Approximate figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) suggest that in the year 2024, traffic accidents caused over 39,345 persons to lose their lives. Even more people suffered serious injuries and needed health care.
Both cars and trucks contribute to the occurrences of traffic accidents on U.S. roads. When dealing with these cases, victims must prioritize the issue of liability. Liability determination is largely dependent on state laws and certain facts of the case.
How is fault determined in Oklahoma City car accidents? The answer to this question is indicative of the intervention of the statute in an accident involving an automobile and a truck. In the State of Oklahoma, all accidents that involve more than one vehicle are determined based on fault. In Oklahoma, as in other states, determining fault involves assessing evidence such as police reports, witness statements, photographs, the condition of the vehicles, security camera footage, digital data retrieved from the vehicle, and the final accident reconstruction.
Properly assessing fault is frequently a key element in obtaining just compensation.
Let’s examine the concept of fault as it applies to car and truck crashes, the means of proof used to establish liability, and the factors that dictate how damages are awarded.
The Negligence Framework and Traffic Law Violations
One cornerstone of fault analysis is negligence, which refers to whether the driver took as much care as is demanded of a ‘reasonable person’ in similar circumstances. Accusations of traffic violations are the easiest to establish in respect of negligence.
If a driver violated any law by running a red light, failing to yield right of way, making an illegal lane change or even driving above the posted speed limit, the person had clearly violated a statute aimed at preventing such injury or damage.
In most cases, breaking any provision of a traffic law constitutes negligence per se. This means that the conduct is an established breach of the duty of care and does not require additional justification.
The police report serves as the first official documentation in terms of violations of traffic laws. This document forms part of the basis used by insurance adjusters in establishing the fault in the accident.
Insurance companies will make the entire process intentionally complicated and lengthy. According to car and truck accident lawyer Rick A. Blake, these tactics employed by insurance companies intend to get a victim to either settle for a lower amount or miss their deadlines to file a claim for compensation in a court of law. Having legal representation can help address these problems and protect your rights.
Physical Evidence and Accident Reconstruction
The physical evidence present at the accident scene says something that witness testimonies cannot always tell. The location of the damage on the vehicle and the location of the impact point make it possible to determine which vehicle hit the other vehicle and at what angle.
The skid marks are useful to document since they reveal the exact location where braking started and can be used to estimate the vehicle’s speed. The resting position of the vehicle, along with the airbag deployment data recorded by the EDR device, are other factors that can be used to better understand the incident.
Event Data Recorders (EDRs) are very common and document such information as the speed of the vehicle, position of the throttle, use of the brakes, seat belt usage, and the deployment of airbags in the seconds prior to and during the incident. Event data recorders in trucks record a wider range of information when compared to those of a regular passenger vehicle.
Event Data Records provides some of the most conclusive evidence of what took place and who was responsible, but they can be overwritten after a certain period. Securing EDR data requires sending a letter of preservation to the owner or the carrier.
How Fault Analysis Differs in Truck Accidents
Fault analysis of truck accidents is more complex than that of passenger vehicle accidents. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) handles federal rules that apply to commercial trucks. These rules cover driver hours of service, vehicle upkeep, cargo loading, driver credentials, and drug and alcohol testing.
So if a truck crash happened as a result of a driver going over the hours-of-service limits, it can indicate broader, more systemic regulatory violations by the carrier.
A carrier can find itself liable even when the one who was driving carelessly was the driver. Negligent hiring is something that manifests itself if the carrier hires a driver who has a history of safety problems or license suspensions. Negligent retention is when the carrier retains the driver after certain signs start becoming evident.
Negligent entrustment refers to a situation wherein the carrier allows a driver to drive the vehicle knowing, or having reason to know, that it is not in proper condition or is driven in a reckless manner.
There is the Safety Measurement System maintained by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which is a publicly available database on the Internet where the safety records of the motor carriers are entered, along with the history of violations, crashes, and inspections for commercial carriers.
Comparative Fault and Its Effect on Recovery
Most jurisdictions employ comparative fault. Under this fault system, a claimant who was responsible for causing harm can still be able to recover compensation, but it is reduced proportionately to reflect the claimant’s liability.
Pure comparative fault jurisdictions, which include California, New York, and Florida, allow recovery regardless of whether the plaintiff is highly at fault. If, for example, the plaintiff is found to be 80 percent at fault, the claimant can recover 20 percent of his/her losses.
Modified comparative fault jurisdictions are a little stricter in that they prohibit recovery in cases where the liability of the plaintiff reaches a certain limit. Contributory negligence applies in a very few jurisdictions, whereby any degree of fault on the part of the claimant bars recovery.
The insurance company is aware of such principles of liability and uses them purposefully. When an adjuster obtains evidence of any fault on the part of the injured party, this evidence will be exploited to contest costs in settlement negotiations.
Comparative negligence usually arises in cases involving rear-end collisions, sudden brake accidents, and high-speed intersection accidents. Incidents involving pedestrians and cyclists, such as road crossings or bike lane obstructions, also use comparative fault theory.
Evidence Preservation: The Critical First Window
Fault evidence should normally be secured right away after an accident. Surveillance and dashcam videos become overwritten during standard intervals, which may be between 24 and 72 hours. Human memory of events tends to deteriorate fast.
Photographs of the site provide a contemporary account that cannot be recreated later. The names and contact information of anyone who observed the accident or the events leading up to it will help secure an account while memories remain fresh.
Carriers or facilities that fail to preserve key evidence after receiving a hold notice may face sanctions.
Add Your Comment