Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't have much shipping knowledge but I can make some predictions based on my knowledge of personal injury litigation generally. Suppose a trucker gets into a crash with an automobile, the trucker is at fault, and the injured driver of the auto sues the trucking company. Let's say the driver got rear-ended while waiting at a stoplight, and the driver is employed by the trucking company. The trucking company will be responsible for the driver's negligence, and thus the entirety of the judgment, since in this case a jury would be likely to find the trucker 100% at fault. The broker's, however, is not directly liable for the negligence of the trucker; they are only liable to the extent that they knew or should have known that using that particular company was unjustifiably risky. If the trucking company in the example was a reputable outfit with a safety record typical of the industry, it's unlikely that the broker would be at fault. If it was a disreputable company with a terrible safety record or a fly-by-night outfit that they didn't properly vet and hired because they came in with the low bid, then it's more likely that they will be found responsible. But in the event that they are responsible, their share of the settlement is going to be much lower than that of the trucking company.
The extent to which this will affect the industry is hard to judge, because it all depends on custom, and how likely the ruling is to affect custom. The most immediate effect I can see is that every PI case involving a truck will name the broker as defendant if there is one, even in cases where the broker has no liability. While the ultimate result of many of these will be that the plaintiff agrees to voluntarily dismiss the broker from the suit, the broker will still incur defense costs, which will be reflected in insurance premiums. Here's where custom comes in: It could be the case that PI lawyers are already suing brokers in these cases, but the brokers are settling before the issue can be decided. The brokers may have heretofore taken an official stance that they were immune to such suits, but they may have been willing to settle them anyway, or they may have been let out of the case after discovery didn't uncover any evidence of negligent hiring.
If this seems odd to you, keep in mind that litigating a case to verdict is very expensive, the potential for huge losses exists in the event of an unfavorable award, the broker's share of the damages is relatively low in a fair trial, and one defendant can't force another defendant's hand. Take the example above. Suppose that both defendants take the case to trial, and the jury awards the plaintiff $3 million, apportioned 80% to the trucking company and 20% to the broker. During the trial, plaintiff's counsel has to argue that both the trucking company and the broker are negligent. Now suppose that the trucking company settles before trial, which is likely to happen, especially since the case isn't that unusual. The broker will file a motion for summary judgment arguing that the case is preemted by Federal law, but it's not likely to be granted, especially in state court. Unless the issue is well-settled, most judges are unlikely to boot a case entirely at the summary judgment stage over a technicality. So long as the Plaintiff can make a plausible argument that the case should continue, a judge is likely to grant it. And even if they get dismissed sometimes, sometimes isn't all the time.
Now the situation is quite different. At trial, the plaintiff no longer has to prove that the trucking company was negligent, and they have every incentive to try to stick the broker with as much of a share of the verdict as possible. Now the broker's situation gets a lot more complicated since in addition to their usual defense they have to now put on a negligence case against the trucking company, which would be difficult enough if they weren't also trying to argue that they had no idea how irresponsible that company was. And if by some miracle you get a defense verdict, that doesn't resolve the immunity issue, so you'd have to try the whole thing again next time.
Given that resolving the issue would involve going to trial, losing, and getting it overturned on appeal, there's significant incentive to settle, especially when the threat of the case being overturned on appeal may put downward pressure on the settlement. Extra especially when you aren't even the target defendant. Cases usually only go to trial when something goes completely off the rails. The point I'm making is that if it's already customary for brokers to get sued and pay settlements in these cases, then clarification isn't going to have much of an effect other than that the settlement amounts may go up a little. The effect on legal fees is likely to be minimal. If the broker being sued here was a novelty, then the effect will be much bigger. That being said, time-limited searches of PI attorney websites seem to suggest that going after brokers was a common practice well before this case was decided.
More options
Context Copy link