shed some light comments
- What do you think about these comments?
I'd like to see the diagram, including a measument of the gap between 2nd
and 3rd trailers. Also showing why Tex headlights don't count.
Although defendant is not off the hook,
Tex is partially at fault for not seeing the object. I.e., it could have
been a large animal sitting there.
I believe that if it was dark enough for the trailer to be hid, then it
dark enough to have his head lights on. There for he must drive within
light from the head lights. I can't believe that he didn't see the trailer
unless he had something else distracting him of too much speed
or was he talking on a cell phone or finding papers. Most drivers would
seen this trailer.
Illegally parked or not this trailer didn't move into his lane, he hit
If all three trailers where parked unlawfuly,the tractor operatetors are
responceable for the out come. A hazard reflector traingle should have been
placed at a distance equal to the posted speed limit (in feet) plus the
stoping distance required (in feet) for a vehicle traveling at the posted
speed limit. Thats the farthest point. Also must go towards the back of the
For example, a vehicle traveling at the posted speed limit of 40mph
125 feet to stop. The most distance of an inmoveable object indacater
be place at a distance of 165ft.
(125 feet + 40 feet = 165 feet ).
BUT ! IF Inmoveable object indacaters are limited,the farthest should be
place in a pattern from right to left at 50 feet,than 20 feet,and at the
back and front of the object,indacateing a hazard to the lane of travel
Our tractor trailers in Alaska have to have reflective tape on them,360
One thing to remember ! No matter what lies in the lane ahead,when you
leave your lane you are
Subject: shed some light-comments
I think it happened as is alleged. Tex had the accident because it was too
dark and the trailers were not visible until it was too late. All of the
industrial parks I've ever driven through (and there have been a few - a
home...) were not terribly well-lit except near the front of the buildings,
and the speed limits were never higher than 35 mph. I think Tex was not at
I couldn't resist bouncing this off my senior traffic deputy and a
state patrolman I ran into this AM during training. The questions I
asked, they say, are reasonable ones for court.
Based on their knowledge and experience, it sounds like your
defendant would be a local government (probably streets and
maintenance, or engineers.) The street lighting issue comes into
play when the road is planned; also, local government ought to have a
record of lighting/ signage requests on file. If indeed a record has
been established of lighting requests, or even a pattern of accidents
in that area, then the plaintiff might have a case against the local
government, the accident having occurred on a public road.
Speed limits do not have to be posted on all roads. In Alabama, the
speed limit for an industrial area, two lane, two way road as
described is 35 miles per hour. Conditions play a key role here; the
speed limit is determined using clear, daylight illumination. It's
up to the driver to adjust speed for conditions; that's why cops
write tickets for speeding ("unsafe speed for prevailing traffic/
weather conditions"). Additionally, drivers are responsible for the
safe operation of their vehicle regardless of what others do (or in
this case, don't do.)
My two experts both agreed that the owners of the trailers (already
stipulated as having been illegally parked) would have been cited for
obstructing a public thouroughfare. They also would have cited Tex
for excessive speed for prevailing conditions. One said he might
have also cited Tex for driving the wrong way if there was a double
yellow line present in the roadway. (I didn't read about it.) The
state trooper, who is certified for DOT truck inspections, would have
also written up the trailers for improper/missing display of
reflectors and emergency warning triangles.
The plaintiff (Tex) is setting himself up for failure if he is going
after a local government. My experience is that engineers and road
design specialists are pretty precise when it comes to record
keeping. He stands a better chance of recovery, both in
medical/insurance and punitive costs, if he goes after the trucking
companies who owned the trailers. They have already admitted that
they were parked illegally- which means (to me, anyway) that they
were negligent in the proper and safe operation of the trailers.
The plaintiff also should document that he was not operating while
impaired in some way. That means everything from wearing seat belts,
corrective lenses (if needed), proper prescription and use of
medications, and rest prior to the accident. Tex's case would be
immensely strengthened if there was some way to document that the
accident resulted from unusual conditions existing at the time.
Tex's case could also be immensely weakened if the defense can prove
that he's used that road a lot (which would be the case if he was
going to work.) Every commuter, develops a feel for your route,
what's unusual and what's not. And if Tex was due at work in ten
minutes from the time of the accident (it happened at 5:50AM- did Tex
expect to clock in at 6:00AM?) he might have been rushing to get to
.357 foot candles?
If memory serves, a mine needs to be lit with at least 5 foot
candles. That ain't much.
You may want to research minimum legal lighting standards like those
for mines, et cetera. So the jury has a standard reference for
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]