DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) Why the change from SAFESTAT? • In 2004 the FMCSA issued an Executive Summary on Improvements needed in the Motor Carrier Safety Status Measurement System. The results were downright frightening. Of the 645,551 active interstate carriers on record in Safestat, 26 percent, or about 170,000 had sufficient data to compute a value for one or more of the four safety evaluation criteria. There were large state-to-state variations in reporting of traffic violations, which introduce a degree of geographic bias in the ranking system. For example, California reported only 115 serious moving violations to the FMCSA database in 2001 compared to Indiana, which reported about 25,000. Indiana still has a reputation as one of the nation’s strictest states. The Executive Summary estimated that errors occurred in approximately 13% of all crashes and 7% of inspection transactions on interstate carriers. An estimated 11% of the reports held the wrong carrier accountable for a SafeStat related violation. • Oddly enough, the FMCSA did not agree with the Executive Summary. 22
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) Compliance, Safety, Accountability — formerly CSA2010. Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) is a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) initiative to improve large truck and bus safety and ultimately reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities that are related to commercial motor vehicles. It introduces a new enforcement and compliance model that allows FMCSA and its State Partners to contact a larger number of carriers earlier in order to address safety problems before crashes occur. Rolled out in December 2010, the program establishes a new nationwide system for making the roads safer for motor carriers and the public alike! See http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/. 23
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) CSA’s SMS better identifies motor carriers for safety interventions than the previous SafeStat system. • According to the FMCSA the results showed that the SMS is a significant improvement over the SafeStat system in identifying unsafe carriers. • Crash rates were higher for motor carriers identified with safety problems in the SMS’s seven Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs) than for motor carriers that were not identified with safety problems in the seven BASICs. • The crash rate for motor carriers that were identified with safety problems by the SMS in the Unsafe Driving BASIC was more than three times greater than the crash rate for motor carriers not identified with any safety problems by SMS. 24
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) The six major differences between the new SMS and SafeStat are as follows 1. SMS is organized by 7 behavioral categories while SafeStat was comprised of 4 general safety evaluation areas. 2. SMS identifies safety problems to determine who to investigate while SafeStat prioritized carriers for an overall compliance review. 25
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) 3. SMS uses all safety inspection violations, SafeStat only used out of service violations and specific moving violations. 4. SMS gives weight to risk based violations while SafeStat did not. 5. SMS will impact carriers safety fitness determination while SafeStat did not. 6. SMS assesses drivers and carriers. 26
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) Compliance, Safety, Accountability 7 BASICS • Unsafe Driving • Fatigued Driving • Driver Fitness • Controlled Substances/Alcohol • Vehicle Maintenance • Cargo Related • Crash Indicator • Note that Driver Fitness and Cargo Related are not crash indicators. 27
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) Upon intake of any trucking defense file every defense attorney should, visit the SMS website and also pull the driver’s PSP (pre -employment screening program), if available, from the MCMIS (motor carrier management information program). MCMIS electronic profiles will contain five years of crash data and three years of inspection data, however, MCMIS will not include conviction data. 28
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) Crash and Incident Data Studies have shown the majority of serious multiple vehicle crashes involving trucks are instigated by the actions of passenger vehicles. The current CSA does not take into consideration "fault" when including crash data into a carrier's "crash" BASIC. All crashes involving the carrier are included (stopped rear-end collisions, suicides, cross-overs), thereby skewing the carrier's threshold at which FMCSA intervention will be initiated. The CSA database should only include those accidents in which "fault" was established against the motor carrier or driver. In addition, the database should only include DOT recordable accidents. The FMCSA is currently attempting to address crash accountability within the CSA methodology. 29
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) Will CSA be better than SafeStat? It’s too early to tell as we don’t yet have enough information to accurately evaluate not only the resulting, data-based determinations, but we have no basis to evaluate the data going into the system. So, if we have insufficient valid data to assess the accuracy of the system, what are the potential implications of using CSA data at trial? 30
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) FMCSA has said it has sufficient violation data to assess 40% of active carriers in at least one category, but only enough to “assign a percentile rank or score” in at least one category to 12% of active carriers, according to ATA officials. ATA noted in a recently released white paper that the vast majority of these carriers are only assigned a score in one category. The FMCSA contends this weakness is not problematic since “those carriers are involved in 83% of the crashes.” 31
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) Recently, at the request of Congressman Duncan and his Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, the DOT Inspector General initiated an audit of SMS data. ASECTT was instrumental in getting Congressional review of SMS data by both Congressman Duncan's committee and by the Small Business Committee, chaired by Congressman Sam Graves. 32
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) The returns clearly show that CSA still has some serious flaws. In February of 2013 the CSA Subcommittee revealed three major areas of concern: (1) crash accountability data; (2) data quality issues; and (3) public display of carrier SMS information. A majority of committee members urged the agency to withhold percentile rankings in the BASICs from public view until other underlying issues (see the 3 areas of concern above) could be resolved. 33
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) Realizing withholding the rankings in total was unlikely to be something the FMCSA would act upon, compromise recommendations were as follows: Remove rankings from public view in BASICs where the numbers don’t correlate directly to crash risk (Driver Fitness, Controlled Substances/Alcohol). Keep the new Hazardous Materials Compliance BASIC measures hidden from public view, given similar lack of crash- risk correlation. Abstain from providing guidance or otherwise encouragement to third parties on how to use SMS data for carrier selection. And yet here we are! 34
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) A lawsuit was recently filed by ASECTT [Alliance for Safe, Efficient and Competitive Truck Transportation] and several other professional organizations/industry participants in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit (USCA Case #12- 1305). In short, this lawsuit seeks to have the establishment of SMS data set aside as not properly put forward by appropriate rule making and as abdication of FMCSA responsibility to determine the safety status of all registered motor carriers. 35
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) CSA And The Potential Impact On Litigation There is no regulation or statutory authority that specifically states that information collected as a result of CSA will, or will not, be admissible in legal proceedings. Further, FMCSA Part 385 (Safety Fitness Procedures) does not specifically mention the admissibility of SafeStat data. As such, there are several possible implications, but little clarity, regarding the future usage of CSA data. 36
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) Potential Implications of CSA Data Compliance with the new regulations will not protect a carrier from liability for an accident. However, the fact that the CSA program will force carriers to be overly vigilant in complying with safety guidelines, may mean that plaintiff’s lawyers will have less ammunition vis-à-vis certain carriers for negligent hiring, training, retention and/or negligent maintenance claims. 37
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) Potential Implications of CSA Data Good safety records may also be beneficial in reducing potential punitive damages which are generally based on reckless disregard of public safety, or blatant violations of trucking regulations. At a minimum, CSA should force motor carriers to be more diligent in safety record keeping, which will likely prove beneficial to defense counsel when defending negligence claims against compliant motor carriers. 38
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) Potential Implications of CSA Data CSA could also have the reverse effect for those carriers that have poor BASIC scores. Despite the FMCSA’s statement that PSP/DIR reports will not be made public, plaintiff’s will most likely attempt to use the subpoena power of the courts to obtain this information, similar to how plaintiffs currently acquire medical, criminal and traffic records. Requests from plaintiff’s counsel for SMS scores and rankings are now common fodder for depositions of safety managers. 39
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) Potential Implications of CSA Data Whether this data will ultimately be admissible at a trial is questionable given that the FMCSA’s concern with implementing CSA is safety and not admissibility of evidence. Only time will be able to tell how trial courts will rule on the admissibility of data collected as a result of the CSA initiative. 40
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) Potential Implications of CSA Data In Schramm v. Foster , a case against a broker for negligent • hiring of a motor carrier, the federal trial court held that the duty of the broker was to use reasonable care in hiring carriers, including at least: checking the SafeStat database; and maintaining records on the carriers used to assure the carriers are not manipulating their business practices to avoid unsatisfactory SafeStat ratings. Schramm v. Foster , 341 F.Supp.2d 536 (D.Md. 2004). Another wily plaintiff’s attorney recently obtained a $5.2 • million dollar verdict against a broker for negligent hiring of a commercial carrier. Linhart v. Heyl Logistics LLC, et al. , Case No. 10-03100 (D. Or. Judge Panner, Docket No. 230). We’ll likely see CSA used in the same manner. • 41
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) Potential Implications of CSA Data In Doyle v. Watts Trucking , there was an accident involving allegations of “sleep deprivation” against the truck driver and vehicle maintenance against the carrier. The court allowed into evidence various safety reports from the FMCSA, including SafeStat data showing that the carrier regularly violated HOS rules and violated regulations on brakes and tire tread depth. The defendant objected on relevance grounds, but the court allowed the evidence. CSA data will contain similar information. Doyle v. Watts Trucking of Nebraska, Inc. , 2007 WL 197721 (Neb.Ct.App. 2007). 42
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS CSA (formerly CSA2010) Potential Implications of CSA Data It is likely that CSA safety data will be sought in discovery and used, both for and against potential defendants at trial, regardless of the FMCSA’s intent. This further increases the importance of diligent CSA compliance. Fortunately, the trend seems to be limiting admissibility to only cases where the violations are causally related to the alleged negligent activity. 43
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS Admissibility of “Preventable” Designation No two accidents or carriers are exactly alike and the FMCSA recognizes that not all accidents are preventable. Some types of accidents, however, can be prevented by drivers, while others require changes in motor carrier practices and policies or equipment. The new FMCSA method for determining preventability is based on examination of the facts in accident records. http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety- security/eta/ETA%20Final%20508c.pdf, page 126. 44
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS Admissibility of “Preventable” Designation For accidents that occur after April 29, 2003, motor carriers must maintain an accident register for three years after the date of each accident. For accidents that occurred on or prior to April 29, 2003, motor carriers must maintain an accident register for a period of one year after the date of each accident. Information placed in the accident register must contain at least the following:(1) A list of accidents as defined at § 390.5 of this chapter containing for each accident:(i) Date of accident.(ii) City or town most near where the accident occurred and the State where the accident occurred.(iii) Driver Name.(iv) Number of injuries.(v) Number of fatalities.(vi) Whether hazardous materials, other than fuel spilled from the fuel tanks of motor vehicle involved in the accident, were released. § 390.15(b) . 45
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS Admissibility of “Preventable” Designation What is the “official” definition of “preventable?” • The National Safety Council’s definition states, “a preventable collision is one in which the driver failed to do everything that reasonably could have been done to avoid the accident.” • The American Trucking Association defines preventability as follows: “was the vehicle driven in such a way to make due allowance for the conditions of the road, weather, and traffic and also to assure that the mistakes of other drivers did not involve the driver in a collision.” • The FMCSR states that a preventable accident on the part of a motor carrier means an accident (1) that involved a commercial motor vehicle, and (2) that could have been averted but for an act, or failure to act, by the motor carrier or the driver. § 385.3 46
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS Admissibility of “Preventable” Designation § 385.7(f) states that factors to be considered in determining a safety rating include, "frequency of accidents; hazardous materials incidents; accident rate per million miles; indicators of preventable accidents; and whether such accidents, hazardous materials incidents, and preventable accident indicators have increased or declined over time." Unfortunately they offer no definition of "preventable accident indicators.“ Neither § 390.15(b) nor § 385.7(f) makes mention of recording of accidents as preventable or non-preventable. 47
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS Admissibility of “Preventable” Designation Part 385.7(f) states that factors to be considered in determining a safety rating include, "frequency of accidents; hazardous materials incidents; accident rate per million miles; indicators of preventable accidents; and whether such accidents, hazardous materials incidents, and preventable accident indicators have increased or declined over time." Unfortunately they offer no definition of "preventable accident indicators." Interestingly enough, Part 385.7(f) was changed in July of 2007 and specifically removed " preventable accident rate per million miles" from the factors to be considered in determining a safety rating under that part. 48
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS Admissibility of “Preventable” Designation Appendix A to § 385 Explanation of Safety Audit Evaluation Criteria states, "Preventability will be determined according to the following standard: if a driver, who exercises normal judgment and foresight, could have foreseen the possibility of the accident that in fact occurred, and avoided it by taking steps within his/her control which would not have risked causing another kind of mishap, the accident was preventable." This a scary standard for litigators. If the carrier has already identified the accident as “preventable”, which is the default designation under FMCSR, it may have already tied our hands on admissibility and perhaps even liability. However, all may not be lost. 49
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS Admissibility of “Preventable” Designation There are several arguments against the discoverability, and ultimately the admissibility, of a “preventable” designation. • Subsequent remedial measure — See Harper v. Griggs , 2006 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 64691 (W.D.Ky., 2006); • Protected from discovery by 49 U.S.C. § 504(f) because it is required by the FMCSA — may no longer be a viable defense. • Unfair prejudice under Fed. Evid. R. 403. See Tyson v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. , 270 Ga. App. 897, 608 S.E.2d 266 (Ga.Ct. App., 2004); • Prepared in anticipation of litigation, which necessarily requires that such a designation is not prepared in the normal course of business — See Ward v. Rickrode , 849 A.2d 619; 2004 Pa. Super. LEXIS 113(2004); • Constitutes mental impressions of the defendant regarding the liability — See your local state rules regarding privileged information; • Critical self-analysis doctrine — where applicable and recognized. 50
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS Admissibility of “Preventable” Designation The pivotal question may be which standard your client uses to determine its internal “preventable” designation. The case law would suggest that an internal standard which is different (RE: more strict) than the legal definition of “negligence” in the forum state will render the preventable finding inadmissible. If your carrier does not have a written, internal definition of preventable you will need to find out which of the previously listed definitions they use. The fact there is no FMCSR requirement that a carrier make a “preventable” or “non - preventable” designation may render the argument under 49 U.S.C. § 504(f) unavailable . New carriers, who are required to make “preventable” designations under FMCSA, may still find this defense viable. 51
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS Document Retention Required Docs Retention Time FMCSR Citation Logs and trip docs 6 months §395.8(k)(1) General vehicle One year and for six §396.3 information months after vehicle leaves carrier’s control Post-Trip inspection 3 months §396.11(c)(2) Roadside inspection 1 year §369.9(d)(3)(ii) DQ file and Through employment §391.51(c) investigation history and 1 year after Alcohol and Drug test Positive: 5 years §382.401(b)(1) Negative: 1 year §382.401(b)(3) Accident Register 3 years §390.15(b) 52
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS As a result of plaintiff’s attorney’s conduct, defendants' motion for sanctions seeking the exclusion of “any evidence at the time of trial that is derived from an examination of the Seaman wreckage,” including “any testimony from Plaintiff's forensic engineer and his work product” was granted. Estate of Seaman ex rel. Seaman v. Hacker Hauling, 840 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (N.D. Iowa 2011). 53
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS The party moving for spoliation related sanctions must affirmatively establish that the missing evidence actually existed — not just allege it is missing. “It is axiomatic that in order for there to be spoliation, the evidence in question must have existed and been in the control of a party.” Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Treadwell, 318 Ga. App. 844, 845, 734 S.E.2d 818, 820 (2012). 54
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS Court orders an adverse inference instruction pertaining to the defendants’ destruction of actual driver’s logs required by the FMCSR. Additionally, the court found Qualcomm messages that contained a recap of the driver’s logs were not sufficient to constitute production of the actual driver’s logs. Ogin v. Ahmed, 563 F.Supp.2d 539 (M.D. Penn. 2008) 55
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS Failure to maintain six months of driver’s log books and accompanying records, along with plaintiff’s demand letter for the records and the requirements of the FMCSA, created an inference that documents were intentionally destroyed. The Court gave an adverse instruction stating: (1) carrier failed to properly monitor the driver’s safety performance; (2) carrier was aware of safety violations; and (3) carrier knew driver was operating in a fatigued state. Darling v. J.B. Expedited Servs., 2006 WL 2238913 (M.D. Tenn. 2006) 56
DISCOVERY CONSIDERATIONS Court found carrier had been “cavalier” and had “intentionally misled the Court and Plaintiffs” regarding the whereabouts of the log book, logbook audits and accident file. The Court further found the carrier had provided incomplete and/or false responses to discovery requests. Based on these findings the carrier was fined $30,000. Garrett v. Albright, 2008 WL 681766 (W.D. Mo. 2008) 57
Pretrial Motions 58
PRETRIAL MOTIONS Motions in Limine • A Motion in Limine is the best tool for the successful defense of catastrophic cases. Consider the following potential motions in limine: Barring the demonization of trucking companies in general; Barring admission of irrelevant logs (remote from accident date); Barring admission of irrelevant ECM data (remote from accident date); Barring admission of Preventable Accident Determinations; Barring claims for negligent hiring/retention where applicable; Barring admission of other accidents. 59
Some Interesting Statistics A 2006 Virginia Tech analysis of two studies conducted for the Department of Transportation found that 78 percent of crashes were caused by passenger car drivers. In fatal crashes involving a car and a large truck, 35 percent of the time the crash occurred in one of the four blind spots surrounding large trucks. In 2006, rear-end collisions where passenger cars strike large trucks were 2.7 times more likely than large trucks rear-ending passenger cars. Head-on collisions where passenger cars encroach into the truck’s lane are more than 10 times more likely to occur than vice-versa. 60
Some Interesting Statistics In 2010, 3,484 large trucks were involved in fatal crashes, a 9-percent increase from 2009. However, from 2007 through 2010 the number of large trucks involved in fatal crashes declined by 25 percent. The number of passenger vehicles involved in fatal crashes declined by 21 percent over the same period. The number of large trucks involved in fatal crashes declined by 25 percent, from 4,633 to 3,484, and the vehicle involvement rate for large trucks in fatal crashes (vehicles involved in fatal crashes per 100 million miles traveled by large trucks) declined by 20 percent. 61
Some Interesting Statistics Alcohol was detected in the blood of 3.0 percent of large truck drivers in fatal crashes in 2010, compared with 26.7 percent of passenger vehicle drivers. For 1.8 percent of large truck drivers in fatal crashes in 2010, the blood alcohol concentration was 0.08 grams per deciliter or more, compared with 23.2 percent of passenger vehicle drivers. 62
Some Interesting Statistics One or more driver-related factors were recorded for 27 percent of the drivers of large trucks involved in multiple-vehicle fatal crashes. In comparison, at least one driver-related factor was recorded for 53 percent of the passenger vehicle drivers in multiple-vehicle crashes. Speeding was the most often coded driver-related factor for both vehicle types; distraction/inattention was the second most common for large truck drivers, and impairment (fatigue, alcohol, drugs, illness) was the second most common for passenger vehicle drivers. 63
Some Interesting Statistics All statistics taken from the Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2010, which can be found at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research- technology/report/LTCC_Report_LargeTruckandBusCr ashFacts2010.pdf 64
Plaintiff’s View of Truck Accident Causation — note the lack of plaintiff’s fault. Lack of Training on the part of the truck driver; Overloaded Trucks; Oversized Trucks; Poorly maintained brakes on the trucks; Driving in conditions of poor visibility due to smoke, fog, snow or rain; Truck driver inexperience; Fatigued, sleepy or tired driver driving too long and too many hours without rest; Speeding over the limit or driving at speeds or beyond the road and weather conditions; Running off the road; Failure to yield the right of way; Aggressive driving behavior; Truck drivers under the influence of drugs and alcohol while driving; Driving the truck in bad weather conditions; Dangerous or reckless truck driver with a long record of wrecks and accidents; Unsafe safety systems, reflectors, lights and other warning devices; and Failure of truck to have installed an underide protection underguard. Take a look at http://www.indianatruckaccidentlawyers.com/faqs.cfm#q1 or http://www.apitlamerica.com/ for some other interesting thoughts on trucking accidents by the plaintiffs’ bar. 65
Robert R. Foos, Jr. Partner rfoos@lewiswagner.com 501 INDIANA AVENUE • SUITE 200 • INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46202 317.237.0500 800.237.0505 F: 317.630.2790 www.lewiswagner.com
April 18,2013 Avoiding Eleven Common Mistakes in Truck Accident Cases Michael Leizerman
If you don ’ t take anything else away from today … | 68 |
Mistake #1 Not acting immediately when retained | 69 |
Act Act Im Immed media iatel tely to Pr y to Prevent ent Sp Spoli oliatio tion | 70 |
Co Colle llect ct CS CSA A an and d Sa Safer Da er Data ta | 71 |
SAFER WEB 11/ 13/ 12 8:52 PM **WARNING**WARNING**WARNING You are accessing a U.S. Government information system. This information system, including all related equipment, networks, and network devices, is provided for U.S. Government-authorized use only. Unauthorized or improper use of this system is prohibited, and may result in civil and criminal penalties, or administrative disciplinary action. The communications and data stored or transiting this system may be, for any lawful Government purpose, monitored, recorded, and subject to audit or investigation. By using this system, you understand and consent to such terms. **WARNING**WARNING**WARNING WELCOME TO SAFER The FMCSA Safety and Fitness Electronic Records (SAFER) System offers company safety data and related services to industry and the public over the Internet. Users can search FMCSA databases, register for a USDOT number, pay fines online, order company safety profiles, challenge FMCSA data using the DataQs system, access the Hazardous Material Route registry, obtain National Crash and Out of Service rates for Hazmat Permit Registration, get printable registration forms and find information about other FMCSA Information Systems. Notice PLEASE NOTE: The FMCSA has implemented a more stringent credit card and transaction verification procedure. All credit card transactions now require verification of the credit card number, expiration date, security code, billing address and telephone number. To update your Docket Number (Operating Authority) information electronically, you will need a Personal Identification Number (PIN). A separate Personal Identification Number (PIN) is required to update your USDOT Number information electronically. Click here to request your Docket Number PIN and/or USDOT Number PIN. Allow 4 to 7 business days to receive your PIN by mail. Enforcement users must now use the FMCSA Portal link to SAFER to access SAFER Enforcement Related Functions. FMCSA Services FMCSA Searches Other FMCSA Web Sites FMCSA Registration & Updates Company Snapshot FMCSA Home Page Company Safety Profile Analysis & Information (A&I) DataQs Online Company Safety Profile Subscription FMCSA Information Systems Licensing & Insurance Online Fine Payment National HM Route Registry Orders to Cease Operation MCMIS Data Dissemination Catalog ITS CVISN (OCO)/ Out of Service Orders (OSO) FMCSA Portal SAFER Information Cargo Tank About SAFER Crash Rate & Inspection Out SAFER News of Service (OOS) Rates for Company Snapshot Updates Hazardous Materials Safety Frequently Asked Questions Permit Program (Calculated on | 72 | 05/01/2012) FMCSA Registration Forms Enforcement Users: Please use FMCSA Portal Login
| 73 |
Possible Keyword Matches CARRIER/DBA NAME LOCATION ANDREW C PASCHALL COTTAGE GROVE, TN ANGELA VESTA PASCHAL MAYODAN, NC DARRELL M PASCHALL BURLINGTON, WI DAVID WAYNE PASCHAL REIDSVILLE, NC GORDON AND MADELAINE PASCHAL EXPEDITED TUCSON, AZ GREGORY PASCHAL ATLANTA, GA HERBERT V PASCHAL JR PICKENS, SC JEVON PASCHALL BOWLING GREEN, KY JOHN PASCHAL ROCKMART, GA KARL PASCHALL UPTON, WY KENDRED PASCHALL FARMS MURRAY, KY MADELAINE PASCHAL TUCSON, AZ MEREDITH PASCHAL CONCRETE INC ANDERSON, IN MICHAEL PASCHALL NEW WINDSOR, NY MIKE PASCHAL CONCRETE INC ANDERSON, IN NORMAN W PASCHALL COMPANY INC PEACHTREE CITY, GA PASCHAL & SHAW SUPPLY INC JACKSONVILLE, FL PASCHAL BOBBY VOYLES RESACA, GA PASCHAL BURIAL VAULT&CREMATION SERVICES LLC HUDSON, MI PASCHAL ENTERPRISES LLC SOUR LAKE, TX PASCHAL LAWN CARE ROCKMART, GA PASCHAL MOMANYI ARLINGTON, TX PASCHAL TREE SERVICE UNION CITY, IN PASCHAL WRECKER SERVICE DEARING, GA PASCHALL FARMS COTTAGE GROVE, TN PASCHALL FARMS LLC YPSILANTI, MI PASCHALL HOME SOLUTIONS BURLINGTON, WI PASCHALL SERVICES INC MURRAY, KY PASCHALL TRUCK LINES INC MURRAY, KY PASCHALL TRUCKING STAR CITY, AR PASCHALL TRUCKING WINTER HAVEN, FL PASCHALL TRUCKING INC FLORISSANT, MO PASCHALLS GREENHOUSE & NURSERY MURRAY, KY ROBERT PASCHAL KNOXVILLE, TN ROBERT PASCHAL JR UNION CITY, IN SHANE PASCHAL WELDING SOUR LAKE, TX STEVE D PASCHAL CARROLLTON, GA STEVEN E PASCHALL PURYEAR, TN THOMAS EDWARD PASCHAL JR GREENSBORO, NC WAYNE PASCHALL STAR CITY, AR WES & LYNN PASCHALL GILLETTE, WY | 74 | WILLIAM E PASCHALL WINTER HAVEN, FL
| 75 |
| 76 |
| 77 |
| 78 |
| 79 |
| 80 |
USDOT Number MC/MX Number Name Company Snapshot Enter Value: PASCHALL TRUCK LINES PASCHALL TRUCK LINES INC USDOT Number: 105234 Search ID/Operations | Inspections/Crashes In US | Inspections/Crashes In Canada | Safety Rating Other Information for this Carrier Carriers: If you would like to update the following ID/Operations information, please complete and submit form MCS-150 which can be obtained online or from your State FMCSA office. If you would like to challenge the accuracy of your company's safety data, you can do so using FMCSA's DataQs system. SMS Results Licensing & Insurance Carrier and other users: FMCSA provides the Company Safety Profile (CSP) to motor carriers and the general public interested in obtaining greater detail on a particular motor carrier's safety performance then what is captured in the Company Snapshot. To obtain a CSP please visit the CSP order page or call (800)832-5660 or (703)280-4001 (Fee Required). For help on the explanation of individual data fields, click on any field name or for help of a general nature go to SAFER General Help . The information below reflects the content of the FMCSA management information systems as of 11/12/2012 . Entity Type: Carrier Operating Status: REGISTERED Out of Service Date: None Legal Name: PASCHALL TRUCK LINES INC DBA Name: Physical Address: 3443 US 641 SOUTH MURRAY, KY 42071 Phone: (270) 753-1717 Mailing Address: PO BOX 1080 MURRAY, KY 42071-0018 USDOT Number: 105234 State Carrier ID Number: MC or MX Number: MC-111485 DUNS Number: 62-975-578 Power Units: 1,157 Drivers: 1,289 MCS-150 Mileage (Year): 123,822,787 (2011) MCS-150 Form Date: 09/28/2012 Operation Classification: X Auth. For Hire Priv. Pass.(Non- State Gov't business) Exempt For Hire Local Gov't Migrant Private(Property) Indian Nation U.S. Mail Priv. Pass. (Business) Fed. Gov't Carrier Operation: X Interstate Intrastate Only Intrastate Only (HM) (Non-HM) Cargo Carried: X General Freight Liquids/Gases Chemicals Household Goods Intermodal Cont. Commodities Dry Bulk Metal: sheets, coils, Passengers Refrigerated Food rolls Oilfield Beverages Motor Vehicles Equipment Paper Products Drive/Tow away Livestock Utilities Logs, Poles, Beams, Grain, Feed, Hay Agricultural/Farm Lumber Coal/Coke Supplies Building Materials Meat Construction Mobile Homes Garbage/Refuse Water Well | 81 | Machinery, Large US Mail Objects Fresh Produce …s
| 82 |
Mistake #2 Missing the “ truck ” | 83 |
49 CFR §390.5 “ Commercial motor vehicle means any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property when the vehicle …” | 84 |
Sometimes a Pickup Truck is a CMV | 85 |
FMCSA 0P1 | 86 |
Mistake #3 Missing potential defendants/coverage SHIPPER BROKER CARRIER RECEIVER | 87 |
§390.13 Aiding or Abetting Violations No person shall aid, abet, encourage, or require a motor carrier or its employees to violate rules of this chapter. Foundation to make regs apply to TI TIP non-regulated parties | 88 |
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 411 Negligent Undertaking Shippers/brokers/others are liable: “for physical harm to third persons caused by [their] failure to exercise reasonable care to employ a competent and careful contractor (a) to do work which will involve a risk of physical harm unless it is skillfully and carefully done, or (b) to perform any duty which the [company] owes to third persons.”
Mistake #4 Falling for the “independent contractor” defense. In most cases there is NO VALID independent contractor defense. | 90 |
§390.3 Applicability of Regulations (e) (1) every employer shall be knowledgeable of and comply with all regulations… (2) every driver and employee shall be instructed in and shall comply with all regulations… ! Definitions Matter | 91 |
§390.5 Definitions Employer : Any person who owns or leases a CMV … or assigns employees to operate it Employee: Any individual employed by an employer and who in course of his employment directly affects CMV safety. Such term includes a CMV driver (including an independent contracto r while in course of operating a CMV), a mechanic, and a freight handler. | 92 |
Mistake #5 Falling for “insurance coverage” defenses | 93 |
In consideration of the premium stated in the policy to which this endorsement is attached, the insurer (the company) agrees to pay, within the limits of liability described herein, any final judgment recovered against the insured for public liability resulting from negligence in the operation, maintenance or use of motor vehicles subject to the financial responsibility requirements of Section 29 and 30 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 regardless of whether or not each motor vehicle is specifically described in the policy and whether or not such negligence occurs on any route or in any terri- tory authorized to be served by the insured or elsewhere. Such | 94 |
Designated as cargo. It is understood and agreed that no condi- tion, provision, stipulation, or limitation contained in the policy, this endorsement, or any other endorsement thereon, or violation thereof, shall relieve the company from liability or from the pay- ment of any final judgment, within the limits of liability herein | 95 |
Mistake #6 Falling for the “regs don’t apply here” defense “Counselor, the FMCSRs do not apply because the truck was in intrastate commerce. FMCSRs only apply in interstate commerce cases.” | 96 |
Mistake #7 Not distinguishing professional truck drivers from other drivers | 97 |
Mistake #8 Focusing on driver and not trucking company | 98 |
Mistake #9 Not knowing the “rules of the road” and where to find them | 99 |
Where Do I Find the Rules? | 100 |
Recommend
More recommend
