The increase in compensation claims by truck accident victims, through knowledgeable representation by truck accident attorneys, has put a strain on the trucking industry.
In response, some states have implemented legislation to protect trucking companies from overzealous lawsuits. Texas' recently passed HB 19 has sparked debate because it raises concerns about the potential negative impact on the ability of truly deserving victims to receive fair compensation for their losses.
While this law aims to protect investors in the trucking sector, it also raises questions about the balance between protecting businesses and guaranteeing the rights of victims.
The first phase
Under the new law, victims who want to file a lawsuit against a truck driver must file a motion divided into two phases, also known as a “bifurcated” trial. The first phase of the trial will focus on compensatory damages with a focus on the driver’s action and inaction.
Under the principle of vicarious liability, employers are liable for accidents resulting from the negligence of their employees. However, HB 19 makes it nearly impossible for victims to hold the trucking company accountable for the actions of its employees.
Unfortunately, the resources of truck drivers do not come close to matching those of the company for which they work. Therefore, the driver may not be able to adequately compensate victims, especially if the resulting injuries are serious.
The second phase
The second phase of the bifurcated trial focuses on exemplary damages resulting from gross negligence on the part of the trucking company. Trucking companies are responsible for ensuring that their trucks are in the best possible condition and that their drivers are not working longer than federal trucking laws dictate.
The standard of proof for trucking companies has become significantly high under the new regulations, meaning few victims will meet that threshold.
Furthermore, gross negligence can only be established by an anonymous vote of all jurors in a truck accident case, whereas before the new law took effect, 10 out of 12 jurors were required to pronounce.
Limitation of admissible evidence
The new law also limits the types of evidence admissible in a truck accident case. For example, a plaintiff can only present evidence that is the proximate cause of the accident when it involves employee negligence.
For example, if a truck driver fails to yield the right of way at an intersection, the plaintiff cannot cite a violation of driving hours limits as a factor, because it is not the proximate cause of the accident. Such evidence can only be produced in the second phase of the bifurcated trial, when punitive damages are sought.
Its impact on Texas roads and the victims
The recent passage of HB 19 in Texas, which aims to protect trucking companies from excessive lawsuits, has drawn criticism from highway safety organizations and lawyers. The law is seen as beneficial to trucking companies, but detrimental to truck accident victims because it may limit the damages they can recover.
“The goal of truck accident victims is not to profit from their misfortune,” says attorney Dan Christensen of DC Law. “It’s about restoring their lives to the best of their ability, given the disruptive nature of an accident.
Highway safety advocates also worry that the soft approach to holding truckers accountable could incentivize failure to follow federal and state trucking regulations, putting road users at risk. The new law raises questions about the balance between protecting commercial interests and ensuring justice for accident victims.