PHILADELPHIA – A case surrounding a fatal tractor-trailer crash in Bucks County is heading to trial in a Philadelphia federal court next week, and the crux of the case could come down to establishing whether or not the decedent was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident.
Lillian P. Villagran (as the Administratrix of the Estate of Eryk Sanchinelli) of Mount Vernon, Wash. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 2, 2022 versus Freightbull, Inc. of Lyons, Ill., Voyd Watkins of Dallas, Texas and John Does I-III.
“On Dec. 28, 2020, defendant Watkins was operating the tractor-trailer. Defendants Freightbull, Inc. and/or Does I-III hired, trained, and retained defendant Watkins, contracted and/or agreed that defendant Watkins would haul a load of goods in The Tractor-trailer subject to defendants’ Freightbull, Inc.’s and/or Does I-III’s control. As a commercially licensed driver operating the tractor-trailer for defendants Freightbull, Inc. and/or Does I-III, which is a licensed Federal Motor Carrier required to comply with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, defendants were required to be familiar with the applicable federal and state regulations,” the suit said.
“Defendants knew that failure to comply with the applicable federal and state regulations while operating the tractor-trailer could cause death or serious injury to himself or others on the road, including occupants of other vehicles. Despite his training, knowledge, and awareness of the dangerous consequences of his actions, defendant Watkins repeatedly violated the rules of the road as well as the applicable regulations, statute, and standards (including FMCSA regulations) and practices of commercial truck drivers. In the afternoon and evening hours of Dec. 28, 2020, prior to the crash described herein, defendant Watkins was stopped at a truck stop on the southbound side of Route 309 located at 1730 Route 309, Springfield Township, Bucks County, PA. Defendant Watkins stopped at the aforementioned truck stop along the southbound lanes of Route 309 despite his intention to travel North on Route 309 when he left the truck stop that night.”
The suit added that on Dec. 28, 2020 at approximately 9:50 p.m., defendant Watkins was operating the tractor-trailer when he attempted to exit the truck stop by crossing in front of two southbound lanes of traffic on Route 309 so that he could turn left onto one of the two northbound lanes of Route 309 – and that due to the traffic conditions at the time, defendant Watkins pulled halfway out across the roadway, blocking the southbound lanes, and stopped to allow vehicles travelling in the northbound lane to pass before he could complete his turn.
“Due to the size and weight of the tractor-trailer, defendant Watkins slowly began moving from that stopped position blocking the southbound lanes to continue his turn onto the northbound lane of Route 309. On Dec. 28, 2020, at approximately 9:50 p.m., in the area of the crash, it was dark outside, the road for the southbound travelers slightly curves, and there is vegetation and signage along the southbound lanes of the highway approaching the truck stop exit. The tractor-trailer was not properly illuminated on the sides to allow for oncoming traffic in the southbound lanes to react to this obstacle in their path. The speed limit on this section of Route 309 where the crash occurred is 55 miles per hour. There is no traffic control device at the exit of the truck stop onto Route 309,” the suit stated.
“At the time of the crash, the decedent was the driver of a 2010 silver Honda CRV in the southbound lane of Route 309 in Springfield Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. In the moments before the crash, the decedent was driving in the left southbound lane of Route 309, while other vehicles were travelling essentially alongside him in the right lane of southbound Route 309. On or about Dec. 28, 2020, at approximately 9:50 p.m., the decedent’s vehicle collided into the box truck of the tractor-trailer operated by defendant Watkins that was across the southbound lanes of travel. As a result of the crash, the decedent suffered fatal injuries. At all times relevant, and under the circumstances then existing, the decedent acted in a careful and reasonable manner, and did not contribute to the happening of the crash.”
Ahead of Trial, Admissibility Conflict in Play over Seatbelt Evidence
On May 29 and in advance of trial, the plaintiff filed a motion in limine to preclude the introduction of any testimony, reference, argument or evidence as to whether the decedent was wearing a seatbelt.
According to Pennsylvania State Trooper Justin Hood’s police report and deposition, it was disclosed that, at the time of the crash, the decedent was not wearing a seatbelt and defendant Watkins was wearing a lap and shoulder belt.
However, the plaintiff’s motion argues this evidence is both irrelevant and precluded by Pennsylvania state law.
“Under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code, evidence regarding the decedent’s seatbelt usage is inadmissible. Pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. 4581(e), ‘In no event shall a violation or alleged violation of this subchapter be used as evidence in a trial of any civil action; nor shall any jury in a civil action be instructed that any conduct did constitute or could be interpreted by them to constitute a violation of this subchapter; nor shall failure to use a child passenger restraint system, child booster seat or safety seatbelt system be considered as contributory negligence nor shall failure to use such a system be admissible as evidence in the trial of any civil action; nor shall this subchapter impose any legal obligation upon or impute any civil liability whatsoever to an owner, employer, manufacturer, dealer or person engaged in the business of renting or leasing vehicles to the public to equip a vehicle with a child passenger restraint system or child booster seat or to have such child passenger restraint system or child booster seat available whenever their vehicle may be used to transport a child,” according to the motion in limine.
“This case concerns a tractor-trailer crash in which defendant Watkins negligently operated his vehicle by entering and obstructing the path of travel for all thru traffic on a highway, whereby he had no right-of-way to do so. Under Rule 403: ‘The Court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: Unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.’ ‘Evidence cannot be excluded under Rule 403 merely because its unfairly prejudicial effect is greater than its probative value. Rather, evidence can be kept out only if its unfairly prejudicial effect ‘substantially outweighs’ its probative value.’ Here, the subject controversial evidence is irrelevant to the negligence of the defendant. Considering the other prong of the balancing test, any discussion of a seatbelt violation would confuse the issues and mislead the jury, and potentially cast shadows over plaintiff’s decedent’s character undeservedly.”
Issue of Seatbelt Wear in Crashes Has Also Arisen in Georgia Courts
In a Georgia case related to a 2020 crash where a woman’s airbag didn’t deploy and she hit her head on the windshield, the plaintiff then sued Ford – which planned to counter the suit with the argument that she was not wearing her seatbelt.
Citing federal guidance, the company pointed out that air bags are considered “supplemental protection and are designed to work best in combination with seatbelts.” Georgia requires the use of seatbelts by front-seat passengers.
But the Supreme Court of Georgia wouldn’t let Ford mention whether or not the injured plaintiff was wearing a seatbelt. Now, Republican-led legislation in the state would give automakers the right to point out when a car-crash plaintiff wasn’t wearing their seatbelt, a bill which passed unanimously in the state Senate, 52-0.
The legislation, sponsored by Georgia Republican State Senators Brandon Beach, Greg Dolezal, Shawn Still and Steve Gooch, along with Georgia Republican Rep. Clay Pirkle, has not yet come up for a vote in the Georgia House of Representatives. Rather, a substitute bill has only been favorably reported by a House committee since then.
For counts of negligence, negligent and reckless supervision/hiring/retention, negligent entrustment, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $75,000.
The plaintiff is represented by Susan B. Ayres and Leonard K. Hill of Hill & Associates, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by John M. Campbell and Donald I. Wall of Cipriani & Werner, in Blue Bell.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-02159
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com