Shipper griped about securement, threatened to remove the load..

That’s horrible advice. only secure per FMCSA or better.
I don’t care how anyone else does it, nor do I care how they always load anyone else.
My trailer, load it to my legal specs or remove it.

 

That's baseline. If the shipper says throw more straps then throw more straps. Anytime a shipper says you don't have it tied down good enough it probably isn't good enough. If it's something weird and awkward do you just throw straps any old how on it or do you ask somebody at the shipper, who probably deals with that exact product frequently, how it should be tied down? I know I've asked several times how they want #### strapped down. The DOT doesn't actually know jack about anything. They don't know half of what is actually in their own rule book. My dad has had a DOT officer try telling him you can't have one brake chamber caged and a vise grip pinching the air line off to stop the air from leaking.

 

that is interesting . i guess what i am trying to say here is there really has to be reasonable evidence of wrong doing, regarding the matter that somebody is trying to sue you of..because " i think he owes me money for x and thats my story" is never going to hold up . there is always a law or regulation or loophole or safety practice, that a lawyer can expose in order to make it seemed justified to get a big payout.

 

"but all you have to do is convince a judge you deserve the money" where is the basis of that argument going to exist? are you just going to say i deserve the money or are they going to try to find a loophole somewhere the company didnt cover their ###? that is what im getting at here.... people can sue for anything they want we have established that already, but have they won? and if so, what was the basis of the argument?

 

That's not true Iam sorry to say.. honest hard working people get sued everyday for no legitimate legal reason Our laws and legal system is broken and people take advantage of it every single day
@D.Tibbitt I understand your thinking .. I used to think and feel the same way you are defending your thinking
But as the years go by and after you have a few D. shoved up your A. a few times you will see what we are saying
I honestly hope it never happens to you .. but you remind me alot of myself when I was younger.. What we are trying to say is just be perpaired for the day when you are probably still in the right .. but somebody takes a swipe at you and your check book because you just happened to be in the wrong place at the right time

 

Again, the law does not matter. They can base their lawsuit off of all the laws their little heart desires, the law means nothing in a civil suit. If laws meant anything in a civil suit you would never hear or see a judgement or settlement either way without charges being brought and a guilty conviction. The Werner case was a pretty crystal clear case of exactly this.

 

Here's another a real life scenario that happen to me I got hit by a 4 time dunk driver on a 2 lane in the middle of BF Kansas at 2 am ..the passager I had with me lost her life .. the POS that hit me hadn't had a DL for 8 years.. but that accident did end his dunk driving career..
Before it was over .. I & and my passager's family & my insurance company were name in a law suite filed by the drunk drivers family for 5 million dollars because he was a family man and now they had no means of income because he was dead.. they lost the 1st time in civil court .. but tried again on different grounds.. luckly it got denied a hearing .. but it went on for almost 8 years.. that's 8 years I had to deal with it

 

ok so what does somebody base their case off of in order to win , if it not something about a law, contract, safety reg, etc etc ... how do you go into court and win something with no evidence to back anything up?.. in the werner case they were able to prove they didnt have the right safety practices in the place and thats why they won that case... which is what im trying to get at here.

 

i disagree... there is always a reason for something..... they have to exploit, someplace somewhere, of what it is you are doing, in order to win.. you cant just win a case, for no reason and have no plan of attack... how are you going to win a court case with the base argument "because i think so?"...

 

but the point here is they had no basis for their argument which is why they didnt win... which is the entire point im trying to make.