30
Trans-west logistiques (QC) & Trans-west Intermodal (CA) ***DNU***
- Thread starter fld1shm2me
- Start date
Freight Broker
Well-Known Member
30
Exactly.. its all about the broker's attempt to exercise too much control over the driver and/or carrier. .. nothing to do with jawing with the driver over load details.
It isn't this. This was about the carrier not having a license and running out of hours.
30
You read the entire article, yes? It's about 2 things: perhaps a broker instructing a driver directly (kinda vague there), and of course them being sued because they were the only ones with any money still operating.
I'll hold my further comments on this story,
Mike
I'll hold my further comments on this story,
Mike
Mike,
I did read the article, but it said nothing pertaining to CH calling the driver asking for updates. In my opinion there is no way asking for updates from a driver is too much control. Pushing the driver to move the shipment when he/she out of hours is though.
Igor Galanter
Well-Known Member
20
Rob
Site Supporter
30
The article I remember had stated in it that the broker had dispatched the driver directly and was calling the driver for updates. I think that is the case I was referring too but that might not be the same article I read.
Either way is neither here nor there as a broker if you want to dispatch trucks directly get your own.
Either way is neither here nor there as a broker if you want to dispatch trucks directly get your own.
Nothing here about a broker calling a driver for updates. Some quality information in this article however.
If anyone has the specific article I want to read it.
Thanks
30
Fun afternoon read:
http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/20110407ch_robinson_loses_vicarious_liability_appeal/
http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/20090601newsworthy_transport_brokers_face_new_liability/
I thought it had to do with the driver being considered agent of the broker due to direct contact. Anyway, your insurance company and lawyer would offer you the same advise - deal with dispatchers not drivers. Besides, it's a dispatchers job to communicate parameters to drivers, no?
Keep well,
Mike
http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/20110407ch_robinson_loses_vicarious_liability_appeal/
http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/20090601newsworthy_transport_brokers_face_new_liability/
I thought it had to do with the driver being considered agent of the broker due to direct contact. Anyway, your insurance company and lawyer would offer you the same advise - deal with dispatchers not drivers. Besides, it's a dispatchers job to communicate parameters to drivers, no?
Keep well,
Mike
loaders
Site Supporter
30
I find it interesting, that a thread that started as a discussion about a carrier providing a drivers cell phone number to a broker/shipper, has morphed in to a discussion about a broker's responsibility in the carrier selection process. I believe that the CH Robinson case people are referring to, was more about the quality and fitness of the carrier and to a somewhat lesser degree, the amount of "control" CH Robinson was perceived to have had over the driver. As the very interesting article that youngtea provided below illustrates, the atmosphere in the US continues to be extremely litigious when it comes to motor vehicle accidents involving commercial vehicles. As a result, everyone, including shippers and brokers are trying to protect themselves by limiting their exposure to litigation through the execution of contracts between themselves and the carriers they have selected.
lowmiler88
Site Supporter
30
Just so everyone know's Ontario is rated 1 of the top litigious areas in North America as far as insurance companies go.
From what I was made to understand it, it came down to the fact that the broker has to ensure that their shipments are being run by 'worthy motor carriers' and that any services are run in compliance with laws/regulations etc. If a broker presents the shipment to its carrier partner in a manner where this can be done (even if not specific to the case) then theoretically they've done their job and their liability is over and done with. Once the broker speaks to the driver and mentions anything about instruction etc. the broker assumes more responsibility in ensuring that services are completed in a safe and lawful manner. So ... if a driver crashes and kills someone and they are found to be over hours or fatigued or whatever, the liability is passed to the last person or organization that instructed the driver as to what to do.
Contracts between shippers and carriers/brokers are the same ... there is always an indemnification clause where sometimes the 'carrier' (whether actual carrier or broker) holds the shipper harmless when there is any negligence (and being out of hours is considered so); preferably indemnification clauses should be reciprocal but many times they are not.
A lot of brokers (especially the sizeable ones) came out with contracts or revised contracts between them and their carrier partners to pass this liability along since that ruling against CH Robinson. But in those contracts, it's implied that the end carrier takes the responsibility and it's trusted that the end carrier is working according to law. So the broker cannot instruct.
Contracts between shippers and carriers/brokers are the same ... there is always an indemnification clause where sometimes the 'carrier' (whether actual carrier or broker) holds the shipper harmless when there is any negligence (and being out of hours is considered so); preferably indemnification clauses should be reciprocal but many times they are not.
A lot of brokers (especially the sizeable ones) came out with contracts or revised contracts between them and their carrier partners to pass this liability along since that ruling against CH Robinson. But in those contracts, it's implied that the end carrier takes the responsibility and it's trusted that the end carrier is working according to law. So the broker cannot instruct.
lowmiler88
Site Supporter
30
Mike it is actual $$$ awarded I believe we are only beat by Cook County IL and Saint Louis on awards.