Sooooooo who are you defending ???? Crash and Roll ??? The ex-con driver who suposedly no habla'd engrish, or the system who allows Crash an Roll England, Swift, Werner, Schneider to operate in this manner??

 

Defending? I'm not defending anyone. I was pointing out that I think the arguement against punitive damages is ridiculous.

 

They're all guilty as hell!

1. C.R.

2. Mr. No Hablo Pablo.

3. The system that allows stuff like this to happen.

This is so outrageous that I wouldn't even mind seeing some liability thrown on the shipper if it would help prevent it from happening again.

Please keep us posted on the outcome

How did he spend 15 hours getting from Cottonwood to Red Bluff? And then couldn't make Woodburn til the next day?

 

Why should the shipper get some of the liability? They hired CRE to haul a load for them, It was CRE's responsibility to have a safe, competent driver take the load from point A to point B. Now, If the shipper loaded the load overweight or in a manner that caused the trailer to tip and be a factor in the crash then maybe.

 

England is going to settle this case. There is little doubt this guy shouldn't have been out on his own and I doubt England wants to sit around too long while the jury gets better educated as to the extent of that doubt.

Under similar circumstances I would SPECULATE that Swift (and the others) would have repowered the load.

The first line after "NO MAS" implies that England was trying to get the load repowered. Despite the inflamatory quotes provided, I suspect there were at least a few routine messages which might help to explain why the load was not repowered and how this driver continued on to Woodburn.

. . the system who allows . . is the system of your making. The pay per mile fraud which companies like yours continue to perpetuate will keep the doors open to an endless stream of rookies and keep slamming the doors on good drivers who need to support a household.

 

Defending the mega-carriers as usual..... But I guess that is what a Swift recruiter does....

I am going downtown for a lunch meeting today, I think I will stop by the courthouse and have a look see....

 

My comments were clearly a condemnation of all carriers who engage in and perpetuate the pay per mile fraud, mega or otherwise, yours included.

Rather than pay a competant driver, England chose to roll the dice and bleed this freak for all he was worth. Now, England will pay. It's in the business plan, business as usual.

I have done well by Swift and speak well of them but I can't recruit for them. That would require too much line 4 time and diminish the profitability of my truck.

 

I'm surprised CRE didn't settle: "Look, here's $500,000 (or whatever), you agree to keep quiet, we admit no wrongdoing. Sign here." It would be a small sum for them. But they didn't settle, and, if they don't, a jury will get that education. However, the case is also about unspecified punitive damages. In a recent Swift case in Kansas (?), the jury decided that $13.5 million (?) was suitable punitive damages (Swift wouldn't produce a driver's logs). Swift appealed. This case could be about big bucks--I doubt CRE really cares about the publicity; the story will fade. If CRE does lose, they'll appeal and appeal and appeal and drag it out for years. We'll see.

Clearly, Mr. Olivares shouldn't have been on the road. Wouldn't most carriers kick him to the curb PDQ?

How did he get through training? Why didn't they fire him? I hope those questions are answered at trial.

 

Last I read . . this can change and it does . . typical coverage is self insured up to the first "x" million and the insurer kicks in after that. It's a contract thing that changes everytime they find a better contract.

I'm guessing that England's circumstances are similar but to what level, I have no idea. England's election not to settle pretrial is not unusual. Pretrial motions are in front of a judge, alone, and are based on the law and civil procedure . . not the kind of artistry you save for a jury. England knows it's in hot water and is gambling that they can save some money by proceeding to trial on the facts. The plaintiffs are gambling that they can make more money on their presentation of the facts, the unique circumstances, their theatrics and influence over the sympathies of a jury.

England is going to need an enormous break to overcome the state of mind of their desperate, (admissable in a civil trial) convicted murderer. That's why I think they'll settle.

 

You are correct. Basicly it is a million dollar deductable. .... least for Swift it is.