A 1985 GMC Dump Truck Case Study catdumptruck.com | The Defendant owned a 1985 GMC dump truck. Despite being in possession of a dump truck for some time, the Defendant failed to properly maintain the truck, which resulted in a leak of water into the roadway.
In addition, the Defendant failed to warn others of the potential for harm. As a result, others were injured. If the Defendant had followed normal practices, he would have known that dumping and spilling water from the truck could cause injury to people.
1985 GMC Dump Truck
Defendant owned a 1985 GMC dump truck
The following case study shows that the GMC 3500 dump truck made its way into a handful of law books along the way. In short, it was built as a basic cab and chassis unit and was bolted to the frame with a set of six or eight tie-down U-clamps.
While the GMC 3500 dump truck was at work, its driver allowed a bit too much room between his vehicle and the other one in the phalanx. The result was a tangled mess. This mess is the subject of a lawsuit filed in North Carolina in early 2006.
The aforementioned incident did not stand in the way of a lawsuit from the state of California. In this case, the plaintiffs’ lawyers were more than willing to pounce on the defendant’s legal team.
However, the legal briefings were not mutually beneficial. Ultimately, the truck was sold to the defendant for a price that was a fraction of what the plaintiff would have been willing to pay. Its owner, however, was not so fortunate. He was sued by the state of California and his daughter.
The aforementioned incident is a testament to the fact that a little thought goes a long way. In short, there are numerous ways in which a person can be wronged.
The best way to combat this is to be diligent in your research. This will allow you to avoid the missteps of others. By ensuring that your attorneys take the time to find the information that you may not have gleaned from your reading material, you can ensure that you are in the clear of any future calamities.
Likewise, the above scenario could have been prevented from happening in the first place. So, if you are in need of a legal eagle, do not hesitate to consult an attorney.
Whether you are an individual, business, or governmental entity, you are entitled to your fair share of justice. And you can bet that your lawyer will do everything in his or her power to keep you from a life of regret.
Defendant’s agent knew or reasonably should have known that dumping and spilling water from the dump truck would cause injury to others
A truck driver, James Allison, was operating a dump truck on Rural Paved Road 1127 about two miles west of the Town of Robbinsville, North Carolina on December 3, 1985.
The weather was cold and rainy that day. He knew or should have known that the dump truck bed was filled with water. It was a hazardous situation for other motorists.
In the resulting accident, Brenda Stewart suffered great bodily injury and her auto totaled. She also slid on a patch of ice that was in the path of the dump truck.
This would have been an icy, unsafe condition to drive in, and she was not aware that the dump truck had been dumping water onto the roadway.
Defendants in this case are Harold Bradley, the owner of the dump truck, and James Allison. They were guilty of negligence when they left the dump truck’s bed down during the rainstorm.
During freezing weather, they knew or should have known that the water in the bed would freeze, creating a dangerous icy condition.
Defendants were also guilty of a conspiracy to violate the Clean Water Act, as well as a felony count of tampering with a monitoring device. As a result, he will serve a term of probation.
Moreover, he will pay $7250 in restitution. During the course of the trial, Charles Vidinha, the owner of Styga Compania Naviera S.A., was sentenced to 90 days in prison for violating the Endangered Species Act by killing a Hawaiian monk seal.
Keith Gordon-Smith, the owner of an asbestos removal business, was also charged with criminal violations of the Clean Air Act. His company was one of the demolition companies charged with environmental violations.
Additionally, David Vega was the project manager for Gordon-Smith Contracting, Inc., a company that was one of the two demolition companies charged with environmental violations. After the trial, he pleaded guilty to the same criminal violation.
Defendants were also guilty, in part, of conspiring to violate the Lacey Act. Joseph Peter Nelson, Jr., the son of the owner, pleaded guilty to three felony Lacey Act violations and was sentenced to four months in jail.
Defendant’s duty to use ordinary care
A recent multimillion dollar lawsuit by the plaintiffs against the defendants sparked a lot of discussions about the best way to wrangle a dump truck into an appropriate state of mind. The plaintiffs were not alone.
One of the most spirited defendants was in the thick of it, and the jury is still out in the long term. Nevertheless, the court was not left in the dust.
Having a solid grasp of the case, the plaintiffs were able to put on a show of sorts. This is an impressive feat, considering there were five defendants chasing after the plaintiffs.
Thankfully, the jury was in a good mood for the rest of the evening. Hopefully the next round of deliberations will go more smoothly than the first.
Ultimately, the jury awarded the plaintiffs a cool $200,000 in cash and a full ride courtesy of a snazzy new BMW x5. For the foreseeable future, all will be well.
1985 GMC Dump Truck
Defendant’s duty to protect others from harm
It is the duty of a dump truck operator to take reasonable care while operating the dump truck on the highway. A plaintiff may assert a violation of this duty when the evidence shows that the defendant did not take reasonable care.
Moreover, the plaintiff may allege that the driver of the dump truck made a negligent turn without monitoring the scene.
In addition, the plaintiff may allege that the trucking company or the owner of the dump truck failed to provide a safe roadway and was therefore liable for causing the crash.
On December 3, 1985, James Allison was driving a dump truck on rural paved road 1127 about two miles west of the town of Robbinsville.
He was employed by Harold Bradley, the owner of the truck. At the time of the accident, the weather was cold and rainy, and it was known that water would accumulate in the bed of the dump truck.
According to the plaintiff, when the dump truck began to pull out of its garage, water was still accumulating in the bed of the truck, and this water was not easily discoverable by the driver.
After the truck began to pull out, the dump truck began to run over a patch of ice on the highway. During the crash, the car skidded on the ice and slid long distance, crashing into a tree. The vehicle was totaled, and the driver was injured in the crash.
According to the trial court’s ruling, the motion to dismiss was granted. However, the plaintiffs were able to show that the water collected in the bed of the truck had created a dangerous condition on the road, and the trucking company and the owner of the dump truck knew or should have known that the water was dangerous.