This deserves a thread all by itself.
This is information that may not be given to any of the new drivers, and for that matter, I suspect that a number of seasoned drivers have never seen any of this. A GOOD READ for everyone.
[quote]10. RE: Wreck Charges Upgraded
Fatal truck accidents in bad weather are an all too common -- and preventable -- tragedy that we see in our law practice. Despite the very clear federal standard requiring "extreme caution" in hazardous weather and pull over if necessary, and guidelines in the Commercial Drivers License Manual to slow down by at least one-third, truck drivers under pressure from employers and shippers too often forge ahead. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 C.F.R. � 392.14 requires: Extreme caution in the operation of a commercial motor vehicle shall be exercised when hazardous conditions, such as those caused by snow, ice, sleet, fog, mist, rain, dust, or smoke, adversely affect visibility or traction. Speed shall be reduced when such conditions exist. If conditions become sufficiently dangerous, the operation of the commercial motor vehicle shall be discontinued and shall not be resumed until the commercial motor vehicle can be safely operated. Whenever compliance with the foregoing provisions of this rule increases hazard to passengers, the commercial motor vehicle may be operated to the nearest point at which the safety of passengers is assured. Two California cases hold that it is reversible error for a trial court to fail to instruct a jury regarding this "extreme caution" standard. In Crooks v. Sammons Trucking, Inc., 2001 WL 1654986 (Cal.App. 3 Dist.,2001), a tractor trailer driver forged on through heavy blowing snow until he was involved in a collision with another tractor trailer. The trial court refused a request to charge the jury on the �extreme caution� standard under 49 C.F.R.� 392.14, charging the jury instead on the state standard of ordinary negligence. The appellate court held that for the trial court to disregard the regulatory standard and to instruct instead the jury with lower standard provided by state law was reversible error. Similarly, in Weaver v. Chavez, 133 Cal.App.4th 1350, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 514 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.,2005), the court held that it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse to instruct the jury on the �extreme caution� standard rather than the ordinary negligence standard under state law. Clearly, if the federal �extreme caution� standard preempts a state rule of �ordinary care,� the reasons are even stronger for it to preempt a state standard of �willful or wanton misconduct.� In George v. Estate of Baker, 724 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.,2006), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that it was reversible error to give a �curative� instruction contradicting an attorney�s argument that a �reasonable care� standard did not apply, even though the full instructions included reference to standards of �utmost care� and �extreme caution.� The Kentucky case of Jurek v. Hubbs, 2004 WL 1487116 (Ky.App.,2004), involved denial of the plaintiff�s motion for directed verdict based on 49 C.F.R.� 392.14 rather than jury instructions. However, the court recognized that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations govern the operation of commercial motor vehicles in the United States. To the extent that they establish a standard of care higher than the law, ordinances, or regulations of a particular state jurisdiction, a commercial driver must comply with the FMSCR. In another case that applied the principle but did not involve jury instructions, the Virginia Supreme Court held, in Kimberlin v. PM Transport, Inc., 264 Va. 261, 563 S.E.2d 665 (Va.,2002), that it was reversible error to direct a verdict for the defendant where there was a question of fact whether truck driver violated the duty created by 49 C.F.R.� 392.14 to exercise extreme caution under hazardous conditions and whether violation of such duty was a proximate cause of the accident. The court noted that while violation of the regulation does �not constitute negligence per se [It] simply creates an expanded duty of care for the operation of commercial motor vehicles under the conditions stated therein.�563 S.E.2d at 668-69. See http://www.georgiatruckaccidentattorneyblog.com/
A link to this was posted on another thread by cdswans. It's a very good read for all of us. Anyone that doesn't agree with me is free to FLAME ME. More people will read it here than will take the time to go to the link and scroll down to read this.
It should also be noted that your speed in adverse weather conditions does not just include the weather alone, but also your ability to deal with it. It also means that a seasoned driver is no better prepared to run in winter weather than a new driver if he/she has done very little driving in the conditions.
 |
New Users Register Free Account Here | Existing Forum Members Log In Here | |
| Home | About Us | Contact Us | Testimonials | ||
|
|
||
Class A Drivers.comApplication Company Listings Job Search Load Board |
||
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by dobry4u
