Justice for truck drivers who refuse to violate the law
The STAA (Surface Transportation Assistance Act), which also covers truck driver whistleblower cases, gives truck drivers a right to refuse to drive a commercial vehicle when it would violate the law to do so.
Examples include driver fatigue or illness, unwillingness to participate in an illegal activity, or a reasonable belief that a vehicle is unsafe because of worn tires, missing headlights, or low air pressure in brake system. STAA is supposed to protect drivers by preventing firing or other retaliatory action from truck companies. However, without effective legal representation those rights can be meaningless.
I don't handle STAA claims. I could probably fill up my caseload with them, based on the number of calls I get from truck drivers whose employers insist that they run illegally, but there aren't enough hours in the day to do everything.
If you are a truck driver whose employer gives you a choice between running illegal or losing your job, you might contact Truckers Justice Center , 900 West 128th Street, Suite 104, Burnsville, MN 55337, Telephone 952.224.9166, Fax 952.230.7875.
Ken Shigley is a trucking safety trial attorney representing seriously injured people in tractor trailer, big rig, intermodal container freight, cement truck, dump truck and bus accidents statewide in Georgia. He served as chair of the Southeastern Motor Carrier Litigation Institute in 2005, is a national board member of the Interstate Trucking Litigation Group of the American Association for Justice, and is on the National Advisory Board for the Association of Interstate Trucking Lawyers of America.
He has extensive experience representing parties in interstate trucking collision cases, and in the past two years has spoken at national interstate trucking litigation seminars in Chicago (trucking insurance), New Orleans (trial tactics and side underride issues), St. Louis (punitive damages), San Francisco (dealing with insolvent trucking companies), Atlanta (trucking insurance, closing argument), Nashville (use of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations), and Amelia Island (overview of trucking litigation).
A Certified Civil Trial Advocate of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, he has been listed as a "Super Lawyer" (Atlanta Magazine), among the "Legal Elite" (Georgia Trend Magazine), and in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers (Martindale). In addition to trucking litigation, he has broad experience in products liability, catastrophic personal injury, wrongful death, spinal cord injury, brain injury and burn injury cases. Currently he is Treasurer and a candidate for President-Elect of the 41,000 member State Bar of Georgia.This post is subject to our ethical disclaimer.
Comments
I drive OTR trucks.West coast to east coast,back and forth.
I doubt that new law will really help out us drivers.These are private companies and the owners have pretty healthy egos and from my experience don't care for drivers who will not "toe the line" for them should a particular load be in jeopardy and also keep it hidden from the DOT.
Its gonna be difficult to tell a private owner how to handle his business.
Revenue comes before log books and law,its just they way trucking is.
I would have thought the Insurance companies would have spoken out more on issues like this.For instance:If a driver has an accident while running 'hot logs' as we say and someone is injured,the carrier should become uninsurable and therefore the company would be directed by DOT to Cease Operations.
Hang that cloud over the owners heads and I bet they will follow the rules.
There are many drivers in jail today having been 'pushed' into the fatigue zone and had an accident.
I would love to see justice in this world and make some of the owners accountable to the law.
I still wish you lawyers and lawmakers luck in your efforts to 'keep people honest' as they say.
Sincerely,
Litespeed
Posted by: Litespeed | November 12, 2009 5:28 PM
Excellent. I think those who stand up for what is right need to know they are not alone.
Posted by: Cricket | November 16, 2009 8:51 AM
Well, some of the laws governing corporations have to change before real reform happens.
The reason I say that is if a company becomes uninsurable because of an injury or death, they can still drive their loads, unless there is a database showing that they have lost coverage.
Should that happen, they can dissolve their corporation and reform it under 'new management' and so forth and so on.
They are still in the game.
They honestly don't care about who they hurt along the way. If they did, they would abide by the laws that govern their industry.
Enforcing the existing laws and not backing down is how to get that point across.
Posted by: Cricket | November 25, 2009 11:00 AM