UTAH: A motorcycle accident on I-80 on Saturday May 3rd shut down Parley's Canyon. A utility trailer came unattached from a car heading down the canyon. A motorcyclist behind it couldn't stop in time and slammed into it. The motorcylist was flown to the hospital in critical condition.

I think sometimes that motorists think that a motorcycle driver can avoid all road hazards by simply weaving. This is a false belief because like a motor vehicle inertia keeps the motorcycle moving forward. This is especially so if you are on the highway and are traveling at a relatively high rate of speed. Negligence appears to be present in this accident because all motorists that pull trailers should be responsible for ensuring that the trailer is securely fastened.

This would be a case of res ipsa loquiter. I think this term is Latin, I forget exactly which ancient language because I never thought such trivia was important to remember, but I do know what it means. Simply put, this term roughly translated means "the thing speaks for itself." In other words simply because an accident occurred raises an inference of negligence and that inference establishes the prima facia case for negligence.

A prima facia case establishes the legally required elements of the case in question. This prima facia case allows the trier of fact, be it a judge or jury, to infer that negligence exists and to find in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant then has a rebuttable inference to overcome and this effectively shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that everything was correctly done and even in the absence of negligence the accident occurred.

If memory serves me correctly the case law in the United States stems back to the early days of our country when loading and unloading warehouses was done by hand. In that case men were storing barrels of flour on the second floor of a warehouse. One of the barrels was not chalked well and managed to roll out of the second floor door and landed on a passerby who was seriously injured. The passerby retained a lawyer and that lawyer went about trying to prove that the barrel was not properly chalked. This was very hard to do because he could not get witnesses or experts to show that it was the negligence of the men loading the barrels that allowed the barrel to escape. In other words the onus of proof remained on the plaintiff to prove negligence loading or storage of the barrel. In the absence of proof the case would fail. However, in this case, where the mechanism of injury is solely under the control of the charged party, an inference is allowed meaning that negligence caused the accident and made the warehouse liable for the injury.

In this trailer case the facts are very close to that of the flour barrel case. The means of securing the trailer to the vehicle was solely under the control of the motorist and an inference of negligence may be inferred. That specific negligence would be the negligent failure of the motorist to secure the trailer to the vehicle. There may be other negligence involved such as too large a trailer for the type of vehicle used to tow the trailer. I think that in this case the operator of the vehicle would be found to be liable for the accident.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/hide comments

Show/hide comment form

Email

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment Preview