Oregon Jury Renders $5.2M Verdict against Truck Broker and Driver in Negligent Hiring Case

/in /by

A landmark decision against a trucking brokerage company for negligent hiring, an Oregon jury returned a verdict of nearly $5.2 million, including punitive damages, to the family of a man killed by a commercial truck.

Medford, Ore.—Handing down a decision that carries serious implications to organizations that hire trucking companies, a jury there in early March returned a verdict of nearly $5.2 million to the family of a man killed by a tractor/trailer in 2008. Linhart v. Heyl Logistics LLC, et al., Case No. 10-03100 (D. Or. Judge Panner, Docket No. 230). Attorneys for plaintiff Kelly Linhart argued successfully that trucking broker Heyl Logistics failed to perform due diligence when it hired Washington Transportation to haul goods for bottled water giant Nestle Waters North America. Read more

DOT and Medical Marijuana DOT ODAPC NOTICE

/in /by

In late 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidelines for Federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of “medical marijuana.” Also see this link: www.justice.gov/opa/documents/medical-marijuana.pdf. Read more

DOT-FMCSA Files Criminal Action Against TPA for Fraud

/in /by

On January 17, 2012, a man residing in South Burlington Vermont pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Brattleboro, Vermont, to making a false statement on a matter within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in relation to a scheme to defraud transportation companies employing drivers subject to random drug testing. Read more

Random Notifications Should Be Considerate of Driver’s After Hours Commitments

/in /by

Scheduling random tests for your drivers close to quitting time can be unfair to the driver. What if the employer knows ahead of time that a driver has a part-time job or has to pick-up kids from daycare and starts at 5:30 p.m. every day Monday-Friday? The employer schedules a random test for 4:00 p.m., and the driver’s quitting time is 4:30 p.m., that’s not enough time with delays from traffic to work-loads at collection sites. Employers should be sensitive to a drivers personal comments. Read more

AADT Counsel Sends Letter to Competitor

/in /by

On or around July of 2010, we received a number of complaints about a company making deceptive claims to our clients about drug and alcohol testing services.

On the third compliant, we notified our legal counsel and instructed them to send a letter of notice to the company back East, I believe from Connecticut that threatened legal action. Read more

Companies Using Aggressive Marketing Tactics To Sell Services

/in /by

Updated by DOT On: 12/1/2011

In recent months, the DOT has received numerous inquiries and complaints regarding companies using aggressive marketing tactics to sell supervisor training to employers who may be subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s drug and alcohol testing requirements. Please note that the FMCSA is not familiar with these companies or the training they are offering. Read more

Professional Adherence to the Intent of the Regulations: Test or Good Bye

/in /by

On Thursday, December 29, AADT Customer Service Manager sent AADT Executive Director this email:

Lee,

We have an owner-operator (O-O) that we are not renewing for 2012 per our policy. The client had been selected once in 2010 and again in 2011, and both times failed to respond to the random request to test, which included 3 follow-up notices for each selection. When the client called to renew and was asked about this, he stated that there was a change of address, but we found it funny that the client had received his 2011 Certificate for enrollment and the renewal documents for both 2011 and 2012 at the address we have in the system. Plus, at no time did the client make any attempt to send us a new address, which is all clearly outlined in of our service agreement. I notified the O-O that we would not be renewing his agreement for 2012.

I have attached our O-O Service Agreement in which Part 2, Section 5, clearly spells out the responsibilities of the O-O. This is also reaffirmed in the agreement acceptance statement. The company service agreement has identical language. Read more