This is the relevant paragraph.
Roper had been on the job about 13 1/2 hours at the time of the crash, the report concluded. Federal rules permit truck drivers to work up to 14 hours a day, with a maximum of 11 hours behind the wheel.
Whatever the man’s commute, he still was behind the wheel beyond what federal regulations permit, thus Wal-mart can be considered negligent.
No. The fact that he was on the clock 13 1/2 hours doesn’t mean that he was driving for that length of time. Drivers have a lot of down time while trucks are being loaded and unloaded. He also probably took periodic breaks during a long work day, just as you and I may do on a long drive.
“On the job” does not equal “behind the wheel”.
You’ve been making a lot of statements that are not supported by the facts, at least the facts related to us and the facts you’re quoting. I’m not sure whether you realize that or not.
One example, you stated: “Whatever the man’s commute, he still was behind the wheel beyond what federal regulations permit, thus Wal-mart can be considered negligent.”
That statement was based on the following: “Roper had been on the job about 13 1/2 hours at the time of the crash, the report concluded. Federal rules permit truck drivers to work up to 14 hours a day, with a maximum of 11 hours behind the wheel.”
Now, I’m curious as to what precisely you were thinking. Workers are permitted to work up to 14 hours a day, 11 of them behind the wheel, according to that statement the driver had NOT reached that work-day limit. Yet you ASSUMED, with no further detail, that all 14 of those hours had been behind the wheel? The statement “on-the-job” does not provide any detail on hours spent behind the wheel. That information was not provided, nor even really implied.
As another example, you stated: “...an employer cannot be held responsible for somebody being exhausted when they show up to work.”
You obviously missed the central rationale behind the legal arguments. Do you think it was coincidence that the plaintiff’s attorney made issue of a 700 mile commute? Do you think the legal team was just being conversational? The entire purpose for that statement is that they’re trying to make a point that the company DID know that their driver was going to be showing up exhausted as a rule and hence establish some reasonable culpability on the part of the employers based on that prior knowledge.
Do not jump to unsupported conclusions, such a habit both makes you less effective in daily life as well as more easily manipulable.