November 2005

Once again the Georgia Court of Appeals has demonstrated willingness to support a trial court’s imposition of extreme sanctions for discovery abuse. In Gropper v. STO Corp., the plaintiffs established a long pattern of failure to cooperate in discovery. The trial judge ultimately lost patience and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion by the trial judge. I won’t belabor the details, which are recited at length in the court’s opinion copied below, but I will make a few general observations:
* It is sometimes difficult to get clients to understand why it is important to respond to all those obnoxious questions from the other side. This case is a reminder that if you are not prompt and responsive, you may just get bounced right out of court. Fortunately, I have an excellent paralegal who bird-dogs compilation of information from clients and other sources for discovery responses.
* Usually in the types of cases we handle, we have to use formal discovery to extract information that only the other side possesses and does not want to give up. If you are going to ask the court to compel discovery from the other side, you had better have a respectable track record of responsiveness yourself. You don’t want to be “the pot calling the kettle black.”
* It is extremely important to docket all discovery response dates and internal deadlines for response preparation, and to document agreements to extend deadline, either by letter or with a consent order. Competent staff support is essential in keeping up with this, but someone should cross-check timelines themselves with some regularity. Just this week, after noticing depositions of a truck driver and his employer for mid-December, and agreeing to reschedule them in Ohio in late January at the request of defense counsel, we noticed that the new date was two days after the court deadline for filing motions to compel discovery. It was easy to get a consent order to extend deadlines when I caught the problem two months out, but if we hadn’t monitored the timeline, we would have given up the ability to compel answers if the defense stonewalls.
* While it was the plaintiff’s complaint being stricken in Gropper, it can just as easiliy be the defendant’s answer being stricken for discovery abuses. Those on the defense side who blithely destroy or hide key documents, conceal excess insurance policies, or subtly encourage defendants to become “unavailable” for their depositions when plaintiffs’ counsel drives halfway across the state for a noticed deposition, should pay heed.

ASCUTNEY, Vt., 11/22/05
A tractor-trailer driver who fell asleep at the wheel crashed on I-91, causing a rollover and forcing the evacuation of about 300 residents and two schools Monday. Officials said the tractor-trailer was carrying sodium persulfate, a strong oxidizer, along with several flammable materials which combined could have caused a toxic chemical fire. Fire crews evacuated the area as a precaution. No injuries were reported. See article.
While there were no injuries reported, the incident underscores widespread challenges with driver fatigue and handling of hazardous substances in the trucking industry.

The US Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration last month reaffirmed a change made in January 2004, allowing drivers to work 11 hours a day, up from the 10-hour limit that had applied for 60 years.
Researchers at Pennsylvania State University analysed data from three national trucking companies for 12 months after the change and found drivers were three times more likely to crash in the 11th hour than in the first. For the first six hours of driving, the risk of crashing remained relatively low, rising steadily over the next two hours and peaking in the 9th, 10th and 11th hours.
_1895753_driver300.jpg
The pattern of increased crash risk associated with the number of hours driven that the Penn State team observed is contrary to the results of field studies conducted by others in the 1990s. However, the pattern is consistent with more recent Penn State observational studies. For example, using data on an estimated 16 million vehicle miles of actual long haul truck travel by professional drivers collected during 1984 and 1985, the Penn State researchers found recently that the 10th hour of driving had a crash risk 2.1 times the first hour of driving. Those results were reported at the Transportation Research Board annual meeting in Washington, D. C. last year and are scheduled to be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
The findings, using data from 2004 and from the 1980s, establish a consistent pattern of increased crash risk with hours driving, particularly in the 9th, 10th and 11th hours.
See report.

Austin, TX, 11/17/05.
A woman was killed Wednesday when a wheel and tire came off an 18-wheeler trailer, bounced over the median barrier on I-35, and landed on top of a Honda. The driver of the Honda was killed instantly.
The truck involved is licensed to McRyan Hauling Inc. in Roanoke, TX, and was being driven by Alan Louis McKinney, 41, of Dallas. It is unclear whether the trailer also belonged to McRyan Hauling Inc. McRyan Hauling employs more than 100 drivers and transports sand, gravel and building and construction materials, according to a report from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Over the past 24 months, company vehicles have been involved in six crashes that resulted in injuries, but no fatalities, the federal report shows.
Investigation of such an incident should include close examination of maintenance and inspection issues. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations include fairly stringent rules about equipment issues, including wheels and tires, and require detailed pre-trip inspections by drivers. It sounds like maybe somebody changed the tires and failed to tighten the lug nuts, but the chance of the trucking company and its insurer being forthrightly honest about it is … ahem, uncertain.
See article.

Lawyers preparing a suit against an interstate motor carrier have an investigation tool that many overlook. The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C., Section 552, may be used to obtain records about a trucking company from the U.S. Department of Transportation. A request may be addressed to John H. Schnackenberg, FOIA Program Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. The FOIA request should refer to the date and place of the crash from which the representation arises, and specify the categories of documents requested. Those may include:
(1) The office of Motor Carrier Safety accident report submitted by the carrier regarding the specific accident, specifying the time, date, place and truck driver.
(2) Copies of the initial notice of applicable DOT-OMCS rules sent to the motor carrier by the FOMCS, DOT.
(3) Copies of all correspondence of records received from or sent to the carrier.
(4) All “driver equipment and compliance checks” completed on standard DOT – OMCS equipment and roadside check forms along with copies of any such reports returned to the DOT.
(5) All case reports prepared by any DOT – OMCS agent on this carrier.
(6) All safety compliance surveys conducted by any DOT – OMCS agent on the carrier.
(7) All notices of Civil Forfeiture Claims or Federal Court action documents sent to the above-mentioned companies, by DOT along with any enclosures attached thereto and answers received from the carrier.
(8) All memoranda and/or reviews maintained in the carrier’s files created by any state or federal agent, Regional Director, OMCS National Director or Counsel for the U.S. Department of Transportation.
(9) All settlement agreements, consent orders, or federal court action documents in reference to actions taken against the above-listed company, and any related news releases.
(10) The safety rating as maintained by the DOT – OMCS on the company on the date of the accident, and the carrier’s present safety rating.

In Weaver v. Chavez, decided 11/7/05, a district appeals court in California held that a trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the standard of care of “extreme caution” in adverse weather, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 392.14, rather than the negligence standard under state traffic law, was reversible error. This is significant because of the clarity of reasoning in support of upholding a standard of care under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which is higher than the standard of care under state law. While the rationale has long been clear, a number of court decisions around the country have muddied the water by failing to recognize FMCSR standards as preemptive rules of law or as constituting negligence per se.
See full text of decision below:

Trucking is essential to the national economy. Virtually every product sold is transported by truck. But with its economic importance comes accountability, as trucking is also a major highway safety hazard.
Truck drivers, overworked and underpaid, are the heroes of country music ballads. Popular culture holds them up as rough-hewn “knights of the road,” and many are. However, many are the overworked serfs of the road, and as with any occupation – including lawyers – a small percentage are rogues of the road. With the trucking industry facing both a shortage of qualified drivers and mounting fuel prices, the problems of trucking safety may increase over the next few years.
As a hub of transportation in the Southeast, Georgia ranks among the top five states in the nation in the number of fatalities due to crashes of large trucks, ranking just behind California, Texas and Florida. In 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, there were 233 fatalities in large truck crashes in Georgia, accounting for 14.25 percent of the 1,634 traffic fatalities in our state. The Georgia experience is fairly typical. In the same year, one out of nine traffic fatalities in the United States involved large trucks, as 457,000 large trucks were involved in traffic crashes in the United States and 4,669 were involved in fatal crashes. A total of 4,986 people died (12 percent of all the traffic fatalities) and an additional 122,000 were injured. Certainly many of these were not the fault of truckers or trucking companies, but many were.
Any lawyer who assumes that a large truck wreck is just a bigger car wreck is dangerously naive. Investigation, discovery, technology and law involved in the crashes of large commercial trucks are substantially different from other motor vehicle accident cases. Counsel must be familiar with a national body of trucking law based primarily on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, technology in the trucking industry, trucking insurance coverage issues, multistate discovery practice, and other aspects of investigation and discovery peculiar to trucking litigation. Lawyers who are not prepared to invest the time required to master the intricacies involved should consider the ethical duty to associate other counsel.
The danger of large trucks on the highways was recognized in the enactment of the Motor Carrier Act in 1935, creating the Interstate Commerce Commission which in turn developed the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR), which are designed to protect public safety. The purpose of the FMCSR is to “help reduce or prevent truck and bus accidents, fatalities, and injuries by requiring drivers to have a single commercial motor vehicle driver’s license and by disqualifying drivers who operate commercial motor vehicles in an unsafe manner.”

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations apply to commercial motor vehicles, which are defined as any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property when the vehicle: (1) has a gross vehicle weight of 10,001 pounds or more, whichever is greater; or (2) is designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers, including the driver, for compensation; or (3) is designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers, including the driver, whether or not it is used to transport passengers for compensation; or (4) is used in transporting material classified as hazardous. “Interstate commerce” is defined as trade, traffic or transportation across a State line, including international boundaries, or wholly within one State as part of a through movement that originates or terminates in another State or country. “Intrastate commerce” is any trade, traffic or transportation in any State that is not described in the term “interstate commerce.” 49 C.F.R. § 390.3.

I am chairing the Southeastern Motor Carrier Liability Institute, at the Georgia Bar Center in Atlanta, GA – Nov. 10-11, 2005. It is co-sponsored by the Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and North Carolina Trial Lawyers Associations. Anyone interested in attending may register online at http://gtla.org.
Nov. 10 (Thursday)
9:00 AM Trucking 101: The Basics — Morgan Adams, Law Office of Morgan Adams, Chattanooga, TN
9:40 AM Insurance Issues in Trucking Litigation – Mike Goldberg Strawinski & Goldberg, Atlanta, GA
10:40 AM — Advances in Trucking Technology – Cale Conley Conley & Griggs, Atlanta, GA
11:25 AM — Motor Carrier Cargo Claims — Karen Fultz Cozen O’Connor, Atlanta, GA
1:00 PM — What to Expect of Law Enforcement Investigation of Truck Wrecks — Sgt Tharon Dukes Georgia State Patrol, SCRT Unit, Athens, GA
1:40 PM — 0 “ECM:Black Box” Technology — Chris Ferrone Triodyne, Inc., Northbr ook, IL
2:35 PM — Large Vehicle Accident Reconstruction — Julian “Bucky” Beaver Southeast Collision Analysis, Inc., Brunswick, GA
3:15 PM — Tractor Trailer Products Liability — Mike Mesteyer, Leger & Mesteyer, New Orleans / Baton Rouge, LA
4:00 PM — Punitive Damages in Motor Carrier Cases — Harry Hall, Farmer, Price, Hornsby & Weatherford, L.L.P, Dothan, AL
4:40 PM — Truck School – Inspection and Explanation of a Big Rig — Don Asa D&A Consultants Scottsdale, AZ
5:25 PM Adjourn – continue truck inspection outside
TBA Group dinner
Nov. 11 (Friday)
9:00 AM — Defense & Industry Perspective in Motor Carrier Litigation — Clay Porter, Dennis, Corry, Porter & Smith, L.L.P. Atlanta, GA
9:40 AM — Negligent Hiring & Retention — Alfred N. Corriere Vansant & Corriere LLC, Albany, GA
10:35 AM — Jury Selection in Trucking Cases — Andrew M. Sheldon, JD, Ph.D. Sheldon Associates, Atlanta, GA
11:15 AM — Trucks Stopped on the Roadside — Jay Sadd, Slappey & Sadd, Atlanta, GA
12:45 PM — NHTSA Regulations Related to Trucking Litigation — Alan J. Kam, Highway Traffic Safety Assoc., LLC, Washington, DC
1:30 PM — Hours of Service Regulations — Whitney Morgan Motor Carrier Safety Consulting, Inc. Birmingham, AL
2:30 PM — Use of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations in Litigation — Ken Shigley, Shigley Law Firm, LLC Atlanta, GA
3:00 PM Discovery in a Motor Carrier Liability Case –Steve Lowrey, Carter & Tate, PC, Savannah, GA
3:45 PM — Truck-Train Collision Cases — Michael Warshauer, Warshauer Thomas Thornton & Rogers PC ,Atlanta, GA
4:15 PM — Driver Fatigue: Sleep Medicine Perspective — James Geyer, MD, Neurology Consultants of Tuscaloosa PC, Tuscaloosa, AL
5:00 PM Adjourn

TEMPERANCE HILL, S.C. � The driver of a tractor-trailer was charged Monday with drunken driving after slamming into a hayride and killing four people, including a toddler. Jake Davis Jr., 51, of Florence, was charged in the case. The South Carolina Highway Patrol reports Davis was driving the tractor-trailer that plowed into the rear of the tractor and flat-bed trailer that was carrying about 20 people on the hayride.
The crash happened Sunday night, when the 18-wheeler hit a flatbed trailer and the tractor pulling it. Sixteen people were injured; two remained hospitalized.
See Charlotte Observer and AJC article.