Missouri Company Agrees to $18 Million Payout in Fatal Accident

April 29, 2008

  • April 29, 2008 at 3:43 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Another example of how our legal system unjustly enriches survivors. The people who deserved compensation are dead. Now they’re families are off to Disneyworld. That’ll make up for losing a loved one. Of course we all know “it’s never about the money”. The personal injury attorney will walk off with a cool $9M since this was in suit. You have to know there wasn’t much work required to prove liability here. Why not put the money towards improving traffic safety. That would be a nice memorial for the decedants.

  • April 29, 2008 at 3:49 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    True, but don’t you think there was just a little fault on the driver?
    As for the deceased, it looks like two of the women had decent jobs. How much did their families lose on future earnings?
    I don’t like big jury awards either, but I also don’t like 18-wheelers that drive like the rules of physics don’t apply to them.

  • April 29, 2008 at 4:07 am
    shareholder says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree with you both, and then again I disagree. Sure the driver should be punished, and it sounds like he will be if he is guilty of being reckless, and did not have a seizure or something. But should the company be punished if they were not negligent? That means the shareholders should be punished, and you and I should be punished by higher ins. premiums, and higher prices for everything that gets hauled on a truck. there are other ways to punish people other than taking their money. Those just never seem as attractive to ambulance chasers.

  • April 29, 2008 at 5:20 am
    CLAUDE says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dread is right. We are not using common sense in the use of these awards. In the first place, the award is unreasonably high. In the second place, those who suffered from the accident are mostly deceased. To destroy the firm serves no useful purpose, as it puts people out of work, devalues the investment made by share holders, and, as both men noted, makes prices go up. What gets paid out gets recouped in future prices. A basic axiom.

    And, I quite agree that in such awards the 40% cut the attorney takes is out of bounds and out of reason. If I wrote a policy and took a 40% commission, Elliott would return to law enforcement!

    If it please the court, I would make a recommendation that the bulk of the funds be put into a high way safety trust to be administered by a committee appointed by the Court and reporting to the court, and that the goal of such trust would be to check the drivers, the equipment, and verify that both are safe to be on the road. The trust should put on educational seminars for truck drivers which could be mandated by the State, and include physical exams as a part of the process. (I would not be surprised that the driver in this crash was asleep at the wheel!)

    We do need to get smarter about the use of such awards and about just who are we punishing? The driver? his is yet to come. The company? Well, what is a company? its investors, its workers, and its customers. So which of those were guilty and guilty of what? Or, was it the managers of the company who were derelect in supervision or maintenance? And how is that the responsibility of th eworkers and customers?

    It is not a simple question. And funding a big trip to Disney Land does not solve anything.

    Claude

  • April 30, 2008 at 9:14 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    when you look at whom it was settled for, 2 out of the 3 were working adults. the mother of 94, has passed her prime and probably had a good life. granted any death is not a good one. but the cost of the damage for one’s life, in this case her contribution to family and society are already been completed.

    i used to be a otr-trucker and driver trainer. majority of the truckers do play by the rules of the road. its that few that don’t we seem to always recall. but when you drive, how many other don’t? how many of them are in regular passenger cars? how many of them keep a safe distance between vehicles or keep within the speed limits? now, how many police cars do the same when they don’t have their lights on? how many of them use the lights illegally just to cross the road? this is why we get upset, because those that are supposed to protect us on the road, think they have the right to break the rules of the road.

    back to truckers: look at how many of them are travelling in a day, transporting goods for our needs and the company needs to make the products we use. you don’t truly see the number of trucks moving products from raw product to finished product. they sometimes move them by ship and rail for truckers to handle at the other end. was he at fault, yes, because we supposed to keep an eye on traffic at all times. is the company he drives for responsible, yes! afterall, the hired the driver to drive safely and put the goods from point A to point B. was the settlement out of whack, probably. although we can’t place a price on a life at any age. we know that life is precious but we need to consider where is that person in their lifetime. do they have family? are the contributing member to the financial responsibility? here’s the other ticket with that as well, where do we draw the line on attorney fees? why do they have to have it so high? i bet they could still make a great living without the higher fees.

  • April 30, 2008 at 9:43 am
    boonedoggle says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I shed no tears when a trucking company gets slapped with a high verdict.

    Their compensation plan encourages drivers to speed and fudge on hours of service.

    Most trucking companies compensate drivers for miles driven. If a driver is paid 40 cents per mile, then he makes $20hr if he drives a safe 50 mph. But if he drives 80mph, the trucking company rewards him with $32.00 for his hour effort.

    McDonalds doesn’t base employee pay based on number of hamburgers flipped.

    Maybe we need some verdicts and settlements far exceeding the $18 million to get the message to the truckers.

    BTW: There is a term for intelligent dispatching and employee compensation. It is called MANAGEMENT

  • April 30, 2008 at 10:12 am
    Mel Clarke says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The entire point that our system has gotten to with these awards is one very simple fact.

    As long as entities like these (trucking, medical, pharmacom, etc.) have insurance, they are going to push the extreme in search of the almighty dollar.

    There is only one language these folks understand and that is the language of money. Until then, the prevailing mentallity will be “big loss, well, it happens”.

  • April 30, 2008 at 10:15 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    here’s the problem with your statement. how is that we can blame 1 driver and cause everyone to take the blame?

    so if an accident that causes backup and you are late for work, does that mean you can sue that person for loss of income? NO!

    we have DOT out there the polices the trucking industry. i know, i have been there on the road as a driver trainer. just because there are few bad apples, does not mean we have to change how we look at things. afterall, if that is so, then let’s replace the government. lets make them understand that the retirement age is for all americans not just a few. i agree there are truckers who want to go faster than supposed to be. but what about those regular drivers? why don’t we sue them for millions?

  • April 30, 2008 at 11:29 am
    Sales says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t agree with huge payouts for a death. If these people have nice jobs and are making good money shouldn’t they already have at least a $1 million life insurance policy? Isn’t that the whole point of selling life insurance, so in case of a death the family can continue on without having a major change in their pocketbook?

  • April 30, 2008 at 2:59 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Nice logic. So why should the trucking company be required to have any liability insurance? Afterall, if they drive irresponsibly and kill someone, they should have had life insurance anyway.
    I’m not for the big attorney awards either, but when someone causes an accident like this, what other recourse is there? If the company has other drivers who have had numerous accidents, they will have difficulty getting insurance, or will pay more for it. In the end, that may make as big an impact as anything else.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*