AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES AND THE FUTURE OF COMPANY LIABILITY

The road can be a dangerous place for anyone – but especially for trucking companies. A majority of their business takes place on the road, therefore auto accidents involving commercial trucks often pose the greatest risk to companies. This is due to the fact that truck accidents often lead companies to face claims of negligence and litigation. According to a recent study, that risk of litigation is only increasing, along with the verdicts against trucking companies. JURIES RULE AGAINST TRUCKING COMPANIES MORE OFTEN THAN NOT The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) released a study in June, 2020 evaluating the impact of litigation on trucking companies. The survey determined that: Juries ruled against trucking companies at an increasing rate of 51.7% each year; Plaintiffs, the injured parties, won 97.1% of these cases in California; and The amount of damages juries award injured parties in these verdicts is rising. Essentially, more juries are ruling against trucking companies in accident and liability cases at a considerable rate. This is significant – and worrying – for many trucking companies. TRUCKING COMPANIES MUST UNDERSTAND THIS RISK Most trucking companies, regardless of their size, wish to avoid taking matters to court. Litigation can be costly and damaging to their reputation. However, it is not always possible to avoid litigation when it comes to accident or liability claims. Therefore, trucking companies should be consciously aware of this trend, and how it could affect their: Insurance premiums; Liability; and Defense strategies. It is beneficial for trucking companies to consult a business attorney proactively before they face a legal claim. Then they can take measures to protect their business. HOW CAN COMPANIES REDUCE THE RISK OF LITIGATION? Business owners must ensure they take great care long before they face litigation if they wish to reduce the risk. For example, business owners should review: Hiring, screening and licensing policies for drivers; Training strategies and requirements; and Vehicle inspection policies. Companies should also take great care in choosing who they partner with or contract to drive for them. After all, the steps to prevent truck accidents in the first place are also the steps to reduce the risk of litigation. It is not always possible to avoid risk when most of the business happens on the road, but these are measures that business owners can take to protect the company.

Running all of the aspects of a trucking company requires great attention to detail. Employers must organize timetables, shipments as well as drivers to ensure they fulfill their contracts and maintain success. On a larger scale, they must also pay close attention to state and federal laws to avoid complex legal matters. A recent case only emphasizes the importance of understanding the nuances of the law. TRUCKING COMPANY ORDERED TO COMPENSATE EMPLOYEE Baker & Associates is not involved in this case, but it is critical that all business owners understand and learn from the details of this recent case. Earlier this year, California company JHOS Logistics and Transportation Inc. terminated an employee when he would not drive a truck he believed exceeded weight restrictions. This situation might seem rather simple and straightforward; however, it was anything but. Terminating an employee always requires care to make sure they do not violate the law. In the JHOS Trucking case, terminating this employee was in direct violation of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). The STAA states that employers cannot discharge an employee if they: File a complaint regarding a violation; or Refuse to drive a vehicle if it violates safety standards. Therefore, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) determined that the company violated the law and ordered the company to: Rehire the employee; Repay $190,000 in lost wages; Pay $25,000 in punitive damages; and Cover $5,000 in compensation and attorney fees. OSHA’s order also required the company to train supervisors and managers regarding employee protections to prevent situations like this from occurring in the future. EMPLOYERS MUST TAKE TIME TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW This case illustrates only one of the reasons companies must be consciously aware of employment laws. Additionally, maintaining a thorough understanding of these laws allows business owners and employers to: Prevent risks related to terminating an employee; Protect the business from litigation; and Avoid significant financial consequences. Unfortunately, employers face a high risk of liability under the law in cases like this. They can reduce that risk if they take time to understand the law, but it might be helpful to consult a knowledgeable business attorney before moving forward.

Back in 2021, we discussed the difference between trademark infringement and trademark dilution. Business and trademark owners know that both issues can have a considerable impact on their reputations. However, the main concern when it comes to dilution often lies in determining whether or not it is truly a dilution of a trademark or a parody. In that previous blog post, we addressed the particular case involving Jack Daniels’s trademark whiskey bottle design. This case – and the effect parodies have – remains at the center of this complex matter. ONGOING BATTLE OVER DILUTION WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT This legal battle has gone back and forth over the last few years. Some courts determined that the dog toy shaped like the well-known whiskey bottle is indeed a parody, and therefore the company that created it has First Amendment protections. However, in 2023 the Supreme Court ruled that it is not quite a parody. The Supreme Court determined that the toy reflects the trademark enough that it violates trademark protections and rules. The different opinions on this matter illustrate just how complicated it is. So, what must business owners consider? TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT DILUTION The definition of trademark dilution is quite broad. The federal Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 does not actually consider the risk of confusion or negative economic impacts – as trademark infringement does. The law defines dilution as the use of a mark that might tarnish the mark itself or the reputation tied to it. In short, this law focuses only on protecting the trademark. It is not necessary to prove that consumers may be confused when it comes to a claim of dilution. This allows businesses to protect their image. After all, a business’s public image is an important factor in gaining and maintaining consumer approval. Any mark that would sully or degrade that image the business worked hard to build could be a considerable concern and risk. DILUTION V. PARODY: A SUBJECTIVE ISSUE Of course, the law also explicitly states that parodying is not dilution. These cases are often quite subjective, as the differing opinions also indicate. This subjectivity can just as easily work in favor of businesses trying to safeguard their intellectual property, as it can against them. Protecting a trademark requires vigilance. However, it is also beneficial to obtain skilled legal counsel in order to effectively protect the brand and business in such subjective situations.