Need dot consultant? Dot advice

Here's a scenario I am hoping one of the experts can help me with. I recently was involved in a minor rear-end accident in Dallas.
No ticket. No accident report. No injuries. Both vehicles driveable.
BUT, there was damage so my carrier's insurance would be liable for the repairs.

I was required to take a post accident drug and alcohol screen but from what I now research, this does not qualify as a DOT recordable(reportable) accident thus the test should not have been mandatory. Am I wrong? (the test was negative, but I lost a week of work as my employer said I could not drive until the test results came back).

Second, I was hauling bulk liquid - food grade vegetable oil. In braking from 45mph to almost zero, the load shifted, a single pallet up front was crushed, and a 275 gallon bin burst, spilling onto the roadway neccessitating both the FD and the TX DOT to respond (as well as a clean up crew and several police for traffic control).
Again, NO accident report was made, NO ticket was issued, but of course a DOT report would have been filled out to document the non-hazardous spill.
Does the SPILL change things? Is it now a DOT recordable accident since the state DOT responded to a spill? (had I not struck the pickup in front of me, this wouldn't even be an MVA, just a spill, so how could it now be called a DOT recordable MVA when it still does not meet the above standard of injury or disabled vehicle?)

I have returned to my home terminal and been dismissed, supposedly, because the insurance carrier rules will not allow the company to keep me. But for the purpose of future job applications, I seem to see that A) I am not guilty of a "serious violation" as described in the FMSCA code 383.51 B) I was not involved in a DOT recordable accident C) that this was a "non-preventable accident" (I had safely slowed from 45 to 2-3 mph and was about to stop without contact when the surge of the load shift pushed the tractor forward another 5 feet) even though this is, undeniably, an at-fault rear-end accident as far as the insurance regulation would be concerned.

SO, someone objectively, please, with knowlege of DOT rules and regs, how can I present myself to a company that now wants to deny hiring me due to a rear-end accident?
Can I at least, when filling out an application, deny having been in a DOT recordable accident? (it will not be on my MVA, time will tell how the company reports it, IF they report it, on my DAC)
And can I continue to honestly present this as unpreventable since there is no finding of fault by an investigative agency such as the responding police department?

 

If you are following a vehicle and hit it, it is preventable. Had you increased your following distance you would not of hit it.

Evidently the insurance company got some kind of report. They don't pay without physical evidence and have you uninsurable. There is some paperwork floating around. Cops just don't ignore a CMV hitting a 4wheeler on the roadway that has damage and liquid pouring on the ground. Someone has to pay for the cleanup and that requires paperwork too.

The best thing to do is get a copy of your MVR and DAC. Being up front and honest might get you another job. Hiding info and they find out won't. There's jobs out there for you. You might of cut them half, but some companies allow 2 and even 3 accidents.

Are you OTR? Live in Chattanooga? Check out storeytrucking.com They are a decent company and not far from you. Their website says 4 accidents in 3 years. Vicki in the office is real nice and upfront. You run Shaw Carpet out west and produce back to the AL Walmarts, Mitchell Grocery and the Farmers Market in Atlanta.

 

thanks, as I said, the FD and TDOT wrote reports but there was no "accident report" per se by the police, it is not their policy to write them when there is no injury and all vehicles are drivable. Still waiting for the TDOT report but that will just review the reason and the scope of the spill and isn't relevant (or reported) to a drivers DAC. The accident will of course be on my DAC when reported by the employer so I'm not trying to conceal anything, just attempting to define whether it is a DOT recordable accident when all I read in FMSCA says that it isn't.
Talked to Storey months ago but they weren't hiring, and I faxed in an application about a month ago and never heard back from them - I would imagine I would not be eligible for hire by them any longer due to the accident- its the insurance carriers that set the rules, and the rear-end under any circumstances is a disqualifier. That's why this blows, rear-end is not listed in FMSCA as a "serious violation" when there is no injury, but it IS considered one by the insurance company. Bigger, self-insured companies can be more flexible so I am in the process of applying back to the national companies around here. I'm just trying to get a clear definition of how the accident should appear on the DAC so I know if I should challenge it or not.

 

That's a tough one. What I would do is to acquire copies of all documents related to the accident. Then make an appointment with the safety directors of companies you are interested in prior to filling out any applications. Be honest with him/her and ask for their input. The main obstacle that I see you will have to overcome is that regardless of any load shift, everyone knows the root cause of almost all rear end accidents.

From what you posted it appears it was not a DOT recordable accident. A "DAC" (HireRite) has a separate section for accidents and it is divided in to DOT Recordable and Non-DOT recordable accidents. A company usually will record all accidents in it's accident register and the info posted to DAC would usually come from this register. It is possible for an accident to be placed in the wrong category, so it seems a wise idea to acquire a copy.

Not likely.

Fault and preventable are not necessarily synonymous.

Fault in the context which you are concerned is a civil matter not a police matter (Determined by individuals, insurance companies or the civil courts). When a police officer says someone is or is not at fault his comment should be taken as to the laying of charges, not that this is his opinion of who is civilly liable and who or which insurance company has to cover the damages.

Whether an accident is preventable or not is a determination of the safety department of your company. An accident can be decided not to be your fault and can be preventable or non-preventable, and it can be your fault and be preventable or non-preventable.

Good luck

 

OK my turn now and maybe this has been asked so forgive me if it has....

I was driving down the interstate the other day and went to pass this Fed-Ex doubles set. No biggie except for one thing that had me thinking. On the second pup trailer I noticed that he had two placards, one said explosives and the pother flammable....now here is where I started to think. The front pup trailer had no indications of haz-mat at all. I thought that any hazmat had to be the front trailer. So what is the correct answer/rule of thumb?

 

From the fire standpoint, I think it has to be on the trailer that contains the material when there are two.

 

So should of the pup with the hazmat have been the front trailer then? And the non haz-mat trailer the scond one in the set?

 

Don't think it matters.

 

Just did a quick check and found this:



http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/pdf/49cfr172.507.pdf

 

So then it is ok for a doubles set to have the haz-mat load on the second trailer where it would move side to side more than the front trailer. Even though it is marked flammable and explosives? I will apoligize if the answer is in front of me and I am not seeing it.