Truck Accidents

Motorcycle v. Truck: $323,000.00

03.27.13

Plaintiff, a 50 year old garage supervisor for a wholesaler, was driving his motorcycle, when defendant truck made a left turn in front of Plaintiff’s motorcycle and the two collided in a broadside collision. Plaintiff contended that the collision and his injuries were the result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by Defendant, and that Defendant was just beginning his left turn and was obstructing Plaintiff’s right of way. Defendant contended that he was completing his turn when Plaintiff negligently struck him. Plaintiff suffered a fractured right ankle requiring an open reduction internal fixation.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

Auto v. Truck: $250,000.00 (Arbitration Award)

03.27.13

Plaintiff, a 32 year old title assistant/administrative secretary, was driving a Nissan Sentra on a major California highway when the left rear tire of her vehicle was clipped by a double tractor-trailer changing lanes, causing the plaintiff’s vehicle to suddenly cross over several lanes of freeway. The plaintiff’s vehicle subsequently struck the center divider. The plaintiff’s husband was driving a car directly behind defendant trucking company’s tractor-trailer, and witnessed the accident involving his wife. The plaintiffs contended that the truck driver changed lanes into the plaintiff’s vehicle and asserted negligence, respondeat superior, and loss of consortium claims. The defendants contended that the plaintiff saw the defendant’s truck in the process of a lane change and sped up and tried to pass the truck before the lane change was complete. The defendants also contended that the plaintiff’s injuries were exaggerated. The plaintiff suffered a 1-2 mm bulging disc resulting in the need for future surgery.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

Auto v. Truck- $300,000.00

03.27.13

Plaintiff, a three year old boy, was injured while his mother was driving east on the 91 freeway. The vehicle in front of them stopped suddenly and the Defendant rear-ended their vehicle, causing the plaintiff to be ejected from the car seat in which he was riding. Plaintiff contended that defendant was driving too fast for the conditions. Plaintiff argued that there was no comparative liability by the Plaintiff’s mother because the child had been secured in the car seat, and the alleged incorrect positioning of the car seat was not related to the injury. The Defendant argued that the sudden unnecessary stopping of the vehicle in front of the Plaintiff’s was responsible for the multi-vehicle collision. The plaintiff’s car seat was a rear facing infant seat that had been placed in the forward facing position, and Plaintiff exceeded the weight and size specifications. Defendant contended that the child’s weight and the incorrect positioning of the car seat caused the ejection and head injury. The plaintiff claimed a head injury, requiring surgery and residuals of slight hyperactivity consistent with frontal lobe injury.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

Work Site Injury: $535,000.00

03.27.13

Plaintiff worked as machinist when his employer ordered him to assist in loading a large bailer on back of a tractor-trailer truck to be delivered to Defendant waste company. Employer was operating the forklift.  In moving the bailer, Plaintiff was crushed between the bailer and the trailer of the big rig.  Plaintiff sued the employer (who did not have workers compensation insurance), the owner of the truck (who had no insurance), and the waste waste company (who had no insurance).

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

Work Site Injury- Pedestrian v. Truck: $2,200,000.00

01.21.13

Plaintiff was working as a security guard at a trucking yard when a yard truck (yard goat) owned by trucking company struck her in trailer yard. Plaintiff alleged that reconstruction evidence demonstrated that the yard truck driver was speeding and inattentive.  Plaintiff also alleged that truck yard layout contributed to the likelihood of injury. Plaintiff successfully defeated the defense that plaintiff was a “special employee” and therefore were able to get Plaintiff compensation separate from worker’s compensation.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

Pedestrian v. Truck- Fractures and Skin Degloving: $1,000,000.00

12.3.12

Plaintiff, a 63 year old male accountant who worked from his second story home office,  heard the trash truck near the area of his house and went downstairs to throw out shredded documents.  Plaintiff claimed that as he was placing the trash into the side loading trash truck the driver pulled away from the curb causing plaintiff to fall and then be run over by the rear wheels. Defendant contended that plaintiff saw that the trash truck had already picked up the trash in front of his house and that as the truck drove to its next stop plaintiff ran next to the trash truck in an effort to deposit the trash in the side opening. Defendant contended that plaintiff fell on the sloped curb/gutter. Plaintiff suffered a fractured arm, fractured finger in his right hand, and a degloving injury to his right buttocks.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

Auto v.Truck- Amputation of Finger: $950,000.00

09.30.12

Plaintiff lost pinky finger and developed pain syndrome in her right arm due to crushing amputation of pinky finger when a big rig made wide turn and in the process crushed plaintiffs finger between the “A pillar” of her vehicle and the side of the truck.

The results of every case is dependent upon the specific facts of the case and the results will differ if based on different facts.