Judge finds maverick transportation blacklisted driver,

What did the company do wrong? He refused to drive a truck that was legal to drive on the road, after a month of the truck sitting at the drivers house. The company had to pay the expense of retrieving the truck, which could amount to quite a bit. A bleeding heart judge went with his emotions instead of the law. This driver abandoned the truck when he refused to drive it, and quit, leaving the truck 200 miles from the closest terminal. This is abandonment any way you look at it.

 

You didn't read the thread then. The truck was not legal to drive. And go back and reread my last post. I've been adding to it.

 

The truck was 100% legal to drive. Do you think the DOT would let an OOS truck be driven to this drivers home? The only OOS was the brakes, which according to the article, were adjusted before being allowed to be driven. When was the last time a truck was OOS for a "chaffing" airline or PS leak. If the air line or PS line was in danger of breaking the truck would have been deadlined, but it wasn't. No matter what the circumstances, which I wouldn't have wanted to drive either, the truck was legal, and the driver refused to drive it, thus abandoning it.

He could have driven the truck to the terminal instead of going home. The company showed empanthy by allowing him to drive it home. He should have been happy with that. I have read of many abuses of DAC. This was not one.

 

Simply amazing!!!
A driver gets abused and wins a victory over a well known bottom feeder company and his fellow drivers are going to come on here and take the bottom feeders side!!!
We all know there are many versions of this story: driver's, company's, law enforcement's, THE TRUTH, but the version that matters the most is THE ONE THAT IS PROVEN IN COURT!!!
We will probably never hear the truth, but you can bet it lies somewhere in the middle.
Did the driver do something wrong? Possibly. Did the company screw over the driver? Most likely!!!
I, for one, am just happy to see a decision in favor of the driver for a change! Let's be honest,every day drivers are being abused and the companies are getting away with it!!!
Isn't it about time to turn this nonsense around???

 

There is plenty of things the companies do wrong, just as there is plenty the drivers do wrong. Is it right to punish a company that was in the right just because companies have a track record of abuses, which from what I have read here, Maverick doesn't.

I still haven't seen what Maverick did that was wrong. If any of you owned this truck, let the driver take it home, and keep it for a month, then refused to return it, would you have done differently? How is it not abandonment if the truck is not turned in at the terminal? I'm not talking about all the other evils that companies have done against drivers. I'm looking at this one case. Anything else that is considered except what happened here is just revenge. It's sort of like the people that want slavery reperations. They want to be paid for something that was outlawed 150 years ago. The driver must have led Maverick on or they would have came after the truck the first week. The driver left a lot out of his side. Go after these companies for the many horrible things they do, not the things that are well within their rights as an employer.

I'm serious, going by what was in the article, how would you have handeled this if you were Maverick?

 

did it or did it not say the law enforcement said he could drive it home? I believe most of use do what the DOT says. Me personally I would not drive the vehicle 200-250 miles while leaking power steering fluid. Lets do some what if's. What if the driver started towards the terminal and the high pressure power steering line ruptured at 65mph on the interstate in a curve.
Would he been able to regain steering and not cause an accident. Very doubtfull Next time you are in an abandoned lot get your truck rolling 5mph and turn the key off in neutral and turn the wheel not so easy on a 1999 peter car. If maverick wanted the truck fixed why did they not send someone to fix the line since most people seems to think it was a small problem. It should not have cost to much to fix.

 

What if a frog had wings. It wouldn't bust it's ### everytime it hopped. If you played "what if", no truck would be on the road. Any hose can bust at any time on anything. Do you really think the DOT would let a truck leave with a high pressure hose leaking? How many high pressure PS hoses have you ever seen leak. I've seen many return hoses leak. It doesn'r hurt anything, just leaves some oil. The DOT went over the truck with a fine tooth comb after the accident. They put down anything they could find to cover their butts. IF what was noted was all that was found, that truck was in great shape.

I have yet to see anyone respond as to what they would have done if they owned the truck. Every response has been driver good, company bad, and we all know this is not fact by a long shot. Look at the drivers around you. The driver messed up by not returning the truck, and wanted someone else to pay for his mistake. A bleeding heart judge sided with him, wrongly in my opinion.

How many thousands of dollars of revenue was lost by this truck sitting in the drivers yard for a month, plus the cost of recovery, yet Maverick was in the wrong here according to most.

I've stated my position several times. You all can argue your side all you want. I'm tired of typing.

 

I did and I told you to go back and read it. So go back and read it.

 

We don't know what the drivers state of mind was after a month. I'm sure if he stated he was mentally not able to drive, and was a danger to himself and others, something would have been worked out. In the article I see nothing about his state of mind as the reason for him not driving the truck to the terminal. He decided to quit for whatever reason, and refused to move the truck. If his mind was too messed up to return the truck, how was he able to drive home when the accident happened. He could have gotten home some other way and left the truck at an agreed upon place near the accident. I'm sure the company would have went along with that.

I knew from the start my opinion would not be taken well. But I still stand by it.

 

It seems that everyone is missing the KEY ELEMENT in this case!
1. It isn't about where the driver drove the rig after the incident.
2. It isn't whether Maverick authorized him to drive it home or to a repair facility.
3. It isn't about whether the truck was "legal" to drive.

This case, and the decision by Judge Pulver, shows that the questions are:
1. When did the driver learn of the DAC report?
2. What was contained in the DAC report?
3. Was Maverick correct, or justified in what they stated in the DAC report?
4. Did the driver/employee truly "abandon" the vehicle?

If you look at the legal definition of "ABANDONMENT", the question as to which party actually abandoned the vehicle is a true point of argument:

Now, knowing and understanding the "term" and the legal definition...did the driver abandon the vehicle? Technically NO, as he did still retain possession and control of the vehicle.
[It was at his residence, and in his control...he refused to drive it to the repair facility or terminal after the 18 day legal time to have the vehicle repaired of defects noted by DOT inspection.]
Which brings the second question:
Was Maverick complicit in the "abandonment" of said vehicle? YES, Maverick did allow the truck to sit for over 30 days (a month) without proceeding to have the truck repaired or returned to their physical possession. This is where the abandonment argument could be returned to the fault of Maverick.

There is a sub-question in this regard of the legal definition of abandonment: When did the driver relinquish his employment with Maverick? Or, when did Maverick officially discharge said employee. If the termination of employment was the driver's choice (he quit), then Maverick could have used the argument that the driver retained possession of company equipment. However, if the company terminated his employ, before regaining physical control of the equipment...through this termination, the former employee would not be an authorized/qualified person to use company property.

Judge Pulver found on behalf of Complainant with regard to BLACKLISTING...what Maverick put in his DAC report. In response to the post about the DM or FM having a grudge against the driver and retaliating...if that were shown in the case that too would have been part of the issue...however, it isn't the DM or FM that does the DAC reporting...it is Human Resources, so retaliation really is hard to prove when a third party (Human Resources) does the reporting.