Truck Accident Attorneys Texas – Personal Injury Law

Truck Accident Attorneys Texas

While all motorists are required to know the rules of the road before getting behind the wheel of a vehicle, truck drivers are in a very special situation. For one thing, the vehicle being driven is heavier and more cumbersome than an automobile, and if it is involved in accident it can cause more damage.

It is a more complex piece of machinery than an automobile and it takes greater expertise to understand how it operates and to drive it. On most occasions when being operated, it is engaged in a business purpose, and consequently the truck driver must abide by rules and regulations required by state and federal regulatory agencies and by state laws governing the operation of trucks and trailers.truck accident attorneys

Truck drivers spend more time on the highway than most any other type of drivers. Many of them engaged in long-distance hauling sleep in and live out of their trucks. These types of drivers, in particular, are under enormous pressure to deliver their cargo in a timely fashion.

They encounter every type of road hazard conceivable and weather conditions of the most extreme variety, requiring them to drive in a sharp, clear-headed fashion, or otherwise risk disaster.

A lapse of judgement or momentary carelessness translates too often into an accident.

Under the law, the truck driver’s act or failure to act may raise an interference of negligence or create a presumption of negligence.

On occasion, a truck driver’s negligence is so egregious that it reaches a different plateau in the realm of negligence classification and, depending upon the facts, the driver and his employer may be exposed to punitive damages. This conscious wrongdoing, traveling under the name of gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct, constitutes negligence of a greater magnitude.

Its viability as a cause of action is becoming greater as attorneys begin paying increasing attention to such industry-wide problems as driver fatigue as a cause of accidents and the conscious decision by truck owners and shippers to insist on performance from the driver that cannot be accomplished without violating federal maximum driving hour regulations. Visit this website also

Carriers have been held liable in the following situations for other acts of improper loading which include overloading, traveling on the highway with a protruding load, and hauling a load that was too high:

A dump truck loaded with asphalt mix beyond its rated capacity rear-ended a car stopped in traffic. The court held that the company that overloaded the truck was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.
There was a failure to display a red flag.
There was a failure to have lights burning at the rear of a load of pipe.
Triangular steel girders were transported in such a manner that there was eight feet of overload extending over the center line of the highway.
Carrying a load that was stacked too high in violation of state statute resulted in its striking an overpass, dropping into the highway, and causing a collision between the other motorists.
A shipment of steel beams protruding from the rear of a tractor-trailer was not secured with the proper number of chains required by federal safety regulations and lacked either a flag or lights, as required by state law.

We have recovered millions of dollars for wrongful death and severely injured victims from truck accidents. If you have lost a family member to a truck accident or you or your family have been injured by a truck accident, please call our office for a free consultation. More Information on this website

What should You do after a car accident? – Personal Injury Law

car accident attorneys

What should You do after a car accident?

• Stay calm and keep you, your car, and others out of further danger
• Obtain the full names, addresses and driver’s license numbers of all drivers
• Obtain the full names and addresses of all the passengers, pedestrians and witnesses
• Call the police (even in cases of minor accidents) to have proof of the accident and allow for an immediate investigation of the collision
• If any driver appears to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, notify police or emergency personnel
• Take pictures of the accident scene

• Take notes of the following:

auto accident attorneys
o The exact date, time and location of the accident and the directions that each vehicle was traveling
o The registered owners of each vehicle
o Whether all the vehicles are insured and the insurance company names and policy numbers
o Whether anyone reported injury after the accident or said “I’m not hurt”
o Whether anyone received medical attention at the scene
o Whether any vehicles were towed
o Whether anyone accepted responsibility by giving an explanation of the cause of the accident (you should never accept responsibility at the scene without knowing all the information you need)
o Whether any of the drivers were working at the time of the collision and if so, for what company

• Seek immediate medical attention if you feel any pain (and even if you feel okay). Identify all your complaints to your doctors, being as specific as possible. The slightest pain can be a sign of a bigger problem. Identifying it as soon as possible will allow your doctor to take the appropriate measures.
• Contact your own insurance company to report the accident as required by most auto insurance companies. If asked to make a recorded statement, avoid doing so until you consult with an attorney

If contacted by the other side’s insurance company, do not talk to them and NEVER given an oral statement. FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT THIS WEBSITE

Horse: It’s What’s for Dinner?

Eating Horse: A Social Taboo in The U.S.A. and the U.K.
In both the United Kingdom and the United States, the act of eating horse meat, or hippophagy, is taboo, and even appalling to many, though it’s not illegal. So, when it was revealed in February 2013 that up to 100% of the meat found in some frozen lasagna meals, burgers, and spaghetti Bolognese being sold in the UK was actually horse meat, and not beef, consumers in both countries became alarmed.

The revelation didn’t impact only a small minority of Britain’s population either. The products that tested positive for horse meat were being sold at major food chains, including Aldi and Tesco. To put it into perspective, Tesco is the second-largest retailer in the world, second only to Walmart. One reason consumers in the United States continue to be up in arms about their food supply possibly being tainted with horse meat is that both Aldi and Tesco have stores in the U.S. The assumption is that there has to be a connection.

So far, though, there has been no direct link connecting the horse meat saga in the United Kingdom with the United States food supply chain. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, no beef is imported into the United States from any country that was involved in the horse meat scandal. Even so, U.S. consumers remain uneasy about the integrity of the meat they purchase. But, why would something that happened in the United Kingdom continue to have such a visceral effect on United States consumers, even after they’ve been assured that there is no connection between the two?

The Emotional Connection
The thought of eating horse meat versus eating other animals comes down to two primary factors: cultural norms and individual emotions. That’s what makes the act taboo for some people, but a regular practice for others, according to psychiatrist Dr. Dale Archer, who was interviewed by FOX News for a February 15, 2013 online article. Dr. Archer told FOX news “It’s the perception of what the animal represents in the culture.” He continues on to say “No one’s thinking logically that it’s wrong; it’s an emotional reaction…”

Apparently it’s a highly emotional subject and culturally unacceptable act in the United States. In 2011, the federal government lifted a five year ban on funding inspections for horse meat processing, but since then there has not been one plant that has opened across the U.S. The only two plants that tried to open, one in Missouri and the other in New Mexico, failed because of public outrage.

History of Hippophagy in the U.S.A.
Prior to the original 2007 ban on inspection funding, there were only three horse meat processing plants operating in the United States. Two of those plants were in Texas and the other plant was located in Illinois. Even then those processors primarily exported horse meat to Mexico and Canada because Americans just weren’t interested in eating it.

Going back even a bit further, horse meat wasn’t a hot commodity at all in the United States during the 20th century, though it did serve as a temporary protein staple for a short period of time during World War II. Even then, it was only because beef, and other traditionally accepted meats, were being rationed. Similarly, during the recession of 1973-1975, horse meat sales surged because inflation increased the price of traditional meats so much that it made those meats cost-prohibitive for many families.

The slaughtering of horses for consumption in the U.S. has historically only been culturally acceptable during the leanest of economic times. According to William Hallman “It’s a hugely political issue.” Hallman, director of Rutger University’s Food Policy Institute, told ABC news in a February 26, 2013 online article that “It has to do with the slaughter of horses and whether that’s acceptable to U.S. society or not.” Apparently, it’s not.

Current Cultural Resistance
Public opposition to the slaughtering of horses is strong in the United States, according to a poll conducted by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). The poll results, which were released on February 1, 2012, reflect that 80 percent of American voters oppose the slaughter of horses for human consumption. Further, the survey suggests that the opposition holds regardless of political affiliation, gender, or geographic location.

In the ASPCA’s online press release announcing the survey results, Nancy Perry, who serves as the ASPCA’s Senior Vice President of Governmental Relations, said that “Americans have a responsibility to protect these intelligent, sensitive animals from being butchered.” Senator Mary Landrier (D-LA) agreed, saying in the same article “I will continue working with my colleagues in Congress and other advocates to ensure that the American people are heard and that we stop this inhumane practice once and for all.”

The Argument for Slaughterhouses
As is the case with any controversial subject, there are two sides to the story. Those who advocate for the slaughtering of horses speak of the inhumanities horses currently face because of the economy. Dave Duquette is president and founder of United Horsemen, a non-profit organization that advocates for the acceptance of horse slaughterhouses. In the ABC news article of February 26, 2013, Mr. Duquette is quoted as saying “The problem has gotten worse with horses that are abandoned, neglected, abused and starving to death and the direct cause is this and the economy.”

Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA) agrees with Mr. Duquette’s assessment. In a July 15, 2013 article posted at http://www.time.com, Rep. Kingston is quoted as saying “While we all love horses and their contributions to our culture, the ban led to unintended consequences and increased inhumane treatment of the animals.”

Representative Kingston, along with Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), commissioned a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report in 2010 that is largely believed to be the benchmark that was used to reestablish funding for horse slaughterhouses. Since then, the GAO report has come under serious scrutiny with allegations that the number of horse abuses was intentionally inflated just to get the funding back in place.

Aside from an alleged increase in the number of neglected and abused horses, according to Mr. Duquette, Native American Indian reservations have been flooded with feral horses since the slaughterhouses were originally shut down. He’s right. In an online New York Times article dated October 7, 2013, Ben Shelly, president of the Navajo Nation, estimates that the tens of thousands of feral horses on the Navajo’s land cost them about $200,000 in repairs annually. However, in the same article, Mr. Shelly, who previously supported the rounding up of feral horses for slaughter, reversed course. Saying “Horses are sacred animals to us”, Ben Shelly indicates in the article that he no longer supports the practice.

All of the controversy surrounding horse slaughterhouses in the United States lends credence to Dr. Archer’s assessment that the reason animals are viewed differently as food sources from person-to-person and place-to-place is because of individual emotions and cultural acceptance. For example, Australian scientists promote the idea of eating kangaroos, saying it’s a greener alternative to beef. In other parts of the world, elephants, silk worms, camels, and guinea pigs are common fare. Unless there’s a major cultural shift towards acceptance of hippophagy in the United States, however, horse will not be on the menu.