Who Pays for catastrophic failures when driving for company

There is no way on God's green earth that equipment failure for any reason is a company driver's responsibility to pay for.

If a company driver signed any document saying they will pay for equipment failure of any kind, then that driver is retarded and this instant needs to draft a written letter to their company saying otherwise and have it mailed certified.

If any company expects a company driver to be responsible for repairs, then they are a POS company whose owners should be driving their own POS tractors.

When people in business together have pride in what they do and have any kind of honor, whether driver or owner, there is no need for predatory or parasitic contractual obligations.

 

This is an excellent question, but I'm not sure I'd be asking it at an interview. Might give them ideas about your driving habits and history.
OK I'm thinking, (thinking being the operative word as opposed to knowing,) that it is against federal labor laws to try to make you pay for a broken vehicle, or anything else that you break. UNLESS they can prove intent.
Different outfits handle things differently, and may handle situations differently from one driver to another. (Real good way to get sued, but some do it.)
Most likely is the worst they would do would be to fire you with a "no rehire," and hit your DAC.

Back when there was a wholesale food outfit still alive in St. George, I was in there applying for a driving job. I overheard a conversation that sent me right out the door. They'd had an old cabover that had burned almost to the ground. One of the people, (some higher up in the company,) was arguing that they were going to rebuild that truck and continue using it. (This is the same company that was using at least one 1960 era straight truck to make deliveries.)

Well, some jerk offs feel there is an advantage to it though. Anything to make or save a nickle. I worked for one of these my first CDL job, right out of school. I was green, but even as green as I was, I only stayed with them for about six weeks. They screwed me out of forty dollars in lumper fees. That will NEVER happen twice to me. NOTE: This is not the food company that I was posting about, however both of these outfits are no longer in business.

 

An employee can't be forced to pay for any damages like what you stated. Otherwise you'd crash a truck and basically be the companies slave for a few years until it was paid off. There's a good reason for insurance.

 

Well a few things.

There are no laws that prevent an employer from charging an employee for damaged equipment. The labor laws are outside the scope of this issue. The employee is licensed to operate the equipment which means he has taken a test to prove his skills and he is the one who is in control of the equipment.

The second thing is the employer can't just take the money out of the paycheck but can move to fire the guy and then charge him with damaging company property in court.

Third is how many times does this happen anyway?

Not many outside of the fact that people who are mad at the company take it out on the company property. No law protects anyone from not being sued or having to pay back damages because of both neglect and intentional damage.

I know one such a case, the fleet owner (carrier) did exactly what I think should be done - he fired the guy on the spot, had the truck retrieved, sent to a shop and repaired then sued the driver over the damages which included a completely trashed transmission and clutch, not to mention a lot of other things damaged. The driver lost, he had to pay for the damages and the costs related to recovery of the truck.

So my advice is this, don't forget that just because you think you have no responsibility, it can be decided in court at your expense.

 

Actually, anybody can sue anybody else over just about anything. And even if you win a court case doesn't mean you will ever see a penny of the ordered settlement.
Oh sure, the court can put somebody in jail for not following the court's decision, but that doesn't mean you will ever get anything out of it.

 

You better get some better legal counsel. Their are a hodgepodge of federal, state, and local laws that cover just this:

https://www.dol.gov/whd/opinion/FLSA/2006/2006_03_10_07_FLSA.htm
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/can-your-employer-charge-you-for-a-mistake

I can be said most states do not allow deductions for damaged equipment. Most of those that do require written consent. And of those that do, the deductions of the paycheck cannot leave the employee with less then minimum wage. Heck, most commissioned drivers waiting for a tow truck and loggging it on duty can prevent any deductions from the paycheck.

A license doesn't preclude the employer's responsibility in maintaining equipment or training an employee.

Some states you can but you cannot render an employee with less then minimum wage. So, minimum hourly wage on the last paycheck as the guy goes out the door.

Not often because any good lawyer will tell an employer it is a loosing situation. Even if allowed by law, and many states don't, the burden of proof for the negligence or willful intent is on the employer.

And, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

Neglect is one thing, willful damage is another. Nevertheless, both are hard for an employer to prove and the burden of proof is on him.

True, there are always exceptions to the rules.

 

I figure some things just aren't worth arguing about. Particularly when I don't care enough to research the facts.

 

Omg

I've gotten legal advice, I have had to deal with this issue long ago and it hasn't changed, but honestly it has nothing to do with wages, nor state labor laws, it has to do with criminal liability and willful destruction of property which is an issue in all 50 states.

This isn't where someone dropped French fries into a fries and let them burn then deducing it for their pay, it is about how drivers are responsible for the vehicle they drive and their responsibilities extends to the damage of that truck.

There is no laws that protect the driver on this issue, it could be a transmission, neglecting to check the oil or running it into another truck. The assumption is that driver under the regulations has the final say by being licensed to operate by providing proof of skills. If the driver is trashing the truck intentially or just generally abusing it, the company has the right to recoup the costs on the repairs of that truck.

However there is another part of this, if the company is lax in maintaining the truck, then they forfeited the right to hold the driver fully responsible or have to prove it wasn't their negligence that caused the problem.

Again the driver is the operator, his judgement is used when pretriping the truck to see if it is safe or in need of repair. Of course he isn't responsible if the rear pig fails or the trans takes a crap but other things he is, like checking the oil.

It is easy to figure out, grinding the crap out of the gears because you can't drive right leaves evidence that it was done and the amount can determine how many times it has happened, it isn't like opps it broke and no one is at fault.

Remember I'm not talking about just going after a driver for a poorly maintained truck but them abusing it by their poor habits or ignorance.

 

Laws change all the time.

Labor laws do define the extent in which a employee is liable for an employer's damages.

Liability is one thing willful destruction of property is another. Don't confuse the two. I know it is convenient for some employers to do that, not that I am saying you are one of them.

One in the same. The extent of damage is not the issue.

Already stated them in short in link prior.

Owner of the truck or business is liable for the transmission, checking the oil, or running into another truck.

License only allows driver to operate licensed vehicle on the road. It is no test of competence or training in any business operation. That is on the business owner.

Sure, but good luck proving that in court. Proving the "intent" part is key to that.

As you point out, plaintiff, employer in this case, will have the burden of proof that the driver is the sole cause of the equipment failure.

Employer will also have to prove that he did provide adequate training, and that training was disregarded.

Then you will have the prove the "intent" you stated earlier.

That all is tough hurdle to cross.

Just clear up something, a pre-trip is not defined by the FMSCA. Time or extent, or routine is not defined. Just that the driver has to be "satisfied" with certain issues on the truck.

Most states include a pre-trip portion of their test that was not the case some 20-25 years ago.

As far as the law is concerned, FMSCA, he is just as responsible for the rear pig as the oil level. You may have never thought about like that before, but that is the case. Just ask yourself when was the last ticket you saw for low oil level? You didn't, ever. You don't train your drivers to check oil, or enforce the need for them to check oil regularly, that is on you, the employer.

Says who? Who says it was that driver that did the damage? You could have had a dozen different monkeys driving that truck. You could have had a million miles on that transmission.

One thing you find out early in this industry is every truck owner has a different idea of what a "poorly maintained" truck is. This is obvious if you follow the SMS results in the least.

Some owners, perhaps even a majority, like to blame their lack of business success on the driver that ruins his truck or the mechanic that can't keep costs down. Some times, many times, it is just the owner that is a failure and some have to accept that.

 

Well yeah, but then they call the US Marshals. THEY can fix everything.....