Just Driving a Truck Doesn't Make You Liable For Everything
On a snowy morning in December 2004, the plaintiff parked his Ford F150 on the shoulder of northbound Indiana S.R. 49 at its intersection with U.S. 6 and remained inside, as there was blowing snow and limited visibility. Later, another 4-wheeler exited U.S. 6 on the off-ramp and entered the northbound lane of S.R. 49. Simultaneously, an 18-wheeler was proceeding northbound on S.R. 49 at the overpass of U.S. 6 traveling past the ramp upon which the second 4-wheeler was operating his vehicle. When the second 4-wheeler got to the end of the ramp, he hit a patch of ice, fishtailed and collided with the side of the passing 18-wheeler. The 4-wheeler then spun across S.R. 49 and hit the plaintiff's pick-up truck causing injuries. The 18-wheeler promptly pulled over to the side of the road. It was estimated that the 18-wheeler was going about 40 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone. The plaintiff employed a very high profile lawyer and filed suit against all parties within 100 feet. The claim against the driver of the 18-wheeler was that he was going at an unreasonably high rate of speed given the road conditions.
The trucking company moved for summary judgment for themselves and the driver and the trial court concluded that regardless of how well the truck driver maintained his duty of care, he could still not prevent the second 4-wheeler from striking his tractor trailer after it spun out on the ramp. The court stated that the law does not require motorists to do the impossible to avoid a collision. Here the 18-wheeler had already crossed under the overpass of U.S. 6 when the 4-wheeler lost control and ricocheted off the 18-wheeler. The truck driver had no time to react to the 4-wheeler's loss of control and a reasonable jury could not infer that he could be negligent.
Regardless, the plaintiff argued that if the truck driver had avoided driving until the road conditions were safe, he would not have been involved in the collision. The court accepted the reality of that statement though it did not establish proximate cause. The court, with language from another opinion, Milam v. State Farm, 972 F.2d 166, 169 (7th Cir. 1992), commented that "'[B]ut for' is rarely an adequate notion of cause. We do not say that since, in all probability, [a plaintiff] would not have had an accident on I-70 if Columbus had not discovered America, Columbus caused the accident." The plaintiff also argued that had the 18-wheeler been traveling at a crawl, he would have had time to stop without striking the out-of-control 4-wheeler that was fishtailing and would have avoided the accident. However, there is not evidence to support that assertion and the court stated that whether a defendant's speed of travel is by itself sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact on the question of proximate cause, is an issue of first impression in Indiana. The court adopted case law from the Court of Appeals of Washington, and stated that the speed was only a remote, rather than a proximate cause. There was no evidence that the truck driver's speed in any way affected his ability to avoid the collision through control of his vehicle as the out-of-control 4-wheeler struck the side of the 18-wheeler and gave the truck driver no time to react. The Court of Appeals then affirmed the dismissal of the trucking company and driver.
This is one of the few state court cases where the truck driver is exonerated when a crash occurs near him in nasty weather.
Floria v. Tilley, --- N.E.2d ----, 2007 WL 3053285, Ind.App. October 22, 2007.
Eric L. Kirschner
Beckman, Kelly & Smith
