cthompson, Author at SambaSafety | Page 2 of 4
Best Practices for Driver Risk Management

Best Practices for Driver Risk Management

White Paper

Best Practices for Driver Risk Management

Do you know who’s behind the wheel for your company?

Let’s begin with a question: Do you know who is behind the wheel? The reality is that for many enterprises with employees who drive as part of their job, the answer is, “I think so,” or maybe, “no.” Driver risk management has recently become a top issue for many organizations since it directly affects budgets and the bottom line. The fact that there are more than 100 million people driving for work-related activities on U.S. roads and many of them have invalid, suspended or no driver’s license at all should be cause enough for concern. But combining this with the facts that: 1) most organizations’ budgets are at best fl at 2) P&C insurance rates are rising 14% every 2 years 3) 90% of crashes are due to human error 4) there are fewer qualifi ed drivers available today 5) the number of lawsuits around negligence are skyrocketing and it becomes clear that understanding exposure to driver risk is imperative for every organization. What you don’t know can hurt your bottom line.

FATAL OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES IN 2011

Employers lose an estimated $60 billion a year and nearly 3 million workdays to motor vehicle accidents. Of that total, nearly $40 billion is directly attributable to on-the-job crashes involving employees.

%

Incidents involving a motor vehicle

%

Falls, trips and slips

%

Contact with objects or equipment

Download the White Paper today and implement the industries best practices for Driver Risk Management in your organization.

Protect Your Business Now!

Click Here

Continuous Driver Monitoring: The Legal Landscape

Continuous Driver Monitoring: The Legal Landscape

 Case Study

Continuous Driver Monitoring: The Legal Landscape

Scopelitis law firm explains the legal environment surrounding driver risk exposure and the advantages of driver monitoring. 

“As a general rule, employers are vicariously liable for any motor vehicle accidents caused by their employees.”

In 2009, Eduardo Delgado, an employee of Xerox, was driving a company vehicle when he struck and killed 63-year-old Elvira Gomez in California as she crossed the street on her way home from church. Delgado was driving under the influence of alcohol at the time and had a history of at least two prior DUIs. Mrs. Gomez’s adult children and husband filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Xerox, arguing among other things that Xerox was negligent in allowing Delgado to drive a vehicle without first checking his Motor Vehicle Report (“MVR”)—a fact admitted by Xerox—which would have revealed his prior DUIs. In fact, had Xerox checked Delgado’s driving record, it would have discovered that his license was actually suspended due to his DUIs. After a lengthy trial, the case ultimately settled, with Xerox agreeing to pay Ms. Gomez’s family $5 million for their loss.

“The most common direct-liability theories in highway-accident cases are negligent hiring, negligent selection, and negligent entrustment.”

Unfortunately, the Xerox case is not an outlier; it is one of many in which companies have been forced to pay millions of dollars in damages due to accidents caused by the employees or contractors they put behind the wheel. The legal theories upon which these companies are held liable vary from case to case and from state to state, but they share some common themes.

As a general rule, employers¹ are vicariously liable for any motor vehicle accidents caused by their employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior, which imputes the conduct of the employee to his/her employer under agency principles. Of course, there could be exceptions to the rule, including, for example, if the employee is operating the vehicle outside the scope of his/her employment when the accident occurs. But generally speaking, employers—and their insurers—will be held responsible for any damages stemming from their employees’ accidents.

At the same time, an employer could also be directly liable to the injured party(ies) if the employer’s own independent negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries.² This liability is distinct from vicarious liability in the sense that the latter is premised on the employer’s master/servant relationship with its employee, whereas the former is premised on the employer’s own actions or inactions. This type of “direct” liability is at the heart of this paper, and it’s precisely the issue that Xerox faced in its lawsuit. It is also the type of liability that can open the door to punitive damages (i.e., those meant to punish the company for its egregious conduct) on top of compensatory damages already awarded to the injured party. The most common direct-liability theories in high-way-accident cases are negligent hiring, negligent selection, and negligent entrustment. Under these theories, the injured party alleges that the company was negligent in allowing its employee/subcontractor to operate a motor vehicle, and, but for that decision, the accident would never have occurred.

“Companies should be doing something to ensure the individuals who drive vehicles in connection with their employment are safe.”

Often, the company’s alleged negligence is premised on its failure to adequately vet the employee’s driving history before allowing him/her to operate a vehicle on the company’s behalf. In Xerox’s case, for example, the plaintiffs alleged that the company was negligent in failing to check its employee’s MVR, which would have revealed his prior DUIs and the fact that his license was suspended. What precisely is a company’s duty with respect to vetting its drivers before allowing them to operate a vehicle? Unfortunately, that’s a question with no definitive answer—one often left to the judge or jury to decide what a “reasonable” company would have done under the circumstances. What’s clear, however, is that companies should be doing some-thing to ensure the individuals who drive vehicles in connection with their employment are safe. And the most prudent something involves verifying the driver has a valid license and checking his/her MVR for prior violations/accidents, at a minimum. As addressed in the next section, for companies that are subject to federal and/or state motor carrier safety regulations, this is a legal requirement. But even for those who are not, it is best practice.

¹ Companies that engage independent contractors to operate motor vehicles on their behalf rather than employees may not be vicariously liable for the contractor’s operation of those vehicles, but this depends on a number of factors, including, for example, whether the state law at issue considers the operation of a motor vehicle to be an “inherently dangerous” activity and whether companies have “non-delegable duties” with respect to their operation. Additionally, pursuant to federal and state leasing regulations, motor carriers who contract with independent-contractor owner-operators are generally vicariously liable for any accidents caused by those owner-operators as a matter of law. And regardless of whether companies utilize employees or independent contractors to operate vehicle, the companies could still be directly liable for damages stemming from the companies’ own negligence.

² Some state laws, but certainly not all, provide that an employer who is vicariously liable for its employee’s conduct cannot be separately liable to the injured plaintiff under a theory of direct liability.

DOWNLOAD the white paper!

Protect Your Business Now!

Click Here

Affordable Real-Time Motor Vehicle Reports

Affordable Real-Time Motor Vehicle Reports

Save Time & Money

On Instant Driver Reports

Capture up-to-date driver records for all 50 states instantly!

SambaSafety instantly delivers the most current driver record data, providing Motor Vehicle Records (MVR) in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, allowing agents to ensure clients are getting the most out of their policy. Whether requesting a single transaction or processing millions of quotes, our solution helps agents make fast, accurate and informed business decisions.

Save Time, Save Money!

Increases efficiency with a standardized intuitive format.

WebMVR reduces MVR spend and is cost-effective for use at quote.

Quote more Accurately with Real-Time Intelligent MVRs

MVRs include license details such as state issued, status, expiration, suspensions, revocations, violations and endorsements.

Immediately receive driver records in a standardized, easy-to-understand format at a fraction of the price!

Learn How to Save Time & Money

Thank you! The information has been submitted successfully.

Protect Your Business Now!

Click Here

Lowering Commercial Automotive Insurance Costs

Lowering commercial automotive insurance costs:

Best practices for taking control

 

 

 

Download the White Paper

Thank you! The information has been submitted successfully.

As safety technologies become more sophisticated, companies have more visibility into the behaviors of employees out on the road. With seemingly endless increases in insurance premiums, thanks in part to escalating legal settlement costs and economic corrections, can companies use this new level of visibility to take control over commercial insurance costs? What does it mean to control insurance costs? Simply put, it’s about taking steps to reduce your risk. Achieving the prized trifecta of better drivers, safer communities, and lower insurance rates requires a razor-sharp adherence to best practices that decrease the chance of accidents and lower your exposure to negligent entrustment lawsuits.

The hidden risks can’t go unnoticed

In a 2014 driver risk and safety management survey conducted by Automotive Fleet and SambaSafety, 11% of respondents indicated they had been subject to a negligent entrustment lawsuit.

%

admitted they don’t have a driver safety program.

%

said they don’t monitor their drivers in any way

%

said they don’t pull annual motor vehicle records (MVRs).

%

said they use an electronic MVR system.

Protect Your Business Now!

Click Here

Driver Monitoring – Myth vs. Reality

Driver Monitoring: Myth vs. Reality

Busting three common driver risk management myths that could put your business at risk

Despite what the myriad of industry experts might tell you, driver monitoring programs and technologies are not all created equal. In fact, this overused term varies widely not only in its definition but also in its interpretation.

To complicate the picture, many service and solution providers claiming to “monitor” drivers really only address one element of driver monitoring. The space between the myths and realities of comprehensive driver monitoring can make a huge impact on your business’ exposure to risk, litigation and insurance premium costs. But what is true driver monitoring and how can you utilize it to make your drivers and communities safer? And what are some of the most common myths that put businesses at the highest degree of risk? Before we explore the three most common myths of driver monitoring, it’s important to understand why driver monitoring is critical — and what it truly means to monitor drivers.

But in order to truly know and act, businesses must be able to confront their own misconceptions about what effective driver monitoring really entails.
Download the white paper and find out how busting these myths can optimize driver management and significantly reduce risk.
Download the White Paper