What's new

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

SwampRatt said:
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??
Click to expand...
The operator will be held liable for the actions of contractors operating under their authority. It's no different than an employee.

FedEx will, in all likelihood, engage in litigation with the contract carrier and subsequently expect the contractor to reimburse them for the loss. Of course, the contractor is unlikely to have 165 million dollars available to do so, which in all likelihood will result in the termination of the contract. Assuming FedEx hasn't already done so.
 
Redracer3136 said:
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!!
Click to expand...
Working under FX operating authority makes FX liable regardless of who owns or drives the truck.
 
joes bar and grill said:
Working under FX operating authority makes FX liable regardless of who owns or drives the truck.
Click to expand...
I understand this, was just giving my opinion...hence the “IMO”.

I still think it should be the way I suggested, that way (in this case) you’d skip the middle man (FedEx) because as @Canadian Flyer pointed out, eventually FedEx will go after the contractor to recoup their money.
My way would save time and money.
 
Redracer3136 said:
I understand this, was just giving my opinion...hence the “IMO”.

I still think it should be the way I suggested, that way (in this case) you’d skip the middle man (FedEx) because as @Canadian Flyer pointed out, eventually FedEx will go after the contractor to recoup their money.
My way would save time and money.
Click to expand...
Just trying to clarify that the owner or driver is not the operator
 
Canadian Flyer said:
The operator will be held liable for the actions of contractors operating under their authority. It's no different than an employee.

FedEx will, in all likelihood, engage in litigation with the contract carrier and subsequently expect the contractor to reimburse them for the loss. Of course, the contractor is unlikely to have 165 million dollars available to do so, which in all likelihood will result in the termination of the contract. Assuming FedEx hasn't already done so.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you are correct. This is certainly your world, and area of expertise.

BUT, correct doesn't always mean right, or as it should be. Seems wrong to hold any entity responsible (liable) for each and every action of every entity they contract with.

Certainly should not be 100% liable...

There are many companies who contract out services, to avoid certain liability. Why are truck operations somehow still on the hook, for every service provider the hire or contract with?
 
SwampRatt said:
I'm sure you are correct. This is certainly your world, and area of expertise.

BUT, correct doesn't always mean right, or as it should be. Seems wrong to hold any entity responsible (liable) for each and every action of every entity they contract with.

Certainly should not be 100% liable...

There are many companies who contract out services, to avoid certain liability. Why are truck operations somehow still on the hook, for every service provider the hire or contract with?
Click to expand...
It has to do with operating authority. FedEx risks the exposure by allowing the contractor to utilize their authority. This saves time and money because the contractor need only have a corporation to do business with them. The deal works out pretty well for both parties, usually.

But in rare instances like this, FedEx is held liable as the entity with the operating authority. The contractor model can only save them from bearing the burden of employees insofar as things like benefits. The license plates on the tractor, they probably belong to FedEx. FedEx insures the tractor, with the balance for both taken out of the contractor's pay.

It's like this. FedEx only avoids any burden if their name has nothing to do with the tractor. The contractor would have to supply their own operating authority and obtain their own plates and insurance, a very difficult and time consuming thing to do for a small business operator. FedEx DOES use this model on vehicles that do not operate under IRP, such as the package wagons, but linehaul tractors are a different matter and FedEx offers to take care of that for you and bill it back to you.
 
Redracer3136 said:
Nope...companies go after the contractor to recoup any losses, happens all the time.

Eventually the contractor is the last man standing...
Click to expand...
Bear in mind that they can't legally demand more money than the contractor has, nor can they take every paycheck until the bill is paid. For a settlement this large, FedEx will be expected to absorb some of the cost because they insured the contractor in the first place.

And while your idea is faster, it doesn't cover the law in full. All parties must play their part.
 
Canadian Flyer said:
It has to do with operating authority. FedEx risks the exposure by allowing the contractor to utilize their authority. This saves time and money because the contractor need only have a corporation to do business with them. The deal works out pretty well for both parties, usually.

But in rare instances like this, FedEx is held liable as the entity with the operating authority. The contractor model can only save them from bearing the burden of employees insofar as things like benefits. The license plates on the tractor, they probably belong to FedEx. FedEx insures the tractor, with the balance for both taken out of the contractor's pay.

It's like this. FedEx only avoids any burden if their name has nothing to do with the tractor. The contractor would have to supply their own operating authority and obtain their own plates and insurance, a very difficult and time consuming thing to do for a small business operator. FedEx DOES use this model on vehicles that do not operate under IRP, such as the package wagons, but linehaul tractors are a different matter and FedEx offers to take care of that for you and bill it back to you.
Click to expand...

I can understand that. Don't have to like it, but I can understand the relationship(s).

Worth knowing, FedEx is generally self insured, in all areas, with 3rd party coverage for catastrophic losses. Also insurance companies tend to go after any parties responsible for the actual loss. A jury award doesn't prevent that process, even if they must initially (or eventually) pay the judgement.

Bottom line, FedEx is well prepared to handle such a scenario. Even an extreme example like this one.
 
SwampRatt said:
The article makes no mention of driver fatigue, Company pressure, or anything related to that.
The thread source article left out or glossed over a very important detail.
http://www.truckaccidentattorneysro...a-fe-fedex-crash-victims-awarded-165-million/
...According to published reports, it was 1:30 a.m. when the FedEx truck slammed into the back of the pickup truck driven by 22-year-old Mariali Venegas, of El Paso, outside Las Cruces, New Mexico. She was heading to Deming with her 4-year-old daughter and 19-month-old son. The boy was the only survivor. FedEx driver Elizabeth Quintana was also killed.

The attorneys for the Venegas family reported that while Mariali was pulled over with her hazard lights on, Quintana crashed into her at 65 miles an hour, and the FedEx truck showed no signs of braking.
As published reports state there was no attempt to stop or veer around the stopped vehicle...

https://www.theclarkfirmtexas.com/texas-family-awarded-165-million-fedex-truck-accident
Venegas had reportedly pulled over to the side of the road near Las Cruces, New Mexico. Her hazard lights were on, but a FedEx truck slammed into the back of the truck at 65 mph.
The FedEx truck showed no signs of braking, according to KRQE News. FexEx driver Elizabeth Quintana died in the accident. The only survivor was Venegas’s young son.

You can google search this accident all day long and the established facts are, that the woman had pulled to the side of the road with her hazards on. The FedEx driver failed to control her vehicle and slammed into the car from behind and there is no evidence( skid marks) that she tried to brake or veer away.

Is there company pressure to get down the road, you be the judge?
https://frg-law.com/carriers/fedex/
...In the 24-month period prior to December 3, 2017, FedEx Express drivers were reported to have been involved in 1762 crashes, 575 involving injuries, including 41 deaths. From 2012, the number of crashes has increased by 254.5%; the number of injuries has increased by 192%, and the number of fatalities has increased by 273%...
Something is going on and this case just screams for a jury to seek revenge. They did. With the precendent set and upheld on appeal, wait until you see the next one.
Click to expand...
 
SwampRatt said:
I can understand that. Don't have to like it, but I can understand the relationship(s).

Worth knowing, FedEx is generally self insured, in all areas, with 3rd party coverage for catastrophic losses. Also insurance companies tend to go after any parties responsible for the actual loss. A jury award doesn't prevent that process, even if they must initially (or eventually) pay the judgement.

Bottom line, FedEx is well prepared to handle such a scenario. Even an extreme example like this one.
Click to expand...
Being an owner/operator is a complex animal and can be dealt with many different ways. IRP plates cost somewhere in the vein of $3200 for the year, which is why the carrier usually offers to at least front the money and obtain the plates on your behalf, billing it back to you over a period of time. Insurance deductibles are usually in the vein of $2500, and paying a self-insured carrier like FedEx for the privilege of using theirs has it's benefits. And the operating authority is granted to you for free by virtue of the plates and insurance belonging to the carrier. They, in turn, accept responsibility for operating the vehicle.

The alternative is finding enough money to obtain plates, insurance and authority for yourself. And if you were going to do that, why would you contract with a carrier who won't pay you the overhead for those expenses? At that point it's more prudent to purchase your own trailer and pursue the freight yourself as an independent carrier because you will make more money that way. Cut out the middle man, as it were.
 
seabreeze said:
I have a lot better chance of becoming CEO of Coop Dispatch than this award being collected "guess who wins?
The lawyers"
This is why you should have a law degree instead of a CDL
Click to expand...

uh yeah. lawyer's take AT LEAST 1/3 in these cases, especially if the plaintiff is broke!

not just tort reform... strike down the requirements to go to law school in 45 states and bring back "reading law" ie apprenticeships as a way to become a lawyer WITHOUT going to an overpriced, aba-cartel controlled law school and then HAVING to rip people off to pay off your 200k 10% apy loan in an equally overpriced large city!

I looked at law school after I finished by bachelor's but before I went into trucking... I just couldn't stomache 100,000 dollars for the CHEAPEST law school in the country... and my state doesn't allow one to become a lawyer via reading law...
 
Dracula said:
The thread source article left out or glossed over a very important detail.
http://www.truckaccidentattorneysro...a-fe-fedex-crash-victims-awarded-165-million/
...According to published reports, it was 1:30 a.m. when the FedEx truck slammed into the back of the pickup truck driven by 22-year-old Mariali Venegas, of El Paso, outside Las Cruces, New Mexico. She was heading to Deming with her 4-year-old daughter and 19-month-old son. The boy was the only survivor. FedEx driver Elizabeth Quintana was also killed.

The attorneys for the Venegas family reported that while Mariali was pulled over with her hazard lights on, Quintana crashed into her at 65 miles an hour, and the FedEx truck showed no signs of braking.
As published reports state there was no attempt to stop or veer around the stopped vehicle...

https://www.theclarkfirmtexas.com/texas-family-awarded-165-million-fedex-truck-accident
Venegas had reportedly pulled over to the side of the road near Las Cruces, New Mexico. Her hazard lights were on, but a FedEx truck slammed into the back of the truck at 65 mph.
The FedEx truck showed no signs of braking, according to KRQE News. FexEx driver Elizabeth Quintana died in the accident. The only survivor was Venegas’s young son.

You can google search this accident all day long and the established facts are, that the woman had pulled to the side of the road with her hazards on. The FedEx driver failed to control her vehicle and slammed into the car from behind and there is no evidence( skid marks) that she tried to brake or veer away.

Is there company pressure to get down the road, you be the judge?
https://frg-law.com/carriers/fedex/
...In the 24-month period prior to December 3, 2017, FedEx Express drivers were reported to have been involved in 1762 crashes, 575 involving injuries, including 41 deaths. From 2012, the number of crashes has increased by 254.5%; the number of injuries has increased by 192%, and the number of fatalities has increased by 273%...
Something is going on and this case just screams for a jury to seek revenge. They did. With the precendent set and upheld on appeal, wait until you see the next one.
Click to expand...

Significantly more info does make a difference. Thanks for that! :1036316054:

I still think the judgement is excessive, BUT such contributing factors can (and do?) put significant liability on the Company. If verifiable. Absolutely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top