Articles Posted in Trucking Accidents

by

Colin Lacy was a truck driver for an oil recycling company. He took his Freightliner tanker truck to Empire Truck Sales for preventative maintenance. A mechanic at Empire replaced leaking oil seals on the truck’s rear differential but allegedly chose not to replace the lock nuts on the bolts of the lateral control rod.

A month later Lacy took the truck back to Empire complaining that it was vibrating at higher speeds and making grinding noises. The same mechanic test drove the truck but did not inspect the lateral control rod, which had loosened as a result of the earlier improper repair. The mechanic also allegedly found that the truck’s antilock braking system (ABS) was not working properly but chose not to correct it anyway.

When Lacy picked up the truck three days later and began driving it, the ABS warning light came on. He called Empire but was told that the braking system was fine. Later that day, while Lacy was driving in the rain, the truck began shaking. He applied the brakes, but the ABS system locked up. The truck went out of control, struck the median and rolled over.

Continue reading

by

On Dec. 15, 2000, Patrick Broderick was driving southbound on Schoolhouse Road when icy conditions caused him to lose control of his car.  His vehicle came to a rest on a snow bank on the east side of the road.  A good Samaritan stopped at the scene to help Broderick, parking his car in the northbound lane of traffic.  Supposedly, the good Samaritan’s hazard lights were on and working, but that fact was disputed.

Caroline Semanic was traveling northbound on Schoolhouse Road when she approached the scene.  Semanic said she saw no flashing headlights on the good Samaritan’s vehicle and testified under oath that she saw only tail lights that she thought were attached to a moving vehicle.  Semanic’s car slid into the good Samaritan’s car while attempting to avoid crashing into that parked car, pushing the vehicle into the plaintiff Broderick, who was standing in the roadway with his back to northbound traffic.

Broderick maintained that the force of the impact caused him to be thrown 75 feet.  The thrust of the impact resulted in a closed head injury, mild traumatic brain injury and soft tissue neck injury.  Broderick claimed that he now has impaired cognitive function, loss of prior math skills, inability to concentrate, memory deficits, altered personality, word-finding difficulties, post-traumatic stress disorder, inability to follow directions, chronic insomnia, increased flare ups of temper, headaches, neck pain and depression. He is currently working as a fraud analyst.

Continue reading

by

On Sept. 2, 2007, Susan Soine, age 42, was driving her car northbound on Route 41 in Highland Park, Ill., when she was hit by a car driven by the defendant, Marian Kinzinger, at Clavey Road. Soine alleged in her lawsuit that Kinzinger chose not to properly merge into the highway from the Clavey entrance ramp and instead crossed over the solid white lines and clipped the front of a semi-truck and then veered into the left lane and hit the plaintiff’s front passenger door. 

Kinzinger’s pick-up truck then rolled over and hit the rear of the Soine car shattering her rear window. Soine was injured.  She sustained a C5-6 neck injury, which required fusion surgery two months after the crash. 

At the end of the trial, Soine’s counsel moved the court for a directed verdict, which was granted. The directed verdict dealt with only the negligence of Kinzinger. The jury determined the amount of damages.

Continue reading

by

Robert Jones was injured while he was delivering supplies to a Pizza Hut restaurant in South Elgin, Ill. Jones was struck by the pizza delivery car driven by defendant Bibiana Bojorge in the parking lot of the pizza restaurant. Jones injured his knee. The jury’s verdict of $489,364.05, which was reduced by 5% for contributory negligence of Mr. Jones, was appealed by the defendants Bojorge and Pizza Hut.

The issue on appeal was whether the trial judge was in error in admitting into evidence the plaintiff’s prior consistent statement to his wife that he was hit by defendant’s car. The defendant had made  Jones’s credibility the centerpiece of their defense at trial. The plaintiff’s prior consistent statement was admissible to rebut the charge that plaintiff’s prior testimony was a fabrication, especially when the evidence included defendant’s written statement in which she admitted that she “hit the delivery guy.”  The appellate court affirmed the trial judge’s order and the jury verdict stands.

The facts were that the plaintiff  Jones, a delivery truck driver working at a Pizza Hut location, claimed that the defendant Bojorge, a pizza delivery driver, struck him with a car as he was moving boxes of dough on his dolly, injuring his knee. 

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court has affirmed a decision by a Cook County trial judge. Krysztof Emiljanowicz, a truck driver, agreed to act as a contractor for SSTS, Inc. On May 12, 2004, Krysztof signed an agreement in which he agreed to transport freight for SSTS in his semitrailer. 

SSTS said that its policy required truck contractors to have their equipment inspected, to carry only SSTS freight while under contract with SSTS and to place decals on their vehicles showing that they were authorized to operate. 

Later that same day, Krysztof was on his way to pick up a friend; they planned to ride together in Krysztof’s truck to a mechanic for a check-up. Before starting the new job, and on the way to the mechanic, Krysztof crashed into a vehicle driven by Barbara Kawacki-Horowitz.

Continue reading

by

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which is a division of the United States Department of Transportation, has requested that “black boxes,” electronic data recorders or electronic on-board recording devices found in trucks and cars, should have the capacity to monitor a truck driver’s hours behind the wheel.

The purpose of the black box device is to record data in case of a crash. The data found on the black box allows experts to review the events leading up to a crash and use that data in evaluating future safety issues.

Today cars have these “black boxes” to record events leading up to an automobile accident. The boxes record vehicle speed before the crash, deceleration rates and vehicle angles before and during the crash. They also detect whether seatbelts were used.

Continue reading

by

In October 2004, the plaintiff truck driver was hauling a pre-loaded 2,000-pound bundle of steel rebar. When the plaintiff reached his destination and loosened the cargo straps, the bundle of rebar rolled off the flatbed of the trailer and severely injured the truck driver by falling on his leg.

The plaintiff, age 31, sustained a tibial fracture. He was out of work for six months after surgery to repair the fracture. It was argued at the jury trial that the defendant company, Menard Inc., was negligent in preparing the pre-loaded cargo and securing the bundle of rebar. Menard maintained that the truck driver was negligent in loosening the cargo strap causing his own injuries.

The Whiteside County, Ill., jury found in favor of the plaintiff truck driver and awarded him $615,451 in the following manner:

Continue reading

by

Although a truck vastly outweighs a bicycle, accidents can occur in which the bike rider is at fault. A Cook County jury ruled that this was the case in a collision involving a rider named Kim Assaley and the driver of a Dreyer’s ice cream truck in the early-morning hours of October 2007.

In this accident, Ms. Assaley, 41, was riding her bicycle to work northbound on Western Avenue. She was hit by the defendant’s northbound truck as it made a right turn onto Madison Street just after the traffic light turned green.

Ms. Assaley suffered an injury to her left foot and incurred $61,000 in medical expenses as well as more than $21,000 in time lost from her work. The pre-dawn incident occurred at 6:40 a.m., when sunrise was at 7:04 a.m. that day.

Continue reading

by

Robin R. Foreman v. Gunite Corporation, 2012 IL App. (1st) 091644U.

Robin Foreman was a truck driver employed by Distribution Services, Inc. (DSI). He had a regular truck route transferring material from Gunite Corporation‘s Illinois facility to its Indiana location.

Foreman was traveling eastbound on I-290 near its intersection with the Tri-State Tollway when the load in his trailer shifted, causing the truck to roll over.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois District judge denied the U.S. government’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the government had failed to establish that the plaintiff’s claim was not valid in James D. Fowler v. The United States of America, 08-CV-2785. The U.S. government had attempted to prove that the plaintiff was barred from receiving compensation from the post office because he had already received workers’ compensation directly from his employer. However, the district court disagreed with the U.S.’s classification of the plaintiff as a “borrowed employee,” thereby denying its motion for summary judgment.

The claims in Fowler arose out of an injury that James Fowler sustained at a while delivering mail to a Libertyville Post Office. Fowler was an employee of Eagle Express, a company which regularly contracted with the U.S. Postal Service to move mail between its various facilities. Under these “highway contract routes” (HCR) agreements, Eagle Express was responsible for covering all of the costs and duties associated with delivering mail on its required routes, including the payment and insuring of Eagle Express employees.

So even though Fowler was injured at the Libertyville Post Office while engaged in work for the U.S. Postal Service, his workers’ compensation claim was covered by Eagle Express. However, he sought to recovery additional damages from the U.S. Post Office based on the negligence of its employees in causing his injury based on the Federal Tort Claims Act. The FTCA allows parties to sue the U.S. for personal injury “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission” of any federal government employee “while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).

However, the U.S. argued that it was not liable for Fowler’s injuries because he was a borrowed employee. Because the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act is an exclusive remedy, an employee’s employer and any borrowing employer are immune from tort liability arising from an injury. Jorden v. U.S., Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2011. U.S. argued that just as Fowler was barred from pursuing a lawsuit against Eagle Express because he had already recovered workers’ compensation, so was Fowler barred from suing the U.S. Post Services based on his status as a borrowed employee.

Continue reading