Truck Accidents

May 22, 2025

The Dangers of Trucks Carrying Improperly Loaded Cargo

A tragic collision involving three tractor-trailers shut down eastbound I-70 near Route 32 in Howard County, drawing renewed attention to the dangers of cargo hauling and commercial truck traffic during early morning hours. According to reports, one of the trucks rear-ended another, triggering a chain reaction that involved a third vehicle and left debris, specifically wooden roof trusses, strewn across multiple lanes.

The crash claimed the life of one truck driver and led to extensive delays during the morning commute. While the investigation continues, this accident highlights underappreciated risk factors that make early morning freight transport particularly dangerous for truckers and motorists.

Unsecured or Shifting Cargo Can Escalate the Severity of a Crash

June 30, 2023

Truck Accident Victims in Virginia Deserve Justice

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Too often, truck accidents have tragic consequences. The size and weight of a truck means that collisions tend to be severe. If you or a loved one suffers harm in a Virginia truck accident, you may be able to hold the responsible party liable for your injuries. A recent crash in Virginia illustrates the devastating harm that may result from a truck accident.

According to a recent news article, four people lost their lives in an accident involving two tractor-trailers and four cars in Montgomery County, Virginia. The accident occurred along as a family was traveling north on Interstate 81 in the rain when their U-Haul trailer lost control and spun around. The family members were then struck by a northbound tractor-trailer. Sadly, four of them died at the scene.

Can You Sue Employers for Employees’ Negligent Driving?

Virginia law allows plaintiffs to sue an employer for an employee’s negligent conduct under the theory of respondeat superior, which is also known as vicarious liability. To hold an employer liable for an employee’s negligence, a Virginia plaintiff must prove that the employee was acting within the scope of employment when the accident occurred. Employees act within the scope of their employment when they work at their designated time and workspace and perform a task that furthers the employer’s business. For example, truck drivers would act within the scope of employment if they injured someone while completing a delivery for the employer. However, if an accident occurred when the truck driver was using the employer’s truck for personal errands, that driver would not be acting within the scope of employment.

December 1, 2022

Over-Height Semi Truck Causes Fatal Accident on I-95

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

The average driver usually pays little attention to the height restrictions that are posted while driving on roadways, passing under bridges, or entering parking garages. Many of these height limits or restrictions are vitally important for the safety of all Virginia drivers on our roads and highways. When drivers of high-clearance vehicles fail to abide by height restrictions, tragic accidents can happen. A semi-truck driver’s over-height load caused a horrifying crash near Richmond, VA on Interstate 95 earlier this month, which resulted in one death, as well as serious property damage.

A recently published local news report has discussed the crash. According to the report, a semi truck carrying heavy-duty steel construction beams which were loaded on the truck over the legal height limit passed under a highway overpass on I-95. The beams struck the roadway overpass, damaging the road above, and were pushed off the semi-truck and onto the roadway. A septic tanker truck that was following behind the semi crashed into the beams, causing an explosion and overturning the vehicle. The driver of the septic truck perished in the crash and resulting fire.

Drivers of personal, commercial, industrial, and construction vehicles are required to follow state and federal regulations concerning the height of their vehicles and their loads. The Virginia Motor Vehicle Code Section 46.2-1110 places a limit of 13 feet 6 inches on any vehicle, whether loaded or unloaded, for legal operation on public roads in the state of Virginia. In areas where roads have overhead clearances of less than 14 feet, state or municipal authorities are required to place signage at least 1500 feet before the obstruction to notify drivers of the reduced height clearance. If a driver causes damage to a bridge or road feature by driving a vehicle that is over 13 feet 6 inches or failing to yield to signs denoting a more restrictive clearance limit, they will be held financially responsible for damages caused under the VA Motor Vehicle Code.

March 31, 2022

How Virginia’s Fault Rules Affect Truck Accident Victims

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Following a major accident involving several vehicles and a fast-moving, chaotic collision, it can often be challenging for the parties involved to properly discern who is at fault for the accident and how that responsibility should be apportioned. Different parties may have varying accounts of how the accident took place, and this can often become messy when the stories disagree with one another and do not match. Apportioning fault among the parties, however, is a crucial element of a personal injury claim, and it is important to understand how Virginia’s fault rules may affect the success of your lawsuit.

According to a recent local news report, two tractor-trailers and a sedan were involved in a fatal car accident in Sussex County. Local authorities reported that a Nissan was driving southbound on I-95 when the driver collided with a tractor-trailer. The Nissan remained in the lane and then a second tractor-trailer crashed into it, which caused the Nissan to veer off onto the right shoulder of the road. The second tractor-trailer then swung into the median and jackknifed into the northbound lanes and leaked 100 gallons of diesel fuel. The driver of the Nissan was pronounced dead at the scene. The driver of the first tractor-trailer was not injured, and the driver and passenger of the second trailer had only minor injuries. The accident remains under investigation by Virginia crash reconstruction teams.

Every state has its own unique laws when it comes to apportioning fault in an accident and how that fault impacts a party’s ability to recover. In Virginia, the rules are particularly strict, and some would argue that they are not particularly friendly toward plaintiffs because the circumstances of the crash may bar many potential plaintiffs from recovering anything at all.

July 24, 2021

Plaintiff Asserts Evidentiary Abuse of Discretion in Virginia Wrongful Death Case

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

The Virginia Supreme Court recently affirmed a lower court’s decision in a wrongful death claim stemming from a single-vehicle accident that took the lives of both occupants. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff, the administrator of the estate of one of the occupants, filed a lawsuit against several parties, including the other occupant of the vehicle. The lawsuit contends that the other occupant fell asleep at the wheel of his tractor-trailer, thereby causing the accident that killed the plaintiff. In response, the defendants argued that the plaintiff was the driver.

On appeal, the court reviewed several of the plaintiff’s arguments, including that the lower court erred in excluding portions of the medical examiner’s autopsy report and the plaintiff’s experts’ opinions regarding the driver’s identity. The plaintiff sought to introduce evidence from the Chief Medical examiner, where she concluded the cause of the defendant’s death was blunt force trauma. Her report relied on the police report to tell her who was driving the tractor-trailer in the case.

The plaintiff argues that under Virginia Code § 8.01- 390.2, medical examiner reports shall be received as evidence in court. Therefore, although the examiner’s report stems from her opinions based on the police report, it should be admissible. Statutory interpretation requires a court to review the plain language of a statute unless the terms are ambiguous. In this case, the court found that nothing in the statute provides that a medical examiner is permitted to make an opinion on an ultimate fact in issue. Further, the statute does not permit medical examiners to base opinions and facts from information garnered through lay testimony. Therefore, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the statute should be construed to admit the medical examiner’s opinion solely because the opinion is in a report.

January 22, 2019

The “Duty” Element of a Virginia Personal Injury Case

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

When someone is injured due to the alleged negligence of another, the injured party may be able to pursue a claim for compensation under the legal theory of negligence. To succeed in a negligence claim, a plaintiff must be able to establish four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages.

The “duty” element is easily met in many Virginia personal injury cases, especially those involving injuries that occurred as a result of a car accident. This is because all Virginia motorists have a general duty to safely operate their vehicle within the confines of the law. However, in other contexts, a plaintiff must present evidence establishing that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care.

A recent federal appellate opinion illustrates the concept of a legal duty. In that case, the plaintiff was a truck driver who was injured when another employee allegedly ran over his foot while loading the plaintiff’s truck with a forklift. The forklift, which was owned by the plaintiff’s employer, did not have a back-up alarm. The plaintiff’s employer had contracted with the defendant maintenance company to perform all necessary maintenance on the machine, including preventative maintenance.

June 5, 2018

Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Uninsured Motorist Claim in Recent Car Accident Case

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a car accident case requiring the court to interpret the language of a statute defining an “uninsured vehicle” for the purposes of determining whether an accident is covered under an underinsured vehicle clause of an insurance policy. The case presents an important issue for Virginia accident victims insofar as it illustrates the difficulties victims may have when dealing with insurance companies after a serious accident.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the accident fell within a policy exclusion because the vehicle the plaintiff was operating at the time of the accident was “furnished for his regular use.”

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff worked for a logging company. As a part of his job duties, he would transport lumber using a large company-owned truck. The agreement between the plaintiff and his employer allowed for the plaintiff to keep possession of the truck after work hours, although in practice the plaintiff usually dropped the truck off at his workplace before heading home for the day.

November 27, 2017

Discovery Sanctions in Virginia Personal Injury Cases

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Before a Virginia truck accident case reaches trial, it goes through several other stages. One of the most important stages of a personal injury case is the pre-trial discovery phase. During pre-trial discovery, each party is able to request certain information that the requesting party believes the opposing party has in its possession. While certain information and documents are privileged, in most cases, parties must provide what is ordered by the judge.

Of course, much of the information sought during pre-trial discovery may be considered harmful to the party ordered to release it. However, that does not change the requirement that ordered evidence be handed over to the opposing side. Indeed, under Virginia Supreme Court Rule 4:12, a court can impose a number of sanctions against a party that fails to comply with a court’s discovery order, including precluding the party from making certain arguments, admitting certain evidence, or in some cases, striking the party’s filings.

A recent appellate decision illustrates how seriously courts take discovery requests and the serious consequences one plaintiff faced when she filed notice of her expert witnesses four months after the deadline.

November 21, 2016

The “Foreseeability” Requirement in Personal Injury Lawsuits

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Personal injury lawsuits have certain elements that must be proved before an injured party is able to recover financially for their injuries from the at-fault party. Generally speaking, these four elements are duty, breach, causation, and damages. Thus, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant breached a duty of care that was owed to the plaintiff and that this breach was the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

Over the course of time, courts have developed a framework for determining when a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty of care. For example, most motorists owe other motorists with whom they share the road a duty to operate their vehicle in a safe manner. However, that duty is not unlimited. Specifically, the duty only covers those who could be foreseeably injured by the defendant’s negligent conduct. A recent case explains this concept in more detail.

Ready v. RWI Transportation: Foreseeability in a Chain-Reaction Accident

A truck operated by an employee of RWI Transportation caused an accident on the highway when he made an improper lane change. As a result of the accident, the truck and another vehicle ended up blocking several lanes of travel, causing a significant traffic back-up.

September 20, 2016

Good Samaritan Laws and How They Can Affect a Personal Injury Lawsuit

by Sidney Schupak, Esq.

Most personal injury lawsuits are based on the theory of negligence. In essence, these lawsuits claim that one party, the defendant, is liable to another party, the plaintiff, as a result of some kind of negligent act or failure to act on the part of the defendant. In order to prove a negligence lawsuit, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty that was violated by the defendant’s actions.

Good Samaritan laws act to limit the liability of those who happen across an emergency and try to help but end up causing more harm in the process. The idea behind these laws is that the government wants to encourage people to help others in peril, so immunity from civil liability is given to those who try to help, even if their attempts end up causing additional injuries. However, there are limits to Good Samaritan laws. Generally, Good Samaritan laws do not apply if the actor was grossly negligent or reckless in providing the care. Another issue that may come up is exactly which conduct is covered under a Good Samaritan law. A recent case looks at one example of how a Good Samaritan law may affect a plaintiff’s right to recover compensation.

Carter v. Reese: A Truck Rolls Backwards, Crushing a Man’s Leg

Carter, a truck driver, slipped and fell after unloading his rig. His leg became stuck in the gap, and he was unable to free himself, so he called out for help. Reese heard Carter’s cries for help and came to assist. Carter told Reese to get into the truck and put it in drive so that he could get his leg free. Carter told Reese to be sure not to put the truck in reverse.