  the<

h

ef="https:

/

.iihs.o

g/topics/f

t

lity-st

tistics

det

il

l

ge-t

ucks" tget="_bl

nk”

el="noopene

no

efee

“> occup

nts of p

ssenge

vehicles<>, not the t

uck o

bus d

ive

s.   Semi-t

uck

ccidents c

n

esult in ide nge of inju

ies, including:

 

  • t

    um

    tic bin inju

    y

  • mput

    tions,

  • spin
    l co

    d d

    m

    ge,

  • bu
    ns,<

    li>

  • b
    oken bones,<

    li>

  • nd o

    g

    n tum

    .

 

If you suffe

ed se

ious inju

ies in

semi-t

uck

ccident, you m

y need to seek compens

tion in the fo

m of

pe

son

l inju

y cl

im. Often, the insu

nce comp

ny

ill

efuse to p

y fo

the full cost of you

inju

ies. You m

y need to consult

ith

n <

h

ef=”https://c

inju

yvictims.com

se

vices

houston-t

uck-

ccident-l

ye

“>expe

ienced t

uck

ccident lye

> to bette

unde

st

nd the

ns

e

s to sevel common questions follo

ing

semi-t

uck

ccident, including:

ho — o

h

t -- ex

ctly is the entity

esponsible fo

the

ccident? In the c

se of

semi-t

uck

ccident, you m

y

ondeho bes mo

e

esponsibility fo

the

ccident: the d

ive

o

the t

ucking comp

ny. The

ns

e

c

n be quite complic

ted.  

esponde

t Supe

io

<

h2>
Unde

esponde

t supe

io

,

L

tin phse th

t me

ns “let the m

ste

ns

e

,” employe

s be

esponsibility fo

ctions committed by thei

employees unde

the scope of thei

no

m

l job

esponsibilities.

esponde

t supe

iossumes th

t the employee committed those

cts unintention

lly.

d

ive

ho delibe

tely c

used

c

sh, fo

ex

mple,

ould not f

ll unde

this st

tute. Ho

eve

, the p

inciple does not include eve

y t

uck

ccident.

o

king

ith

l

ye

c

n help you mo

e effectively dete

mine

ho bes

esponsibility fo

youccident.  

Dete

mining

ho Bes Li

bility

fte t

uck

ccident, you m

y

utom

tic

lly

ssume th

t

esponde

t supe

io

pplies,

nd the comp

ny

ho employs the d

ive

should p

y fo

the expenses

ssoci

ted

ith you

ccident. Most of the time, h

ving the comp

ny t

ke

esponsibility me

ns

bette

outcome fo

the victim of the

ccident

nd the t

uck d

ive

. Lge comp

nies often h

ve mo

e funds

v

il

ble

nd the me

ns to investig

te the

ccident fully.

hen the comp

ny t

kes

esponsibility fo

the

ccident, it c

n

llevi

te some of the p

essu

e on the t

uck d

ive

nd p

ovide bette

compens

tion fo

the

ccident victim. Ho

eve

, pe

h

ps you

ill find you

self de

ling

ith the t

uck d

ive

’s pe

son

l insu

nce comp

ny, inste

d.

 

So,

ho

e

lly bes li

bility? E

ch c

se m

y vy,

nd

o

king

ith

l

ye

ill help you dete

mine

ho be

s li

bility in the c

se of you

ccident. C

efully conside

the follo

ing scen

ios:

 

De

ling

ith Cont

cto

s<

h3>

  • ong>The d

    ive

    contcts independently fo

    the t

    ucking comp

    ny,

    the

    th

    n the comp

    ny employing the d

    ive

    di

    ectly ong>.

    s

    n independent contcto

    , the d

    ivelys bes

    esponsibility fo

    thei

    decisions,

    nd the comp

    ny p

    ob

    bly

    ill not p

    y the bill o

    ccept leg

    l

    esponsibility. The t

    uck d

    ive

    ccepts

    esponsibilities

    s

    self-employed individu

    l. D

    ive

    s

    ho d

    ive on cont

    ct,

    the

    th

    n

    s employees, typic

    lly o

    n thei

    t

    uck. They e

    esponsible  fo

    m

    inten

    nce of the vehicle

    nd fo

    ny

    ccidents th

    t occu

    s they d

    ive. Most of the time, contcto

    s

    lso c

    y

    n insunce policy designed to p

    ovide full p

    otection in the event of

    se

    ious

    ccident.

  • ong>The t

    ucking comp

    ny,

    eg

    dless of

    contcted d

    ive

    , p

    ovides  the vehicle,

    nd m

    inten

    nce fo

    th

    t vehicle<

    st

    ong>. Im

    gine th

    t

    cont

    cted employee d

    ives fo comp

    ny in

    vehicle the comp

    ny chose. The t

    ucking comp

    ny dete

    mines the d

    ive

    ’s

    oute

    s

    ell

    s cove

    ing

    ny needed m

    inten

    nce on the vehicle. Unfo

    tun

    tely, the t

    ucking comp

    ny chooses to put off needed m

    inten

    nce on

    vehicle. It f

    ils

    n inspection, but the comp

    ny does not t

    ke necess

    y steps to m

    ke it

    o

    d-

    o

    thy, c

    using

    se

    ious

    ccident. It needs ne

    ti

    es, but the comp

    ny chooses to

    it to

    epl

    ce them, c

    using

    n

    ccident. The vehicle h

    s mech

    nic

    l p

    oblems th

    t the comp

    ny knebout

    nd igno

    ed, c

    using

    n

    ccident. If the comp

    ny’s negligence c

    used the

    ccident, the comp

    ny m

    y still be li

    bility fo

    the

    ccident.

  • ong>The t

    ucking comp

    ny h

    s un

    e

    listic

    equi

    ements fo

    its d

    ive

    s<

    st

    ong>. D

    ive

    s c

    n spend

    m

    ximum of<

    h

    ef=”https://

    .fmcs

    .dot.gov/

    egul

    tions/hou

    s-se

    vice/summ

    y-hou

    s-se

    vice-

    egul

    tions” t

    get=”_bl

    nk"

    el=”noopene

    no

    efe

    e

    "> ten hou

    s > behind the

    heel

    fte

    t

    king

    t le

    st eleven consecutive hou

    s off. Unfo

    tun

    tely, m

    ny t

    ucking comp

    nies h

    ve policies th

    t fo

    ce d

    ive

    s to go beyond those

    equi

    ements. The comp

    ny m

    y push its d

    ive

    s to get th

    ough

    specific numbe

    of miles

    d

    y,

    ithout le

    ving time fo

    stops o

    fo

    t

    ffic flo

    p

    oblems. D

    ive

    s m

    y even

    eceive encou

    gement to m

    ke edits to thei

    logbooks o

    to igno

    e the hou

    s th

    t they should spend on the

    o

    d,

    s long

    s they meet those de

    dlines. Comp

    nies m

    y issue th

    e

    ts of using othe

    cont

    cto

    s o

    levy fines

    nd pen

    lties fo

    d

    ive

    s

    ho f

    il to

    e

    ch thei

    destin

    tion on time. If the comp

    ny pushes the d

    ive

    unnecess

    ily o

    sets un

    e

    listic expect

    tions, th

    t comp

    ny m

    y still be some

    esponsibility if the d

    ive

    c

    uses

    n

    ccident

    ith inju

    ies.<

    li>

 

D

ive

Employed by the T

ucking Comp

ny<

h3>

hen

d

ive

employed by the t

ucking comp

ny c

uses

n

ccident, the t

ucking comp

ny usu

lly t

kes on

esponsibility fo

th

t

ccident. In some c

ses, ho

eve

, the comp

ny m

y shift li

bility b

ck to the d

ive

.

  • ong>The d

    ive

    c

    used

    n

    ccident off the clock ong>. The d

    ive

    did not c

    use

    n

    ccident

    hile d

    iving fo

    the comp

    ny; inste

    d, the d

    ive

    c

    used

    n

    ccident

    hile t

    king c

    e of pe

    son

    l

    esponsibilities. Fo

    ex

    mple, the d

    ive

    unhooked the t

    uck f

    om its tile

    s, took the t

    uck itself to est

    u

    nt fo

    dinne

    ,

    nd c

    used

    n

    ccident

    hile b

    cking out of

    pking sp

    ce, the comp

    ny m

    y not be

    esponsibility fony inju

    ies th

    t occued in th

    t

    ccident.<

    li>

  • ong>The d

    ive

    c

    used

    n

    ccident delibe

    tely ong>. The d

    ive

    h

    d

    se

    ious c

    se of

    o

    d ge

    nd chose to

    un

    nothe

    vehicle off the

    o

    d

    fte

    it pulled ove

    in f

    ont of the d

    ive

    elie

    in the jou

    ney. Pe

    h

    ps the d

    ive

    s iv

    l d

    iveith

    hom they qu

    eled befo

    e

    nd chose to c

    use

    n

    ccident.

    ny time

    d

    ive

    chooses to c

    use

    n

    ccident delibetely, th

    t d

    ive

    be

    s pe

    son

    l

    esponsibility fony inju

    ies

    nd p

    ope

    ty d

    m

    ge c

    used by the

    ccident. On the othe

    h

    nd, the comp

    ny m

    y still be li

    bility if the comp

    ny kne

    the d

    ive

    h

    d

    histo

    y of violence o

    c

    used otheccidents in the p

    st,

    nd the comp

    ny chose to continue to employ the d

    ivenyy. T

    lking

    ith

    l

    ye

    c

    n help bette

    dete

    mine li

    bility in this inst

    nce.

  • ong>The d

    ive

    c

    used the

    ccident

    hile on the clock

    nd

    hile pu

    suing no

    m

    l job

    esponsibilities ong>.

    hen

    d

    ive

    c

    uses

    n

    ccident on the clock,

    hile pe

    fo

    ming t

    sks in thei

    job desc

    iption, the comp

    ny often

    ccepts

    esponsibility fo

    th

    t

    ccident.

    d

    ive

    employed by

    the t

    ucking comp

    ny

    ho is on the clock, often

    llo

    s fo stightfod

    esolution

    nd dete

    min

    tion of li

    bility. This includes

    ccidents

    he

    e the d

    ive

    checked

    cell phone o

    te, c

    using distction;

    ccidents

    he

    e the t

    uck spun out of cont

    ol o

    pooe

    the

    conditions c

    used

    n

    ccident;

    nd

    ccidents

    he

    e mech

    nic

    l f

    ilu

    e led to se

    ious p

    oblems fo

    the d

    ive

    ,

    esulting in

    n

    ccident.

 

Othe

Pties

ho Could Be

esponsibility<

h3>
In some c

ses, neithe

the d

ive

of the t

uck no

the comp

ny th

t employs the d

iveill be

esponsibility fo

the

ccident. Othe

potenti

l f

cto

s could ch

nge li

bility

nd ch

nge

hich entity must cove

you

expenses

nd p

y you

d

m

ges.

  • The c

    go lo

    de

    f

    iled to p

    ope

    ly secu

    e m

    te

    i

    ls on

    big t

    uck. In some c

    ses, f

    lling o

    shifting c

    go c

    n se

    iously imp

    i d

    ive

    ’s

    bility to s

    fely c

    y the c

    go to its destin

    tion.

    hen

    f

    lling box o

    othe

    l

    ge object c

    uses

    n

    ccident o

    d

    m

    ge to

    nothe

    vehicle, the c

    go lo

    de

    m

    y be

    esponsibility.

  • The vehicle m
    nuf

    ctu

    e

    .

    hen

    ne

    t

    uck hits the

    o

    d fo

    the fi

    st time, it should ope

    te smoothly. Unfo

    tun

    tely, sometimes m

    nuf

    ctu

    e

    defects c

    n c

    use se

    ious h

    z

    ds on the

    o

    d. If

    m

    nuf

    ctu

    e

    defect le

    ds to

    n

    ccident, the m

    nuf

    ctu

    e

    m

    y she li

    bility fo

    the

    ccident.

 

hy Does It M

tte

ho Be

s Li

bility?<

h2>
In

n o

din

y

ccident

ith

semi-t

uck, you m

y

ssume th

t filing

cl

im

ith the insu

nce comp

ny p

esented by the d

ivet the time of the

ccident

ill get you the compens

tion you need fo

you

inju

ies. This

ill indeed help get compens

tion fony p

ope

ty d

m

ge c

used by the

ccident. You m

y, fo

ex

mple, h

ve epl

cement vehicle p

id fo

if the

ccident tot

led you

vehicle. Ho

eve

, simply cont

cting the insu

nce comp

ny p

ovided by the d

ive

m

y not help you g

in the full compens

tion you dese

ve fo

you

inju

ies. Cont

cting

lye

c

n help you mo

e effectively dete

mine ex

ctly

h

t compens

tion you dese

ve fo

you

inju

ies. Ho

eve

, you m

y file fo

the follo

ing:

 

Medic

l expenses. In

ddition to p

ope

ty d

m

ge, you c

n file

cl

im fo

medic

l expenses

ssoci

ted

ith the

ccident. The insunce comp

ny m

y

utom

tic

lly offe

compens

tion fo

you

medic

l bills, o

you m

y need to file

specific cl

im th

t lists

ll of the d

m

ges

ssoci

ted

ith the

ccident. This might include:
  • Physic

    l the

    py expenses

  • <
    h

    ef=”https://

    .m

    yoclinic.o

    g

    dise

    ses-conditions

    spin

    l-co

    d-inju

    y

    di

    gnosis-t

    e

    tment

    d

    c-20377895" tget="_bl

    nk”

    el="noopene

    no

    efee

    “>Modific

    tions to you

    home o

    vehicle<> to

    ccount fo

    pe

    m

    nent o

    long-te

    m inju

    ies

  • The cost of hospit
    liz

    tion, including su

    ge

    ies

  • Medic
    tions to m

    n

    ge p

    in o

    comb

    t infection f

    om you

    inju

    ies<

    li>

  • mbul

    nce t

    nspo

    t<

    li>

  • The cost of qu
    lified nu

    sing c

    e, if you need

    ssist

    nce

 

Lost

ges. Did you

ccident c

use inju

ies th

t m

de it necess

y fo

you to miss time

t

o

k? You m

y include lost ges

s p

t of you

cl

im. Cove

ge fo

lost ges c

n m

ke it e

sie

fo

you to t

ke ce of you

bills

nd expenses in spite of the lost time

t

o

k

fte

you

ccident.

 

Lost e

ning potenti

l.

o

king

ith

lye

c

n help you bette

c

lcul

te ho

the

ccident could imp

ct you

futu

e enings.

hen you suffe

pe

m

nent inju

ies th

t p

event you f

om

etu

ning to you

fo

me

type of employment, cl

iming lost ening potenti

l c

n m

ke it e

sie

fo

you to p

y you

bills

hile you pu

sue

nothe

type of employment. Compens

tion fo

lost ges c

n

lso help you p

y fo

the cost of futu

e t

ining, including

ne

deg

ee o

ce

tific

tion.

 

P

in

nd suffe

ing.

hen c

lcul

ting p

in

nd suffe

ing, the insunce comp

ny m

y use

specific sc

le b

sed on the

mounts

ssoci

ted

ith you

othe

d

m

ges.

lye

, ho

eve

, c

n help you bette

c

lcul

te p

in

nd suffe

ing, including f

cto

s like the embssment you suffe

ed

s esult of you

inju

ies

nd the

ctivities you h

d to miss bec

use of you

inju

ies.  

S

ving Time

nd Money<

h3>
In

ddition to helping you decide ho

to pu

sue compens

tion fo

the full cost of you

inju

ies, identifying the

esponsible p

ty c

n help s

ve you time

nd money

s you pu

sue you

cl

im. If you file

ith the

ong p

ty—filing

ith the t

ucking comp

ny inste

d of

contcted d

ive

o d

ive

ho c

used the

ccident off the clock, fo

ex

mple—you m

y ste v

lu

ble time. Filing

ith the

ong insu

nce comp

ny c

n del

y youbility to get funds in you

h

nds

fte

the

ccident. If you

ccident

lly file

ith the ong entity, you m

y even h

ve you

cl

im denied.  

Ho

C

n You Dete

mine Li

bility?<

h2>
In some c

ses, you m

y st

uggle to identify

ho be

s li

bility fo

you

ccident

nd, the

efo

e, fo

you

inju

ies. You m

y h

ve questions to

ns

e

befo

e dete

mining

ho be

s li

bility.

o

king

ith

lye

c

n help you mo

e effectively dete

mine ex

ctly

ho bes li

bility fo

youccident. Th

t

tto

ney c

n do some

ese

ch, dete

mine

hethe

the t

uck d

ive

d

ove independently os

n employee of the comp

ny,

nd even ev

lu

te

h

t othe

f

cto

s m

y h

ve led to the

ccident. By

o

king

ith

l

ye

, you c

n

lso subst

nti

lly st

e

mline the p

ocess of getting the compens

tion you dese

ve in you

h

nds.

 

<

h

ef=”https://c

inju

yvictims.comp-content

uplo

ds

2019/08/c

ccident-lye

.jpg”> ss="

p-im

ge-28041

lignleft” s

c="https:

/c

inju

yvictims.comp-content

uplo

ds

2019/08/c

ccident-lye

.jpg”

lt="Ste

t J. Guss”

idth="149" height="146"

> >Did you suffe

se

ious inju

ies in

t

uck

ccident? <

h

ef="https:

/c

inju

yvictims.com

cont

ct-us

/”>Cont

ct<>

licensed

tto

ney to help you bette

ssess

ho bes

esponsibility fo

the

ccident

nd pu

sue you

cl

im.

 

 

How Can We HELP Get a FREE Virtual Consultation
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Testimonials

Client testimonials "Mr. Guss & his team significantly exceeded my expectations and the net settlement I received was more than triple... - Norman B. View All Testimonials
Schedule a free virtual visit 866-552-1808 Or Send us a message today >

Read More

Handling Catastrophic Injury Claims for 20+ Years
Car Accident Attorneys Houston 19 Jan

  T ust us hen e sy the e isn’t nything “e sy” bout filing c insunce clim ith...

Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer 15 Jan

. to schedule f ee consulttion. Don’t del y! Youights e too impot nt. Signs of n Intoxic ted...

How to Claim for Whiplash After a Car Accident 10 Jan

He e’s scen io e see ll too often in ou line of o k: pe son lks y...

Get Legal Help Now Contact Our Attorneys To LEarn How We Can Help You Achieve The Justice You Deserve * Required Field
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.