We often discuss the long-standing question in criminal law of the right balance between offenses and sanctions. A sanction needs to generally achieve restoration for victims and deter others in an ideal world. That does not appear to be the case in Paoli, Indiana where a historic bridge from 1880 collapsed after a track driver violated weight and access signs by driving her truck over the bridge. The sanction? A possible $135 for disregarding a posted sign. That’s it. In the meantime, the bridge will have to be replaced and traffic halted for weeks or months due to her incredibly reckless and thoughtless act. I am assuming that the trucking company can be sued for the damage to the bridge.
News reports indicate that the driver was 23-year-old Mary Lambright of Fredericksburg, Indiana who was driving with her 17-year-old cousin. She was reportedly trying to park at a Walmart nearby.
The bridge clearly bars trucks and limits weight to 6 tons. The driver took a semi-trailer filed bottles of water over the bridge — a total weight of 35 tons or roughly 600 percent over the limit. The pictures linked below also show that she had to have been moving as a considerable rate of speed at the time to peal back the top of the truck.
Just a $135 fine. This would seem a public safety question that warrants more significant sanctions, including possible criminal penalties. Looking at the bridge at the link below, it is hard to believe that anyone would think that a truck could make it over structure.
What do you think the sanction should be in such a case? Should there be a criminal element to the punishment?
Source: WDRB
If trucker has liability insurance, then sue the deep pockets. On the way to Walmart could mean contracted by Walmart. Go after deep pockets. Replace rust bucket of a bridge with a settlement.
Over 61,000 U.S. bridges need repair or replacement. 61,000 – 1 = 60,999.
Retired ADA, I’ve been thinking the same thing for years. Hard to believe a college professor, a professional teacher, would make the spelling and grammar mistakes that appear here. Either written in a hurry and not proofed, or the professor has an attitude of “it doesn’t matter.” Does either really work in court?
The Washington Post reports today that Meadowlark Lemon of the Harlem Globe Trotters has died at age 83. You can go on line and find the article on Google. He was a stellar athlete and a character. I saw him many years ago on my first visit to Planet Earth.
Please consider getting a proofreader…
(music)
Fat drivers got no reason to live.
They got little bitty eyes, and little bitty feet.
Little bitty voices which go peep peep peep.
Dont want no faaat people.
Dontwant no faaat people round here!
Stupid slips through in just about all professions and positions in life.
Dog
If Teddy Kennedy had been driving a VW bug, Mary Joe would be alive today.
The owner of the business which runs the truck conveyance is jointly responsible with the driver for the wreck. Why? Because the damage was done by both.
So, the tenor of this article is a bit off base. The issues of liability for the damages do not start and end with the traffic ticket. Nuff said. This is the kind of article which we should use to discuss more urgent topics of the day. Trump is a frump. Obama is on vacation climbing mountains and playing golf when he should be at Hyanisport like some Kennedy or Bush boy. Or Chappaquidick. Which is one hell of a name for a dick.
Unless you can prove negligence, the owner is always responsible for the driver.
I agree on the fine plus the civil suit for the damage to the bridge. I have seen drivers misjudge the height of a bridge before and peel back the roof.
Indiana does offer other recourse for this kind of damage beyond the fine. My kids slid on ice and went over a guard rail and down an embankment some years back. There was little visible damage to the guard rail and I know that it had been hit by several other drivers as well. There were no fines or charges involved in this accident, but some months later we received a bill for $600 to cover damage to the guard rail. Presumably the other drivers did as well. We thought this a bit unfair at the time as the guard rail was already scheduled for removal and replacement with a differently designed barrier. The point being, that the driver may receive a bill for property damage in addition to the $135 fine.
Andrea’s comment drives me up a wall. Who is the employer? Did the employer tell her… For the love of…. If someone told you to jump off a bridge, would you? That question is so pertinent here. Maybe…. And I know this is mind-blowing for you…. but maybe…. The person most responsible for the actions of a person IS that person. The bridge was clearly marked for both weight and height restrictions, that’s really all you need to know. Or do you think you’ll glean additional information knowing which way the wind was blowing?
I’ll bet the trucking company has already set up its liability avoidance scheme and the driver is probably judgement proof. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior, none.
This driver is obviously not at fault. She probably wasn’t able to compute simple arithmetic differences between tare, gross, and net weight because she was only taught the Kommon Kore method. Are there any lawyers on this blog who can exculpate…
Oh…
Well on the other hand, we’ve been needing a new bridge. And with interest rates about to go up, now is a perfect time to buy one.
The traffic ticket and fine are a separate deal than the civil suit for damaging the bridge. The conviction can be used as evidence to prove she did something wrong. Should have taken her license for driving while over weight.
Yes the trucking business is full of abusive shysters and bending the rules and time is expected by many and above you question who laid out the route and other issues – all nice issues for sure that might have contributed to the truck being on the wrong side of the bridge
While all the above might be mitigating – according to the story the bridge was properly posted as 6 ton load limit – a truck driver should be able to read simple numbers
I have driven trucks myself and it seems like I heard that if you hit a bridge and damage it, you (or your company) will have to pay for the damage – not the same as what they would fine you in court.
However, I don’t think there is a whole lot of an excuse for what happened here. The driver should know the weight (at least approximately) of the truck and not try to go over a bridge that will not support it (assuming there was a weight limit sign posted).
Seems to me what would have gotten my attention is that it had to be pretty apparent that the truck was too big to fit….. I also agree that she or her company will be responsible (though insurance) for the damages.
Who is the employer? Was she dispatched under an impossible load and was therefore fatigued? Did her employer give her the directions? Was she responsible for getting the directions herself? Was this route on a map that was made for truck drivers? All of these are questions that should be asked before the answer is given. If it was one of these GPS devices, then unless the creators and marketers of the GPS device are punished equally, her $135 fine is sufficient.
I used to drive a truck, back in the early 1990’s. The industry is abusive, and drivers are expected to violate the hours-of-service laws and be chronically sleep-deprived. After enough abuse from Schneider National Carriers and Dadco Diversified, I went back to university, finished my undergraduate degree, and then went to law school.
To get some idea of the intersection of law with reality, have a look at my early publication: Statutory and Common Law Relief for Overworked Truck Drivers, which can be located here: http://www.law.du.edu/documents/transportation-law-journal/past-issues/v24/v24.pdf at page 393.
99% of the prohibitions in life make no sense. Perhaps people would pay more them if that were not the case.