Georgia Decision Highlights Importance of Early, Immediate & Consistent Investigation in Trucking Accident Cases

Atlanta, Ga. (July 2, 2025) - On June 27, 2025, a state court judge in Fulton County, Georgia entered summary judgment in favor of Evans Delivery Company and its driver, Marvin Colbert, in a case brought by the estate of another truck driver, Alexander Scott. Despite the tragic and catastrophic nature of the accident, the Court found that the overwhelming evidence developed by the defense showed required judgment on the affirmative defense of avoidable consequences.

Facts of Accident

In September 2022, defendant Colbert’s vehicle, which was being operated for common carrier Evans Delivery, suffered a mechanical failure that impacted his ability to operate the vehicle. Colbert pulled to the emergency lane of the highway and indicated he was able to clear the lanes of traffic.

Colbert engaged his four-way lights, engaged the emergency brake, and placed three orange warning triangles behind his trailer at intervals of 10 paces, 110 paces and 210 paces from the trailer. He then called his dispatch and a local travel center for assistance. The tractor could not be restarted, and they attempted to call wrecker services to have the vehicle towed from the location.

At approximately 5 am the following morning, nine hours after Colbert first pulled into the emergency lane, the tractor trailer driven by Alexander Scott collided with the left, rear edge of the Colbert trailer. Scott was traveling at 70 mph at the time of impact, and Colbert was asleep in the sleeping berth of the tractor. Scott was able to escape the flaming wreckage but unfortunately died at the scene.

Court Decision

The Court made multiple findings for the purposes of the summary judgment motion only, as it viewed all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving plaintiff. The Court determined that there was evidence that (1) the rear end of the trailer protruded into the lane of travel by 24-30 inches, (2) the warning triangles were not placed at the distances from the trailer mandated by 49 C.F.R. § 392.22(b)(1)(i)-(iii), (3) there was nevertheless an unobstructed view of the triangles and warning lights, (4) Scott had crossed the white fog line into the emergency lane at the time of impact, (5) the warning lights were activated and unobstructed from Scott’s view, and (6) Scott made no evasive maneuver to try to avoid the impact.

The Court found that the totality of the evidence implicated the avoidable consequences doctrine, codified at O.C.G.A. § 51-11-7, as it showed that Scott failed to reduce his speed, failed to maintain his lane of travel, and failed to move to his left (as the vehicle traveling in front of him did). Thus, even finding negligence on the part of Colbert in not fully clearing the lane of traffic or properly placing the triangles, it remained the duty of Scott to exercise reasonable conduct to avoid the effect of that negligence. Scott’s dashcam video showed that there were no vehicles in the adjoining lane that prevented him from moving to his left or slowing down, that he crossed the fog line multiple times in the distance leading up to the collision point, and that he had a clear line of sight to the safety measures associated with the Colbert vehicle, but that Scott did nothing to avoid the collision.

Takeaway

The outcome before the trial court in this case highlights the necessity for common carriers and their defense counsel to immediately and consistently undertake the investigation and marshaling of evidence in catastrophic injury cases. The dashcam footage was quite clearly at the heart of the Court’s decision, but the preservation of Colbert’s actions following the mechanical failure was equally essential to building a narrative that supported the application of the avoidable consequences doctrine. Finally, it should be underscored that the inclusion of appropriate and targeted affirmative defenses should not be a boilerplate exercise by defense counsel, but rather undertaken with care and thoughtful consideration.

Courts throughout the United Sates are dismissing actions such as this one where the driver’s conduct was not the proximate cause of the accident. Defendant trucking companies often find themselves in lawsuits because they are a “deep pocket.” This decision shows that simply being a part of an accident does not equate to liability, and courts are making appropriate decisions dismissing actions against trucking companies. The presentation to a court of convincing evidence and defenses will result in practical and proper dismissals of actions prior to the necessity and expense of a trial.

For more information about this decision, contact the authors of this alert. Visit our Transportation Practice page to learn more about our capabilities in this area.

Authors:

Thomas Regan, Partner

Adam N. Schwartzstein, Partner and Vice-Chair of Transportation Practice