I work for a trucking company as a mechanic. One of the drivers was in a wreck last month with a person who crossed the center line. That person died as a result of the crash he caused. This fact doesn't surprise me since the semi truck was hauling a loaded trailer too and it is akin to stopping a train.
The investigation performed by the DMV found the truck drivers log was off by several hours somehow and this evidence alone has opened the door for the deceased mans family to sue and win. The statement is that the truck driver wouldn't have been there on the road if he had followed his log book properly. But how does this remove the guilt from the man who crossed the center line? He put himself in danger by his own actions.
Even if the truck driver had not been there another vehicle and possibly another semi truck would have been and the results could have been the same. I keep getting told that a CDL driver is a professional and the law holds a dim view on the drivers who don't follow the rules of keeping and following the log book to perfection. This fact alone is why a person who is guilty of causing a crash can actually win a lawsuit if a driver is not up to date on their log book and not guilty of breaking any traffic laws.
Don't get me wrong, I feel very bad for the family who is left behind without their loved one. I just feel that it is very strange that the carelessness of the car driver is somehow overlooked.
Think of it like this. What if that driver had been shot by someone and lost control and crashed and killed a family or several people. The log book is off in the same way. Does this fact remove any responsibility of the person who shot the gun?

Anyway it just burns me up to see someone being judged so unfairly.

 

Also, being that he held a CDL, he most likely had to take a drug test within hours of the collision. Unless he was driving impaired, logbook violations that error by a few hours rarely prove anything. Was the driver over on time as a result of the error?

 

Yes, he was over on the time he is legally allowed to drive his truck for that day without a break in there somewhere. That fact alone is the basis for the lawsuit. I don't know how this law is applicable to the truck driver and the fact that it is also illegal to cross the double yellow line and is being overlooked of the car driver. I forgot to mention that the truck driver was also injured. Who is responsible for his pain and suffering?

I see two guilty people and neither should be able to win a lawsuit against the other since there is an equal amount of carelessness and fault.

Has anyone ever seen a lawsuit like this before?

 

There is no "right" or "wrong" in that situation - it is purely a matter of perspective.

Remeber, "Legal" often has NO CORRELATION to "fair" or "right".

Stinks, but it's pretty accurate.

P.S. That trucking company badly needs a new lawyer.

 

So the other guy crosses the line, runs into the trucker, and it's the trucker's fault?

Only in America...

XXL

 

That is too bad. But, like XXL said, this is America. Our legal system keeps reinforcing the belief that a person is NEVER responsible for their own actions. Especially if someone with deeper pockets is involved.

Kevin K.

 

Sure is going to be hard on dispatchers when the drivers get more and more reasons to say no to them. Then loads of perishable items are going to be at risk of being ruined. The price of everything we buy will slowly creep up even faster than normal because the trucking companies will be forced to have more drivers to follow the regulations.

 

Its kinda like how I was hanging out with my friends, and they got in trouble for drinking, underage and on campus in a chem free dorm.
I was just there to make sure they made it home, I never touched a can and I don't drink, but I got charged with an alcohol violation, $50 fine and 4 hours community service, I am fighting it, but its the same principle. My friends are charged with the same violation.

 

Ask them how they charged you with no PROOF of your drinking, mattsbox99.


of course, they may ask you how your friends got there. If it was via YOU, you are lucky. Very Lucky. If you brought them there *with the beer* you could have been in deep deep stink.

 

The only way that I can get out of the violation is if one of my friends had alcohol poisioning. Total BS. None of them drink very much to begin with, 7 friends and 25 beers.

They said that they could call the sheriff in the matter, I told them too, they wouldn't get anywhere, its not illegal to possess an empty can. The sheriff could give me a breathalyzer all night long, they wouldn't have found a single drop of alcohol.

 

What exactly did the police report say? I'm sure it points the finger of blame somewhere, but where? Legally, the most that can happen to the truck driver is a fine for logbook violations. BUT, that doesn't keep the lawyers off his back. It great material for the prosecution regardless of whether he's at fault for the collision or not.

 

Your company needs a lawyer specializing in DOT, ICC , Hwy traffic act.

As far as I understand in Canada or in the US a commercial driver is aloud to be over by 4 hours (4 consecutive hours) once every 7 or 8 day cycle, on duty or driving. To allow for weather,traffic, shippers issue's.

When I used to run single (dedicated Toronto to Los Angeles) I had to use the 4 hour over every trip, or I wouldn't of made my delivery window.

 

This is my point. You have yet to state why you were legally cited.

 

It's called "constructive possession" - just being in the room makes you responsible for what's going on.

If the cops bust a party, and everyone's smoking pot but you, you can still be cited for being there.

In Mattsbox99's case, his friends were drinking in a no drinking building. Even if Mattsbox99 wasn't drinking, just being there implicates him in what was going on.

It's how the cops bust high school parties where there's drinking - if you're in the room, then you're just as guilty as everyone else.

XXL

 

That is what I was looking for, thanks BigMattXXL.

Man - that stinks.