General Allegations

1) Plaintiff is a resident of the city of __, County of ___, State of California.

2) The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 150 inclusive are unknown to plaintiff who, therefore, sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint ton assert the true names of said Defendants when such information becomes available.

3) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously-names Defendants is negligently responsible or responsible in some other manner for the occurrences alleged in this Complaint, and that plaintiff’s damages were legally caused by the conduct of these fictitiously-named defendants.

4) Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, defendants and each of them were the agent, employee and joint venture of each of the remaining defendants and in doing or omitting to do the things alleged herein, each was acting within the course, scope and purpose of said agency, employment and joint venture with the acquiescence, subsequent ratification, permission, and consent of each and every remaining defendant.

5) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned each of the Defendants was the successor-in-interest to each of the remaining Defendants, and on that basis, is liable for any act, or omission, of said Defendants alleged in this Complaint.

6) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therein alleges, the Defendant ___, is a corporation existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in Santa Fe Springs, ___ County, State of California, and is doing business as ____.

7) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant ___ is a corporation existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in ____, ___ County, State of California.

8] Defendants Does 1 through 150, and each of them, is a business entity whose exact name and form are currently unknown to plaintiff are and were authorized to do business and doing business in California.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, the Defendants ____, dba ___, ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, were doing business in California, and that they manufactured and sold the defective [product], as further described in this Complaint, thereby seriously injury plaintiff’s eye on or about [date].

9) Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants ____, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, at all times relevant herein, were distributors of [product], which were purchased by Plaintiff, and which ultimately malfunctioned, as further described within this Complaint, thereby seriously injuring plaintiff on or about [date].  Further, plaintiff is informed and believes, ans therein alleges, that Defendants ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, at all time relevant herein, owned, maintained, or controlled the premises which plaintiff lawfully entered to obtain access to purchase the defective party balloons which malfunctioned, as further described within this Complaint, thereby seriously injuring plaintiff on or about [date].

10) Venue is property in the Judicial District because the Cause of Action arose in this Judicial District.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY PREDICATED ON NEGLIGENCE BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

11) Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 10, inclusive, of his/her general obligations as if fully set forth herein.

12) At all times herein mentioned, Defendants ___, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, were engaged in the business of manufacturing, designing, assembling, compounding, testing, inspecting, packaging, labeling, fabricating, constructing, analyzing, distributing, servicing, merchandising, recommending, advertising, promoting, marketing, and/or selling a certain ____, for use by members of the general public.

13) At all times herein mentioned, Defendants ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, were engaged in the business of distributing, supplying, assembling, and selling, or were in the chain of distribution of the previously-described ____.

14) Defendants ___, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150 and each of them had a duty to excercise care not to negligently manufacture or design or distribute defective ___.  Defendants and each of them had a duty to inspect the [product] and a duty to give warning of the dangerous conditions of the [product], which are likely to be dangerous to consumers.

15) At all times herein mentioned, Defendants ____, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the previously-described [product] was a product of such a nature that if it were not properly manufactured, designed, assembled, compounded, analyzed, distributed, services, merchandised, recommended, warned, instructed, advertised, promoted, marketed, and sold, for the use and purpose for which it was intended, it was likely to cause serious injury to the person or persons by whom it was used and for whose safety it was originally intended.

16) At all times herein mentioned, Defendants ___, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, so negligently and carelessly manufactured, designed, assembled, compounded, tested or failed to test, inspected or failed to inspect, packaged labeled, fabricated, constructed, analyzed, distributed, serviced. merchandised, recommended, warned, instructed, advertised, promoted, marketed and sold the previously-described [product] so that it was in a dangerous and defective condition and unsafe for the use and purpose for which it was intended when used as recommended by the defendants, and each of them, thereby breaching their duty.

17) The defective and dangerous character and condition of the previously-described [product], in that it was unsafe for the use and purpose for which it was intended when used as recommended by Defendants ____, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, was known to Defendants ____, and each of them, was known to Defendants, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have been known and discovered by them.  Furthermore, the dangerous and defective character and condition of the previously-described [product] was not made known to plaintiff by Defendants ___, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150.

18) Prior to the incident of ___, Defendants ____, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, sold, for valuable consideration to plaintiff the previously-described [product].

19) On or about ___ while plaintiff was properly operating ___ in order to use them as ______, a purpose for which the [product] were intended, and as a legal result of the aforementioned negligence and carelessness of Defendants ___, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, the [product] malfunctioned by bursting and releasing toxic substances which got into plaintiff’s eyes, thereby causing serious and severe injuries to plaintiff.  Such injuries include but are not limited to blindness.

20) As a legal result of the negligence of the Defendants ___, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, plaintiff was hurt and injured in her health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to her eyes and person, all of which injuries have caused and will continue to cause her great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such injuries will result in some permanent disability to her.  As a result of such injuries, plaintiff has suffered general damages in an amount to be proven at the time of the trial of this action.

21) As a further result of the negligence of the Defendants ____, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses for physicians, surgeons, hospital care, and other medical services and supplies.  The full amount of these expenses is not known to plaintiff at this time.  Plaintiff prays leave to amend this Complaint to state the amount when it becomes known to him.

22) As a further legal result of the negligence of the Defendants ___, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, plaintiff has necessarily suffered a loss of earning capacity, and he/she is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that she will continue such a loss for an indefinite time in the future.  Plaintiff’s earning capacity has been greatly reduced, all to her further special damages in amounts currently unknown.  Plaintiff prays leave to amend this Complaint to assert the true amounts when they are ascertained.

23) WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants ___, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY IN TORT BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

24) Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 22, inclusive, of her general allegations as if fully set forth herein.

25) Defendants ___, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, manufactured, designed, assembled, compounded, tested or failed to test, inspected or failed to inspect, packaged, labeled, fabricated, constructed, analyzed, distributed, serviced, merchandised, recommended, warned, instructed, advertised, promoted, marketed, and/or sold a certain product of [product], which were intended by the Defendants ___, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, to be used in the following manner: ____

26) Defendants ___, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, knew that the previously-described [product] were to be purchased, an used without inspection for defects by plaintiff and the general public.

27) The previously-described [product] were unsafe for its intended use because of defects in its manufacture, design, testing, warnings, installation, components and constituents, so that it could not safely serve its purpose, but would instead expose the users of said product to serious injury because of failure of Defendants ___, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, to properly guard, protect, design, manufacture, distribute instruct, or warn the users of the previously-described {product] from these defective propensities.

28) Plaintiff was notr aware of said defects at any time prior to the injuries caused by the previously described [product].

29) Prior to the incident of [date], Defendants ___, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, sold, or otherwise transferred for valuable consideration to plaintiff the previously-described party balloons.

30) On or about [date] the previously-described [product] were sold to plaintiff for plaintiff’s use by Defendants ___, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150.

31) On or about [date] while plaintiff was properly inflating the [product] in order to use them as party decorations, a purpose for which the balloons were intended, and as a legal result of the aforementioned defective condition, the [product] malfunctioned by bursting and releasing a toxic substance which got into plaintiff’s eyes, thereby causing serious and severe injuries to plaintiff.  Such injuries include but is not limited to blindness.

32) As a legal result of the above-described defective condition, plaintiff on [date] was hurt and injured in her/his health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to her/his nervous system and person, including blindness to her eyes, all of which injuries have caused and will continue to cause her great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such injuries will result in some permanent disability to her/him.  As a result of such injuries, plaintiff has suffered general damage in an amount to be proven at the time of the trial of this action.

33) As a further legal result of the above descr9bed defective condition, plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses for physicians, surgeons, hospital care, and other medical services and supplies.  The full amount of these expenses is not known to her/him at this time.  Plaintiff prays leave to amend this complaint to state the amount when it becomes known to her/him.

34) As a further legal result of the above described defective condition, plaintiff has necessarily suffer a loss of earning capacity, and plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that she will continue such a loss for an indefinite time in the future.  Plaintiff’s earning capacity has been greatly reduced, all to her further special damages in amounts currently unknown.  Plaintiff prays leave to amend this Complaint to assert the true amounts when they are ascertained.

35) WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants ____, dba ___, and Does 1 through 150, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants and each of them as follows.

FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION EACH

1) For special damages in an amount according to proof;

2) For general damages for personal injury in an amount according to proof;

3) For cost of suit incurred herein;

4) For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

Dated this ___ of ___, ___.

Law Offices of John Doe, Esq

By: John Doe
Attorney for Plaintiff

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this web site is provided as a service to the Internet community, and does not constitute legal advice.   An attempt is made to provide quality information, but there is no claim, promise or guarantee about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this web site and its associated sites.  The free forms contained in this web site may not be appropriate for your particular needs.  As legal advice must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, and laws are constantly changing, nothing provided herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel.

Return to Ocular Expert Home Page from Products Liability Claim for Eye Injury

• Board certification with the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS).
• Have an active ophthalmology practice in the care and treatment of patients.
• Does not have a current practice that consists solely of performing medical/legal evaluations.
• Does not have a current practice that consists solely of evaluating patients for CalPERS.
• Provide timely evaluations of CalPERS ophthalmology patients, usually within three weeks of a CalPERS request.
• Provide timely written ophthalmology reports to CalPers, preferably within fourteen days of examination.
• Provide timely supplemental reports that are needed by CalPERS.  Supplemental reports are usually needed within seven days of request unless it is needed on a “rush” basis, in which case it is due within twenty-four hours.
• Provide requests for prior approval for additional time and for testing over $500.00.
• Provide specific standard information as required by CalPERS in addition to a standard written report.
• Adherence to an agreed-upon fee schedule.
• Provide preparation and willingness to appear and testify at administrative hearings.

Ophthalmology experts must be able to testify on a variety of issues.  Disability retirement for life or for the duration of a disability is an important topic for ocular expert analysis.  Ophthalmology experts need to be familiar with legal tests for determining substantial incapacity.  An IME examination is often geared to the specific issue that needs to be addressed.  For example, visual impairment that rises to a level that justifies disability is the function of an ocular expert.  In the event of a dispute, ophthalmology experts may be needed to testify as to the causation of disability from an industrial accident.

Reports from ophthalmology experts for CalPERS need to document the material reviews and knowledge of the job description.  If a member of CalPERS is substantially, incapacitated, the ophthalmology expert needs to indicate specific job duties that the member cannot perform and the reason to support such an assertion.  Detailed explanations are also necessary when an ophthalmology expert finds that the member is not substantially incapacitated, notwithstanding the alleged disabling condition.

Ophthalmology experts for CalPERS are limited to provide disability evaluations for CalPERS, and are not authorized to provide any form of treatment, invasive testing, treatment plan, or second opinions.  However, ophthalmology experts for CalPERS are a valuable resource that the agency relies on for accurate and fair assessment.

Click Here to Schedule a CalPERS ophthalmology expert IME or case evaluation

Return to Ocular Expert Home Page from Ophthalmology Experts for CalPERS

Arbitration and mediation are similar to the extent that both processes are alternatives to litigation.  Both arbitration and mediation utilize a “neutral” third party.  Sometimes in the case of arbitration, more than one “neutral” party is chosen.  Both arbitration and mediation can be binding, although it is customary to utilize mediation as a non-binding procedure and arbitration as a binding procedures.  Eye expert testimony may be helpful in assessing damages related to ocular injury, the visual prognosis, and the degree of long term care that may be needed.  Expert testimony may also be helpful when issues involve intellectual property issues that demand testimony on technical issues.

Arbitration and mediation have distinct differences. Arbitrators usually serve in a capacity that is similar to a judge in a civil rial.  Arbitrators make decisions about evidence.  Often, arbitrators ue formal rules of evidence, although they have great flexibility to determine admissability of evidence.  Arbitrators also provide written opinions.  Mediation is usually conducted before a “neutral” mediator who does not formally judge the case and come up with a verdict, but rather attempts to facilitate a discussion and a conclusive resolution of the dispute.  Mediation brings parties together in a “neutral” environment where the issues may be openly and confidentially presented to a “neutral” third party.  The parties of a dispute may listen to each others position, with the goal of coming to a binding written agreement.  An eye expert may be helpful in helping the parties understand vision issues involved a dispute.  An unbiased assessment by an eye expert may help bring together parties to facilitate a final resolution.

Many business contracts have provisions for dispute resolution that require parties to the agreement to first use mediation as a means to resolve a dispute. If mediation does not resolve the dispute, then the parties may move on to formal litigation through the court system or attempt resolution through arbitration.  Arbitration and formal liigation are far more time consuming and expensive than mediation.  Many business attorneys recommend inclusion of a mediation provision in any contract.

Eye experts providing testimony for mediation and arbitration need to be aware of the differences between these legal processes.  The goal of an eye expert is to provide credible testimony that helps facilitate a satisfactory resolution.

Return to Ocular Expert Home Page from Eye Expert Testimony for Mediation and Arbitration

Electronic magnifiers have the flexibility to help people with macular degeneration enlarge images to a readable scale that is not not available with simple hand held devices.  Unlike magnifiers with one magnifying power, electronic magnifiers are able to multitask and adapt to a variety of condition.  The major advantage of magnifiers for macular degeneration is their ability to enlarge images with detail.  Patients are able to see an entire page of a book rather than an enlarged sentence.  A hands-free electronic device allows for writing with two hands.  Writing checks and reading small print is easier than with strong magnifiers.

Electronic magnifiers are often available through low-vision rehabilitation counselors.  Low-vision rehabilitation counselors are often available at low-vision clinics and sometimes available by request by companies that manufacture electronic magnifiers.  Low-vision counselors may also be invaluable when learning how to use electronic magnifiers.  Flexibility is important when choosing an electronic magnifier since visual needs may change if macular degeneration progresses.

Electronic mangifiers provide adjustable magnifictation, a larger field of vision, and adjustable contrast.  Adjustable contrast makes black blacker and white whiter.  Increasing contrast enhances ability to see fine print.  Imagine regaining the ability to read books without eyestrain or enjoy family pictures. 

The cost of electronic magnifiers varies.  Some simple models can be available for as low as $250.  Highly sophisticated electronic magnifiers are available for several thousand dollars.  Many patients are best advised to arrange for a demonstration to determine the best electronic magnifier that will suit their needs.  Some companies that manufacture electronic magnifiers offer a free in-home demonstration.

Macular degeneration should not discourage you from trying innovative solutions to help you see better and enjoy life.  Electronic magnifiers for macular degeneration may allow you to once again enjoy everyday pleasures such as reading, enjoy family photos, cross-stitch or a crossword puzzle.  Technology for magnifiers for macular degeneration has progressed to highly sophisticated levels.

Return to Ocular Expert Home Page from Magnifiers for Macular Degeneration

Some individuals are not able to accommodate to bifocals or progressive lenses and use separate glasses for distance and reading.  The line in a bifocal may be cosmetically unappealing to some people, or difficulty looking down when wearing a bifocal or progressive lens may be too challenging.

A single pair of a new version of adjustable electronic eyeglasses may overcome the limitations imposed by traditional lenses. New versions of electronic eyeglasses use transparent liquid crystals that are controlled by a programmable microprocessor.  These crystals change the refractive index of a lens when activated.  Changing the refractive index of a lens also changes the prescription of a lens.  The microprocessor is activated in milliseconds by movement by a device called an accelerometer or a sensor on the earpiece (temple) that responds to a manual touch.  An accelerometer can be activated by tilting the head down and deactivated when the head is raised.  Each temple earpiece has a battery and microprocessor that activates a liquid crystal arrangement in the lower portion of each lens in the eyeglasses.  When not activated, the lens acts as a single vision lens for either mid-range or far distance viewing.

Several companies have joined the fray to develop and manufacture electronic eyeglasses.  A Virginia company called PixelOptics, founded by entrepreneur Ronald Blum, are already selling adjustable electronic eyeglasses in California using the brand name emPower.  Blum’s primary patent 8,029,134 incorporating liquid crystal polymers on blank lenses was issued in October 2011.

PixelOptics liquid crystal lenses are available in a wide range of shapes, styles, and prescriptions.  Currently, prescriptions with a spherical power from -7.00 to +4.00 are suitable for liquid crystal lenses.  Astigmatism up to -4.00 can also be within the range of a liquid crystal lenses.  The high-index plastic blank lenses utilized by PixelOptics are manufactured by Panasonic.  These lenses also have the advantage of not adding significant weight to the lenses.  The PixelOptics electronic glasses are expected to retail for about $1,250.  The retail price of PixelOptics lenses are expected to effectively compete with high-end designer eyeglasses in the same price range.

Superfocus, another company that produces adjustable eyeglasses in based in Southern California.  The Superfocus eyeglasses work when a wearer slides a mechanism on the bridge of the eyeglasses.  This maneuver changes the shape of a thin, flexible membrane that is filled with an optical fluid.  Sliding the mechanism alters the shape of the membrane to change the optical property of the lens.  Lenses made by Superfocus are currently available only as round shape.

Most prescriptions can be available with liquid crystal lens technology.  One inherent drawback is the fact that internal batteries must be periodically recharged.  The battery is hidden within the temple earpiece and can be turned off to preserve battery life.  A single charge is expected to last anywhere between one to three days.  Also the temple earpieces cannot be tightened or altered in position since this may damage the internal electronics.  The plastic bridge should never be heat treated for the same reason and tinting of the lens is not advised since that would interfere with the liquid crystals.

Adjustable electronic eyeglasses are one of latest innovations in eyewear.  Light-adjustable technology for intraocular lenses have also been invented that correct vision for near and far after cataract surgery.  As new technology becomes available, the future is in sight for exciting new developments in adjustable electronic eyeglasses.

Return to Ocular Expert Home Page from Adjustable Electronic Eyeglasses

Glaucoma is an ocular condition of  multifactorial origin with the defining hallmark as pressure in the eye that is higher than the optic nerve is able to tolerate.  Elevated pressure inside the eye causes the ganglion cells that compose the retina and optic nerve to become thin and atrophy.  Progressive thinning and atrophy of the cells that are responsible for vision usually occurs gradually, over a period of months to years. 

Many types of instruments may be used to diagnose glaucoma.  Pachymetry, a measurement of corneal thickness, may be helpful when assessing individual risk for developing glaucoma.  Family history of glaucoma and other eye problems may also be relevant when diagnosing glaucoma.

Vision is gradually lost in the presence of elevated eye pressure.  Many individuals with glaucoma may not notice a problem with their visual field until there is significant loss of vision.  Unfortunately, loss of vision from glaucoma tends to be permanent. 

Characteristic defects of peripheral vision may be detected on a visual field test.  Isolated blind spots known as “scotomas” are often found in the peripheral vision of an individual afflicted with glaucoma.  Visual field loss in glaucoma is variable, but usually spares the central (straight ahead) portion until the disease has progressed to an advanced stage.  Glaucoma expert witness testimony may help understand the sequence of events that causes loss of vision. 

Treatment for glaucoma is directed at lowering intraocular pressure or preventing a sudden rise of intraocular pressure.  Expert glaucoma treatment may consist of eye drops, laser application, or various forms of surgery.  Each type of treatment for glaucoma has its inherent individual risks and potential for complications.  Glaucoma expert testimony by an ocular expert is often useful when addressing issues of proper and effective treatment. 

A glaucoma expert witness is qualified to describe methods for monitoring this serious condition.  Instruments used for monitoring glaucoma include devices for measuring eye pressure, visual field perimeter machines, photography that analyzes the appearance of the optic nerve, and optical coherence tomography of the retina and optic nerve.  Fortunately, these instruments are typicaly available in offices of ocular experts who diagnose and manage patients with glaucoma.  Routine testing for glaucoma is non-invasive and well tolerated by most patients.

Testimony by a glaucoma expert witness may be useful in cases where issues revolve around ocular trauma, standard of care, devices used for diagnosis and treatment for glaucoma, and adverse reactions to glaucoma therapy.  A qualified board certified ocular expert can provide analysis regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of this serious condition.

Return to Ocular Expert Home Page from Glaucoma Expert Witness

Return to Eye Conditions Category from Glaucoma Expert Witness

Copyright © 2011, OcularExpert

Case Report

Summary of Case: A truck driver hailing two trailers loaded with goods stopped at an intersection, looked in both directions to confirm that traffic was clear before making a left turn to the eastbound land of a highway. Moderately dense fog covered the area. A GMC vehicle driven by a one-eyed driver and traveling westbound from an overpass 400 feet away was not able to stop in time. His vehicle struck the second trailer, caught fire, and he was fatally injured. A witness estimated that the driver of the GMC was speeding at about 60 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour recommended zone. Her statement was corroborated by an accident reconstruction expert after analysis of the tire marks on the roadway and crush injury to the vehicle. The plaintiff argued that the truck driver was negligent for not choosing an alternative route and failing to yield the right of way to the other vehicle. The defense argued that 500 feet visibility as reported by the investigating police officer was adequate for the GMC driver to stop in a timely fashion, but that excess speed while traveling with limited visibility over an overpass limited his reaction time. The defense also argued that drivers with only one functioning eye need to be extra vigilant and take necessary precautions because of vision limitations. Therefore, the driver of the GMC vehicle was at fault for speeding, crossing the double-yellow line, and failing to exercise reasonable precautions because of his monocular status.

Return to Page I: Vision Issues in Trucking Accidents

Return to Ocular Expert Home Page from Vision Issues in Trucking Accidents

Copyright © 2011, OcularExpert

Case Report

A passenger car driven by a middle-aged man struck a trailer-truck as it crossed an intersection.  The driver of the passenger car reported that the truck “came out from no where” and hit his car without warning.  An Independent Medical Examination of the driver of the passenger car that included an automated perimetry measurement of the peripheral vision was conduced.  Ophthalmologic examination showed loss of peripheral vision and whitening of the optic nerve in each eye.  Testing of the driver’s peripheral vision with an automated perimetry test showed a pattern of peripheral vision loss known as bitemporal hemianopsia.  This meant that the driver had significant loss of peripheral from the side of each eye.  The presence of peripheral vision loss accounted for the driver’s inability to see the truck as it crossed the intersection.  Further medical evaluation disclosed the the driver of the passenger car had a pituitary brain tumor that accounted for his peripheral visual field loss.  The lawsuit against the trucking company was dismissed.

Go to Page IV: Vision Issues in Trucking Accidents

Go to Ocular Expert Home Page from Vision Issues in Trucking Accidents

Copyright © 2011, OcularExpert

Case Report

A truck traveling on a major freeway in Southern California veered to the right and struck the rear of a private commuter bus.  The driver of the bus sustanined injuries to his head and neck after crashing into a divider line.  The driver of the commuter bus had advanced glaucoma with loss of peripheral vision in one eye.  Counsel representing the trucking company argued that reduced vision of the bus driver contributed to the accident.  Defense counsel argued that reduced peripheral vision was not an issue.  Expert testimony in court convinced jurors that the bus driver’s loss of peripheral vision on the side opposite the accident was not a factor in the accident.  However, expert testimony revealed that the bus driver was not wearing eye glasses at the time of the accident even though his driver license required eye glasses correction for driving.

Go to Page III: Vision Issues in Trucking Accidents

Go to Ocular Expert Home Page from Vision Issues in Trucking Accidents

Copyright © 2011, OcularExpert

CASE REPORT

Summary of Case: A truck driver hailing two trailers loaded with goods stopped at an intersection, looked in both directions to confirm that traffic was clear before making a left turn to the eastbound land of a highway. Moderately dense fog covered the area.  Another vehicle driven by a one-eyed driver and traveling westbound from an overpass 400 feet away was not able to stop in time. His SUV struck the second trailer, caught fire, and he was fatally injured.  A witness estimated that the driver of the small vehicle at about 60 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour recommended zone. The witness statement was corroborated by an accident reconstruction expert following analysis of the tire marks on the roadway and crush injury to the vehicle. The plaintiff argued that the truck driver was negligent for not choosing an alternative route and failing to yield the right of way to the other vehicle. The defense argued that 500 feet visibility as reported by the investigating police officer was adequate for the SUV driver to stop in a timely fashion, but that excess speed while traveling with limited visibility over an overpass limited his reaction time. The defense also argued that drivers with only one functioning eye need to be extra vigilant and take necessary precautions because of vision limitations.  The jury decided that the driver of the vehicle was at fault for speeding, crossing the double-yellow line, and failing to exercise reasonable precautions because of his monocular status.

Go to Page II: Vision Issues in Trucking Accidents

Go to Ocular Expert Home Page from Vision Issues in Trucking Accidents

Copyright © 2011, OcularExpert