Articles Posted in Motor Vehicle Cases

A post from the Mass Tort Defense blog highlights a real problem:  jurors conducting independent research during trials.  Indeed, in the case featured in the post, the juror conducted the research before the trial (after he received his summons to serve as a juror) but shared what he knew during deliberations.  The result?  A reversal of a defense verdict.

The blog post does a nice job summarizing Russo v. Takata Corp., 2009 WL 2963065 (S.D. 9/16/09).  You can read the entire opinion here.

Here is an excerpt from Sean Wajert’s summary:

As this article in Wednesday’s Washington Post explains, electric cars present a new type of hazard to pedestrians and those with impaired sight:  you can’t hear them coming.   At low speeds (under 6.2 MPH)  the cars can literally sneak up on you and put you at risk of serious injury.  One study says that pedestrians face a 50%  increased risk of injury from cars that are backing-up and turning.

The article explains that the car manufacturers are thinking about putting artificial noises into these vehicles to reduce the risk of injury.  Will we see product liability claims against car manufacturers for making vehicles that are too quiet?  Federal legislation is in the works to require manufacturers to equip such cars to have non-visual alerts so that pedestrians can determine the vehicle’s location, motion and speed.

The use of electric cars will make it necessary for lawyers who do car accident cases, particularly those involving pedestrians, to understand what type of motor was in the car.  One can argue that a person driving an electric car at low speeds has an increased responsibility to be on the look-out for pedestrians and use the horn to warn them as the car approaches.  The lack of engine noise deprives pedestrians of an opportunity to use one of their senses – hearing – to avoid an injury.   This is particularly true for pedestrians who are children or who are elderly, or even for adults who are obviously pre-occupied with caring for children, talking on a cell phone, or juggling packages.

The American Association for Justice has issued a report called "Warning!  Safety Violation Ahead."  The report reveals that "a new analysis of government data reveals that more than 28,000 motor carrier companies, representing more than 200,000 trucks, are currently operating in violation of federal safety laws."    The safety violations include "defective brakes, bad tires, loads that dangerously exceeded weight limits and drivers with little or no training or drug and alcohol dependencies."   The accompanying press release indicates that

AAJ obtained data on the safety performance of U.S. trucking companies through the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), which is maintained by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).  Over a million lines of data were analyzed in an effort to pinpoint just how many unsafe trucks might be on the road.

Tennessee had 107 fatalies involving large trucks in 2007.  The country as a whole had 4808 fatalities and 142,949 non-fatal crashes involving large trucks.  You can access the national database by clicking here.   You can reach the Tennessee database by clicking here.  Trucking companies are listed by city.

Post 12 of this series on changes in Tennessee statutory law of interest to tort lawyers addresses a new law that imposes lighting requirements on bicycles.

Here is the new code section, which replaces existing section (a) of T.C.A. Sec. 55-8-177:

(a) Every bicycle, when in use at nighttime, shall be equipped with a lamp on the
front which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet (500′) to the front and either a red reflector or a lamp emitting a red light which shall be visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet (500′) to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle.

Here is Post 7 of recent changes to statutory law in Tennessee that I think will be of interest to tort lawyers.  As I have said in the last six posts,  you can read about additional changes in the law under the Legislation 2009 category.

Public Chapter 206  changed the Governmental Tort Liability Act to include Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 29-20-101  et seq, to   specifically include "community action agenc[ies] [and] nonprofit corporation[s] which administer[] the Head Start or Community Service Block Grant programs" as entities covered under the Act.

I believe that this legislation is a result of a case our firm handled against such an organization in East Tennessee earlier this year.  We argued that the entity was not covered by the Act (and therefore the damage caps did not apply) because the type of entity was not specifically mentioned in the Act.  I predicated at the time we identified the issue that a legislative change would be forthcoming, and this is it.

This is the sixth in a series of posts concerning changes in Tennessee statutory law that I believe to be of interest to tort lawyers.  For more changes click on the Legislation 2009 category of this blog.

Public Chapter 201 prohibits, subject to certain exceptions,  the reading or sending of text messages while operating a motor vehicle and while the vehicle is in motion.

Here are the key provisions of the new law:

Texting while driving is now illegal in Tennessee, and a study from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute reaffirms why the law is necessary.

For truck drivers, the risk of a crash or near-crash event increases by a 23.2 times as compared with non-distracted driving.

Read the entire study here.

Deaths on Tennessee roads continued to decrease in 2008.  A total of 1035 people were killed on Tennessee roads in 2008, down from 1211 in 2007and 1339 in 2004.  Nationally, 37,261 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2008.

Tennessee deaths were 16.55 per 100,000 of population, over 33% higher than the national average of 12.25 deaths per 100,000 citizens.

Of the 1035 Tennessee deaths,  605 involved single vehicle crashes.  A total of 95 of the deaths involved at least one large truck.

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices defines the standards used by road managers and contractors nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all streets and highways. The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 655, Subpart F.  The MUTCD has been adopted as the law in Tennessee; violation of the MUTCD is negligence per se.   Here is a list of the other states that have adopted the MUTCD.

If you have a case that involves an injury or death at a road construction site you will want to consult this manual to determine if the contractors involved followed the minimum standards established by this manual.  The manual also applies to governmental entities and others placing road signs.

Here is the 2003 edition of the  MUTCD with Revisons 1 and 2 Incorporated, effective date December 2007.   Here is the Table of Contents.  This site also has the previous editions of the MUTCD.

Ken Shigley at the Atlanta Injury Law Blog wrote this interesting post where he advises consumers who have suffered a tragic accident what they should do if they are solicited by lawyer.

Ken offers this advice:

If you are solicited about your injury or death case, you may consider doing the following:

Contact Information