Copyright © 2023 Gelb & Gelb, P.C. All rights reserved.
Our Bowie truck accident lawyers have been practicing in Maryland for the better part of a century. When we hear that a potential client is in a truck accident, we typically surmise that the injury is substantial. Of course, we investigate further and check medical records. But, in a truck accident, there can be some of the most catastrophic and devastating injuries in personal injury law. We know this, and we have your back.
In theory, pursuing a truck accident in Bowie is no different than pursuing a car accident case or the typical personal injury case. Generally, we file suit based on a negligence cause of action. The one added factor is that, in addition to suing the truck driver in his or her personal capacity, we look to sue the trucking company under a theory of respondeat superior. In this article, we will cover the broad strokes of what goes into a negligence claim as well as whether the trucking company may be liable for its trucker’s negligence.
There are four traditional factors necessary for a viable negligence claim. The four factors are whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care, whether there is a breach of that duty, and that there is a causal link between the breach and harm to the plaintiff. In Maryland, and in Bowie in particular, Kiriakos v. Phillips, 448 Md. 440 (2016) is a case that outlines the six or seven factors a court considers in determining duty. Unlike most jurisdictions, which only consider the foreseeability of harm to someone, Maryland uses a totality of the circumstances test. Those factors include the traditional foreseeability, but also the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, etc.
On breach, violation of a statute or ordinance such as a speed limit may be evidence of negligence, but is not negligence per se. Negligence per se is a legal term of art. To show negligence per se, the plaintiff must have been a part of the class of persons intended to be protected by the statute or ordinance. For causation, again there must be actual and legal causation. Actual causation is easy to show. As Bowie truck accident lawyers, we use a “but for” test. To do so, we show that but for the defendant’s conduct, there would be no harm to you, the plaintiff. Then, to show legal causation, we must show it was foreseeable that the defendant’s conduct would cause your injuries.
Last, we must prove your injuries. This is the financial aspect of your recovery. In court, the judge or jury does not determine you are hurt and then assign you a dollar amount. Instead, we must prove your monetary damages are a certain amount. How much you recover also depends on how much money the defendant or his or her insurance coverage has. If you believe you may have a case, contact a Bowie truck accident lawyer today.
The trucking company, whether it is an Amazon truck or a Walmart truck, is likely to be driven by an employee of that company. This may mean far more insurance coverage or assets than the driver. But how can we sue a company that may not appear to be involved in the accident? Respondeat superior holds that an employer will be vicariously for the acts of its employee if the tortious act occurs within the course and scope of the employment relationship. That is the general rule we sue to hold the trucking company responsible. But there are exceptions.
The rule states an employee must be acting within the course and scope of his employment. So, what if the employee is merely driving to work, and is not actively driving on one of his or her routes? This is not within the course and scope of employment in Bowie or Maryland. This makes sense. Logically, driving to and from your job is not a part of your job. You are not getting paid for that time. If you are, perhaps a plaintiff could make a stronger argument.
The last key to understand in vicarious liability for a trucking company is the theory of frolic and detour. A frolic is within the course and scope of employment while a detour is not. Identifying what each of these can be difficult without a skilled Bowie truck accident lawyer. In short, a frolic is some act which is only a minor deviation from a truck driver’s job description. Meanwhile, a detour is something clearly outside the scope of employment, such as driving 30 miles off the planned route to meet up with a friend. This is an extreme example to illustrate a clear detour. But somewhere in between the two examples is where Bowie truck accident lawyers make our arguments to obtain maximum compensation.
Our Bowie truck accident lawyers have handled nearly every type of truck accident case in Maryland. If you have any questions, please contact with us for a free consultation. We look forward to hearing from you.
Copyright © 2023 Gelb & Gelb, P.C. All rights reserved.