Trainee help

Priceless

 

Sorry guy, no matter what you think -

the "trainer" is has ZERO RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE LAW​

There is no law, no regulations and no qualifications that are in place that would allow their to be culpability on the part of a second party (a trainer) when it comes to the operation of that truck - NOTHING.

I can not stress this enough, they are not trainers, they have no obligation to give correct information, or commands on how to operate that truck nor are they train as driver's trainers as state licensed trainers are. SO when another driver is in the driver's seat it means that the driver is in charge and this is part of the law, part of the regulations and they are qualified to do so by going through the CDL licensing process and passing the tests - not the "trainer".

 

I agree to a point but when you get that accident issue popping up, what happens then?

I mean that driver is on the hook for his actions, and if you are telling him to do something, then its simple, you can't be held liable for his actions. Tell him to run the truck into a bus load of kids, he does, then what? Nothing about you getting into real trouble but him, going to jail.

The OP, as others needs to know what the regulations and the laws are, not buying into the crap that they need to be trained to drive a truck or that this is a step that is normal, it isn't. If this thread and others like it help them to understand that they don't need to be crapped on by people, then my words and others who have put in something helped. engine brakes are there for a reason, they are to be used, they don't wear out (which brakes do) and it is a safety item that they need to learn how to use. The op's problem isn't with the "trainer" but controlling the situation, he could has easily got into a situation where he let the truck get away on him, burn the brakes till they are soft and don't stop the truck, it is his career that he just screwed - no one else's.

I have posted this before, it is worth saying again - protect your CDL at all costs.

 

the option is there to turn it on and off as well as multiple settings. mine has 3, I guess that serves no purpose.

this topic has certainly touched a nerve, sounds worse then logs at the moment.

one can heat the brakes with or without jakes..

 

Look on the bright side, at least he didn't crap his pants.

I hope...?

 

Pulled this off a Maryland injury attorney site, found similar language for lawyers in TX, IL, IN, and WI.

"Injury claims related to commercial vehicle accidents are rather different from those involving passenger cars or light trucks, which is due in part to the potential number of defendants that can be named in a typical commercial truck accident lawsuit. In fact, one of the important factors in the eventual success of a trucking accident claim is the law firm's ability to carry out an in-depth investigation of the facts pertaining to the crash."

When I was in high school I was named as a codefendant in a lawsuit against a teacher at that school. I was a lifeguard during gym class and there was a "incident or verbal abuse" by the gym teacher in the locker room. I was not in the locker room, had no authority over said teacher, yet I was named in the civil suit. It took three years to get my name seperated. Everyone involved has some legal responsibilities.

 

Sorry but what you posted is meaningless, not to offend you but that is more to do with punitive damages against a carrier and others involved, nothing else. In most cases if the carrier and driver is named, the employees are not named in a lawsuit who may or may not have been in control of the load, truck maintenance or what ever.

I understand your point, don't think I don't but legally it is clear = the driver is the one with all the responsibility.

The fact is that the driver bears the responsibility for the operation of that truck when they are in the driver's seat. The exception is when they do not have a CDL but a CDL permit, there is a little, not large but little liability for the driver overseeing the CDL permit holder. THAT is the only exception.

A lawyer's opinion and the law are two different things. IN your post, you are pulling off the internet thing that is to create cash cows - a blanket claim that the truck is at fault because it exists.

There is no law in any state that clearly defines the responsibility outside of the driver when that vehicle is moving. The "trainer" isn't even mentioned in any law outside a sanctioned (licensed) education provider and then they have limited liabilities.

To understand the OP has no recourse outside of standing his ground, nothing else but to follow the regulations and laws by demanding the respect he earned with the CDL.

In your situation it is different, in that case I think it is more focused on a series of events while in an accident, the focus would be the operator and the situation leading up to the accident.

 

@Ridgeline - I know you're not trying to offend me. We're just two guys trying to further knowledge and understanding. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

I agree with you that the trainer has no criminal liability and there is no regulation in FMSCA or other regulatory law I am aware of. My point is more to civil liability - particularly "negligent entrustment". If my trainee's actions could impact my employment/employability or see me listed as a defendant in a civil suit then I have responsibility for their actions. Civil Law is still law. I also know too many pool operators who have been arrested and charged with things like reckless endangerment and negligent homicide for accidents which happened after hours. Charges were either dropped or beaten but they still had to hire a lawyer to defend them. I know it's a differnet industry but some things stick with you. I still have my personal liability insurance.

I agree that new hires need to protect themselves and their CDL; however there are proper ways to go about doing so. Some of the posts I quoted may give a new driver the impression that they have carte blanche to decide how to drive the truck. Every driver has the right and responsibility to safely maneuver the vehicle; follow all federal, state and local ordinances; and comply with company policies. Failure to do so opens the driver up to civil and criminal proceedings. If a new driver objects to or does not understand the instructions of a trainer then the new driver needs to seek clarification - from the trainer, the company, and if need be government officials. Upon receiving clarification if the new driver still objects then they should not move the truck. Simply saying "forget this I'll do it my own way" is not necessarily a good decision.

For the OP's situation use of the engine brake would have made the drive easier but should not impact the safety of the vehicle. Properly driven a truck does not require an engine brake. I do not know why the trainer said no engine brake and do not believe the trainer had a valid reason to deny the use of the engine brake. Were I in the OPs position I would have geared down so as to not require the engine brake and at the next opportunity had a conversation about it -while making the drive if I care spare the attention, otherwise at the next opportunity. If the trainer did not have an explanation that satisfied me I would seek out other opinions, including that of my company.