These factors can include:

• Delivery schedule pressure: The holiday season brings increased consumer demand and pressure on the supply chain. Truckers are often encouraged to drive the maximum allotment of hours leading to fatigued driving. Additionally, truck drivers might speed or drive recklessly to make deliveries ahead of schedule to receive a pay bonus.
• Increased distractions: Whether it is phone conversations with loved ones or keeping up with friendly correspondence such as text and email, truck drivers often seek to pass the time while behind the wheel. Unfortunately, these activities pull focus and attention from the road potentially causing distracted driving collisions.
• Impaired driving: For a professional truck driver, impairment can mean a variety of things. Drugs and alcohol are the most common examples, but drivers could also find themselves relying on strong cold medicine or prescription medications with serious side effects.
• Lack of rest: Pressure to maintain a tight schedule or complete deliveries to get home for the holidays could encourage a trucker to push past their natural limits of exhaustion. Fatigued driving can lead to the loss of focus, perceptive challenges and eventually falling asleep while in control of the truck.
• Crowded roads: With normal commuters on the roads, the increased holiday travel and augmented truck delivery schedule means there are even more cars and trucks on the roads.
• Poor weather: While Albuquerque might not see regular snowstorms over the winter months, changing weather patterns can still cause problems. Strong winds, rain, fog and the occasional flurry can all lead to a dangerous trip.

Any of these factors can result in a traffic disaster. Unfortunately, the holiday season can lead to the combination of many factors at the same time.

Motor vehicle collisions involving large commercial trucks can have devastating results. From the severe property damage to the catastrophic injuries suffered by vehicle occupants, these crashes can be life-changing. Depending on factors such as the speed of the collision, these crashes could prove fatal.

Allegedly, in 2015, a back seat passenger in a truck sustained injuries after the truck was struck by another vehicle. In 2017, the injured passenger brought a lawsuit in New Mexico state court against the driver of the vehicle that collided with the truck. He also sued the company that insured the vehicle that collided with the truck. The insurance company removed the lawsuit to federal court. The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint in 2019, naming as a defendant the employer of the driver of the vehicle that had collided with the truck in which the plaintiff had been traveling at the time of the accident.

The employer responded by filing a motion to dismiss, asserting that the court should dismiss the employer from the lawsuit because the claims against the employer were barred under New Mexico’s applicable three-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff argued in response to the motion to dismiss that his addition of the employer as a defendant was timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 because the claims related back to the claims in the original complaint.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) governs when amended pleadings are considered to relate back to the date of the original pleading for the purposes of preserving the statute of limitations. The Rule sets forth four requirements that are to be satisfied before there can be a relation back. First, the claim(s) must arise out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading. Second, the added party must have received adequate notice so that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense. Third, it must be shown that the added party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake in identifying the correct party, the action would have been brought against it. Fourth, the second and third requirements must be satisfied within the prescribed limitation period.

In this case, the defendant conceded that the first requirement was met because the complaint naming the employer was comprised of claims that were the subject of the earlier filed complaint. According to the court, the plaintiff did not address the second requirement, receipt of notice of the claims by the defendant sufficient to avoid prejudice. With respect to the third requirement, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant knew or should have known about the potential claims against it. The defendant argued that it did not know. The court sided with the defendant, explaining that there was no indication in the plaintiff’s original complaint or the response to the motion to dismiss demonstrating that the employer received notice, or that it reasonably should have understood that the plaintiff intended to file an amended complaint to include claims against it. The court therefore granted the employer’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiff had not satisfied the requirement for allowing his amended complaint naming the employer to relate back to the time of the filing of the original complaint, which had not named the employer.

If you or a loved one has been hurt in an accident, there may be grounds for a recovery of monetary damages. In some situations, multiple parties are liable for compensating an injured party for damages resulting from an accident. Collecting damages can help people who have been injured and their families cover out-of-pocket costs, including medical bills. An award of damages can also help compensate people for lost wages. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your financial recovery, call New Mexico truck accident lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

The United States Magistrate Judge adjudicating the summary judgment motion began the court’s analysis by observing that the plaintiffs had not responded to the defendants’ summary judgment motion and that, under the standards set by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the court could not grant the defendants’ motion merely because it was unopposed. Rather, the court needed to determine whether summary judgment could be granted due to the absence of genuine issues of material fact and the defendants’ entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Based on evidence on file with the court, including deposition transcripts, the court reconstructed the circumstances of the accident that was the subject of the plaintiffs’ complaint and the defendants’ summary judgment motion. According to the court, the defendant who was driving the truck at the time of the accident was driving a commercial semi-tractor trailer truck near Grants, New Mexico. He had been, according to his deposition testimony, working as a truck driver for nearly 40 years. On the afternoon of the accident, he was allegedly driving between 5 and 20 miles per hour because he was driving in a construction zone. The plaintiff, driving a pickup truck, was allegedly driving at a speed of approximately 65 miles per hour, which was ten miles over the posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour in the construction zone. The right side of the pickup truck allegedly came into contact with the left side of the semi-tractor trailer, and the two trucks veered off causing the pickup truck to be pinned against the left guard rail of I-40. According to the court, there was no evidence that the driver of the semi-tractor trailer was driving erratically or that he intentionally or recklessly caused the accident; he was not cited for a traffic violation. The court also explained that no evidence had been presented showing the driver’s employer had been malicious, wanton, or reckless in hiring or supervising the driver.

The court went on to explain that, under New Mexico law, a claim for punitive damages may only be recovered from a defendant whose conduct is willful, wanton, malicious, reckless oppressive, or fraudulent. Based on the facts as presented by the defendants and analyzed by the court, the court concluded that the defendants showed that they did not engage in conduct meeting this standard. The plaintiffs (who did not respond to the motion for summary judgment dismissing the punitive damages claim) had not, according to the court, shown the presence of a genuine issue of material fact that would preclude dismissal of the punitive damages claim. Accordingly, the court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim with prejudice.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident, there may be grounds for a financial recovery. In some cases it may be possible to recover compensatory and punitive damages. An award of damages can assist people who are injured and their families with the medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering caused by the accident. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your recoveries, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

The ruling was made in the context of a lawsuit brought by a company that repaired its concrete pumping truck following an accident on Interstate 40, allegedly caused by the driver of a tractor-trailer. The plaintiff alleged that the driver of the tractor-trailer that struck the plaintiff’s concrete pumping truck was distracted at the time of the accident by looking in his vehicle’s rear-view mirror. The plaintiff sought damages in the amount of $26,000 to reimburse it for repairs and also sought to recover lost profits in the amount of $58,000 for the time during which the truck was out of service.

The defendant moved to dismiss the case on the basis that the plaintiff had engaged in spoliation by beginning repairs on the truck on the day after the accident. The defendant argued that this resulted in allegedly critical evidence relating to liability and damages ceasing to exist. Alternatively, the defendant asked for the imposition of a sanction less severe than dismissal of the plaintiff’s case.

The district court explained that courts assess two factors when considering whether to impose a sanction on a litigant. The first factor is the degree of culpability of the party that allegedly lost or destroyed the evidence at issue. The second factor courts consider is the degree of actual prejudice to the party seeking the imposition of the sanction. The court further explained that district courts have the discretion to impose various remedies for violations of the prohibition against spoliation.

Among the remedies that district courts can order are dismissal of a complaint, imposition of monetary damages, and an adverse inference instruction. An adverse inference instruction is an instruction to the fact-finder in a civil case (which can be a judge or jury, depending on the situation) that the fact-finder may draw an inference that the evidence destroyed was unfavorable to the party responsible for its spoliation.

In this case the court decided not to sanction the plaintiff. The court reasoned that the desire to repair the plaintiff’s concrete pumping truck did not involve bad faith. The repairs, in the court’s view, not only made the case harder to defend but also made it harder for the plaintiff to support its claims than it would have been if the plaintiff waited for an investigation before having the truck repaired. The court also considered prejudice to the parties from the immediate repair of the truck. The court reasoned that had the plaintiff waited for an independent investigation before having the truck repaired then the amount of the plaintiff’s lost profits would have increased. Further, the court reasoned that, while the defendant might not have the best evidence to defend against the plaintiff’s claims, the plaintiff’s ability to present a case for liability and damages was also hindered. The court concluded that the plaintiff could have done a better job preserving evidence but that its conduct did not warrant dismissal or the imposition of an adverse inference instruction.

If you or a loved one has sustained personal injuries or property damage in an accident, there may be grounds for a recovery of monetary damages from parties who are responsible. In some situations, a recovery of punitive damages may be available. Collecting damages can help people cover expenses they would not have incurred absent the accident. To understand more about your case and how your case can be pursued to maximize your financial recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a federal trial court may dismiss all or part of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In this case, the truck rental agency’s motion to dismiss was unopposed by the plaintiff. As the court explained, although a party’s failure to respond to a motion to dismiss may be understood to signify consent to the granting of the relief requested in the motion to dismiss, the court is obligated to consider the merits of the motion. In reviewing the merits, the court determined that there were multiple grounds for dismissal of claims against the truck rental agency.

First, the court noted that neither the negligence nor vicarious liability causes of action in the complaint even mentioned the truck rental agency expressly. Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, one party can be held responsible for the actions or omissions of another party, but in this instance there was no basis. The court continued the analysis, observing that the complaint also did not have factual content from which the court could draw a reasonable inference that the truck rental agency was liable for the alleged conduct. Second, the court reasoned that the complaint failed to allege grounds for holding the truck rental agency and other defendants jointly and severally liable. The court explained that, under New Mexico law, joint and several liability applies only (1) when the alleged tortfeasors act with the intention of injuring one another, (2) to vicarious liability, (3) to strict liability, and (4) when there is a sound basis in public policy. None of these circumstances were presented in the complaint that was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, according to the court’s ruling. The court further explained that vicarious liability against the truck rental agency was precluded by federal law known as the Graves Amendment, which expressly preempts vicarious liability claims against commercial vehicle lessors. The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim against the truck rental agency and granted the motion to dismiss claims asserted against the agency under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

If you or a loved one has sustained personal injuries, there may be grounds for a recovery of monetary damages from parties who are responsible. In some situations, more than one party can be held responsible for payment of monetary damages. Collecting damages can help people who have suffered personal injuries with out-of-pocket costs, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. To understand more about your case and how it can be pursued to maximize your recovery, call New Mexico personal injury lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

The mother of the deceased employee, as personal representative of his estate, sued her son’s employer, the employer’s father, and the company that had leased her son’s employer the truck. She sued in New Mexico state court and then the lessor of the truck removed the case to federal court. The lessor brought a summary judgment motion. Resolution was to be based on New Mexico law because the underlying truck accident occurred in New Mexico.

The lessor defendant argued to the federal district court that the driver of the truck at the time of the accident was not its employee under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; that it was not negligent in its own right for its training of its independent contractor who had entrusted the truck to her father, and that it should not be held liable for the successive entrustment of the truck by its independent contractor to her father. The court accepted these arguments reasoning that the driver at the time of the accident was not an employee and there was no evidence that the alleged lack of training by the lessor of the authorized driver of the vehicle contributed to the entrustment of the vehicle. Reviewing New Mexico state law, the court also concluded that New Mexico does not recognize a cause of action for negligent entrustment based on multiple, successive entrustments.

The court concluded that the entrustment of the truck by the daughter to her father was a break in the chain of responsibility precluding suit by the plaintiff against the lessor of the truck for the alleged negligence of the father at the time of the accident. Based on this analysis the court granted the lessor’s motion for summary judgment and denied other pending motions as moot. The court’s ruling only concerns the liability of the one defendant, with claims against the other two remaining viable.

Accidents can be devastating, leading to personal injuries or loss of life. If you or your loved one was injured in an accident, there may be grounds for an award of monetary damages. An award of damages can assist people coping with the wrongful death of a loved one. It can also help people who are injured and their families with losses, including the medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering caused by the accident. To understand more about your case, call New Mexico truck accident lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

More Blog Posts:

Legal Element of Causation Must be Proven in New Mexico Lawsuits Alleging Negligence

Technology in the shipping and trucking industries is rapidly advancing. Tesla debuted in November 2017 an electric semi-truck, expected to be manufactured two years from its introduction, which includes autonomous driving capabilities. An article by Fortune discusses features including Enhanced Autopilot, which is designed to allow a vehicle to stay within a driving lane, match the speed of the vehicle to traffic conditions, and even change lanes without the help of the driver.

Tesla’s new electric semi-truck could dramatically change the shipping and truck driving industries by bringing down costs. It is environmentally friendly and promoted on bases including that a single charge could power a truck for 500 miles while carrying a load of 80,000 pounds. The Tesla technology could also be used as part of a system described as “platooning,” in which a series of trucks follow a lead truck and synchronize speeds and routes via the use of sensors and RADAR technology. The platooning system is thought to have advantages including reducing wind resistance and cutting down on emissions from trucks.

The impact on the employment and compensation of truck drivers remains to be determined because changes to trucking technology are ongoing and will take time to implement. The Tesla semi-truck still requires a driver. The technology has the potential to reduce the rate of accidents caused by errors resulting from truck driver fatigue that can cause fatalities and serious physical injuries. But the technology could also result in accidents completely or partially outside the control of the driver.

Recoveries for damages caused by truck accidents are usually based on the law of negligence. Truck drivers, trucking companies, and others can be held liable when a plaintiff proves that (1) the defendant(s) owed him or her a duty; (2) there was a breach of the duty owed; (3) there was a link of causation between the breach of duty and the accident; and (4) there were actual damages incurred by the plaintiff. As technology changes, the law does as well. In the unfortunate event of a trucking accident, consulting with a lawyer with a deep knowledge of the trucking industry and changing technology within the industry can help answer a lot of questions about pursuing recoveries for damages.

Following a New Mexico truck accident, you or a loved one may be entitled to financial compensation, including in some cases punitive damages. An award of monetary damages can assist people who are injured and their families with medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering caused by the trucking accident. To understand more about your case, call New Mexico truck accident lawyer Matthew Vance at the Law Office of Matthew Vance, P.C. We provide a free consultation and can be reached at (505) 242-6267 or online.

More Blog Posts:

New Mexico Truck Accident Lawsuits and Punitive Damages

Distracted Driving and Text Ban in New Mexico