In February 2011, a DeKalb County jury awarded $5.6 million to the estate of Johnny Johnson, who was killed in 2004 when he collided with a logging truck on I-20. At trial, lawyers for Johnson’s adult sons argued that the collision occurred because the log truck was going too slowly and that its tail lights were not working properly. Carl Thomas, the driver of the log truck, and his passenger were injured when Johnson’s tractor trailer rear-ended them. Following the accident, they sued Johnson’s employer and reached a $250,000 settlement.
At first it seemed that Johnson had been responsible for the accident. The only witness to the crash, a bus driver, claimed that the lights on the back of the log truck were working and that Johnson had been driving erratically immediately before the collision. After further investigation, however, it became apparent that there were a number of problems with the original story. First, several wiring problems and inadequate wiring repairs were found, which would have been consistent with the log truck’s brake and strobe lights being out. Also, the angle of the crash seemed to indicate that the log truck had entered the highway from an emergency lane and had not been on the highway long at the time of the crash. The damage sustained by Johnson’s tractor trailer in the crash was extreme, which was also inconsistent with Thomas’ claim that he had been driving 55 miles per hour. Finally, the bus driver who witnessed the crash made inconsistent statements and at least once admitted that he had been mistaken about the lights on the log truck being on.
After a nearly two-week trial, and after seven hours of deliberation, the DeKalb County jury awarded Johnson’s sons $4.1 million in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages. Though the insurance policy for Thomas’ employer had only a $1 million policy limit, the lawyer for Johnson’s sons believes that the insurance company will ultimately pay the full amount because it refused to settle the claim earlier. Attorneys for the defendant’s insurance company said they plan to appeal the verdict.
