Los Angeles Truck Accident Lawyer

1.1 Negligence or Strict Liability?

While numerous parties can potentially be held liable for a truck accident victims’ injuries and losses, proving liability will typically involve one (and possibly both) of two legal theories: negligence and strict liability.

Let’s examine negligence as it relates to a trucking accident: According to California negligence law, any truck driver found guilty of negligence can be held liable for causing injuries and damages to another motorist. A driver who was injured by a negligent truck driver is entitled to file a personal injury lawsuit. However, the aggrieved party must prove that the truck driver was negligent in causing the accident.

There are three elements for demonstrating negligence in a California trucking accident:

• the truck driver owed the accident victim a duty of care,
• the truck driver breached their duty of care through negligence, and
• the truck driver’s breach was the significant factor in causing the victim's losses.

A duty of care is a basic legal requirement for every truck driver to watch out for other drivers and use reasonable caution while behind the wheel.  

For example, a duty of care for a truck driver would require that driver to:

• Control the movement and speed of their truck
• Use reasonable care while operating their truck
• Watch for pedestrians, other vehicles, and obstacles

Let’s consider an example:

Say that Alicia was driving north on I-5, 50 miles north of Los Angeles. This portion of highway sees a constant flow of very heavy commercial trucking traffic. Alicia recognizes the danger and keeps her eyes on the road, does not text, and maintains a safe speed.

Directly behind her is Robert, an experienced commercial truck driver. Robert is so confident in his driving abilities that he takes a risk and exceeds the legal limit for hours he should be driving on the road. He is exhausted and continues to drive while drowsy, which is a reckless act.

A sudden gust of wind kicks up a dust storm. The dust is so thick that it creates issues with visibility. Given how tired Robert is, he is slow to react. He slams on the brakes but can’t avoid hitting Alicia.

In this example, Alicia has no fault. Objectively speaking, it is not Robert’s fault that a dust storm impeded his visibility of the road. However, Robert shouldn’t have been driving on the road past the legal limit of hours he is allowed as a trucker. Therefore, Robert was negligent for driving drowsy and his very presence on the highway was a source of danger not only for Alicia, but for everyone else. Despite the visibility issues, Robert would almost certainly be liable for Alicia’s injuries and losses.

Let’s consider the second theory of liability in many truck accident cases, which is known as strict liability.

According to California strict liability law, designers, manufacturers, and even any companies involved in a product’s chain of distribution can all be held liable if one of their defective products contributes towards causing a truck accident. In strict liability cases, negligence will not factor when determining liability, because any of these companies can be found liable whether or not they made any mistakes that contributed to the trucking accident.

Strict liability claims can be based on:

• Faulty tires
• Faulty brakes
• Faulty cargo ties or straps
• Faulty accelerator pedals
• Faulty engine/transmission parts

Let’s consider an example:

Imagine that Fred is on his way to work at a manufacturing plant. He exits the 710 freeway on Slauson. At this hour of the morning, there is heavy truck traffic both exiting and entering the freeway in this particular intersection.

Directly behind Fred is Joe, a brand new truck driver. Objectively speaking, Joe is a bit nervous behind the wheel. However, he has been well trained and does know what he is doing. Fred and Joe are both waiting at a red light, with their eyes on the road.

As the light turns green, both men accelerate. Suddenly, the right tire on Joe’s cab explodes for no reason. The explosion causes Joe to lose control of his truck, which ends up side swiping Fred. Fred is not injured, but his vehicle is badly damaged.

In this example, neither Fred nor Joe are responsible for the accident or damage caused to Fred’s vehicle. After a thorough accident investigation, it was determined that the tire which exploded was defective.

Fred would therefore be entitled to file a product liability claim against the tire manufacturer and distributor for damage caused to his car.

In summary, if a defective part causes -- or contributes to causing -- a trucking accident, an injured victim may have a number of possible sources to seek compensation from.