A trio of Texas trucking companies has settled a lawsuit with one of their drivers. The driver claimed that the owners forced him to drive beyond the hours-of-service limit, leading to a crash.
The 13th Court of Appeals in Texas closed the case against Jorge and Silvia Marin and their three companies: JNM Express, ANCA Transport and Omega Freight Logistics. Last year, the Texas Supreme Court reversed a multimillion-dollar verdict against them. This allowed the Marins a chance to fight a lawsuit filed by their driver, Lauro Lozano.
Although details have not been released, Lozano and his former employers have decided to settle the case rather than relitigate it. Lozano convinced a jury that the Marins coerced him to drive past his hours-of-service limit, causing him to crash his truck. But the state Supreme Court reversed the verdict after finding issues with the driver’s employment status.
In May 2015, Lozano crashed into another tractor-trailer after falling asleep. He suffered injuries to his pelvis, left foot and ribs. He claimed that his employer forced him to break federal hours-of-service rules. Lozano stated that Jorge Marin pressured him to falsify logbooks or risk losing his job.
Lozano sued the Marins and their three companies in 2017. During the trial, four former drivers testified that they were instructed to falsify their logs. Ray Thomas, Lozano’s attorney, pointed to the truck’s mileage to show the driver exceeded hours-of-service limits.
“We know from the title that the 2015 Kenworth that my client was driving was purchased on Dec. 15, 2014,” Thomas said. “By the time the accident occurred, the tractor had 90,000 miles on it, and my client was the only driver. Divide that by 20 weeks, and it far exceeds what can be legally driven.”
In 2019, a jury ruled that all three companies were his employers and awarded him $80 million.
This amount was later reduced to nearly $14 million due to state caps on punitive damages. After losing their appeal, the Marins brought the case to the Texas Supreme Court, where they found more success.
Last May, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that lower courts wrongly prevented the defendants from challenging Lozano’s employment status. Those courts had used a broad federal definition of “employee,” but the defendants argued that state law should apply. Under state law, Lozano would be considered an independent contractor, and the companies would not be liable.
The high court sent the case back to the appellate court to decide which definition should apply. That could have gone either way. The appellate court might have upheld its previous ruling after hearing arguments on employment status. On the other hand, the court could have taken the Marins and their companies off the hook by determining Lozano was an independent contractor.
Both sides chose not to risk a court decision on employment status. After settling outside of court, Lozano and the Marins requested that the court reverse the 2019 verdict and dismiss all claims. The court granted their request, effectively ending the dispute. LL
Credit: Source link
