Articles Posted in Motor Vehicle Cases

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices defines the standards used by road managers and contractors nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all streets and highways. The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 655, Subpart F.  The MUTCD has been adopted as the law in Tennessee; violation of the MUTCD is negligence per se.   Here is a list of the other states that have adopted the MUTCD.

If you have a case that involves an injury or death at a road construction site you will want to consult this manual to determine if the contractors involved followed the minimum standards established by this manual.  The manual also applies to governmental entities and others placing road signs.

Here is the 2003 edition of the  MUTCD with Revisons 1 and 2 Incorporated, effective date December 2007.   Here is the Table of Contents.  This site also has the previous editions of the MUTCD.

Ken Shigley at the Atlanta Injury Law Blog wrote this interesting post where he advises consumers who have suffered a tragic accident what they should do if they are solicited by lawyer.

Ken offers this advice:

If you are solicited about your injury or death case, you may consider doing the following:

It is not uncommon for wrecks involving tractor-trailer rigs to result in serious injury and death.  It is also not uncommon for there to be inadequate insurance coverage or other assets to make whole the victims of the trucker’s negligent acts.

Thus, it is not uncommon for lawyers who represent the victims of the these wrecks to look to the conduct of others to see what role they played in contributing to the wreck.

Here is an article from FDCC Quarterly titled "’But I didn’t do it!" Expanding Theories of Vicarious Liability."  Written by Robert T. Franklin, General Counsel to the Maryland Motor Truck Association, the article discusses court decisions from around the country against freight brokers and shippers.  Those of you who are plaintiffs’ lawyers will not like the tone of the article (it is not particularly complimentary of the plaintiffs’ bar) but there is no reason why you cannot use his research to help you serve your clients.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has reported that automobile accidents for the first 10 months of 2008 are down significantly when compared with the same period in 2007.

Fatalities are down 10% to a total of 31,110 deaths in the first 10 months in the year.  If these numbers hold until the end of the year, total deaths will be under 38,000.

Thirty years ago, in 1979, there were 51,093 deaths on our nation’s highways.  Of course, the number of vehicles on the road and the number of miles driven have increased dramatically during this time?

Do you have a Sec. 1983 lawsuit for injuries to a bystander arising out of a police chase?  Are you thinking about filing one?  Are you defending one?

If the answer to any of these questions is "Yes," I encourage you to read "When Innocent Parties Are Injured or Killed in High-Speed Pursuits, What Police Conduct Sufficiently Shocks the Conscience to Allow Recovery?" by Anna M. Krstulic.  The article appears in the Vol. 47, No. 3 of the Washburn Law Journal (Spring 2008).  Here is the conclusion she reached after studying the law in this area :

Given the high statistics of deaths and serious injuries that result from police pursuits, the Supreme Court should revisit the issue of fed­eral liability under § 1983 to define a workable standard.  Since both intent to harm and deliberate indifference can “shock the conscience,” courts must evaluate the totality of the circumstances in each case to de­termine which standard is appropriate. Police officers should be held accountable for violating pursuit regulations, and municipalities should be held accountable for failure to train their police officers. The gov­ernmental authority that police exercise in conducting pursuits must have clearly defined constitutional limitations.  As one commentator noted, “[w]hat is shocking is the continued willingness of many officers to engage in unwarranted pursuits in the face of widespread awareness in the police community itself of the likelihood of tragic conse­quences.”  [Footnotes omitted.]

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has issued an amend to its regulations to require interstate commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders subject to the physical qualification requirements of the agency’s regulations  to provide a current original or copy of their medical examiner’s certificates to their State Driver Licensing Agency (SDLA). The new regulations  also require the SDLA to record on the Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) driver record the self certification the driver made regarding the applicability of the Federal driver qualification rules.  The rule is effective January 30, 2009.

The goal of the new regulations is to help to prevent medically unqualified drivers from operating covered vehicles on our highways by giving the states the means of identifying CDL holders who are unable to obtain a medical certificate and to deter the use of false certificates.

Here is a copy of the new regulations.