General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTracy Morgan Sues Wal-Mart for Crash That Killed 1
Tracy Morgan has sued Wal-Mart over last month's highway crash that seriously injured him and killed a fellow comedian.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, claims Wal-Mart was negligent when a driver of one of its tractor-trailers rammed into Morgan's limousine van. The complaint claims the retail giant should have known the driver had been awake for over 24 hours, and that his commute of 700 miles from his home in Georgia to work in Delaware was "unreasonable." It also alleges the driver fell asleep at the wheel.
"As a result of Wal-Mart's gross, reckless, willful, wanton, and intentional conduct, it should be appropriately punished with the imposition of punitive damages," according to the complaint.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/tracy-morgan-sues-wal-mart-crash-killed-24533320
malaise
(268,844 posts)Rec
onethatcares
(16,165 posts)I picture the walmart folks pinning this all on the driver and claiming he was an independent contractor with his own insurance etc.
they'll use the "we have no control over what independent contractors do during the time they aren't working directly for us" ruse.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)However, this time, i think they will run the numbers and decide its better to just admit the guilt and pay up to avoid more bad press, which would be more costly than whatever the settlement will be in this case. Not that the reasoning is any better, but that's what I'm expecting. If it was you or me in the same situation though, forget it.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)It was still entirely the driver's fault, he was speeding in a construction zone. There is no reasonable way for any employer to prevent that from happening.
Walmart tries to eliminate the problem drivers by not hiring any to begin with, their qualification standards for new hires are very high.
Walmart Transportation operates one of the safest trucking fleets in all of North America. Their SAFER stats are excellent, most trucking companies would love to have their rating.
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)Thanks for calming the hype with soothing facts.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)got the mandated ten-hour rest break previous to going on duty. Trucking companies will take a driver at his word that they are properly rested before going On Duty. It is also legally the responsibility of the driver to report otherwise.
"Off Duty" means exactly that, the employer is not responsible for any actions taken by an employee while not under the direct supervision of dispatch, such as parking the CMV at a terminal and going home, i.e., "Off Duty".
If the driver did not get proper rest while on Off Duty status, there is no practical way for his employer to know that. It is entirely the driver's responsibility to get proper rest and report as being not being available to work due to not getting the required ten hours rest before reporting to work and resuming On Duty
If he drove from his home in Georgia to the terminal in Delaware, it is was the driver's responsibility to ensure that he got enough sleep before getting behind the wheel of that tractor. This is not something that is vague or not commonly known by a CMV driver, it is actually a Federal regulation well known by anyone in the industry.
Walmart has already stated that they would take full responsibility if it was found that their equipment failing was the cause of the crash.
If the driver lied about his rest time and availability to work, the bulk of any liability for the crash will fall on his shoulders.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)Their liability is pretty clear, though.
TBF
(32,029 posts)bluedigger
(17,086 posts)I doubt this is really about the money for Mr. Morgan in the first place.
AllyCat
(16,173 posts)Gothmog
(145,046 posts)CatWoman
(79,294 posts)maxrandb
(15,310 posts)since the Supreme Court just drove a truck through the corporate veil, I think it's time to start holding individuals liable for the things their "personhood" corporation does.
ProfessorGAC
(64,951 posts)That avoidance of liability is one of the critical reasons people incorporate in the first place.
As bad as i feel for the family of the injured parties, what you suggest just isn't going to occur. It would be summarily dismissed because there are tens of thousands of points of precedence.
In this case, i wish they could be held liable, but at the same time, that would be a bad precedent, because now every small business owner could lose everything if one of their workers did something negligent, and since they're much, much smaller, it wouldn't requrie causing a fatality to bankrupt them personally.
The protections of corporation mean a great deal more to the average business owner than to gazllionaires who were the heirs to a megacorp.