Judge finds maverick transportation blacklisted driver,

Maybe, maybe not.

The article stated that Maverick instructed the driver in question to return the Big truck to Maverick's closest terminal. Not being familiar with Maverick's terminal, I don't know if they have a repair facility at that location. If they do, in fact, have a repair facility there, you read it correctly.

However, there is still an issue with the 15 day time limit to make necessary repairs. That time limit was exceeded, therefor the vehicle would be considered OOS. Wouldn't a driver be within his rights to refuse to drive a Big truck considered Out Of Service?
Someone at Maverick should have been aware of that and made other arrangements to have the Big truck repaired prior to the 15 day limit. But they didn't. Maverick dropped the ball in that respect, it seems, --- then put the full blame on the driver, who, it seems, was within his rights to refuse to drive an OOS vehicle. The law says "NO", --- and Maverick says "Do it anyway"?

Maverick knew where their Big truck was parked and could have made arrangements for repairs to be made where it was. A rather minor road service call. Had Maverick made arrangements for the repair in a timely manner, and the driver refused to drive the Big truck to their nearest facility it would be a different story. But they didn't.

My take is that Maverick didn't have all their ducks in a row and made an honest mistake in their interpretation of the incident, and believed in good faith that an abandonment had, in deed, occurred, and reported such to DAC.

From what I've read here from those who are driving for Maverick presently, or have in the past, Maverick sounds like a pretty decent company, not prone to get-evenisn by dinging a DAC report for no good reason. It seems like Maverick showed compassion by allowing their driver to remain off duty at home for about a month, and may have felt used by the driver when he refused to work with them by returning the Big truck to their terminal. But the bottom line still remains that to drive the Big truck after the 18th day without repairs would have been deemed illegal.

As has already been mentioned, we don't know all the details. Did Maverick offer to have the repairs made before expecting the driver to drive it to their facility? If so, and the driver still refused, for whatever reason, it might have frustrated them just a tad. But, we're not privy to that information. About all we can do is speculate.

No matter how it's sliced, it is unfortunate for all involved. If Maverick is, in fact, a stand-up company, it's all the more unfortunate that they were singled out and punished for an isolated incident, --- especially considering there are Big truck truckin' companies with a bad reputation for unfairly dinging DAC reports on a regular basis.
Hopefully this case decision will be a wake up call that opens the eyes of the unscrupulous companies that abuse the DAC system, and cause them to cease and desist such practice, or suffer the consequences.

Will this case decision open the flood gates of cases similar in nature? Time will tell.
Ya reckon.

I can only speak for myself Stranger, but I appreciate that you stated your opinion. It gave me food for thought with a view from a different perspective I might not otherwise have considered. For that, I thank you.
Don't refrain from stating your opinion(s) because it may not be taken well. Not taken well does not mean that your opinion is invalid or without merit.
Point --- Counterpoint.
Makes for stimulating conversation.
All in all, it's all good.
That's my opinion. :smt112
For whatever that's worth, --- adjusted for inflation, of course. :smt037

 

My opinion is based on speculation, since we will never know the whole story. I don't believe the driver refused to drive the truck at the end of the month on the premise of the truck being OOS. I believe that never crossed his mind. When contacting OSHA I don't believe the thought of the truck being OOS was there. I believe he quit, did not want to drive 200 miles and then figure out how to get home. My opinion is when he found out he had messed himself up by abandoning the truck, he tried to get his DAC straightened out. After contacting a lawyer, and telling the whole story, the lawyer picked up on the ticket for the very minor things wrong with the truck, and ran with that.

This is just opinion, but I can't see Maverick forcing him to drive an OOS truck, many other companies, yes. The forced to drive was a lawyer tactic to try to get an abandonment off his clients record that worked, even better than he thought it would.

Until I hear otherwise I will believe the driver just plain refused to drive because at that time he had enough, and did not want to return the truck. If the driver had been that strigent about the truck being in excellent shape, why did he not know about the brakes, air line, and PS leak? His defense was a tactic that worked.

There are plenty of companies that ruin drivers lives with unjust DAC reports that should be brought down. Those companies should be gone after. Even though I believe this decision was wrong, maybe it will set a prescedent for others to go after the bad guys.

 

I feel that There should be a law that HireRight must MAKE a reporting company WRITE at least a 300 - 500 word paragraph about what the driver did down to providing the evidence such as tickets, tow bill or dispatch from their QC or whatever they use and pay stub of the driver sent to pickup an abandoned truck or whatever the problem is. This way these BFI's will think harder about just clicking a few buttons in HireRights site just to collect the pay they get for reporting!
Yes, they ALL receive a monetary compensation for reporting to DAC. Do you think they would spend TIME filling out a form on a driver for free? OH HELLO NO THEY WOULD NOT! Do you think for a second Swift, Warner, JB, CRE, USX or any of them are going to do this crapola for free? Make these morons who report to DAC have to SPEND TIME on a report AND DAC must go through each and every one of them and check that they do NOT look like a form report and was cut and pasted to their site! They should also have to do an average of everything each company reports. Like abandonment, violation of company policy and all the other things. Untill the paragraph reporting goes into effect average everything each company reports and if it way to far offsided in one category report then remove everything that company reported and bill them for the money paid! BUT, Make HireRight work for this BFI service they provide! They are a reseller of information so make then guarantee their product being sold as correct and honest information. Yep, they will have to cover these new costs but then they can STOP paying any company to report a driver! That should close them down before CSA does! CSA should put that whole complex out of business. I know it'll suck for OK but heck it might not be too long before they outsource the company anyway! This is one outsource I'd like to see as I have no respect for anyone that works for HireRight anyway!

 

In order for me to agree with opinions you've expressed above, I would have to believe that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth doesn't always prevail in courtrooms, and that sometimes verdicts rendered are incorrect in spite of any contradictory evidence presented, and what appears to be a sympathetic judge could just be a ploy for some publicity to elevate a career.

Is there ANYbody who could possibly believe any of that, ...........
....... besides me?

Judging from the comments made by those familiar with Maverick, --- which, so far, seem to be disbelief and doubt that Maverick would make false DAC reports for revenge, it tends to make me wonder if the right thing was done to the wrong company. That would truly be unfortunate, but, as you've already mentioned, this verdict could set precedence, paving the way for similar verdicts for those Big truck truckin' companies who actually engage in the practice of unjustly dingin' a driver's DAC out of spite, revenge, or just plain meanness, --- because they can.

I suspect those companies involved in dishonest DAC dinging are dispatchin' inter-office memos concerning the outcome of the above mentioned case, causing some in the front office to be sweatin' bullets, worrying whether or not their superiors will throw them under the bus to save their own buttox.

:smt015~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Y'all have been accused of falsely dingin' driver's DAC's.
How do you plead to the charges against you?

I beg your pardon?
Please say again, --- loud enough for the court reporter to hear your plea.


Nice try, but Ignorance with an explanation is not an option this court will entertain.
Bail is denied.
You are hereby ordered to be incarcerated within the confines of a stationary, cab-over-engine Big truck no longer in service, and held to the same standards as the Big truck truck drivers driving Big trucks over the road. As such, there will be no air conditioning or heat provided.
Exercise periods outside of the Big truck's interior will be permitted three times per week and consist of lumping floor loads of small assorted boxes in 53 foot semi-trailers and stacking the product to the proper tie and high on inferior pallets that will have to be re-stacked in half the time physically possible. Failure to do so will result in you being placed with an undesirable fellow inmate to share the same cab-over compartment where the two of you will split your time evenly betwixt the bunk area and the driving area, --- switching every twelve hours. Two in the same area at the same time will not be allowed.

Two meals a day served cold and unappetizing and will be unhealthy. Cold showers allowed once a week, --- if possible. Laundry, once a month, if necessary.
Visitation will consist entirely of skanky, commercial company with numerous contagious kooties, and limited to conversation only.

Any questions?
Comments?

Cruel and unusual punishment, you say?
Not hardly.
Your sentence is no worse than your Big truck truck drivers are expected to endure on a daily basis.

Bailiff!
Escort this gentleman to his new living quarters.
If he puts up any fuss, --- kick his DAC.
That's all, case closed.

NEXT CASE!

State your name for the record.

HuH?

I don't think the court can accept "Son of Chester", Mr. DACDinger.
No, not "King of" either.

Bailiff!
Force Mr. DACDinger into a CRE lease option plan until he decides on a suitable name, or goes belly up. Whichever occurs first.

Side bar, ........... five to one he cracks within a month.
Anybody wamma take those odds?
Who's in?
Let the records show Mr. Mayberry, the defendant's council , bets a C-note that it'll take less than a month.
The rest of y'all that wanna get in on the action, ..... form a line.

Court is now in recess.
All rise.
The Honorable Ima Assakickster --- Judge presiding, --- has left the building to attend Happy Hour.
There will be no encore.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WoW!:smt087
I just had the strangest dream.

 

GOOD!

I don't care about the details. I hope it cost them a butt load of money the filthy rate cutting scum.

 

Your post, and those like yours are why we have SO much trouble getting this industry FIXED. This kind of thinking...in part or whole.

From the original article

FEDERAL LAW mandates that a driver do a pre-trip inspection. If an item is found that could effect the safe operation of said equipment. It is required that the driver note the defect and have it corrected BEFORE driving away....period.

You'll note there is space for both the driver and mechanic to sign off on the repairs...on most inspection reports.

This is NOT optional, regardless of what Maverick and others teach/preach to their incoming drivers...experienced or not.

Having failed a DOT inspection, The driver was NOT placed out of service, and could have driven away. However, if he had been involved in an accident while in route. Fault would have been placed directly on the driver...not Maverick.

A smart lawyer would have owned this driver for life. Based on the fact he drove off the inspection site with an unsafe vehicle. And guess who gave them a copy of the DOT inspection ??

The driver is the Captain of that ship....NOT Maverick.

Are we all guilty of NOT complying with the law? I would guess that 95% of us are at some point. Myself included.

Had the bearings been grinding the axles. Would Maverick have asked the driver to take it down the road, to a shop? Or stay there until repairs are made?

This was no different, from a safety stand point.

 

See, the system works!

 

The only error Maverick made was not hooking/towing the truck from the scene of the fatality accident and leaving the driver standing there.

Bet they don't make that mistake again.

 

Dang my head be spinning after reading that... Now if you excuse me, i gotta clean my lemonade off my windows...

 

YeaH!
Details just confuse the issue.
Have you ever been selected to serve on a jury?
They could forget the trial and go straight to deliberations.
That'd save the taxpayers a bundle.
Budda Bing, Budda Bang.

No kiddin'?
JimTheHut's post and those like his are responsible for the Big truck truckin' industry havin' trouble gettin' fixed because of their kind of thinkin'?
Imagine that and go figure.
I must have missed the warning sign(s), in part or whole.

What gave him away?
Was it his open mind?
That he considered both sides of the issue?
His thinkin' that anyone that contributes to a situation should
equally share any blame?
Or maybe folks should step up and acknowledge and accept responsibility for their actions,
in part or whole?

That's correct.
So, what's your point?

Okay.
That's pretty common knowledge.

Has Maverick ever tried to teach/preach you anything to the contrary?

As I recall, .... he did drive away.
After adjusting two brakes that were out of adjustment.

Not necessarily.
He wasn't found to be at fault in the fatality incident.
Neither was Maverick.
I don't think that example is based on any facts, and is therefor only supposition. Might be an opinion, too.

A "fact" you say?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
What evidence do you have to support that claim?
Perhaps a definition of "unsafe" is in order here.
You might be correct, depending on how unsafe is defined, and by whom.
Actually, in fact, he drove off with the okay from the DOT Officer at the scene who inspected the Big truck and discovered a few minor problems.
Obviously the DOT didn't consider the leak and potential likelihood that an air hose would rub through serious enough to put him OOS.
If it was, in fact, a seriously dangerous, unsafe condition, wouldn't the DOT Officer have to explain why the Big truck wasn't put OOS on the spot, and why the driver was allowed to continue driving it on the highways --- to his home?

No doubt the DOT Officer was confident enough to make the decision that he did. After all, it's his career and reputation on the line. Second guessin' his call doesn't make his call a bad one.

Who is "them"?

I think you're preachin' to the choir.
Is there a point in this commentary?

I'll exercise my fifth amendment rights to remain silent.
How 'bout you?

You admit to not complying with the law?
It's on record now, and could be used against you in a court of law.

What if wishes were horses?
Would beggars then ride?
What if I knew the answer?
What if I don't?
HaiL!
You're on a roll, ....... what if you tell us?

Honestly, I don't know what Maverick would do in such a situation.
I suspect that you don't really know either. Just speculation on your part, ....... again.

So, ..... what'cher sayin' is it's exactly the same,
only different? :smt102:smt107:smt083