Posts

Several weeks ago, in Norwalk, Connecticut, a tractor-trailer flipped onto its side and skidded down Interstate 95 for approximately a quarter of a mile.  The truck was carrying scrap aluminum, which was scattered all over the interstate.  Traffic in all of the southbound lanes of Interstate 95 was shut down for four hours.  The driver of the truck, Harry Myers, was injured, but not critically.  Fortunately, no one else was hurt.

Authorities indicated that the hydraulic pump on the truck malfunctioned.  It started to raise up the back of the truck, much like a dump-truck operates.  In cases like this, and when individuals are unfortunately injured, our law firm receives many questions about the individuals or companies that might be responsible.  This article is a short summary of companies and individuals that are often found to be responsible for such accidents.  The list is not meant to be exclusive, but just to provide information about who might be liable for your injuries.

First and foremost, the actions of the driver of the truck in question should be examined.  Very often, driver error, inattention, or other behavior, such as alcohol use, will be a contributing factor to the accident.  Unfortunately, drivers may or may not be appropriately insured, and it is often important to look beyond the driver to be able to fully recover the damages to which you are entitled.

If the driver was driving the truck during working hours and for a work-related purpose, his or her employer could be liable for your injuries as well.  The legal term for the employer’s responsibility for its employer’s actions is respondeat superior.  There are exceptions for this liability, however.  In order to ensure that an employer or insurance company does not claim these exceptions without an appropriate basis for doing so, it is important for you to retain an attorney experienced in these types of lawsuits.  Defendants and their insurance companies will do everything they can to minimize payments to injured individuals.  Because of this, you need someone in your corner doing everything they can to maximize the recover you receive.

The truck manufacturer and component part manufacturer may also be liable for your injuries.  For example, in the case briefly discussed above, the manufacturer of the hydraulic pump that apparently caused the accident may be responsible.  Depending upon the facts of the accident, the truck manufacturer itself might be responsible.  For example, was the truck improperly assembled?  With the sophistication of today’s trucks, it can be difficult to determine what component parts may have malfunctioned, and how, as well as how that contributed to the accident.  Because of this, it is likely that an accident reconstruction expert will need to be retained.  Retaining experts is expensive, and it can be very difficult to obtain the right expert.

Also potentially liable for a trucking accident are companies who own and/or serviced the truck in question.  This may or may not be the same company as the driver’s employer.  Trucks are subject to routine maintenance and inspection requirements under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations.  Reports are to be kept of such inspections.  In an accident in which inadequate maintenance is suspected as the cause or a contributing cause, it is vital to obtain maintenance records.

For 75 years, Barrett Law PLLC has been representing individuals injured in car and truck accidents located in Mississippi and throughout the Southeast.  If you have any questions, or sustained injuries in a truck-related accident, please contact us at (800) 707-9577 to set up a no-cost and completely confidential consultation.

Despite American’s love, and sometimes even obsession, with football, the game is not without its price—most notably to those who have played the game at the collegiate or professional level. A recent lawsuit filed by five former National Football League (NFL) players against the team that they played for—the Kansas City Chief—highlights this fact. The NFL is not a named defendant. The players were on the team for various years from 1987 through 1993. The lawsuit claims that the team hid and lied about the risks of head injuries to its players. The lawsuit was filed by Leonard Griffin, Kevin Porter, Chris Martin, Joe Phillips, and Alexander Louis Cooper. All of the five men were defensive players. The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages. Claims for damages arise out of latent brain injuries sustained as a result of repeated concussions.

The players were on the team at a time when the NFL had no collective bargaining agreement in place. Since that time, collective bargaining agreements have been in place, and those agreements would require arbitration of such claims under federal labor laws. Furthermore, the case is also able to proceed through standard judicial review procedures because the injuries are exempted from the application of Missouri’s workers compensation laws under a unique exception that, unless extended, will expire at the end of 2013. This exception provides that injuries arising out an accident, or a specific event during a single work shifty injury, are not subject to workers’ compensation laws.

The lawsuit, filed in Jackson County, Missouri, alleges that each of the five men have suffered chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) due to multiple concussive and sub-concussive injuries. The allegations include that the Kansas City Chiefs marginalized the effects of concussions; that the team did know or, at least should have known, that post-concussion syndrome and cognitive impairment occurs in football players; that the team did know, or at least should have known, that repetitive head trauma can lead to permanent neurological impairments, including CTE; and that the team did know, or at least should have known, that CTE is present in athletes with a history of repetitive head trauma, including football players and boxers, but that the symptoms of the disease may not appear for years or decades after the athlete ceases his sport.

The Complaint further alleges that the team did know or, at a minimum, should have known that the frequency of occurrence of brain trauma is correlated to the degree of neurological impairment. The football community, in 1937, acknowledged the need to remove players after suffering from a concussion. The definitive link between football head injuries and CTE was not established until 2002 due to the Kansas City Chiefs’, and others’, efforts to conceal the link, the Complaint asserts. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recently issued a warning letter to certain former NFL players (those whose careers spanned more than five seasons) that their risk of death from neurologic disease was three times greater than other players. Despite the overwhelming evidence of a link between repetitive head injuries and neurological injuries, the Kansas City Chiefs never warned the Plaintiffs of the risk. According to the Complaint, the Kansas City Chiefs had a duty to warn its players of the risks, and the team’s failure to do so was both negligent and fraudulent. The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

Barrett Law PLLC has significant experience representing individuals injured as a result of workplace conditions. If you or a family member has suffered a workplace related injury, please contact our office today at (800) 707-9577 to schedule an initial, no-cost consultation to discuss your rights.