Naming Bad Fleet Owners

[ATeam]

Complaints are common here in the Open Forum about fleet owners that harmed drivers by failing to maintain equipment, holding back pay, improperly keeping escrow money, violating contract provisions, etc. Yet no one ever names a fleet owner publicly to warn off other potential victims. The disgruntled drivers seem to hold back the names for legal reasons of one sort or another.

It may also happen that if a fleet owner is named, the Open Forum moderators step in to delete the post, also for legal reasons of one sort or another. Not being a moderator myself, I can't say for sure what goes on since I am not privy to the insider discussions about such things.

I simply want to point out that it is not illegal to name a fleet owner in public and tell the truth about him or her. It is illegal to defame a person with statements that are untrue.

If I was a disgruntled driver who had been screwed over by a fleet owner, I would be very careful to tell the truth, but I would also feel free to name the evil doer in public. If someone did this, I wonder what the moderator response would be?

For purposes of discussion, assume that all facts are true in the hypothetical post I present below. My question is, would such a post be allowed to stand in the Open Forum?

HYPOTHETICAL POST

I am posting this information about my experience with a fleet to warn others about his business practices, and in hopes that this post will prompt him to resolve to my satisfaction a money dispute I have with him. If the dispute is resolved, I will post that information here.

His name is Joe Fleetowner. He has seven straight trucks leased to Carrier Name. I contracted with him to drive one of those trucks on July 6, 2010. The contract he and I both signed states that (quote exact pay within seven days provision language here).

Mr. Fleetowner has not met his obligations as agreed to. He sent me checks for the proper amounts on November 5 and 12, 2010 but both were returned by my bank because of insufficient funds.

Mr. Fleetowner used to answer his telephone when I called but no longer does so. My e-mail and certified U.S. mail inquiries to him about the bounced checks have gone unanswered.

I can provide copies of the contract, bounced checks and my written inquiries to anyone who is interested.

I do not know how timely or reliable Mr. Fleetowner has been with other drivers that have contracted with him. I only know my history and am able to document the same.

END OF HYPOTHETICAL POST

While I believe this could be done without fear of being sued by Mr. Fleetowner for lible, a driver putting up such a post should note that Mr. Fleetowner has the same option. He could put up a factual and documented post about you that you may not be pleased to see.

 

[davekc]

Probably more of a Lawrence question. You may be right in that you could name names in many different situations whether fleet owner complaints or repair complaints.
The problem I see from past issues is that even though you may be right, there may be a financial and time burden to absorb in the process.
One can always be right and actually prove it, but that may come with a hefty price tag to get to the final outcome. Even if one wins, that is much different than rather one can collect anything.
And lastly, seldom is ones time factor in any of these types of lawsuits. That is just lost in the process. So why open the door to it I guess?
Just my take on it.

 

[xiggi]

I disagree with your thoughts on this. Sure someone can post what they call facts, they can also leave out anything that does not make them look good. The owner could have a rebuttal but often the damage is already done by that time, the owner could also omit items that look bad on them. This is not the place to name names that is something best left to pm's if a person has reason to need that info.

 

[EnglishLady]

Probably more of a Lawrence question. You may be right in that you could name names in many different situations whether fleet owner complaints or repair complaints.
The problem I see from past issues is that even though you may be right, there may be a financial and time burden to absorb in the process.
One can always be right and actually prove it, but that may come with a hefty price tag to get to the final outcome. Even if one wins, that is much different than rather one can collect anything.
And lastly, seldom is ones time factor in any of these types of lawsuits. That is just lost in the process. So why open the door to it I guess?
Just my take on it.

I totally agree with you.

A past experience would have left me the winner, but also the loser.
I would have won my case hands down, but it would put me out of pocket to prove it - luckily I had a good lawyer who persuaded me not to take it to court.

 

[jjoerger]

There are always three sides to every story. His side, your side and the truth.
ripoffreport.com is a great place to name names and let your side be heard.

 

[greg334]

Phil,
As much as this may be good advice for some who feel they were wronged, it is dangerous advice all the same.

There a number of serious issues that can come out of this when people take advice like that thinking that they do not need LEGAL ADVICE, just like the idea of putting a lean on a truck and holding it for payment due for services. It can backfire quickly and cause irreparable harm to the driver.

MY ADVICE has been consistent, GET A LAWYER and listen to them BEFORE you do anything else. Don't vent in open forums and surely don't detail issues if you do, especially when it comes down to possibly going to court.

As a site owner, moderator and administrator, there is a need to protect the site first and ever post where names are mention should be gone. Even with a disclaimer posted or the rule you agree to don't mean much, the opinions that sometimes stand or left alone can drag the site into the quagmire that may have been caused by the driver in the first place and add to the frustration of all involved.

NO MATTER what people think when they read these posts, there are always two sides to a story and many times communications is a root cause of some of the worst ones.

I will repeat this again

THIS IS A BUSINESS, it is not a paid vacation and this has to be treated as a business.

MUCH of these problems will not happen or will be limited if drivers or people who want to drive start by treating this as a business long before they even look for an owner. PART OF THAT IS TO HAVE THE RIGHT TOOLS IN THEIR TOOL BOX TO PROTECT THEM.

 

[Dreamer]

The problem is, whether they are guilty or not, people can, will, and have tried, to drag EO into defamation of character lawsuits.

It does not matter if they are proven wrong, with every case, Lawrence's pockets would get lighter and lighter.

Just to prove EO is not liable costs $$$$$ . So unless someone has an unlimited budget they would like to contribute to the "Defend EO against stupid people" fund, it just makes sense that the names stay off.

Dale

 

[BillChaffey]

Personally, I wouldn't put much faith in "Rip off dot com" I looked at it once. There was a driver ripping Bolt Express because the person they were driving for apparently had not paid them. As has been beaten to death on this site it's not the carrier's job to be referee.

 

[Ragman]

I will admit to being one to call for naming names. I do fully understand the reasons for not doing so now.

Thank you for my education.

 

[davekc]

I guess what I find odd is that Phil with a wife who claims to be an attorney, would even pose the question in the first place? I would think they would have already known the answer to this question.
Then again, maybe they are ready to fill the golden pot for the "EO defense fund".

 

[Turtle]

Maybe that's why he posed the question. He's right, you know. If it's the truth (the whole truth and nothing but), then you can name names and don't even have to defend it. It's up to the "named" to prove libel (or defamation). And if what you post is true, they won't be able to prove otherwise.

Of course if you've omitted part of the truth or slanted it in any way, or it's a lie, well, you're beyond screwed, since that'll be easy to prove.

Since EO has a history of censoring content, they have put themselves in the position of always having to monitor content (similar to the DMCA deal, once you start, you can't stop and/or be selective in your censoring), they will err on the side of conservative paranoia and will remove anything that is remotely close to maybe possibly being libel.

 

[Bruno]

I can tell you this. Like Greg said GET A LAWYER. We just went LLC and had a Lawyer who deals with this type of business redo our lease. Most of the lease's I have seen over the years are not worth the paper they are wrote on. Best thing to do is let a Lawyer do it for you and your business. It may cost you money now, but it will save you money down the road. CYR

 

[davekc]

Maybe that's why he posed the question. He's right, you know. If it's the truth (the whole truth and nothing but), then you can name names and don't even have to defend it. It's up to the "named" to prove libel (or defamation). And if what you post is true, they won't be able to prove otherwise.

Of course if you've omitted part of the truth or slanted it in any way, or it's a lie, well, you're beyond screwed, since that'll be easy to prove.

Since EO has a history of censoring content, they have put themselves in the position of always having to monitor content (similar to the DMCA deal, once you start, you can't stop and/or be selective in your censoring), they will err on the side of conservative paranoia and will remove anything that is remotely close to maybe possibly being libel.

Still comes down to spending cash and time to get it resolved if the site is drug into one of these messes. Who wants that when you don't need to? For EO itself, I see no upside.

 

[Turtle]

Still comes down to spending cash and time to get it resolved if the site is drug into one of these messes. Who wants that when you don't need to? For EO itself, I see no upside.

That's the thing... if they had never censored (or monitored) content in the forums, they would be a de facto common carrier and wouldn't have to spend a penny to resolve anything. They can do that three-monkey deal with their hands over their eyes, ears and mouth. But once they started monitoring (and censoring) content, they can't claim common carrier status. If someone posts something potentially libelous and EO doesn't delete it, they are condoning it or agreeing with it by default. So for EO, they really have no choice. There really is no upside.

 

[Dreamer]

Yeah... and how's those unmonitored sites doin...

Anybody remember the Usenet trucking group?

Dale


Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[Turtle]

misc.transport.trucking, and the alt.trucking* groups, among others... Yeah, but I wasn't in trucking when I was over in Usenet everyday all day, so I never read anything in there very much. When I wasn't in the warez groups, I spent most of my time in the nuts and bolts groups, like the Newgrp Control groups and associate ISC groups.

 

[xiggi]

That's the thing... if they had never censored (or monitored) content in the forums, they would be a de facto common carrier and wouldn't have to spend a penny to resolve anything. They can do that three-monkey deal with their hands over their eyes, ears and mouth. But once they started monitoring (and censoring) content, they can't claim common carrier status. If someone posts something potentially libelous and EO doesn't delete it, they are condoning it or agreeing with it by default. So for EO, they really have no choice. There really is no upside.

It still takes time and money to prove you always allowed everything. They supena years worth of your forum records to make you prove your stance. When lawyers become involved nothing is ever simple they will beat you down trying to get you to pay something because it is cheaper and easier.

 

[Turtle]

As someone who has helped run a Usenet server farm, I can tell you that serving up years of records is about three mouse clicks and takes 15 seconds, and you can do it from 2000 miles away. It's a little different with a Usenet server in that postings have a predictable lifespan (binaries, for sure, but also some discussion groups) before they expire and are automatically deleted from the system, and user logs are not kept very long at all. But for a Web-based forum, the database is already there, collated into a file or a few files, and is simple to extract. One you give over the records (assuming you do, since most won't in a civil case, but will have to in a criminal case), it's up to them to prove that you acted in some way other than a common carrier.

 

[roadeyes]

I would add "in my opinion" to Phil's hypothetical statement.
We are all entitled to our opinions and that phrase is sometimes used as a general "cover your a$$" statement when you want to call a spade a spade without fear of legal reprisal. Obviously it won't cover you if you out and out defame someone which Phil was carefull to make sure was not the case in his hypothetical situation but I think it would be a good addition nonetheless.

See the sad thing is, you can be as factual as you want, but if they have deeper pockets than you do, they can still have their lawyers drain and bury you in no time flat (as can your lawyer).

As far as the forum admins catching heat, I agree that if you had never censured then you would not be responsible, but once a pattern of overseeing has been established then I do believe you could be held liable as well.


Here is a link to a Canadian based site that has a lengthy terms of service you must read and agree to when signing up. It's the standard "hold harmless" stuff for the site and admins, and after reading a few posts you will quickly see that they have no problems naming names. Non paying companies, people double brokering freight etc.

Inside Transport - Carriers Connect - Powered by vBulletin

 

[xiggi]

As someone who has helped run a Usenet server farm, I can tell you that serving up years of records is about three mouse clicks and takes 15 seconds, and you can do it from 2000 miles away. It's a little different with a Usenet server in that postings have a predictable lifespan (binaries, for sure, but also some discussion groups) before they expire and are automatically deleted from the system, and user logs are not kept very long at all. But for a Web-based forum, the database is already there, collated into a file or a few files, and is simple to extract. One you give over the records (assuming you do, since most won't in a civil case, but will have to in a criminal case), it's up to them to prove that you acted in some way other than a common carrier.

Turtle, I own (lease) a server with over 140,000 current and past members in it. At one point just a few years ago we had thousands of paid active members at any one time. Before returning to driving a couple years ago I earned my living online working from home because of it. Trust me when I say I know very much about data bases, extracting files time involved etc. Coming from the owner end (co-owner to be specific) I would never knowingly submit that business to being involved in any litigation. Even with disclaimers, due diligence and every thing else involved there is no guarantee you will not wrongly be pulled into something at no fault of your own. It will cost time and money, as much as we can hope and dream that it can be made to go away with a few simple clicks that is just not reality.