Truck Driving Jobs

|

Trucking Jobs

|

Truck Drivers

|

Trucking Companies

 
New Users Register Free Account Here | Existing Forum Members Log In Here
Home | About Us | Contact Us | Testimonials | Spell Check

Class A Drivers.com

Application          Company Listings          Job Search        Load Board
 
  1.   Welcome to the Truck Driving Message Board - ClassADrivers.

    1. Welcome to Class A Drivers Forums

          Already registered? Login above

      OR
       
      To take advantage of all the site's features, become a member of
      the largest community of Truck Drivers.

      The advertising to the left will not show if you are a registered user.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Brokers Held Liable

  1. #1
    RostyC is offline Senior Board Member RostyC is on the right path.  You could probably safely loan them a quarter.
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,267

    Default Brokers Held Liable

    Interesting read I thought.

    Link to Article

    A March 19 verdict in an Illinois court has put domestic truck brokers in the unprecedented and potentially costly position of assuming liability for the actions of motor carriers t hey contract with to move customers' freight.

    A circuit court jury in Will County, Ill., found C.H. Robinson Worldwide, one of the nation's largest brokers, liable in a fatal 2004 collision involving Utah-based Toad L. Dragonfly Express, which Robinson hired to haul a load of potatoes. Two people were killed and another seriously injured in the accident. The driver was reported to have been driving on a suspended license with falsified logbooks. The trucker eventually went out of business. Robinson was named as a defendant based on legal doctrine that makes an employer "vicariously liable" for an employee's actions when they occur within the scope of employment. Robinson argued that it only booked the load with Dragonfly and that the driver was an independent contractor, not a Robinson employee. However, the jury determined that the trucker was considered part of the brokerage company instead of an independent carrier, and that Robinson was liable as an employer. Robinson itself was not accused of negligence or any unsafe actions.

    Robinson officials declined to be interviewed for the story, citing pending litigation. In a statement, Angie Freeman, a Robinson vice president, said the company would appeal the verdict.

    Continues below

    Unwanted exposure
    If upheld on appeal, the verdict may open up a new and troublesome legal frontier for brokers and intermediaries across all transport modes. Historically, brokers have not been held liable for accidents caused by a carrier they hire. Rather, the carrier and insurance company assumed all accident-related liability for bodily injury, property damage, and loss and damage to freight.

    Even so, said an article in the April 2009 issue of TransDigest, published by the Transportation & Logistics Council Inc., the Illinois case "clearly demonstrates that a third-party logistics provider can have significant liability for the acts of motor carriers that [it] hires." And the liability could run into the millions of dollars. Jon A. Langenfeld, transportation analyst for the Milwaukee-based investment firm Robert W. Baird, says Robinson maintains a $5 million deductible on its liability coverage, the amount it could be liable for if the verdict is upheld.

    Langenfeld says that although plaintiffs' lawyers would be more likely to pursue deep-pocketed brokers like Robinson for monetary damages, smaller brokers would actually be hurt the most should the Illinois verdict become precedent. Langenfeld contends insurers would be compelled to raise premiums and to limit access to adequate liability coverage, actions that would add significant costs to already thinly capitalized third parties.

    Ann Christopher, vice president and general counsel for Kenco, a third-party logistics company, told attendees at the recent Warehousing Education and Research Council annual meeting that the verdict could have "dramatic implications" for brokers and third parties. In the future, she said, brokers will need to be more careful in conducting due diligence on a carrier's safety record before engaging that carrier.

    Christopher also warned that the case is a shot across the bow for the entire industry. Transportation, she said, "is the next cash cow that tort attorneys will go after."
    Could this lead to better rates due to brokers watching the safety rating of the carriers it chooses to do business with, thereby weeding out the fly by nighters (less truck capacity) OR just higher insurance rates for everyone? Probably just higher premiums.

    What do you guys think?

  2. #2
    Rev.Vassago's Avatar
    Rev.Vassago is offline Guest Board Icon Rev.Vassago is well-known and should trademark his/her name. Rev.Vassago is well-known and should trademark his/her name. Rev.Vassago is well-known and should trademark his/her name. Rev.Vassago is well-known and should trademark his/her name. Rev.Vassago is well-known and should trademark his/her name. Rev.Vassago is well-known and should trademark his/her name.
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The other side of the coin
    Posts
    9,411

    Default

    I think it will get overturned on appeal. The broker is not the carrier, and simply subcontracted the work to the carrier. They had no control over how the carrier did the job at any point.

  3. #3
    no_worries is offline Senior Board Member no_worries is an unknown poster at this point.  Don't let him/her around power tools just yet.
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    This ruling was more a product of Illinois' specific laws regarding the contractor-subcontractor relationship and the related liabilities. I wouldn't look for much impact to come from it...other than more verbiage in broker/carrier agreements.

  4. #4
    b00m's Avatar
    b00m is offline Board Regular b00m is an unknown poster at this point.  Don't let him/her around power tools just yet.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    241

    Default

    I see it more of a cash cow that lawyers are going after,than the needed justice.This will impact not just the parties involved,but even the whole industry,where "smart"lawyers will know were to milk to cow. Kind of sad, i would say!

  5. #5
    chris1 is online now Senior Board Member chris1 is on the right path.  You could probably safely loan them a quarter.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RostyC View Post
    Interesting read I thought.

    Link to Article



    Could this lead to better rates due to brokers watching the safety rating of the carriers it chooses to do business with, thereby weeding out the fly by nighters (less truck capacity) OR just higher insurance rates for everyone? Probably just higher premiums.

    What do you guys think?
    Have to keep a larger percentage now to cover possible costs.
    This case was a punitive damage's award for the negligent "hiring" of the carrier. They used a sub-standard rated carrier. No different than a carrier leasing on an O/O that has multiple accidents/tickets.

  6. #6
    Dejanh is offline BANNED Senior Board Member Dejanh has a checkered past and should take up chess.
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    807

    Thumbs down

    This is BS...

    CH Robinson cannot be liable and as much as I would love to see them pay for all of those lies that i have been told over the years when i was pulling their loads in a van, they are right in this scenario...

    Just the fact that they got sued tells a little story about our legal system...

  7. #7
    GMAN's Avatar
    GMAN is offline Administrator Board Icon GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street. GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street. GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street. GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    15,108

    Default

    Lawyers will usually go after the deep pockets, regardless of responsibility. Their hope is to get a jury to be sympathetic to the plaintiff or for the defendent to settle. In either case the lawyer gets his piece of flesh. There are those who want a free ride. They want to blame someone and if they can't get the one they feel is actually responsible then they go after the one who has the money. In this case it was CH Robinson. Frankly, I am surprised that any judge or jury would find in favor or the plaintiff in this case. If brokers had to eliminate any carrier with a poor safe stat record then they would have to eliminate many of the largest carriers in this nation.

  8. #8
    chris1 is online now Senior Board Member chris1 is on the right path.  You could probably safely loan them a quarter.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    541

    Default

    All "employers" are responsible for the actions/in-actions of their employees and/or agents. The fact they have "deep pockets" just enhances their chance of collecting. If it was a small broker with no assets or additional insurance why bother.
    No different than a building that a general contractor "hires" a sub-contractor who does inferior work and the building collapses. The general will be sued also.
    There is a difference between the safestat score and a rating. Many carriers have no rating(a new entrant audit does not give a rating) In this case they had a sub-standard rating. Thus the negligent hiring practice award.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    34

    Default

    This isn't CHR's first dance in court.

    Schramm v. Foster:

    Schramm v Foster


    Jones v. D'Souza

    Jones v. D'Souza

    CHR has a pattern of doing this. They will contract any swinging d**k with authority and an insurance certificate. Sad.

  10. #10
    chris1 is online now Senior Board Member chris1 is on the right path.  You could probably safely loan them a quarter.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    541

    Default

    In the first case the safe-stat score was below the "deficient" level but had no rating. The authority had also been voluntarily revoked and re-instated.
    In the second case the rating was conditional.
    Both cases opened up the possibilty of negligence.
    Any broker that uses a carrier that has had the authority revoked,whether voluntary or in-voluntary,bad safe-stat,no rating or bad rating could be held liable.
    Many independents have no rating or have had authority revoked"either way" which would knock them out of the ability to take loads if all brokers adhered to such a policy.
    You're in business and take chances. Sometimes it doesn't work out.
    Not defending CH but the percentage of negligence to the total amount of loads is not even measurable.

  11. #11
    GMAN's Avatar
    GMAN is offline Administrator Board Icon GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street. GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street. GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street. GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    15,108

    Default

    It should not make any difference whether a carrier has had their authority revoked or not as far as the broker or any other third party having liability. The only reason they went after CHR is that they had no chance of collecting from the carrier and they felt that they could find a sympathetic jury. Apparently they were correct. Personally, I think juries should be given an IQ test before they are allowed to sit on ANY jury. Often the law doesn't have anything to do in a civil judgment. If the plaintiff's attorney's can make the jury sympathetic to their client then they have a good chance of getting a judgment. It doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong. Lawyers want a jury to feel sorry for their client. They want them to punish the defendent for the wrongs the one actually responsible. Basically, they want something for nothing. I feel sorry for those who had loved ones who were hurt, but it doesn't do any good to extort money from someone or company that had nothing to do with this incident. All they did was book a load of freight. At the time the carrier had authority and insurance. That is all that should matter when a broker books a load. He should not have to worry about being sued in court if the carrier has an accident. If this isn't over turned on appeal it will open a huge can of worms.

    The fmcsa no longer publishes the actual amount of liability insurance for carriers, only the minimum requirement is listed. The reason is that lawyers and those who were involved in any sort of accident with a carrier would check to see how much insurance the carrier had and that is what they sued for. Again, they go after the deep pockets.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Hungary,in the fast lane.
    Posts
    136

    Default

    CH Robinson has a clause in their contract deeming the carrier responsible for any accidents or violations.
    I agree,since the fly-by-night trucker went out of business the only party with deep pockets is the 3rd party,which is Ch Robberson. The lawsuit is B.S.
    Faster than the speed of Peterbilt.

  13. #13
    chris1 is online now Senior Board Member chris1 is on the right path.  You could probably safely loan them a quarter.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GMAN View Post
    It should not make any difference whether a carrier has had their authority revoked or not as far as the broker or any other third party having liability. The only reason they went after CHR is that they had no chance of collecting from the carrier and they felt that they could find a sympathetic jury. Apparently they were correct. Personally, I think juries should be given an IQ test before they are allowed to sit on ANY jury. Often the law doesn't have anything to do in a civil judgment. If the plaintiff's attorney's can make the jury sympathetic to their client then they have a good chance of getting a judgment. It doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong. Lawyers want a jury to feel sorry for their client. They want them to punish the defendent for the wrongs the one actually responsible. Basically, they want something for nothing. I feel sorry for those who had loved ones who were hurt, but it doesn't do any good to extort money from someone or company that had nothing to do with this incident. All they did was book a load of freight. At the time the carrier had authority and insurance. That is all that should matter when a broker books a load. He should not have to worry about being sued in court if the carrier has an accident. If this isn't over turned on appeal it will open a huge can of worms.
    Revocation of a carriers "license" is no different than the revocation of a drivers license. The use of either can open yourself to negligence.
    If you look at the BOL's in these three cases with CH,you can see that they are the carrier of record. That and the "negligent"hiring makes them liable also.
    This is far from the first case of this,the only thing that draws the attention is the dollar amount.

  14. #14
    Orangetxguy's Avatar
    Orangetxguy is offline Senior Board Member Orangetxguy is well-known and should trademark his/her name. Orangetxguy is well-known and should trademark his/her name. Orangetxguy is well-known and should trademark his/her name. Orangetxguy is well-known and should trademark his/her name. Orangetxguy is well-known and should trademark his/her name. Orangetxguy is well-known and should trademark his/her name.
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,634

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by chris1 View Post
    Revocation of a carriers "license" is no different than the revocation of a drivers license. The use of either can open yourself to negligence.
    If you look at the BOL's in these three cases with CH,you can see that they are the carrier of record. That and the "negligent"hiring makes them liable also.
    This is far from the first case of this,the only thing that draws the attention is the dollar amount.



    I agree with Chris.
    Space...............Is disease and danger, wrapped in darkness and silence! Star Trek2009

  15. #15
    GMAN's Avatar
    GMAN is offline Administrator Board Icon GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street. GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street. GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street. GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    15,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris1 View Post
    Revocation of a carriers "license" is no different than the revocation of a drivers license. The use of either can open yourself to negligence.
    If you look at the BOL's in these three cases with CH,you can see that they are the carrier of record. That and the "negligent"hiring makes them liable also.
    This is far from the first case of this,the only thing that draws the attention is the dollar amount.

    If the carrier had active authority and insurance at the time the load was given to him then I don't see how CHR should be held liable. In addition, the carrier is not an employee of the broker therefore I don't think that the liability would (should) be the same as if the carrier were an employee. Regardless of the dollar amount I does gain my attention. Any time someone other than the one actually responsible is held liable for an action it gets my attention. This type of lawsuit is one reason we all pay so much for insurance and other products.

  16. #16
    chris1 is online now Senior Board Member chris1 is on the right path.  You could probably safely loan them a quarter.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    541

    Default

    So if a carrier uses a driver as a "contractor" instead of employee they should have no liabilty for the "contractors" actions? A determination of tax status has no bearing. You are responsible for the actions of your employees and/or agents. The carrier is an agent of the broker.
    Sure, i would like to know that i would never be held liable for what my "agents" do. There are a few other things i would like also in that utopian world.

  17. #17
    GMAN's Avatar
    GMAN is offline Administrator Board Icon GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street. GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street. GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street. GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    15,108

    Default

    I am not saying you could not make a case for having contingent liability, but that doesn't make it right. A broker has no control over what a carrier does or doesn't do. Neither does the carrier have control over the actions of the broker. I think a good lawyer without ethics could make a case in both situations. Juries and the courts are too willing to pass massive judgments on to those who are not responsible simply because they can afford to pay. It isn't right. I hope this judgment is over turned in the appeal process. No matter what you think about CH Robinson this type of miscarriage of justice should not be allowed to stand. The judge in this matter should have struck down the judgment. Next we will start requiring brokers to withhold taxes from carriers.

  18. #18
    chris1 is online now Senior Board Member chris1 is on the right path.  You could probably safely loan them a quarter.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GMAN View Post
    Next we will start requiring brokers to withhold taxes from carriers.
    If the carrier gives an invalid TIN# on a W9 you can be held liable for 28% to the IRS. So you verify the number/name.
    I'm not an advocate of punitive damages,awards should be limited to making someone whole again. But the laws differ from my personal opinion so that is what i have to go by.

  19. #19
    GMAN's Avatar
    GMAN is offline Administrator Board Icon GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street. GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street. GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street. GMAN is a distinguished poster and probably helps little old ladies across the street.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    15,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris1 View Post
    If the carrier gives an invalid TIN# on a W9 you can be held liable for 28% to the IRS. So you verify the number/name.
    I'm not an advocate of punitive damages,awards should be limited to making someone whole again. But the laws differ from my personal opinion so that is what i have to go by.

    I don't know that the carrier gave the wrong fein on his W9 in this case. I have not heard anything about the IRS holding someone responsible for the taxes of another entity simply because they gave the wrong number. I am not sure what measures one would need to do in order to insure that those with whom we do business have a valid fein. The IRS seems to look for any way in which to shake down business, whether you are in the right or not.

    The problem with "making someone whole again" is really a myth. If someone suffers serious injury due to negligence from someone then they are entitled to damages. Unfortunately, mindless juries and unscrupulous attorney's have taken advantage of the situation and moved over to include anyone who was remotely involved with a company or individual. For instance, if you are in an airplane accident the lawyers will likely sue everyone remotely involved in the manufacture of the airplane, from the rivets to the propeller. It doesn't matter if the pilot failed to do a proper pretrip. Had the pilot done a proper pretrip he would have found a problem that would have prevented him from crashing. Lawyers will file suit against everyone in hopes of finding the deepest pockets who may be willing to settle. That is one reason Piper left this country to manufacture their planes for a number of years. They got tired of being sued for things for which they should have no responsibility. In the mean time, all those companies who were sued and spent thousands of dollars on legal expense to defend themselves have no recourse to collect their losses. The plaintiff and their attorney's get off scott free with a windfall. We need some serious legal reform in this country. As long as we continue electing lawyers to legislative office that is not likely to happen. It is simply wrong to sue someone just because you can. This is one reason so much of our industry has moved their operations abroad.

  20. #20
    chris1 is online now Senior Board Member chris1 is on the right path.  You could probably safely loan them a quarter.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GMAN View Post
    I don't know that the carrier gave the wrong fein on his W9 in this case. I have not heard anything about the IRS holding someone responsible for the taxes of another entity simply because they gave the wrong number. I am not sure what measures one would need to do in order to insure that those with whom we do business have a valid fein. The IRS seems to look for any way in which to shake down business, whether you are in the right or not.
    Simple matter to verify number to name. Over the years i have had many incorrect numbers and when you send a 1099 with the wrong number to name you will be contacted and given a chance to correct it. If it is not corrected you can be held liable for 28%.

  21. This ad will disappear if you login

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Trucking Companies | Trucking Job Search | Online Job Application | Trucking Links | Truck Drivers Message Board | Contact Us | Site Map


Truck Driving Jobs © 2003 - 2012 ClassADrivers.com
 

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0