Summary:
A St. Louis jury awarded $462 million in damages against Wabash National Corp., a trailer manufacturer, for its role in the deaths of two men who died in a 2019 crash when their car went underneath a Wabash trailer. The jury determined that Wabash failed to install safer trailers for over 30 years. Wabash is reviewing its legal options and argues that the trailer met all existing safety standards at the time of manufacturing.

News for You

A St. Louis jury has ruled that Wabash National Corp., a trailer manufacturer, must pay $462 million in damages related to a 2019 crash that resulted in the deaths of two men, Taron Tailor and Nicholas Perkins. The crash occurred when their car collided with the rear of a Wabash-manufactured trailer, and the rear impact guard failed, allowing the car to slide under the trailer. Each family received $6 million in compensatory damages, and an additional $450 million was awarded in punitive damages, which the plaintiffs argue represents the amount Wabash saved by not upgrading to safer trailer designs over three decades.

Wabash National, headquartered in Lafayette, Indiana, responded to the verdict by stating that the trailer involved in the crash was manufactured in 2004 and met all regulatory standards at the time. They disagree with the jury’s decision, arguing that no existing rear impact guard or safety technology would have changed the outcome of the crash. Wabash also pointed out that evidence, including the fact that the driver’s blood alcohol level was above the legal limit and that neither the driver nor the passenger was wearing seat belts, was not presented to the jury.

The case has drawn attention to the broader issue of underride crashes, where a smaller vehicle slides under a truck or trailer, often resulting in severe injuries or fatalities. The plaintiff’s legal team argued that Wabash never conducted effective crash tests on their two-post impact guards and chose not to upgrade to safer, modern four-post designs to save money. They also criticized the existing federal safety standards for underride guards as inadequate and outdated.

This verdict could have significant implications for the trucking industry, which has historically resisted stricter regulations on impact guards. Advocates for crash victims are hopeful that the ruling will prompt federal regulators to enforce more robust safety standards for underride guards, which they argue are necessary to protect road users.

Wabash is currently evaluating its legal options and maintains confidence in the safety and quality of its products. The company has stated that this ruling will not deter them from continuing to provide trailers that contribute to road safety.

How This Affects You: Truck Drivers

If you’re a truck driver, this case highlights the importance of trailer safety and the ongoing discussions around underride guards. The ruling against Wabash could lead to stricter regulations for trailer manufacturers, including potential updates to the requirements for underride guards on trailers. As a driver, this could impact the type of equipment you use, and it may also increase the safety measures on the roads.

For those in the industry, staying informed about changes in safety regulations and equipment standards is crucial. Upgraded underride guards could prevent tragic accidents and improve overall road safety for all drivers. As discussions around trailer safety continue, it’s important for truck drivers and companies to prioritize compliance with the latest safety standards to minimize risks and liabilities.

Hashtags

#WabashNational #TrailerSafety #UnderrideGuards #TruckingIndustry #RoadSafety #LegalCase #TruckAccidents #SafetyStandards #JuryVerdict #TruckingNews

A recent final rule from the U.S. Department of Labor expanding overtime protections for millions of workers excludes truck drivers. Nevertheless, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) is actively supporting a legislative proposal aimed at eliminating a longstanding overtime exemption for motor carriers.

Published on April 23, the final rule raises the salary threshold for exempting salaried employees from overtime compensation. Initially set at $35,568, this threshold will climb to $43,888 by July 1 and further to $58,656 by Jan. 1, 2025.

Beginning in 2027, the threshold will be adjusted every three years based on relevant wage data. These adjustments are expected to impact approximately 4 million workers, necessitating businesses to either meet the threshold or compensate employees for overtime hours beyond the standard 40-hour work week.

The Wage and Hour Division of the DOL proposed these changes last September, undergoing scrutiny through over 33,000 public comments before its official finalization.

“This rule will restore the promise to workers that if you work more than 40 hours in a week, you should be paid more for that time,” said Julie Su, the Department of Labor’s acting secretary. “Too often, lower-paid salaried workers are doing the same job as their hourly counterparts but are spending more time away from their families for no additional pay. That is unacceptable. The Biden-Harris administration is following through on our promise to raise the bar for workers who help lay the foundation for our economic prosperity.”

OOIDA submitted comments in November urging the administration to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to ensure that employee truck drivers are eligible for overtime pay. Currently, the FLSA exempts motor carriers from paying their truck drivers time-and-a-half for hours exceeding 40 in a week.

“The FLSA motor carrier exemption was originally enacted in 1938 to prevent truckers from working excessive hours but now prevents them from receiving adequate compensation in the modern trucking industry,” OOIDA wrote. “Ironically, this exemption is now part of the reason why drivers regularly work more than 40 hours a week.”

Despite truck drivers being excluded from the final rule, OOIDA played a role in crafting the Guaranteeing Overtime for Truckers Act. This legislative proposal, introduced in both the House and Senate, seeks to eliminate the overtime exemption for motor carriers.

“While denying guaranteed overtime pay is first and foremost unfair to truckers, the motor carrier exemption also contributes to supply chain inefficiency,” OOIDA wrote. “For far too long, the trucking industry has generally only offered compensation for detention time if waiting times exceed two hours. But even this pay is not provided to all drivers. As a result, entities throughout the supply chain, including shippers, receivers and others, lack a financial incentive to load and unload trucks in an efficient manner.”

Representative Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., who introduced the bipartisan bill in the House, emphasizes its commitment to fairness.

“Let’s be fair,” Van Drew said. “Truckers are breaking their backs. They sincerely are what makes America move. Our country would be in a whole lot of trouble if we didn’t have truckers working for us every single day. When people don’t work hard, that’s up to them, and maybe they don’t deserve to make a lot of money. But truckers do, and they deserve to be treated fairly and make a decent income.”

OOIDA is actively encouraging its members to rally support for the bills by reaching out to their lawmakers through OOIDA’s Fighting For Truckers website.

Source: Land Line

Iowa, along with 18 other states, is taking legal action against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for supporting California’s planned ban on heavy diesel trucks. The lawsuit alleges that the EPA is seeking to regulate traditional trucking “out of existence” through mandates for net-zero emissions standards.

Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and her peers have filed a 51-page lawsuit against the EPA and its administrator, Michael Regan, in the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.

The states joining the lawsuit include Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

“Iowa isn’t going to take a back seat as the EPA and California try to regulate truckers out of business. We’re pushing back,” Bird announced. “The EPA and California have no right or legal justification to force truckers to follow their radical climate agenda.”

Currently, only 2% of heavy trucks sold in the United Sates are electric.

“America would grind to a halt without truckers who deliver our food, clothes and other necessities. But rather than support our hard-working truckers, Biden continues to empty their wallets and force them to drive electric trucks for his radical climate change agenda,” Bird said.

On March 9, 2022, it was announced that the EPA has reinstated California’s ability to set its own greenhouse gas emissions standards and a mandate for zero-emission vehicle sales. This decision opens up the opportunity for other states to adopt similar regulations and reinforces California’s important role in reducing pollution from cars and trucks. Regan stated that the EPA is proud to stand behind California’s leadership in this critical issue.

“Our partnership with states to confront the climate crisis has never been more important. With today’s action,” he said, “we reinstate an approach that for years has helped advance clean technologies and cut air pollution for people not just in California, but for the U.S. as a whole.”

On April 28 of this year, the California Air Resources Board passed a regulation that requires diesel medium- and heavy-duty on-road vehicles weighing over 8,500 pounds to be gradually replaced by zero-emission vehicles. This mandate could have far-reaching implications, as eight other states have already adopted California’s truck ban, and more may follow suit.

“Costs for electric trucks already start at about $100,000 and can reach the high six figures. And even worse — California’s new regulations are setting the standard for the rest of the country. That makes California a major decision-maker for the future of the national trucking industry,” she said.

EPA’s actions backing California’s diesel truck ban also “will not only increase costs, but it will devastate the demand for liquid fuels, such as biodiesel, and cut trucking jobs across the nation,” Bird predicted. “Iowa’s trucking industry currently provides almost 100,000 jobs — that is almost one in 13 jobs in the state.”

Biodiesel, a renewable fuel made in the United States from environmentally friendly sources like vegetable oils and animal fats, is gaining popularity as a viable option for lower diesel truck emissions. Iowa is a major biodiesel producer, with other states also increasing their quantities. This replacement not only benefits the environment but also supports American farmers. Most heavy-duty diesel vehicles can run on biodiesel blends, with B5 being approved by all original equipment manufacturers and B20 being the most commonly used.

However, the attorney generals from 19 states are challenging California’s Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, claiming it violates the Clean Air Act and other federal laws. The lawsuit is now requesting the court to review the EPA’s actions in this matter.

“Biden’s EPA is attempting to use the California truck ban to force his radical climate change agenda onto the rest of the country. This disastrous Biden policy would devastate Kansas industries, destroy Kansas jobs and dramatically increase the cost of consumer goods for Kansas families,” said state Attorney General Kris Kobach.

He noted 70,000 Kansas jobs depend on the trucking industry. “California’s truck ban is reckless, and that’s why I am once again challenging a Biden policy,” Kobach said June 7.

Utah’s Attorney General, Sean Reyes, emphasized the significance of his state’s trucking industry to over 21,000 local jobs. Meanwhile, South Carolina’s Attorney General, Alan Wilson, expressed his disapproval of the diesel truck ban with firm words.

“There were more than 13 million trucks on U.S. roads in 2020, carrying the goods we all buy. Either we won’t be able to get the things we need, or the cost of those goods will be astronomical. This ban is another example of prioritizing the climate change agenda above everyday people,” Wilson said June 8. “If you think prices have been bad during the Biden administration because of inflation, imagine how crippling they’ll be if this illegal truck ban is allowed to stand.”

Source: Transport Topics