Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Texting and Driving

On January 26, 2010, U.S Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced federal guidance to expressly prohibit texting by drivers of commercial vehicles such as large trucks and buses.  The prohibition is effective immediately and is the latest in a series of actions taken by the Department to combat distracted driving since the Secretary convened a national summit on the issue last September.

“We want the drivers of big rigs and buses and those who share the roads with them to be safe,” said Secretary LaHood.  “This is an important safety step and we will be taking more to eliminate the threat of distracted driving.”

The action is the result of the Department’s interpretation of standing rules. Truck and bus drivers who text while driving commercial vehicles may be subject to civil or criminal penalties of up to $2,750.

"Our regulations will help prevent unsafe activity within the cab,” said Anne Ferro, Administrator for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). “We want to make it crystal clear to operators and their employers that texting while driving is the type of unsafe activity that these regulations are intended to prohibit."

FMCSA research shows that drivers who send and receive text messages take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds out of every 6 seconds while texting.  At 55 miles per hour, this means that the driver is traveling the length of a football field, including the end zones, without looking at the road.  Drivers who text while driving are more than 20 times more likely to get in an accident than non-distracted drivers.  Because of the safety risks associated with the use of electronic devices while driving, FMCSA is also working on additional regulatory measures that will be announced in the coming months.

During the September 2009 Distracted Driving Summit, the Secretary announced the Department’s plan to pursue this regulatory action, as well as rulemakings to reduce the risks posed by distracted driving. President Obama also signed an Executive Order directing federal employees not to engage in text messaging while driving government-owned vehicles or with government-owned equipment.  Federal employees were required to comply with the ban starting on December 30, 2009.

If your trucking company is facing a heavy penalty for a traffic violation or a texting while driving citation, the Utah transportation law attorneys at Bostwick & Price, P.C. have the experience to provide the best defense possible. Our transportation law attorneys are ready to provide your trucking company with the legal representation it deserves. www.bostwickprice.com

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Cargo Claims

Claims for loss and damage of regulated commodity is governed by the regulations published at 49 C.F.R. §370. Claims for loss, damage, or overage should be filed in writing. The bill of lading together with documentation of the destination market value of the goods should be included. Most bills of lading specify that the claim must be filed within 9 months. A shipper has 2 years after the claim is denied to file a suit to recover its loss. 

The Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. §14706, provides the shipper with the statutory remedy which preempts state law remedies. Subject to the exceptions noted herein, if a shipper can prove that the carrier received the shipment in good condition and delivered it short or damaged, the carrier is liable for the loss regardless of whether the shipper can prove the carrier was negligent. As a practical matter, the statute makes the notations entered on the bill of lading at time of pickup and delivery particularly important. A clear bill of lading at time of pickup accompanied by a bill of lading noting shortage or damage creates a presumption of carrier liability which must be overcome by carrier proof.

Importantly, the statute and its preemptive effect works to the benefit of the carrier with respect to so-called special or consequential damages. Under Carmack and the common law, a carrier is not liable for damages which are not reasonably foreseeable. Carriers ordinarily are not required to deliver in time to meet any specific market and unless the carrier assumes greater liability by contract, it is not required to pay for air express replacement parts, waiting construction crews, stopped assembly lines, etc.

There are 5 common law exceptions to carrier liability:

(1) act or default of shipper;
(2) an act of God;
(3) the public enemy;
(4) the "public authority"; or
(5) the inherent vice of the commodity.

The act of default of shipper is most often raised when the carrier claims the lading was improperly packaged to withstand the ordinary perils of transport or when the carrier claims that the shipper improperly blocked or braced the shipment (see shipper load and count, infra).

The act of God defense is applicable only when a hurricane, tornado, flood, mud slide or other calamity beyond the carrier's control is the proximate cause of the loss or damage claimed.

The public enemy exception has rarely been used in the United States or Canada because it applies only to acts of military forces or possibly paramilitary insurgency. The courts have declined to classify thieves, robbers, or rioters as "public enemies" for purposes of this exception and to date, there has been no finding that the organized cargo thefts in Miami or Los Angeles can operate to excuse a carrier from liability.

The Public Authority exception includes policy action such as quarantines, road closures, etc.

Finally, a substantial amount of cargo claims litigation revolves around the shipper load and count exception in the Bill of Lading Act. See 49 U.S.C. §80113. This statutory provision says that a carrier is not liable for loss and damage (1) when the goods are loaded by the shipper, (2) when the bill notes "shipper's weight, load and count" or words of similar meaning, and (3) when the carrier does not know whether any part of the goods were received or conformed to that description.

Similarly, carriers are not liable for damage resulting from improper loading when the shipper loads the goods and words such as, "Shipper's weight, load and count" indicate that fact.

The shipper load and count provision should apply to all situations in which the shipper loads a spotted trailer and the carrier is unable to verify the count or the condition of the load. To be relieved of liability for short count at destination, the carrier needs to ensure that the shipment is sealed at point of origin before the truck leaves the dock, and that the term "SLC" or other clear language of shipper liability is included.

In our Utah transportation law practice, we understand that shortages and thefts of high value goods are some of the most troublesome cargo issues facing our clients. Only by careful use of the shipper load and count provisions, the purchase of broadly worded cargo coverage, and coextensive release rates, can carriers adequately protect themselves against significant exposure if high value items are handled.

The inherent vice defense has been defined in the landmark Missouri Pacific R.R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134 (1964) case as "any existing defense, disease, decay, or other inherent nature of commodity which will cause it to deteriorate with a lapse of time."

If your trucking company is facing a cargo claim, the Utah transportation law attorneys at Bostwick & Price, P.C. have the experience to provide the best defense possible. Our transportation law attorneys are ready to provide your trucking company with the legal representation it deserves. www.bostwickprice.com

Transportation Business Issues

Transportation law involves relationships between motor carriers, shippers and logistic companies. Often, long-standing business and personal relationship have been strained.

Allow our experience to work for you. Call us to discuss your transportation law needs in legal matters involving:
  • OS&D claims
  • Cargo claims
  • Transportation contract disputes
  • Insurance negotiations and disputes
  • Owner/operator contract disputes
  • FMCSA regulations
  • Driver medical and controlled substance compliance
  • EEOC anti-discriminatory regulations

DOT and other Trucking Violations

Fines for DOT violations can quickly add up to thousands of dollars, jeopardizing a trucking business and/or an individual trucker’s commercial drivers’ license. We defend and negotiate on behalf of trucking companies in DOT audits when an unsatisfactory decision can affect your business rating. We handle cases involving:
  • Log book violations, including driving too many hours
  • Out of permit violations and weight violations
  • Equipment violations
  • Driver hiring problems
  • Driving violations
  • Scale violations: Pulling out of scale line too soon; pulling in and leaving the truck
  • DOT inspection failure
If your trucking company needs business law services or DOT defense representation, we can help. Please contact the experienced transportation law attorneys at Bostwick & Price, P.C. www.bostwickprice.com