Liability Award Slams C.H. Robinson

[GMAN]

Trucking
Liability Award Slams C.H. Robinson


John Gallagher | Apr 7, 2009 5:06PM GMT

The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story

• Freight Brokers
• Regulation
• Trucking
• United States

Trucking contractor’s accident costs $23.8 million in damages


Third party logistics provider C.H. Robinson was hit by a $23.8 million damages award from an Illinois jury as a result of a fatal accident caused by a trucking company it hired to haul the load, according to investment bank Stifel Nicolaus.
The award stems from a 2004 accident when Utah-based Toad L Dragonfly Express, hired by C.H. Robinson to haul a load of potatoes, was involved in a dual-fatality incident. The trucking company is no longer in business, according to Stifel Nicolaus, and the driver was reported to have been driving on a suspended license with falsified log books.
The jury found C.H. Robinson to be vicariously liable, a form of secondary liability in which the motor carrier was considered part of the $8.6 billion brokerage company instead of an independent contractor. Stifel Nicolaus said C.H. Robinson is insured with a $5 million deductible, the amount it would be required to pay if the damages stand.
“This was a tragic accident which resulted in some very real losses to the families of those involved. The driver of the truck, and the carrier for whom the driver was working, have admitted that they were negligent and that they are responsible for the damages caused by their actions,” said CHR spokeswoman Angie Freeman.
“We do not believe that the facts of this case or the law support holding C.H. Robinson liable for the carrier’s and driver’s negligence, and we are disappointed with the jury's decision and the damages awarded. There have been no allegations that C.H. Robinson was negligent or that our actions were unsafe. We will continue to pursue relief from the verdict through all available legal means,” Freeman said.

[mike3fan]

Personally I don't see where C.H. Robinson is negligent here, anybody eles?

[GMAN]

I don't either, but they undoubtedly have the deepest pockets. Over the years I have gotten loads because of my good safety record. That may become much more important due to this decision by the courts. I would expect CH Robinson and some of the other larger brokerage companies to start checking safety records before allowing a carrier to haul their loads. You might be surprised at how high the safety stat score is with some of the larger carriers. For those who are not familiar with how safety stat works, the higher your score the lower your safety record. It is one of those times when a low score is good. Those with a safety stat less than 50 is the best. Anything over 75 (I believe) is not very good. The higher your companies safety stat score the greater the likelihood that you and your fellow drivers could be pulled in for an inspection. Any time a carrier is checked and a driver has log violations or received a ticket it can raise the carrier's safety stat. Out of service, whether by logs or equipment can also raise the carrier's safety stat score. A high score can also impact insurance rates. That is one reason so many carriers place so much emphasis on running compliant and keeping an eye on logs.

[nightrider76]

I'm surprised CH Rob. would hire a company with that name. I couldn't find it in safe stat.

[Heavy Duty]

They are just like all the brokers, get someone to move it as cheap as they can, keep all they can and laugh all the way to the bank.

Might slow down some companies brokering out good loads to skim more off the top instead of giving them to their O/O's.

Some good customers may put restrictions on carriers, making them use their own trucks instead of brokering their loads out.

This will change the way the big brokers hand out freight , be ready for more paper work.

[repete]

Just another case of sue everybody and let the one with the deep pockets pay, such a load of BS!!
Any one here think this is right? if so I'd really like to hear why

[chris1]

Their MC was 419110 revoked in 2005
A broker has to insure that a load can be delivered in a legal manner or they can be held liable also(secondary liabilty)

[Phantom433a]

When my F-I-L sued the company that caused his hip to be crushed from improper loading on the boxcar (it was being off loaded onto his truck). He had to sue everyone that was involved from start to finish. Thats why C.H. Rob was included in the lawsuit.

[Part Time Dweller]

And we all know that a broker like CH would never threaten to keep money from a carrier if all the hoops aren't jumped through properly, IE; meeting an unrealistic appointment time that they were informed of at the beginning.

I say good job, If enough of these suits go back on the brokers, then maybe they will be more choosy on who they hire, which hopefully will eliminate some fly by night shoe string 1099 paying no maintenance scumbags O/O's/ fleet operatprs that run down the road at a loss.

[repete]

Some of you seem to forget that the broker is paid to find a carrier to haul so much frieght once they do that why should they be responcable for an accident a 100yds or 100mi from them? If you can't stop in time and hit someone or somthing are you gong to sue the tire maker? How about running off the road during a rain storm ? should you sue Annco and just forget about the fact YOU were going to fast!
Cases like these have little to do with what is right or sometimes legal, it's just make "some one pay"in the end WE ALL PAY!

[Heavy Duty]

And we all know that a broker like CH would never threaten to keep money from a carrier if all the hoops aren't jumped through properly, IE; meeting an unrealistic appointment time that they were informed of at the beginning.

I say good job, If enough of these suits go back on the brokers, then maybe they will be more choosy on who they hire, which hopefully will eliminate some fly by night shoe string 1099 paying no maintenance scumbags O/O's/ fleet operatprs that run down the road at a loss.

The same people we all complain about taking freight too cheap. Anything that helps cut them out is good.

[belpre122]

And we all know that a broker like CH would never threaten to keep money from a carrier if all the hoops aren't jumped through properly, IE; meeting an unrealistic appointment time that they were informed of at the beginning.

I say good job, If enough of these suits go back on the brokers, then maybe they will be more choosy on who they hire, which hopefully will eliminate some fly by night shoe string 1099 paying no maintenance scumbags O/O's/ fleet operatprs that run down the road at a loss.

Exactly PTD! Accountability. That is what this lawsuit was about. Apparently the jury agreed also.

The sooner that cheapy freight brokers like CH Robinson (Hot 'n Heavy) are called to account for the actions of their sub-contractors (read normally a coolie carrier), the better.

It doesn't happen very often...............but this time passing-the-buck didn't pay off for these charlatans.

We need to see much more of this type legal action towards unseemly freight proprietor(s) and their entities.

[GMAN]

It really isn't about responsibility. It is about the money. It is about who has the deepest pockets. It is unfortunate that juries will give away the farm just because someone has a lot of resources. I don't see how CH Robinson should have had any liability other than they have deep pockets. It has gotten to the point when it makes no difference whether someone is guilty or not. It is a matter of whether someone can pay.