Werner was just trying to make this go away. I wish they hadn't settled. There's going to be some idiot that tries to get rich this way.
Werner Pays $150M to Settle Crash Litigation, Avoid Nuclear Verdict
Discussion in 'Truckers News' started by Eddiec, Aug 3, 2022.
Page 3 of 4
-
Another Canadian driver, PoleCrusher and Professor No-Name Thank this.
-
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
-
It's worse than that. The plaintiff's schyster argued that Werner should be strictly liable because the truck wasn't equipped with a collision avoidance system. And to make matters even worse yet, Freightliner had put the word "Deleted" on the bill of sale. Something to consider if you ever think to buy a brand new Freightliner.Another Canadian driver Thanks this.
-
The article sorta makes it sound as if it was not the parents that walked away from the vehicle. It says that three adults abandoned or walked away from the vehicle leaving the kids in the vehicle. Also says one of those adults were criminally charged. Later it says the parents filed suit against werner. So it does make me question if the parents were there or if there were three adults in charge of the kids. Either way since it was proven that werner wasn't at fault i don't see how they could've been held liable in court but i suppose stranger things have happened these days.Another Canadian driver and buddyd157 Thank this.
-
Good author. I enjoyed all that I've read.Another Canadian driver Thanks this.
-
No it's not strange. They do this all the time. Why do you think lawyers buy billboards advertising lawsuits against truckers.Speedy356, Another Canadian driver and Professor No-Name Thank this.
-
That precedent's has already been set, when International trucks and Rush Truck Leasing settled out of court with a plaintiff who sued them because the truck they were involved in an accident with, did not have collision mitigation technology installed in it because it was only an option and not a requirement.
Navistar settles crash lawsuit blaming lack of optional safety featuresAnother Canadian driver Thanks this. -
Well the general precedent was set early in the last century with a case involving a tug boat that lost a load of coal in a storm because they didn't have a radio. Almost no boats had radios at the time. What happened in these recent cases is that these annoying beepity beeps have now been recognized as qualifying for the precedent.Another Canadian driver Thanks this.
-
It wasn't a collision avoidance system, it was actually much more mundane item. The lawyers argued, successfully, that the ambient temperature sensor and display not being present (deleted from the orders) meant that Werner was inherently unsafe, as had the driver known it was just below freezing out he might not have been there in the first place delivering a JIT shipment. This is the reason every company out there is ordering every safety item available for their new trucks, as the precedent has been set that if *any* safety item was available yet not included in the order, the company placing the order is inherently unsafe.Another Canadian driver Thanks this.
-
Because Texas juries of handing out nuclear verdicts, and not just in trucking. Like the cable installer that killed an 83 y.o. customer and the jury awarded the family 7 BILLIONAnother Canadian driver Thanks this.
-
I learned a bit back that's it's honestly just better to run and get out of there if you don't have any witnesses and the truck isn't majorly damaged , it's best just to go MIA
Another Canadian driver Thanks this.
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
Page 3 of 4