Driving with a missing door?

This is the cat you will not tell that he is wrong. Remember veteran drivers, he's in school for his cdl yet, so he knows everything about trucking.

 

Is he staying at a Holiday Inn Express while in school?

 

Do not know. Hopefully his home.

 

I didn't day I wasn't wrong. I #### sure don't know everything about trucking. I simply regurgitated information on the FMCSA website & quoted prior posts to support proper attribution of regs.

If you think the FMCSA regs don't apply, so do 10,000 other drivers on any given day so I'm not surprised.

 

And yeah...I'm staying @ home.

 

Just look at his AVATAR. Obviously thinks he's all that and a bag of chips. He won't last the first year. Sorry Charlie!

 

Don't judge on looks my man. We don't even know the guy except for TTR. I disagree with him based on previous threads, but I don't doubt he'll be a good driver. He looks like a go-getter to me. Business man maybe.

 

Gulp. recon that feller needs to be sure that there door don't egress from that there box... duh... then part 398 would mean that carrying migratory workers 600 miles is illegal against the law. Better fix that there door before carrying them there folks.

 

I don't even know.... How migrant workers came into play. They won't even be inside the box during transport. If @GiantBeard even HAS migrant workers

 

For your convenience, I've highlighted everything the OP said and italicized/ underlined/ boldfaced everything that you inferred.

He said coworker, but, once again said nothing about his nor his coworkers status of employment in relation to the farm.

Saying it was returning to the farm for repairs does not imply legal ownership by the farm nor employment status of the driver or coworker in relation to the farm. It merely means the truck is parked and repaired at the farm.

It's perfectly legal to own a farm, and own a truck under a separate corporation and to employ drivers under that corporation entirely separate from the farm. In fact, to engage in for-hire hauling you legally must do this.

Let's be perfectly clear, the regulation states, as quoted from your post:

"(a) Migrant worker.“Migrant worker” means any individual proceeding to or returning from employment in agriculture"
"...from employment in agriculture". Necessarily, for the driver to classify as an employee of the farm, the drivers work or wages must be determined and related to the farm itself. This was NEVER stated by the OP. The ONLY thing that was stated was that he had to return to "the farm". Returning to "the farm" does not mean that he is employed by the farm, that the truck is owned by the farm, or that the truck or driver performs services for the farm.

I'll tell you exactly where your argument is flawed:

You failed to ask any questions. You inferred, assumed and quoted regulations without actually KNOWING the situation.

You are assuming everything. And if you really want to know how regulations and interpretation of the law works it is through facts, what is said, what is known. You are assuming that because he said he is returning to "the farm" that it means, that it is factual, that the truck is owned by the farm and that the driver is an employee of the farm. It does not. Inference from colloquialism or assumption based on common syntactical habits in informal communication does not constitute factual statement. That is where legal and spoken language differs. Legal language must be specific. Colloquial speech is not. Why do you think attorney's, when vetting some sort of evidentiary communication that is written in informal, un-specific, or colloquial language begin by clarifying matters such as subject, parties named through non-specific pronouns such as "he, she, they, them" etc.? It is to determine the facts of the statement.

In fact, in regards to the regulations you posted, no one asked the OP about his employment status in regards to the farm or the licensing status of the truck. But, to claim your position as correct, the burden of proof is on you.

I was just the prick who pointed out the flaws in your argument. I haven't actually sided on one argument or the other.

"But, you're attacking me! What about the other's advocating he just drive with it???"

It's been done before. stare decisis.

Gadfly out.