Texas Appeals Court Upholds $100 Million Judgement Against Werner

I have to read something again. I thought en banc was the full panel. Looks like they couldn't agree if it met the parameters for an en banc hearing.

 

You may technically be right that the reason for the verdict is to try and improve things but it is still wrong. We do not need activist judges, we need judges
that follow the rule of law otherwise laws mean nothing.

 

En banc means the full panel heard the case. The only next step is the Supreme Court.

This is the opinion

Werner Enterprises, Inc. and Shiraz A. Ali v. Jennifer Blake, Individually and as next friend for Nathan Blake, and as heir of the Estate of Zachery Blake, deceased; and Eldridge Moak, in his capacity as guardian of the Estate of Briana Blake Appeal from 127th District Court of Harris County (opinion)

This is the dissent

Werner Enterprises, Inc. and Shiraz A. Ali v. Jennifer Blake, Individually and as next friend for Nathan Blake, and as heir of the Estate of Zachery Blake, deceased; and Eldridge Moak, in his capacity as guardian of the Estate of Briana Blake Appeal from 127th District Court of Harris County (dissenting opinion)

I agree that the 4 wheeler was responsible and the judgment against Werner was wrong, it's not going to be over turned.

From what I've read the judgment hinged on the fact the driver was a student; had just barely passed his road test; the trainer was in the bunk; they were on a JIT load; JIT loads were heavily covered in the driver's training, but the winter driving module was not.

The court ruled the driver was not driving at a prudent speed for conditions and should have been prepared for vehicles crossing the median due to the number of wrecks he had passed in the last 5 miles, but the driver has not properly prepared and supervised, this liable.

Had the driver not been a trainee, I doubt the judgment would have occurred. We are long over due for a reckoning on industry wide training and qualification standards. Unfortunately this case has not and will not change those standards, all it will and has done is institute liability shields in the training curriculum- more cbts and less actual instruction, minimized paper trails, pass/fail instead of quantified scores. It's a mess.

 

So he does nothing wrong, gets caught up in an accident that 99.9 percent of drivers of all vehicles would be caught in and you think its about time?

 

call the hammer! planting bad ideas out there to opportunist scum!

 

You're right, I had it backwards in my head. For some reason I was thinking en banc was when there was a limited panel.

 

To repeat myself - "I agree that the 4 wheeler was responsible and the judgment against Werner was wrong, "

That said - yes, it's about time the industry did something about training quality and methodology. 70% of this judgement is against werner for its hiring and training practices, not the actions of the driver in the moment. I have my problems with the logic of the courts here, but we've known this was coming for a long time.

 

As I said earlier
I agree with everything you’re saying....my original post was just commenting on what the court was trying to point out in their misguided ruling

 

Plus remember this was originally a jury trial. Unless there were procedural errors, no court is quick to overturn.

 

And this is what a lot og people don't realize. Trials are "Trials of fact." And appeals are "Trials of law "
Basically, unless Werner can convince a court the laws were not followed there will be no overturning the judgement. So far they have been unable to do that, and I doubt the Supreme Court will look at the case, much less overturn it. After all SCOTUS tends to do high level cases, or ones where the lower courts have ruled differently on.