The New CSA/IRT Scorecard

The New CSA/IRT Scorecard

The Next Generation of CSA

Introducing the new CSA/IRT Scorecard

The new CSA will measure a motor carrier’s

Safety Culture with a single score

CSA is undergoing major changes and almost everything we know about CSA—severity weights, time weights, BASIC measures and Safety Event Groups—will no longer factor into the new scoring methodology under the FMCSA’s planned 2019 release.

Our new IRT/CSA Scorecard provides you access to your new CSA Safety Culture Score—an entire year ahead of the FMCSA planned release date.

Establish Your Safety Score NOW!

[mrkto_frm id="1303"]

Be the first to know your CSA Safety Culture Score

The two-year look back is already in effect. We are offering you visibility into your new CSA Safety Culture Score to help you get ahead of how it measures your company’s safety culture—and show you what you can do now to prepare.

CSA Safety Culture Score

The new CSA FAST Act Score Model utilizes Item Response Theory (IRT) methodology and almost completely changes the building blocks of the current CSA scoring model.

It more accurately measures a company’s Safety Culture as your new score is based on inspections, violations and violation groups, and also factors in relevant variables such as drivers, inspections, VMTs, number of power units and more.

BASIC Comparison Scores

Get a side-by-side view of your current  CSA scores next to your new CSA/IRT  scores and start to understand the new  CSA scoring model.

Violation Groups

See your activity by violation group. The new  methodology identifies the same possible 945  CSA violations and assigns them to one of 66  violation groups. These groups are assigned  across the BASICs.

Industry Benchmark

How do you rank in the Exposure Risk Index?  See how you stack up against like motor  carriers in the industry and where you rank  amongst your peers for safety culture.

Violation Group Detail

Get the big picture with violation count, two  year timeline, severity indicator, and violations  falling off. See where you need to focus to  maintain or improve your CSA Safety Culture Score.

Violation Detail

Drill down to the specific list of individual  violations that make up your overall violation  count in any given group.

Driver Detail

The driver detail page will show you violation, date and location by driver.

Protect Your Business Now!

Click Here

Best Practices for Driver Risk Management

Best Practices for Driver Risk Management

White Paper

Best Practices for Driver Risk Management

Do you know who’s behind the wheel for your company?

Employers lose an estimated $60 billion a year and nearly 3 million workdays to motor vehicle accidents. Of that total, nearly $40 billion is directly attributable to on-the-job crashes involving employees.

Let’s begin with a question: Do you know who is behind the wheel? The reality is that for many enterprises with employees who drive as part of their job, the answer is, “I think so,” or maybe, “no.” Driver risk management has recently become a top issue for many organizations since it directly affects budgets and the bottom line. The fact that there are more than 100 million people driving for work-related activities on U.S. roads and many of them have invalid, suspended or no driver’s license at all should be cause enough for concern. But combining this with the facts that: 1) most organizations’ budgets are at best fl at 2) P&C insurance rates are rising 14% every 2 years 3) 90% of crashes are due to human error 4) there are fewer qualifi ed drivers available today 5) the number of lawsuits around negligence are skyrocketing and it becomes clear that understanding exposure to driver risk is imperative for every organization. What you don’t know can hurt your bottom line.

FATAL OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES IN 2011

%

Incidents involving a motor vehicle

%

Falls, trips and slips

%

Contact with objects or equipment

For more stats and facts, download the white paper and see how you can increase your driver safety ROI.

Download the White Paper
[mrkto_frm id="1120"]

Protect Your Business Now!

Click Here

Continuous Driver Monitoring: The Legal Landscape

Continuous Driver Monitoring: The Legal Landscape

 Case Study

Continuous Driver Monitoring: The Legal Landscape

Scopelitis law firm explains the legal environment surrounding driver risk exposure and the advantages of driver monitoring. 

“As a general rule, employers are vicariously liable for any motor vehicle accidents caused by their employees.”

In 2009, Eduardo Delgado, an employee of Xerox, was driving a company vehicle when he struck and killed 63-year-old Elvira Gomez in California as she crossed the street on her way home from church. Delgado was driving under the influence of alcohol at the time and had a history of at least two prior DUIs. Mrs. Gomez’s adult children and husband filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Xerox, arguing among other things that Xerox was negligent in allowing Delgado to drive a vehicle without first checking his Motor Vehicle Report (“MVR”)—a fact admitted by Xerox—which would have revealed his prior DUIs. In fact, had Xerox checked Delgado’s driving record, it would have discovered that his license was actually suspended due to his DUIs. After a lengthy trial, the case ultimately settled, with Xerox agreeing to pay Ms. Gomez’s family $5 million for their loss.

“The most common direct-liability theories in highway-accident cases are negligent hiring, negligent selection, and negligent entrustment.”

Unfortunately, the Xerox case is not an outlier; it is one of many in which companies have been forced to pay millions of dollars in damages due to accidents caused by the employees or contractors they put behind the wheel. The legal theories upon which these companies are held liable vary from case to case and from state to state, but they share some common themes.

As a general rule, employers¹ are vicariously liable for any motor vehicle accidents caused by their employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior, which imputes the conduct of the employee to his/her employer under agency principles. Of course, there could be exceptions to the rule, including, for example, if the employee is operating the vehicle outside the scope of his/her employment when the accident occurs. But generally speaking, employers—and their insurers—will be held responsible for any damages stemming from their employees’ accidents.

At the same time, an employer could also be directly liable to the injured party(ies) if the employer’s own independent negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries.² This liability is distinct from vicarious liability in the sense that the latter is premised on the employer’s master/servant relationship with its employee, whereas the former is premised on the employer’s own actions or inactions. This type of “direct” liability is at the heart of this paper, and it’s precisely the issue that Xerox faced in its lawsuit. It is also the type of liability that can open the door to punitive damages (i.e., those meant to punish the company for its egregious conduct) on top of compensatory damages already awarded to the injured party. The most common direct-liability theories in high-way-accident cases are negligent hiring, negligent selection, and negligent entrustment. Under these theories, the injured party alleges that the company was negligent in allowing its employee/subcontractor to operate a motor vehicle, and, but for that decision, the accident would never have occurred.

“Companies should be doing something to ensure the individuals who drive vehicles in connection with their employment are safe.”

Often, the company’s alleged negligence is premised on its failure to adequately vet the employee’s driving history before allowing him/her to operate a vehicle on the company’s behalf. In Xerox’s case, for example, the plaintiffs alleged that the company was negligent in failing to check its employee’s MVR, which would have revealed his prior DUIs and the fact that his license was suspended. What precisely is a company’s duty with respect to vetting its drivers before allowing them to operate a vehicle? Unfortunately, that’s a question with no definitive answer—one often left to the judge or jury to decide what a “reasonable” company would have done under the circumstances. What’s clear, however, is that companies should be doing some-thing to ensure the individuals who drive vehicles in connection with their employment are safe. And the most prudent something involves verifying the driver has a valid license and checking his/her MVR for prior violations/accidents, at a minimum. As addressed in the next section, for companies that are subject to federal and/or state motor carrier safety regulations, this is a legal requirement. But even for those who are not, it is best practice.

¹ Companies that engage independent contractors to operate motor vehicles on their behalf rather than employees may not be vicariously liable for the contractor’s operation of those vehicles, but this depends on a number of factors, including, for example, whether the state law at issue considers the operation of a motor vehicle to be an “inherently dangerous” activity and whether companies have “non-delegable duties” with respect to their operation. Additionally, pursuant to federal and state leasing regulations, motor carriers who contract with independent-contractor owner-operators are generally vicariously liable for any accidents caused by those owner-operators as a matter of law. And regardless of whether companies utilize employees or independent contractors to operate vehicle, the companies could still be directly liable for damages stemming from the companies’ own negligence.

² Some state laws, but certainly not all, provide that an employer who is vicariously liable for its employee’s conduct cannot be separately liable to the injured plaintiff under a theory of direct liability.

DOWNLOAD the white paper!

[mrkto_frm id="1231"]

See also, 

The Benefits of Continuous Driver Monitoring Services

Protect Your Business Now!

Click Here

Leading Food Distribution Customer Success Story

Leading Food Distribution Customer Success Story

Managing the Driver Lifecycle

The Challenge

Safety issues led to DOT audit

A Top 5 food distribution company was not identifying drivers who had invalid licenses. Even the drivers were often unaware their licenses had been suspended. This was costing the company thousands in out-of-service order expenses and fines. It also prompted a Department of Transportation audit for exceeding the safety threshold, which created great expense in the form of personnel, time and monetary loss. The safety issues and DOT audit heightened the company’s concern of exposure to additional legal risks.

“SambaSafety identified drivers with invalid licenses – saving thousands of dollars in costs and potentially millions in negligent entrustment lawsuits.”

The Solution

Close Visibility Gaps and Optimize MVR Spend

SambaSafety completed a comprehensive review and identified visibility gaps in the customer’s qualification and compliance processes. Together with a strategic partner, the company’s background screener, SambaSafety began to monitor drivers for negative changes to license status. They also updated drivers’ qualification files and verified certification activity at the end of each given year – effectively managing the complete driver lifecycles of the employees.

The Results

Improved Safety to Avoid the Next Major Accident

Download the Case Study

[mrkto_frm id="1298"]

256 at-risk drivers were identified on Day 1, of service

$2.56

Avoided $2.56 million in estimated costs from unsafe driving– Avoided $2.56 million in estimated costs from unsafe driving

%

Accident-prone drivers Identified and removed from the wheel, leading to decreased accident rates

Protect Your Business Now!

Click Here

The Benefits of Continuous Driver Monitoring Services

The Benefits of Continuous Driver Monitoring Services

WHITE PAPER:

Driver Risk Exposure & the Advantages

of Continuous Driver Monitoring

%

of all motor vehicle ACCIDENTS are WORK-RELATED

and COST EMPLOYERS a staggering

$56.7

BILLION in 2017

The Benefits of Continuous Driver Monitoring Services

According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, highway accidents accounted for 37,461 deaths in the U.S. in 2016.¹ Moreover, a recent study by Motus, a vehicle management and reimbursement platform, found that 40% of all motor vehicle accidents are work-related and cost employers a staggering $56.7 billion in 2017, taking into account medical expenses, property damage, increased insurance premiums, and lost productivity.²

“Regardless of the size of the vehicles, and often despite the utmost caution, operating vehicles can be a risky endeavor.”

While liability insurance is an important way for employers to address that risk, it’s by no means a panacea. Companies can and should be doing more to lessen the likelihood of accidents in the first place. And given that the vast majority (94%, according to NHTSA’s study) stem from driver-related actions or inactions as opposed to equipment malfunctions, one of the most important ways of doing so is to ensure that the individuals who drive in connection with their employment (including those who do so for a living) are safe drivers.

In the Firm’s experience, companies that carefully and continuously vet their drivers are not only better positioned in their defense of catastrophic accidents but are also much less likely to find themselves in that position to begin with. Additionally, these companies often have a much lower risk profile than their peers and can leverage that fact in their negotiations with their insurance providers. This paper explores the added benefits of continuous driver-monitoring services.

¹ 2016 Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview, NHTSA, Oct. 6, 2017,
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-releases-2016-fatal-traffic-crash-data.

² Vehicle accidents cost companies $57B in 2017, FLEETOWNER, April 20, 2018, https://www.fleetowner.com/safety/vehicle-accidents-cost-companies-57b-2017.

DOWNLOAD the white paper!

[mrkto_frm id="1231"]

See also, 

The Legal Landscape of Continuous Driver Monitoring Case Study

Protect Your Business Now!

Click Here