Webinar Replay #87: Understanding the Reptile Theory

1
00:00:03.850 –> 00:00:17.069
Steve Kessler: Good morning. Everyone. Welcome to the INFINITI Fast Forward Webinar Series. Thank you for joining us this morning. My name is Steve Kessler, and I’m going to host the program today.

2
00:00:17.560 –> 00:00:31.429
Steve Kessler: And honestly, I think this is a very, very important topic. It’s something that we’ve gotten a lot of requests to discuss a little bit more today. We’re going to talk about understanding reptile theory.

3
00:00:31.600 –> 00:00:35.280
Steve Kessler: Some of you out there, I’m quite sure, know quite a bit about it.

4
00:00:35.770 –> 00:00:47.520
Steve Kessler: But I’ve also come to know that there are a lot of folks out there that don’t know much about the reptile series, so I thought, it’s a great idea to talk about this, because in the end, if you understand this

5
00:00:47.590 –> 00:01:06.509
Steve Kessler: approach that the plaintiff lawyers, those billboard lawyers out there are taking, you can do a lot of things to help protect yourself against these huge verdicts that we see all the time. I think they’re often referred to as nuclear verdicts, which is what 10 million dollars or more.

6
00:01:06.720 –> 00:01:19.210
Steve Kessler: But there are also a lot of them that are quite a bit bigger than that. So, before I introduce our co-host and our guest. Why don’t you all jump on the little chat feature? There.

7
00:01:19.350 –> 00:01:28.119
Steve Kessler: let us know who you are, where you’re from, and name of your company. If you don’t mind that way, we have some idea who’s out there.

8
00:01:28.410 –> 00:01:32.739
Steve Kessler: So, while you all are doing that, I want to introduce Mark Rhea.

9
00:01:33.020 –> 00:01:54.720
Steve Kessler: Those of you that join us on our webinars know Mark. Mark’s an industry veteran at an executive level. He’s a CDL holder. He’s a veteran. He’s involved in a lot of safety and consulting around the country. So, mark your comments about our topic today.

10
00:01:54.720 –> 00:02:07.340
Mark Rhea: Yeah, the reptile theory. I get this question all the time I get this question. They say, Mark, you’ve been in this commercial vehicle industry for a long time. Yes, yes, I’ve been doing this a long time.

11
00:02:07.620 –> 00:02:25.659
Mark Rhea: What has your industry done to attract so much attention from the legal community? It’s a fair question, and my answer is, they’ve learned this strategy. They, being the plaintiff’s attorney, have learned this strategy called the reptile theory.

12
00:02:25.760 –> 00:02:42.109
Mark Rhea: and then the next comment is, what in the world is the reptile theory? So, Mr. Steve Setliff is going to teach us and educate us on this reptile theory. That is a major contributor to the plaintiff’s sewer truck industry that we’re dealing with out there

13
00:02:43.440 –> 00:03:09.099
Steve Kessler: Yep, we hear it quite a lot. So let me go ahead and introduce Steve Setliff. Steve is the founding partner of Setliff Law, PC. Steve is consistently recognized as one of America’s best lawyers. Mr. Setliff represents clients in complex litigation at the trial and appellate level in State and Federal courts across the United States.

14
00:03:09.490 –> 00:03:16.199
Steve Kessler: His multifaceted trial practice includes representation of clients across the broad array of industries

15
00:03:16.330 –> 00:03:26.419
Steve Kessler: with focus on transportation companies, including trucking companies and railroads in claims of traumatic injury by employees and non-employees.

16
00:03:26.600 –> 00:03:40.849
Steve Kessler: His trucking practice includes the representation of trucking companies, their insurers, and their drivers in a wide variety of claims, including catastrophic personal injury, property, damage, and toxic cleanup.

17
00:03:41.250 –> 00:04:02.009
Steve Kessler: Steve also handles catastrophic workers, compensation claims, negotiating, drafting and enforcing commercial agreements, including brokerage and independent contractor agreements, construction matters, traffic citations, including felony charges and employment claims under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act.

18
00:04:02.520 –> 00:04:13.020
Steve Kessler: His practice covers the gamut of trucking litigation from 1st seen accident investigation to effectively and efficiently trying cases to verdict.

19
00:04:13.330 –> 00:04:17.350
Steve Kessler: So, having said that, Steve, I’m going to turn the program over to you, sir.

20
00:04:18.050 –> 00:04:41.429
Stephen Setliff: Mark, Steve. Thank you very much, and I appreciate you all having me today. It’s a pleasure to be with you and get a chance to talk to these fine folks. I always must smile when I listen to somebody read my bio, because the big takeaway of all that is, I’m 1 of the guys that from a courtroom perspective sees exactly what it is that I’m getting ready to talk to you guys about today, which is the reptile theory.

21
00:04:41.480 –> 00:05:01.049
Stephen Setliff: and the reptile theory is really a name that has been attached to that comes from a book that was written by a couple of guys that devises and articulates a way that plaintiffs, lawyers, the billboard lawyers, the bad guys that we see in the world effectively come after us.

22
00:05:01.050 –> 00:05:20.860
Stephen Setliff: So, the purpose here today is to try to share with you exactly what it is. When I talk about what is the reptile theory, and perhaps more importantly, sharing with you the things that you need to be thinking about, and that you need to be doing to bulletproof your business to the greatest extent possible, because I’m going to tell you, the reptile theory works.

23
00:05:20.860 –> 00:05:42.689
Stephen Setliff: The reptile theory works dramatically. The reptile theory works tremendously, and the biggest reason is that the reptile theory works. And there’s a tendency in the world that I live in between folks who run trucking companies, safety directors, trucking companies, defense lawyers to blame guys like this to blame the billboard lawyers that we see out there in the world, when, in fact.

24
00:05:42.990 –> 00:06:06.759
Stephen Setliff: while these guys certainly are contributing to a lot of what we see in terms of negative results, when, in fact, the biggest problem, the biggest issue that we have in trying to defend cases when the reptile theory is deployed against us is ourselves is the people that we see when we look in the mirror. It’s not understanding exactly what we need to do to get right with ourselves to get right with God before an accident happens.

25
00:06:06.760 –> 00:06:15.729
Stephen Setliff: and then not doing the things that we need to do after an accident happens, and after a claim is filed to make sure that we are prepared to meet the kind of allegations that we are going to get.

26
00:06:16.020 –> 00:06:39.510
Stephen Setliff: So let’s start with some of this, and when you look, I had the privilege the other night to be driving over to Omaha for some work that I had out there, and I was driving in late at night listening to talk radio as I was coming up the road, and it was amazing. Haven’t had a chance to do that in a while. Usually, I’m on an airplane somewhere. But this is a fairly remote part of the State.

27
00:06:39.510 –> 00:07:02.660
Stephen Setliff: and I was listening to the number of plaintiffs, firms that sponsor talk radio on a nightly basis. And I mean, I’m scrolling up and down the dial, and almost every program, including Sean Hannity, and including some of the other guys on Fox News, are sponsored by autolaw.com truckinglaw.com. These guys are out

28
00:07:02.660 –> 00:07:25.930
Stephen Setliff: there coming after people that operate trucking companies hard. And so, when you see things like billboards like this, or you see advertisements like the one you see on the right hand side of the page. You need to know that these are the guys that are, in fact, going to deploy the reptile theory against you. And these are the guys that are starting with the basics of the reptile theory and the types of advertising that they use.

29
00:07:26.180 –> 00:07:49.210
Stephen Setliff: So, for example, when you look at the advertisement on the right, the serial killer advertisement that is an advertisement that’s made, at least in part for that law firm to gin up business. But the other part of that advertisement is the 1st effort that the lawyers in that firm make to reach out to the general public to start to convey to the general public the idea that trucking companies are bad.

30
00:07:49.210 –> 00:08:12.690
Stephen Setliff: and that’s a message that resonates. That’s a message that resonates with a lot of folks who end up serving on juries because they’re dealing with an audience. Almost everybody in the general public has probably had some kind of experience with somebody on a truck somewhere on a highway somewhere where a truck has tailgated or a truck has cut them off, or people are aware of the substantial difference between the size of a passenger vehicle and the size of a truck.

31
00:08:12.690 –> 00:08:35.600
Stephen Setliff: Those are the impressions. Those are the baseline things that come with folks when they get picked to serve on juries. They are predisposed in many instances, not to like us, based upon their personal experience, and based upon the very substantial efforts that the plaintiff bar is making with their almost limitless advertising. Now to demonstrate that we are in some ways dangerous.

32
00:08:36.049 –> 00:08:59.909
Stephen Setliff: It’s not the only thing that influences jury verdicts. I will, just as an aside, say, I think there are a number of things that are influencing what we are seeing with respect to jury verdicts across the United States. Certainly, plaintiffs advertising is part of it. But there are some other things as well. I think people, that some of the reason we’re seeing the kind of numbers that we’re seeing on jury verdicts is that people have lost contact with in the context of money. What a great deal

33
00:08:59.910 –> 00:09:24.519
Stephen Setliff: of money really is, and we’re seeing increasingly jurors who are giving away ridiculous sums of money in cases like never before depending upon the statistics that you look at the average jury verdict in the United States has climbed to a ridiculous number. I’ve seen suggestions in some of the popular literature that the average verdict against a commercial motor carrier, now, on cases actually tried. All the way to

34
00:09:24.520 –> 00:09:36.170
Stephen Setliff: conclusion is somewhere between 18 and 24 million dollars. That’s an existential event. Almost any company that’s out there operating in the commercial space.

35
00:09:36.450 –> 00:09:50.990
Stephen Setliff: What that tells me when I look at that is, not only is advertising a part of it. Not only is the reptile theory working. But it’s also telling me that we, as an industry, are not doing the things that we need to do to be prepared for the type of attack that we are going to face.

36
00:09:50.990 –> 00:10:15.749
Stephen Setliff: Let me also add, I think, part of the problem. Not that it’s necessarily associated with the reptile theory is really 2 other aspects to it. I think. First, as I mentioned, the jurors have lost context and contact with what these numbers really mean, think about the kind of this information flow you get on a daily basis in the news with another 1 million dollars here, or Elon Musk finding 50 million dollars there, or 2 billion dollars. Here

37
00:10:15.750 –> 00:10:28.809
Stephen Setliff: people have become anesthetized to what big numbers really look like in these type of situations. And then the other thing I think it bears mentioning with respect to juries, and why we need to be prepared on things like the reptile theory

38
00:10:28.810 –> 00:10:41.829
Stephen Setliff: is that a lot of jurors are just mad. A lot of people just walk around on a daily basis. Just angry. Try this little experiment the next time. If you want to see whether or not what I’m saying is, in fact, true.

39
00:10:42.220 –> 00:10:59.730
Stephen Setliff: Wherever you stop for your morning coffee, Dunkin donuts, Starbucks, seven-eleven wah! Wah! Whatever it is, wherever you stop for your morning coffee, take a look around you, and look at the other people in the store who happen to be with you, and see how many people that you can see are actually smiling

40
00:10:59.830 –> 00:11:23.080
Stephen Setliff: if you do see somebody smiling, your 1st thought is probably going to be damn. I think this guy’s getting ready to shoot the place up, right? It’s unusual in an environment where a lot of people are around to find people that are otherwise happy. Most people are just angry. They’re angry about going to work, angry about what time of the day is they’re angry about who’s in the White House they’re angry about who’s not in the White House. They’re angry about things.

41
00:11:23.080 –> 00:11:41.480
Stephen Setliff: Those people bring that anger and their predispositions with them into the jury box. Those are the people who are going to be listening to the kind of things I’m going to tell you about when it comes to the reptile theory. As I mentioned to you. The lawyers are playing on this big time

42
00:11:41.480 –> 00:12:06.230
Stephen Setliff: hugely. Never seen the amount of advertising that we have seen in years past. Just one firm. And if you’re operating in the commercial trucking environment, you know, these guys, Morgan and Morgan spent almost 41 million dollars on digital advertising in 2023, and if we had the numbers for 2024, I would suspect that those numbers are even higher. Again, that money gets spent to start to lay

43
00:12:06.230 –> 00:12:29.259
Stephen Setliff: groundwork for the jurors who are ultimately going to hear the things that come from the reptile theory. And these guys aren’t alone. The other law firms, big law firms out there. Plaintiffs, law firms that are chasing this kind of work are also spending that kind of money to reach prospective jurors and to try to get the pool poisoned if you will, prior to the time we ever get into a courthouse.

44
00:12:29.540 –> 00:12:35.970
Stephen Setliff: I mentioned to you that the average verdict has gone out of sight. The number of verdicts over a million dollars has gone up some

45
00:12:36.030 –> 00:12:55.539
Stephen Setliff: ridiculously crazy amount over the last 6 years and continues to go up today, and I can tell you, when I talk to you about the reptile theory, that the reptile theory is something that works, no matter where it is that you operate, you know. Historically, we, as defense lawyers, will look at a jurisdiction and think, wow!

46
00:12:55.540 –> 00:13:20.040
Stephen Setliff: You know, this is a place that’s reliably conservative. This is a place that votes red. It’s not downtown. Boston. It’s not downtown Philadelphia, or downtown Atlanta. It won’t be as bad here while that is still somewhat true. It is not as true as it has been historically, and the reasons for that are that the reptile theory appeals to law-and-order type folks, for reasons I’ll explain to you in a second.

47
00:13:20.040 –> 00:13:27.059
Stephen Setliff: It’s not just blue-collar demographic where this works. It will work in conservative jurisdictions as well.

48
00:13:27.100 –> 00:13:53.760
Stephen Setliff: Now you heard me say that this thing that the reptile theory got its beginnings or at least got named by these 2 guys that wrote this book back in 2,009, and since then it has really taken off. My suspicion is that the folks who wrote this book probably made a hell of a lot more money, basically selling this book than they did practicing law. But nonetheless, everybody else out there, the plaintiffs’ bar out there has picked it up and has really gone with it, and when I tell you that it works.

49
00:13:54.000 –> 00:14:21.949
Stephen Setliff: it works. And if you aren’t prepared for what to do on the front end to try to avoid it working against you. If you aren’t prepared what to do after a claim is filed, then you are chum in the water. You can see it just by looking at the kind of birds that come back. In cases where we know the reptile theory was otherwise deployed in the great Free State of Florida. We had a billion. That’s with a B dollar bird return on the fatality of an 18-year-old college student.

50
00:14:21.950 –> 00:14:45.939
Stephen Setliff: That is as horrible set of facts as you’re going to see in terms of what the driver, what kind of condition the driver was in. He’s using his cell phone. He was over the legal limit of hours. Didn’t have his CDL, but a billion dollars. When you see a verdict like that, you know that there are things that are influencing the jury’s decision that goes simply beyond the facts of the happening of an accident and the potential damages that were put on the

51
00:14:45.940 –> 00:15:10.770
Stephen Setliff: board by the plaintiff’s lawyer, and it’s not just trucking companies that it works against. It also works against folks like Ford believe it or not. When Ford got drilled with over a billion-dollar birth on a case that was tried down in Georgia again, indicative of the fact that this approach used by plaintiff’s lawyers can be devastatingly effective if you aren’t prepared for it on the front end. And if you don’t do the kind of

52
00:15:10.770 –> 00:15:25.750
Stephen Setliff: things that you need to do once a claim is filed. So, what are we basically talking about with the reptile theory? And let me give you an example of what the plaintiff’s lawyers want to be able to say in a case.

53
00:15:26.020 –> 00:15:42.800
Stephen Setliff: And before that, let me mention to you historically, as somebody who’s been defending trucking companies for almost 40 years now there was a time in my practice when the most prominent facts, the most prevailing facts, the things that meant the most relative to the defense of the case

54
00:15:43.090 –> 00:16:12.799
Stephen Setliff: were the underlying facts of the happening of an accident, that is, did we do anything wrong? Did our driver do anything wrong? And I’m talking specifically about. Was he speeding? Did he cross the yellow line? Did he follow too closely? Was he not paying attention? Did he fall asleep? Those were the kind of things, and as a corollary to that, a focus on the kind of things that the claimant potentially did. Did the claimant do something wrong, was the claimant contributorily or comparatively negligent, relative to the cause of the accident.

55
00:16:12.800 –> 00:16:23.820
Stephen Setliff: Those were the things many years ago that were the primary things that people would look at. Those things are still important, but they aren’t the only things now that are important.

56
00:16:23.820 –> 00:16:46.839
Stephen Setliff: The plaintiff’s lawyers, as I will tell you later, want to look at 4 additional things, 4 things that help them very substantially in the telling of the reptile story and the things that they want to look at the unholy 4 if you will, are hiring retention, training, and equipment. Those are the things that they want to look at, very careful, because those things, really help them

57
00:16:46.840 –> 00:17:15.120
Stephen Setliff: get their teeth into you and really help them tell the kind of story that they want to tell, and the story that they want to tell candidly is that you are a bad company. You’re a dangerous company. You’re somebody that the jurors in the jurisdiction where this accident happened, that there’s somebody that you are, somebody, that the average juror should be afraid of, that you’re somebody that the average juror should want to punish, and that this is their opportunity to send a message.

58
00:17:15.119 –> 00:17:30.940
Stephen Setliff: So, this is kind of what they want to say in conclusion, and if I’m playing the role of the plaintiff’s lawyer, and I have heard this so many times now I could almost say it in my sleep. But what they want to do is go to the jury with as much emotion as they can conjure up and say.

59
00:17:31.280 –> 00:17:50.079
Stephen Setliff: you heard the evidence about how this accident happened. You heard that the driver for the other company wasn’t paying attention at the time the accident happened that he’s, in fact, was distracted. He was looking at his phone. He probably had been driving longer than he should have been driving.

60
00:17:50.380 –> 00:17:58.170
Stephen Setliff: and he was distracted, and as a result of those factors he got into an accident with my client.

61
00:17:58.200 –> 00:18:27.240
Stephen Setliff: and he cost her substantial injury. As a matter of fact, her injuries are so substantial she’s never going to be able to work again. She’s going to have wage loss in the future of something at least 6 or $700,000. She’s already incurred medical bills of 6 or $700,000, and you heard her doctor say that she’s going to need treatment in the future of another 2 to 3 million dollars’ worth of treatment.

62
00:18:27.780 –> 00:18:49.759
Stephen Setliff: That’s what her life is going to be on a go forward basis. She’s never going to be able to be intimate with her husband again. She’s not going to be able to be the kind of mother that she wants to be to her children again, and she is going to spend the rest of her life every day dealing with pain as a result of the driver in this company.

63
00:18:50.440 –> 00:18:58.679
Stephen Setliff: Now you also heard facts about this company. You heard the things that this company did.

64
00:18:58.680 –> 00:19:04.650
Stephen Setliff: or, more importantly, the things this company didn’t do relative to the driver that it hired.

65
00:19:04.650 –> 00:19:28.969
Stephen Setliff: Did you hear any evidence whatsoever that this company took the steps that it needed to take to adequately vet this driver when they hired him. Did you see one piece of paper in this case to suggest that they did an adequate background check. Did you see a single piece of paper to indicate how the company’s interview with the driver went? Did you see any indication? A single piece of paper in this case to indicate that there were any.

66
00:19:29.020 –> 00:19:38.790
Stephen Setliff: if prior employers call that they did anything to look into any of the prior accidents that this driver had, or any of the prior moving violations.

67
00:19:38.910 –> 00:19:45.349
Stephen Setliff: They didn’t do any of that, and in addition to that, after they hired him, he had problems

68
00:19:45.350 –> 00:19:56.469
Stephen Setliff: almost on a monthly basis, with alerts coming from this company’s electronic monitoring system, telling them that this driver was over speed or that he was taking turns to

69
00:19:56.470 –> 00:20:15.880
Stephen Setliff: fast, or that he was following too closely. There are even video clips that we were able to pull out of this driver’s file where he got coached and counseled about a variety of things, but what he never got was fired. They continued to keep this guy employed, despite the fact that he had all the problems that he had.

70
00:20:16.090 –> 00:20:39.620
Stephen Setliff: And did you hear about their supposed equipment program? Because equipment was an issue here. There was an issue with how fast this truck stopped when the brakes were applied. Did you hear anything to suggest that this company had a program in place that would adequately allow some driver or anybody else to report problems with equipment, and that that equipment would be held out of service until such time as it was taken care of.

71
00:20:39.620 –> 00:20:50.929
Stephen Setliff: Did you see a single piece of paper that would do anything to convince you that they cared about what kind of equipment that they were using prior to the time they put an 80,000-pound truck out on the road.

72
00:20:50.930 –> 00:20:52.869
Stephen Setliff: And perhaps, most importantly.

73
00:20:53.080 –> 00:21:23.069
Stephen Setliff: did you listen to what the evidence was about this company’s training or their supposed training. They didn’t do anything when they hired this guy to make sure he was familiar with the truck he was supposed to use the routes he was supposed to run, or even the particular job he was supposed to do, and their safety training, if that’s what you want to call it, consisted of something that was best described as a once a year meeting, where they would stand around and eat chicken and drink iced tea.

74
00:21:23.530 –> 00:21:34.189
Stephen Setliff: Any indication that anything about the training was dynamic or anything about the training was actually responsive to the problems they were having. You didn’t see a single piece of paper to indicate that.

75
00:21:34.510 –> 00:21:58.590
Stephen Setliff: So what you’ve got to decide, ladies and gentlemen of the jury is whether or not that’s the kind of company that you want operating in the roads and in the locations where you live, where your wives and your husbands, where your kids, where your parents are operating vehicles, so you can decide if that’s going to be tolerable to you. And the way you decide, that is with a verdict.

76
00:21:58.970 –> 00:22:10.609
Stephen Setliff: If you want this company to hear you, and to perhaps change the way they are doing things. Then you could return a verdict for 5, maybe 10 million dollars, and maybe they’ll hear you.

77
00:22:10.740 –> 00:22:24.490
Stephen Setliff: But if you want everybody that operates in the localities where we live and work to hear you, then you need to return a verdict that’s loud enough for everybody to hear. And that verdict, I would suggest, is 50 million dollars.

78
00:22:25.400 –> 00:22:40.390
Stephen Setliff: That’s what they say. That’s exactly what they say. That’s what it sounds like, and it works. It’s the kind of thing that resonates again with jurors not just in places that vote blue, but also resonates in places that vote red.

79
00:22:40.530 –> 00:22:44.020
Stephen Setliff: So, they set their entire case up

80
00:22:44.440 –> 00:22:52.960
Stephen Setliff: to abusing what, again, what has been referred to as a reptile theory. And the reptile theory basically is to make an appeal

81
00:22:52.960 –> 00:23:17.609
Stephen Setliff: to the things and what they believe is every individual’s brain to make them want. Make, put your average position where they want to avoid feeling the kind of things that this claimant is feeling, that where they are afraid of the company, that is, in fact, a defendant where they can evoke emotion to make jurors mad about what it is that they’ve seen, and to make jurors candidly want to reach out

82
00:23:17.610 –> 00:23:18.810
Stephen Setliff: to punish

83
00:23:18.930 –> 00:23:34.809
Stephen Setliff: and man again, it works, and it works because we do the kind of things that set it up to make it work. If you want to fight back, if you want to be in a position to fight back. Then the 1st thing you have to understand is how it works.

84
00:23:34.810 –> 00:23:55.670
Stephen Setliff: and you have to understand what it is that you need to do both. Prior to the time an accident happens and the things that you need to do after the time a claim is filed, and I’m going to talk about those in reverse order after a claim is filed. 1st of all, when your preliminary conversations with whatever lawyer is representing you and let me tell you.

85
00:23:55.670 –> 00:23:57.010
Stephen Setliff: it’s important.

86
00:23:57.010 –> 00:24:20.749
Stephen Setliff: The lawyer that gets assigned to represent you. I suspect everybody on here has some kind of insurance carrier, somebody that they deal with. They’re probably in a position where, when they have a claim that gets made, they reach out to their insurance carrier, and the insurance carrier signs counsel to them. When you get counsel assigned to you, you need to be asking some questions. You need to make sure that the person that you’re dealing with knows what the hell the reptile theory is.

87
00:24:20.750 –> 00:24:34.720
Stephen Setliff: knows and understands the kind of things that have to happen to effectively defend one of these cases, and perhaps, as importantly, has not only been through depositions, but has been through trials where there has been successful defense of these type of claims.

88
00:24:34.720 –> 00:24:43.349
Stephen Setliff: It’s not the place for on-the-job training. It’s not the place to have a lawyer who’s trying to figure out how the hell to do it, because of these cases

89
00:24:43.530 –> 00:25:03.470
Stephen Setliff: good lawyers on the other side can put you out of business if they’re not adequately prepared. So, 1st message, make sure that whoever it is assigned to you knows what the hell they’re doing and knows how to handle it. Second, they’re going to be a variety of inflection points in the case where you’re going to need to do something, or the defense is going to need to do something.

90
00:25:03.470 –> 00:25:22.140
Stephen Setliff: You can’t, in the defense of a trucking case, just rely on the insurance company, and whatever lawyer that you hire, to make sure everything is done correctly, I would suggest to you that you need to be an educated consumer of legal services and insurance services to make sure that the kind of things that need to be done are being done.

91
00:25:22.570 –> 00:25:29.860
Stephen Setliff: For example, there are going to be depositions that are going to be asked. There are going to be motions that need to be filed.

92
00:25:29.860 –> 00:25:54.729
Stephen Setliff: and one of the things that lawyers should be doing in these cases, particularly as you approach a trial is following what we call motions in lemonade to try to prevent the other lawyer from making the type of arguments that you just heard me try to make the Golden Rule arguments, or the appealing to the conscience of the community, or suggesting that the trucking company has some unreasonable amount of care that it owes to the general public

93
00:25:54.730 –> 00:26:08.150
Stephen Setliff: those things all need to be filed; those things all need to be briefed. Those things all need to be argued. They are critical. You also need to make sure that one of the things that I always encourage people to understand

94
00:26:08.150 –> 00:26:26.029
Stephen Setliff: the deposition that gets taken in the case or the depositions of the people taking the case are critical moments when it’s extraordinarily important to make sure that whoever the lawyer is defending you, and you understand the reptile theory and understand the kind of questions that you’re going to get.

95
00:26:26.030 –> 00:26:45.809
Stephen Setliff: So, for example, almost every case that we have there are going to be 2 mission, maybe 3 mission critical depositions, sometimes 4. It’s going to be the driver. It’s going to be the director of safety. It’s probably going to be somebody who’s charged with hiring because negligent hiring and retention is often an issue in this case, and it may be the safety director.

96
00:26:45.810 –> 00:27:03.199
Stephen Setliff: Those guys are all going to be deposed. Everybody’s got to understand the deal, and I will tell you as a preliminary matter. If the lawyer that you’ve got in your case, if your deposition is on Wednesday, and he wants to prepare you on Tuesday, you need to send up a flare because nobody.

97
00:27:03.290 –> 00:27:33.140
Stephen Setliff: even if you’ve been through this drill before, nobody is capable, in my opinion, is capable of being prepared for a deposition, a reptile type deposition the day before. It’s 1 of those things that at least 2 to 3 weeks beforehand. You should have an initial preparation session where somebody goes over with you what the kind of questions that you can expect. It gives you an outline of them, and then actually has at least one additional session with you at least one additional session with you, where you are getting live fire questions so that you can practice

98
00:27:33.140 –> 00:27:42.359
Stephen Setliff: again. The lawyers on the other side are very, very good at asking these questions, and very, very good at trying to PIN people down. Let me give you some examples.

99
00:27:42.610 –> 00:28:07.839
Stephen Setliff: It’s the safety rule questions that almost always come up, and making sure the witness is prepared for those is critical. For example, you’ll get a question like, is safety. Always the company’s number one priority, and there are probably folks out there in there who have rule books. Now that say something like that. You shouldn’t have that in a rule book, and you certainly should be prepared for this in the deposition. If this question comes up.

100
00:28:07.840 –> 00:28:32.119
Stephen Setliff: sure safety is important, and the way I would tell a witness, or go over witness with. To answer those questions is to acknowledge that safety is certainly part of what we do. Safety is important to what it is that we do, and we certainly pay attention to safety. But we have a variety of priorities here. We’re concerned not only about safety. But we are concerned about our customers. We’re concerned about our equipment. We’re concerned about our employees.

101
00:28:32.120 –> 00:28:56.970
Stephen Setliff: We’re concerned about our public image, perhaps with a variety of things that we worry about. So, we don’t make safety the number one priority. It’s 1 of many priorities that we have. They’re going to come after you with things like that. They’re going to also come after you during the course of deposition, asking you things that are emotionally charged, asking you things like, well, don’t you feel bad as a company about the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, or weren’t? Weren’t you personally involved

102
00:28:56.970 –> 00:29:08.009
Stephen Setliff: in an accident some years ago, where you hurt somebody? Or doesn’t your company’s mission statement or vision statement say something about safety being a primary consideration? You have

103
00:29:08.010 –> 00:29:16.639
Stephen Setliff: to be prepared for those you’ve got to see those kind of questions and understand how you’re going to answer them, especially the emotional attack.

104
00:29:16.640 –> 00:29:40.939
Stephen Setliff: Anytime somebody asks you about whether or not you feel bad about what happened to the plaintiff on the other side of what the kind of injuries they suffer. Being prepared to say. Any injury is something that everybody would do their best to try to avoid. It’s 1 of the things that we try to do around here. We try to make safety part of what it is that we do. We also are concerned about how our employees do, and make sure that they operate safely. It is a

105
00:29:41.280 –> 00:29:57.590
Stephen Setliff: it’s not hard to do, but it’s something that otherwise has to be practiced. I went through some of the examples of questions. Here’s some other examples of questions that you may otherwise anticipate, and the kind of things that you want to be ready for.

106
00:29:57.630 –> 00:30:05.519
Stephen Setliff: So again, after the suit is filed, the things we want to make sure that we focus on is getting everybody on board about what

107
00:30:05.520 –> 00:30:27.810
Stephen Setliff: theoretically, what the reptile theory is, the kind of questions we’re going to get and making sure that we have done things both conceptually to think about them, and from a live fire standpoint, to prepare for those questions in the context of a deposition. I always start with that part, because to be honest with you, that part is like putting the icing on the cake.

108
00:30:28.110 –> 00:30:49.390
Stephen Setliff: The cake in most of these cases is really baked long before an accident happens, long before an accident happens and the cake gets baked, based upon how it is that you’re running your company. You have heard me tell you in direct terms the 4 things that they are going to come after hiring, retention, training, and equipment.

109
00:30:50.080 –> 00:30:51.720
Stephen Setliff: You need to think

110
00:30:52.040 –> 00:30:58.630
Stephen Setliff: now about how those things are going to look, and how susceptible those things are to reptile attack

111
00:30:58.640 –> 00:31:25.909
Stephen Setliff: way before the time that an accident happens, and the other thing I would suggest, and I’ll talk about each of those in a second. The other thing I would suggest you do is to make sure that you were doing the things necessary to manage your public profile. I’ve tried hundreds of cases across the United States tons and tons of trucking cases in jurisdictions, probably 33, 34 States at this point, and I hear every time the judge make the same

112
00:31:25.910 –> 00:31:39.969
Stephen Setliff: comment to the jury, the comment that invariably will make to the juries. You’re supposed to decide this case, based on the evidence that you hear in front of you. You’re not supposed to consult with any outside sources. You’re not supposed to talk to anybody. Don’t go on the Internet. Don’t do any of that.

113
00:31:39.970 –> 00:31:54.249
Stephen Setliff: That will last until the 1st break that will last until the 1st time that a juror can lay his hands or her hands on the phone, and Google, the company, or Google, the witnesses who are prepared to testify.

114
00:31:54.370 –> 00:32:16.999
Stephen Setliff: and they’re going to see what there is out there to be seen. So, a couple of things that I probably would do as I prepare to meet the reptile there, and I want to manage my public persona is I want to make sure I’ve got a professionally designed website. You don’t have to spend $25,000 on it. But you need to have a website that looks clean. That looks efficient, that conveys who you are. Without going too far.

115
00:32:17.000 –> 00:32:26.949
Stephen Setliff: I would tell you that I’d want my lawyer to look at my website to see if there was anything on my website that somebody could use against me as they mounted some kind of reptile attack.

116
00:32:26.950 –> 00:32:28.260
Stephen Setliff: That’s first.st

117
00:32:28.260 –> 00:32:39.129
Stephen Setliff: Second, I would want to make sure. My website also conveyed that I am a participant in whatever community where I’m headquartered or where I do substantial amounts of business.

118
00:32:39.140 –> 00:32:55.400
Stephen Setliff: There aren’t many things in this country that we can still agree on as Americans. But there are some things that almost universally recognize as good things the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, the Richmond little league, whatever those things are.

119
00:32:55.430 –> 00:33:10.930
Stephen Setliff: I would sponsor those things, you know. Again, I’m not telling you to write a $5,000 check. You can write a $250 check to any of those things. Send it off. And then I would put something on my website to indicate that I’m a proud sponsor of, and that I do this with.

120
00:33:10.940 –> 00:33:25.870
Stephen Setliff: Those are kind of things that, at least from our standpoint, help contest the type of negative advertising that we see. Because again, I know jurors are going to look at our website. The other thing that I would encourage you to do in the most dramatic form is.

121
00:33:26.190 –> 00:33:37.529
Stephen Setliff: enter every single safety contest that your particular state, trucking associations, or whatever associations that you belong to, may have available.

122
00:33:37.630 –> 00:33:47.310
Stephen Setliff: Every single thing that you can enter, because if you win a safety award, or if you win an award that any way recognizes you for being an exceptional company.

123
00:33:47.310 –> 00:34:11.309
Stephen Setliff: put it on your website again, it’s not saying that we are the safest, or we are the best, but it is some indication, some evidence that your peers have acknowledged you as being someone who operates safely as somebody who takes safety. Seriously. It’s an important thing to do. The other thing that I would encourage you to do to help get in front of the reptile there is. Have a guy like me.

124
00:34:11.409 –> 00:34:36.040
Stephen Setliff: Go to your drivers. Meetings have somebody go to the meetings where the guys who are going to be interfacing the most with the general public, your drivers, and have somebody like me explain to them exactly how this game works, and how? What’s going to happen at the scene of the accident, what they should or should not do, because driver behavior at the scene of the accident ends up being something that feeds very dramatically

125
00:34:36.040 –> 00:34:48.560
Stephen Setliff: into the reptile theory. For example, a driver who lies to a police officer about how an accident happened, or driver who makes some comment. That’s demonstrably untrue. That feeds the reptile theory, because

126
00:34:48.560 –> 00:34:51.110
Stephen Setliff: people who lie to police officers

127
00:34:51.110 –> 00:35:05.790
Stephen Setliff: are liars, and you know who hires, liars, bad companies. So, making sure drivers are trained on how to interface with police officers, what to say, what not to say, and maybe not say anything at the scene of the accident.

128
00:35:06.000 –> 00:35:08.669
Stephen Setliff: and somebody like me to tell your drivers

129
00:35:08.720 –> 00:35:37.839
Stephen Setliff: how damning social media can be. And I’ll mention this in 2 contexts. First.st If you’ve got an open website where people, including your drivers, can come on and make any comment, take it down 5 min after you get off this presentation, because that will be something that is fertile ground for a plaintiff’s lawyer to go into and harvest any negative comment that they can find, and they will use that to try to tell the bad company story through the reptile approach.

130
00:35:37.880 –> 00:36:03.099
Stephen Setliff: So just get rid of that second, make sure your drivers understand that things that they post on their personal media accounts are likely something that a plaintiff’s lawyer is going to find if and when an accident happens, and something that they will use to try to tell the reptile story the bad company story. So putting up memes that say, if you cut off a tractor trailer, you’re asking for an 80,000-pound suppository

131
00:36:03.100 –> 00:36:10.980
Stephen Setliff: might be hilarious might be funny until one of your truck drivers rear ends somebody and launches them through the windshield cuts them in half.

132
00:36:10.980 –> 00:36:22.779
Stephen Setliff: Then probably not so funny, or putting videos of themselves up at the local NASCAR race, passed out on the hood of their truck surrounded by Coors Light cans might be funny on a Saturday afternoon.

133
00:36:22.780 –> 00:36:45.099
Stephen Setliff: but it ain’t funny when they get into an accident and subsequently fail the drug test. Those are the kind of things that your drivers need to know. And the message I typically deliver to drivers when I talk to them at safety meetings is flowers and puppies. If you’re going to put something up on your website or your social media pages, make it flowers and puppies because everybody likes flowers and puppies.

134
00:36:45.180 –> 00:36:56.250
Stephen Setliff: Be aware of your public persona. It is a big deal, and it’s something that helps us tell the only story that we can tell. In these cases, which is.

135
00:36:56.250 –> 00:37:20.909
Stephen Setliff: not only can we contest the facts that happen to have an accident, but the way to beat the reptile theory, the way to get ahead of that is to meet the allegations that we are a bad company we need to be punished with. We are a good company, and we try to do things right. That’s critical, because there are going to be plenty of times when our drivers have, in fact, done things wrong. The difference between a jury unloading on

136
00:37:20.910 –> 00:37:40.349
Stephen Setliff: us in any kind of case, when we’ve done something wrong and a jury returned, a reasonable verdict is whether or not the company can be successfully portrayed as a good company. Even my driver, because people make mistakes, and even my driver’s done something wrong. But I’ve got a good company. Then I’m in a position where I can contest the bad company story.

137
00:37:41.070 –> 00:38:04.209
Stephen Setliff: and I want to just take a few minutes. I don’t want to run too far over here, but I want to take a few minutes of things that I want you to think about specifically. You heard me say that they’re going to come after hiring retention, training, and equipment. So, get right with the Lord on those processes. Realize as a predicate matter, any driver that you hire the one question you should ask yourself as you hand them the keys.

138
00:38:04.210 –> 00:38:29.130
Stephen Setliff: Is, am I comfortable betting the company on this guy? Because that’s really what you’re doing every single time. So do the things that you need to do to get as comfortable as you can get before you hand somebody the keys, for example, for your employment applications. I’m sorry for your hiring processes. Look at your hiring processes. The employment application that you use has that been vetted by your lawyer? Are you asking everything

139
00:38:29.130 –> 00:38:57.939
Stephen Setliff: that you can ask to the fullest extent that’s allowed by State and Federal law on anything where you ask for references, where you’re asking for prior employment. Are you calling and checking those references? Are you doing the things you need to do to get an accurate view of what kind of employee this person was somewhere else. If there are prior incidents that are indicated prior accidents that are indicated, do you do things to investigate those incidents to satisfy yourself that, in fact, it was something that’s acceptable to you.

140
00:38:57.980 –> 00:39:14.990
Stephen Setliff: And are you documenting that? Are there things in your file that can demonstrate that you did those things. And can you articulate for me one of the questions I typically ask anytime we’re talking about hiring and retention, a question you should ask yourself, is, what is my standard?

141
00:39:15.240 –> 00:39:24.110
Stephen Setliff: What is the company standard for whether or not an employee is going to be suitable to work for us. Can you articulate that standard?

142
00:39:24.110 –> 00:39:49.029
Stephen Setliff: If the answer to that question is, my standard is, do they get by the insurance company? Then you probably got a problem. Because in a deposition you’re going to get asked that you’re going to get asked, what is the standard that you utilize relative to making the hiring decisions. How did you derive that standard? Has that standard changed over time? If it has changed, why has it changed over time? Did you consider other standards? And if you consider other standards, why did you discard those standards and go

143
00:39:49.030 –> 00:40:13.320
Stephen Setliff: with the one that you have? And if you ain’t got one specifically, it’s going to look like just what it is bad. So, you need to think about that. And you need to understand why the negligent hiring part is so important. That is a huge conduit for information. For the way the bad guys tell the bad company story, for the way the bad guys tell the reptile story they want to.

144
00:40:13.350 –> 00:40:36.699
Stephen Setliff: I would tell you just as a side. I can almost tell whether or not the lawyer I’m dealing with on the other side knows how to count to 3 and knows what they’re doing with respect to a trucking case. If I get a trucking case in here that just has allegations of vicarious liability that is, just has allegations that the company is responsible because the driver screwed up. I know I’m probably dealing with somebody that doesn’t know what the hell they’re doing.

145
00:40:36.780 –> 00:40:53.989
Stephen Setliff: Most of the good lawyers, or at least the competent lawyers on the other side, are going to include the negligent hiring, the negligent, retaining allegations because they want to be able to get into evidence. And before jury anything in a drivers past that sounds bad. Looks bad, feels bad smells, bad

146
00:40:54.400 –> 00:41:22.920
Stephen Setliff: prior movement, violations, prior accidents, prior injuries, prior things. They’ve done any kind of encounters with the law. Those are all things they want to get in, because that allows them to tell the story they want to tell, which is, you never should have hired them in the 1st place, if you hadn’t hired them. In the 1st place, none of us would be sitting here, and if you had better standards, if you cared about the kind of people that you rolled out and put in proximity to the general public. These kinds of things wouldn’t happen. Jury unload on

147
00:41:22.920 –> 00:41:46.849
Stephen Setliff: same kind of thing for retention. You should have some kind of retention standard, you should be able to articulate your retention standard, you should be able to say why your retention standard is what it is how you derived it, and how it is that if there are other things that you consider for retention and discarded, why that happened, those are questions you’re going to get asked in a deposition, as these guys try to tee up the reptile theory.

148
00:41:46.850 –> 00:42:02.490
Stephen Setliff: think about those things beforehand, have a standard, have an articulable standard. Have a reason that you’re going to do what it is that you do. I often get asked, well, what should our standard be for hiring or retention that’s entirely up to you

149
00:42:02.490 –> 00:42:27.020
Stephen Setliff: and understand that it’s all on a continuum. Unfortunately, in the world we live in, there are not 300,000 500,000. How many truck drivers we need across the United States people with perfectly clean driving records, with no moving violations, no citations, no accidents. But what you’ve got to decide is how much risk you’re willing to tolerate, because the more of those kinds of things that show up in a bad

150
00:42:27.080 –> 00:42:52.790
Stephen Setliff: check the more risk that you are assuming. Know that, and be prepared for that, and the way you’re prepared for that is, be in a position where you can articulate your hiring and retention standards, and for goodness sakes, on hiring and retention claims understand the thing that will kill us deader than dead is any failure to comply with the basics with the FMCSA. Regulations.

151
00:42:52.920 –> 00:43:20.920
Stephen Setliff: but also understand that simply complying with the basics is not a get out of jail free card. The basics, as compliance with the FMCSA standards are the minimum amount of what we’ve got to do to try to be in front of a negligent hiring or a negligent retention claim. And then, after somebody’s hired, certainly relative to retention kind of claims, make sure that you’re doing annual checks, and that again, that you have a standard. With respect to that.

152
00:43:21.010 –> 00:43:39.319
Stephen Setliff: I know I’m getting short on time, but I do want to talk about one additional thing or a couple additional things here to defeat the reptile theory. You really one of the best weapons that we have to demonstrate that we are good company and shouldn’t be subject to punishment. Pursuant to the reptile theory is training.

153
00:43:40.080 –> 00:44:04.900
Stephen Setliff: Training is one of those things, and there aren’t many things in the world like this. But training is one of those things where more is better, almost universally more is better. Don’t be in a position where somebody can say the one time a year safety meeting, eating fried chicken, drinking sweet tea. That’s what they want to say, what I want to say as your lawyer, and what your lawyer should want to say is.

154
00:44:04.900 –> 00:44:20.969
Stephen Setliff: look, Eliza hired on with us 10 years ago. She has been to 10 annual safety meetings. She has been to 32 quarterly safety meetings. She has received 217 rules of the week.

155
00:44:20.970 –> 00:44:43.689
Stephen Setliff: and she’s otherwise had 142 safety encounters. Whether it’s been a poster that’s put up in a break room or a rule of the day reminder that gets blasted out on Omnitracks or Qualcomm something, because what I want to say is, in the 10 years Eliza has been working for us. She’s had 367 different safety encounters, where we have

156
00:44:43.690 –> 00:44:54.350
Stephen Setliff: conveyed to her some aspect of the need to think about the way she’s doing her job and the things that would make it safer for her to do her job.

157
00:44:54.350 –> 00:45:18.800
Stephen Setliff: I want to be able to tell the story where I can say. When we hired Eliza on to the company we took her out, and we specifically trained her on the truck that she was going to be using. We walked her around the outside one way. We walked around the outside the other way. We got into the cab. We did a comprehensive review of all the operating systems, including the electronic components, including eld including camera.

158
00:45:18.800 –> 00:45:43.680
Stephen Setliff: so that she understood how all that worked. We took her to exemplar place where she was going to be working, so she had an idea about the kind of deliveries, maybe that she was going to make. We reviewed with her the type of route that she was going to be on, and make sure she had some familiarity with that. We had her ride with a supervisor for 3 or 4 days a week, 2 weeks whatever

159
00:45:43.680 –> 00:45:55.760
Stephen Setliff: to view the way the job was done, and then we had somebody ride with her after that, and we did periodic status checks. Oh, and by the way, we’ve got cameras

160
00:45:55.980 –> 00:46:13.560
Stephen Setliff: or electronic telemetrics in our vehicles that tell us anytime there’s a problem. And if there’s a problem we would deal with her specifically on that, with some type of coaching and counseling, the idea being that our training is dynamic, and that we are very

161
00:46:13.750 –> 00:46:39.059
Stephen Setliff: much not just doing plug and play training. Nothing wrong with plug and play to some extent. But the story I need to tell as your lawyer. The story your lawyer needs to tell is that the training any employee got while they were employed was in fact, dynamic. It was specific to the job, specific to the equipment specific to the route that they were going to be on, and particularly specific to any problem they were having.

162
00:46:39.060 –> 00:46:50.940
Stephen Setliff: That is very, very important. Again, that may not defeat the predicate facts of the underlying accident. But what that does is, let me say to a jury.

163
00:46:51.030 –> 00:47:11.659
Stephen Setliff: basically, I don’t say it quite this way. Don’t punish us. We tried to do the right thing. People make mistakes, but we tried to do the right thing. And when you have stuff evidence like this that indicates that we tried to do the right thing. Juries can relate to that, and don’t unload on you

164
00:47:11.690 –> 00:47:35.959
Stephen Setliff: a couple of the quick things here. I would suggest to you, have a handbook. You need a handbook. Your handbook should be the perfect marriage between operations and safety with legal over top. It needs to say how you actually do things, or how you contemplate doing things. There’s a great amount of disagreement in the legal community now about whether a handbook should be minimalist or whether it should be more comprehensive.

165
00:47:36.040 –> 00:47:45.459
Stephen Setliff: That depends on you depends on what your theory of operating is. You just need one, and you need one, because it’s part of the defense against the reptile theory.

166
00:47:45.460 –> 00:48:08.090
Stephen Setliff: People that don’t have handbooks look like just what they are, that they don’t care about as much as they should about their employees, about how the job is done, or about the general public. It gives me a sword to be able to use to say, Look! We articulated our commitment to safety in here again we articulate the importance of training. We tried to do the things that we could do to get in front of the bad company story.

167
00:48:08.090 –> 00:48:15.460
Stephen Setliff: If you need a handbook template, let me know. I’ll be happy to send you one for free, so that you have something that you can work off of.

168
00:48:15.913 –> 00:48:30.659
Stephen Setliff: Okay. So that’s probably as long as they want me to talk it’s usually as long as I make anybody listen to me that I don’t have a, you know. A sharp stick pointed to, so I appreciate you all taking the time to listen to me. If there’s anything I can answer, let me know

169
00:48:33.030 –> 00:48:35.263
Steve Kessler: Great Steve. Wow! That was

170
00:48:35.990 –> 00:48:51.240
Steve Kessler: outstanding information. We’re getting a lot of comments about that already. So, thank you very much for that. We do have some questions here that have come in. Kevin is asking, what’s the process to qualify? Carrier partners

171
00:48:51.340 –> 00:48:58.029
Steve Kessler: being able to see what their basic scores are doesn’t tell you what their hiring processes are

172
00:48:59.130 –> 00:48:59.800
Stephen Setliff: Yeah.

173
00:49:00.020 –> 00:49:25.769
Stephen Setliff: So that’s increasingly become a problem. Because anybody that operates in this space realizes that I represent some companies that for lack of a better expression, make stuff. They just make stuff, and or they maybe they make they don’t make, but they sell chickens or cows or other things, and they’ll give it over to somebody to a broker, and then the broker will then send it out to get moved.

174
00:49:26.332 –> 00:49:54.419
Stephen Setliff: And something will happen, and we will get sued, and all we did was hand our stuff over. It is a tough space to be in, because you want basically what you want to approach that with is, have I done what is, quote reasonable to figure out the people that I’m dealing with, the safe and suitable deal with. So, for example, I usually tell my carriers. If they’re going to broker freight, then they need to use those services out there. They give you

175
00:49:54.660 –> 00:50:17.359
Stephen Setliff: the best and most recent snapshot of the people that you’re dealing with, what kind of scores that they got, what kind of safety record that they got. You might even think about having them articulate for you. You might want to ask, tell me what your standard is relative to the people that you hire, or tell me what the standard is relative to people that you sub broker to is certainly fine to ask questions.

176
00:50:17.360 –> 00:50:42.180
Stephen Setliff: and the more you do without crossing over the employee line to try to figure out who it is that you’re dealing with, that you can demonstrate, probably the better you are. So, I tell my people to ask questions on that, and don’t just assume that just because of my scores are okay, that you’re okay. Because if you get pressed at a deposition about what did you do to figure out whether or not the people that you were dealing with are, in fact, safe. And you say, well, I looked

177
00:50:42.180 –> 00:51:02.830
Stephen Setliff: their scores. That was all the publicly available information. Then you’ll get questions. Did you ask them anything about the people that they hired? Did you ask them anything about their training program. You might even think about putting together a little checklist, a little cheat sheet of things that you want people to share with you, and that at least gives us some protection in the event that a claim subsequently gets made against us.

178
00:51:03.480 –> 00:51:07.386
Steve Kessler: Great somebody’s asking, what states do I defend in

179
00:51:08.330 –> 00:51:10.997
Stephen Setliff: Just the ones with the word united in front of them.

180
00:51:12.020 –> 00:51:12.870
Steve Kessler: We can very

181
00:51:13.000 –> 00:51:23.169
Stephen Setliff: I’ve never had anything in Alaska or Hawaii, but literally, I think I’ve got stuff in about 22 states right now. We are based here in Virginia, but we practice pretty much everywhere

182
00:51:25.220 –> 00:51:25.770
Steve Kessler: Question

183
00:51:26.910 –> 00:51:44.739
Steve Kessler: when you were speaking earlier about to, you know, it’s important to articulate your driver standards and example might be. Let’s just say your standard to hire a driver is they can’t have X many moving violations in a 3 or 5 year period.

184
00:51:44.920 –> 00:52:01.150
Steve Kessler: If that’s the standard, and you have a driver currently on your as a driver on your fleet, if they reach that standard. In other words, they’ve had more moving violations in that timeframe, should they be terminated

185
00:52:01.660 –> 00:52:27.579
Stephen Setliff: So, separate the issues. So first, you’re going to have a standard for hiring. Right as we look at to onboard, a driver and we’re looking to see what a driver looks like when they come to us. I want to have an articulable standard I’m using to say this, is it? This is where I draw the line. Now look, let’s talk reality here. That may be a standard that you develop in conjunction with your insurance carrier, but I don’t want it to be a standard. I don’t want it to be

186
00:52:27.580 –> 00:52:50.859
Stephen Setliff: something that you punt to your insurance carrier. In other words, I don’t want it to be one of those deals where you have to sit in a deposition and say, well, we made a hiring decision based upon whether or not Great West, or based upon, when not acuity or based upon Bitco, or whoever the carrier said they were okay, they said they were okay, because then that begs questions like, well, what did you do to figure out if they were okay, what did you do to figure out whether or not this Guy was all right.

187
00:52:50.860 –> 00:53:15.739
Stephen Setliff: So you need to have something you can articulate yourself. That’s either done in conjunction with your insurance carrier. Just something you may want to be more. You certainly shouldn’t be less restricted than your insurance carrier. You may want to be more restricted than the insurance carrier, but that’s your onboarding standard. Your retention standard is something different. So now somebody has gone to work for you, and you’ve got the same kind of thing in mind. Once you come to work for us. If you get X number of problems or X number

188
00:53:15.740 –> 00:53:34.180
Stephen Setliff: violations, I think your question is, if in the aggregate they get between what you knew when you hired them, and what you know after they come to work for you. Should that mean you should terminate them? That’s like asking me what the standards that’s going to be up to you right?

189
00:53:34.180 –> 00:53:46.669
Stephen Setliff: You now are armed with knowledge, and again understand the way those negligent, hiring retention claims. Play out. You now are armed with knowledge that this person has had this many issues in this amount of time.

190
00:53:46.670 –> 00:53:53.040
Stephen Setliff: and the decision you’ve got to make is what you’re going to do with it. The analogy I tell people all the time on this stuff is

191
00:53:53.480 –> 00:54:17.029
Stephen Setliff: because we operate proximity to that group of idiots known as the general public. We’re going to always have incidents. Incidents are going to be inevitable. We cannot avoid them. What you can control in this big game of Russian roulette is how many bullets you’re putting in the gun? So you’ve got to decide on things like hiring and retention whether or not you’re putting another bullet in the gun, and whether or not you’re making it more likely that something bad is going to happen.

192
00:54:17.030 –> 00:54:23.950
Stephen Setliff: It’s easy for me to say, and I learned this many years ago, it’s easy for me to say, get rid of them.

193
00:54:25.320 –> 00:54:43.980
Stephen Setliff: I’m also very much cognizant of the environment that we live in, and how hard drivers are to come by, particularly quote good drivers. And I think there’s a tendency for people to let quote. Good drivers get by with more than they should. And I understand that. Just appreciate

194
00:54:44.570 –> 00:54:54.449
Stephen Setliff: the very real and dramatic risk that you take when you do that. And that’s what it really comes down to is, how much risk are you willing to tolerate relative to the operation of your business?

195
00:54:55.640 –> 00:55:07.967
Steve Kessler: Great Steve for everybody out there before you all log off, and there may be another question or 2, but a couple of things that I want to bring to everybody’s attention is

196
00:55:10.290 –> 00:55:24.600
Steve Kessler: we have put together in conjunction with Steve, a series of training videos, and they very much cover the content that Steve talked about today.

197
00:55:25.180 –> 00:55:31.939
Steve Kessler: It’s a premium package. There are actually 24, I guess 25 videos altogether.

198
00:55:33.090 –> 00:55:57.819
Steve Kessler: 14 of these are actually for the company, and it touches very heavily on the 4 big things that Steve mentioned, you know, hiring, retention, training, and equipment. There’s also 10 videos out there that you can assign out to your drivers that cover things like you know what to do and say at the accident, how to communicate with law enforcement. A lot of the things that Steve talked about today

199
00:55:58.120 –> 00:56:24.280
Steve Kessler: are all available in these videos. And you know, it really, truly covers pre accident preparation proper at the scene. Documentation post, active defense tactics. I think it’s extremely important these days to make sure that all the people in your company. Both the drivers and the people on the company side understand all the things that need to be done here.

200
00:56:24.290 –> 00:56:47.330
Steve Kessler: So, with Steve’s help, we’ve put together a really nice package of content. If you’re interested, and I see people that are, we’ll get with you and tell you what we have and how you can access. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a customer of ours now or not. So, we’re happy to make that available to you. And frankly the way I look at it today.

201
00:56:47.570 –> 00:56:56.160
Steve Kessler: You need to be doing everything you can to protect yourself from the way these lawsuits turn out these days. So.

202
00:56:57.090 –> 00:57:05.550
Steve Kessler: Steve? I think we’ve come very close to the end of our program. There are a whole bunch of people asking for the handbook template.

203
00:57:05.750 –> 00:57:10.690
Steve Kessler: which we’ll make sure we get those in your hands. And

204
00:57:11.050 –> 00:57:15.530
Steve Kessler: if there’s no other questions, Mark, did you have any comments before we wrap up today?

205
00:57:15.530 –> 00:57:22.119
Mark Rhea: No, it’s super information. I’d really appreciate it before we log off, though, if you’re still on.

206
00:57:22.710 –> 00:57:45.050
Mark Rhea: send a chat. Thank you to Steve for representing the commercial vehicle industry responsibly and professionally, and make sure that we do have some things we can do ahead of time before you get those big multi-million dollar verdict, and all the billboards and the commercials, and all that sort of stuff. So, send him a thank you. He’s on our side.

207
00:57:46.430 –> 00:57:56.349
Steve Kessler: Steve. I’m good. We’ll go ahead and wrap it up. But thank you so much for your time. I learned an awful lot, and I’ve been involved in this for a long time. So

208
00:57:56.550 –> 00:58:18.360
Steve Kessler: great information. Everybody’s thanking you. Everybody is very appreciative of the message you gave us today, so we’ll hope to have you on again at some point in the future. But thank you, sir, appreciate your time today, and for those of you that joined us. We hope you join us again on our next program. Steve. Thank you very much.

209
00:58:18.360 –> 00:58:19.030
Stephen Setliff: Thanks guys

210
00:58:19.030 –> 00:58:20.879
Steve Kessler: Thanks everyone for joining us