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

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.

The tandems did stay in place. They were locked(did not release). The problem was the entire trailer moved,including the tandems, because he told his trainee to move the truck forward.

So by this he was having an issue sliding the tandems (DUH! every driver has had issues with sliding the tandems at one time or another) but most of us know NOT to stand in front of the tires,or behind them, when trying to get them to move.

What comes to my mind reading this story? Weapon misfires and he turns the gun around and looks directly into the barrel looking for the reason the gun did not fire.

This makes me mad. If he was even partly negligent, he shouldn't get a dime. But in today's sue-happy society, it's always someone else's fault.

I hope he wastes all that money on booze then has to go back to work as a rookie driver.

If he was even partly negligent, he shouldn't get a dime. But in today's sue-happy society, it's always someone else's fault.

After many years of working in the insurance industry and as a paralegal on the defense side, I can say that while there are some lawsuits that overcompensate victims, not every big settlement or verdict is unwarranted, and many smaller claims are unfairly denied.

The mistake most people make is thinking that civil litigation will bring about justice. There are some times when it does change bad behavior by a company or an industry over a long period of time, but there are also times when the long-term results are asinine. (Did you know that hot coffee can burn you? If you didn't, just read the warning on your plastic lid at McDonald's.)

Looking at individual cases will not convince you there's real justice. There's always some imperfection there in the results.

As for strict liability in cases like these, that seems like a great idea when it's someone else that is injured. When it's you or someone you love that is injured, it would suck, because in the vast majority of real injury cases I worked on, the person who was injured was liable to a greater or lesser extent for getting injured. Keep in mind that the only reason insurance pays out in any reasonably quick time frame and for a fair amount is the threat of losing in court, not because they love you or care about you. Right or wrong, that's how the American system works.

Individual cases seem outrageous, but the alternative can be even more outrageous. Your daughter was gunned down by a billion dollar drug cartel during a shootout with a rival gang? Maybe you shouldn't have taken her to an area known to be unsafe. Your wife was hit by a speeding Mercedes driving a rich businessman to some meeting? Maybe she shouldn't have been jaywalking. Your son lost his fingers to a band saw in shop class? Maybe he should have followed the safety procedures outlined by the instructor. As defense oriented as I am, I wouldn't want to live in any of those societies, but billions of people do.

I just hope this dosent bring about new regulations from the Feds (regulations being written in blood and all)

I just hope this dosent bring about new regulations from the Feds (regulations being written in blood and all)

Blood???