When an trucker is injured while in the sleeper berth of his rig, he probably has an injury lawsuit on his hands, not a workers' comp claim.
In most instances, when an employee is injured on the job, their losses (wages, medical bills, etc.) are covered by a worker's compensation plan, meaning they file a type of administrative claim in order to receive formulaic benefits, rather than file a traditional lawsuit. Further, workers' comp is a no-fault system that replaces the ordinary right to sue the person responsible for one's injuries with a type of work injury benefit scheme. If a worker is injured on the job while working for a company who participates in a workers' comp plan, they are more or less guaranteed compensation for their injuries. However, the compensation they get isn't very good vs. what one would receive if they sued the employer and won in court.
But therein lies the rub. Most employers opt in to workers' comp coverage not out of a desire to provide a financial safety net for employees but because it provides the employer with complete immunity from lawsuits. In essence, their choice (though sometimes they're required to buy in) to participate in the workers' comp system says to workers, "Normally, you could sue me for you work injury, but here are some crumby no fault benefits instead."
If you disregard the dubious constitutionality of some states' workers' comp systems, losing one's right to sue in exchange for what basically amounts to work injury welfare isn't always a bad deal. For instance, when the injury is minor or when the accident was no one's fault (such as an injury caused by an act of God) the security provided by a no-fault benefits system can be quite comforting to injured workers.
However, when an employer or fellow worker hurts someone through carelessness or when the injuries are severe enough that the limited compensation provided through workers' comp benefits doesn't come close to covering the employee's losses, there is something very wrong with the notion that the injured worker cannot sue and must instead accept subpar benefits. Without the ability to sue, the injured worker will never get fair compensation, since his employer can shield themselves from a lawsuit by participating in a workers' comp plan. On the other side of the coin, without the fear of being sued, many employers have no incentive to follow the rules and provide their workers with a safe work environment.
But it's not as simple as "if the employer has workers' comp coverage, the injured worker can't sue... if the employer doesn't have workers' comp coverage, the injured worker can sue." You see, sometimes an employee can work for a company that has workers' comp coverage, get hurt by a co-worker, yet they're still not covered by workers' comp coverage.
For instance, our firm is currently litigating a case where a woman who works for the post office was injured badly as her vehicle was struck by an 18-wheeler driven by a co-worker. Even though workers' comp would ordinarily be her sole source of compensation when injured by a co-worker, in her case, she wasn't on the clock at the time of the injury. She was off work and just to happened to coincidentally be injured by a co-worker. As such, even though her employer participated in the workers' comp system, the injury happened outside of the scope of what workers' comp covers, so she could still sue. Or another way to put it is that not being covered by workers' compensation is sometimes a very good thing for an injured worker.
How workers' comp coverage normally applies to injured truckers.
Workers' comp only applies (and therefore, it only shields the company from a lawsuit) when employees are in the "course and scope" of employment. Meaning, that if you're on the clock and you're injured, you can't sue. If, however, you're off the clock and you get hurt by your employer, they can't hide behind the lawsuit immunity built into workers' comp coverage, and you can most definitely sue them.
This fact is of grave concern to truck drivers (more so than to other types of injured workers) because a big part of a trucker's job involves being asleep while their co-driver keeps the rig bustin' bugs down the highway. Though this is an area of the law that is not fully fleshed out and opinions differ, we are of the opinion that when a trucker is asleep in a sleeper berth and a co-driver acts negligently and hurts them, they are not "in the course and scope of employment," and any injury they sustain should NOT be covered by workers' comp. Instead, we believe they have the right to sue, the same as anyone else on the road who is hurt by the co-driver.
To be clear, there are most certainly some scenarios were truckers are hurt and workers' comp kicks in, and the injured truckers therefore cannot sue their employer. This is usually the case when there are two truckers in the front of the cab and an accident occurs or when a trucker suffers an injury from lifting heavy cargo. It makes sense for truckers to be covered by workers' comp under these circumstances, since they're doing normal, on-the-clock trucker tasks.
Why then would it make a difference if one of the two drivers is asleep in a sleeper birth and injured in an accident? It may seem like the same situation as when the co-driver is sitting in the passenger seat, but legally it is not.
You see, federal law requires truck drivers to be off the clock for certain periods of time under what are known as the hours of service rules. Said law makes it clear that once you exceed a certain number of hours working as a trucker, you're breaking the law. As a general rule of thumb, this bit of federal law says that when a driver is sleeping in the sleeper berth of their truck as it's being driven by a co-driver, he is not considered on the clock.
Well, employers can't have it both ways. They can't say, "Hey federal government, he was in the sleeper berth and not on the clock, so we're definitely complying with the law," and then turn right around when such a trucker is injured and say, "Sorry, trucker. Even though you were asleep at the time that your co-driver hurt you, we consider that to be the on the clock so you can't sue us. Enjoy your insignificant workers' comp benefits." However, that's exactly what many trucking companies do.
When you're not on the clock, you're not a worker in the eyes of the law; you're just a person who has the right to seek a remedy in court should they become injured by the carelessness of another. If a co-driver is not technically a worker at the time of the accident, then the law treats them just like any other injured party. In this way, worker's compensation does not apply and the injured worker has the ability to make a negligence claim against the trucking company, just like anyone else. Again, though, the trucking company the injured driver works for is usually all too happy to lead him to believe he may only file a worker's compensation claim, knowing it'll save them money.
This distinction is important, because commercial vehicles have to be insured for at least $1 million in the state of Texas. The potential pool of money available to help the injured co-driver recover from his injuries, both physical and financial, is much larger than for a standard worker's compensation claim. The cost in raised premiums is also going to be much higher for the company in an vehicle liability claim than in a worker's compensation claim and that's why the company is so eager to mislead the injured driver into thinking that he has a worker's compensation claim. They're never going to say, "Did you realize that you actually have standing to sue us?"
This theory of the law is not common practice around the industry. Many lawyers won't represent injured truckers in these cases, because they think that the court will see it as a workers' compensation case and dismiss the matter. We disagree.
One such case we litigated involved a fatal truck accident in Arkansas. Our clients were the children of a trucker driver who asleep in the sleeper berth of his truck when his intoxicated co-driver slammed the rig into a bunch of parked cars. The trucking company tried to argue that our clients had no wrongful death case, and that they should simply accept the workers' comp benefits. We ultimately prevailed and were able to secure a sizable settlement for our clients. As you can see, this applies to both fatal accidents and injurious accidents.
Most people know that employers will often do whatever is necessary to save money, including trying to re-classify a non-work injury as a work-injury to keep an employee from exercising their right to sue. Sure, they know quite a few tricks, but when it comes to getting drivers the best outcome for their claims, we have a few tricks of our own.