What's new

FedEx Freight | Massive jury award against FedEx unit could re-set standard for damages in truck accidents

Certainly seems excessive, to me. Especially considering FedEx was neither the owner nor the operator of the truck.

"Primus added, however, that the panel may have believed the award was excessive, but that under the state's statutes was bound to uphold the verdict. The language used in the ruling leaves the "door wide open" for the state Supreme Court to reduce the award's amount, he wrote."
 
SwampRatt said:
Certainly seems excessive, to me. Especially considering FedEx was neither the owner nor the operator of the truck.

"Primus added, however, that the panel may have believed the award was excessive, but that under the state's statutes was bound to uphold the verdict. The language used in the ruling leaves the "door wide open" for the state Supreme Court to reduce the award's amount, he wrote."
Click to expand...
I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT AMOUNT. UNLESS THE DRIVER WAS IMPAIRED OR WORKING BEYOND LEGAL HOURS OR SOMEHOW OTHERWISE OPERATING ILLEGALLY. THE ARTICLE DID STATE THAT THE VEHICLE WAS EITHER STOPPED OR OPERATING AT A SLOW SPEED. AFTER DRIVING A TRUCK FOR OVER 40 YEARS I DO NOT SEE HOW THE FED EX DRIVER WAS AT FAULT. THE NORMAL CONSENSUS WOULD BE THAT NO ONE SHOULD EXPECT A CAR TO BE STOPPED OR BARELY MOVING ON A 65 MPH FREEWAY.
 
Clearly everyone feels horrible for all involved, but I find this to be an exorbanite amount of money. I agree there should be a cap on what is paid out. We can all appreciate how much our family means to us, but is $165 million going to bring them back? Anyone should be able to make it on a tenth of that. Just my opinion.
 
Freightsup said:
Clearly everyone feels horrible for all involved, but I find this to be an exorbanite amount of money. I agree there should be a cap on what is paid out. We can all appreciate how much our family means to us, but is $165 million going to bring them back? Anyone should be able to make it on a tenth of that. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
So if Fred Smith is hit and killed by a truck his heirs should only get 165 million, because anybody should be able to make it on a 10th of that?
 
His heirs should not get $165 million in my opinion. I think that's an exorbanite amount of money. It's not the point that someone can make it on a tenth of that, which you could, the point is that what amount is too much? If you reward a family, say 16.5 million, I feel like that's fair. You can never bring a loved one back, but bankrupting companies for accidents isn't the answer either. I feel like there should be a limit. That's all, my opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree as you like, just think a limit needs to be set on these sort of things.
 
Freightsup said:
His heirs should not get $165 million in my opinion. I think that's an exorbanite amount of money. It's not the point that someone can make it on a tenth of that, which you could, the point is that what amount is too much? If you reward a family, say 16.5 million, I feel like that's fair. You can never bring a loved one back, but bankrupting companies for accidents isn't the answer either. I feel like there should be a limit. That's all, my opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree as you like, just think a limit needs to be set on these sort of things.
Click to expand...
So a person that makes 14 million a year and has 20 years he can work should only be compensated 65 million? No compensation To the family for the loss of their loved one? No punitive damages?
 
Some things to consider. This case has/had some significant factors contributing to the accident. Vehicle was traveling very slow, or was stopped, in a lane of travel. At night. The driver of the commercial vehicle was not even employed by FedEx, nor was FedEx the owner or operator.

One question that seems valid: should "damages" be awarded based on actual negligence, and actual damage, or simply based on the party's ability to pay? The later seems like a Marxist method of determining liable. From each according to their ability...

This seem like a case based most heavily on emotion, rather than facts, IMHO.
 
SwampRatt said:
Some things to consider. This case has/had some significant factors contributing to the accident. Vehicle was traveling very slow, or was stopped, in a lane of travel. At night. The driver of the commercial vehicle was not even employed by FedEx, nor was FedEx the owner or operator.

One question that seems valid: should "damages" be awarded based on actual negligence, and actual damage, or simply based on the party's ability to pay? The later seems like a Marxist method of determining liable. From each according to their ability...

This seem like a case based most heavily on emotion, rather than facts, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Regardless of whos at fault,the heir's heirs will be dead before this award is paid, lawyers will see to this.
 
If you cap awards, then the companies get the stats guys together and determine what monetary level of risk that they are willing to live with. NASA did it with the shuttle program. The stats guys told NASA management that the odds said that the program would lose several shuttles and crews but NASA was willing to eat that potential cost as a cost of doing the program.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-hist...pace-shuttle-a-case-of-subjective-engineering
Companies are the same, regardless what their product is. They may be willing to live with the risk of paying out 16.5 million, as the cost of doing business, and may continue doing something reasonable people, a jury, may consider risky. Put the sword of massive door closing and turn out the lights type of judgments, over their heads, and maybe the company management may look in another direction. Did Fedex put this driver under a lot of pressure to make her run? I bet FedEx is reviewing run timetables as we speak.
 
joes bar and grill said:
Under contract to Fed Ex makes FX the operator
Click to expand...
Although the contractor is under contract to FedEx to pull their trailers, the contractor also hires his own driver to operate the truck, thus making the contractor the operator IMO. FedEx owns the trailers and the trailers couldn’t have caused injury unless hooked to the contractor’s truck.

It’s a good thing I wasnt sitting on the jury!!
 
FedEx Ground is the operator of all trucks contracted to them, by law, unless the contractor has their own running rights. Most contractors do NOT have independent running rights, and accordingly the truck will have a decal on it that stipulates operation by FedEx Ground. Whether the FedEx Ground logo, or simple text that reads "Operated By/Contracted To FedEx Ground" or something similar.

Allow me to give a large scale example of this. UPS Freight services both the US and Canada directly. However, here in Canada, a company known as Canada Cartage is contracted by UPS Freight to provide service to Canadian customers. It's been this way since before UPS bought Overnite Transportation. Part of the contract stipulates that Canada Cartage must be visually representative of the contractee, both Overnite previously and UPSF today.

Accordingly, Canada Cartage has been provided uniforms for their employees to wear when in service of UPSF, and trucks painted in the UPSF livery provide linehaul and delivery service. Canada Cartage has even started leasing units from UPSF for the service. This excludes owner/operators however.

All UPSF tractors operated by Canada Cartage, whether owned by them or leased from UPSF, have signage in small font on the unit that stipulates that the vehicle is operated by Canada Cartage System Ltd. or one of its regional subsidiaries. This is specifically to ensure that UPS is not held financially responsible for any legal trouble.

In a more closely related example, FXFE and FXFC are not the same company, something I've mentioned previously here. Canadian tractors have different USDOT numbers on them, and specify FedEx Freight Canada on them. This is to differentiate legal responsibility for the unit. For this reason, a Canadian driver can't borrow a US tractor for any reason. FedEx Freight would have to agree to lease the unit to FedEx Freight Canada and the appropriate signage would have to be applied.

In short, unless the tractor stipulates otherwise anywhere on it, the operator is FedEx Ground.
 
Dracula said:
If you cap awards, then the companies get the stats guys together and determine what monetary level of risk that they are willing to live with. NASA did it with the shuttle program. The stats guys told NASA management that the odds said that the program would lose several shuttles and crews but NASA was willing to eat that potential cost as a cost of doing the program.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-hist...pace-shuttle-a-case-of-subjective-engineering
Companies are the same, regardless what their product is. They may be willing to live with the risk of paying out 16.5 million, as the cost of doing business, and may continue doing something reasonable people, a jury, may consider risky. Put the sword of massive door closing and turn out the lights type of judgments, over their heads, and maybe the company management may look in another direction. Did Fedex put this driver under a lot of pressure to make her run? I bet FedEx is reviewing run timetables as we speak.
Click to expand...
The article makes no mention of driver fatigue, Company pressure, or anything related to that.

Clearly this jury felt the need to punish someone. Anyone. The monetary judgement, being such a staggering amount, seems to seek punishment of the least contributing entity. Beyond the mere existence of the company, they seem to have played no role in the tragedy. Meanwhile the driver of the "victim vehicle" certainly played some role. The contracted driver also contributed, but what did the Company do wrong, specifically??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top