If you or a loved one has been injured
or a loved one killed in a collision caused by a semi-truck driver and the
trucking company claims the wreck was caused by the driver having a heart
attack or other sudden medical emergency, then you need an attorney who knows
this specific area of the law.
It is true that in Texas, there is a
legal defense called “unforeseeable incapacity” which is a defense to
negligence, negligence per se, and even wrongful death claims. See
e.g. Williams v. Parker, 472 S.W.3d 467, 470 (Tex. App.—Waco 2015, no
pet.); Piatt v. Welch, 974 S.W.2d
786, 788 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.).
This type of defense is what’s known as an inferential-rebuttal defense
which once proven may serve as a bar to liability “based on the principle that
one is not negligent if an unforeseeable occurrence causes an injury.” Caddell v. Oakley Trucking, Inc., 4:14-CV-909-A, 2015 WL 7454666, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Nov.
23, 2015); see Gomez, 14-15-00010-CV,
2016 WL 836781, at *1–2.
But just because a trucking
company asserts the defense and has some evidence that a heart attack or other
medical event occurred—that doesn’t mean they automatically win. To win, the trucking company has the burden
to prove (1) the driver was incapacitated before the collision, (2) the
incapacity caused the collision, (3) the incapacity was very sudden/without
warning, and (4) the incapacity was not foreseeable. See
Piatt v. Welch, 974 S.W.2d 786, 788 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.)
(citing Harvey v. Culpepper, 801 S.W.2d 596, 598
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, no writ)); see e.g. Hoppe v. Hughes, 577 S.W.2d 773,
777–78 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
Put more simply, to
prevail on this theory a trucking company must:
(1)
prove that their Driver
had a heart attack or other medical condition;
(2)
prove that the alleged
heart attack occurred before the collision;
(3)
prove that the alleged
heart attack caused the driver to be incapacitated and unable to steer the
truck or apply its brakes;
(4)
prove that the alleged
heart attack was unforeseeable;
(5)
prove that the alleged
heart attack heat occurred very suddenly/without warning.
See Id.
Evidence
from the trucking company’s expert doctor that their driver had a heart attack
that caused the driver to become incapacitated helps their case but it doesn’t
prove all these elements. And your
attorney should consider finding your own expert who may be able to testify
that their doctor is just speculating. See e.g. Hoppfe v. Hughes, 577 S.W.2d
773, 777–78 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (reversing and
remanding a jury decision, the Amarillo Court held that where the Defendant’s
only evidence is the speculation of an expert doctor that the driver suffered a
heart attack, the statutory violation of the driver remained unrebutted by some
evidence of the claimed incapacity).
Even if the trucking company can
prove that their driver had a heart attack which caused the collision, they
still must show that the heart attack was unforeseeable and occurred
suddenly. For instance, if the driver’s
doctor warned him of the possibility of a sudden heart attack and told the
driver what warning signs to watch out for, that’s very much hurt’s the
trucking company’s chances of prevailing on this defense.
Similarly, sudden heart attacks that
occur without any symptoms are really rare.
More likely than not the driver actually had symptoms of the heart
attack and chose to keep driving anyway.
But under Texas law, if the truck driver started feeling symptoms and
chose not to pull off to the side of the road, that’s grounds for finding him
or her negligent and he or she should be held responsible for that negligent
decision. See
e.g. Harvey v. Culpepper,
801 S.W.2d 596, 598–99 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, no writ) (holding that
evidence that driver was “feeling ill prior to the collision was legally and
factually sufficient to support the jury’s finding of negligence”); see also Durham v. Wardlow, 401 S.W.2d 372, 373 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1966, no writ)
(driver’s defense of unforeseeable incapacitation was defeated by evidence
indicating that he felt sick earlier in the day).
Some
law firms don’t want to mess with this type of case because these cases can be
somewhat complicated. However, knowing
the law on this topic will help you fight back against a trucking company who
doesn’t want to take responsibility for their bad actions. It’s the trucking company’s job to make sure their
truck drivers are safe, and that involves making sure they are healthy enough
to drive and that their drivers know the signs of heart attack and know that if
they become ill they need to immediately get off the road and stop putting all
the other drivers’ lives at risk.
When
you are suing a trucking company and this defense is raised, you should
consider requesting discovery from the trucking company on the issue of whether
their driver lied on their ODOT health examinations. For instance, sometimes truck drivers first
go to their primary doctor and discovery that they aren’t going to pass the
health exam due to their past medical history.
Then sometimes the drivers go to another doctor who doesn’t know their medical
history and will sign off on their being healthy enough to driver. When truck drivers or even worse trucking
companies take part in such fraudulent medical exams, they should be held
accountable.
