Community Chat

[mstyrion 1]

On 9/30/2014 shoekitty said:

On 9/30/2014 mstyrion 1 said:

On 9/30/2014 shoekitty said:

Just a thought here. The truck driver was an employee, and on the clock when the accident happened. But I have heard of cases where the plaintiff can also charge the truck driver personally. Sometimes when there are extenuating circumstances they sue BOTH the trucker's company, and the driver personally if he broke the company rules. This usually happens when they cannot get enough money from one party. I think this is called "skirting"...lol! Where there is a will.....there sure is a way.

both the driver and the company would likely be named in the suit. A plaintiff names all parties he believes to have an exposure. Sometimes even a municipality or the state is named if it is believed road conditions have a bearing on how the accident happened. The driver for his negligence and the company for the driver's actions while on the job.

Usually the company pays first. If their assets (or insurance coverage) is exhausted, the driver's insurance kicks in.

I am not familiar with the term skirting.

That's because I sort of made it up. LOL.

maybe it will catch on!

[millieshops]

One of my thoughts is that Walmart can't be 100% at fault, so I'm hoping that although this discussion seems to be based on 100% responsibility or none, that's not what the court will be determining.

It makes sense for Morgan to sue Walmart for 100% of the responsibility. They have the deepest pockets here. Further, if it was Walmart policy that put that driver into his truck and required him to drive for too many hours to meet his deadlines, they do bear a lot of guilt. If I were on the jury, that's one of the details I'd want to hear.

I know truckers work long, hard hours. I didn't ever read the details of the accident, so I have no idea why this particular driver was sleepy, distracted, whatever he was. I do know I think he bears guilt. Of course, I doubt he has enough money to make it worth TM's lawyers suing him, so they go for Walmart.

On TV, this whole episode from accident to payoff takes 42 minutes. It's not that way when the pain is real. This could be one of those things I don't live long enough so that I see the end of it.

[CouponQueen]

I was a witness to a fatal car/truck accident that involved three vehicles.

A older man ran a stop sign and a dump truck swerved to avoid the car (I was the car behind the dump truck..) the dump truck lost it on the dirt and crossed the lane and hit an oncoming car..killing the driver instantly..(unfortunately it was my son's friend, sister and parents..the mother died instantly, sister sustained traumatic brain injury but miraculousy made out fine..and the other two just minor injuries..)

It was about six weeks when I received a call from the State Police that they are releasing the accident report with my name as a witness there are lawsuits pending so a heads up I will be contacted..they were NOT KIDDING. I was HOUNDED..absolutely HOUNDED..

I cooperated with everybody...to me the man that ran the stop sign was at fault..I was told by an attorney it was not up to me to determine fault but state what I witnessed..Okay the man ran the stop sign LOL...anyway he was 83 from out of state..and his insurance payment was ten grand death benefit..I was subpeoned to his local court hearing on the ticket and after they couldn't sway my testimony the attorney went after the stop sign it was not DOT Regulation by 6" off..in height and distance..he won..the man got away with the running the stop sign as it was determined not to be legal..

Then came the insurance companies..they sued the state, the employer that had a sign on the road advertising their function but most of all they wanted the truck company..they had the bucks..and about six years later it went to trial..I was subpeoned for both sides..everybody settled but the truck company...until the morning of..they settled finally too..

It was a nightmare. I was supposed to submit my expenses and lost time for dealing with all of the attornies and insurance investigators when it was settled ..as they couldn't pay for any lost time during the case..I never did. I used vacation time.

I even was called to the Administrative Law Hearing where the man lost the ability to drive in my state...at his age he should of not even been driving but that was another story.

It is follow the money..that truck driver did nothing but try and avoid hitting the man who ran the stop sign and in doing so ended up killing somebody and he had to live with that. I only met him once at the Law Hearing ..and I did speak to him then and hugged him! I felt for that man. I was there that day. I saw what happened..he tried to stop..he tried to swerve..he tried to do everything he could..and he was not speeding either.

[mstyrion 1]

On 9/30/2014 millieshops said:

One of my thoughts is that Walmart can't be 100% at fault, so I'm hoping that although this discussion seems to be based on 100% responsibility or none, that's not what the court will be determining.

It makes sense for Morgan to sue Walmart for 100% of the responsibility. They have the deepest pockets here. Further, if it was Walmart policy that put that driver into his truck and required him to drive for too many hours to meet his deadlines, they do bear a lot of guilt. If I were on the jury, that's one of the details I'd want to hear.

I know truckers work long, hard hours. I didn't ever read the details of the accident, so I have no idea why this particular driver was sleepy, distracted, whatever he was. I do know I think he bears guilt. Of course, I doubt he has enough money to make it worth TM's lawyers suing him, so they go for Walmart.

On TV, this whole episode from accident to payoff takes 42 minutes. It's not that way when the pain is real. This could be one of those things I don't live long enough so that I see the end of it.

please see some of the previous posts. Walmart is first in line as the employer because the driver was on the job. Both the driver and Walmart are named in the suit, but the first payer would be Walmart.

[Lipstickdiva]

On 9/30/2014 CouponQueen said:

MY cousin's Hubby is a truck driver..so much is computerized these days..no fudging for them..the GPS on the trucks show just what they are doing..how fast..location..if they are stopped etc!

I'm sure larger trucking companies might have this technology but I know several truck drivers, including independent drivers and none of them have anything computerized as far as the log goes or even GPS other than one they would buy for their truck themselves.

DH's company truck did have a limiter on it so they could never go faster than whatever the highest speed limit was in the state's they drove in.

Things can still be fudged though, particularly when you are stopped and supposed to be sleeping.

[shoekitty]

On 9/30/2014 CouponQueen said:

I was a witness to a fatal car/truck accident that involved three vehicles.

A older man ran a stop sign and a dump truck swerved to avoid the car (I was the car behind the dump truck..) the dump truck lost it on the dirt and crossed the lane and hit an oncoming car..killing the driver instantly..(unfortunately it was my son's friend, sister and parents..the mother died instantly, sister sustained traumatic brain injury but miraculousy made out fine..and the other two just minor injuries..)

It was about six weeks when I received a call from the State Police that they are releasing the accident report with my name as a witness there are lawsuits pending so a heads up I will be contacted..they were NOT KIDDING. I was HOUNDED..absolutely HOUNDED..

I cooperated with everybody...to me the man that ran the stop sign was at fault..I was told by an attorney it was not up to me to determine fault but state what I witnessed..Okay the man ran the stop sign LOL...anyway he was 83 from out of state..and his insurance payment was ten grand death benefit..I was subpeoned to his local court hearing on the ticket and after they couldn't sway my testimony the attorney went after the stop sign it was not DOT Regulation by 6" off..in height and distance..he won..the man got away with the running the stop sign as it was determined not to be legal..

Then came the insurance companies..they sued the state, the employer that had a sign on the road advertising their function but most of all they wanted the truck company..they had the bucks..and about six years later it went to trial..I was subpeoned for both sides..everybody settled but the truck company...until the morning of..they settled finally too..

It was a nightmare. I was supposed to submit my expenses and lost time for dealing with all of the attornies and insurance investigators when it was settled ..as they couldn't pay for any lost time during the case..I never did. I used vacation time.

I even was called to the Administrative Law Hearing where the man lost the ability to drive in my state...at his age he should of not even been driving but that was another story.

It is follow the money..that truck driver did nothing but try and avoid hitting the man who ran the stop sign and in doing so ended up killing somebody and he had to live with that. I only met him once at the Law Hearing ..and I did speak to him then and hugged him! I felt for that man. I was there that day. I saw what happened..he tried to stop..he tried to swerve..he tried to do everything he could..and he was not speeding either.

What an ordeal. I had to be a witness once, and they do hound you! Parties from both sides ask the questions over and over, until my brain was blurry. You loose work time, personal time. But you do it to be honest. Mine involved what I heard. Brakes, squeaking, . I heard it alright, but after they kept calling for 3 years, and got my testimony I wish I never heard a thing.

Those horrible accidents you witnessed are really hard on the witnesses. It is traumatic and horrifying!

[insomniac]

One more reason to avoid WalMart.

[minkbunny]

Wal Mart from the very beginning said they would accept responsibility.

The rest is legal maneuvers, very common in such cases.

Sadly, we had an immediately family member killed by a Yellow Freight driver. After a ten year long wrongful death lawsuit, two days before a three day trial was scheduled, the company settled completely - to our satisfaction. I am certain that Mr. Morgan's case will be settled outside of a courtroom as well.

But, in the interim, this will continue. Much was said and written that sounded wrong to our ears but was common language in this type of case.

[Lila Belle]

Tracy's injuries are serious. I was so sad to hear that he may never be able to preform again.

It may be standard procedure for the lawyers to put blame on the victims but I hope Wal-Mart pays big time.

[RainCityGirl]

On 9/29/2014 mstyrion 1 said:

On 9/29/2014 RainCityGirl said:

On 9/29/2014 mstyrion 1 said:

On 9/29/2014 RainCityGirl said:

Typical victim shaming that seems to run rampant in our society. Seat belt or not, Morgan would have been fine had the Wal Mart driver not hit him.

It's really not victim shaming, RainCityGirl.

In a state where it is permitted, it is a totally standard defense. When a lawsuit is answered, all possible defenses are stated, just like when a plaintiff files his suit, all possible areas of damages are stated even if they later prove to be unfounded.

Also, keep in mind, the defense has nothing to do with the cause of the accident. It is a defense against his claimed injuries. His own contribution to the severity of injuries. A seatbelt defense in a head injury case is almost always pled.

I'm not a lawyer, so I am only calling it as I see it. To me, it's like the prison defense on an employee rape case where they blamed the victim for "bringing it on herself." It may be standard procedure for the defense to do that, but it is still victim shaming. The defense in the Morgan case will be basing their conclusions on speculation that he wouldn't have had the head injury if he had had the seat belt on, not that they can necessarily prove that conclusively. He would not have had a head injury at all, had their driver not hit them. How do they defend that? It just doesn't matter that he failed to put on the belt. He still didn't cause the driver to hit him.

I can see how you would think that.

It really isn't the same as blaming a rape victim. That's an abhorrent practice and wouldn't be allowed in an Answer to a suit, I suspect.

In order to prove the failure to wear a seatbelt, the defense would have to have an expert-a Biomechanical Engineer-testify. It won't just be speculation. It has to be supported by an expert who reviews all the facts, including an inspection of the vehicle.

Again, it has nothing to do with what caused the collision in the first place. It's simply a defense against the scope of the injuries.

So, the question is would the two accident victims be healthy and alive had the driver not plowed into them, regardless of seat belts or no seat belts? In no way are they responsible for being hit and life would have gone on as usual had this not happened. I know the company will try everything within their power legally to weasel out of whatever they can. I don't think their seat belt defense will fly.