Archive
Can the owner of a poorly maintained flat-bed trailer that flips on its side be found liable for damages suffered by the driver of the vehicle?
At trial, the driver’s attorney presented evidence demonstrating that the defective condition of the flat bed was the cause of the driver’s injury. First it was shown that flat-bed trailer was in poor condition with holes in the floor of the bed as well as rotten and warped wood. Second, Joseph Trucking was shown to have knowledge of the poor condition of the flat-bed. Third, it was shown that wood used in previous repairs was not the type typically used for such repairs. Fourth, Joseph Trucking was unable to produce any maintenance or repair records for the flat-bed trailer. Fifth, the driver was able to present evidence that the concrete pieces where properly loaded and secured on the flat-bed trailer. Sixth, the driver was demonstrated to be a properly licensed commercial vehicle operator with the necessary experience. Finally, the driver was able to demonstrate that he was experienced with driving on the roadway where the accident occurred.
The jury found that Joseph Trucking was 70% at fault and the driver was 30% at fault. Interestingly, the trial judge granted Joseph Trucking’s motion for directed verdict, finding that the notwithstanding the evidence describe above, the driver had failed to demonstrate that defective condition of the truck caused the accident. On appeal, the 5th District Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court and overruled the trial court, finding that the driver’s attorney did present sufficient evidence at trial for the jury to find that the poor condition of the flat-bed trailer was a contributing cause of the accident.
See Benitez v. Joseph Trucking, Inc., 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1995 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
The Dangers of Texting and Driving
During the last decade people of all ages have begun to utilize text messaging, email, internet browsing, or gaming features of their cellular telephones. Many people are using these features while operating a motor vehicle.
Additionally, many employees are using these features while working and driving. The use of these features increases the risk for vehicular crashes. Specifically, the use of a cellular phone has been tied to a four times greater chance of vehicle crash causing serious injury.
Florida does not currently have laws that regulate or prohibit the use of cellar devices while driving a motor vehicle. However, there is discussion of a cellular telephone regulation being passed in the upcoming legislative session.
It is required, though, that the driver of a vehicle operate in a “careful and prudent manner… so as not to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.” Fla. Stat. § 316.1925 (2010). An employer can be held liable for the actions of an employee when they are acting within the scope of employment.
Therefore, an employer may be held liable for an employee who has caused a crash while working and texting, checking email, or just talking on a cellular telephone. The employer can even be held liable for their employee’s actions if it is against the employer’s policy if they have not enforced this policy, or otherwise knew or should have known the employee was violating this policy.
Driver’s have a responsibility to operate their vehicle in a manner which does not endanger those around them. A driver who is distracted because they are using their cellular phone is not following this duty.
If you have been injured in a vehicle crash because another driver was distracted by their cellular telephone it is important that you consult with an attorney. It is also important that all drivers remember that driving is a serious responsibility and that it requires all of our full attention. When driving please do not use your cellular telephone for any purpose.
Dustin Butler’s practice focuses on Personal Injury Litigation, Civil Litigation, and Family Law.