A truck wreck case our Georgia tractor-trailer attorneys recently settled shows how truck black box data can be used to prove that a tractor-trailer caused an accident.
Black Box Data
Most tractor-trailers on the road today have black boxes that digitally record information about the tractor-trailer’s speed, braking, and hours driven. Some newer models are even equipped with video cameras to record the movements of other cars around the tractor-trailer, while other tractor-trailers have radar systems that track the speed, location, and movements of cars around the tractor-trailer as well as the truck itself. This information can be invaluable in trying to figure out exactly why an accident happened and who’s at fault.
The Accident
We represented a man we’ll call Mr. M who was driving his truck on I-475 near Macon, Georgia late one night when he began to experience mechanical problems with his truck that caused it to slow to 20 miles per hour. He put on his emergency flashers and began looking for a safe spot to pull over. Before Mr. M could do so, his tractor-trailer was rear-ended at 55 miles per hour by a tractor-trailer, seriously injuring him.
Reviewing The Case
What Happened
The tractor-trailer driver and trucking company claimed that Mr. M was at fault for the accident because he did not have his emergency flashers on and should have pulled off the road immediately instead of driving on it at 20 miles per hour while looking for a safe spot to pull over. While we believed the evidence proved that Mr. M did have his emergency flashers on, we thought the tractor-trailer company had a valid point until we reviewed the data from the tractor-trailer’s black box.
The tractor-trailer that rear-ended Mr. M was equipped with an Eaton/VORAD unit. This is a radar system that tracks and records the position, speed, and movements of the tractor-trailer as well as the cars around it. The data from the Eaton/VORAD unit showed that the tractor-trailer had been driving in the far right lane at 55 miles per hour for 15-20 minutes before the accident and had been following a car that was several hundred feet ahead of it in the far right lane. 15 seconds before the collision, that car rapidly changed lanes to the left. At that point, Mr. M’s truck appeared on the tractor-trailer’s radar, also in the far right lane. For the next 15 seconds, the tractor-trailer drove straight forward until it rear-ended Mr. M’s truck. It didn’t brake and it didn’t try to change lanes.
Our Plan of Action
The Eaton/VORAD unit also has a proximity alarm that begins sounding as the tractor-trailer gets too close to cars in front of it and gets louder and louder as the tractor-trailer gets closer. The data from the EATON/Vorad showed that the alarm began going off as the tractor-trailer approached Mr. M’s truck and went to “high alert” five seconds before the collision but the driver didn’t do anything in response. We learned why when we deposed the tractor-trailer driver. He testified that he and his co-driver (some tractor-trailer drivers work in teams of two and take turns driving) turned off the alarm because they found it “annoying” and admitted that he would keep the alarm on if he could do everything over again. When we deposed the safety director of the trucking company, he agreed that the tractor-trailer drivers should not have turned off the alarm and that the alarm was designed to prevent rear-end collisions just like this one.
The Settlement
Using this data, we built a convincing case that the tractor-trailer was at fault for the accident. Based on the data from the Eaton/VORAD unit showing that 15 seconds before the accident the car the tractor-trailer was following had quickly changed lanes, we argued that this car had seen the emergency flashers on Mr. M’s truck, realized that he was traveling slowly and safely changed lanes to avoid an accident. Given the data showing that after the car changed lanes, the tractor-trailer drove straight ahead for the next 15 seconds until it rear-ended Mr. M’s car, we argued that the tractor-trailer driver was either asleep or not paying attention. We also argued that the tractor-trailer driver was responsible because he had turned off a safety feature – the proximity alarm – that was designed to prevent accidents just like this.
After over a year of litigation, we were able to negotiate a confidential settlement for Mr. M at mediation.