Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP

Defense Verdict Rendered in Trucking Trial

April 12, 2006
Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania

Steve Geduldig (Harrisburg) obtained a defense verdict in a trucking liability case. Also providing assistance with this case was associate Crystal Williamson (Harrisburg). The matter was tried before the Honorable Stewart L. Kurtz, from April 10 through April 12, 2006.

TTH represented an East Freedom, Pennsylvania-based trucking company that contracted with a large Huntingdon County manufacturing plant to haul its refuse to a waste facility.

Each dump bucket trailer which the company maintained at the manufacturing site was covered by a tarp when the load was taken on the open road. The tarp was pulled across the top of the trailer by a 25 foot, 1/2 " thick, manila/sisal rope attached to a pole which ran the length of one side of the tarp.

Plaintiff, a 58 year old male, was injured when he fell to the ground after the rope broke while he was pulling on the rope. He sustained a severe hip fracture and nerve damage to the peroneal branch of his sciatic nerve, which rendered him incapable of returning to the labor intensive job in which he had engaged for most of his adult life. There was no dispute that TTH's client was responsible for maintaining the rope or that the rope broke.

Plaintiff contended that the rope was in a worn and deteriorated condition and that the rope should have been inspected pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Plaintiff further contended that such an inspection would have revealed the unsafe condition of the rope and would have led to its replacement. It was TTH's position that there was no evidence that the rope was worn or deteriorated or that it needed to be replaced. Further, inspection of the rope by a textile/materials expert concluded that the rope had a tensile strength of over 2000 pounds and that it would have been impossible for the Plaintiff to have exerted enough manual force on the rope to break it. Rather, it was his conclusion that the rope had to have been subjected to a machine based mechanical force.

Although Plaintiff was the only witness to the accident, and he vigorously denied using a machine to pull the rope, post-verdict interviews revealed that they jury was persuaded by circumstantial evidence that Plaintiff had used a forklift to pull the rope, which substantially weakened the rope, leading to its failure. Thus, TTH countered the common sense argument that Plaintiff tried to advance which was that the rope "must have" been weak or deteriorated because it broke. The 12 person jury voted unanimously in favor of no liability on the part of TTH's client.