Texas Injury Lawyer Blog

During the twenty-five years that I have been handling truck accident cases I've run across a number of truck drivers who had exceeded the maximum allowable driving time. Department of Transportation regulations limit a truck driver to a maximum of eleven hours driving and fourteen hours on duty before he must go off duty for a ten hour period of rest. Yet I've never seen a set of truck driver's log books that accurately showed the number of hours that the driver had been on duty when he had in fact exceeded the maximum allowable on duty hours. Proving that a truck driver has actually been driving for more than eleven hours or on duty for more than fourteen hours requires a comprehensive investigation and analysis of many different factors. The investigation starts with the hours that the truck driver will admit that he was driving or on duty. The "on duty" and "off duty" times thereby set the alleged starting and ending point of the day's driving. Then the investigation moves to the identification of activities which can be documented as to time and place. Good examples of this documentation include fuel tickets, traffic citations, toll tickets, toll booth videos, fuel station security videos, delivery receipts, GPS data and cellular phone records. This information is combined with the distance traveled and the posted speed limits along the route traveled. By using this documentation and information to determine the trucker's location along his designated route at various known times it can often be established that the driver necessarily must have been driving in excess of the maximum allowable time. With this information you can prove that the trucker falsified his log books, exceeded the maximum allowable driving hours, and probably committed perjury.

For more information contact a Tyler Truck Wreck Lawyer today.

I frequently run into trucking companies that attempt to call their drivers "independent contractors" in an attempt to avoid liability for a truck accident caused by their truck driver. The trucking company usually has the truck driver sign an agreement stating that the truck driver is an independent contractor. However, a close analysis of the employment agreement and the day to day relationship between the trucking company and the truck driver usually establishes that the truck driver is actually an employee and not an independent contractor. The test for whether or not a worker is an employee of an employer resulting in the employer's legal responsibility for the actions of the employee pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior is whether the employer had the right to control the details of the work of the employee. The employer doesn't have to actually control the details of the employee's work. Respondeat superior liability will be established if the employer had the actual right to control the details of the work even though the employer chose not to exercise that right.

The typical independent contractor agreement used by a trucking company states that the driver is an independent contractor but then goes on to give the employer the right to control the details of the work such as:

1. Requiring the driver to accept certain loads;

2. Designating the manner in which the driver loads, unloads, and secures his load;

3. Prohibiting a driver from having passengers in his truck;

4. Requiring the driver to use designated fuel suppliers;

5. Requiring a driver to follow a designated communication schedule or designated communication protocol;

6. Requiring the driver to have a company GPS unit installed in his truck so that the company can monitor the driver's progress;

7. Requiring the driver to adhere to a delivery schedule;

8. Requiring the driver to follow designated delivery routes; and,

9. Prohibiting the driver from hauling loads for other carriers.

After a truck accident trucking companies quickly attempt to use their independent contractor agreements to distance themselves from the driver and his negligent actions. A thorough investigation of the trucking company's right to control the day to day activities of their driver in these situations usually results in the trucking company being found to be the employer of the driver and being responsible for the truck driver's actions.

For more information contact a Tyler Truck Accident Lawyer today.

The DTPA offers a powerful tool for forcing wrongdoers to do the right thing in situations where the amount of money at issue might not otherwise justify the expense of litigation. Unfortunately, every industry has abusive practices that survive only because of a lack of enforcement of the civil laws. The DTPA was designed to address such situations. The DTPA applies to false, misleading and deceptive trade practices in connection with the sale of a good or service. The DTPA requires that a demand letter be sent to the wrongdoer setting forth the wrongful acts and demanding the payment of the resulting damages and attorneys fees. If the wrongdoer fails to pay the demand then the victim may proceed with the filing of a DTPA lawsuit and recover statutory damages. If the judge or jury finds that the Defendant "knowingly" violated the DTPA then the victim may recover three times the economic damages. The victim may also recover mental anguish damages. If the trier of fact finds that the Defendant acted intentionally then the trier of fact may award an amount equal to three times the mental anguish damages. In addition to actual damages and treble damages the victim may also recover costs and attorneys fees. Properly used the DTPA provides an economically feasible method of correcting and deterring small damage abusive practices.

For more information contact a Tyler Injury Attorney today.

Everybody has heard the media version of the McDonalds hot coffee case but nobody seems to have heard the truth. What the media never mentions are the facts that led a jury of conservative people to the conclusion that McDonalds not only caused Stella Liebeck's injuries but also desperately needed to be punished. The pertinent, and usually ignored, facts are that McDonalds maintains their coffee at 180 degrees which is about the temperature of the radiator on an automobile on a hot summer day. Hot coffee at 180 degrees will cause third degree burns in a matter of seconds. Sure, poor Stella Liebeck spilled her coffee in her lap and that's her fault. Her punishment should have been stained sweat pants. However, what she received was almost unimaginable. She received third degree burns to her thighs and genitals. Her burns were so severe that she was hospitalized in a burn ward where her wounds were debrided. Burns are debrided by taking a tool somewhat akin to a cheese grater and scraping away the dead flesh until you hit tissue that bleeds. Over the next year Liebeck underwent plastic surgery and skin grafts on her legs and genitals. Still, all Liebeck wanted was $20,000 to help pay for her medical bills. McDonalds told her to get lost.

McDonalds claimed to be unaware of the danger presented by radiator hot coffee and swore that they had never had another complaint or injury as a result of the temperature of their coffee. Liebeck's counsel ultimately was able to document that McDonalds had received over 700 complaints of injuries caused by the temperature of their coffee, including several as serious as Liebeck's, but had chosen to ignore the complaints because of the profitability of their coffee. The jury awarded Liebeck only $160,000 in actual damages, a rather modest sum considering the severe nature of her injuries. The same jury was so offended by McDonalds' corporate lack of concern for their customers' injuries and their calculated dishonesty that they assessed $2,700,000 in punitive damages against McDonald. The judge reduced the award to $640,000 almost immediately and the matter was settled while on appeal for considerably less than the amount awarded by the judge.

If the true facts of this case still sound frivolous to you then maybe you should drain your radiator onto your lap and rethink the issue.

For more information contact a Tyler Injury Lawyer today.