Author: Steven M. Gursten

Another reason why Farm Bureau wins our 2010 Insurance Company Skunk Award

In my last blog, I discussed how difficult it is to get Farm Bureau adjusters to give permission to accept tendered underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) policy limits for their own customers who have been seriously injured in car accidents. In other words, how hard it is to just get the additional protection that these people paid for from this insurance company!

And speaking of games and broken promises, here’s another one from a recent case. It’s truly sad to see that Farm Bureau also is responsible for probably the most anti-consumer change that I’ve ever seen a Michigan auto insurance company pull on its own customers. Farm Bureau shortened the normal three-year period to bring a UIM lawsuit to  only one year.

Let me repeat this: Farm Bureau cut two years from the period its customers are allowed to bring a lawsuit following an auto accident, forcing them to bring the lawsuit within one year in order to receive UIM coverage.

Farm Bureau made this change by shortening the contractual period to file a lawsuit for its own customers who had purchased important UIM and UM coverage. This change caused countless Farm Bureau customers to lose important UM and UIM insurance protection that they had purchased in good faith from Farm Bureau.

I should note this change was so anti-consumer that the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation later issued an order prohibiting auto insurance companies, including Farm Bureau, from shortening the statute of limitations from three years to one year for UIM coverage.

Why would Farm Bureau do this to it’s own customers?

There was no legal or moral justification whatsoever for this, and no reason given for why Farm Bureau decided to do this to its customers. The only reasonable explanation was that Farm Bureau just decided to try to weasel out of paying valid UIM and UM insurance claims that it was otherwise legally obligated to pay for  – and note that these insurance coverages would only apply to its own most seriously injured customers who had already been hurt in car accidents.

Sadly, a recent Michigan Court of Appeals case released on April 29,2010 called Ulrich v. Farm Bureau Insurance even reaffirmed that Farm Bureau could still avoid paying a valid UIM insurance claim to a customer who had been seriously injured in an accident on a policy that had been shortened to one year, because her car accident came before the OFIS order prohibiting shortened statute of limitations coverages.

Farm Bureau’s shortened one-year provision to bring a lawsuit was therefore valid. The customer got nothing.

Here’s what happened: The state of Michigan was so concerned by what Farm Bureau was doing that it had issued Order No. 05-060-M, making it illegal for Farm Bureau and other Michigan insurance companies to do this. However, that didn’t help Linda Ulrich, who had already purchased her Farm Bureau insurance policy with its one-year statute of limitation when she was seriously injured in a car accident. Because her car accident occurred before the order was issued, the contractually shortened period of limitations to bring a lawsuit in her Farm Bureau policy still applied. Linda Ulrich lost her right to sue for her personal injuries from her own insurance company on a policy that she had already paid for, and had been paying for, for many years.

Way to go, Farm Bureau, for sticking it to a loyal, long-term customer and choosing to still apply a contract change that was so anti-consumer that the insurance commissioner required you to change it.

You are the winner of my Insurance Company Skunk Award.

My blog post from last year on Michigan’s 10 Worst Insurance Companies has been very popular. In the near future, I’m going to post another listing the worst insurance companies for 2009. Sadly, Farm Bureau’s conduct  is all too common in Michigan.

– Steven M. Gursten is recognized as one of the nation’s top experts in serious car and truck accident injury cases and automobile insurance no-fault litigation. Michigan Auto Law has received the largest reported jury verdict for an automobile accident case in Michigan in seven of the past 10 years, including 2009, according to published year-end verdicts and settlements reports.

Related information:

Time Limits for Filing Car Accident Claims

Michigan No-Fault Law for Out of State Car Accidents

Attorney Video: Do I Have a Car Accident Case?

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state. We have offices in Farmington Hills, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Sterling Heights to better serve you. Call (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation with an auto accident attorney. We can help.

No-Fault insurance lawyer warns car accident victims about Farm Bureau insurance company

Farm Bureau is at it again. I’ve written about this insurance company before. Despite their nice commercials, I personally see Farm Bureau treating their own customers the worst out of all the automobile insurance companies that I personally deal with as a lawyer representing victims of car accidents and truck accidents.

Again, the latest incident involves Farm Bureau finding new ways to avoid their obligation to their customers. Insurance companies like Farm Bureau get paid every year in insurance premiums by their customers, but as soon as their help is needed, they often look for ways to avoid meeting their legal, contractual obligations.

They just don’t do the right thing very often.

Why I do not recommend Farm Bureau

In my own experience, and in the experience of  other auto accident attorneys in  Michigan, it is almost impossible to get a Farm Bureau  claims adjuster to give permission to accept the proffered policy limits of a wrongdoer insurance company when an injured Farm Bureau customer has underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage.

Let me explain: you, a Farm Bureau customer, gets seriously injured in a car accident in Detroit, or Lansing, or Grand Rapids. The person who hits you has a minimum insurance policy limit of $20,000. You have been paying Farm Bureau for years for a coverage called underinsured motorist coverage, or UIM. This is an additional protection that is meant to pay you the full extent of what your injuries are worth, if the value of your personal injury exceeds the amount of coverage that the person who caused your car accident has. So, the person who caused your coverage only has $20,000, and your injury is clearly worth more.  That insurance company eventually tenders its $20,000 policy, so you can accept it and turn to your own additional UIM coverage with Farm Bureau.

Only you can’t.

Farm Bureau won’t let you.

Under Michigan law, a personal injury lawyer cannot accept the full offered policy limits of an auto insurance company that insures a person who has caused a car accident, without first getting the permission from your own insurance company.

So what happens when your insurance company refuses to give you permission to accept the policy limits of the person who caused your car accident?

Without receiving permission to accept tendered policy limits from a negligent driver’s auto insurance company, UIM coverage will be voided under Michigan law.

The problem with Farm Bureau is that in almost every case I’ve seen, Farm Bureau claims adjusters seem to  refuse to give permission to accept tendered policy limits; essentially trying to force their own customer to sit through a trial and expend thousands of dollars, and waste everyone’s time with another insurance company that is trying to settle the case. The Farm Bureau UIM policy, that Farm Bureau’s own customers paid a lot of money for, basically becomes illusory coverage.

There is actually no downside for Farm Bureau to do this, other than breaking their promises to their own customers, that is.  If the customer and his attorney accept the policy limit settlement being offered without receiving the written permission of Farm Bureau, they void the UIM coverage.

If, on the other hand, Farm Bureau forces them to try the case, they can play the odds and if a crazy, conservative 1 in a 100 jury returns a verdict of less than the policy limit, they again, don’t have to pay.  Since their own client has to pay for the thousands of dollars of costs of being forced to trial, there literally is no reason for Farm Bureau to not continue to do this.

Michigan has no bad faith laws or punitive damages to prevent this type of conduct by insurance companies at this time.

How to protect yourself

There is an easy solution at this time: don’t buy Farm Bureau.

This is just one reason Farm Bureau is the winner of my 2010 Insurance Company Skunk Award. In my next blog, I will talk about another disappointing, anti-consumer thing Farm Bureau recently did to a long-time customer to again, get out of paying a valid claim they should have paid. I’ll also cover how the Farm Bureau customer ended up with nothing as a result.

– Steven M. Gursten is recognized as one of the nation’s top experts in serious car and truck accident injury cases and automobile insurance No-fault litigation. Michigan Auto Law has received the largest reported jury verdict for an automobile accident case in Michigan in seven of the past 10 years, including 2009, according to published year-end verdicts and settlements reports.

Related information:

The Dirtiest Insurance Company Trick of All

17 Mistakes that Can Kill Your Case

Three No-Fault Challenges Facing Car Accident Attorneys Today

No-Fault Lawyer Video: All About Underinsured Motorist Coverage

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state. We have offices in Farmington Hills, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Sterling Heights to better serve you. Call (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation with an auto accident attorney. We can help.

Personal injury attorney says NO – It’s the bloated and unregulated insurance industry profits

I recently received a reader inquiry regarding my blog, A New Dawn for Car Accident Victims? The blog covered the Michigan Supreme Court’s motion for reconsideration in McCormick v. Carrier, a case that could restore common sense and fairness to Michigan’s broken auto accident law, Kreiner v. Fischer. The reader, Kristen, believed that Michigan’s auto insurance coverage contributes to soaring insurance rates. The truth is quite the contrary. Below is the note from Kristen and my response.

Keep in mind, whether you’ve been seriously injured, or just have a question about the Michigan No-Fault Law, the personal injury attorneys at Michigan Auto Law can help you get through the confusion and uncertainty an accident brings to your life. I hope the following information gives you some insight as to what’s really going on with automobile insurance in Michigan.

Kristen: Steven, I see your point of view on the overturning of the Kreiner case, but why don’t you ever mention that we have unlimited medical benefits/coverage in Michigan when you are involved in an auto accident, which includes pedestrians and resident household members that are not disclosed on an auto application because they do not have a drivers license? Can you review this in one of your articles? Michigan by far has the best coverage in this area and it contributes to the high cost of auto insurance. I personally think the consumer should be given the option to purchase unlimited medical coverage or elect a different level of protection.

My response: Thank you for your question, Kristin. Many people share your perception that lifetime medical benefits are a driver of soaring auto insurance costs in this state.  But, neither lifetime medical payouts, nor pain and suffering “tort” payouts are the reasons behind the high insurance costs we face in Michigan.  The reality is that first-party No-Fault insurance benefits (lifetime medical, wage loss, replacement services, mileage, attendant care) and third-party payouts (pain and suffering and excess economic loss) are statistically only very small amounts of the total No-Fault dollar.  Total combined payouts on “third-party” or pain and suffering settlements represent literally pennies of the total No-Fault dollar.  Lifetime medical does sound expensive, but it is also a very small percent of each actual insurance dollar spent.

How can lifetime medical be so little?

The answer lies in the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA).  After an insurance company spends over a certain pre-determined amount, currently $460,000, that insurance company is repaid on the entire claim by the MCCA for all medical paid over the cap.   And the total assessment of the MCCA for each resident is only $124.89 per motor vehicle, which is separately assessed and frankly, about the best deal out there in exchange for the guarantee of total protection for all Michigan residents who suffer catastrophic personal injury that will require lifetime medical care and treatment after a motor vehicle accident.

The real driver of costs are the insurance companies themselves. The savings that insurance companies promised Michigan residents — when they spent untold thousands of dollars lobbying the Michigan Legislature in 1995 as Michigan enacted the harshest tort reform laws in the nation — never materialized.  In fact, premiums have only increased.  You may wonder how this can be, when claims and payouts have fallen so sharply.

And here lies the answer to your question, Kristin.  The real reason why we pay so much money for insurance here in Michigan is because our insurance companies have the highest profit margins in the nation, and Michigan is one of the only remaining states in the nation where the insurance commissioner does not have the power to regulate the profits that the auto insurance industry can make.

So, we have a nasty little problem.  Insurance companies can charge as much as they want, and in turn are able to make record0breaking profits. Insurance companies can recoup losses they make gambling in the stock market, or paying out claims in other states by charging more in Michigan.  The same insurance companies will then use our own premium dollars that we are legally required to spend buying No-Fault insurance to wage a propaganda campaign to convince the public that the reason we have such high insurance premiums in Michigan is because of non-issues like lifetime medical, or lawyers and lawsuits, or anything besides the real reason – bloated and unregulated insurance industry  profits.

Hope this helps answer your question.  Thank you again for contacting me.

Steven M. Gursten is recognized as one of the nation’s top experts in serious car accident and truck accident injury cases and automobile insurance no-fault litigation. Michigan Auto Law has received the largest reported jury verdict for an automobile accident case in Michigan in seven of the past 10 years, including 2009, according to published year-end verdicts and settlements reports.

Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by Marco Arment

Related information:

How to Read your Auto Insurance Policy

Michigan Claims Adjuster Tactics

Michigan Car Accident Insurance Settlements

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident, motorcycle accident and bus cases throughout the state. Call (800) 777-0028 if you’ve been injured in an auto accident, and would like to speak to a lawyer.

Safety Tips for Teenage Drivers During National Youth Traffic Safety Month

With springtime comes proms, graduations and the end of the school year. This can become a distracting and dangerous time for young drivers. They’re already at a much higher risk of causing a car accident due to inexperience and poor driving judgment. And they’re statistically far more likely to become seriously injured in the warm weather months ahead.

According to the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning, the top five “hazardous actions” contributing to fatal automobile crashes involving teen drivers are:

1. Speeding,

2. Careless/negligent driving,

3. Driving left of center,

4. Reckless driving, and

5. Failing to yield.

A lesser-known yet startling statistic: Nighttime fatal crash rates for 16-year-old drivers are nearly double the daytime rates. In fact, our own personal injury lawyers have created rapid response teams of investigators for nighttime fatalities caused by truck accidents and other crashes. Sadly, we notice that far too many of these non-truck accident fatalities involve younger drivers, and often alcohol.

The marked increase auto accidents can mar this special time in young people’s lives forever. To help prevent this, I’d like to give you some tips to protect your young driver. They include:

1. Restricting teenage drivers from driving under risky conditions such as late at night, in bad weather, and on highways with friends in the car (young drivers are almost twice as likely to cause an accident when there are other teenagers in a car).

2. Requiring seat belt use at all times.

3. Minimizing distractions by forbidding your young driver’s use of a cell-phone or sending or receiving text messages. There is no reason – ever – for a teen driver to text while driving a car.

4. Limiting the number of teens permitted in a car or truck when your teen driver is at the wheel.

How to Keep Your Children Safe

While these traffic statistics and tips will provide parents with some basic knowledge, there are numerous other factors involved in your child’s safety that can help to keep your child safe.

That’s why the auto accident attorneys of Michigan Auto Law have written a guide, “How to Keep Your Children Safe: Simple Steps to Protect Your Loved Ones from Hidden Dangers.”  With this guide, you will discover dangers that pose substantial risk of death and injury to children and teenagers, as well as suggestions for avoiding these hazards.

Watch for our publication, to be released in June. It will be available through our website, www.michiganautolaw.com, as well as by calling our office at (800) 777-0028.

Steven M. Gursten is recognized as one of the nation’s top experts in serious car accident and truck accident injury cases and automobile insurance no-fault litigation. Michigan Auto Law has received the largest reported jury verdict for an automobile accident case in Michigan in seven of the past 10 years, including 2009, according to published year-end verdicts and settlements reports.

Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by BdwayDiva1

Related information:

Top 10 Michigan Auto Accident Guide

Uninsured Motorist Coverage: A Must Have

Do I Have a Car Accident Case in Michigan?

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident, motorcycle accident and bus cases throughout the state. Call (800) 777-0028 if you’ve been injured in an auto accident, and would like to speak to a lawyer.

Michigan Auto Accident Lawyers Urge Drivers to Join “No Phone Zone Day”

On Tuesday, I announced the welcome news that Michigan has finally banned texting while driving. Today, Governor Granholm will sign the texting-while-driving ban on ‘Oprah.’ Like our auto accident attorneys, Oprah has been very vocal about the dangers of texting while driving. Recently, she had her fans take a pledge to stop texting while behind the wheel.

I’d like to share the following article that appeared in the Detroit News, as it highlights the importance of this new law and urges Michigan residents to put their phones down while driving – starting today.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm plans to sign the state’s texting while driving ban legislation in Detroit on Friday during a broadcast of the “Oprah Winfrey Show.”

Liz Boyd, a spokeswoman for the governor, confirmed the details of Granholm’s signing plans.

The House passed the third and final bill in a texting ban package by a 82-22 vote. The Senate has passed the bill so it now goes to Granholm for her signature.

“Texting while driving is a dangerous habit that too many drivers take part in,” bill sponsor Rep. Lee Gonzales, D-Flint, said in a statement. “Michigan now joins the ranks of nearly two dozen other states that are taking action to save lives and make our roads safer.”

Winfrey will dedicate Friday’s program to distracted driving and will feature an appearance by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

It’s part of an effort to declare April 30 the first national “No Phone Zone Day.”

Distracted driving kills nearly 6,000 Americans a year, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

“A call or text isn’t worth taking a life,” Winfrey said. “We must not allow more mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, sisters and brothers to die before we take action against distracted driving.”
The show will broadcast rallies in Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles and Washington.
Michigan’s ban will start July 1. A first offense would cost $100 and repeat offenses would cost $200.
No points would be added to a driver’s record.

Texting would be a primary offense, meaning police could pull over motorists for texting alone.
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia already ban text messaging for all drivers, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association.

Steven M. Gursten is recognized as one of the nation’s top experts in serious car and truck accident injury cases and automobile insurance no-fault litigation. Michigan Auto Law has received the largest reported jury verdict for an automobile accident case in Michigan in seven of the past 10 years, including 2009, according to published year-end verdicts and settlements reports.

Related information:

Avoiding Car Accidents in Michigan

17 Mistakes that Can Kill Your Auto Accident Case

Your No-Fault Insurance Rights

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident, motorcycle accident and bus cases throughout the state. Call (800) 777-0028 if you’ve been injured in an auto accident, and would like to speak to a lawyer.

So-called textualist judges dismiss bus accident cases  based on false logic while ignoring  law that works in bus accident victims’ behalf

I’ve helped a number of personal injury victims injured in serious bus accidents over the years. But recently, the law has swung hard against the rights of Michigan residents injured in bus accidents. The way Michigan judges are now treating bus accident victims is outrageous. In a recent spate of bewilderingly unjust cases, appellate judges have approved the dismissal of bus victims’ lawsuits based on a hyper-technical argument made by bus lines that defies justice, common sense, morality and logic.

Even though the bus lines knew about all of these recent bus accidents and the resulting personal injuries to the accident victims, SMART and other bus companies have been successful in escaping  accountability for the harms they have caused. This is because, as the bus lines contended, accident victims didn’t personally provide the bus lines with proper notice within 60 days of the bus accidents and their injuries sustained in the accidents. Ignored is that the bus companies already had notice, including from the bus driver, the police, multiple incident reports, and in one case, a phone interview with the accident victim.

Exacerbating my concern is that bus accidents often involve people who live in Detroit and other larger urban areas who may have less legal sophistication or access to attorneys than others.  In general, I fear that people who ride public transportation are less able to avail themselves to resources that would include a lawyer who could warn them about this dangerous new mine field that awaits them only 60 days after a motor vehicle accident under Michigan law.

It is also troubling that no less than eight Michigan Court of Appeals judges have said letting the bus lines off the hook was the right thing to do.

Amazingly, these judges reasoned that learning of the bus accidents and injuries through accident reports, police reports, and even phone interviews with the accident victims(!), does not  satisfy Michigan’s “notice” law which — the judges assumed — requires the accident victims to provide notice to the bus companies, apparently well-beyond the notice they already have received. The only ones punished are the bus accident victims.

Bus Accident Victims Beware: This is More Dangerous than Michigan Judges Abandoning  Common Sense

But throwing common sense to the wind isn’t the only outrageous thing Michigan judges are doing to bus accident victims. Judges are also faulting them for not living up to fictitious, legal requirements that do not even exist under Michigan  law.

This is exactly what the judges did in at least three bus line cases that I have previously written about :

SMART Bus Accident Takes Another Person for a Ride

Legal Loophole Lets SMART Off the Hook Despite Causing Serious Accident

Again, Michigan’s “notice” law, which was at issue in the bus line cases, says nothing about requiring the accident victim to provide notice. The law, MCL 124.419, simply says that “written notice … shall be served” upon the bus line.

But that detail didn’t get in the judges’ way of making sure the bus accident victims would never get their day in court. They devoted not a page, not a paragraph, not a sentence, and not a word trying to rationalize how a law that didn’t even mention accident victims somehow imposed on those same unmentioned victims a potentially fatal “notice” requirement.

Instead, the judges side-stepped the messy, complicated work of doing the impossible and opted to simplify things by making the wildly rogue assumption that the “notice” law’s notice requirement was meant to apply to bus accident victims exclusively. Accordingly, that freed up the judges to busy themselves with nitpicking and arranging the law’s actual words and phrases in a way to justify dismissal of the bus accident victims’ lawsuits.

As a personal injury lawyer specializing in serious bus and truck accidents, I have been able to help many injured people, but I must say, I believe such judicial activism is offensive, especially when it’s at the expense of the legal rights of innocent, helpless, and powerless residents who had the bad fortune of riding public transportation services that happened to be involved in a collision that changed their lives.

Bus accident victims should not be treated differently than other motor vehicle accident victims in this state. Not only are they treated differently here, they are discriminated against in the most dangerous way – by being required to provide specific legal notice within 60 days of their bus crash.  There is simply no justification or public policy rationale to punish bus passengers so unjustly under our law.

And I suspect at least some of the judges who have continued to dismiss these innocent accident victims’ cases know it.

Steven M. Gursten is recognized as one of the nation’s top experts in serious car and truck accident injury cases and automobile insurance no-fault litigation. Michigan Auto Law has received the largest reported jury verdict for an automobile accident case in Michigan in seven of the past 10 years, including 2009, according to published year-end verdicts and settlements reports.

– Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by sfllaw

Related information:

Michigan Commercial Vehicle Rules and Regulations

Michigan Truck Accident Attorney Videos

Basics of Michigan No-Fault Law

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident, motorcycle accident and bus cases throughout the state. Call (800) 777-0028 if you’ve been injured in an auto accident, and would like to speak to a lawyer.

Michigan lawyers welcome new law that will surely prevent car accidents and save lives

After extensively blogging about the extreme dangers of texting while driving, I am elated to report that Michigan has adopted a legal ban on texting while driving a motor vehicle. With the new ban, drivers who text message can give legal cause for police to pull them over and issue a ticket.

Michigan joins 18 other states with similar anti-texting while driving laws. And for the car accident lawyers who work at Michigan Auto Law, we have only one word to add: Finally.

According to an article by the Detroit Free Press, the bill won’t go to the governor for signing until the House approves a companion bill that prohibits adding points to a driver’s record for text messaging. Nevertheless, the main bill is a victory for safety advocates. Now it’s up to lawyers and other civil justice and safety groups to keep educating the public on just how dangerous text messaging is when driving a car.

The ban is to take effect on July 1.  It will surely save lives and prevent needless car accidents.

Texting and Distracted Driving: The Facts

As of now, the accident statistics stemming from texting while driving are going up. Latest numbers from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (Summer 2009) prove the act of writing a text message while behind the wheel is one of the most dangerous things a driver can do. That “How r u?” can make a car crash 23 times more likely for truck drivers and six times more likely for most motorists.

The Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning said that police across Michigan noted on crash reports that nearly 900 drivers involved in car wrecks were using cell phones – out of 3,315 crashes where officers noted distraction of some sort in 2009, the Freep reported.

And the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which encourages states to pass such bans, attributed 6,000 deaths and 500,000 injuries to distracted driving in 2008. President Barack Obama even issued an executive order last fall prohibiting federal employees from texting while driving on the job or in government vehicles.

Again, the lawyers of Michigan Auto Law have seen far too many preventable car accidents resulting from distracted drivers texting and talking on cell phones. To put things into perspective, I tell my clients and loved ones that research shows talking on a cell phone while driving can have the same effect on perception and reaction timing as driving with four drinks in your system. Texting can have the same effect as driving with eight drinks in your system.

With this new law, we can say with scientific certainty that more car accidents will be prevented, and that lives of Michigan residents will be saved.  Obviously, this is an area that I’m quite passionate about; and this new law is a relief for me and the other personal injury lawyers who work here.

I sincerely hope you will consider the car accident statistics I’ve provided above, and the safety of others when you get behind the wheel and make decisions that can cause distracted driving.  And if that isn’t enough, maybe the new  possibility of legal fines and tickets may help before you pick up that phone to text while driving.

– Steven M. Gursten is recognized as one of the nation’s top experts in serious car and truck accident injury cases and automobile insurance no-fault litigation. Michigan Auto Law has received the largest reported jury verdict for an automobile accident case in Michigan in seven of the past 10 years, including 2009, according to published year-end verdicts and settlements reports.

– Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by mrJasonWeaver

Related information:

Be Prepared in Case of a Car Accident

17 Mistakes that Can Kill Your Car Accident Case

Michigan No-Fault Resource Center

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state. We have offices in Southfield, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Sterling Heights to better serve you. Call (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation with an auto accident attorney. We are always here to help.

Rule of the Road No. 12: EVERYONE in a trucking company must follow truck safety rules

My fellow truck accident attorneys, this is the last blog in my “Rules of the Road” series. I posted this series because it is my sincere wish that by sharing these dozen rules of what I consider to be some of the most important Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for lawyers handling truck accidents, and showing how they’re integral to handling such a case properly, we can work together with many in the industry to stop so many tragic and preventable truck fatalities and serious injury accidents.

The last rule is brief, but it is incredibly important. Under 49 CFR § 392.1, every motor carrier, its officers, agents, representatives and employees responsible for the management, maintenance, operation, or driving of commercial motor vehicles; or the hiring, supervising, training, assigning, or dispatching of drivers, shall be instructed in and comply with the rules in this part.

This means EVERYONE – not just the safety director – within the transportation company is charged with the responsibility of instructing in and complying with the federal truck rules.

This rule addresses one of my personal pet peeves. Often, I’m taking a deposition of a truck driver and uncovering one safety violation after another, and the truck driver will say, “That’s not my job; that’s safety’s job,” or “dispatches’ job.”  I have presidents of large truck companies tell me, almost brag about, how they have no understanding of federal safety regulations. I have all sorts of people in maintenance who attempt to dismiss responsibility of their knowledge of the rules by saying, “It isn’t my job to follow the rules. That’s safety’s job or so-and-so’s job.”

No, it isn’t. Safety is everyone’s job. Under § 392.1, it IS his or her job, no matter if this person is the truck driver, safety director, works in maintenance, or dispatch, or is president of the company.

Under § 392.1, it IS his or her job to know and follow the safety rules that are meant to protect us all.

The Importance of Regulation Knowledge for Truck Litigation Attorneys

To conclude, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations are a source of minimum safety standards that every interstate motor carrier must follow. These regulations impose standards of care that many carriers fail to meet. When preparing your truck accident lawsuit, a brief overview in these 12 regulations will give you the decisive advantage in exposing the trucking company’s failure to properly train, supervise, or entrust large commercial trucks to unfit drivers. Without knowledge of these regulations, a lawyer cannot possibly recover top value for his clients after a serious truck accident case.

My hope is that these posts can help provide a meaningful framework for lawyers conducting legal discovery in truck crash cases.

With one in every three trucks on the road in so dangerous a condition that it would be placed immediately out-of-service if inspected (Read here about Michigan’s dangerous trucking companies), I truly believe it’s the lawyers specializing in truck accident cases who are doing the most to make trucking companies, and everyone who shares the roads with tractor-trailers in America today, safer.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of personal injury attorneys don’t have a lot of experience with truck accident cases.  I hope I have helped some of these new or less experienced attorneys with this series of blog posts; and I hope it is in some small way, a step toward making our roads safer for our families  – and saving lives.

–    Steven M. Gursten is a partner of Michigan Auto Law. He is past president of the American Association for Justice Truck Litigation Group, and has received the top reported trial verdict in Michigan for truck accidents. Last year, Steve was named a Michigan Lawyers Weekly Leader in the Law for his efforts in promoting truck safety in Michigan and throughout the country.

– Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by emdot

Related information:

Help for Attorneys Handling Truck Accidents

8 Things to Know About Your Truck Accident Case

Finding the Dirt on Unsafe Trucking Companies

Previous blogs from “Rules of the Road Every Truck Accident Lawyer Needs to Know” series:

Rules of the Road: Intro for Truck Lawyers

Truck Driver Fatigue

Truck Lawyers: Get Your Hands on Those Discovery Documents!

Investigate the Trucker’s Background and History

Truck Driver Qualification Files

What Truck Accident Lawyers Must Know About Black Boxes

How to Nab the Tired Trucker

Why is the Pre-trip Inspection the Most Violated Safety Rule?

Why Weather is Never an Excuse

How Trucking Companies Dodge Federal Safety Laws

That Truck Driver Should Never Have Been on the Road

Truck Accident Lawyer Discusses Log Book Forgeries

Michigan Auto Law exclusively handles car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state of Michigan. We have offices in Southfield, Sterling Heights, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Detroit to better serve you. Call (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation from one of our expert attorneys.

Rule of the Road No. 11:  The daily log  book as an oath or affirmation

This week, I’ll be wrapping up my “Rules of the Road” series of blogs for truck accident lawyers from my recent seminar. These 12 rules were shared with lawyers throughout the country during a truck accident litigation seminar I spoke at in New Orleans.

I had a truck driver e-mail me yesterday on the subject. This is what he wrote:

Company only allows 15 min. for pre- and post-trips combined and makes us sign time sheet for 15 min. total time for pre and post, because thats all they pay. I’ve told them they should allow 30 min. per day but not company policy. How can i get them to pay me for that time?

Sadly, there isn’t much this truck driver can do if he is like most truckers. Even though his company is violating federal and state safety rules, he is likely an at-will employee.  His e-mail is a good example of the pressure put on so many drivers by bad trucking companies to break the rules. The company should clearly reconsider, because in a jurisdiction that allows punitive damages, this company policy may well justify punitives if the pressure to perform 15-minute inspections contributes to a clearly preventable truck accident.

What Truckers Write in Their Log Books and What They Actually Do

Almost any experienced trucking expert will say it should normally take 30 minutes (at the very least 20) to perform a proper pre-trip inspection.  This leads to the issue of log books and the contrast between what truck drivers write in their logs and what many actually do in real life.

It’s no secret that log falsification within the industry is rampant, despite attempts by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the good motor carriers to curb log violations. Many truckers derisively cal these log books “lie books.”  It gives you an idea of the scope of this problem.

And it is a problem. Log book forgeries are used to get around hours of service violations. Hours of service violations are meant to stop fatigued driving.  As the science has shown, a fatigued truck driver is as dangerous in judgment and reaction time as a drunk driver – only this impaired person is behind the wheel of an 80,000 pound tractor-trailer on our roads.

Lying on Log Books is Easy to Spot

Luckily, lying on log books is pretty easy to spot. Most experienced truck accident lawyers can find it, or the experts these lawyers rely upon will be able to find it, without too much trouble.  Normally, it’s a matter of matching up where a trucker says he is with receipts to show he couldn’t possibly be where he said he was at a certain time. Gas, restaurant receipts, etc. are also a great way to show speeding.

The rule that many lawyers should use is 49 CFR § 395.8(7): A driver shall certify to the correctness of all log book entries by singing the form containing the driver’s duty status record with his legal name or name of record. The driver’s signature certifies that all entries required by this section are true and correct.

Frankly, the mistake many lawyers make is not emphasizing how big a deal it is to lie on log books. Falsifying logs is a very big deal. Not only is the driver lying to his employer, but he’s lying to the federal government as well. And he is putting all of us at risk.

Remember, § 395.8(7) treats the signature on the driver’s log the same as an oath or affirmation in court.  It requires that all entries on the log are true and correct. This means lawyers shouldn’t simply use log books to impeach the driver’s credibility, but they should also emphasize that lying is the same as lying in court after swearing an oath to tell the truth.

I’ll be back on Thursday with my last “Rules of the Road” blog, which will discuss how important it is for everyone to really know the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Rules, in order to stop preventable truck crashes.

–    Steven M. Gursten is a partner of Michigan Auto Law. He is past president of the American Association for Justice Truck Litigation Group, and has received the top reported trial verdict in Michigan for truck accidents. Last year, Steve was named a Michigan Lawyers Weekly Leader in the Law for his efforts in promoting truck safety in Michigan.

– Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by bfishadow

Related information:

Michigan Truck Accident Investigation

Lawyer Video: Truck Accident Wrongful Deaths

How to File a Truck Accident Lawsuit

Previous blogs from “Rules of the Road Every Truck Accident Lawyer Needs to Know” series:

Rules of the Road: Intro for Truck Lawyers

Truck Driver Fatigue

Truck Lawyers: Get Your Hands on Those Discovery Documents!

Investigate the Trucker’s Background and History

Truck Driver Qualification Files

What Truck Accident Lawyers Must Know About Black Boxes

How to Nab the Tired Trucker

Why is the Pre-trip Inspection the Most Violated Safety Rule?

Why Weather is Never an Excuse

How Trucking Companies Dodge Federal Safety Laws

That Truck Driver Should Never Have Been on the Road

Michigan Auto Law exclusively handles car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state of Michigan. We have offices in Southfield, Sterling Heights, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Detroit to better serve you. Call (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation from one of our expert attorneys.

Bus line again exploits loophole to escape responsibility for bus accident

For the third time in almost as many months, SMART bus has used a Michigan law that puts form over substance to avoid responsibility for causing a bus accident that resulted in serious injuries.

By claiming its accident victims didn’t report their personal injuries (even though the bus line already knew about the injuries and crashes from multiple other sources), SMART bus has successfully argued that victims’ lawsuits should be thrown out of court. SMART bus contends these plaintiffs failed to comply with a Michigan law that requires accident victims to personally notify transportation authorities, such as SMART bus, about their injuries after a bus accident.

In one case, SMART bus used the law to get out of a lawsuit brought by a driver who was smashed by a SMART bus that refused to yield the right of way.

In a second case, SMART bus used the law to shirk its responsibility to a wheelchair-bound passenger whose hip and femur were fractured when a SMART bus negligently turned too sharply.

And, now, in Roberts v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), the Michigan Court of Appeals has allowed SMART bus to use the same law to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by passenger Loren Roberts, who was injured when the SMART bus he was riding started up too fast and caused him to fall to the floor and suffer serious personal injuries.

The law, MCL 124.419, says that any public transportation authority must have “written notice of any claim based upon injury to persons or property shall be served upon the [transportational] authority no later than 60 days from the occurrence through which such injury is sustained …”

SMART’s Most Illogical Extreme

Here, to complete the Alice in Wonderland tale that began in the first two cases, and taking this case to its most illogical extreme, Mr. Roberts actually did provide notice!  In fact, he called on the phone and gave a statement to SMART.

Not enough.  Not in Michigan and not with our law, that is illogically designed to punish in the most extreme way those people who actually don’t run to a lawyer. How else could any normal Michigan resident know about this law?  The sad thing is that most Michigan lawyers, even those who specialize in personal injury and handle a number of car accident cases, don’t even know about the fine print in our law that requires written notice within 60 days for any public bus system in the state.

And sadly, for the third time, it wasn’t enough for Mr. Roberts. The judges in Mr. Roberts’ case said his statements to the bus driver and to the SMART employee over the telephone didn’t amount to the type of notice required by the law. SMART “had notice of an occurrence involving plaintiff, but did not receive notice of a claim … made by the plaintiff,” the judges said.

The fact that Michigan’s bus accident “notice” law allows a wrongdoer like SMART bus to finagle such unfair and absurd results as the ones in Roberts and the other two cases is just plain “dumb.”  Again, the public policy behind this law could not be worse. It does nothing to protect Michigan residents or serve the administration of justice and fairness by throwing out cases on loopholes – when SMART already has notice.

Accordingly, changing the law to prevent similar miscarriages of justice in the future is not only the necessary and urgent thing to do. Or the just thing to do. It’s the SMART thing to do as well.

– Steven M. Gursten is recognized as one of the nation’s top experts in serious car and truck accident injury cases and automobile insurance no-fault litigation. Michigan Auto Law has received the largest reported jury verdict for an automobile accident case in Michigan in seven of the past 10 years, including 2009, according to published year-end verdicts and settlements reports.

– Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by Jason McHuff

Related information:

Michigan Truck Accident Resource Center

Dealing with Your Insurance Company

Video Testimonials from Auto Accident Victims

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the state. Call (800) 777-0028 if you’ve been injured in an auto accident, and would like to speak to a lawyer.

Insurance company sends full no-fault release seven days after car accident

Wow, I’ve seen a lot of dirty tricks pulled by Michigan auto insurance companies over the past 16 years I’ve been helping people injured in car accidents. But what Dairyland Insurance just did to a group of unsuspecting accident victims may actually top my list for dirty tricks. In fact, I’ve never, ever seen a  Michigan auto insurance company pull a stunt this outrageous before.

Here’s what happened:

Three people were injured in a car accident on March 1, 2010.  They contact their insurance company, which happens to be Dairyland.  Dairyland sends on March 8, 2010 a full release to the injured people of all of their Michigan no-fault insurance claims – including the right to future no-fault insurance benefits. This is a legal contract that extinguishes all future rights and claims. And it was sent seven days after the car accident! People usually don’t even get an application for benefits within seven days of contacting their own insurance companies.  But a legal release?  A legal release is almost always sent at the end of a case, after a lawsuit has been filed.

As a personal injury lawyer, I’ve helped hundreds of people injured in automobile accidents; the other 17 lawyers at Michigan Auto Law have probably helped thousands. Never have we seen a release being sent within days of an accident.  It is, as I said, probably 99 percent of the time, sent after a contested lawsuit has been resolved, either through settlement or verdict.

What did the Dairyland Insurance company customers do once they received the release? You guessed it. They signed, potentially extinguishing their ability to receive all future no-fault insurance benefits.

Take a look at the releases from Dairyland.

Dairyland deserves a place smack dab at the top of my Insurance Company Hall of Shame. What responsible auto insurance company would even think about sending to their own insureds a release of all legal rights  – past, present, and future – seven days after a car accident?

I’ve told this group to promptly file a complaint with the Michigan Insurance Commissioner.  I intend to send a letter as well to hopefully quash this type of insurance abuse as well.

A recipe for disaster

In a sense, what Dairyland did isn’t surprising. It is the logical extension of an insurance company taking advantage of the legal state in Michigan, a state without bad faith laws, punitive damages, or a consumer protection act to protect Michigan residents.  If ever there was an episode that screams out to why Michigan residents need better protection from auto insurance companies, it is this.  Already, Michigan insurance companies lead the nation in profitability, and Michigan is one of the few states without an insurance commissioner who can regulate how much profit these insurance companies can make, even though its residents are required by law to purchase no-fault insurance.

There is so much wrong here with what Dairyland Insurance company did, that it’s difficult to know where to begin. But I’ll take a stab: This is the most predatory, dirty thing I have ever seen an insurance company pull on its own customers.

If these Dairyland insurance customers now need wage loss, or medical treatment or an expensive surgery, arguably, this release completely absolves Dairyland of any responsibility to provide the benefits that by Michigan law, it must provide.

– Steven M. Gursten is recognized as one of the nation’s top experts in serious car and truck accident injury cases and automobile insurance no-fault litigation. Michigan Auto Law has received the largest reported jury verdict for an automobile accident case in Michigan in seven of the past 10 years, including 2009, according to published year-end verdicts and settlements reports.

Related information:

Time Limits for Filing Car Accident Claims

No-Fault Challenges for Insurance Lawyers

Dealing with Auto Insurance Companies

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state. We have offices in Southfield, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Sterling Heights to better serve you. Call (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation with an auto accident attorney. We can help.

Tragic bus accident result shows why Michigan law must change

Talk about putting form over substance. That’s exactly what happened after a SMART bus accident caused serious injuries to a completely innocent woman. SMART bus relied upon putting form over substance to allow it to escape responsibility for serious, debilitating personal injuries it caused one of its most vulnerable wheelchair-bound passengers.

In Eugene Rose v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation [SMART bus], et al., SMART bus got Eugene Rose’s lawsuit thrown out of court by insisting it didn’t have proper “notice” of the injuries Ms. Rose suffered in a Detroit accident involving one of its buses – even though SMART bus knew about both the bus accident and the serious nature of Ms. Rose’s injuries.

You see, Michigan residents are actually punished if they don’t run to a lawyer right away after if they’ve been injured in a bus accident. And they are punished in the most drastic way – they lose any right to sue for their injuries, no matter how serious or catastrophic those injuries may be.

This is all because of a tiny loophole that requires strict notice be provided by accident victims within 60 days. No exceptions. No room for common sense. No regard for public policy or reaching a just result. And no case better illustrates this than what happened to Eugene Rose after her bus accident.

On April 23, 2006, Ms. Rose, who was in a three-wheel, motorized wheelchair, rode as a passenger on a SMART bus. When the bus took a sharp turn, it caused Mrs. Rose’s unsecured wheelchair to tip over, throwing her to the floor. She suffered very serious injuries that were obvious at the scene.  In fact, she was rushed to the hospital by ambulance, having suffered a fractured hip and left femur.

SMART certainly knew instantly all about Ms. Rose and her injuries. It was a SMART bus that caused the accident, and the bus was being driven by a SMART bus employee.  Reports had to be filled out. In fact, SMART bus received incident reports, as well as a police report, presumably, from both its own bus driver and from the property owner on whose property the accident occurred.

Nevertheless, to avoid responsibility for the serious injuries it inflicted, SMART bus complained that Ms. Rose shouldn’t be able to sue because she hadn’t personally told SMART bus about her bus-accident-related injuries within 60 days of the accident.

60 Days?

Never mind that SMART bus had already been told what happened by its own driver and by a property owner.

Sounds ludicrous, right?

But what’s even more ludicrous is it was enough to get SMART bus off the hook. SMART escaped all responsibility for causing Ms. Roses’ injuries because she had not personally given SMART notice within 60 days.

Sadly, four Michigan judges bought into SMART bus’s argument. Wayne County Circuit Court Judge John A. Murphy relied on it to grant SMART bus’s motion to dismiss, and Michigan Court of Appeals Judges Deborah A. Servitto, Richard A. Bandstra, and Karen M. Fort Hood affirmed Murphy’s decision to throw Ms. Rose’s personal injury lawsuit out.

It actually isn’t their fault.  Judges are duty bound to follow the law.  The fault lies with our Michigan law. It’s very, very dumb. SMART took advantage of a very dumb law, with a public policy that could not be worse for Michigan residents and for all people who ride buses or depend upon public transportation.

All of the judges agreed with SMART bus’s “form over substance” contention that the “notice” law for transportation authorities — which protects negligent bus operators like SMART bus at the expense of innocent, powerless, legally-untrained passengers like Ms. Rose — applied in this case to compel the dismissal of Ms. Rose’s lawsuit.

The law, MCL 124.419, says that any public transportation authority must have “written notice of any claim based upon injury to persons or property shall be served upon the [transportational] authority no later than 60 days from the occurrence through which such injury is sustained …”

That was enough for the judges.  And that was it for Ms. Rose. “That SMART was provided an incident report by its own employee, and by the shopping center where the injury occurred does not suffice to meet [the statutory notice] requirement,” the Court of Appeals judges said.

Consequently, SMART bus will not be held accountable for the injuries its negligence caused Ms. Rose to suffer. And, to me, that’s just plain dumb.

– Steven M. Gursten is recognized as one of the nation’s top experts in serious car and truck accident injury cases and automobile insurance no-fault litigation. Michigan Auto Law has received the largest reported jury verdict for an automobile accident case in Michigan in seven of the past 10 years, including 2009, according to published year-end verdicts and settlements reports.

– Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by Jason McHuff

Related information:

Michigan Truck Accident Resource Center

Attendant Care Benefits Lawyer Video

Michigan Truck Accident Facts and Causes

How Does a Detroit Bus Driver Cause 20 Car Accidents But Have a Perfect Driving Record?

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the state. Call (800) 777-0028 if you’ve been injured in an auto accident, and would like to speak to a lawyer.

Bill 5744 would change ‘open and obvious’ defense to better protect Michigan residents

How bad is Michigan’s “open and obvious” premises liability law?  So bad that in one fell swoop in 2002, it wiped out over 65 years of human factors science. Our “open and obvious” law essentially wipes out slip and fall cases. The Michigan Supreme Court declared that no typical person could ever blame the premises owner for falling in a pothole or on a sidewalk, if he or she were able to see the hazard.

When I moderated and spoke at a premises liability seminar for Michigan personal injury lawyers on “open and obvious,” I pointed out that the entire assumption behind our current law has been proven false. Yet this outdated law still stands, wiping out hundreds of legitimate cases of severely injured state residents every year.

Worse yet, the public policy behind the “open and obvious” law could not be worse in Michigan. We actually reward property owners to create more dangerous conditions for people by letting these dangerous conditions, if they become “open and obvious” enough, become a complete bar to liability.

Finally, we may be able to change this ridiculous law. The Michigan House Judiciary Committee heard testimony recently on  a bill that would alter the premises liability “open and obvious” defense into a question of comparative negligence. The committee will vote in a future session.

The bill, HB 5744 would add a section to the comparative negligence statute found under MCL 600.2959 of the Revised Judicature Act, to state “whether a condition is open and obvious may be considered by the trier of fact only in assessing the degree of comparative fault, if any, and shall not be considered with respect to any other issue of law or fact, including duty.”

The open and obvious doctrine first appeared 18 years ago in the Supreme Court case of Riddle v. McLouth Steel, a 1992 case that held that a property owner owes no duty to a person who already knew of a hazard.

Okay, that makes some sense, but the definition was then widely expanded in 2002 to become the basis for our current premises liability mess in Michigan.  In Lugo v. Ameritech, the Michigan Supreme Court held that not only did the owner not have a duty to warn of an “open and obvious hazard,” but an owner also has no duty to repair a hazard either. Read here for a list of 38 judicial travesties of the Michigan Supreme Court.

The bill’s supporters, including Representative Kandrevas, say that the intent of HB 5744 is to return Michigan’s personal injury premises liability law back to the Riddle standard.

Why HB 5744 Should Become Law

As I said, the current public policy behind our premises liability law in Michigan could not be worse.  The Lugo decision created a disincentive for property owners to keep their premises safe. And it actually creates a perverse incentive for property owners to make their property more unsafe – more dangerous – because the more dangerous and hazardous a condition can be shown to be, the more likely that property owner cannot be sued.

Alice in Wonderland anyone? It’s actually in a property owner’s best interest to leave a property as dangerous as possible rather than repair it. Unfortunately, that is not what is best for Michigan residents.

I applaud Democratic attorney general candidate Richard H. Bernstein, who testified to the Committee and said that the current doctrine is, in reality, also a disability rights issue. This is because Lugo created an objective standard that doesn’t take into account the condition of the plaintiff, thus making it a question of law for a judge to decide.

Bernstein, who is legally blind, pointed to Sidorowicz v. Chicken Shack, where the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a blind man who slipped and fell in a handicapped bathroom because of standing water was barred from recovery because a “normal” plaintiff would have seen the hazard.

This is an insane law we have in Michigan. A blind person was barred from bringing a lawsuit for his injuries because it was argued that a person with sight would have seen and avoided the danger – but what about the fact that the danger existed for all of us, in a place the public is encouraged and invited to use?

The real problem with our law goes beyond people with disabilities. The fact that our law punishes, actually punishes people with disabilities means that it also fails to protect other members of our society such as seniors citizens and young children. And as the study of human factors science has now proven, people cannot always pay 100 percent attention in real life.

Looking for cars in a parking lot means sometimes you don’t see the pothole by the store entrance.  Looking at displayed merchandise on store shelves, something by the way that store owners spend thousands of dollars hiring experts in human factors science to do, means sometimes you don’t see the grape on the floor.  Divided attention is a part of our world, and property owners should be making premises as safe as reasonably possible to protect people when this happens, as they sure as sure can be, know it will.

By the Way…

As I said, I applaud Richard Bernstein.  I also think he would make a fantastic Attorney General for Michigan and strongly support him.

And while we are on the topic, shame on the Michigan Chamber of Commerce for opposing this bill without stating why. The Chamber is potentially an invaluable tool for improving Michigan today. But somewhere along the way, it became politically knee-jerk in opposing all efforts to improve civil justice, no matter how reasonable, because someone  apparently decided protecting Michigan residents must be bad for businesses.  I would argue quite the opposite, but that is another thought for another day.

– Steven M. Gursten is recognized as one of the nation’s top experts in serious car and truck accident injury cases and automobile insurance no-fault litigation. Michigan Auto Law has received the largest reported jury verdict for an automobile accident case in Michigan in seven of the past 10 years, including 2009, according to published year-end verdicts and settlements reports.

– Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by puliarf

Related information:

Michigan No-Fault Law

Help for Michigan Lawyers Handling Car Accident Cases

Help for Michigan Attorneys Handling Truck Accident Cases

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the state. Call (800) 777-0028 if you’ve been injured in an auto accident, and would like to speak to a lawyer.

Rule of the Road No. 9: Truck accident lawyer says get medically impaired truck drivers off our roads

There are close to 600,000 commercial truck drivers with dangerous medical conditions — and who qualify for full federal disability payments — driving tractor-trailers on the roads today, according to a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office study. This means 600,000 truckers on our roads with epilepsy, heart disease and various other illnesses and injuries that can greatly impair their ability to operate an 80,000-pound commercial truck. These truck drivers share our highways and put our families in danger of completely preventable and sometimes catastrophic truck accidents.

Already, more than 5,000 Americans are killed every year in truck accidents, and getting truckers with medical conditions so dangerous that they’re already considered impaired by the federal government off of our roads is an important – and common sense – first step.

Michigan is among the top 12 states sanctioned for breaking medical safety rules for truck drivers, such as failing to require truckers to carry a valid medical certificate, said a review by the Associated Press of 7.3 million commercial driver violations compiled by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

These statistics are alarming. They show that many trucking companies are turning a blind eye to federal regulations that require truckers to be in good physical condition when driving.

Truck Accident Lawyers Must Know Basic Physical Requirements for Truckers

Lawyers handling truck accidents must know the basic physical requirements a trucker must meet to drive a truck. These can be found at 49 CFR § 391.41. In short: truck drivers are required to not have any impairments of the foot, leg, hand, arm, or finger, and they cannot be suffering from epilepsy, psychiatric conditions, or high blood pressure that could potentially interfere with operation of a commercial motor vehicle, insulin dependent diabetes, or specific cardiovascular or respiratory conditions.

Drivers must also have binocular vision corrected to at least 20/40, with 70 degree horizontal field of vision, ability to recognize colors of traffic signals, and ability to hear a forced whisper at five feet. Furthermore, commercial truck drivers may not use medications without a physician being aware of their duties and advising that the medication would not adversely affect their ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle.

In 2008, I handled the the tragic case of a young husband and father who was killed at the hands of a grossly negligent truck driver who was on epilepsy medication. In Nunez v. Utica Transit Mix, the epileptic trucker was speeding in his fully-loading gravel hauler that was out of service in five different ways when he killed my client. This trucker should have never been on the road in the first place. This trucker and his employer clearly ignored 49 CFR § 391.41 – and dozens of other safety laws.

Take Advantage of Requirements of DOT Compliant Medical Exam

When lawyers begin delving further into § 391, they’ll find that subparts 43-47 all specify the requirements for a Department of Transportation (DOT) compliant medical examination. If the medical examiner feels that the truck driver is physically able to operate a commercial motor vehicle, the medical examiner may approve the driver’s certification status for a period of three months, six months, one year, or any other sufficient period capped at two years.

Note this important official interpretation found under §391.45 which reads:

Must a driver who is returning from an illness or injury undergo a medical examination even if his current medical certificate has not expired?

Guidance: The FMCSRs do not require an examination in this case unless the injury or illness has impaired the driver’s ability to perform his normal duties. However, the motor carrier may require a driver returning from any illness or injury to take a physical examination. But, in either case, the motor carrier has the obligation to determine if an injury or illness renders the driver medically unqualified.

Trucking Company Must Determine if the Trucker is Fit to Drive

This interpretation puts the onus on the trucking company to determine if its drivers are medically qualified to drive a truck.  It is no longer an excuse to say “I didn’t know” or “the medical examiner said he was OK six months before.”

Let’s use an example to better understand how this works:

Driver John Doe underwent a physical examination on January 2, 2008, and was certified to operate a commercial truck by a physician for one year. In June of 2008, John caves in to his wife’s requests and takes the weekend off to paint the exterior of his home, including the second story. As John begins to paint the second floor, he falls off the top of his ladder, which is positioned 15 feet above the ground. John lands awkwardly in the accident and badly injures his right ankle. The pain is tremendous, so John visits his family doctor who then prescribes John with a highly potent pain medication, with side effects including fatigue, drowsiness and nausea. The next day, John reports to dispatch as usual and is assigned a load covering over 1,500 miles — all while under the influence of his prescribed pain medication. He briefly mentions to his dispatcher that he fell off a ladder this weekend while painting, the dispatcher replies “you’re fine though right? Ok, good, off you go!” John Doe goes on the road and falls asleep while driving four hours into his trip, causing a fatal truck accident that kills someone.

Under the current interpretation. John was not required to undergo another physical before driving. His employer had the obligation to require him to perform another examination, but only if the employer determined that he was medically unqualified. So essentially, within the time that John is in the office to get dispatched, someone within the company is obligated to make a determination of a driver’s medical qualification.

In other words, any doubt or uncertainty as to whether someone can drive or not must be resolved by the trucking company before putting a driver behind the wheel. It is a rule that myself, and many other experienced truck litigation attorneys call the “better safe than sorry” rule.

–    Steven M. Gursten is a partner of Michigan Auto Law. He is past president of the American Association for Justice Truck Litigation Group, and has received the top reported trial verdict in Michigan for truck accidents. Last year, Steve was named a Michigan Lawyers Weekly Leader in the Law for his efforts in promoting truck safety in Michigan.

– Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by trekkyandy

Related information:

Finding the Dirt on Unsafe Truck Companies

Michigan Bus Accidents

Support for Truck Drivers

Previous blogs from “Rules of the Road Every Truck Accident Lawyer Needs to Know” series:

Rules of the Road: Intro for Truck Lawyers

Truck Driver Fatigue

Truck Lawyers: Get Your Hands on Those Discovery Documents!

Investigate the Trucker’s Background and History

Truck Driver Qualification Files

What Truck Accident Lawyers Must Know About Black Boxes

How to Nab the Tired Trucker

Why is the Pre-trip Inspection the Most Violated Safety Rule?

Why Weather is Never an Excuse

How Trucking Companies Dodge Federal Safety Laws

Michigan Auto Law exclusively handles car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state of Michigan. We have offices in Southfield, Sterling Heights, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Detroit to better serve you. Call (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation from one of our expert attorneys

Rule of the Road No. 9 – How Trucking Companies Aid and Abet Bad Drivers in Breaking Laws

One of the most important federal safety regulations that many truck accident attorneys have never heard of is Rule 49 CFR § 390.13, which states that no person shall aid, abet, encourage, or require a motor carrier or its employees to violate the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

Today, I want to take a look at how some bad operators routinely disregard truck safety regulations, putting profits above the safety of  families on our roads. This also punishes the good trucking companies that try to do the right thing because they’re now at a competitive disadvantage. It becomes a vicious cycle, as good companies continue to get squeezed by bad operators that sacrifice safety. In some cities, like Detroit , “gypsy” trucking companies, many of them driving “bare” without any insurance (let alone safety and maintenance programs), continually undercut some very good local trucking companies who are trying to play by the rules.

Why does this happen?

The commercial transportation industry is competitive. In today’s environment, even more so. Trucking carriers are constantly looking to expedite deliveries at the lowest price possible and pay truck drivers the least amount to do so. Using this business model, truck companies typically pay their drivers by the mile and do not compensate them for “on-duty”  time spent on inspections, required rest times, or time out-of-service due to safety and maintenance concerns.  Inevitably, the hours of service regulations and the vehicle inspection requirements get ignored entirely in favor of maximizing driving time.

This philosophy helps carriers seeking to accomplish the shortest delivery times possible – safety be damned. Good truckers, those who have driven hundreds of thousands of miles, also get punished in favor of cheaper drivers, many of whom hop from state to state because of the points and accidents on their driving records. We call these truckers “grasshoppers.”

This little gem of a regulation, Rule 49 CFR § 390.13, brings out the real “finger-pointing” of any trucking case, especially with terminated employees. For example, the industry is full of “grasshoppers.” If they get fired, as many of them will for too many accidents, or for failing drug and alcohol testing; the terminated drivers are more likely to explain what really happens at these companies. They will explain how many of the truck companies put pressure on drivers to drive over hours, and how they often routinely fail to abide by safety regulations or have no real safety programs to begin with.

I’ve found that quite often, a negligent trucker will acknowledge that he was driving well past his 11-hour  limit on a particular day, because “he was on a hot load” that had to get delivered to a customer by a deadline. At this point, the driver will blame the dispatcher, the transportation manager, or even the president of the company (which I’ve found at times all to be the same person), who pressured him to make a delivery that could not possibly be accomplished without breaking the law.

One word about truck drivers. I genuinely like many truckers I meet.  And many feel genuine outrage and anger at employers that put pressure on them – sometimes outright threats – to break safety laws so they can make more money. Talk to these drivers – even when a defense lawyer says they want to admit negligence on a truck accident case.  It is often amazing what they will say to you if you just ask them.  And treat them in a polite and respectful manner. Often it is the trucking company, not the driver, who is really to blame as these drivers are put in impossible situations.

Remember, thou shalt not aid nor abet! With this rule, truck accident attorneys knowingly have another party to hold accountable – the truck company itself that puts pressure on its own drivers to break the law.

My series on “Rules of the Road” for truck accident attorneys from my recent truck litigation seminar in New Orleans will continue Thursday.

–    Steven M. Gursten is a partner of Michigan Auto Law. He has received the top reported trial verdict in Michigan for truck accidents and is past president of the American Association for Justice Truck Litigation Group.  Last year, he was named a Michigan Lawyers Weekly Leader in the Law for his efforts in promoting truck safety in Michigan.

– Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by williamcho

Related information:

Bad Trucking Companies in Michigan

8 Important Things to Know About Truck Accident Cases

Find a Lawyer for Your Truck Accident Case

Previous blogs from “Rules of the Road Every Truck Accident Lawyer Needs to Know” series:

Rules of the Road: Intro for Truck Lawyers

Truck Driver Fatigue

Truck Lawyers: Get Your Hands on Those Discovery Documents!

Investigate the Trucker’s Background and History

Truck Driver Qualification Files

What Truck Accident Lawyers Must Know About Black Boxes

How to Nab the Tired Trucker

Why is the Pre-trip Inspection the Most Violated Safety Rule?

Why Weather is Never an Excuse

Michigan Auto Law exclusively handles car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state of Michigan. We have offices in Southfield, Sterling Heights, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Detroit to better serve you. Call (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation from one of our expert attorneys.

I probably should have expected this, knowing how passionate so many motorcycle riders are about the helmet law in Michigan. After all, I even had old clients – people who had suffered very serious injuries from motorcycle accidents and who I’ve developed close relationships with – tell me they still supported HB 4747; even after their crashes, personal injuries and lawsuits. So the e-mails and comments from so many in favor of repealing Michigan’s helmet laws should have come as no surprise to me as a motorcycle accident lawyer.

I welcome your comments (some a bit more colorful than others).  But these comments are, in my opinion, off the mark.  I still encourage the Michigan Legislature to vote to keep Michigan’s required use of helmets. The House of Representatives passed HB 4747 on Thursday, which repeals the motorcycle helmet law. Check out the roll call, so you can see how various House members voted. The Michigan Senate is expected to take action on the bill later this spring.

This is why I believe the Michigan Senate should kill HB 4747 and keep Michigan motorcyclists in helmets:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that motorcycle helmets saved 1,784 lives in 2007, and that 800 more lives could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets. In other words, there would be 800 more people alive today if they had worn helmets.

As more people ride motorcycles, the number of people who are killed every year in preventable crashes will only grow.  For example, in 2008, 127 motorcyclists were killed in Michigan and another 3,462 suffered serious injury in motorcycle crashes.  The number of motorcycle crashes rose from 3,723 in 2007 to 3,969 in 2008.

Look people, it’s OK to have strong feelings on this issue.  I understand many bikers don’t like me telling my clients to contact their representatives and how they should vote. You can send me all the e-mails you want and you don’t need to hire me as your lawyer if you get hurt riding your bike one day.

But the truth is, many of you will get hurt riding your motorcycles – even if you are the best rider in the world. That is a statistical fact.  And when you do get in that accident riding your motorcycle, the odds are you will be seriously injured. It may be your fault. It may not be your fault. It could be the car who doesn’t see you, or the gaping hole in the street, or a dozen other reasons why you get hurt. They may all be beyond your control, causing you to get injured in an accident one day.

Did you know that Michigan motorcycle riders pay only 1.9 percent into the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association Fund, but the same injured motorcycle riders have claims that make more than 7 percent of the fund on average?  That’s staggering – and it says something about what happens when you get hurt riding a motorcycle.

If helmets are proven to save saves and reduce the likelihood of getting seriously hurt, then you should wear one.  Period.

Finally, for those who keep saying “don’t tell me what the hell to do” or “how I ride my bike is my business,” I’d say: “Fine, but then don’t tell me or the rest of society to pay for your dumb medical bills – especially when you spend three months in a hospital and have hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills and you are now looking for others to pick up the staggering tab.  I am so glad you were able to “express yourself” as you spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair or drinking out of a straw.”

Yes, I do have strong feelings on this topic. These feelings have come from years of working with traumatic brain injury survivors, and people who have spent years trying to recover from catastrophic injuries on motorcycles.  Like I said, no one says you shouldn’t ride a bike, and I want to remind my readers that I am very much pro-biker rights on most issues, and count many previous clients as friends.

But helmets save lives.  Helmets reduce the likelihood of serious, life-altering traumatic brain injury.  And that means you should wear one.

I don’t need the extra business.

– Steven M. Gursten heads Michigan Auto Law. He is recognized as one of the nation’s top experts in serious motorcycle accident injury cases and insurance no-fault litigation. He is available for comment on motorcycle accident law in Michigan, motorcycle crashes and catastrophic personal injury cases.

– Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by FaceMePLS

Related information:

What Insurance is Required for Motorcyclists?

Michigan Motorcycle Accident FAQs

Motorcycle Accident Types

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state. We have offices in Southfield, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Sterling Heights.

House of Representatives passed HB 4747 allowing bikers to ride without helmets – despite warning from experienced motorcycle accident attorneys

The Michigan House of Representatives last night passed HB 4747, which would allow motorcyclists to ride without protective helmets.  As a motorcycle accident attorney for the past 16 years, I feel adamantly that this is a terrible idea.

Although I am close with many bikers who believe the helmet debate is about individual rights and liberty, I have a different perspective. The truth is, most motorcycle accident victims that I’ve helped have suffered very serious, sometimes catastrophic injuries. And most of these motorcycle accidents result in traumatic brain injuries.

Currently, the Michigan helmet law requires all people riding a motorcycle, and anyone less than 19 years old operating a moped, to wear a crash helmet. The Michigan Department of State Police has been given the legislative responsibility to approve crash helmets and to implement this law.

The vote was 63 to 46. Check out the roll call so you can see how your House members voted. The Senate is expected to take action on the bill later this spring. I hope the Senate will use common sense when voting on this proposed legislation. Motorcycle helmets are proven to reduce the likelihood of serious traumatic brain injury and other devastating head injuries.

I hope the Senate will vote no on this proposed legislation.

–    Steven M. Gursten heads Michigan Auto Law. He is recognized as one of the nation’s top experts in serious motorcycle accident injury cases and insurance no-fault litigation. He is available for comment on motorcycle accident law in Michigan, motorcycle crashes and catastrophic personal injury cases.

– Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by Greenkozi

Related information:

Motorcycle Accident Statute of Limitations: Michigan

15 Motorcycle Driving Tips

Motorcycle Accidents from Roadway Defects

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state. We have offices in Southfield, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Sterling Heights. For more information, please read our law firm quick facts.

Why experienced motorcycle accident lawyers urge representatives to vote no on a bill that would allow bikers to go without helmets

Today, the Michigan Legislature takes up House Bill 4747. Basically, the bill lets motorcyclists legally ride without a helmet. As a lawyer helping motorcyclists who’ve suffered serious personal injuries for the past 16 years, I believe HB4747 is a terrible idea.

Currently, Michigan law requires all people riding a motorcycle, and anyone less than 19 years old operating a moped on a public thoroughfare, to wear a crash helmet. The Michigan Department of State Police has been given the legislative responsibility to approve crash helmets and to implement this law. Here, you can read more about the current Michigan helmet law.

I have many friends, including former clients, who ride motorcycles and feel strongly about the helmet debate. Many completely disagree with me and believe this is about individual rights and liberty. But the truth is, most motorcycle accident victims that I’ve helped have suffered very serious, sometimes catastrophic injuries. And most have suffered traumatic brain injuries.

Here are the facts that many who support HB 4747 might not be aware of:
* Every year, 1.4 million Americans suffer a traumatic brain injury.
* Of them, 50,000 die from their injuries, 235,000 are hospitalized, and 1.1 million are treated and released.
* Nearly 5.3 million Americans currently require daily living assistance as a result of traumatic brain injury.

TBI has a devastating impact on everyone – victims and their families. Since many riders do not have No-fault insurance because it’s too expensive for motorcycles, going without a helmet is not just a freedom issue. Personal freedom ends when society is asked to pick up the bill for thousands of dollars on medical treatment for uninsured, catastrophically injured motorcyclists – because they decided they didn’t want to wear a helmet.

This is a safety issue. And it’s a public policy issue.

Motorcycle helmets are proven to reduce the likelihood of serious traumatic brain injury and other devastating head injuries. I recognize that no one believes a terrible accident will happen to them, but sadly, statistics prove otherwise.

In the last few days, I’ve had several clients and friends call and ask me what I think of HB 4747, and I have also told them it’s a terrible idea. It is a factual statement that no other law firm in Michigan has helped as many injured motorcyclists as Michigan Auto Law. I think that gives our lawyers a unique perspective that is sometimes completely missing from the debate.

Please e-mail your representative and ask him or her to VOTE NO on HB 4747.

If you have questions or wish to speak to a motorcycle accident lawyer about your circumstances, please call Michigan Auto Law for a free case evaluation at (800) 777-0028.

–    Steven M. Gursten heads Michigan Auto Law. He is recognized as one of the nation’s top experts in serious motorcycle accident injury cases and insurance no-fault litigation. He is available for comment on motorcycle accident law in Michigan, motorcycle crashes and catastrophic personal injury cases.

– Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by purplbutrfly

Related information:

What Insurance is Required for Michigan Motorcyclists?

Motorcycle Accident FAQs

What to Do After a Motorcycle Crash

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state. We have offices in Southfield, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Sterling Heights. For more information, please read our law firm quick facts.

Both lawyers Brian Bornstein and my friend from Texas, Steve Laird, recently commented on my observations about the critical connection between traumatic brain injury and chronic pain in The Jury Expert. It is a connection that most personal injury lawyers miss.

The Jury Expert is an online litigation advocacy publication. The article that started the discussion is Injured Body, Injured Mind: Dealing with Damages for Psychological Harm. It addressed the double standard with respect to the law’s treatment of physical versus psychological injury. I had originally commented that there’s not only a double standard between physical and psychological injury, but in most serious personal injury cases, that line becomes blurred. Science has now shown that injury to the mind affects the body, and likewise, injury to the body affects the mind.

In fact, most of the new science on chronic pain shows that exposure to long-term (chronic) pain can actually cause a re-wiring of the brain itself, as chemical and organic changes literally change people’s brains due to the continued exposure of pain.  That is why many personal injury lawyers make a fatal mistake when helping victims  of very serious physical injury cases: They continue to pigeon-hole these cases as “just” physical, and do not understand the interplay between the physical and psychological and more importantly; how the physical injury can actually cause damage to the brain over time.

As a lawyer specializing in car accidents, I have seen many clients struggle with the  life-altering psychological effects of traumatic brain injuries, including many chronic pain patients. Many defense attorneys and insurance companies simply dismiss TBI and defend these cases in a derisive and disrespectful way, causing even more harm.  I commend The Jury Expert for addressing this important issue head-on.

I regularly blog about TBI, and I have a written a special section in my website to help lawyers help brain injury victims after car and truck accidents.  I want these lawyers to be aware of some of the special challenges that traumatic brain injury cases face in Michigan, considering our laws on objective manifestation and the closed-head injury exception to our serious impairment threshold in auto accident cases.  My train of thought is that if plaintiff’s lawyers as a whole can improve and get better results for brain injury victims, than insurance companies will not treat brain injury victims so badly.

Perhaps one of the very few positive things that I can point to with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that society is becoming more aware of the horrible effects of brain injury. Soldiers with “mild” TBI are coming home and suffering major problems, including homelessness, drug abuse, sky-rocketing divorce and suicide rates. It’s heartbreaking that it has taken such tragedies to raise awareness, but at least Congress is appropriating more money to help victims of traumatic brain injury deal with these losses. Perhaps society might now recoil in disgust, as they should, when insurance defense lawyers treat injured TBI victims so badly in court, dismissing these “invisible injuries” as phoney and telling TBI victims to “get over it.”

Here are the comments this article received:

My friend Steve Laird wrote: Mar-25-2009
This article is an excellent reminder to lawyers representing clients with emotional injuries that we need to take extra steps how we relate those injuries to the jury. Even lawyers sometime fall into accepting the double standard mentioned when damages are investigated, prepared or presented. The suggestion to emphasize the physical effects cannot be repeated often enough. Good work on an important bias existing in society and our legal system.

I wrote: March-25-2009
The authors make an excellent point about the interconnectedness of the mind/body connection. However, I would add that there is also a great deal of research that they did not comment upon that is critical for plaintiff personal injury attorneys to adequately represent their clients: That chronic pain actually causes structural and chemical changes in the brain that can continue to sent pain signals long after the physical injury has resolved. Critical for good lawyers to get past the disparate treatment of mental and physical injuries – and the jury instructions that treat these personal injuries as separate in, for example, jury instructions in an automobile negligence case!

Brian Bornstein wrote: Mar-25-2009
Gursten is absolutely right, chronic pain is another condition where the physical and psychological elements feed on each other and are very hard to separate. Phantom limb pain would be another good example. Once you start to think about it, the list is virtually endless.

If you have been in an auto accident and suspect you have TBI, you can call Michigan Auto Law and speak with an attorney at any time, at (800) 777-0028. We understand the emotional and physical trauma brain injury victims experience, and we are here to help you get through it.

–    Steven M. Gursten Steve received a trial verdict of $5.65 million for a TBI victim in 2008; the largest reported auto negligence verdict in Michigan for the year.  He speaks and lectures widely on traumatic brain injury, including at last year’s MAJ Traumatic Brain Injury Seminar and the No Fault Institute.  He is a member of the AAJ Traumatic Brain Injury Litigation Group and several foundations devoted to helping brain injury victims, including the Brain Injury Association and the Sara Jane Foundation.

–   Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by otisarchives4

Related information:

What is Traumatic Brain Injury?

Steps TBI Victims Must Take Following an Accident

Defense Traps in TBI Cases

Michigan Auto Law exclusively handles car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state of Michigan. We have offices in Southfield, Sterling Heights, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Detroit to better serve you.

Rule of the Road No. 8 – Truck Accidents Under Hazardous Driving Conditions

Weather is almost never a valid excuse for causing a truck accident.  I’ve taught at several trucking seminars and case workshops for lawyers around the country, and I’m always surprised by the number of lawyers bringing truck accident cases that occurred in bad weather; and how worried they are about a “sudden emergency” argument from the defense at trial.

Let’s nip this misconception in the bud right now.

Truck accident lawyers should rely on 49 CFR § 392.14. Under this important federal regulation, the law requires “extreme caution” in the operation of a commercial motor vehicle when “hazardous conditions” such as those caused by snow, ice, sleet, fog, mist, rain, dust or smoke, can adversely affect visibility or traction. Under this regulation, speed “shall” be reduced when such conditions exist. If the conditions become “sufficiently dangerous,” the truck driver is required to stop operating the truck and wait until weather conditions improve.

It is also important to note that many states actually go one step further. For example, Michigan has Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) guidelines that require truck drivers to  reduce the speed of the truck by  two-thirds of the posted speed limit on hazardous roads. I’ve downloaded a lot of black boxes after serious truck accidents. I see trucks going over the posted speed limit, or going the posted speed limit in terrible weather conditions. I have yet to see a truck that was going two-thirds or less than the posted speed limit.

The takeaway is simple: Weather will almost never be an excuse for causing a serious truck accident.  Unless you are talking about a truly unforeseen, “act of God,” with no warning whatsoever – it came from the heavens-type of weather pattern – all of these serious truck accidents could have been prevented.

And bad driving judgment in terrible weather usually goes hand-in-hand with hours of service violations and driver fatigue.

Michigan Weather and Truck Accidents: Back to Basics

The Michigan Basic Speed Law requires a truck driver to travel at a “careful and prudent” speed in all driving conditions.  This translates into driving at a speed that allows one to stop within the clear distance ahead before crashing into another vehicle on the road. Depending on the weather conditions, speed may therefore be lower than that posted by a speed limit.

Here are some additional tips for truck drivers on avoiding accidents when there’s inclement weather. You can also take a look at this list of special Michigan driving conditions.

Yes, Michigan weather can cause treacherous road conditions. But weather should not play a role in causing truck accidents in Michigan if the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation and state CDL manual is followed.

My series on “Rules of the Road” for truck accident lawyers from my recent truck litigation seminar in New Orleans will continue Thursday. Tomorrow, I want to discuss a great ongoing dialog I’ve been having with several other lawyers and medical professionals on the critical connection between traumatic brain injury and chronic pain.

–    Steven M. Gursten is recognized as one of the nation’s top experts in serious truck accident injury cases. He serves on the board of governors for the Association of Plaintiffs Interstate Trucking Lawyers of America.  Steve is past-president of the American Association for Justice Truck Litigation Group. Recently, he was named a Michigan Lawyers Weekly Leader in the Law for his efforts to promote truck safety.

– Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by OregonDOT

Related information:

Issues that May Require Experts in Truck Accident Cases

Truck Industry Myths

Find a Lawyer for Your Truck Accident Case

Michigan Truck Accident Attorney Videos

Previous blogs from “Rules of the Road Every Truck Accident Lawyer Needs to Know” series:

Rules of the Road: Intro for Truck Lawyers

Truck Driver Fatigue

Truck Lawyers: Get Your Hands on Those Discovery Documents!

Investigate the Trucker’s Background and History

Truck Driver Qualification Files

What Truck Accident Lawyers Must Know About Black Boxes

How to Nab the Tired Trucker

Why is the Pre-trip Inspection the Most Violated Safety Rule?

Michigan Auto Law exclusively handles car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state of Michigan. We have offices in Southfield, Sterling Heights, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Detroit to better serve you. Call (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation from one of our expert attorneys.