Personal Injury Case Analysis: A Farm Semi-Tractor Trailer Accident

It was a beautiful summer Saturday when I approached a house that I had never been to before and knocked at the door. I was greeted by a man and woman in their early 40s. Both had concerned looks on their faces. As I looked past them, I saw a teenager in a wheelchair, his leg sticking straight out. There were rods running through his leg, holding it in place.

The young man’s father had called Craig, Kelley & Faultless, my law firm, earlier in the week. He told me that his son had been in a horrible accident and was seriously injured. He had just gotten home after spending several weeks in the hospital. The father explained to me that he was hiring a personal injury attorney and had narrowed it down to three lawyers. I was one of them. The accident involved a service tractor-trailer, which is why he chose to interview me.

I explained to the father that he was doing the right thing by researching lawyers and interviewing them. In fact, I recommend this process in my book, Semitruck Wreck: A Guide for Victims and Their Families. Not all lawyers have the knowledge, experience and resources to handle semi, big truck, or other commercial motor vehicle cases. Additionally, lawyers and their offices are all different. It is important that you hire a lawyer who is well-qualified and who makes you feel comfortable, responds to you, and treats you as a person, not just another file.

The young man’s wreck occurred in Scott County, Indiana, west of Scottsburg on SR56. As the teenager was driving east on SR56, a farm semi-hauling grain with a tractor-trailer was coming south. They collided at the intersection. The wreck was violent, totaling the teenager’s car and trapping him inside the vehicle. The semi-tractor/cab also sustained significant damage. At this intersection, SR39 has a stop sign and SR56 does not. Therefore, traffic on SR56 would have the right of way over traffic on SR39.

The problem was that the semi-driver was refusing to take responsibility for the wreck, even though the teenager had the right of way. The semi-driver claimed that his view was partially blocked and that, by the time he finally could see the approaching car, it was speeding. Unfortunately, because of the injuries the teenager sustained, he was unable to give his version of the wreck. The police, only hearing the trucker’s story, determined the semi-driver wasn’t at fault. Some people, occasionally even police, are apt to assume that a teenager is at fault. We knew we had our work cut out for us.

Once hired, we began investigating the wreck and collecting evidence. We had an accident reconstructionist examine the scene and both vehicles. We obtained downloads, scanned the scene, and determined the line of sight. We then exchanged discovery and took depositions. Because we were hired soon after the collision, the evidence was still available. We were able to prove that the teenager, our client, did nothing to cause the accident. The truck driver failed to yield the right of way. Our client was not speeding. There were no legitimate line-of-sight issues.

Our client had catastrophic injuries. His leg had been broken at multiple levels and had required surgery, rods and screws to hold it together. The orthopedic surgeon believed he would never have normal strength, motion or mobility with that leg again. He also sustained muscle, nerve and ligament damage. It was likely he would need future medical treatment. The teenager’s injury would not age well; the doctor anticipated that as he got older, he would suffer more complications and limitations.

After proving that the wreck was caused by the driver of the farm tractor-trailer, we had to determine the value of the claim. Our client was entitled to recover the following types of damages: current and future medical bills, lost wages, loss of future earning ability, pain, suffering, and the loss of enjoyment of life. Because our client’s injuries were permanent, substantial, and would affect his ability to engage in various activities, we knew that his claim was worth a significant amount of money.

However, there was a major problem. The trucker, who was driving the farm truck, worked with a large corporation that farmed in Scott County, Jackson County, and Washington County. The corporation owned several semi-tractors and trailers that they used to haul grain. The semi was only insured by the farmer for $100,000. The farm had a liability policy for $100,000 per accident, and they had no umbrella or excess policy.

The minimal amount of insurance that the farmer had, especially considering the size of his operation, was shocking. Commercial motor vehicles — including semi-tractor trailers and other big trucks — that weigh 10,001 pounds or more and involve interstate commerce must carry at least $750,000 liability limits per accident. Most states have adopted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations, even for vehicles that only drive intrastate. This means that vehicles over 10,001 pounds, even when driven only within Indiana boundaries, must maintain $750,000 of liability insurance coverage. However, semis hauling farm grain can be exempt. The grain hauler involved in this wreck was exempt and was not required to carry the $750,000 limit. That is why this large grain truck only had $100,000 of insurance coverage.

Early on, the insurance company for the farmer offered its insurance limits of $100,000. We refused and said that the farmer would be obligated to personally contribute toward the settlement. Alternatively, we could go to trial, get a verdict in excess of the policy limits, then collect the excess against the farm corporation. We also advised the farmer’s attorney, who was being paid by the insurance company, that he had a conflict and that he should urge the farmer to get his own personal attorney. The conflict was because we believed that the farmer might have a claim against his insurance agent for failing to tell him that he needed higher limits to protect the assets of the farm.

Ultimately, the case was mediated. The farmer and the insurance company each had their own attorney. The case was settled for a fair amount, much more than the insurance company’s policy limits. The young man received enough money to improve his life and to cover the losses he suffered from his injuries.

Side Note:

As a side note, I would like to discuss why the Indiana-based personal injury law firm Craig, Kelley & Faultless was hired. As I mentioned, the client’s father had narrowed the list of personal injury attorneys to three law firms. He then interviewed all three. One lawyer was eliminated because he did not have experience handling car crashes with semis or big trucks.

The other attorney they were considering said he had the experience and knowledge. He also said that he was very successful and would like to send a limousine to pick the father and his son up to bring them to his office. He said he had a very nice office and would like to show them around. The client’s parents found this to be insensitive since their son had just gotten out of the hospital and was still in a great deal of pain. The thought of trying to get him in and out of a vehicle was terrible.

I had offered to come to the family since I was sure their son didn’t feel like leaving the house. Then they discovered that I had years of experience handling cases against careless and reckless semi and commercial motor vehicle drivers, including farm grain trucks. Because I had the knowledge, experience, and expertise to handle the case, and because I showed the family compassion, our law firm got the case.