Articles Posted in Trucking Accidents

by

Evidence shows that bus passengers in Illinois and nationwide run a higher risk today than in the past. Whether due to poor oversight, poor bus design, maintenance problems, or inattentive operators, the level of safety on the average commercial bus is far from what it should be. If these issues are not corrected then there will be a continued rise in the number of injured and killed passengers and tragic bus crashes.

One way to stem the increase in passenger injuries and deaths could be an increase or stricter enforcement of regulations in place to protect the traveling public. Poor reinforcement of the current regulatory structure has resulted in an environment where a bus company and its drivers operate freely without any fear of consequence.

Another measure is to increase safety features. Research has proven again and again that an increase in safety features can increase survivability in bus crashes. Yet commercial buses are not nearly as safe as they should be. Unlike safety measures taken in airplanes or cars, advances in passenger safety on buses have been slow. There are many ways to make buses safer.

For example, seat belts have been standard on both airplanes and automobiles, but not on buses. Incredibly most buses are not even equipped with seat belts.

Buses could also be made more crash worthy. The strength of a bus roof depends on its support structure. The pillars between the windows of the bus are critical. The bus manufacturers have enlarged their vehicles’ windows for the convenience of passengers, but the support structure for the roofs has been compromised.

Continue reading

by

In September 2008, a Illinois First District Appellate Court decision ordered Zurich American Insurance Company to cover a Illinois wrongful-death lawsuit against its insured Key Cartage and Terry Washington. Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Key Cartage, 2008 WL 4445122 (1st Dist., Sept. 30). The Illinois Supreme Court has agreed to hear this appeal in the case where Rose Services, an affiliate of Key Cartage, had leased the truck from Franklin Truck Group to haul waste.

It had been argued that Zurich should be obligated to provide co-primary insurance coverage because it issued a trucker’s insurance policy to Rose Services. Zurich argued that coverage was barred because a reciprocal coverage provision in its policy meant that unless it provided coverage to Franklin, Zurich was not obligated to provide coverage to Key.

The Illinois Appellate Court ruling, an issue of first impression, held that Zurich was required to provide omnibus coverage, which would extend the policy to any permissive driver of the truck. In their opinion the appellate court held that “[a]s a matter of public safety, Illinois public policy warrants mandatory omnibus coverage for commercial truckers that should not be limited by private agreement.”

Continue reading

by

Under the Illinois Vehicle Code, every motor vehicle liability policy issued in Illinois must cover drivers who have expressed or implied permission from the insured. Recently, in a question of first impression, the Illinois Appellate Court was asked whether this statutory requirement for omnibus coverage applies to a liability insurance policy issued to a trucking company for commercial vehicles.

Based on State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Universal Underwriters Group, 182 Ill.2d 240 (1998), the First District Court reversed a ruling for Zurich American Insurance Company and concluded that Zurich American was obligated to provide omnibus coverage under a trucker’s policy. Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Key Cartage, 2008 WL 4445122 (1st Dist., Sept. 30).

In this case, Zurich American had issued a trucker’s policy to Rose Cartage Services. One of the covered vehicles was a Kenworth tractor that Rose had leased from Franklin Truck Group and later loaned out to an affiliated company, Key Cartage.

Terry Washington was driving the vehicle for Key Cartage when it was involved in an Illinois truck accident that resulted in the other driver’s death. Both Key Cartage and Washington were sued for the wrongful death of the individual. They argued that they were entitled to coverage under the policy that Zurich sold to Rose Cartage.

Continue reading

by

New Year’s Eve is a time to celebrate the coming of 2009. Restaurants and bars in Chicago and nationwide are lively as many celebrate the holiday and the arrival of the new year with drinks and merriment. It is easy to imagine that New Year’s Eve is a risky time for drivers and pedestrians in Illinois and the rest of the states.

Holidays in general are the most hazardous times for drivers due to sharp increases in traveling and drunken driving. And when it comes to New Year’s Eve, research offers sobering statistics.

From 1986 to 2002, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has researched accident data in the United States, New Year’s Day ranks fourth in terms of most accident-related fatalities on a given day. Coming in at first and second are the 4th and 3rd of July, followed by December 23rd. Based on these statistics New Year’s Eve and Day are not the riskiest days of the year to be out celebrating.

Yet a closer examination of the statistics reveals something peculiar. While it might not be the deadliest day for those in vehicles, it is the deadliest day of the year for pedestrians. According to the IIHS study, New Year’s edged out Halloween as the having the highest incidences of pedestrian deaths. On New Year’s a large majority of these deaths can be attributed to the increase in drinking and celebrating. Half of the deaths involved alcohol impairment and 58% of the pedestrians who were killed had a high blood-alcohol concentration.

So this year when you are out celebrating the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009, please remember to be safe and responsible. Happy New Year from the staff at Kreisman Law Offices.

Continue reading

by

Typically Illinois courts reward and protect an injured party. For example, if one party is negligent because they ran into a stopped car at a red light, then the injured driver would normally prevail at trial. But this is not the case when the negligent driver was part of an ‘unavoidable accident’.

A recent Illinois trucking accident case ruled in favor of the defendant truck driver on summary judgment (Coole v. Central Area Recycling, 2008 WL 2955543 (4th Dist., July 28)) . The facts of the case were such that the court determined there was an ‘unavoidable accident’ so the defendant was not at fault.

In Coole, the truck driver was driving 5 mph over the speed limit as he approached an intersection; there was no stop light or stop signs controlling his movement. At the same time the plaintiff was also approaching the same intersection. She had a stop sign, but rolled through it and was struck by the defendant truck driver who was going over the legal speed limit. The truck driver contended that he didn’t have time to stop or avoid the broadside collision with Coole’s vehicle. Coole died as a result of the collision and her father brought a wrongful death lawsuit against the truck driver.

Continue reading

by

In Illinois and most other states when an automobile owner permits another person drive their car then the driver’s negligence can be assigned to the vehicle’s owner.

For example, consider a Missouri case of Sam and his aunt Sandra [Back v. Winfield-Fire Protection Dist., No. SC 89001 (Mo. banc 2008)]. Sandra owns an automobile, but does not have a driving license, whereas her nephew, Sam, does. So when Sandra needs to go to a meeting she recruits Sam to drive her. On the way to her meeting Sam rear ended a fire truck that was partially parked in his lane with its emergency lights on.

As a result of the crash, his aunt was injured, and consequently sued her nephew and the fire protection district for negligence. Her nephew was dismissed after settling out of court with his aunt for $25,000. The case against the fire department continued on to trial, where the jury awarded $100,000 for her suffering. But because the jury found her to be 50% at fault in the accident, with the district also being 50% at fault, her damages were reduced by half.

The aunt appealed the reduction of her award by arguing that the trial court should not have instructed the jury that she could be held at fault because her nephew was negligent when he failed to keep a proper lookout. She felt that because she was a passenger she did not have a right to control it even though she owned the car.

Continue reading

by

When 16 year-old Illinois resident Hancock began making a left-hand turn at an intersection she did not see a tractor-trailer coming towards her. When the truck struck her car it was going approximately 10 m.p.h. over the speed limit. Hancock and her 16 year-old passenger were fatally injured in this Illinois trucking accident.

Any time a car is involved in a truck accident the results can be disastrous, as they were here. No matter how safe and reliable your car is, when it’s up against a tractor-trailer the odds are against you.

The teenagers’ parents brought a claim against both the truck driver and his employer, alleging that he failed to obey the proper speed limit and had gone over his allotted hours of service that week according to federal law.

The defendants responded by filing an Illinois wrongful death claim with allegations that Hancock had not stopped at her stop sign, had not yielded to the right-of-way when making her turn, and did not have her headlights turned on. The defendants also denied that the truck driver was their agent.

Both sides had accident reconstruction experts to support their liability claims and demonstrate to the jury how the accident may have taken place. The purpose of these experts is to give the jury an understanding of who was at fault for the accident. After deliberation the jury decided that the defendant truck driver was 60% liable and that Hancock was 40% liable for the accident.

Continue reading