Comments on: Federici v. U-Haul update: jury awards $15 million

By: liz

liz — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:20:43 +0000

I know Mr. Hefley and he actually did attempt to rent an enclosed trailer but the store he rented it from would not give him an enclosed trailer telling him they were for out of state moves only and he did secure the load with cords and did drive in the slow lane with his hazards on but there were not enough tie down areas on the trailer they gave him

By: TC

TC — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:14:41 +0000

GAWD forbid Polaris would get sued for something I was too farkin stupid to do to protect not only MY property but the safety of others on the road!

As I see this case, the two parties responsible seemingly got off scott free, while the the one that manufactured and provided the trailer got screwed!

The persons that actually loaded the trailer should be first in line! The rental company should be second, and after that the tail gater is in line for following too close. Well if the suit was valid in the first place, which is was not!

By: markm

markm — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:19:26 +0000

Of course, the cargo truck rents for much more than any trailer, and there are items that are much easier to load into an open-top trailer or truck.

By: cc

cc — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:51:19 +0000

But U-Haul already does make a safer device where loads can be secures against such an incident. It’s called a cargo truck. They rent them every day. Now Hefley didn’t rent such a device…