Can a shipper/receiver force you to wear ppe?

If the driver gets hurt while wearing PPE, then it's on the company. You can sue anyone for anything, yes, it's what the jury believes. If the company comes back and says "In 5 yrs of this policy, we've never had a driver, vendor or employee injured" and here's John Doe who failed to wear a hard hat and reflective vest and gets he gets injured because a forklift operator didn't see him, he's going to have a weak case. Kinda like going to a customer and they tell you to stay within the RED/YELLOW/PINK lines for your safety, and instead you walk out in front of a forklift and get your toes run over, who's fault is that?

 

Depends on the jury. A good PI attorney could make the case that barriers should have been in place to prevent their client from accidentally walking into the danger zone. Simply "telling" them is not enough.

If a jury will award someone hundreds of thousands of dollars for tripping and falling while trespassing and stealing, PPE wouldn't mean anything either. Remember, a jury awarded the family of a driver who crossed the median, speeding and I believe impaired and ran into a truck driver head on 100+ million dollars. The truck driver was innocently driving and got hit by the 4 wheeler yet the 18 wheeler company was found liable.

They just awarded a truck driver 160 million because he got hurt when he flipped his 18 wheeler. Was that Western Star's fault? I don't think so. But BAM, they're toast.

They awarded the families of a driver and passenger killed when they slammed into the back of a parked Wabash trailer a half billion dollars. Was that the trailer manufacturers fault? I don't think so. But the jury disagreed.

I could go on and on.

So I stick with what I said before, it would be up to a jury.

 

The key in both those cases is the companies DIDN'T do something that could have prevented the injuries/death.

If company policy is XXX, and an individual disregards it, then they are starting from a weak place tonsue.

 

What did Wabash not do?

What did USA Truck not do?

What did Daimler-Benz not do?

You can ALWAYS claim someone DIDN'T do something. A good PI attorney can easily say that something else the company didn't do caused the injury, not the lack of PPE of his client. The old "correlation does not equal causation" argument.

Hit his head? They didn't paint the hazard in a bright color.

Slipped and fell? They didn't ensure the walking area was a non-slip environment.

Got something in his eye? They didn't take adequate steps to ensure that eye hazards were contained in the plant.

Got hearing damage? They didn't install enough sound deadening insulation.

That is never ending. So like I said before, it would be up to a jury. I'm really NOT trying to come across as an ###, I'm just playing devils advocate here. When I was shot at my last driving job, I sued and got a settlement. I didn't think the PI attorney had any legs to stand on, but he found something. It helped compensate me for the incredible amount of lost wages that I had from being laid up for 8 months on disability from the state that is the lowest pay in the nation.

PPE is to REDUCE, not eliminate, possible OTJ injury. It really has nothing to do with liability for that injury.

 

Let's look at the Wabash case.

Wabash designed, built, and sold a trailer with no crash testing. 14 years later and who knows how many owners later and man with a .08 BAC and not wearing a seat belt rear ended the trailer. The bumper that should have prevented ANY under run up to 45 mph did nothing.

In this case, the driver was not using required PPE and acted recklessly but neither was taken into account because of Wabash's negligent actions. If Wabash had a) done crash testing to prove the bumper design worked when new and b) not lobbied to avoid mandated crash testing then Wabash wouldn't be in court in the first place. If the case proceeded past summary judgement both the seat belt and the BAC would be germane. Jury hears those two facts, at best it's a hung jury and more likely an outright victory for Wabash.

I agree that PPE is to reduce, not eliminated OTJ injuries, I just take that idea a step further and posit that PPE policies are designed to reduce company liability.

 

Some of these shippers do get crazy with the rules.

one I didn’t like was that I have to wear my reflective vest in my cab, even while in sleeper.

My response to that was: Do I need to wear it while I’m in the can as well?

they didn’t like that.

 

I bought a couple of cool shirts in orange and lime green.
Same color as the reflective vests are.
Safety man at BP told me to get my vest on and I questioned his remarks.
Told me their are no reflector strips on my shirt and could not see at night.
I told him I will put mine on but I do not work at night.

 

The reality of all of this comes down to, they put the rules in place, you follow them or you leave, and in some cases they can ban you (or your carrier if your attitude is bad enough) from their property. If you don't think the second part can happen, I can assure you it can, I personally caused it to happen.

 

I have a customer that has the same requirement, and they have told drivers to leave the property and not return until they are wearing a shirt/vest/jacket with reflective stripes, and it must be worn at all times within the loading area, regardless if you are in or out of the truck.

 

Yes, I saw a woman argue with a shipping clerk somewhere. The clerk said she needed high vis clothing. She said my shirt is high vis. (It was bright orange, but a t shirt, no stripes.) The clerk told her that no, it wasn't, that without reflective stripes it's not considered high-vis.