Swift Ordered To Pay Owner-operator $2.6 Million After Trailer Squashed His Foot

Swift ordered to pay owner-operator $2.6 million after trailer squashed his foot

A jury in a Houston-based federal court has found Swift liable in a lawsuit brought by an owner-operator leased to the company who claimed negligent maintenance practices by Swift caused a trailer to run over his foot.

The jury has awarded the owner-operator, Herbert Willoughby, $2.6 million for physical and mental pain, medical expenses and past and future lost wages.

Though the owner-operator was partly to blame, the jury found, mega-carrier Swift was most at fault in a June 2012 accident in which Willoughby was, according to attorney Wesley Ball, “adjusting a tandem unit attached to a trailer…when the trailer ran over his foot.” The trailer, freight included, weighed about 50,000 pounds, said Ball, Willoughby’ attorney, in a press release.

Willoughby brought the suit in 2013, naming, in addition to Swift, Home Depot and fellow Swift driver Jason Cribbs. Home Depot was not part of this settlement, however.

Cribbs, who was driving the truck at the time, failed “to take proper evasive action,” according to court documents, and did not “maintain a proper lookout,” according to Willoughby’s original suit. The trailer in question also was negligently under-maintained, Willoughby claimed, and Swift knew about the problems prior, he says in the suit.

Moreover, Swift was responsible for Cribbs’ actions, the owner-operator claimed.

Court documents do not detail what the alleged maintenance negligence consisted of. Swift, however, denied the claims.

The jury in the civil trial sided with Willoughby, ordering Swift to pay the total $2.6 million, broken down as:

*$500,000 for physical pain and mental anguish in the past

*$300,000 for pain and anguish “sustained in the future”

*$500,000 for past physical impairment

*$300,000 for future physical impairment

*$80,000 for medical expenses,

*$300,000 for future medical expenses

*$150,000 for lost wages

*$450,000 for loss of earning capacity

Request for comment from Swift was not returned before this article’s publication. It will be added if it becomes available.

Hmmm Maybe I am missing something really big but IF the driver had not stuck his fat foot UNDER the tire so it could be ran over then this would never have happen. That is basic safety 101.

There are to many details left out of this news story. Going by the news story it places the blame on the driver since it did not list what the actual defects were.

Hmmm Maybe I am missing something really big but IF the driver had not stuck his fat foot UNDER the tire so it could be ran over then this would never have happen. That is basic safety 101.

There are to many details left out of this news story. Going by the news story it places the blame on the driver since it did not list what the actual defects were.

I was thinking the same. What would make you be that close to a moving vehicle even. I guess common sense is not so common anymore. There is a lot of info missing from this article.

I found the description of what happened on "Leagle.com":

The following facts are undisputed for purposes of summary judgment unless otherwise noted. On June 4, 2012, Herbert Willoughby was working as an independent owner-operator truck driver for Swift and was mentoring a new driver employed by Swift, Jason Cribbs.1 On that day, Willoughby and Cribbs arrived at the Home Depot distribution center in Houston, Texas to deliver a trailer of goods. A security guard working at the Home Depot facility2 stopped the truck and told Willoughby that he could not enter the facility unless the trailer's tandems were adjusted.3 Willoughby informed the security guard that the tandems were broken and he did not know if he could move them. The guard said he did not care; the truck and trailer could not enter the facility unless the tandems were adjusted.

Willoughby exited the truck and Cribbs got in the drivers seat. Willoughby went to the side of the trailer to work on the tandems. Cribbs waited for Willoughby's signal, looked to make sure no one was in front of him, and pulled forward. The trailer wheel ran over Willoughby's foot causing him serious bodily injury.

For Owner Operators out there, the lawsuit I found is about whether Willoughby had signed an enforceable release of liability from Swift (Did Willoughby sign an enforceable release of liability so if he got hurt, Swift has nothing to do with it.)

Something we do every day, and it's great if there's another person there to help out. Plus, Willoughby knew the tandems weren't being released. It's not clear how long Cribbs (the trainee) had been a trainee. But if the tandems rolled over Willoughby's foot, the trailer brakes were not set.

Something we do every day, and it's great if there's another person there to help out. Plus, Willoughby knew the tandems weren't being released. It's not clear how long Cribbs (the trainee) had been a trainee. But if the tandems rolled over Willoughby's foot, the trailer brakes were not set.

Either way...Why was his foot under the tire in the first place?

There really isn't enough information here to tell exactly what went into the jury verdict.

From what I read here, Swift is on the hook because plaintiff said the tandems didn't work. I'm guessing (can't tell from what I read) that Swift is either denying the tandems didn't work, or plaintiff didn't have documentation that he tried to get them fixed before delivering or that he did and Swift denied that request.

Also, there may be some liability for Swift based on their training practices, and/or based on the driver's employment with them.

Also, the jury found some negligence on the plaintiff's part, but less than 50%. Texas must be a comparative negligence state, so plaintiff and his lawyers get paid.

The undisputed facts for a motion for summary judgment would probably have to be stipulated at trial. It could be that some of all of those facts were litigated at trial. Obviously, the motion for summary judgment was denied or there wouldn't be a jury verdict.

Home Depot would be potentially on the hook since plaintiff was presumably on their property as an invitee and maybe in addition because their policy required him to slide the tandems even though he told them they were broken. It will be interesting to see if plaintiff gets anything in a settlement with them.

Obviously the jury was sympathetic to plaintiff. Remind me to get injured in Houston, if I have to get injured. And at the same time, remind me not to injure anyone in Houston....

The actual lawsuit is called "WILLOUGHBY v. CRIBBS", so the OO is suing his trainee. But said trainee was trained by Swift, who has much more money than said trainee ever saw in his life. So they are joined in.

Swift says Willoughby was an independent owner/operator, having signed the contracts over the years that always included a "release of liability". But the court held (that's the whole "Analysis" section of the Leagle page) that the clause was unenforceable, so they had to pay up.

But Anchorman asks the question all truckers want to know: How does an experienced trucker stick any part of his body near a wheel that has a possibility of moving? Common sense and Stupid have no place in a court of law.

Trailer brakes did not work so he used his foot as a wheel chock. Pretty obvious

The problem with the trailer was that the tandems would not slide because the pin did not retract. So when the driver moved the truck the tandems were skidding along the ground. The plaintiff assumed that the tandems would stay in place.

Big question is how many times have we all had a problem like this with a trailer? If that is worth over two million dollars then what the hell we doing working still? We could all be billionaires by now.