Trial Attorney Blog
Truck accidents are often severe due to the size and weight of commercial trucks compared to passenger vehicles.
When these accidents occur, the resulting lawsuits can be complex, involving multiple parties and significant financial stakes.
Defendants in truck accident lawsuits—typically the truck driver, trucking company, or insurance providers—employ various defenses to mitigate or avoid liability.
Understanding these defenses is crucial for anyone involved in or affected by such incidents.
Here are five common defenses in truck accident lawsuits:
Contributory or Comparative Negligence
One of the most frequently used defenses in truck accident lawsuits is contributory or comparative negligence.
The defendant argues that the plaintiff (the person filing the lawsuit) was also negligent and that this negligence contributed to the accident.
Contributory Negligence
In states that follow contributory negligence laws, if the plaintiff is found to be even slightly at fault, they may be barred from recovering any damages.
This doctrine operates under a strict all-or-nothing principle, meaning that any degree of fault attributed to the plaintiff can completely negate their ability to collect compensation.
For example, if a truck accident occurs and it is determined that the plaintiff was driving slightly over the speed limit or did not signal properly, they could be entirely prevented from receiving any compensation for their injuries or damages.
This strict approach is designed to encourage careful behavior and adherence to traffic laws.
However, it can often seem unjust to plaintiffs who may have suffered significant harm due to the actions of a predominantly negligent truck driver.
Only a few states, such as Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Alabama, apply this stringent rule, making it a critical factor to consider when filing a lawsuit in these jurisdictions.
Comparative Negligence
Most states follow a more lenient approach known as comparative negligence, which allocates fault between the parties involved in the accident and adjusts the compensation accordingly.
Comparative negligence can be divided into two main types: pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence.
Pure Comparative Negligence: In states with pure comparative negligence laws, a plaintiff can recover damages regardless of their degree of fault.
However, their compensation is reduced by their percentage of fault.
For instance, if a plaintiff is found to be 20% at fault in an accident, their total awarded damages will be reduced by 20%.
If they were to receive $100,000, they would actually get $80,000.
This system allows plaintiffs to receive compensation even when they bear a significant portion of the blame for the accident.
Sudden Emergency Doctrine
The sudden emergency doctrine is a common defense in truck accident lawsuits.
It is invoked when the defendant claims they were faced with a sudden and unexpected situation that required immediate action, leaving them little to no time to make a rational decision.
This defense is predicated on the notion that in an emergency, even a reasonable person might not have the time to make the best decision.
For instance, imagine a truck driver traveling on a highway when a vehicle abruptly stops in front of them without warning.
The truck driver might argue that the accident was unavoidable and occurred due to circumstances beyond their control.
Under normal conditions, the driver might have been able to take evasive action to prevent a collision, but the sudden emergency left them with no viable options.
Critical Elements of the Sudden Emergency Doctrine
Unexpected Situation: The event must be sudden and unforeseen. Common examples include a child running into the road, a tire blowout, or an animal darting in front of the vehicle.
The key is that the situation must arise without warning and demand an immediate response.
Reasonable Reaction: The defendant’s response to the emergency must be considered reasonable under the circumstances.
This means that while the decision made in the heat of the moment might not be perfect, it should be one that a reasonably prudent person might make in the same situation.
Lack of Prior Negligence: For the sudden emergency doctrine to apply, the defendant must not have created the emergency through negligence.
For example, a truck driver who is speeding or distracted and then encounters an emergency situation cannot effectively use this defense.
Lack of Causation
To win a truck accident lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions directly caused the accident and the injuries sustained.
The defense may argue a lack of causation, asserting that the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the truck accident but by some other factor.
For example, the defense might claim that the plaintiff had pre-existing conditions or that the injuries resulted from another incident entirely.
If the defense can create doubt about the direct cause of the injuries, they may be able to reduce or eliminate liability.
Violation of Traffic Laws by Plaintiff
If the plaintiff was violating traffic laws at the time of the accident, the defense might argue that this violation contributed significantly to the accident.
Common examples include:
- Speeding
- Running a red light or stop sign
- Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol
- Failing to use turn signals
By demonstrating that the plaintiff was engaged in illegal or reckless behavior, the defense can argue that these actions were the primary cause of the accident, thereby reducing the defendant’s liability.
Mechanical Failure or Maintenance Issues
Trucking companies and drivers are required to maintain their vehicles properly and ensure they are in safe working conditions.
However, suppose a mechanical failure, such as brake failure or tire blowout, causes an accident.
In that case, the defense may argue that the accident was unavoidable and resulted from equipment malfunction rather than driver negligence.
To support this defense, the trucking company might present maintenance records showing regular upkeep and inspections.
They may also argue that the mechanical failure was a manufacturing defect, shifting potential liability to the vehicle or parts manufacturer.
Conclusion
Truck accident lawsuits are intricate and require a thorough understanding of both legal and technical aspects.
Defendants in these cases often employ multiple defenses to reduce or avoid liability, including contributory negligence, the sudden emergency doctrine, lack of causation, the plaintiff’s traffic law violations, and mechanical failure issues.
For plaintiffs, countering these defenses requires strong evidence, expert testimony, and skilled legal representation.
Understanding these common defenses can help plaintiffs and their legal teams prepare for the challenges they might face in pursuing compensation for their injuries and losses.
If you or a loved one has been involved in a truck accident and you need expert legal assistance to navigate these complex defenses, don’t hesitate to seek professional help.
Contact our experienced legal team to discuss your case and explore your options for pursuing justice and compensation.
Contact us today at Finch McCranie LLP.
FAQs
What is contributory negligence, and how does it affect truck accident lawsuits?
Contributory negligence is a defense where the defendant argues that the plaintiff was also at fault for the accident. In states with contributory negligence laws, if the plaintiff is found even slightly at fault, they may be barred from recovering any damages. This all-or-nothing principle can prevent plaintiffs from receiving compensation if they share any blame.
How does comparative negligence differ from contributory negligence in truck accident cases?
Comparative negligence allocates fault between the parties involved and adjusts the compensation based on their degree of fault. There are two types: pure comparative negligence, where plaintiffs can recover damages reduced by their percentage of fault, and modified comparative negligence, where plaintiffs can only recover if they are less than 50% or 51% at fault, depending on the state.
What is the sudden emergency doctrine in the context of truck accident defenses?
The sudden emergency doctrine is a defense used when the defendant claims they faced an unexpected situation requiring immediate action, leaving little time to make a rational decision. The defense must prove that the event was sudden and unforeseen, their reaction was reasonable, and they did not create the emergency through their negligence.
How can lack of causation be used as a defense in truck accident lawsuits?
The defense of lack of causation argues that the defendant’s actions did not directly cause the plaintiff’s injuries. They may claim that the injuries were due to pre-existing conditions or another incident. If the defense can create doubt about the direct cause of the injuries, they may reduce or eliminate liability.
How can a plaintiff’s violation of traffic laws impact a truck accident lawsuit?
Suppose the plaintiff was violating traffic laws at the time of the accident (e.g., speeding, running a red light, or driving under the influence). In that case, the defense might argue that these violations significantly contributed to the accident. Demonstrating the plaintiff’s illegal or reckless behavior can reduce the defendant’s liability by showing that the plaintiff’s actions were the primary cause of the accident.
What role do mechanical failure or maintenance issues play in truck accident defenses?
The defense may argue that a mechanical failure, such as brake failure or tire blowout, caused the accident rather than driver negligence. They might present maintenance records showing regular upkeep and inspections or claim that the failure was due to a manufacturing defect, shifting liability to the vehicle or parts manufacturer.