COVID-19 Update: We are open and serving our clients. Learn More >>>

Articles Posted in Tractor-Trailer Accidents

After a Tennessee truck accident, the party responsible for the accident is generally one of the drivers. However, in cases involving large tractor-trailers, more than one entity may be responsible for the accident and ensuing injuries. Injury victims and their families should consult with an attorney to determine all potential avenues of relief against any liable party.

For the most part, motorists need to share the road with various types of vehicles, including large SUVs, trucks, motorcyclists, and cyclists. In most cases, claims against a negligent driver involve that driver, their insurance company, and possibly the vehicle owner. However, in claims against a truck driver, the lawsuit may include claims against the truck driver’s employer, truck manufacturer, shipping company, or other parties responsible for the care and maintenance of the truck. For those reasons, Tennessee accident claims involving tractor-trailers and large trucks tend to pose many challenges to injury victims.

One of the first issues is determining the cause of the accident. Truck accidents in Tennessee often result in chain-reaction accidents, and pinpointing an exact cause can be challenging. However, most truck accidents involve driver fatigue, driver distraction, impaired driving, and speeding. Most truck claims involve jackknife truck accidents, tire blowouts, unsecured loads, hazmat accidents, and underride accidents. However, because of these vehicles’ sheer size and strength, any slight error can result in devastating consequences.

A state appellate court recently issued an opinion stemming from a Tennessee truck accident. A Johnson City (City) employee driving a tractor-trailer lost traction and struck the victim’s car. At the emergency room, the victim complained of right shoulder pain. Before the incident, the victim underwent two prior right shoulder surgeries, and her treating doctor recommended a third surgery following the incident. The woman filed a lawsuit against the City seeking compensatory damages for her medical bills and recovery. In support of her claim, she provided itemized medical and hospital bills.

Under Tennessee Code 24-5-113(b), this evidence creates a rebuttable presumption of the reasonableness of the bills. Here, the City conceded to its liability but objected to the reasonableness of the undiscounted medical bills the plaintiff presented. The City sought to rebut the presumption through the testimony of two witnesses. One witness was a doctor who offered his opinion on the hospital’s billing practices. The other witness was presented as an expert in medical billing practices. The billing expert was the owner and co-founder of a medical billing software system. The trial court found that the doctor’s testimony violated the collateral source rule and the billing expert’s methodology was not proven or tested.

On appeal, the court reviewed whether the trial court appropriately excluded the City’s evidence to rebut the reasonableness of the victim’s bills. Under the collateral source rule, a plaintiff can still recover the entire reasonable value of their damages, even if a third party paid some of the total damages. The doctor’s testimony sought to establish that the amount billed is not the actual amount paid because of private dealings between the hospital and the parties. The court concluded that the collateral source rule directly prohibits this type of testimony.

There are many steps involved in the litigation of a Knoxville truck accident case. While the need for an initial investigation (such as the interviewing of witnesses, the gathering of records, and the like) and the filing of a formal complaint in the appropriate court are essential, these steps represent only the beginning of what can be a very lengthy process.

Securing service of process and answering discovery requests is also required, and many cases require the plaintiff to respond to various motions, including summary judgment motions seeking dismissal of the case. Of course, each case is unique and must be addressed on its own merits.

In some cases, a plaintiff may even have to go through the appellate process before having an opportunity to have his or her day in court. In a recent case, the plaintiff actually had his case go up on appeal twice during the pre-trial phase of the litigation.

Continue reading

In a Tennessee truck accident case, an injured person may be able to recover money damages for several different types of loss, including loss of earning capacity. In simple terms, this means that the defendant has to pay the plaintiff the money that he or she would have been able to earn but for the accident.

Loss of earning capacity can be temporary (until the plaintiff physically recovers from the accident and returns to work), or it can be permanent (when the plaintiff is unlikely to ever be able to go back to work). The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to provide evidence of his or her lost earnings, both past and future, resulting from the wreck.

Sometimes, a jury may award an amount of damages that, when considered by the trial court judge or the court of appeals, was not in line with the evidence introduced at trial. Rather than start over with a new trial, the court may issue a “remittitur,” which reduces the amount the plaintiff ultimately receives as to one or more elements of damages but does not otherwise disturb the jury’s verdict in his or her favor as to liability or other issues. In other words, the plaintiff still wins; he or she just gets less money than the jury awarded.

Continue reading

In an east Tennessee truck accident case, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. This means that he or she must provide proof sufficient to convince the jury, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant’s failure to act in a reasonably prudent manner was the proximate cause of his or her injuries. In most cases, this evidence includes the testimony of one or more physicians who are qualified to explain to the jury the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s physical injuries, treatment, and limitations. If the defendant disagrees with the qualifications of the plaintiff’s proposed expert witness(es), a motion to exclude the testimony may be filed. The trial court will then rule upon the motion, and whichever party is aggrieved thereby may eventually seek the review of an appellate court regarding the decision.

Facts of the Case

In a recent federal court case, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, seeking compensation for personal injuries he allegedly suffered in a rear-end collision involving his van and their tractor-trailer. The defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s treating physician and medical expert, arguing that the doctor did not state in his deposition that he was serving as an expert witness, the doctor did not examine any documents other than the plaintiff’s medical records and was not aware of any facts related to the accident, the doctor’s report lacked a method of reasoning as to his conclusion that the accident at issue caused the injuries complained of by the plaintiff, the doctor did not connect his experience to his conclusions, and/or the doctor did not take into account possible causes of the plaintiff’s injuries other than the accident.

The plaintiff responded that, even if the doctor’s report was “technically deficient,” it would not be appropriate for the court to exclude it because any alleged failure to disclose it was harmless in that it did not prejudice the defendants.

Continue reading

Tennessee is a “modified comparative fault” state. This means that, in deciding the effect that a plaintiff’s own negligence has on the outcome of a personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff can only recover damages if he or she is found to be less than 50% at fault.

If the jury attributes 50% or more of the fault to the plaintiff, he or she cannot recover any compensation from the defendant. If the plaintiff is 49% or less at fault, he or she recovers the percentage of his or her damages assigned to the defendant. For instance, if the jury finds that the plaintiff suffered $100,000 in damages but was 25% at fault, the trial court will enter a net judgment of $75,000 in the plaintiff’s favor.

Facts of the Case

It is truly appalling the lengths to which some businesses and insurance companies will go in order to limit or prevent recovery by those hurt due to the negligence of truckers and trucking companies.

In the case discussed below, a professional trucker allegedly presented an accident victim with a document releasing the trucker’s employer from all liability – at the scene of the accident! When that didn’t work, the trucking company hired an investigator, who contacted the victim later that day to discuss a settlement.

Even though the investigator was aware that the accident victim was hurt in the wreck and had been to the hospital, he asked the accident victim to sign a “Release of All Claims” document just two days after the accident. Of the $10,000 settlement, just $215 was allocated for the victim’s personal injury claim. Unfortunately, the man signed the document.

Continue reading

When a case goes to trial, it is up to the trial court judge to determine the specific evidence that may be introduced by the parties and considered by the jury in deciding the issues.

When one of the parties is aggrieved by an evidentiary ruling at trial, that party may opt to appeal the judge’s decision to a higher court for review.

Continue reading

A semi-truck driver was unfortunately killed and three other people were hurt in a recent collision between two big rigs on Interstate 75. According to local law enforcement officials, a fire erupted after two tractor-trailers collided head-on in Campbell County near Caryville. A representative for the Tennessee Highway Patrol stated a northbound big rig that was being driven by a 49-year-old Russell Springs man allegedly crossed the median near exit 134 before striking another truck that was headed in the opposite direction. Apparently, the collision resulted in an explosion and chemical fire that forced officers to evacuate the roadway for several hours. Both trucks were reportedly engulfed in flames following the accident.

The afternoon tractor-trailer crash purportedly closed the Interstate in both directions while a hazardous materials crew engaged in what was initially believed to be a radioactive materials clean-up effort. Thankfully, no such materials were discovered by authorities. Sadly, one of the semi-truck drivers died at the scene of the collision. The other driver and two firefighters who responded to the tragic wreck were reportedly transported to the University of Tennessee Medical Center for treatment. At least one patient was taken to the hospital via Lifestar helicopter. According to the Tennessee Highway Patrol, the exact cause of the fatal collision is still under investigation.

Due to the many state and federal trucking laws and regulations, a tractor-trailer wreck can involve a number of unique pieces of evidence that do not exist in other traffic accident cases, such as maintenance logs, on-board computer information, and driver logs. In addition, the victim of a Knoxville traffic accident that was caused by a semi-truck driver may be entitled to recover monetary damages for his or her lost wages and benefits, medical bills, any temporary or permanent disability that resulted from the truck crash, pain and suffering, and more. Certain relatives of someone who was killed due to a tractor-trailer driver’s negligent act may also be eligible to recover for their family member’s wrongful death.
Continue reading

Last Thursday, the Knoxville News Sentinel reported on a story about a Tennessee man who survived being crushed between an eighteen wheeler and a concrete median.

The driver of a Toyota Camry was travelling east on I-40 near the Campbell Station Road exit when a tractor trailer suddenly started merging into his lane. The Camry driver tried to alert the big rig by honking, but the rig continued to merge pinning the Camry against a concrete median.

Rescue workers tried to free the driver from the Camry with barely two feet of space between the tractor trailer and the concrete. The man finally emerged from the mangled metal Camry. Amazingly, he did not even have a scratch.
Continue reading

Contact Information