Articles Posted in Fatal Trucking Accidents

In the tragic event of the loss of a loved one, a wrongful death claim may allow family members to recover compensation based on their loved one’s wrongful death. Maryland’s Wrongful Death Act (the Act) allows a parent, spouse, or child (or others in some circumstances) to recover based on the deceased’s wrongful death. There are some limitations depending on the circumstances of the deceased’s death. Spouses, parents, and children are considered primary plaintiffs under the Act. In addition, if the deceased had no spouse, parent, or child who qualifies under the wrongful death act, any person who is related to the deceased by blood or by marriage who was substantially dependent upon the deceased may file a wrongful death claim. These plaintiffs are considered secondary plaintiff, meaning that they can only recover if no primary plaintiff exists.

A wrongful death claim is based on a wrongful act that would have allowed the deceased to recover if he were still alive. This type of claim is meant to compensate close family members who wrongfully lost their loved one. Successful claims allow claimants to recover compensation for damages relating to the claimant’s suffering, including mental anguish, loss of companionship, loss of guidance and education, emotional pain and suffering, and loss of parental, marital, or filial care. A wrongful death claim normally must be filed within three years of the death of the deceased. In the case of an occupational disease, the claim must be filed within ten years of the deceased’s death or within three years of the date when the cause of death was discovered, whichever comes first.

Claimants also often have to defend the actions of the deceased leading up to their death. A defendant will often argue that the deceased was partially at fault for their death. If a defendant is successful in doing so, a claimant can be barred from recovering compensation if the deceased is found to have been partially at fault for their death.

A recent tragic truck accident illustrates the importance of Maryland truck drivers being aware of their surroundings along with the height and size of their vehicle. Not being so can lead to horrible and even fatal truck accidents. Trucks are, to state the obvious, larger than cars, and their size can make them very dangerous. For example, a truck driver not realizing their truck’s size may cause an accident when they merge onto the highway or when they pass under roadway signs or overpasses. This is exactly what happened last month in a truck accident that claimed one man’s life.

According to a local news report covering the incident, the driver of a dump truck was traveling west on an interstate with its bed raised when it struck an overhead sign at an exit. The impact caused the sign to fall, and it landed on a 2019 Ford F-150, driven by a 62-year-old man. Tragically, the 62-year-old man died as a result of the accident.

While it is unlikely that the dump truck driver intentionally hit the overhead sign trying to kill the driver in the Ford behind him, that does not mean the truck driver can’t be held responsible. While criminal charges have not been filed against the driver, this case may still lead to civil charges. Specifically, the deceased victim’s family may decide to bring a wrongful death suit against the dump truck driver, an avenue available to many Maryland residents who lost a loved one in a truck accident.

Maryland requires all vehicles to be covered by liability insurance. This requirement is meant to ensure that all drivers and owners are able to financially compensate others for damages resulting from motor vehicle accidents. However, in a Maryland truck accident case, evidence of insurance of lack of insurance is not always permitted as evidence in a civil case. Under Maryland Rule of Evidence 5-411, evidence that a person was or was not insured is not admissible as evidence that a person acted negligently or wrongfully. Evidence of insurance can be admitted as evidence for another purpose, including proof of agency, control, ownership, or bias or prejudice of a witness. For example, evidence that a witness is insured by an insurance company might show that the witness has a potential bias. Evidence of insurance might also be relevant to the issue of whether a party was an employee or an independent contractor, which would impact liability in the case. A driver’s lack of insurance could also be relevant to the issue of whether a company negligently employed an individual to work as a driver.

Maryland’s rule is derived from Federal Rule of Evidence 411. It is meant to prevent unfair prejudice because a jury might infer that a party was at fault based on the party’s lack of insurance. A jury might also infer that a party was not at fault based on the party’s proof of insurance. Even if evidence of insurance or lack of insurance is admissible for another purpose, it may still be excluded on another basis. For example, evidence of a lack of insurance may be unfairly prejudicial and a court might still exclude it. A court has discretion to admit or exclude evidence when it is not prohibited by Rule 5-411. Maryland Rules 5-402 and 5-403 state that evidence that is not relevant is not admissible and that relevant evidence may still be excluded if the probative value is “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.”

Woman Killed in Recent Truck Accident

If a defective product is to blame in a Maryland truck accident, a party may be able to bring a product liability claim against the responsible party. A party may be at fault for defective brakes, steering, or another component in a motor vehicle accident if the defect contributed to the accident victim’s injuries.

A Maryland product liability case allows a successful plaintiff to recover monetary compensation for injuries the plaintiff suffered as a result of the defective product. In a Maryland product liability case, a plaintiff generally must show that the product was defective when it left the defendant’s control, that there was not a substantial change in the condition of the product from the time between when it left the defendant’s control and when it reached the consumer, that the product was unreasonably dangerous, and that the defect in the product caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

Those who have been injured by a defective product understand that holding the company responsible for causing or allowing the defect is one of the most critical parts of a product liability case, so that others will be protected. If a defective product is to blame for an accident, a plaintiff usually can bring a claim against the manufacturer, along with anyone else in the chain of distribution. If the defect arose from a defect in the design or in the manufacturing process, a plaintiff may be able to bring a claim against the manufacturer and/or designer. A plaintiff generally will be able to sue the party that sold the defective product. In the case of a defective car, this would often be the dealer that sold the vehicle. If a driver knowingly drove a defective car, the driver may also be at fault. It may also be that another party is responsible altogether, such as a car repair shop that made a faulty repair.

A tragic accident has highlighted a sobering truth for Maryland drivers: you never know when catastrophe might hit. A 62-year-old man was killed on April 17th when a semi-truck attempted an unsafe pass. According to a local news report covering the incident, the victim was driving his tractor around 8 a.m. on a Friday morning when a semi-truck, driven by a 43-year-old man, attempted to pass him. The tractor then made a left turn into the driveway and was rear-ended by the semi-truck. This accident left the tractor driver dead.

Although most truck operators drive safely, it is inevitable that when trucks pass other vehicles there is an increased chance of an accident. While passing, in general, can always be risky, trucks are an increased risk because they cannot drive over a certain speed and because of their large size, which blocks other vehicles from passing or merging for a time. Truck drivers, therefore, must be very careful when passing, because they could be held liable in a civil negligence suit if they make an unsafe pass that results in an accident.

If an accident does occur, those injured have a path to recovery under Maryland law. Generally, the plaintiff will need to prove four things. First, that the defendant owed a duty of care to drive and pass carefully. This is generally established if the defendant was operating a truck on the highway. Second, that the defendant breached their duty of care. Usually, proving this involves expert testimony and accident reconstructionists, who explain how the defendant acted carelessly or why they should not have attempted to pass when they did. Third, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s unsafe pass was the proximate cause of the accident. For example, if the driver made an unsafe pass three minutes before the accident occurred, the driver may be able to argue that their unsafe pass did not cause the accident. The final element a plaintiff must prove is that they suffered compensable damages as a result of the defendant’s negligence. Usually, this is proven through the introduction of medical records and expert witness testimony.