New York Truck Accident Lawyer

Commercial trucks are significantly larger and heavier than most other vehicles on the road, making accidents involving them especially dangerous. The results can be devastating when these massive vehicles collide with smaller passenger cars, SUVs, or motorcycles. The force of impact can cause catastrophic injuries such as spinal cord damage, traumatic brain injuries, multiple fractures, and internal organ trauma. The sheer weight of commercial trucks also increases the likelihood of rollovers and multi-vehicle pileups, putting even more motorists at risk of serious harm. Additionally, because trucks require a greater stopping distance, sudden traffic changes or driver errors can make avoiding collisions far more difficult.

In New York, commercial trucks contribute to thousands of accidents, many of which stem from preventable negligence, such as driver fatigue, distracted driving, or improper vehicle maintenance. When a truck accident occurs due to negligence, the responsible parties—the truck driver, trucking company, or even the manufacturer of defective truck parts—can be held legally accountable for damages. Victims may face overwhelming medical bills, lost wages, and long-term pain and suffering. If you or a loved one were seriously injured in a truck accident, securing legal representation from an experienced New York truck accident lawyer can be key to navigating the complex legal landscape, protecting your rights, and obtaining the compensation you deserve.

What Are the Common Types of Truck Accidents?

Truck accidents can occur in various forms, each with unique challenges and risks:

• Rear-End Collisions. Rear-end truck collisions occur when a truck crashes into the back of a smaller vehicle, often due to the truck driver’s failure to stop in time. However, they can occur in other ways. For example, in Yassin v. Blackman, 188 A.D.3d 62 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020), a rear-end accident happened when the defendant’s truck allegedly struck the plaintiff’s taxi, which had been stopped at a traffic light for several seconds. The plaintiff claimed the truck attempted to pass on the left but collided with the taxi’s rear. In rear-end collisions, New York law establishes a presumption of negligence against the operator of the rear vehicle, because drivers are required to maintain safe distances between their vehicles. See Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 Veh. Traf. [a]). As a result, when a rear-end collision occurs with a vehicle that is stopped or in the process of stopping, the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of negligence on the part of the rear driver. This presumption shifts the burden to the defendant, who must provide a nonnegligent explanation to rebut the inference of liability. See Stalikas v. United Materials, 306 A.D.2d 810, 761 N.Y.S.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). For example, defendant’s evidence that the plaintiff stopped suddenly, could be sufficient to rebut the inference of liability. Without such a rebuttal, the presumption of negligence remains, thereby strengthening the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant was at fault and liable.
• Jackknife Accidents. Jackknife accidents occur when a truck’s trailer swings out, often due to sudden braking or poor road conditions. They can block multiple lanes of traffic, creating a hazard for other drivers. They are particularly dangerous on highways, where high speeds can amplify the severity of collisions. In United States v. Savage Truck Line, 209 F.2d 442 (4th Cir. 1953), the court considered liability in a deadly truck accident. A Savage Truck Line vehicle jackknifed on a curved section of a highway due to improperly secured cargo. The truck, carrying six large airplane engine containers, swerved across the center line when the load shifted, causing a cylinder to fall onto an oncoming Brooks Transportation truck, killing its driver. The executrix of driver who was killed filed a wrongful death lawsuit. Liability was attributed to both Savage and the U.S. government. Savage was found negligent for operating the truck despite the unsecured cargo, while the government was held responsible for improper loading.
• Underride Collisions. Collisions in which smaller vehicles slide beneath a truck’s trailer often result in catastrophic injuries, particularly severe head and neck trauma for the occupants of the smaller vehicle. Truck underride accidents are among the most devastating types of crashes due to the structural mismatch between passenger vehicles and large commercial trucks. These accidents occur when a smaller vehicle strikes the side or rear of a truck and becomes wedged underneath, significantly increasing the likelihood of fatal injuries. The lack of sufficient impact protection in many trucks exacerbates the severity of these crashes, often resulting in life-threatening trauma or fatalities. In Field v. Omaha Standard, Inc., 582 F. Supp. 323 (E.D. Pa. 1983), the plaintiff, Mark Field, sustained severe injuries in a truck underride accident when his pickup truck collided with the rear of an aerial crane truck. Due to the height disparity between the two vehicles, Field's pickup slid under the truck's flatbed, causing serious injuries. Although the plaintiff failed in his product liability claim against the cab-chassis manufacturer, the fact remains that underride accidents pose a severe risk of catastrophic injury or death when commercial trucks lack proper safety features. Note that while this case was decided in Pennsylvania, the legal principles regarding the risks of underride accidents and the need for proper safety features apply equally to New York. The case underscores the importance of enforcing stringent safety measures to prevent such devastating accidents.
• Rollover Accidents. Trucks may tip over due to excessive speed, uneven cargo, or sharp turns. Rollover accidents can result in vehicles being crushed or forced off the road. Improperly loaded cargo significantly increases the likelihood of rollovers, as shifting weight can destabilize the truck.
• Tire Blowouts. When a truck tire fails at high speeds, the sudden loss of control can result in rollovers, multi-vehicle collisions, or even vehicles veering off the road. One tragic example occurred on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway in 2008, when a cement truck driven by Julio Mora suffered a tire blowout, losing control of the truck. He struck an Oldsmobile Cutlass, crashed through a highway barrier, and clipped another vehicle before bursting into flames. Mora was ejected and died at the scene (“BQE crash kills trucker, spurs traffic nightmare”, New York Daily News, May 22, 2008). This incident highlights how blowouts are particularly dangerous for large trucks, whose size and weight make sudden maneuvers difficult. Poor tire maintenance, underinflation, and overheating are common causes of these failures, making regular inspections and proper tire care essential for preventing fatal truck accidents.

What Are the Common Causes of Truck Accidents?

Truck accidents are often preventable and result from a combination of human error, mechanical failure, and external factors:

• Driver Fatigue: Despite federal regulations, driver fatigue remains a significant issue, as evidenced by a fatal accident in Louisville, New York. In January 2023, a Freightliner box truck crossed the centerline of a two-lane highway and collided with a bus, killing six passengers and injuring others. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) attributed the accident to driver fatigue, citing the driver’s “limited, fragmented sleep” and poor adjustment to overnight shifts as contributing factors. The driver had only five hours or less of uninterrupted sleep each night for three days before the crash, which disrupted his circadian rhythm and diminished his alertness. This tragedy was compounded by systemic oversight failures, including the trucking company’s poor safety record and hours-of-service violations (Ryan Witkowski, Land Line, Nov. 22, 2024).
• Distracted Driving: Using cell phones, eating, or engaging in other distractions can impair a driver’s focus and reaction time.
• Impaired Driving: Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs poses serious risks. In July 2024, a drunk truck driver caused a fatal crash in Manhattan, killing three pedestrians.
• Improper Loading: Uneven or unsecured cargo can shift during transit, making the truck unstable.
• Mechanical Failures: Faulty brakes, tire defects, or engine problems can lead to accidents.
• Adverse Weather Conditions: Rain, snow, and ice can make roads slippery and dangerous.
• Road Hazards: Potholes, debris, and poorly marked construction zones contribute to collisions.

Can I Sue for My Truck Accident Injuries?

If you were injured in a truck accident and meet New York’s qualifications to sue under the No-Fault Law, you may be able to pursue compensation. Under New York law, individuals seeking non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, must demonstrate that their injuries meet the statutory “serious injury” threshold outlined in N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102(d). This threshold includes conditions such as fractures, significant limitations of use, or permanent consequential impairments. In Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 345 (2002), the Court of Appeals emphasized that plaintiffs must present objective medical evidence—either quantitative (e.g., range-of-motion deficits) or qualitative (e.g., detailed physician reports)—to substantiate their claims of serious injury.

For those with soft tissue injuries, New York’s “90/180-day rule” may provide an alternative path to legal action. If a medically determined injury substantially limits your daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident, you may qualify to sue beyond the basic no-fault coverage. While truck accidents often result in severe injuries like broken bones, paralysis, or traumatic brain injuries, even soft tissue injuries can meet the serious injury threshold if properly documented.

Insurance companies may challenge the extent of your injuries, particularly when ongoing treatment is required. In some cases, they may demand an Independent Medical Examination (IME) to assess whether continued medical care is necessary. An unfavorable IME result could impact your no-fault benefits but does not automatically prevent you from pursuing a lawsuit.

Strict legal deadlines also apply to truck accident claims in New York. Under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214, you generally have three years from the accident date to file a personal injury claim. However, if a government entity is a defendant—such as in cases involving municipal road maintenance—you must file a Notice of Claim within 90 days of the accident. For wrongful death claims, the statute of limitations is typically two years from the date of death under N.Y. E.P.T.L. § 5-4.1, though certain exceptions may apply, such as cases involving minors. Missing these deadlines can jeopardize your ability to recover compensation, making it essential to act quickly and consult a qualified New York truck accident lawyer.

What Are the Common Injuries Suffered in a Truck Accident?

Truck accidents often lead to especially catastrophic outcomes, given the sheer size and weight of commercial vehicles. In New York, courts recognize that collisions involving trucks can cause a spectrum of serious injuries, many of which demand prolonged, high-level medical care. Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBIs), for instance, may range from mild concussions to profound brain damage affecting cognition, emotional stability, and memory. Victims frequently require extensive rehabilitation, as highlighted in Toure where the Court of Appeals emphasized the need for objective medical findings to prove long-term impairment. Although Toure involved an automobile rather than a commercial truck, the same legal threshold for “serious injury” (N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102(d)) applies to truck accidents.

Severe truck crashes can also produce spinal cord injuries, leading to partial or total paralysis and necessitating assistive devices or home modifications. In devastating scenarios, a victim may suffer amputations, culminating in permanent physical disability, elevated healthcare expenses, and psychological trauma.

When collisions are especially forceful, internal injuries—including organ damage and internal bleeding—may not appear immediately yet pose life-threatening risks. Another grave concern in trucking incidents is burn injuries, often arising from fuel tank ruptures or fires in high-impact collisions; these can lead to significant scarring, infection risk, and the need for painful skin grafting.

Finally, broken bones may vary from straightforward fractures to compound breaks that call for multiple surgeries and rehabilitative therapy, sometimes precluding the victim from working for months.

Ultimately, these injuries can have long-lasting physical and emotional consequences, undermining victims’ capacity to work, care for their families, and enjoy life’s normal routines. Because truck accidents often involve complex federal and state regulations and extensive medical documentation, successful litigation hinges on thorough investigation, expert testimony, and clear evidence linking the victim’s harms to the crash.

What Compensation Can Truck Accident Victims Receive?

The compensation available to victims of truck accidents in New York can be extensive, reflecting the often catastrophic nature of these collisions and the strict safety regulations governing commercial vehicles. Courts have consistently recognized that a victim’s damages may include medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, property damage, loss of consortium, and—when the accident proves fatal—wrongful death compensation.

• Medical Expenses. Victims may recover the cost of hospital bills, surgeries, physical therapy, and ongoing care, including future medical expenses for long-term treatment.
• Lost Wages. Compensation for lost earnings arises when victims cannot work due to injuries or must permanently change jobs. Courts also award damages for reduced earning capacity if a victim’s ability to resume pre-accident employment is compromised. If extensive rehabilitation or retraining is needed, related costs are likewise recoverable, as consistent with the principle in Toure that severe injuries—especially those involving lengthy treatment—can justify significant economic damages.
• Pain and Suffering. Truck accidents often produce severe physical and emotional trauma. In evaluating pain and suffering, courts assess the nature, extent, and permanency of the injuries. This category may also cover psychological conditions, such as PTSD, stemming from the crash. While Toure focused on the “serious injury” threshold, it equally illustrates how substantial evidence (e.g., medical records, expert testimony) supports claims of ongoing pain and emotional distress.
• Property Damage. Victims can seek costs to repair or replace damaged vehicles and personal belongings. Receipts, repair invoices, or appraisal estimates are typically required to prove the extent of the loss. If the victim must rent a car or otherwise pay for transportation while theirs is being repaired, those costs can also be recovered.
• Loss of Consortium. When injuries significantly alter family relationships—limiting companionship, emotional support, or intimacy—a spouse or close family member may pursue loss of consortium damages. Though inherently subjective, courts weigh these claims by examining medical evidence and personal testimony on how the injury has impacted daily life.
• Wrongful Death. In fatal truck accidents, wrongful death actions allow surviving family members to seek compensation for funeral expenses, lost financial support, and the decedent’s pain and suffering prior to death. Guided by EPTL § 5-4.1, wrongful death suits recognize the full scope of economic and non-economic losses incurred by the victim’s family. Courts typically consider the deceased’s earning potential, household contributions, and overall impact on loved ones.

Ultimately, the value of a truck accident claim varies with the severity of injuries, the extent of liability, and how each harm affects the victim’s personal and professional life. Truck collisions often involve specialized regulations—such as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations—and early consultation with an attorney is key to identifying all recoverable damages and assembling the medical, financial, and expert evidence needed to substantiate these claims.

Who Can I Sue for Truck Accident Injuries?

When a commercial truck collides with a passenger vehicle in New York, the injuries and damages can be devastating. Determining who may be liable for a crash is rarely straightforward. Though the truck driver is often the most visible defendant, additional parties can share liability, ranging from the trucking company that employs the driver to the company responsible for maintenance or even governmental entities for faulty road conditions. The objective of this multi-party inquiry is twofold: (1) identify all legally responsible actors, and (2) secure full compensation for the victim’s medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Understanding New York’s comparative negligence rules (CPLR § 1411) and safety regulations—particularly those established by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)—is crucial in parsing responsibility among numerous defendants.

The Truck Driver Primary Liability

The most straightforward defendant in a truck accident lawsuit is the driver whose actions allegedly caused the collision. Under the common law theory of negligence, the injured party (plaintiff) must show that the driver owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused the plaintiff’s injuries. For instance, if the driver was speeding, texting, or driving under the influence, a plaintiff can argue that such behavior breached the duty to operate the vehicle safely. Courts apply these principles regardless of whether the driver was operating a small vehicle or a large commercial truck.

Hours-of-Service Violations

Truck drivers are subject to additional federal guidelines—known as hours-of-service rules—designed to prevent fatigue-related accidents (49 C.F.R. Part 395). If an investigation reveals the driver exceeded permissible driving hours or falsified logbooks, that evidence can strengthen the plaintiff’s claim of negligence.

Employers Vicarious Liability

Under New York law, employers are frequently held responsible for the negligent acts of their employees committed within the scope of their employment under the doctrine of respondeat superior. If a truck driver is acting within the course of employment—such as making deliveries, following assigned routes, or otherwise performing job-related duties—the trucking company may be held liable for the driver’s negligence. This principle ensures that an injured plaintiff has recourse against an entity with sufficient insurance or assets, rather than relying solely on the driver’s individual financial resources.

However, liability is not always limited to direct employers. Courts have recognized that entities other than an employer may also bear responsibility when they exercise control over a particular aspect of an operation that contributes to an accident. This principle was central in United States v. Savage Truck Line, Inc., where the U.S. government was held liable for a fatal truck accident under respondeat superior and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). In that case, a truck carrying airplane engine cylinders jackknifed, causing a deadly crash. Although the truck was operated by an employee of Savage Truck Line, a private carrier, the government retained control over the loading process. The court determined that the negligent loading of the cargo, arranged by the government, created an unsafe condition that contributed to the accident. Despite Savage Truck Line being a separate entity, the government was found to share liability with Savage because the cargo had been improperly secured by government employees or under their direction. This case illustrates how liability can extend beyond the direct employer to other entities that exert significant control over an essential aspect of an operation. When an organization—whether a government entity, a contractor, or a third party—directs or supervises a task that is later found to be negligently performed, courts may hold that entity accountable for resulting harm.

Direct Negligence

A trucking company may also face direct negligence claims. For example, if the company failed to maintain the truck properly, neglected to enforce hours-of-service regulations, or inadequately trained or supervised the driver, it may bear independent responsibility. Courts emphasize that employers must conduct reasonable background checks, ensure vehicles meet safety standards, and create protocols limiting drivers’ work hours. Should a company knowingly allow a fatigued or unlicensed driver to continue operating a truck, courts may find direct liability in addition to vicarious liability.

Cargo Loading or Shipping Companies Improperly Loaded Cargo

Some truck accidents occur because cargo is overloaded, unbalanced, or improperly secured. Federal regulations spell out weight limits and tie-down requirements (49 C.F.R. §§ 393.100-136). If a separate loading or shipping company incorrectly distributes cargo, causing the truck to become top-heavy or prone to jackknifing, that company could be liable if the resulting imbalance contributes to a crash. For instance, a load that shifts unexpectedly can cause the driver to lose control, endangering other motorists.

Allocation of Fault

In practice, the trucking company and the cargo-loading entity may point fingers at one another. However, under New York’s pure comparative negligence framework, multiple parties can be assigned portions of blame, allowing a jury or judge to apportion fault accordingly. For example, in United States v. Savage Truck Line, the court found both the trucking company and the federal government liable for a fatal truck accident. The court held that the government was negligent in improperly loading airplane engine cylinders onto the truck, while the trucking company was negligent in failing to exercise proper caution in its operation. Ultimately, liability was apportioned between the two parties, demonstrating how multiple defendants can share responsibility in a trucking accident.

As an experienced New York truck accident lawyer will explain, victims seeking full compensation generally name every potentially responsible entity to ensure they do not overlook a significant source of recovery.

Maintenance or Repair Contractors Negligent Maintenance

Trucking companies sometimes contract with third-party mechanics or repair shops. If a brake failure, tire blowout, or steering malfunction stems from negligent maintenance, those who performed the repairs may be liable. For instance, if a mechanic overlooked worn brake pads or improperly installed critical components, a plaintiff can argue that this negligence contributed substantially to the accident.

Proving Causation

To hold a repair contractor accountable, a plaintiff must typically show that the contractor’s failure to meet industry standards caused or exacerbated the mechanical fault. Maintenance logs, inspection records, and expert testimony often become key evidence in such claims. Courts will consider whether the contractor exercised the degree of care customary for a professional in the field, and whether any oversights directly led to the truck’s loss of control or malfunction at the time of the crash.

Truck Manufacturer or Part Manufacturer (Product Liability) Defective Design or Manufacture

If the accident was precipitated by a defective part—such as faulty brakes, a compromised steering mechanism, or a blowout-prone tire—the manufacturer could be sued under product liability theories. New York recognizes strict liability in product cases, meaning the victim need not prove negligence, only that the product was defective when it left the defendant’s control and that the defect caused the injuries.

In Codling v. Paglia, 32 N.Y.2d 330 (1973), the New York Court of Appeals held that automobile manufacturers could be held strictly liable for design defects that pose unreasonable dangers to both users and innocent bystanders. The case involved a 1967 Chrysler Newport Custom sedan that unexpectedly veered across the highway, resulting in a head-on collision. The defect at issue was a faulty power-assisted steering system, which allegedly locked up, preventing the driver from correcting his course. The jury found Chrysler liable for breaching the implied warranty of merchantability and fitness, even in the absence of direct negligence. While this case involved passenger vehicles rather than commercial trucks, its principles remain relevant in the context of truck accident litigation. The ruling reinforced that manufacturers bear responsibility for defects that render vehicles unreasonably dangerous when used as intended, extending liability not only to purchasers but also to bystanders harmed due to such defects.

Government Entities or Municipalities

Roadway Defects. Sometimes, the cause of a truck accident is not solely driver error or mechanical failure. Poorly maintained roads, hidden potholes, missing signage, or dangerously designed intersections can all contribute to an accident. A government entity (e.g., the State of New York, a city, or a county) may be liable under theories of negligent roadway design or failure to maintain. For instance, if an unmarked sharp turn routinely causes heavy vehicles to lose control, a plaintiff could claim that the entity responsible for designing or maintaining that road should have taken remedial measures.

Government-Owned Trucks

Additionally, if a government-owned truck—such as a municipal waste truck, snowplow, or dump truck—was involved in the collision, the government agency operating it can be held responsible for the negligence of its employee-driver under respondeat superior.

Procedural Hurdles

Suing a governmental body in New York involves strict procedural rules. Under New York General Municipal Law § 50-e, a plaintiff often must file a Notice of Claim within 90 days of the accident if they plan to sue a city or other local entity. If these deadlines are missed, the plaintiff may forfeit the right to bring suit. Consequently, victims who suspect roadway design or maintenance issues should consult an attorney quickly to preserve potential claims.

Potential Liability Among Multiple Defendants

Comparative Negligence. New York’s comparative negligence system means that fault for a truck accident can be apportioned among the driver, trucking company, third-party mechanics, manufacturers, and even the victim themselves if the victim’s own actions contributed to the crash (e.g., speeding or failing to yield). The principle is well-illustrated in decisions like Rodriguez v. City of New York, 31 N.Y.3d 312 (2018). In Rodriguez, the New York Court of Appeals clarified a key issue in comparative negligence cases: whether a plaintiff seeking partial summary judgment on liability must prove they were free from negligence. The plaintiff, a sanitation worker, was injured when a sanitation truck skidded and pushed a parked car into him, resulting in permanent disability. The defendant city argued that because there was a question of fact about the plaintiff's comparative negligence, his motion for partial summary judgment should be denied. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, holding that a plaintiff does not have to disprove their own comparative negligence to obtain partial summary judgment on a defendant’s liability. Instead, issues of comparative fault should be addressed solely at the damages phase. This decision reaffirmed that under New York’s pure comparative negligence rule, a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by their degree of fault but is not a bar to establishing a defendant’s liability.

Insurance Coverage Considerations. Truck accident lawsuits often involve multiple layers of insurance coverage—policies from the driver, the trucking company, and any affiliated entities. Federal regulations require trucking carriers to maintain significantly higher coverage limits than most passenger vehicles. Identifying every defendant’s insurance is essential to ensuring maximum compensation, particularly in accidents where the injuries are catastrophic.

Identifying all potential defendants in a New York truck accident lawsuit is critical for securing a complete financial recovery. While the driver is the most apparent party, multiple actors—such as the trucking company, cargo loaders, maintenance contractors, manufacturers, and even government agencies—can play significant roles in causing or contributing to a crash. Each defendant’s share of fault depends on evidence relating to negligence, product defects, regulatory violations, or negligent maintenance, among other factors. Early investigation and legal intervention can help gather relevant records, from driver logbooks and maintenance logs to product recall data and municipal road design plans. By fully exploring all possible bases of liability, victims increase their chances of receiving the compensation they need to address medical costs, lost income, pain and suffering, and the life-altering consequences of a serious truck accident.

---