Mother sues trucking company

I hope she wins Big time as well as all the other parents who will eventually sue.

 

It wasn't as though this was one of those accidents where the 4-wheeler just suddenly cut into the safe gap between two other vehicles...from the pictures of the accident scene I've seen he those other vehicles hard. Hard enough to buckle a freeking tanker...you don't hit that hard unless you failed to maintain a safe distance...as in you weren't paying attention...granted, because he hasn't been charged yet is the only reason his name isn't on the lawsuit...yet...he is just as guilty as they are for hiring, training, dispatching, and disciplining for prior violations if any. No, a lawsuit won't bring back those that lost their lives, but believe me...a major out of pocket settlement will cause changes in the safety of the company. I worked for Crete back when their driver hit that car load of kids and pushed it into that bus killing 7...it had major ramifications...to this day they aren't the same company.

 

The carrier has the money and the high liability insurance policy, not the driver. Drivers are rarely mentioned in law suits because it is known they have nothing to recover typically, few assets or cash.

The carrier hired the driver, trained the driver, monitors the driver, dispatches the driver, provides the continuing safety training sessions, provided the equipment driven, and last but not least, has accepted the liability and risks that goes along with having 15,000+ power units running the roads 365 days/year.

But by all means, if you're a company driver involved in a crash and screw up and kill a group of people, then by all means, you are welcome to nominate yourself to be named as a co-defendant in the upcoming trials. Nobody stopping you.

Talk like "driver should be financially responsible" will only lead to drivers being forced to malpractice insurance just to protect themselves in crashes, regardless of fault. It may be coming, but why accelerate the process with radical talk and admission of regular fault of drivers?

 

Hopefully the truck driver will never be able to drive s CMV again. Traffic was stopped and he slammed into stopped traffic. I'm no expert, but he was either sleepy or distracte. There is no freaking excuse for running into stopped traffic in clear conditions, no excuse!

 

Running into stopped traffic? Even if the driver isn't charged, he could still be held liable, along with his company. Especially rear-end accidents, the lawyers will find anything they can to point out to the jury that the driver was somehow distracted, fatigued, driving unsafe, what ever. That's why we have the mess with sleep apnea and any kind of distracted driving, not to mention all the stuff on the trucks like onguard, etc.

 

Also, yes, it IS about money. What other recourse does the family have? An apology from the carrier? That will make up for a horrific death of their sons, daughters, wives, husbands, etc?

Money is what industries respond to. Separate enough carriers from enough money and you will see changes at the carrier and at in the industry. If it were not for massive lawsuits, what would prompt the industry to fix their issues and work to reduce these sorts of tragic incidents?

"About the money" is when a person is barely rear-ended on slick roads, has no real injuries, but puts on a show to claim hundreds of thousands in medical and mental anguish compensation. When loved ones die in a fiery crash where they were not at fault, but were only at the wrong place at the wrong time, and a carrier with their name painted all over it runs them over ... if that's not a case for massive financial compensation, I don't know what is.

 

Legally speaking, once an employee is "on the clock", the employer is responsible for his actions. Total Transportation is responsible for this accident, period!! And this is why the lawsuit is leveled at Total. Plus the fact that Total has the "deep pockets" and God forbid, but had one of the young ladies been my daughter, I would go after Total too. We live in a world of "checks and balances" and lawsuits are part of the system.

 

Don't want to get sued? Pay attention and don't run your truck into stopped traffic. That much ought to be common sense.

 

And be very careful with your hiring process. Accident-prone people usually have history pointing to such. Bad driver in a car with speed and accidents? They'll be bad in a truck, too. Oh, "the accidents weren't their fault"? Then they apparently have little to no defensive driving skills. Either way, why hire a proven risk? If the answer is "there are not enough 'good' drivers", then hire the risky ones, pay your liability insurance premiums on time and hope. But that's probably not going to keep you (the carrier) protected for long.

 

I have no problem with the employer being sued, as the employee is acting as a representative of the company while driving a company vehicle. I have no problem with the motor carrier being sued, because the motor carrier is responsible for making sure the operators of the vehicles are qualified and do so in a safe and legal manner. The only thing I'm questioning is why the driver...the individual who's actions directly caused the wreck...was not also named in the suit.

I don't disagree with the idea of going after the responsible parties for some sense of closure/justice/whatever...just question why the person MOST responsible for causing the wreck is excluded while his superiors who WEREN'T there and could only indirectly affect the likelihood of a potential wreck through different hiring/training standards WERE ALL included. It just screams "we want to get paid" rather than seeking closure/justice/whatever.