When a lot of money is on the line, trucking companies and their insurance providers fight to deny victims the compensation they deserve.
That was the case for our client Tim. An accident with an 18-wheeler left him with life-altering injuries. Yet despite a mountain of evidence showing gross negligence on the part of the truck driver and trucking company, the insurance company’s offers were insultingly low.
Crosley Law knew Tim deserved far more and took this case all the way to trial. Thanks to our hard work, the jury ended up awarding Tim more than 12 times what the insurance company had offered.
A Preventable Crash Causes Life-Changing Injuries
Tim, a 55-year-old paint mixer, had just driven his pickup onto I-35 South near downtown San Antonio. It was rush hour, and shortly after merging into the left-most lane, Tim was stuck in stop-and-go traffic.
Soon after coming to a complete stop, an 18-wheeler slammed into the back of Tim’s truck. According to a later analysis by an accident reconstructionist, the semi was still traveling at approximately 20 miles per hour at the moment of the collision—fast enough to cause considerable injuries, given the weight and moment of the truck.
After the crash, Tim suffered from severe pain in his left hip, lower back, torso, and neck. Testing later revealed several herniated discs in his lower back and neck, and a torn labrum in his hip.
Tim saw a chiropractor and a pain specialist. But when chiropractic care and steroid injections provided only minimal relief, Tim was referred to a spinal surgeon.
By the time of the trial, Tim had already undergone two surgeries—a neck surgery to deal with the herniated discs and pinched nerves, and a total left hip replacement. He was also expected to require at least two more surgeries in the future: one on his lower back, and a second on his neck.
According to Crosley Law’s calculations, Tim’s lifetime economic losses (medical expenses and lost wages) resulting from the crash were expected to total more than $1.6 million.
But that wasn’t all Tim had lost. Due to his injuries, he could no longer work as a paint mixer. His pain and mobility issues also prevented him from participating in hobbies he used to enjoy, including searching for arrowheads and barbecuing with friends.
Basic Liability Wasn’t in Dispute
There was really no question that the truck driver was at fault in the crash. There was plenty of supporting evidence:
- The responding police officer at the scene cited “failure to control speed” and “failure to keep a safe distance” as contributing factors in the crash.
- In deposition testimony, the truck driver admitted “I am responsible because I hit the vehicle.”
- The truck driver’s employer provided him with a disciplinary notice after the crash for violation of company safety rules. According to the supervisor on the notice, he “was involved in a motor vehicle accident … It has been determined that this was an ‘at fault’ and could have been avoided.”
Despite acknowledging the truck driver’s responsibility and that medical care for Tim was necessary, the defense argued it was a simple, relatively innocent accident in stop-and-go traffic, and Tim’s injuries were not nearly as severe as claimed.
However, this was not a simple, innocent accident.
Crosley Law Investigation Reveals the Defendant’s History of Dangerous Driving
As our attorneys worked through investigating the case, we uncovered multiple shocking truths about the trucking company and the driver.
Brake Failure and Lack of Preventative Maintenance
The day after the crash, the truck was inspected by the Department of Transportation (DOT). The inspector declared the truck out of service due to serious issues with defective brakes.
Why wasn’t this issue caught earlier? The story was different, depending on who you asked.
According to the trucking company’s corporate representative, the company had a written preventative maintenance policy. Trucks were supposed to be checked at regular intervals determined by a combination of miles and hours driven. But when we asked the company’s safety coordinator if there was a preventative maintenance program, he said he wasn’t aware of one. (Systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance of vehicles is a clear federal requirement for trucking companies.)
We also asked who was responsible for brake maintenance on company trucks and got three different answers. The company representative said it was handled by third-party vendors. But the company’s lead mechanic said he serviced them. And the mechanic shop coordinator said “some” work was done by third parties.
Furthermore, the lead mechanic also admitted that he only checked the brakes on the trucks if drivers reported issues. He had no set procedure for routine brake inspection.
Not only was there no procedure for preventative maintenance, but there seemed to be no set procedure for diagnosing issues even after a crash. We asked the safety coordinator if anyone at the company was responsible for investigating potential mechanical failures as part of an investigation following a collision. His response was “I don’t know.”
Despite Knowing the Danger, the Company Kept the Truck on the Road
As noted above, the DOT inspection identified serious issues with the brakes and put the truck out of service.
However, company maintenance logs revealed that it took more than two full months after the crash for the brakes to finally be replaced. No additional brake work was documented during the intervening two months, let alone immediately before the accident.
Meanwhile, the truck continued to be driven even while supposedly out of service. In just the first four days following the DOT’s inspection, the truck logged an additional 500 miles on the odometer, according to the driver’s daily reports. And on that fourth day, it was involved in another collision.
The Truck Driver Lies About Cell Phone Use and Negligent Driving
During deposition, Crosley Law attorneys asked the truck driver about his activities while driving his truck. Specifically, we asked him if he ever used a cell phone while driving, for example to play music or watch videos. His response was “never.”
However, we obtained multiple cell phone videos taken by the driver while driving his truck—including selfie videos of him dancing to music and eating food.
During his deposition, we asked him point blank if he was driving his truck while recording a specific video that had been posted on social media. The truck driver claimed a friend was driving at the time. But when asked to name the friend, he said he could not remember.
The Insurance Company Disputes Tim’s Injuries and Refuses to Make a Fair Offer
Insurance companies are businesses. Even when they know their client is liable, they’ll still fight to keep payouts as low as possible. In this case, the insurance company tried to argue that most of Tim’s injuries were pre-existing and related to normal age-related wear and tear.
To back up their argument, they hired their own medical experts. Their spine surgeon argued that Tim’s injections and spine surgeries weren’t medically necessary and that his injuries should have fully healed within a few months. (This surgeon is routinely hired by insurance company defense attorneys to fight claims of medical necessity.)
They also hired a hip surgeon who said that Tim’s hip surgery was necessitated by chronic wear and tear rather than the accident—even though Tim’s hip pain occurred suddenly and severely within the first few days following the crash.
Despite all the evidence we collected about the case and about Tim’s injuries, the insurance company’s best offer was a paltry $330,000. That wouldn’t even cover the medical expenses Tim had already incurred.
When they wouldn’t budge, Crosley Law took the case to trial.
Tim Wins Justice and Accountability in Court
Because trucking accident cases are so complex, difficult, and expensive to litigate, insurance companies often try to strong-arm crash victims into accepting far less compensation than they deserve.
We weren’t going to let that happen to Tim.
While the defense had hired their own experts, so did we—including the doctors who were directly responsible for Tim’s care, as well as a life care planner, economist, and others.
Our preparation and hard work paid off. The jury fully agreed with Crosley Law that Tim’s injuries were directly caused by the crash and that all of his past medical treatment had been necessary.
Beyond that, they awarded Tim substantial non-economic compensation for the physical pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment that he had already suffered, and would continue to suffer in the future.
The final verdict for Tim was just over $4 million—more than 12 times more than the insurance company’s best pre-trial offer.
Car Crash? Call Crosley
At Crosley Law, we focus on cases that require outstanding levels of involvement and experience. We were thrilled that we could make a huge difference for Tim.
If you’ve been in a serious car accident and don’t know where to turn, give Crosley Law a call. We’d love to see if we can help you, too. To request your free consultation, call (210) 529-3000 or fill out a contact form today.
