Texas Appeals Court Upholds $100 Million Judgement Against Werner

But your next! Think long and hard about this

 

Ignoring the cause-in-fact and instead focusing all their attention on the proximate cause seems to me like they ignored the most material fact in the entire case. If that's not grounds for an appeal then I don't know what is.

 

Okay, I don't agree with this argument in the least. I'm just trying to present it the way the jury heard it.

The plaintiff first argued the Driver was unqualified. The Driver was not allowed to operate a Werner vehicle without a Werner trainer present. The Werner trainer was in the bunk because in order to make the run 'on time' the truck needed to run as a team and Werner 'trainees' were not allowed to drive past midnight, thus the trainee was driving during a 'severe weather event' while the 'trainer' (I use the term loosely) was sleeping. That allowed Werner's entire training gestalt to be brought into question.

The Driver had obtained the absolute minimum score to proceed to road training. The Driver had NOT completed the "Winter Driving Training Module". The Driver could NOT indicate the training modules he had completed when presented with a list. The Driver COULD recite the rules for termination on JIT freight. This told the jury that Werner

The Driver said "there was spray coming off the tires of other vehicles" which told him the road was not icy - despite ice being built up on the CB antenna, mirrors, and hood. The driver had passed multiple cross over wrecks in the last 15 miles, including two where officers who were actively responding to single vehicle accidents and a tow truck driver who testified to being unable to maintain control at 15 mph. The first responding EMTs testified being unable to control a gurney at a walking speed.

When called to testify, the training 'manager' couldn't describe what kind of underwear he had on, let alone company policy. His testimony was all about protecting himself and he did a lousy job of that.

Plaintiffs called an 'expert' witness who showed two different computer simulations. One showed the events that unfolded and one that showed the truck doing 20 mph where the truck didn't make contact with the Idiot. This shouldn't have been allowed, and was Werner's first point of appeal, but both the lower court and the appeals court ruled the Driver should have been driving at a speed to be able to stop if the vehicle in front of them had spun out and wrecked. IMO this was Werner's best point of appeal, but the court slapped it down faster than Mike Tyson could put Great Aunt Alice on the mat. I don't agree with the logic employed, but it has been employed and supported for almost 100 years. The idea that "if you'd 0rderd the beef instead of the chicken you couldn't have been punched in the face" is ludicrous to me, but it is supported by precedent.

The jury comes up with a judgement of 15% Driver, 15% 4-wheeler, 70% Werner (roughly, I don't want to look up the exact amounts).

The jury decided that Werner put a barely qualified driver into a situation that the Driver was unable to handle and the Driver afraid to to take mitigating actions.

This is the point that the appeals court takes up the case. By default, the appeals court must assume the jury is correct in their judgement of the facts and must look for misapplications of the law.

In this case, everything hangs on the Driver being a trainee without being supervised. The plaintiff successfully argued the proximate cause WAS the cause-in-fact to the lower court judge, who instructed the jury in accordance to that argument. Had the Driver been considered a "driver" instead of a "trainee", the case wouldn't have been able proceed the way it did. But he was a trainee, he did fear being fired for not delivering on time, and between his and the 'training managers' testimony I'm surprised the jury didn't order Clarence Werner exhumed so the 'victims' could punch his corpse in the face.

Even the dissent would have left Werner on the hook, just not as much.

What screwed Werner is it's policy of having trainee's not being supervised. The driver has a CDL, but is not allowed to operate company equipment without a trainer present, but said trainer is sleeping while the 'trainee' is in control of the equipment. Then there is the disconnect between "being the captain of your ship" and "if you're late more than X times, regardless of the reasons you're fired". When any reasonable jury is presented with these facts, the jury will find for the plaintiff.

A year ago I thought Werner had a good chance on appeal, based on reading the judgement. Reading the opinion of the appeal and the dissent, I was way off. I thought the trial judge gave way to much leeway to the plaintiffs, but reading through the footnotes of the appeal I have to tip my hat to the plaintiff's attorney. I still disagree with the judgement - for many and various reasons, but this judgements going to stand.

 

Mitigating actions would not have been necessary but for the fact that the four-wheeler driver lost control of his vehicle and crossed into the path of the truck driven by the Driver.

I don't disagree with the Court's findings regarding the impropriety of Werner's training program nor with your assertion that training needs to be completely revamped industry-wide, but I do find that those are not what should be the focus of this case.

I don't see how that is logically or legally possible unless one ignores the physical evidence in this case.

 

Again, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS. I think it is dumb, but it is established legal precedent.

Say a Driver was outside the HOS and stopped at a red light when #2 hits him. When the case goes to court, #2 will argue that had the driver followed the HOS, he wouldn't have been there, so #2 wouldn't have hit him. You, me, and most sane people would regard that as hooey, but the courts have regularly upheld it.

In this case, the plaintiff argued that the 'implied speed limit' (the idea that road conditions determine the speed limit, irrespective of absolute maximums) was 15-20 mph. The Driver was doing 45-50 mph had passed a trooper who was citing a single vehicle accident driver for speeding at 20 mph. Thus the Driver was speeding.

Had the Driver been doing 20 mph in the same position realtive to the POV when the pov started crossing the median, the Driver would have been able to stop before making contact. Or one could argue that had the Driver been doing 20 mph, he would have been 10-15 miles away when the accident happened, and thus couldn't have been involved.

The lower court allowed the 'chain of events' to begin with the Driver getting on the Trainers truck. The bare minimum passing score, the Driver's testimony that winter driving guidelines "are good but don't have to be followed"(or words to that effect), the Supervisor (trainer) in the bunk, the JIT load, the policy of trainees not driving past midnight 'coercing the Driver to driver in inclement weather' - all that was presented to the jury BEFORE the facts of the accident were introduced.

Then the plaintiff had 2 cops, an emt, and a tow truck driver testify the road was icy and the Driver was going twice as fast as they deemed prudent.

Werner lost the case as soon as the plaintiff was allowed to make it about driver qualification. The plaintiff successfully argued that Wener had a "duty of care" in pretrial motions. In the appeal, Werner argued

I think the lower court errered in applying respondent superior and not issuing a directed verdict, but only 3 of the 9 justices agree with me on that point.

 

So was separate-but-equal. There have been many bad precedents that have been overturned over the years, and this one should be added to that list.

I'm not sure what a directed verdict is, would you mind explaining it to me?

 

The plaintiff (and sometimes the defense as well) lays out their case and rests. Before continuing on, the defense asks for a directed verdict, basically saying the plaintiff has not come close to meeting the standard of proof and the judge should decide the case for the defense.

It is different than "dismissing the case", where the plaintiff could refile. With a directed verdict the plaintiff can only appeal.

I think (and 3 or the 9 appeals judges) that once werner responded to the initial complaint as "respondant superior" (accepting the Driver was their employee acting on their behalf and taking responsibility for him) alternative and derritive theories should not have bee allowed. I'm not exactly sure why the lower court ruled otherwise, but don't exactly want to go spelunking through a 10,000 plus page trial record.

The idea of "respondant superior" is why I drum into my guys to follow company policies as much as possible. That way it's in the company's interest to defend you, because in defending you they are defending themselves. And my company can afford more and better lawyers than I can.

 

The Motor Carrier Safety Planner

Statues on bad weather driving, remember from now on, Park it or someone will hit you and you’ll be the next one in court, legally.

Excerpt;
If conditions become so inclement as to render continued operations “sufficiently dangerous,” truckers must cease driving until the weather passes.


It’s not right and I don’t agree, but your lawmakers have implemented the law for your safety.