Georgia Injury Lawyers Blog
Pertinent Case Law
A considerable body of law has emerged which construes many aspects of regulation, and provides guidance for those who deal with stopped CMV litigation. For example, in the Harmon case, a motor carrier was held to face direct liability for failing to instruct its driver in the requirements of regulation, as required. The evidence there revealed the motor carrier did nothing more than pin some diagrams about warning devices to a bulletin board at the office, which the court held was sufficient to support a finding the motor carrier breached its duty to instruct and comply with the regulations.
Proximate cause was lacking for failure to place triangles on a bright sunny day where the stopped vehicle was apparent for a great distance in the Dmitruk case. The trial court in Dmitruk, in an earlier ruling, held that a tow truck company which is towing a CMV does not have a duty to place triangles should the vehicles be forced to stop. However, the fact the plaintiff saw the defendant truck and its lights, but failed to slow significantly, was held insufficient to entitle the motor carrier to summary judgment, where its driver failed to comply with the regulation and did not place a triangle in front of the disabled CMV.