Monthly Archives: February 2007
A leading case on punitive damages regarding systemic failure to manage drivers’ hours in the interstate commercial driver fatigue context is Came v. Micou, 2005 WL 1500978 (M.D.Pa.,2005), in which the plaintiff overcame summary judgment on a claim for punitive damages. Among the several factors considered in determining that the defendants’ conduct constituted “reckless indifference … Continue Reading
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations often referred to in cases where tired truckers wreck include the following:
49 C.F.R. § 392.3, Driver Impairment.
No driver shall operate a commercial motor vehicle, and a motor carrier shall not require or permit a driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle, while the driver’s ability or alertness … Continue Reading
Punitive damages are designed to "penalize, punish or deter" conduct that shows "willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences." Such conduct must be proven by "clear and convincing evidence." Therefore, we pursue a punitive damages claim at trial only … Continue Reading
Kudos to State Rep. Robert Mumford (R-Conyers) who on Tuesday introduced the Medical Malpractice Insurance Reform Act . The bill wouldrequire the Insurance Commissioner to hold medical malpractice insurers tothe same rate-filing standards that auto and homeowner insurers have to meet.
"We need to do everything we can to make sure people are … Continue Reading