A Dallas court found U-Haul guilty of negligence for failing to maintain its vehicles properly, and awarded 74-year-old Talmadge Waldrip $84 million in damages, $63 million of which are punitive. “The truck’s parking brake did not work at all,” said the man’s lawyer. “He stepped out of the truck and it rolled right over him.”
U-Haul will appeal, of course, and announced that “the damages awarded are particularly outrageous given the circumstances of this case… The final verdict is another example of abuse of the legal system against corporate citizens in America.”
What they failed to mention in their statement was that Waldrip’s pelvis was crushed in the accident, “leaving him unable to walk and with no bowel control,” and that “six previous renters had similar problems with the truck.”
“Jury says U-Haul must pay $84 million to injured man” [Los Angeles Times] (Thanks to Peter!)
(Photo: Roland)
More From Consumerist
-
U-Haul Charges Me For 3-Year-Old Speeding Ticket, Won’t Give Me Any Details
-
AT&T U-Verse Computer Glitch Opens Account For Dead Man
-
Cancel Crappy AT&T DSL Service, Get Billed For It Anyway
-
The Next Hot Thing We’re All Gonna Want In Our TVs Is Ultra HD
-
DirecTV Customers May Lose Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon, Others Tonight At Midnight
If U-Haul is trying to make us feel sorry for them and other negligent “corporate citizens,” running over old men with trucks is a lousy way to go about it.
Is U-Haul in the bracket for the Worst Company in America contest? If not, all of us collectively made a big ommission. Has anyone ever rented a truck from them that WASN’T on its last leg and at least borderline unsafe to drive? How about the fact that they never have the truck that you “reserved” when you show up (you only reserve a price, not an actual truck). Every U-Haul office I’ve ever been in has been run-down, dirty, and made me wonder if I was current on my tetanus shot. On top of everything, their prices border on highway robbery. I’ve moved over to Budget and have had much better experiences (so far).
@jefffromNY: how is it hateful to wish that someone who chose to keep their money with a bad company loses it? If they made that choice in part by gambling with a large portion of money on a single company, whatever company it is, they are responsible for that loss. Exceptions, of course, to those forced to get company stock as part of employment benefits. But, in that case, you worked for U-haul, so I think it evens out, in this scenario.
If someone does not get to retire, I don’t see how that’s anyone’s problem outside of that person’s immediate family. Retirement is a potential result long-term planning—not a right.
…and, that’s without pointing out the obvious appeal to emotion.
@chrisjames: My guess is that this guy probably would have rather had his pelvis NOT crushed and retained the ability to NOT shit his pants more than the $84 mil. I’m sure you’d be singing a different tune if you had your pelvis crushed. You know what they say about walking in someone else’s shoes…
@The Dude: I agree that giving punitive damages to some third party might be a good idea (like giving them to a charity of the victims’ choice, perhaps). But that’s a secondary point…the main point of them is deterrence.
@jefffromNY: The point is, that if big shareholders’ money is at risk due to the company they are investing in’s negligence, then big shareholders will demand that the company stop acting negligently. And unlike when the government asks them to, they will get results. You simply have to pass the cost of the court verdict on to them. If they share in the profits, they share in the risk of lawsuits and have an interest in preventing them to protect their investment. This is the type of regulation a Republican like yourself should want, because it’s effective self-regulation. But it won’t happen unless companies and shareholders fear the courts. And they won’t fear the courts unless high punitive damages are allowed. I would even argue that punitive damages against a corporate defendant should be metered to annual revenue somehow. If a smaller company does it, they might pay $1 million. If a huge multinational company does, they pay billions.
Yes, the award is absurdly high. But the reason for it being so high is because the jury wants to send a message to UHaul. And I agree with that. The amount has to be so high that UHaul will correct its behaviour, otherwise the suit is meaningless.
You people who are saying it’s crazy high, answer me this: If I offered to pay you $84 million in exchange for crushing your pelvis and leaving you unable to piss, shit, or fuck for the rest of your life, would you take the deal?
can we just stop the Worst Company in America thing now and give it to U-Haul?
@jefffromNY: Why should the government be inspecting a private company’s trucks? Can the government also inspect my truck and tell me what needs fixed? While they are at it, I have some brown spots in my lawn, can they check those out too?
$84 mill might be a bit much, but U-Haul has responsibility for its own trucks and equipment to be maintained. A person could have lost their life, U-Haul should be punished severely for not carrying out the most basic tasks of regular maintenance and allowing this gross negligence to carry though multiple complaints.
@jefffromNY: Apparently you’re unaware that UHaul has a long history of losing court cases over faulty equipment, not to mention “losing” critical evidence that it had been court-ordered to preserve. Apparently they are willing to consider it a cost of doing business. AND if you actually read the story you’d know that UHaul had every reason to know that the truck was faulty… and still did nothing about it. That is why the PUNITIVE damages are so high.
There used to be a mantra online that went “read, think, post”, but I guess it’s easier to jump to “blame the liberal judge! blame the government! blame anybody but the company that ACTUALLY DID THIS CRAP!”
@jefffromNY: Congratulations on espousing the least coherent worldview I’ve ever heard. Welfare should be abolished … so that the government can spend more time regulating private companies? And shareholders shouldn’t lose the money they invest in shitty or incompetent companies, because that’s “mean”? What the fuck are you on? Are you one of Ron Paul’s dumber acolytes or something?
U-Haul has some weird and kind of non-sensical rules that are the result of lawsuits. For example, someone towing a U-Haul trailer with a Ford Explorer had a defective Firestone tire blow out — on the Explorer, which rolled. They included U-Haul in the suit. For a long time after that U-Haul refused to rent trailers to Ford Explorer owners, although they would rent if you had the Mercury Mountaineer, which is the SAME TRUCK.
@milqtost: Yes,some governments can inspect your truck and tell you what it needs before allowing you to get a new registration. It is called safety and emissions inspection…
One Again we have people who are blameing the system.
Please Go to http://www.dangeroustrailers.org for another view at this issue.
While the issue I am writing about does not involve u Haul trucks…
my issue is the condition of these trailers and the fact that very few
people really know how to tow.
Here is an accident that just happend with a U Haul trailer.
Band loses equipment after island gig
From staff reports
Published Thursday, May 8, 2008
Comment on this |
Mail ItEmail it | Print ItPrint it | XML Feeds
| delicious | digg | | reddit | [post on facebook] | stumble upon | technorati
A band lost its equipment in the Sea Pines Circle after playing a
show last week at Stage’s, according to a Beaufort County Sheriff’s
report released Wednesday.
The equipment fell out of a U-Haul trailer as the band’s van made its way off the island just before midnight May 1.
Members were able to retrieve everything except for a 1957 Gibson
Les Paul guitar worth $4,500, which may have been picked up by a
motorist.
My Point is what if some of this stuff flew off and hit a car or crashed through the windshield??
It happen last year where a Jury in California awared a women 12.5 million.
Woman hit by unsecured load awarded $15 million
By Christine Clarridge
Seattle Times staff reporter
PREV of NEXT
Maria Federici was not in court for Friday’s verdict.
Related
* Archive | Woman injured in 2004 accident tested drunk
* Archive | Women revise a law, rebuild a life
* Archive | Woman injured after debris hit car on I-405
A woman who was left blinded and disfigured when part of an
entertainment center flew from a rented U-Haul and crashed through her
windshield in 2004 was awarded $15.5 million by a King County jury
after more than a week of deliberations.
U-Haul International Inc., and U-Haul Co. of Washington were ordered
to pay 67 percent of the total, with the balance to be paid by James
Hefley, the man who was driving the rented the U-Haul trailer.
Jurors did not find the Bellevue company that rented the trailer to Hefley or Maria Federici liable in the accident.
Federici and her family were not in court Friday when the verdict
was read. Their attorneys said they live more than an hour away from
the downtown Seattle courthouse and were unable to make it in time.
One of their attorneys, Simon Forgette, said he called Federici’s mother from the courthouse and relayed the good news.
“They’re very happy, and they’re very relieved,” he said. “It was stressful to have the jury out for over a week.”
Last week, during closing arguments in the six-week trial,
Federici’s attorneys had asked jurors to award $38 million to the
28-year-old University of Washington graduate who is permanently
blinded and disfigured.
Jurors determined instead that Federici was due $640,000 for past
economic damages, $7.1 million for future economic damages and $7.75
million for noneconomic damages.
An attorney for U-Haul said the company will be considering its options, including filing an appeal.
While the accident was a “terrible tragedy,” said U-Haul attorney
Carl Gilmore, “U-Haul believes that the product was safe and that
U-Haul was not negligent.”
The accident inspired legislators to pass “Maria’s Law,” which
criminalized the failure to secure a load when someone is injured or
killed.
Before the law took effect in 2005, drivers who lost their loads
could be cited only for a traffic infraction with a maximum fine of
$250.
advertising
Hefley, who was tracked down from a fingerprint found on the entertainment center, was only issued a traffic citation and fined.
Among those who pushed for the new legislation was late King County
Prosecutor Norm Maleng. His widow, Judy, was in the court Friday when
the verdict was read.
Federici’s attorneys argued that U-Haul knew the trailer’s design
prevented proper securing of loads and that the company failed to issue
adequate warnings.
Jurors found that the Bellevue gas station’s owner, Capron Holdings
Inc., was negligent in renting out the trailer, but did not hold the
company liable for damages.
Attorneys for U-Haul and Capron had argued that Hefley deserved the lion’s share of the blame.
According to attorneys with the case, Hefley declared bankruptcy and
did not defend himself in court. The judgment against him was entered
as a matter of law although his liability was determined by the jury.
U-Haul and Capron had also argued that Federici could be faulted in part.
They had argued that she was following Hefley too closely and that a
glass of wine she drank before leaving work that night may have
affected her ability to avoid the flying board.
But jurors determined Federici was not negligent and not liable for the accident.
Christine Clarridge: 206-464-8983
or cclarridge@seattletimes.com
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
More Local News headlines…
E-mail article Print view
Advertising
Buy a link here
Get home delivery today!
More Local News
Conflict of interest by McIver claimed
UPDATE – 09:03 AM
Bush signs Wild Sky wilderness bill in Washington state
Community is its own newspaper
Nickels: Tap your tap to quench that thirst
Hispanic students at Interlake pull together to graduate
Advertising
Marketplace
Enjoy 3 courses for $30, May 1-29
Dine at 23 new Seattle-area restaurants.
New Urban Eats, a dining event from NWsource.
View participating restaurants
Enter to win dinner for two
1. Man talking on cellphone killed by train in Auburn
2. Stop buying bottled water, Nickels urges Seattleites
3. Seattle names 4 sites that could house jail
4. Dead bear found hanging from bridge in Golden, B.C.
5. In autistic boy’s hands, paper and scissors express an amazing spectrum
6. Driver who killed skateboarder gets two-year sentence
7. Exam indicates sea lions not shot to death
8. Man marries, receives 18-year assault sentence
9. Bobby Engram drops off note seeking raise, skips Hawks practice
10. Official: UN plane lands in Myanmar with aid after cyclone
1. Love bread? Then you need to try this easy recipe | Nancy Leson
2. In autistic boy’s hands, paper and scissors express an amazing spectrum
3. Making a Dutch Baby pancake is child’s play
4. Stop buying bottled water, Nickels urges Seattleites
5. Seattle names 4 sites that could house jail
6. Recipe: Strawberry Dutch Baby
7. Japan’s children steadily disappear
8. Googling Kirkland
9. WSU football docked 8 scholarships for poor academic record
10. Boeing’s Poseidon sub hunter for Navy brings commercial, defense sides together
@TheManator: halfway through that statement, i was thinking ‘doesn’t go too far enough’
@ronmelancon: you couldn’t have trimmed that down, just a bit? or simply linked directly to the article?
and re: $84million settlement:
keep in mind that this will possibly leave the man permanently unable to walk
I agree with the last post in the sense that I think it’s INCREDIBLY important that the operator be really well informed about what they’re doing before using any kind of trailer, Uhaul or otherwise. The fact is that Uhaul does have a responsibility to ensure that their rental equipment is safe and well-maintained and that their customers are given the opportunity to become informed about safety risks.
Uhaul has a horrible record on both of these counts! To learn more and to share your own Uhaul experience, please visit http://www.uhaulsafetyalert.org.