If I Read This Right The Truck Driver Did Not Cause The Wreck

Paul, I have to disagree with you on this one. For one, if he had followed the HOS rules that truck would have never been in that location to begin with. Just for that fact alone, this driver is totally at fault.

I don't like that reasoning myself. Let's say an accident happened because a truck was where it was only because the driver was required to take a 30 minute break. Would you say that the HOS rules caused that accident?

If I were the injured guy's lawyer I'd definitely be making a point of the violation in court. But if I were the trucker's lawyer I'd be pointing out that being over the 70 hour limit doesn't automatically make you dangerous, just like being within the rules doesn't mean you're not too tired to drive safely.

The illegal U-turn makes him at fault. The HOS violation (and he was only 3.5 over on his 70 clock - from what the article stated), just adds insult to injury - but doesn't necessarily mean he was driving fatigued. Now they will REALLY DIG INTO his logs - and of there is a pattern of HOS violations, they'll come down on him even harder.

But this would be a BAD THING for the driver, even absent the HOS violation.

We all make bonehead moves and need to turn around. Find the SAFE PLACE to do so.

Holding a CDL-A and operating a TT means you are (supposed to be) a professional driver. It's no joke that we are held to a higher level of responsibility. Many fender benders turn into prison sentences for truckers, when negligence of rule violations are found.

And your employer will be more than happy to throw you to the wolves if it means minimizing THEIR LIABILITY.

Rick

Paul, I have to disagree with you on this one. For one, if he had followed the HOS rules that truck would have never been in that location to begin with. Just for that fact alone, this driver is totally at fault.

I don't like that reasoning myself. Let's say an accident happened because a truck was where it was only because the driver was required to take a 30 minute break. Would you say that the HOS rules caused that accident?

If I were the injured guy's lawyer I'd definitely be making a point of the violation in court. But if I were the trucker's lawyer I'd be pointing out that being over the 70 hour limit doesn't automatically make you dangerous, just like being within the rules doesn't mean you're not too tired to drive safely.

I did not say that the driver was driving fatigued, but the truck would have never been there and he would not have missed his turn/exit and thus would have no need to attempt an illegal u-turn.

When you add in the over HOS to the illegal u-turn it it still the fault of that driver. Yes the other driver was not paying attention but the law is the law. Yeah people bend them or break them all the time but that still does not make them non liable. In the end it only matters what a judge or jury will say.

Paul, I have to disagree with you on this one. For one, if he had followed the HOS rules that truck would have never been in that location to begin with. Just for that fact alone, this driver is totally at fault.

I don't like that reasoning myself. Let's say an accident happened because a truck was where it was only because the driver was required to take a 30 minute break. Would you say that the HOS rules caused that accident?

If I were the injured guy's lawyer I'd definitely be making a point of the violation in court. But if I were the trucker's lawyer I'd be pointing out that being over the 70 hour limit doesn't automatically make you dangerous, just like being within the rules doesn't mean you're not too tired to drive safely.

I did not say that the driver was driving fatigued, but the truck would have never been there and he would not have missed his turn/exit and thus would have no need to attempt an illegal u-turn.

When you add in the over HOS to the illegal u-turn it it still the fault of that driver. Yes the other driver was not paying attention but the law is the law. Yeah people bend them or break them all the time but that still does not make them non liable. In the end it only matters what a judge or jury will say.

I think I know what you meant, I'm just saying I don't agree with the "truck wouldn't be there" argument. There are a million things that could have happened or not happened to make the truck not be there at that exact moment.

Paul, I have to disagree with you on this one. For one, if he had followed the HOS rules that truck would have never been in that location to begin with. Just for that fact alone, this driver is totally at fault.

I don't like that reasoning myself. Let's say an accident happened because a truck was where it was only because the driver was required to take a 30 minute break. Would you say that the HOS rules caused that accident?

If I were the injured guy's lawyer I'd definitely be making a point of the violation in court. But if I were the trucker's lawyer I'd be pointing out that being over the 70 hour limit doesn't automatically make you dangerous, just like being within the rules doesn't mean you're not too tired to drive safely.

I did not say that the driver was driving fatigued, but the truck would have never been there and he would not have missed his turn/exit and thus would have no need to attempt an illegal u-turn.

When you add in the over HOS to the illegal u-turn it it still the fault of that driver. Yes the other driver was not paying attention but the law is the law. Yeah people bend them or break them all the time but that still does not make them non liable. In the end it only matters what a judge or jury will say.

I think I know what you meant, I'm just saying I don't agree with the "truck wouldn't be there" argument. There are a million things that could have happened or not happened to make the truck not be there at that exact moment.

I understand, but that truck should have been 150 miles away from that location at that time.

In a past life I was a litigation paralegal who worked for insurance defense lawyers. I worked on a couple of cases where we defending the trucking company in accidents. There are a couple of misconceptions here.

First, no way is the trucking company going to throw the driver to the wolves, because they are liable for hiring him and letting him drive their truck. It's their insurance policy and their equipment involved in the wreck. They're going to do their best to make him look like the best driver they can.

Second, the HOS violation pretty much makes this case impossible to defend. It will most likely be settled out of court (like 95% of cases) and the legal case will be a fight over how much the company is going to pay, not whether they'll pay. No lawyer is going to try a case where there's such an obvious violation of the law to overcome, because no judge or jury is going to care whether he was actually fatigued. He was violating federal hours of service regulations. End of story.

Third, even without the HOS violation, the illegal U-turn makes it the truck driver's fault no matter what else happened. The only possible argument to make it partially the other driver's fault would be something like "he was being pursued at a high rate of speed by law enforcement."

Just another thought I had after posting this. Sometimes we're tempted to go over our clocks for one reason or another. I have done it a few times, but only a very few times. I know others who do it regularly - the reasoning is usually something along the lines of "I can't make enough money otherwise."

Most of the time we can get away with it. For example, how often do your logs get inspected? Not often in my experience. Last week I had my first inspection in over a year. So if you know that you're not likely to have an inspection, it makes it more tempting to cheat a little here and there.

But what happens if you have some kind of accident, big or small, and you're in violation of the HOS rules? Everything goes under the microscope when they find that. If it's a big enough wreck, your company goes under the microscope.

And generally there's no defense for those violations. Your argument that the other guy cut in front of you and brake-checked you is weaker, even with a dashcam. Why? Because you are in complete control of your logs.

Some companies have zero tolerance for log violations, some wink at some limited number of small violations, and some encourage violations so they can make more money. Walmart is pretty well known for zero tolerance. Small companies are pretty well known for teaching drivers how to run two or three sets of paper logs.

My point is, you can do what you think you need to do, but if you get in a wreck and you're in violation, you pay the penalty. You are the one who gets to wear the steel bracelets if it's bad. Is it worth the risk?

A friend of mine sent me a link to a news story about a wreck that happened a couple of weeks ago. He worked for that small company for a few months earlier this year and then left for a better job. The guy they hired to replace him had the wreck.

Two weeks before that, his license was suspended because part of his load bounced off the back of his trailer and down the highway. Did the company fire him? Nope, they sent him back out - on a suspended license!

The driver ran into a construction vehicle in a construction zone, injured a worker and himself, and took out a power pole. On top of all that, they found illegal logs.

So now that driver is facing possible jail time, and the company's log books for all their drivers are under the microscope. You can bet that every one of their trucks will be going into the scale house for inspections for a long time too.

So just because your company says it's ok to cheat a little, it won't be ok if something bad happens. You are the one who will pay for it. They might get in trouble too, but you'll face the worst of it.

And that is exactly the situation where it will feel like the company threw you under the bus. But they did the throwing way before the accident when they encouraged you to run illegally.

Small companies are pretty well known for teaching drivers how to run two or three sets of paper logs.

No they don't, sometimes my dog eats the page...

That was great stuff Bud! Thanks for sharing all that!

Ok that makes sense, I see where you guys are coming from now.