Frozen trucker case

After the last post, expect to see this moved to politics.....

 

In many states, the unauthorized movement of a motor vehicle constitutes theft.

Again, the LAW did not support what the driver did. The LAW does not protect his job, either. He did not "refuse" to drive a defective vehicle. He CHOSE to operate the vehicle in an unapproved manner. It isn't his truck. He's not the one paying for the fuel. He doesn't have the right to drive whenever/wherever/however he chooses. Should the company have made exceptions based upon the circumstance? Perhaps...but they are not obligated under the LAW to make exceptions to their policies.

Driver knew where he was supposed to fuel, and he didn't. Strike 1.

Driver knew the weather/road conditions and should have been aware of the possibility of the trailer brakes freezing should he set them, but he set them anyway. Strike 2.

Driver knows the policy against dropping loaded trailers and leaving them unsecured, and did so despite being told explicitly NOT to do so. Strike 3.

No reason to keep that driver around, and the SCOTUS nominee got it right. The whistle-blower law in question does not apply to the situation that was brought to court, because the driver operated the vehicle without authorization, and the LAW only protects a driver who REFUSES to drive defective equipment.

 

Guess that means he's out now.

 

Nobody is arguing with the fact that the driver did what he felt was necessary to survive. Unfortunately, the LAW does not protect him from losing his job in this case. Judges are to rule on what the law IS, not what they'd LIKE it to be. The legislature writes laws, NOT the judiciary. If you want a change in what the LAW says, write your congressmen and senators to express your desire for this protection to be codified in LAW. Until then, any judge that ruled in favor of this driver in this case simply is not ruling on the LAW, but rather exceeding the limits of their authority by attempting to MAKE laws.

 

You forgot another important part, he went into the sleeper and went to sleep then he got a call from his cousin who claims he was slurring his words, and so on, but then it brings up the question, how did he function enough to unhook the trailer and then drive off?

 

Right. Raises a huge question, doesn't it?

 

And was the cousin lying to make it sound worse than it was....

 

I think he was, in all honesty, I can see the driver's point but I can't come to grips that he didn't have enough common sense to plan the trip out and know what to do in case. As said before idle the truck, let it run out of fuel and deal with it then, but if he can take the truck and get fuel or what ever he was doing (I didn't see what he did other than 'get warm' when he went to the 'gas station') than to me he has enough fuel to stay warm.

 

Exactly. The road service would have been a fuel and trailer fix, as his dm knew he was very low. I said it once, idle till it dies, then call a cab, lock the truck, (with triangles out) tell dm to have service pick you up at the ts. Fight for cab fair reimbursement later...

 

I wouldn't have gotten into the low fuel problem in the 1st place. But, if I did, I would of told dispatch that I'm gonna idle to keep warm till help arrives. Also would have told dispatch to have some fuel sent along just in case. How much fuel are you gonna use on idle?