Cargo Vans - What is your straight through limit?

[Moot]

Panther doesn't have a mileage limit but they do have a 16 hour limit. After 16 hours "on duty" a 5 hour break is required. Sometimes 5 hour breaks are built into the transit time, sometimes the load swaps and sometimes the protect time is several hours later than the scheduled delivery time but the driver doesn't know that.

I can understand having some type of limit, mostly as a CYA thing and a safety showpiece. But a limit does prevent a driver from being pushed by dispatch and protecting ourselves from ourselves.

Sometimes the 16 hour rule defies the safety concept. I occasionally get loads over 700 miles in length but burn up 3 hours of my 16 hours deadheading and/or waiting at the shipper. The load may not deliver until 09:00 leaving me time to nap or take a break, but I have to be there by 05:00 because that is when my 16 hours expires.

 

[JohnMueller]

Great comments. Thanks for helping me research to determine if our company policies needed ammending. Another goal of this question was to see if any drivers would acknowledge that they could be held liable for negligence as a result of an accident which occurred while doing a long, long straight-through run.

D Team Brothers came the close by stating that you still have to worry about DOT and that they would not want to be in your shoes if.... Nice work D Team Brothers.

The idea is really simple. At some point, whether it be by a set amount of miles, or a set amount of time, companies, dispatchers and drivers can and will be determined to be negligent in an accident. This is not about a policy being a safety showpiece, nor is it about limiting a cargo van owner's income. This is all about operating safely and avoiding any exposure to liability from negligence. In the event of a catastrophic accident the deep pocket theory would apply - the driver of the van will most likely walk away with little damages and jail time (and a lifetime of guilt). Keeping in mind that insurance does not pay for punitative damages, the carrier company will be left to bear the brunt of the financial punitative damages. The dispatcher could also see jail time.

I think that a jury would look at what is standard allowable driving time within the trucking industry and apply that to a cargo van accident to determine negligence.

Upcoming blogs of Look Both Way will be addressing some of these issues to help everyone better understand liability from all points of view.

 

[scottm4211]

I would hope that a jury would see that as an apples to oranges comparison after proper instructions from a judge and a lawyer doing his job.

 

[Moot]

I would hope that a jury would see that as an apples to oranges comparison after proper instructions from a judge and a lawyer doing his job.

Which lawyer?

 

[scottm4211]

Which lawyer?

Mine!*'_"*

 

[Moot]

This is not about a policy being a safety showpiece, nor is it about limiting a cargo van owner's income. This is all about operating safely and avoiding any exposure to liability from negligence.

The situation I mentioned in my post has more to do with being a "safety showpiece" than operating safely.

Sometimes the 16 hour rule defies the safety concept. I occasionally get loads over 700 miles in length but burn up 3 hours of my 16 hours deadheading and/or waiting at the shipper. The load may not deliver until 09:00 leaving me time to nap or take a break, but I have to be there by 05:00 because that is when my 16 hours expires.

 

[JohnMueller]

Moot;

You are OK. I meant no dis-service to your earlier comment. You've been doing this a long time and I respect and always appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Turtle]

The worst thing you can do is implement a hard and fast rule, and then mindlessly enforce it sans intelligence or common sense. Panther is a good example of that. Panther's policy actually encourages people to continue driving when they would otherwise stop and take a nap, because if they stop for an hour or two the load will swap. But if they continue driving for 6, 8, 10 more hours, they will have built up enough time (driving 65 MPH instead of the dispatched 47 MPH) to take the nap without it swapping. They say it's all about safety, but clearly it is not. If it were all about safety, then the rule would be applied with common sense and intelligence in situations where both are called for.

Obviously, the driver can and will be held liable in the event of negligence, regardless of the length of the trip.

Frankly, D Team Brothers' comments don't even apply to under 10,001 pound vehicles in this thread, because the questions asked were in the context of unregulated vehicles and in limits imposed by carriers. On those rare occasions when a cargo van is subject to the DOT, it's only because those cargo vans are bona fide CMVs (hauling either HAZMAT or passengers) and are subject to FMCSA HoS rather than carrier-imposed limits.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

and policies tend to get bent and twisted and are usually loosely stuck to...once you start making exceptions the policy is null and void....at my previous carrier they'd make so many exceptions depending on need...it was so frustrating for the driver and the aggrevation we'd give dispatch for what was an un-uniform policy.....as far as being sued...we can get that whether it be an hour or 16 hrs.....

 

[Murraycroexp]

There's a reason the Safety & Compliance Manager doesn't sit in the dispatch office from the hours of 14:00-18:00.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

"we shouldn't be giving it to ya, but you are the only unit close and they are a good customer....Just be careful"

"go see if its ready early...you might get some extra time..."

"If you get into trouble(tired) call us"

 

[Turtle]

and policies tend to get bent and twisted and are usually loosely stuck to...once you start making exceptions the policy is null and void....at my previous carrier they'd make so many exceptions depending on need...it was so frustrating for the driver and the aggrevation we'd give dispatch for what was an un-uniform policy.....as far as being sued...we can get that whether it be an hour or 16 hrs.....

At my previous carrier they made so few exceptions, even when exceptions were necessary, that you can count them on one hand. There were numerous times when the person enforcing the policy admitted that enforcing it was just stoopid, but that they had to enforce it, anyway. They'd lose their job if they didn't. Mindless bureaucracy at its finest.

"We have to do it this way because this is the way we have to do it."

 

[Moot]

Moot;

You are OK. I meant no dis-service to your earlier comment. You've been doing this a long time and I respect and always appreciate your thoughts.

I was just reiterating how the 16 rule can work against safety. Like Turtle said: "If it were all about safety, then the rule would be applied with common sense and intelligence in situations where both are called for."

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Turtles and my example are cases of policies that are polar opposites, enshrined in stupidity and any lack of common sense....

 

[JohnMueller]

The challenge in a lawsuit will be to convince and demonstrate to the jury how driving a van under 10,000 lbs is so totally different than driving say a 33,000 GVW vehicle. It's surely not apples to oranges, it's more like oranges compared to clementines!

 

[Turtle]

Not all that much of a challenge, really. There's a simple reason why the DOT regulates some vehicles and not others. A heavy truck destroys everything in it's path while the driver usually walks away. Neither of those things happen very often with a lighter cargo van. The challenge will be for the plaintiff to demonstrate how a cargo van is any more of a danger than an SUV or a pickup that's been on the road for the same number of miles or time.

 

[Murraycroexp]

My Tahoe I used to drive weighed more "empty" than my cargo van does with many of the loads I haul. Yes, Rick comes with miles. But risk also comes with weight and inertia.

 

[Murraycroexp]

Rick = Risk.

 

[roadeyes]

Not all that much of a challenge, really. There's a simple reason why the DOT regulates some vehicles and not others. A heavy truck destroys everything in it's path while the driver usually walks away. Neither of those things happen very often with a lighter cargo van. The challenge will be for the plaintiff to demonstrate how a cargo van is any more of a danger than an SUV or a pickup that's been on the road for the same number of miles or time.

I disagree. What you are saying about damage and/ or collateral damage in an accident may be true, however why they are or are not regulated by the authorities is not the issue. The issue is wether or not a reasonable person should drive for that length of time straight through without a significant break, regardless of the vehicle they are driving. The fact that they are not regulated only means you can escape criminal penalties, but not civil, and all any decent ambulance chasing mouthpiece has to prove in a civil suit is what a reasonable person would or should do or should have known given the situation. the company that dispatched that vehicle will be just as, if not more liable than the driver, especially if that driver is an employee and would feel under more pressure to take the run than an owner op might.

You could still face the same suit if it was your personal vehicle and you were a fatigued driver that caused an accident. Might be a little harder to prove but still quite possible.

 

[Turtle]

I disagree. What you are saying about damage and/ or collateral damage in an accident may be true, however why they are or are not regulated by the authorities is not the issue.

It became the issue in Post #35. I refuted it (or at least reasonably disagreed) in Post #36. And it would take a barely competent attorney about three sentences to convince the jury of something they all already know.

The issue is wether or not a reasonable person should drive for that length of time straight through without a significant break, regardless of the vehicle they are driving.

Which is exactly what I said in the final sentence of the paragraph you quoted.

The fact that they are not regulated only means you can escape criminal penalties, but not civil, and all any decent ambulance chasing mouthpiece has to prove in a civil suit is what a reasonable person would or should do or should have known given the situation. the company that dispatched that vehicle will be just as, if not more liable than the driver, especially if that driver is an employee and would feel under more pressure to take the run than an owner op might.

I'm not sure why you think someone can escape criminal penalties if they aren't regulated. People in cars, pickup trucks and soccer mommy vans are convicted of vehicular homicide pretty regular. All states except Alaska, Montana and Arizona have specific vehicular homicide statues. In those three states a defendant can still be charged under the manslaughter laws, and in the rest of the states the degrees of vehicular homicide range about the same as regular homicide (vehicular manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, second-degree murder, even first degree murder). Some states (like Georgia) have just a couple of degrees, others have six degrees (like California and Minnesota).

You could still face the same suit if it was your personal vehicle and you were a fatigued driver that caused an accident. Might be a little harder to prove but still quite possible.

It's not only quite possible, but quite probable. Negligence is negligence, regardless of vehicle type.