Article on "black box" data recorders in trucks, and truckers' resistance to their use
Corporate Counsel has an article about hte use of "black box" electronic data recorders tracking truckers' driving hours, speed, etc., and the resistance of truckers to having an "electronic spy" in the truck cab. Thanks to John Day for pointing it out.
The Shigley Law Firm represents plaintiffs in wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases statewide in Georgia, and in other states subject to the multijurisdictional practice and pro hac vice rules in each state. Ken Shigley was designated as a "SuperLawyer" in Atlanta Magazine and one of the "Legal Elite" in Georgia Trend Magazine. He is a Certified Civil Trial Advocate of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, Chair of the Southeastern Motor Carrier Liability Institute and former chair of the Georgia Insurance Law Institute. He particularly focuses on cases arising from truck wrecks and accidents (tractor trailers truck wrecks, semi truck wrecks,18 wheeler truck wrecks, big rig truck wrecks, log truck wrecks, dump truck wrecks).
A case out of Michigan earlier this year illustrates why these devices are problematic for the trucking industry.
In Jackson v. Charlevoix County Road Com'n, No. 248338, 2005 WL 159661 (Mich. App. Jan. 25, 2005) a motorist was injured when a truck pulling an empty trailer exceeded the speed limit on wet roads. As the truck braked the trailer fishtailed and crossed over the center line into oncoming traffic, striking the plaintiff's vehicle. The black box data recorder indicated the truck was going 60 mph in the minutes before the accident. The speed limit was 55 mph, and in all likelihood the driver should have been going much less than that due to the wet roads.
The defendants argued there was insufficient evidence of the truck's excessive speed because the two eyewitnesses were incompetent to testify on such matters. The court disagreed and also pointed to the additional evidence provided by the on-board data recorder. Even the driver admitted in his pre-trial deposition that whatever the black box said must be correct. As such, there was ample evidence of speeding.
A difference of 5 mph over the speed limit would be difficult to establish through lay testimony alone & this case demonstrates how invaluable these devices can be in proving unlawful driving behavior.
The real kicker, however, is one of the other arguments by the defense.
The driver was employed by the county government & the truck was owned by the local road commission. In a spectacular effort to overcome Michigan's motor vehicle exception to the rule of governmental immunity, the defendants argued that since it was the trailer & not the truck that hit the plaintiff's vehicle, and the trailer was not a "motor vehicle" because it was not "motor-driven", the claim was barred by governmental immunity.
Simply amazing.
Although the court dismissed this convoluted argument with a thorough analysis of relevant case law & simple logic, it did not find the appeal itself to be frivolous or without merit.
See also, Grabler v. Allen, 109 P.3d 1047 (Colo. App. 2005) (similar circumstances & same outcome; government-owned trailer but privately owned truck were characterized as a single government-operated vehicle & subject to waiver of governmental immunity under state's motor vehicle exception; also includes a fascinating survey of cases from around the nation).
Cf., People v. Buttles, 223 Cal. App.3d 1631, 273 Cal. Rptr. 397, Cal. App. 4 Dist. (1990) (defendant charged with shooting an occupied vehicle argued that because he fired at the trailer and not the tractor his conduct was not illegal; the Court of Appeal disagreed and held that when a trailer and tractor are joined for the purpose of both being moved simultaneously over the highway by the self-propulsion of the tractor portion, such tractor/trailer rig comes within the meaning of a "motor vehicle" as used in the Penal Code).
In any event, it appears that the trucking industry's strenuous arguments against these black box data recorders, on the basis that they won't do anything to reduce accidents, is a straw man. The truth of the matter is they are desperately afraid of what they'll show at trial in personal injury & wrongful death cases. They might be able to confuse jurors & cloud the facts with accident reconstructionists & other experts, but the recordings of an unbiased scientific instrument (like breathalyzers in DUI cases) are hard to refute.
Of course, they'll never admit to that in public. Instead, they give us amusing articles on the subject like the recent one at this link: http://www.rpmfortruckers.com/articles/0605io.html
Truly a latter-day "David & Goliath" scenario where a tiny computer chip threatens to do serious damage to a 40-ton monster of the highways.
