[GMAN]

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.

[Triple Digit Bob]

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.

[chris1]

Originally Posted by GMAN

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.

[Orangetxguy]

Originally Posted by chris1

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.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I agree with Chris.

[GMAN]

Originally Posted by chris1

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.

[chris1]

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.

[GMAN]

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.

[chris1]

Originally Posted by GMAN

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.

[GMAN]

Originally Posted by chris1

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.

[chris1]

Originally Posted by GMAN

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%.