$96 million lawsuit - Challenger

Upper Ech

Active Member
15
"Challenger Motor Freight also issued a statement, saying the safety of its drivers and the public "is our top priority."

ah that's why you let Michael J Fox drive a road tractor
 
Last edited:

Freight Broker

Well-Known Member
30
Challenger could argue that the driver did have a valid AZ license and was thus deemed medically fit and qualified to drive. Did the driver have a valid AZ license? If so, he would have had to take regular medical exams (frequency based on driver's age), and a doctor would have had to sign off on his being fit enough to drive truck. Of course, that doesn't excuse the driver from running into traffic ahead of him, but if the driver had a valid license then blaming Challenger for putting an unqualified driver on the road is perhaps unfair. Maybe the driver simply wasn't paying attention.. that's possible too.
 

Upper Ech

Active Member
15
Challenger could argue that the driver did have a valid AZ license and was thus deemed medically fit and qualified to drive. Did the driver have a valid AZ license? If so, he would have had to take regular medical exams (frequency based on driver's age), and a doctor would have had to sign off on his being fit enough to drive truck. Of course, that doesn't excuse the driver from running into traffic ahead of him, but if the driver had a valid license then blaming Challenger for putting an unqualified driver on the road is perhaps unfair. Maybe the driver simply wasn't paying attention.. that's possible too.
article says following:

"According to McKeen, the company, Canada-based Challenger Motor Freight, had been informed in 2015 that the driver suffered from Parkinson’s disease and had failed to perform company assessments that would have revealed that he was incompetent to drive. The driver also was on medications that rendered him unsafe for driving, jurors learned, and was not compliant with his medical treatment, the family's lawyers argued."

since the plaintiff won its safe to say in a court of law it was determined challenger was in the wrong here
 

Freight Broker

Well-Known Member
30
article says following:

"According to McKeen, the company, Canada-based Challenger Motor Freight, had been informed in 2015 that the driver suffered from Parkinson’s disease and had failed to perform company assessments that would have revealed that he was incompetent to drive. The driver also was on medications that rendered him unsafe for driving, jurors learned, and was not compliant with his medical treatment, the family's lawyers argued."

since the plaintiff won its safe to say in a court of law it was determined challenger was in the wrong here
Yes, I read the article..I'm saying that Challenger may have grounds to contest the decision that's all..
 

loaders

Site Supporter
30
In a situation like this, I am sure that Challenger would be closely following the advice of their legal counsel. As the accident occurred in 2018, the sale to Fastfreight would have been well aware of the pending legal action. In the event of an appeal, which by all indications is being contemplated, it would not surprise me to see the amount awarded to be drastically reduced. It is common in cases like this for jury awards to be reviewed and in most cases reduced.
 

Freight Broker

Well-Known Member
30
There are also limits to what a carrier can do about sanctioning qualified drivers.. if the guy or gal comes through the door with a valid AZ license.. has a good driving record, and his/her references check out.. as far as that goes the carrier has done its reasonable due diligence. At some point we all rely on others.. in this case Challenger relied on the fact that the driver had an AZ license and had passed his medical exam.

I remember one situation years ago when I worked for a large carrier. With the best of intentions our HR people rounded up the 20 largest drivers in our fleet and point blank told them to lose weight or else... never mind that they were qualified to drive and had passed their medicals. Well.. the "or else" happened.. a few of them up and quit, leaving us short handed. And a few others told us that we had overstepped our authority.. i.e. an employer cannot take it upon himself to arbitrarily reset employment standards (although some of these guys were huge and needed to lose some weight, it wasn't our business to tell them that). Likely Challenger was faced with a similar predicament.. the driver has Parkinson's.. however he does have a license to drive.. do we overrule the doctor? Do we arbitrarily set standards over and above what the law requires? That's also treading on dangerous ground..
 

Igor Galanter

Well-Known Member
20
There are also limits to what a carrier can do about sanctioning qualified drivers.. if the guy or gal comes through the door with a valid AZ license.. has a good driving record, and his/her references check out.. as far as that goes the carrier has done its reasonable due diligence. At some point we all rely on others.. in this case Challenger relied on the fact that the driver had an AZ license and had passed his medical exam.

I remember one situation years ago when I worked for a large carrier. With the best of intentions our HR people rounded up the 20 largest drivers in our fleet and point blank told them to lose weight or else... never mind that they were qualified to drive and had passed their medicals. Well.. the "or else" happened.. a few of them up and quit, leaving us short handed. And a few others told us that we had overstepped our authority.. i.e. an employer cannot take it upon himself to arbitrarily reset employment standards (although some of these guys were huge and needed to lose some weight, it wasn't our business to tell them that). Likely Challenger was faced with a similar predicament.. the driver has Parkinson's.. however he does have a license to drive.. do we overrule the doctor? Do we arbitrarily set standards over and above what the law requires? That's also treading on dangerous ground..
Wrong example, sadly..
" has failed company assessment to performe....". That is killer line...
 

Jim L

Well-Known Member
20
since the plaintiff won its safe to say in a court of law it was determined challenger was in the wrong here
No, the decision on who was in the wrong was complete - only a number needed to be decided upon. A jury made the decision to award the plaintiff that much money. A jury made up of usually 12 people of all walks of life randomly selected who may have little to no financial background, little or no knowledge of trucking - heck some may not even have a license to drive. The jurors come up with a decision based on the plaintiff lawyer demanding <enter some exorbitant, irrelevant number here> and the defense lawyer saying we offer <some large number but only a fraction of the number above>. The jury then gets to see the plaintiff exhibit's abhorrent accident scene pictures that normally would not be shown but to get the above number is shown in dramatic fashion for effect followed by how the deceased could have made 10 time the above number in wages plus could have been the next president of the United States. It is then followed up by the defense who gets to show off their boring doctors reports, policies and procedures that prevent dangerous drivers and the total miles of accident-free driving for this driver and the whole fleet. Half the jury doesn't understand most of it and really doesn't care because they have those horrible pictures in their mind plucking their heart strings like a banjo. The jury then decides the number and pull 96 million out of the air. For sure that number should compensate the loss of life. They basically say that two people died and they are each worth 48million based on this courts display of the 'facts'.

I over exaggerate the scenario above, but I show it this way to make a point. Challenger knew that they were culpable to a certain amount and fully expected to pay something, but the reality is that this court case outlines any and all possibilities of drivers that that may not be fit to drive. This may be happening to thousands of drivers rolling down the road at this very moment. Thousands of drivers who put on a combined millions of miles accident-free. Drivers whose employers may have no idea about their issue whether it be medical or just self-induced. Carriers who can pull tooth and fingernail to get some of this information but are stonewalled because of privacy. Challenger was just the unfortunate company whose marginally deficient driver had a horrible accident. It could have been any other carrier and we would not have heard a peep out of it.

My point of view?? Courts should halt using a jury to make this decision. It should be left to actuaries who can come up with a number that everyone can work with. Juries decide by the show that is put on, the actuaries use science and math to determine the likelihood that this was an unfortunate, one in a million, accident or was it inevitable for this carrier.
 

Upper Ech

Active Member
15
No, the decision on who was in the wrong was complete - only a number needed to be decided upon. A jury made the decision to award the plaintiff that much money. A jury made up of usually 12 people of all walks of life randomly selected who may have little to no financial background, little or no knowledge of trucking - heck some may not even have a license to drive. The jurors come up with a decision based on the plaintiff lawyer demanding <enter some exorbitant, irrelevant number here> and the defense lawyer saying we offer <some large number but only a fraction of the number above>. The jury then gets to see the plaintiff exhibit's abhorrent accident scene pictures that normally would not be shown but to get the above number is shown in dramatic fashion for effect followed by how the deceased could have made 10 time the above number in wages plus could have been the next president of the United States. It is then followed up by the defense who gets to show off their boring doctors reports, policies and procedures that prevent dangerous drivers and the total miles of accident-free driving for this driver and the whole fleet. Half the jury doesn't understand most of it and really doesn't care because they have those horrible pictures in their mind plucking their heart strings like a banjo. The jury then decides the number and pull 96 million out of the air. For sure that number should compensate the loss of life. They basically say that two people died and they are each worth 48million based on this courts display of the 'facts'.

I over exaggerate the scenario above, but I show it this way to make a point. Challenger knew that they were culpable to a certain amount and fully expected to pay something, but the reality is that this court case outlines any and all possibilities of drivers that that may not be fit to drive. This may be happening to thousands of drivers rolling down the road at this very moment. Thousands of drivers who put on a combined millions of miles accident-free. Drivers whose employers may have no idea about their issue whether it be medical or just self-induced. Carriers who can pull tooth and fingernail to get some of this information but are stonewalled because of privacy. Challenger was just the unfortunate company whose marginally deficient driver had a horrible accident. It could have been any other carrier and we would not have heard a peep out of it.

My point of view?? Courts should halt using a jury to make this decision. It should be left to actuaries who can come up with a number that everyone can work with. Juries decide by the show that is put on, the actuaries use science and math to determine the likelihood that this was an unfortunate, one in a million, accident or was it inevitable for this carrier.
"My point of view?? Courts should halt using a jury to make this decision. It should be left to actuaries who can come up with a number that everyone can work with. Juries decide by the show that is put on, the actuaries use science and math to determine the likelihood that this was an unfortunate, one in a million, accident or was it inevitable for this carrier."

100% agree to this
 
Top