Ep. 50 – How Experts Uncover the Truth After a Collision with Mark Helms

Mark Helms: The physical evidence and the advanced technology in the world today, it’s amazing how much it’s changed to better, further document what actually happened and to put you in that car so to speak, or that truck, to see what was right in front of you before it happened.

David Craig: I’m attorney Dave Craig, managing partner and one of the founders of the law firm of Craig, Kelly & Faultless. I’ve represented people who have been seriously injured, who have had a family member killed in a semi or other big truck wreck for over 30 years. Following the wreck, their lives are chaos. Often they don’t even know enough about the process to ask the right questions. It is my goal to empower you by providing you with the information you need to protect yourself and your family. In each and every episode, I will interview top experts and professionals that are involved in truck wreck cases. This is After the Crash.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to another episode of After the Crash. Today, I’m extraordinarily excited to have Mark Helms as a guest. Mark is probably the most experienced accident reconstructionist that I know. I mean, this guy has been doing it for a long time. Used to have cases where he was the reconstructionist for the Indiana State Police. For years, I would have cases that he was actually the officer in charge of figuring out what happened, but Mark has experience doing this. He’s now doing it privately. We will talk a little bit about that, but Mark, welcome to the podcast.

Mark Helms: Thank you.

David Craig: So, Mark, let’s start off — my God, you have been doing this for as long as I’ve been doing law, personal injury. So you worked for the city police department. I know right after you got your undergraduate degree, you went to the city police department. Columbus, I believe. Was it Columbus?

Mark Helms: Yes, Columbus.

David Craig: And then you went to the state police where you raised all the way up to the top in accident reconstruction, and then you went to the county of Bartholomew County for a while, and now you’re doing it privately for Crash Consulting Services, but tell us a little bit about your journey in accident reconstruction, how you got started, and walk us through that.

Mark Helms: Well, when I was with the Columbus Police Department back in 1984 through ’87, I had a strong interest in crash investigation and, unfortunately, the department wasn’t allowed to send us off to get the additional training that was necessary, and then in 1987, I joined the state police and once again, I was able to really focus in crash investigation, and then in 1992 I was allowed to go through the crash reconstruction process through Northwestern Traffic Institute, and one of the instructors at that point made a comment about, “If you thoroughly enjoy this, your career is going to go by quickly, and if you stay with the program and stay up on the training and the experience, it could be something you could follow up from when you eventually retire,” which is what I did.

David Craig: So with the state police, I think you were with the state police for what, over 30 years?

Mark Helms: 30 years, yes.

David Craig: Tell us a little bit about what you did with the Indiana State Police.

Mark Helms: So with the state police, first of all, I was a road trooper for many years and I thoroughly enjoyed doing traffic enforcement and the crash investigations because that was primarily in the area that I was assigned. That was primarily the area where what we did, and then in 1992, they asked if I would be interested in going to the crash reconstruction training program, which I agreed and then I was also allowed to be an instructor in the emergency vehicle operations course. So, they kind of went hand in hand on learning dynamics of vehicles from crashes as well as how to prevent the potential crash situation. I was pretty much utilized in southeastern Indiana because I kept up on the training, and I purchased a lot of it on my own because I thoroughly enjoyed putting the puzzles together, so to speak. I continued through that process until 2014, and eventually Superintendent Douglas Carter brought me into the training section to be in charge of the state police crash reconstruction program across the state. I was eventually the team coordinator in organizing the crash reconstruction teams.

David Craig: Do you even know how many accidents you’ve reconstructed over the years?

Mark Helms: It’s well over 400 or so.

David Craig: And I think there’s a misconception. I think this podcast is designed for average everyday people, not necessarily lawyers or police enforcement or folks involved in this industry. It’s just for average everyday people, and I’m not sure everybody understands that not all police officers are accident reconstructionists. My understanding is, just to be a police officer, you don’t really get a lot of training in accident investigation or reconstruction, is that right?

Mark Helms: That’s correct. Of course, when I was with the city police department, I went through the basic law enforcement academy, which is the city and county officers. Their curriculum is so tight that they only basically give you about 16 hours of crash investigation training, which about six to eight hours of that is actually just filling out the crash report form itself, and then those two agencies, the city and the county, are so bombarded with calls for service that basically they’re nothing but a statistical gathering agency, getting your information from your driver’s license and registration and insurance information and not permitted to really go in depth and to actually determine what the real cause of the crash is. That’s one thing that with the state police or with reconstructionists themselves, that’s what they do. They put those puzzles back together, learning from the after effects to come back to when the crash actually happened and then leading back to what happened up to the crash, so to speak.

David Craig: Some cities and some counties, is my understanding, don’t even have a reconstructionist on staff because of that extra training it takes and the cost involved in sending off their officers to get trained.

Mark Helms: That’s correct.

David Craig: I think when you’re involved in a wreck, you don’t know that the police department that is investigating, how qualified they are in accident reconstruction. It may be a city that has a crash response team that is really good, or it may be a city or a county that has scarce resources and just may not have the ability to buy the equipment or have the training to have a top-notch reconstructionist.

Mark Helms: That’s correct. A lot of it boils down to manpower issues and, as you said, the resources to purchase the equipment or to send an officer off to the training because if they take one person off the road, then it limits their normal shift patterns. So, your larger agencies will develop those crash reconstruction teams and they’re able to put more time and effort and equipment into solving or actually determining what the actual cause of a crash is. But your normal, everyday service police agencies don’t have the time to do it. An example was when I was with the sheriff’s department, we would be at limited resources, and I was not able to do a reconstruction report because sometimes they can take hours or days or weeks to complete by doing more thorough looking into the vehicles or the scenes or something to that effect.

And so as a result, the general public on a crash investigation, if it’s a serious personal injury or fatality crash, it’s more than likely they need to be looked at a little bit more in depth, either in the private sector or a personal injury law firm that has the resources or the abilities to make those contacts, to have those crashes looked at a little bit more thoroughly, rather than just accepting what’s on the crash report.

David Craig: And that is critical because I’ve seen, and I know you have probably as well, police reports that are just wrong that just unfortunately, without the right people with the right equipment, sometimes it’s just not right.

Mark Helms: Correct. An easy example of that is fair deal right of way, where a vehicle pulls out of a driveway. This is a common occurrence throughout, I can tell you that from experience. It’ll be a vehicle pulls out of a driveway or personal driveway or a business driveway or an intersection, for that matter, thinking they have enough time to pull out and they’ll go ahead and accelerate out and then it results in a collision, When the officers usually get there, they’ll take both sides of the story and they’ll say, “Ah, it’s an easy fair deal right of way.” When, if they had the time and the ability and the resources and the training, they would say, “Wait a minute, let’s go back and look and see, was this vehicle speeding that actually ran into the back of the vehicle or hit them in the side or whatever?”

And so that’s where the reconstructionist comes into play where he could say, “Wait a minute, let’s calculate this.” We can calculate the speeds of vehicles leading up to a crash and then figure out exactly what the speed was when they actually hit and so, as I said, the city and county and the state police, if they don’t have the time or the training or the experience to look into that, then a crash report’s just filled out and it’s nothing but a statistical gathering form that only serves the purpose of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as to how many crashes occur that are fair deal right of way, or whichever the causation factor, is when it may not have actually been that particular causation factor.

David Craig: And we’ve seen following too closely, I don’t know how many times I’ve seen police reports that say “following too closely” or in a rear-end collision. I’ve had cases where a semi-tractor trailer was parked on a highway with no lights on at night and we ran into the rear of it, and it said, “following too closely.” Well, I guess technically we were too close in that we ran into it, but our client couldn’t have seen it without an accident reconstructionist. If we would’ve just relied upon the police, or if the family would’ve relied on the police report, they would’ve gotten it wrong. There would’ve been no case, but instead we were able to get a limits case, but that’s a perfect example; “following too closely” is another one that’s like “failure to yield” that we see all the time.

Mark Helms: Right. Anytime there’s a rear-end collision, they automatically draw that “following too closely” causation factor, and, like you said, what led up to that in the first place? Was traffic stopped for a particular reason down the road, or what? And they’ll jump on that causation factor, then lo and behold, later on it comes out that the truck was stopped because… and the example comes out, or the truck was broken down. Did the truck have its lights on, or was it completely off the roadway on the shoulder of an interstate or something to that effect? I can tell you that working the state police, the number of crashes we would have where a truck would be parked on the shoulder and somebody would run into the back of it, and then there would be like, “Well, was the truck out in the roadway or was it on the shoulder?”

And it could come down to inches or a foot as to whether it was off the road or on the road, but they’ll jump on that “following too close” causation factor, it gets the report in faster and we got to get the roads opened up and it’s like, “Wait a minute. Wait.” When the true causation factor isn’t there.

David Craig: Absolutely. That’s a perfect example with what we call “sitting-duck cases,” where a semi tractor-trailer is parked over on the side of the road sometimes at night. But, state troopers and police and county and city, very rarely are they trained in the federal motor carrier safety regulations, or very rarely are they trained in the trucking industry standards or what CDL manuals say. So, I look at a case and I say, “Well, where are the triangles?” The triangles aren’t out there. How long has this truck been parked there? Has it been over 10 minutes? Does it have its flashers on? I mean, I look at it and immediately, all these rules start popping in my head, and yet a police officer doesn’t even know those questions to ask because that’s not something they’ve been trained in.

Mark Helms: That’s correct. I can tell you the traffic laws of Indiana are very vague when it comes to truck laws and do you deal with those laws and are you familiar with those laws. In the academy, they only give you about 12 to 16 hours of traffic law, and the majority of that is dealing with DUI arrest or DUI cases, seatbelt laws, child restraint laws, laws of that nature. When it comes to actual crash causation factors, unless it’s speed, they usually don’t talk about it, and so the officer is basically going to learn it on his own by just reading the manuals.

Well, one of those sections is under the Indiana Code. 8.1 is usually the federal motor carrier regulations have been adopted by the state of Indiana, but they’re not actually listed in there as to what those federal motor carrier regulations are. So an officer doesn’t know what those are and has no idea, and the Indiana State Police is the agency that is trained with those federal motor carrier regulations. The city and county officers don’t receive that training, and they’re not even permitted to enforce those laws because they don’t receive the training or the funding through the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

David Craig: I think it’s important for people that are listening: neither Mark nor I are picking on the police. A police officer, they don’t get to say, “We’ll buy this piece of equipment,” or “I would like to go get trained.” It’s not their choice. I mean, they’re limited by funds, and, boy, technology has changed dramatically in the 38 years that I’ve done this, just the amount of equipment and stuff has changed dramatically over the years. And the cost of it when stuff first comes out…when they first did 3D scanners, oh my gosh. I mean, the cost of one piece of equipment was phenomenal.

Mark Helms: Yes, $50,000 to $100,000.

David Craig: Yeah, and police departments don’t have that kind of money. So, I think the police try really hard, but then also there’s conflicting [aspects]. You mentioned earlier about clearing the roadway. I’ve handled serious truck, semi fatalities outside of Louisville, outside of Elizabethtown, outside of Bowling Green, outside of St. Louis, outside of Indianapolis, and it seems like whenever there’s a big city, at rush hour and the highways are closed, there is a big push to open up those highways because traffic gets all clogged up. So, they’ve got this conflicting demand, like, “Okay, we need to investigate, but at the same time we’ve got to get these roads opened up.” And that doesn’t necessarily mean troopers or officers have time to get it right.

Mark Helms: Correct. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration developed a program called In Time, and basically what that was is they allotted how much time or resources or dollar factors were involved when a roadway was closed for a period of time. So, they pushed that program out on the police agencies and primarily the state police in Indiana because they dealt with more of the interstate roadways. They would push to get the roads opened up as quickly as possible, and so one of the things — because I was one of the instructors in crash investigation at the academy — I pushed the state police to provide paint to the officers in general just to paint around the tires of a vehicle, and if you needed to move them, move them, but at least document it some way so that if we needed to come back the next day to look at that roadway, we could find the evidence that was right there based on the paint features that were there.

And that’s been one of the pushes I’ve kind of mentioned here and there to agencies that I get involved with through the private sector is paint these scenes up. It’s nice to be able to go back to it and, even as a law enforcement officer, I would probably want to be able to go back if I needed to because I might’ve missed a measurement, if I was able to do measurements at the scene. So it’s like, push to document it so that it’s there, or [take] photographs. Digital photography is just amazing over the years because, when I came on the state police, you were given a roll of film with 12 exposures and a camera that maybe you got pictures and maybe you didn’t.

Nowadays, you’ve got digital cameras, you’ve got body cam. It helps document the scene a lot better so that in the long run, if the causation factor is incorrect or it’s looked into a little bit more thoroughly by a personal injury law firm or something, we can go back and look through all that digital camera or digital photography or the body cam and see and basically put the vehicles back in their place, whether there was paint down on the roadway or not. We can go back and look at cracks and roadways and find it, and it helps to further explain what actually happened at the crash.

David Craig: So, before I move on, the key thing for you folks that are listening is this: Do not rely upon the police report because, even if it’s in your favor, it could be wrong. If it’s against you, it could be wrong, and the police are doing the best job they can under the circumstances and with the resources that they have, but the reality is that when it’s a serious catastrophic loss or a wrongful death, your family deserves to know what happened and put that puzzle together. You don’t want to rely on the police because you have no idea how good, how qualified, what kind of equipment they had. So you hire an experienced personal injury law firm who then will hire a private reconstructionist, a group that will then make sure that we can figure out what happened, and that’s where you are at now. You’re in Crash Consulting Services, and you’ve been with that group now for a while. Tell us the difference now that you’re in the private sector versus the police, what is the difference?

Mark Helms: Well, in the private sector, obviously we have the time to really dig deep and find out what the causation factor is, based on 3D models, the simulation programs that are available out there, which we utilize to recreate the crash actually from what evidence is there. Your vehicles are all pretty much all equipped with airbag control modules, which provide electronic data that allows you to tell what the vehicle speed was leading up to the crash, within five to eight seconds leading up to the crash. So that information’s available that, as I said, city, county, or state police sometimes don’t gather that. If it’s there, in the private sector world, we have the time and the resources and the equipment to get it, and so it helps further explain what happened and either helps a family or hurts a family, but it’s best to have someone look a little bit more in depth to make sure that the answers are there.

Actually, the way I taught with the academy with the state police was, you need to provide answers to those families. They need to know what happened with their family member. What better way than to take the time to thoroughly investigate it, and if not, if the agency doesn’t, then allow it to go to a personal law firm or a personal injury law firm that has the resources or the contacts to make to say, “Hey, is our person wrong? Is our person right? What happened? Can you tell us how we can go further into this to see?”

David Craig: And I know when clients hire me, when they’ve lost a loved one in one of these types of wrecks, they don’t come in and ask me, “Well guys, how much money am I going to get?” They always come in and say, “What happened? Why did this happen? How can we help make sure it doesn’t happen again?” And those are the things that they want to know why this wreck happened and I tell them, “I don’t know, but I will tell you that we will hire people and we’ll find out.” And I don’t know how it’s going to come out, but I will find out, and we’ll spend… A personal injury law firm that has the resources that does this day in and day out, that does trucking, they’re going to have the resources to hire the right people to figure this out.

Sometimes I find out that their family member is at fault. We’ve spent thousands of dollars to find that out, but the family owes us nothing because that’s just part of what we do. So, there’s no downside to a family member to hire the right law firm that hires the right reconstructionist, and they’re going to find this out. They’re going to find out what happened and they’re going to be able to tell you, and my experience working with you in the private sector versus when I work with police officers is that, first of all, you guys can get the most modern equipment that’s out there. So you have the top-notch, you’ve got the best stuff that’s available, you have the training to do it, and then you have the ability to get there quickly and work a scene while the evidence is still there to preserve it, and the police don’t always have that.

Mark Helms: Right, they don’t have the time to put into the scene work itself. If we are hired, I can tell you from Crash Consulting Services, we will try and do rapid response if possible. If we’re contacted by an attorney like right now, we’ll try and get somebody there. We have three of us, actually three and a half of us, that’ll get there if we need to be there because it’s best if we can get there as soon as possible because there’s evidence there, some way, shape or form, there is some evidence there that will help solve the puzzle and put this crash back together. I will tell you one thing, and this is for my own personal thoughts, I could care less how much money I make.

I love to give the answers to the families to let them know exactly what happened in their crash, and that’s my whole goal, is to give the proper answer or get the proper answer. Lucrative or not, that’s not the point. The point is to give the answers because, if it was my family, I want the correct answer. I want to know exactly what happened to my family member.

David Craig: I’ve had clients hug me, even when I told him I couldn’t help him legally, because they at least had closure. They knew, “Okay, what happened?” And so, I’ve never had somebody get mad at me for giving them a bad answer, because they appreciated the fact that we put the money and the time and the effort into finding out what happened. The other thing that I hope people listening picked up on that you said, was really time is of the essence. These scenes, there is evidence there, and sometimes the police put paint down, like you said, sometimes they don’t, but there may be scuff marks, may be yaw marks, or there may be a skid mark, and there’s different types of stuff. There could be glass, it could be where the point of impact was. There’s so much stuff there that could be gone if you don’t get there soon enough.

Mark Helms: Correct.

David Craig: And nowadays, I remember when I first started, the investigator’s out there with a wheel rolling the measurements off. So kind of walk us through what you guys do now when you get to a scene, what kind of stuff do you guys do?

Mark Helms: Well, I will tell you roller wheels are used still, but it’s only one of the tools that we have. I mean, in 1992, if I could have had this additional equipment, oh my gosh, it would’ve changed a lot. Now we have drones, and you can take the drones up and map a scene and create the 3D scene and look. I mean, the evidence that is on the roadway that you can’t see down there on ground level. I can remember a scene that I did where it was a four-lane divided roadway, and a vehicle had stopped just off the roadway in the left lane toward the median, and I was down taking ground photos and I could not see exactly what I needed, and then when I went off to the side and flew the drone up, you could see exactly where the vehicle was placed before it hit and when it hit, and where it went from there.

It helped explain exactly where everybody was leading up to the crash. So that changed the causation factor because, once again, they were saying, “Oh, following too closely.” It’s like no, the person was parked in the roadway. So, that’s where the drone, or with the 3D models, we will scan a vehicle at a tow service and then we’ll take an exemplary vehicle and you can put it on top of each other and you can actually calculate what the speed was, causing the damage to the vehicle, to help go further into the crash itself and determine if speed was an issue. So the technology is just phenomenal, and then to be able to do animation with what we gather, it just helps further explain and put everybody in the car to see what they saw when they actually came up to the scene or up to the crash itself.

David Craig: I remember back when I first started, we would actually have to hire an airplane to fly over the scene of an accident. I remember doing one out by Kansas City on a serious brain injury semi wreck, and we hired a plane to fly over the highway, and it was a lot further away than what the drone is, and it was not nearly as good, but at least it helped me preserve in case they changed the roadway. This one was a truck pulling out of a truck stop and they did change [the roadway]. So, luckily, I did have that where again, some lawyers would’ve never paid the cost of an airplane to fly over it, but now you have the drone. I also remember a case over in Newcastle I was handling where a semi ran a stoplight, and the driver claimed my client ran the stoplight. We claimed the semi driver had bad weather, but I remember measurements, they went out and did measurements, but there were certain things that weren’t measured. You don’t know when you first get hired what the defendant is going to say.

The police report may say failure to yield against the defendant, but then when you take the deposition, the defendant says, “No, the car pulled out in front of me and I can’t see the car coming. It must’ve been going too fast.” And so all of a sudden now there’s measurements that are extraordinarily valuable, and my reconstructionist is like, “Hey, did you take that measurement? Did you get that measurement?” And you’re like, “Uh-oh. No, I didn’t get it.” But now, when you 3D scan it, even if you didn’t think it was important, you have preserved it so that you can always go back and measure something later. I think that’s been the greatest advancement that I’ve seen.

Mark Helms: Yes, absolutely. Yes, and between that and video cameras, everybody has a video camera installed on their house, their business. Really, businesses for sure. Part of our investigation series is to go and contact those people. I don’t know what it is, I have a knack with getting people to just start talking to me when I pull up and I’ll explain to them, “Hey, I’m looking into it, following up on this crash that happened out here.” And the next thing you know, they start telling me their life history and they’re going like, “Oh yeah, we have a video camera over here.” And next thing you know, you’re getting the videotape or the actual case right there in front of you.

It helps to add another piece to the puzzle of saying, “Well here it is right here.” Stoplight cases are big with video cameras, and the businesses on most of your corners with stoplights, they’ll have that preserved most of the time — for 30 days is usually about the most, unless you notify them ahead of time, then they’ll hold it — but a lot of times, if you wait too long, that video is gone. So it’s important that, like we said earlier, if you have a situation with a personal or a serious injury crash or something to that effect, you need to get a hold of someone immediately to start that process right away. As we said, evidence and roadway, videotapes will be gone, and those will help solve that case just by having those tools available.

David Craig: Yeah, so when there’s a wreck, I have a whole team that immediately sends out and I have a guy who I go out and send out to every scene. The first thing I say, I just assume this wreck was captured on video. Assume that it is until you’re disproven. Like you said, some gas stations, they may only keep it for seven to 10 days, and we’ve run into some that don’t keep it very long. If your family waits, just thinking —because unfortunately they’re dealing with chaos, and their lives are turned upside down — the last thing they’re thinking about is a lawsuit or a claim.

I know your company works for both sides, you work for both insurance companies as well as plaintiff lawyers, but the insurance company has an advantage because they don’t have that emotional aspect. I mean, they certainly have feelings, but at the same time, that’s not a family member, and so they immediately say, “Hey, let’s go out and start preserving evidence.” They’re looking for evidence that may help us. Whereas the family doesn’t always have that, but it’s just as important if somebody looks out for the family and says, “Yeah, you need to get out there because that video footage may be gone in a few days.”

Mark Helms: Correct, and that’s one thing that we like with that rapid response that our company has. We can get there as quickly as possible and document what’s available right now. I mean, you know as well as I do, we’ve had the case where it’s a construction zone. Oh my gosh, the crashes that have occurred in construction zones. And if you wait 30, 60 days, that construction zone is all changed. The barricades have been moved, the lanes have changed over, and now you’re basically working with the new section, and so now there’s no way you can really put it back together unless you’ve got some other documentation to put it there.

David Craig: We had a case down in Kentucky where we actually sent a vehicle that has a 3D scanner on the back of it. You can use drones, but sometimes you can’t use drones if you’re close to an airport. So, there’s equipment that you can put on the back of a truck, and we scan the whole highway, all the way back up and forth through the whole construction zone, so that we can preserve that. Again, because you never know what’s going to be important and what isn’t until your accident reconstruction starts working it up and you start taking depositions.

Mark Helms: Right, and that’s always a timeframe later. It’s not right away, so by the time you get there, it’s gone. The preservation is gone, except for maybe the vehicles, but you need more of the puzzle to put together to get the final product.

David Craig: One of the other things you mentioned, which is something that we’re seeing a lot more of, is the police body cameras. We had a construction zone case where a motorcycle went up on an area that was under construction, and so instead of crossing into the lane that was open, he would’ve had to cross some tar stuff or some sticky substance. There was a flagger, there was a guy working on a piece of equipment there. Well, it turns out that guy told my guy, my client, he could go ahead and turn left and go up and pass the equipment in the area that was under construction. My client had a severe brain injury and he doesn’t remember that. He doesn’t remember any conversation.

He just says, “I don’t think I would’ve gone, I know I wouldn’t have driven up in that area where the road was chopped out if somebody had told me no, but I also wouldn’t have wanted to through the tacky stuff if I could have avoided it.” Well, they said no. The construction company claimed that our client just took off and drove up the area he wasn’t supposed to go in. Now, the barrels were moved, and luckily the police did take photographs of the barrels. The barricades had been moved, but they didn’t take pictures of the equipment where it was at the time, which would’ve been handy.

But later we got police footage, body cam footage, where this guy, they said, “We just did this crazy thing. We just took off on our own.” Well, in one of the interviews, the guy that was back there by the equipment, he actually said, “Yeah, I told him he could go ahead and go.” Well, that was the key to the puzzle, but that never made the police report. It never made it as a witness statement because it was in passing. There was tons of people.

At the scene, my client had a severe brain injury, he’s lying on the ground, and so there was a lot of commotion, a lot going on, but that footage showed this guy saying, “Yeah, I saw him. I just told him to go ahead and go.” So, you don’t know until you have all that footage. We get 911 calls. So when people call 911, there’s a record of that, and you’ll know who the phone number is at least, maybe the name, but you’ll certainly know the phone number of the person who calls. Not everybody that calls 911 stays at the scene and talks to the police.

Mark Helms: Correct.

David Craig: So it’s possible that they could call 911, they could have witnessed it, but then they left.

Mark Helms: Right.

David Craig: Like with you guys, we interview all those people because again, it helps you put that puzzle together, but you want to get it while that’s still fresh in their memory.

Mark Helms: Correct. I used to send out our Freedom of Information Act letters to police agencies or companies to get information regarding those specific crash investigations. It wasn’t until you would run into the agencies that say, “No, we don’t take digital photographs,” or something to that effect. But they had body cameras. So we’re going like, “Ah, could we get copies of the body cam?” And then when you get that, of course you’ve got to sit there and look through most of it to get to the point, but it’s there. Just in passing conversation, it’s just, “Oh, well, he just said it.” They didn’t put it down on the police report because to them it wasn’t that big of the deal. They just needed to get that report turned in by the end of their shift or something to that effect, and so they’ll miss something, they’ll forget it, and then lo and behold, somebody made that comment, or there was a witness that may not have seen the actual crash occur, but they were there within seconds after it came to a final rest.

Well, they’re still a witness. They still have information regarding the crash, and they probably heard someone say something or saw somebody get out of a driver’s seat that now claims that “Oh no, I wasn’t driving.” So, that information is just as pertinent, and those people are still witnesses to a crash. They’ve seen something, they know something. So that was one of the things that I tried to explain in the crash training with the state police was it used to be the thought process was they had to actually see a crash occur, and that’s not true. That’s not true at all. Just standing there watching, they may have something. It may not be the most valuable information, but they’ve heard or seen something that may put a vehicle back in place that we can’t get because it wasn’t documented with paint or photographs.

David Craig: There was a fatality that I handled here in Lawrence with a box truck. So, the wreck happened, the box truck didn’t have its ECM connected, and so they intentionally had shut it off, and so there was no such thing. Now, we had surveillance video of a car dealership, where we could see the truck past certain poles, and by timing that we could figure out the speed of the truck, number one. Number two was that I deposed everybody that was at the scene. So, there was television coverage and there was a security coverage, and you could see a lot of people rush out to the scene of the wreck after it happened, and it was a bad wreck and it was a fatality, and so it drew a lot of people.

And then by talking to all those witnesses, we found the truck driver. These people didn’t see the wreck, but they came out to the wreck afterwards, and it was amazing. The truck driver’s version changed. By the time he talked to the police, he had a third version, but the first person he said was the accurate [one]. The second person, it was a little changed, and by the third time that he talked to the police, it was definitely watered down, and it wasn’t his fault. Again, if you’re trying to put the puzzle together, you’re looking for an experienced law firm, experienced reconstructionist, you’re looking for every piece that you can get so you can help put as many pieces as possible in together so you can figure out what is this puzzle.

Mark Helms: Exactly, and it’s like you said, those people that put that back together that you were able to talk to all those people and hear the different versions, nobody wants to admit they caused or they made an error. It’s just common. People do not want to admit they made a mistake. They will say what happened initially, and then when they get time to think about it, they start worrying because they’re afraid they’re going to lose their house, their car, their dogs, their family, whatever because they actually caused a crash.

So that person that was standing there that heard that version or heard him say one or A or B… Next thing you know, find out later on, “Wait a minute, because this person told us that they heard you say that, and they were standing within two feet of you, and you said…”

So, it is always important to follow up on those because sure, as the world, the stories change, and especially like I said, nobody wants to admit they made a mistake. It’s just common these days, and so that’s where the evidence comes in, and then you start putting all these pieces to get that puzzle solved, and then you’ll be able to know what actually happened at that crash.

David Craig: And I think with truck drivers in particular, that’s their livelihood. They make a living driving a truck and they have families to support and that’s their job, and that’s sometimes their job they’ve been doing for years. They’re worried that if they cause a serious wreck that they’re going to lose their ability to make a living. That’s a lot of pressure for them. I’ve had claims people and defense attorneys that are reconstructionist at the scene before my client’s bodies have been removed, and so sometimes there’s a lot of pressure there on the truck driver to not accept responsibility just because it’s their livelihood.

Here’s their boss, the head of claims is standing there, so if you’re the victim of a truck wreck and you have to assume that the other side is there working that claim while the witnesses are still there, and you’ve got to get your lawyers in place and your team of reconstructionists and investigators in place as soon as possible. I go in, and, if I can’t talk to him, we’ll try to investigate her, but it’s amazing how much a rescue worker, a firefighter, ambulance driver — all these different people — all have pieces of the puzzle. They all know a little bit, all the people who came to the scene, all the video cameras, all the body cam [footage], the video cameras in the police cars, I mean all of that and then the markings, the evidence on the road, all of that is critical to putting the puzzle together.

Mark Helms: Yes, and a lot of your bigger trucking companies anymore have video cameras in their trucks because they’re trying to prevent the liability issues that they have out there. I can tell you from dealing with the truck drivers with the state police — because I was part of the federal motor carrier safety training that I would do paperwork inspection on drivers — and they immediately were afraid that they were going to be found at fault. It’s like, wait a minute, not always. Well, now they’ve got cameras everywhere in these trucks to prevent or reduce their chances of liability because as we said, truck drivers aren’t always the causation factor. They’re not always the causing party, and so those items that are available, they just help put that puzzle together once again just like we’ve said with everything else that’s out there.

David Craig: And I’ve found the majority of truck drivers are good people. They’re professional, they really try to get places safely. They have families they’re trying to get home to, but there’s the bad ones that are really bad and the bad companies, unfortunately, are running on small margins. They’re running on bad equipment, and they have the worst drivers.

Mark Helms: Correct.

David Craig: And those are the ones that are causing a lot of the harm.

Mark Helms: Correct.

David Craig: Mark, you’ve been doing this a while, how do you enjoy it? So, before, you didn’t have all this stuff, now you have all this stuff, all this equipment, all this technology, how are you enjoying doing what you do now?

Mark Helms: Oh, I love it. I could go 24/7. I’ll get an assignment, and I’m ready to jump on it, and the boss will have to call me and say, “Now wait a minute, we don’t have permissions yet. The attorney’s haven’t given us permission or haven’t given us the go-ahead.” And I’m going like, “No, wait a minute. I live 35 years in law enforcement. When you give me a call, I respond. That’s just the way it’s supposed to be.” Plus, in the back of my head, I’m thinking the sooner we get there, the better we can document what happened, and that’s always been my thought process. I love being in the private world, and, like I said, it’s amazing the stories that I hear from people when I’m out documenting a scene or looking at a damaged vehicle, they’ll tell me everything. Some things I don’t even want to hear about, but they will tell me, they’ll volunteer stuff and they’ll say, “Oh, yeah, I remember that crash.” Or something to that effect.

I’m going, “Really? Where were you?” And they’ll tell you and you’re going like, “Wow, nobody would ever found this person.” We had no idea they were even out there or they even existed, and so sometimes it helps put that puzzle even further together that we didn’t even have, but the physical evidence and the advanced technology in the world today, it’s amazing how much it’s changed to better, further document what actually happened and to put you in that car so to speak, or that truck, to see what was right in front of you before it happened.

David Craig: And I would say that for the people listening, not all reconstructionists are equal. I mean, there’s some that have equipment, some that don’t. Some that have the training, some that say they have the training and they’re glorified investigators, but they don’t have the sufficient reconstruction. It’s amazing how many people hold themselves out as they can download or read this or do that, and it’s important that you have the right people that don’t mess this up when they’re doing the downloads. They use the technology right, they use the equipment right, and then also I think it’s good to work with other side of this. There’s going to be two sets of experts, and I like to work with people who are honest who are trustworthy, and I don’t really care if they work with the defense sometimes, with the plaintiffs sometimes. I care more about are they good at what they do, and do I trust them? And I think the good defense firms and the good trucking companies think likewise.

Mark Helms: Right, we’re not going to give you an answer that’s not correct. You could pay me a million dollars to say something, I won’t do it. I’ll stand on my two feet and say, “No, it didn’t happen that way.” And we’ve actually had law firms, we tell them, say, “Here’s what it is and here’s the evidence and if that’s not the answer you want, you’ve hired the wrong people because we’re going to give you the honest answer and step up to the plate and tell you.”

David Craig: I look at it as our job is to win with the facts we’re given, not to change the facts.

Mark Helms: Correct.

David Craig: So that’s just give me what it is, and there’s certain cases I may not be able to help people. There’s a lot of cases that are challenging cases that we have been able to help people, but it’s not by changing the facts, it’s by taking the facts and winning with those facts.

Mark Helms: Correct.

David Craig: And I guess lastly, do you think that all personal injury law firms are equal? Can we all handle big truck cases?

Mark Helms: No. Some law firms, they don’t deal with it enough, and so they don’t have that experience or the knowledge that’s out there. Until they delve into it and really dig deep into the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, they can’t give the answer. They’ll just drop it. They’ll say, “No, there’s nothing we can do for you.” And it’s important to find the law firm that has those resources or can get those resources, and if they don’t, if they’re not a fully invested law agency dealing with personal injury, I’d steer away from them because they’re not going to give you that answer that you really need to know.

David Craig: Unfortunately, I see clients go to other attorneys and personal injury attorneys and they think that a car crash is the same as a truck crash, and they’re not.

Mark Helms: No, not at all.

David Craig: And I see that the lawyers will sit on them, thinking they’re going to get a settlement, and the insurance company or the trucking company realizes that they’re not working the file up, and therefore they’ll not settle with them because they know they can’t do anything about it. That’s always sad because by the time they refer the case to me, the evidence is gone, or a lot of it’s gone. And so I think that picking the right law firm, you would not want to hire me to do your will. I’d be terrible to draft a will or contract. You certainly don’t want me to handle your divorce, but the reality is with trucking, Scott Faultless, my partner, and I are both board certified in truck accident law. There’s only four lawyers in the state of Indiana that are board certified. That means we had to have this certain experience.

We had to have defense lawyers, judges, vouch for us, but then we just had a conference in Nashville, Tennessee. There was a national trucking company that I’m on the board of directors for, and I took all my paralegals. So it’s not just the lawyers. My paralegals go. I take them out and we drive trucks out in Montana on a drag strip, and we take them out so they can get experience, see what it’s like, and so there’s a lot of [people] just like you guys investing in your knowledge in reconstruction on keeping up, buying the equipment.

Not all reconstructionists do that, but not all personal injury lawyers put the time and effort into learning the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, the industry standards, the equipment, and then not training all their employees. So, I would encourage you, if you’re out there and you’re listening, pick somebody that has the experience, interview them, make sure that you find out and then ask them because the good personal injury lawyers that do trucking, they’re going to know who to hire on which reconstruction, what experts, who to bring as a mechanic. Oftentimes when I work with you guys, we’ll bring a mechanical expert in.

So people know, “Okay, what else do I need? What limitations do I have?” You can’t do everything. I mean, sometimes it’s a night vision crisis, so you need a conspicuity expert. So I think getting the right lawyers, getting the right constructionists that can tell you what you need, and then investing in the case on the front end makes all the difference in the world.

Mark Helms: Correct, and I can tell you, in speaking with the numerous attorneys that I’ve spoken with, I know in law school they don’t teach traffic laws. They have to learn it on their own. Just like policemen, they have to sit and read that manual and learn it on their own. So, if they’re not fully thorough with or have thorough knowledge of traffic laws themselves, they may miss the boat when it comes to a personal injury crash. Did it actually happen that way or not, and does that law apply or does it not apply?

So it’s kind of the same thing. If they don’t maintain that training knowledge or that knowledge in those specific fields, trucking, federal motor carrier regulations, Indiana traffic laws in Indiana, they’re losing. They’ll lose out and so that’s one thing that our company comes with: All three of us, well, all four of us have all been in law enforcement at one time or the other.

So, we’re pretty thorough with the traffic laws or what are out there, and I’m always one of those that tries to keep abreast of the changes that occur, even though I’ve been retired, because that comes into play when it comes to looking at a scene and trying to figure out, “Okay, does this apply to this?” So it’s out there, the training, the companies, the law firms that are there, if they are thoroughly vested and want to do a good job with this, they will keep up on it. As you said with your firm, it’s taking those people out, those paralegals out. They can actually see what a truck looks like, how it operates, how it sounds, and what it can do and what it can’t do. So, therefore, whenever they’re screening a case for you, they can say, “Wait a minute, no, I remember this truck doing this or doing that.” That way it helps you in developing the case in general later on as to what we can do or anybody can do for you.

David Craig: Well Mark, I appreciate it. Is there anything else, any closing thoughts that you want to share with us?

Mark Helms: Well, as I said, and maybe I needed to reiterate, law enforcement agencies are thoroughly involved with calls for service, and their abilities sometimes are limited because of that. What I may have said could be taken out of context. Every agency is a good agency. They really are. I’ve worked with many of them, but the training and experience is not always there with those agencies, and so sometimes an ego gets in the way, and they won’t want to hang on with saying, “Well, I don’t want somebody to tell me that I’m wrong.” Well, that’s okay because, I mean, I’ve been there myself. You don’t want some attorney to contact you and tell you’re wrong, but if you have the ability and the knowledge or the contacts or the resources available, you can find the thorough answers if you want to badly enough, and you want to do the right thing. That’s the way I look at it, because you’re giving those family members the answers they need to know.

David Craig: Well Mark, I appreciate all your years of service. I loved it when you were a state trooper. I knew that southeastern Indiana was in good shape when you were actually out there doing the reconstructions. It made things a little bit easier, but the reality is — and I agree with you — I think all too often I get picked on because they say that I’m against truckers, and that’s not true. I represent a lot of semi-truck drivers who’ve been hurt or hit by other truckers. I’m against the ones that hurt or kill people, who put profits ahead of safety, who don’t care about what they’re doing, and I also believe the police get it right most of the time, but not always.

You can’t count on it when it’s a huge case, when it’s your family’s livelihood is at stake. You owe it to your own family to find out for sure what happens, and maybe the police got it exactly right, but that’s okay. Let’s verify it. They may not, but that’s not an attack on truckers, and it’s not an attack on police. They’re all doing the best they can do, but let’s verify. Let’s check it out and then we go forward based upon what we find.

Mark Helms: Exactly.

David Craig: With that Mark, thank you very much for being a guest on After the Crash.

Mark Helms: Thoroughly enjoyed it.

David Craig: This is David Craig, and you’ve been listening to After the Crash. If you’d more information about me or my law firm, please go to our website ckflaw.com, or if you’d like to talk to me, you can call 1-800-ASK-DAVID. If you would like a guide on what to do after a truck wreck, then pick up my book, Semitruck Wreck: A Guide for Victims and Their Families, which is available on Amazon, or you can download it for free on our website, ckflaw.com.